Don Young

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Congressman Graves, for yielding to me. Again, I support this bill, S. 1982, Save Our Seas 2.0. This is a great bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the caucus co-chair, Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici, for this bill. This is our bill. It is a Senate bill we are taking up, but we have been working on this bill. Again, it is an issue. I agree with everything that has been said about the pollution in our oceans. This is probably bigger than the oil spill of the Exxon Valdez, the plastics that are in our seas, and we have got to take up and address this issue. This is just the beginning. We need to do more, but we have to take the short step first, and then we will continue to do it. You know, in Alaska, the ocean is our highway. We need to clean it; we want to work on it. We have to address that issue at sea, too. You know, plastic is one of those things that really does not deteriorate very rapidly, but when it does, fish will eat it, and we get condemned and contaminated fish. We do not need that in Alaska. It will clean up our oceans, as I mentioned before, and asks for cooperation from other countries. America is not the worst polluter. There are other countries that pollute just as equally or more, and it all collects in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. We have an area out there as big as the State of Texas full of pollution. We have to start cleaning it up and stop it if we can. Mr. Speaker, again, as has been mentioned, I thank Chairman Peter DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for their work, Chairman Engel for his work, and the staffs, especially John Rayfield and Dave Jansen from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I thank my personal staff, Kevin Swanson and Kayla Rillo. They worked very hard on this legislation, a lot of work. The bill is truly a bipartisan bill. What a way to finish up this session, with a bipartisan bill, working together to solve a universal problem: debris in our oceans. It shows that we can work together, and I encourage continuation of this type of effort to make sure our oceans are clean forever. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 1982. And remember, Dan Sullivan introduced it on the Senate side, that is why we are taking up the Senate bill, but it is really a House bill. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member and my chairman, though he is not here.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I thank the leader for yielding. John Shimkus has been my friend. He has done well for this House. He and I played paddleball together. We never lost. We will be challenged on that, but that is true. I have a saying that many people may not recognize. Why do the good people leave this Congress and the SOBs stay behind? I have been here 48 years, so I have to reconsider that. But, John, we will miss you. You are a great Congressman; you are a great ally; you are a great American; and I know you have served your district very well. God bless you in the future for things you may do.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I rise concerning the recent passage by the Senate, and the House, and enactment by the President, of the Great American Outdoors Act, H.R. 1957 as passed in the House, and now P.L. 116-152. I rise to highlight and speak to an issue of critical importance to Chugach Alaska Corporation (CAC), the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Regional Corporation for the Alaska Natives of the Chugach Region. Today, Federal Land Management Agencies, and the States, are on the cusp of implementing P.L. 116-152, the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA). One of the central purposes of GAOA is to provide permanent funding, at the fully authorized level, for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). I have worked tirelessly with Members on both sides of the aisle to accomplish the principal provisions of the GAOA-- in fact, the legislation is very similar to language that I sponsored years ago which passed the House as the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA). I worked hand in hand with Members on both sides of the aisle to permanently authorize the LWCF when we passed the bipartisan John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation Management and Recreation Act (P.L. 116-9), in early 2019. I want to emphasize that a priority use of the LWCF funding, provided for in the enacted GAOA, is the consolidation of ownership and management of split estate federal and public lands, in appropriate circumstances such as that referred to in Section 1113, the ``Chugach Region Land Study,'' contained in P.L. 116-9 the ``Dingell Act,'' between willing private sector land owners and the United States, especially when such willing private sector land owners are Native American Tribes or Alaska Native Regional Corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. It is important to clearly declare that the LWCF can, among and between willing parties, be used for this purpose of facilitating and executing recommended land exchanges per the Chugach Region Land Study provision, Section 1113 of the Dingell Act. This understanding and direction is completely consistent with that Act and the GAOA.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member, my good friend, for yielding to me. You know, the legislation we have been talking about has a lot of good merits, but I was on the floor last week talking about the mice that get into a good bill and destroy it by leaving residue behind. It appears to me now that there is a rat in this bill that is leaving a lot more behind. I am talking about an amendment that is offered on the Pebble Mine that hijacks due process and the scientific process that the sponsors of this amendment claim to hold so near and dear to their hearts. The Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, are bedrock environmental statutes and they should not be preempted or short-circuited when it is convenient for groups on either side of the issue. The sponsors of this amendment claim the administration is unraveling NEPA, but it is this amendment that would stymie the process, and it is disingenuous to want it both ways. If groups on the other side want to indict the process, then we can have a debate about the environmental review process in this country, but to change the rules in the middle of the game is not fair nor right, especially if it comes from one State to another State. The Federal permitting process is nearing completion, and I will respect the end result. I don't know what the result will be. As the Congressman for all Alaska, again, I am offended--all Members should be too--when another Congressman gets involved in my State or my district. That is wrong. This is the House of Representatives. It is not the House of the Federal Government. The House of Representatives speaks for their people, especially when it comes to States rights. The people of Alaska have a right to have this decided by the book and free from interference by parties outside the State that seek to impose their wills or philosophies on the State and the people. So, again, Madam Speaker, I want to remind my majority leaders: Let's stop this rat infestation. Let's keep this pure. Let's be about appropriations. Let's keep this in mind as we go through this process.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank him for his good work on this bill. My amendment supports the important Water Power Technologies Office in the Department of Energy. This office offers grants to deploy hydropower, pumped storage, and marine energy projects and related transmission infrastructure in low- income, economically distressed, underserved, or rural communities. Hydropower is clean and produces no emissions and uses the energy of running water without reducing its quantity to produce electricity. My State of Alaska has tremendous hydropower potential. While Alaska's total energy consumption is among the 10 lowest States, its per capita energy consumption is fourth highest in the United States because of our small population, terrain, and geographic parameters. Mr. Speaker, the cost of electricity in Alaska can be twice that of the lower 48. This increased cost of power in the residential sector has significant economic impacts on Alaskan families. Many communities rely on expensive diesel generation for electricity and home heating. This amendment offers support for hydropower projects, provides many residents and businesses of Alaska with low-cost, renewable, clean power.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7575, the Water Resources Development Act for 2020. This legislation is the result of bipartisan work and leadership of Committee Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves and many others. It deserves to be passed by the this House as a vital contribution to improving and maintaining our Nation's ports system, inland waterways, dams, levees, aids to navigation, flood control, and the many critical support and operational functions of our U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in support of national, state and local water resources development needs. Alaska's 33,904 miles of shoreline dwarf the Lower 48 and with fewer miles of paved road than Rhode Island, Alaska's rivers are our highways and our ports are the lifeblood of our state's communities. The Committee continues to make incremental progress on embracing the unique challenges Alaskan communities face with respect to port and harbor improvements, inland waterway navigation, flood and storm protection and other water resource infrastructure overseen by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps Alaska District is an integral partner to Alaska's communities managing significant project demand with limited resources. However, need continues to outpace available appropriations and Corps resources to get projects completed. The reforms to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund included in this bill is a step in the right direction and I will continue to advocate for greater federal investment for our nation's water infrastructure. I am particularly pleased that WRDA 2020 contains an authorization for improvements to the Port of Nome, Alaska as well as other provisions for ports and harbors in Alaska. It is rewarding to see that a majority of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle in this House and in the other body, have come to recognize, along with the Administration, the essential and indispensable strategic, national defense and commercial importance of the Arctic for our Nation's future. The authorization of $490,919,000 for the Arctic Deep Draft Port project in Nome included in this bill has been a long time coming, and it is a positive step forward for Alaska and the country. The Port of Nome, due to its geographic location, is a strategic transportation hub that meets the needs of U.S. Arctic Policy by strengthening U.S. present in the region. The Port of Nome expansion is critical to ensure more effective search and rescue and environmental response activities as vessel traffic increases throughout the Arctic. The port will serve the country's National interests and support Coast Guard and Navy operations. It will also expand an existing logistics hub for more than 50 Alaskan coastal communities to help reduce the cost of living and create economic opportunity throughout Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. I want to commend the Army Corp's Alaska District, General Semonite and Assistant Secretary James for all their hard work to get the Chiefs report done in time for this bill. As a former tugboat captain in Alaska, I know how important it is to have good ports, and I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for including this provision in the bill. The bill also provides for the authorization of two other much needed projects to benefit Alaskan harbors. The bill authorizes a $34,937,000 dredging project for Unalaska Dutch Harbor. Dutch Harbor is one of the nation's top fishing ports measured by catch volume and value and is essential to the Alaska fishing economy and the nation's food supply. The project will dredge the entrance channel of the harbor to 58 feet improving the ability of commercial, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, U.S. military assets and ships from allied nations to utilize the harbor. The bill also includes language to include the authorization for St. George's navigation improvements project pending the timely release of a positive Chiefs Report from the Army Corps. The project will provide for the operability, safety and reliability of the St. George Harbor as promised by the federal government to aid the transition of the economy of the Pribilof Islands away from fur seals to commercial fishing. Importantly, the bill makes an improvement to the Tribal Partnership Program by increasing the per project federal cost share cap to $15 million dollars from $12.5 million. This improvement is a step in the right direction and the increase begins to take into account the challenges Alaska faces with higher project costs. In forthcoming WRDA bills, I will continue to work with my colleagues and the Committee to ensure that Corps policies regarding benefit-cost ratios, existing authorities and cost share requirements treat Alaska fairly and take into account all the unique environmental challenges present in Alaska. As this bill moves into the Conference process, I will continue working with my colleagues to include language, present in the Senate's draft bill, that will protect nonfederal project sponsors from shouldering cost liabilities incurred by the Army Corps through no fault of their own. This language is needed for Project Cooperation Agreement in instances where the Army Corps has been assessed a large adverse judgment by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or another court of competent jurisdiction. In December 2018, the Aleutians East Borough was notified by the Army Corps that the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals had awarded Kelly-Ryan, Inc. a $20,000,000 judgement for a procurement dispute arising in 2006-09 over the construction of a breakwater and other general navigation features in False Pass, Alaska. The standard Project Cooperation Agreement between a non-federal project sponsor and the Corps for any Civil Works project sets out the specific cost-sharing requirements applicable to the project. The Agreement includes a definition of ``total costs of construction of the general navigation features''. This definition includes ``the Government's costs of contract dispute settlements or awards''. The costs of disputes, claims, and equitable adjustments are added to the final cost of a project and allocated between the non-federal and USACE based on the cost-share formula. The Army Corps has verbally informed the Borough that 20 percent of this judgement ($4 million) may be allocated to the Borough's financial share of the project in the future. Notably, the dispute had nothing to do with the project's design, engineering, or construction. The dispute was instead focused on the manner in which the USACE's contracting officer sought to comply with a congressional directive changing the manner in which the Corps funded continuing contracts. Non-federal sponsors, especially smaller rural communities, should not be required to carry a significant share of the financial burden when there is a violation of procurement law peripheral to the actual design, engineering, and construction of the project itself. As many know one of my mottos is ``Alaska to the future.'' Looking ahead, as the only ``Arctic State'' in the Union, Alaska will play the central role in hosting future arctic infrastructure including as ``System of Ports'' and safe harbors as national security, government and commercial activities inevitably increase in and around the Arctic in the coming years. The Army Corp's Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port System Study and recent Defense Department and U.S. Coast Guard strategic studies have shown that, U.S. strategic interests will benefit from increased arctic infrastructure including port infrastructure to cover Alaska's vast arctic land mass. What is needed, and what has been called for, is a ``System of U.S. Arctic Ports'' whereby the improvements at Nome should be the first in a series of needed improvements at other key Alaska locations that will provide the United States with the breadth of assets including a specialized Ports System for coverage and access to the Arctic. One location that should warrant due consideration for future improvements in an Arctic Ports System is Port Clarence/Point Spencer located immediately adjacent to the Bering Strait. Today's U.S. year- round ice free ``Arctic'' ports are in Dutch Harbor, Adak, and St. Paul, Alaska which play important roles because of their locations. As ice navigability improves the natural and protected deep-water port of Port Clarence can serve as a year-round potential forward service center and port of refuge close to, and directly adjacent to the key ``choke point'' of the Bering Strait. The following is a brief overview of key information about this strategically located natural deep-water port in the Arctic: Port Clarence is north-northwest of Nome (70 miles), on the Seward Peninsula, and is a protected natural deep-water harbor. It is sheltered by a long isthmus called Point Spencer. Most recently, the U.S. Coast Guard based a LORAN facility at Point Spencer with associated power and an 8,000-foot airstrip (4,500 feet of paved runway and 3,500 feet of extended gravel-covered runway). Port Clarence's protected harbor served Indigenous people of the region before contact with European cultures. Port Clarence served as a port of refuge for whaling vessels in the mid-1850s while Alaska was under Russian sovereignty. It still serves as the Port of Refuge from storms for vessels, including U.S. Coast Guard vessels and other government and commercial vessels travelling through the Bering Strait or docked temporarily in Nome. From 1866 to 1867, Port Clarence served as the forward operating base for the Western Union Telegraph Expedition in the attempt to link the continents with an undersea telegraph cable. Around 1884 it became the central summer refitting port for the Arctic fleet, which usually arrived in July and headed south around September (unless they elected to overwinter there). The Port of Nome project and potential development Port Clarence/ Point Spencer is positioned to become a key part of America's deep- water Arctic Ports System, ready to receive and assist vessels moving to and from Arctic destinations, trans-Arctic shipping, or Navy and Coast Guard vessels and aircraft undertaking a wide variety of missions from those dealing with national security to economic development, search and rescue, shipping safety, oil spill prevention, response and clean up, arctic research, maritime law enforcement on the Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the Arctic Ocean. The Congress authorized the transfer of certain tracts of land at Point Spencer to Bering Straits Native Corporation (BSNC) while providing the opportunity for retention of certain tracts by the USCG and the State of Alaska should the USCG and the State wish to retain those tracts. Port development at Point Spencer-Port Clarence should proceed as a cooperative effort among the State, the Federal government, and BSNC in coordination with the enhancements of the Port of Nome. Port Clarence has, historically been and will continue to be a valuable ``Port of Refuge'' because of its naturally deep waters and naturally protected harbor--as shipping vessel traffic continues to increase in the Arctic. BSNC is working now with U.S. Corps of Engineers to place 30-ton and 60-ton industrial grade mooring system buoys at Port Clarence to serve maritime safety needs for the entire Bering Strait Region. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for their leadership in this unusually challenging time in the Congress and for our nation by bringing this bipartisan Water Resources Development Act legislation to the House Floor. I look forward to the positive impact that WRDA 2020 will have on our nation's water resources development for decades to come.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following exchange of correspondence between myself, House Appropriations Committee Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee Chair Betty McCollum, and Ranking Member David Joyce. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 23, 2020. Chair Betty McCollum, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC. Ranking Member Dave Joyce, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Chair McCollum and Ranking Member Joyce: I want to thank you for your work on the Fiscal Year 2021 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill, particularly your inclusion of language that transitions the 105(l) Lease Program to an indefinite appropriation for such sums that are necessary. Funding the 105(l) Lease Program in this manner will uphold the federal government's trust responsibility to Alaska Natives and American Indians and support village clinics in Alaska that rely greatly on the program. I write today about a provision in the bill that would limit the federal compensation for leases under the program to portions of tribal facilities that are ``necessary for the operation of the Federal programs under the lease.'' Many tribal clinics and hospitals in Alaska provide health care services to non-Natives in addition to Native beneficiaries. This is a vital service because often the tribal clinic is the only health care provider in a village, and most villages are not connected to the road system. By providing service to non-Natives, these clinics are improving the health outcomes for Natives both by preventing the spread of COVID-19 and other illnesses and by affording the clinics a broader financial base. I am concerned that the limiting provision could potentially negatively impact the operation of 105(l) leases in my state. I also note that there is pending litigation regarding this topic. Given our strong working relationship, I respectfully request your help in addressing this issue in final Fiscal Year 2021 appropriations legislation. Sincerely, Don Young, Congressman for all Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, Madam Chair, and Madam Ranking Member, this could be a good bill, but there are some provisions that shouldn't be in it that were put in it. One is ANWR, which we passed in this House 13 times with help from both sides, open an Arctic wildlife range. There is a provision here to prohibit that. There is also a provision not to repeal the roadless area in the Tongass National Forest. There is a provision about not allowing the State of Alaska to control the fishing and hunting rights of the State of Alaska on Federal lands, as it is now. You know, I resent it. To allow other Members of Congress to come into your district or my district and tell us how we should represent them, this is not the way to do business. This is the House of the people, as representatives of the people, duly-elected from each constituent. Everyone that I know of in my State opposes these riders and these amendments. But for some reason, there is a group that say, ``Oh, we know better than the people,'' the Congressmen. We know what is best for us, and it is not their district. The Tongass, for instance, is an area of 16 million acres of land. Prohibiting harvesting timber or access because of the roadless definition of the Obama administration is wrong. We have harvested less than 400 acres of that whole total 16 million acres of land. We are not asking to harvest that, but we want access for communities. And there are other parts of our State, lands within that forestland, but this provision, this rider, would preclude that. That is not representation from a Congress of the people. I have watched this body now in 48 years dissolve into what I call an adversarial position on both sides by label. That is not representation. These riders shouldn't be in here. These amendments should not be accepted if you believe in the House of Congress for the people of America. If you don't believe that, maybe we ought to set up a different system. These should not be in this bill. The bill, overall, is not a bad bill. I think it is pretty good. In fact, there are some good things in there for Alaska. But you had to let these little mice come into the barn and eat the grain and leave residue behind. I am making a suggestion. When you write these bills, be very careful what you allow to be put in the bills that don't apply to the bill and, in fact, are personal interests not only from those Congressmen that submitted them but wrong for the State of Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Senate Amendment to H.R. 1957. The Great American Outdoors Act is landmark legislation that will clear the maintenance backlog at our National Parks, protect our country's ecosystems, and permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The permanent funding of the LWCF has been one of my longtime goals. When I was Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I introduced the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) with my dear friend, the late Chairman John Dingell by my side. Today marks the culmination of our work, and I am proud to have accomplished this with the help of John's wife, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. My enthusiasm for permanent LWCF funding is as strong now as it was then. In recognition of this day, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following op-ed that I authored in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner on July 4, 2000 in support of CARA. [From the Fairbanks (Alaska) Daily News-Miner, July 4, 2000] Legislation Bestows Lasting Alaska Returns (By Don Young) There's been a lot of interesting speculation about my legislation called the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. Numerous stories and editorials have been written about what this landmark bill would do and why I led the effort to pass such a major conservation package. Even News-Miner columnist Fred Pratt has devoted a significant amount of attention to CARA and my participation in this process. In his most recent column, he speculated that I wrote the bill to benefit Alaska Native corporations. This was a new and novel theory, but unfortunately, not accurate. The truth is actually very simple--CARA is good for all Alaskans. In Alaska and throughout the nation, CARA will increase funding for federal and state conservation and recreation programs, urban parks, historic preservation, and wildlife conservation. The bill also resolves a major inequity regarding the disposition of funds generated from Outer Continental Shelf activities. Currently, states receive 50 percent of the revenues for onshore oil production but nothing from the federal waters six miles and beyond a state's coast. CARA corrects this problem by creating new programs that benefit coastal states with the OCS revenues, which have averaged between $4 to $5 billion annually. Under CARA, $2.8 billion of this funding will go toward important recreation, wildlife and conservation programs each year. In addition, CARA creates new private property protections which go beyond existing law. Alaska will receive about $2.5 billion during the 15-year period included in CARA for these programs. Each year, Alaska would receive: $87 million for coastal conservation programs; $38.5 million for state and federal land conservation under the Land and Water Conservation Fund; $17.5 million for wildlife conservation; $9.8 million in PILT payments; $9 million for federal and Native land restoration; and about $1.5 million for historic preservation and endangered species programs. In previous years, the LWCF has helped fund several popular Alaska projects including Alaskaland in Fairbanks, the Coastal Trail in Anchorage and Eagle Crest in Juneau. The increased funding for the state programs under the LWCF will allow for local communities to determine how these funds are spent in their own communities based upon their local priorities, rather than federal dictates. Despite inaccurate claims by fringe groups like the American Land Rights Association, CARA also includes new private property protections that go beyond existing law. No new federal land can be acquired under CARA without the specific approval of Congress. The federal government can only purchase land from willing sellers--condemnation is not allowed under CARA unless it is specifically approved by Congress. CARA also created new requirements to protect land owners who do not want to sell their land from new regulations. Additionally, the administration must seek to use land exchanges and conservation easements as alternatives to acquisition. These new protections were included to enhance private property rights in all 50 states. Despite the noisy opposition by some fringe groups, CARA is supported by thousands of organizations and officials throughout the nation. Last month, CARA was overwhelmingly approved by the U.S. House by a 315 to 102 vote with a majority of both Republicans and Democrats voting for passage of the bill. CARA is supported by all 50 governors, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties. CARA has also been endorsed by more than 4,500 organizations including numerous conservation, hunting, fishing, and recreation groups like the National Rifle Association, and other organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors. Alaskans know that over the past 27 years, I have lead the effort for the authorization of the trans-Alaska pipeline, oil development in Prudhoe Bay and the Coastal Plain, a strong mining industry, and numerous other economic programs in every region of the state. During this same period, I have also authored numerous important conservation bills including the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act and a comprehensive improvement of America's national wildlife refuge system. In addition, I have authored and supported dozens of bills to promote hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation in our state and the entire nation. Fred Pratt is correct. CARA and its expanded conservation, wildlife and recreation programs is consistent with my 27- year congressional record of working for Alaskans. Don Young has served as Alaska's sole representative in Congress since 1973.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Amendment No. 402, as part of En Bloc Package 2, to H.R. 6395, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. This amendment addresses and corrects a regulatory mismatch of the manner in which a small passenger vessel that operates in Southeast Alaska is measured. Specifically, the M/V Liseron (United States official number 971339), a converted minesweeper that conducts overnight passenger cruises in the eco-tourism trade in Southeast Alaska, should be classified as the same regulatory tonnage for licensing its crew as is used for its safety inspection category, and the other vessels in the same trade. By way of background, the motor vessel Liseron was built in a U.S. shipyard in Tacoma, WA, in the early 1950's as one of a class of seven minesweepers under the auspices of the U.S. Navy for the French but was subsequently reacquired by the Navy in 1955. It was constructed to navigate shallow waters of bays, coastlines, and inlets having a shallow draft, which is why it makes for the perfect vessel to operate in Southeast Alaska. Specifically, the M/V Liseron is 145 feet long and 28 feet wide with a draft of 8.5 feet. Later delisted by the Navy, The Boat Company in Port Orchard, WA, acquired and restored the vessel in the late 1980's. After an extensive 16-month restoration in the late 1980's in a U.S. shipyard facility in Tarpon Springs, FL, where the vessel was gutted and refitted, this vessel was placed into service in the early 1990's as an eco-tourism vessel in Southeast Alaska. The vessel's operations have a significant economic impact in both Washington State, where it is homeported in the off season, and Alaska. Its operations during the cruising season in Southeast Alaska bring significant job opportunities and needed economic activity in local businesses by the company and its customers. The vessel enables tourists from around the world to come and enjoy the fishing and unparalleled scenic and natural beauty that Alaska has to offer. Operationally, the M/V Liseron has ten staterooms and is limited to about 20 passengers. More critically, the vessel is currently inspected by the Coast Guard as a small passenger vessel in the 100 gross regulatory tonnage category. Notwithstanding that, the vessel has a larger tonnage entered on its certificate of inspection. This larger tonnage is due to the arcane nature of the U.S. vessel admeasurement laws, rules that govern the volumetric size of vessels. Larger competitor vessels can be 238 feet in length and carry 100 passengers, i.e., nearly 100 feet longer and 5 times the number of passengers, yet they are considered to be in the smaller 100 GT small passenger vessel category for both licensing and inspection purposes. Needless to say, the M/V Liseron has an equity disparity as the vessel must compete with similar or larger vessels in the eco-tourism trade. While the vessel is inspected and regulated for all safety purposes in a lower tonnage category, due to the higher tonnage rating entered on its certificate of inspection, the M/V Liseron must source crew from seafarers with deep water credentials (i.e., 500 GT) rather than for the shallower and protected waters of Southeast Alaska. The inequity is underscored by the fact that the M/V Liseron physically can fit within the volumetric profile of its competitors. That is, it is smaller, but the rules say it should be assigned a measurement of being larger. This is a classic example of the matryoshka principle. Further, the vessel carries far fewer passengers than its competitors. This seems to be a regulatory mismatch and creates the inequitable situation where a physically larger vessel that carries five times the number of passengers is determined to be smaller for crew licensing. And this mismatch results in the M/V Liseron to have its master and chief mate with a license in a much higher tonnage category. The amendment corrects this inequity and regulatory anomaly. This legislation prohibits the M/V Liseron from undergoing any alteration of its size. It also limits the operation while carrying passengers to inland waters of the United States so it will not go on deep sea oceangoing cruises. Further the Coast Guard may require a licensed crew member to have additional credentials in a justifiable case if the experience and training of the individual warrant it. Consequently, there is no reason why the smaller M/V Liseron that carries far fewer passengers must have a crew licensed in a larger tonnage category. Under the current situation, a higher turnover for the master and first mate occurs because these mariners with the larger 500 GT licenses, which are more appropriate for deep water oceangoing vessels, leave whenever a deep-water position is available. This is understandable from their point of view. These 500 GT qualified crew get a larger tonnage license to work on larger seagoing vessels, not a smaller vessel operating in the shallow waters of bays, coastlines, and inlets in the inland waters of Southeast Alaska. This makes attracting 500 GT qualified crew that much more difficult. While the rest of the crew is stable, these two positions require that new hires undergo qualifying to operate the vessel each time these positions turn over for these inland waters. If the master and first mate can hold 100 GT licenses it will result in less turnover and more appropriately experienced personnel that will ultimately contribute to even safer and more consistent operation of the vessel. No alteration of the vessel itself is proposed nor will the crew size be reduced. Only two positions are affected by this legislation. Another aspect of the vessel's operations is the economic impact of the cancellations due to the COVID-19. The operation of the eco-tourism trade in Southeast Alaska is seasonal. As a result, the M/V Liseron has lost an entire season of revenue due to cancellations. Continuing an artificial barrier such as having to hire crew in a mismatched licensing category will only add to the vessel's difficulties to recover from this economic loss when they are able to resume operations. The tragic fire that occurred on board the dive vessel Conception on September 2, 2019, has brought additional scrutiny to small passenger vessels with overnight accommodations. Almost immediately after that fire an official marine investigation was commenced. I understand that in addition a criminal investigation is being conducted and will take a long time to complete. All of this is appropriate and should be done to get at the root of what went wrong on that vessel. As part of the safety concerns, the Coast Guard initiated a special Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) to review the safety of all small passenger vessels with overnight accommodations. On October 8, 2019, the M/V Liseron was fully inspected by the Coast Guard as a vessel with overnight accommodations as part of this special inspection campaign. I understand that the CIC program included a job aid worksheet used by the Coast Guard inspectors to evaluate crew operations and procedures when inspecting the M/V Liseron and other overnight accommodation small passenger vessels. As a result of this special inspection, I understand that the Coast Guard confirmed that the vessel passed every aspect of its certificate of inspection without exception and for crew performance. For passenger safety, the vessel has early warning and fire detection alarm systems, ready evacuation routes from each passenger cabin onto the main deck, and approved life rafts and vests. Having passed this rigorous and special inspection, the M/V Liseron is free of any of the issues that plagued the Conception. The change brought about by this legislation will not create a vessel construction or safety issue. I urge all of my colleagues to join me to enact this statutory provision permitting the Coast Guard to treat this vessel as less than 100 gross tons for the purpose of applying the operational regulatory measurement under section 14305 of title 46, United States Code, provided that nothing is done to change the size of the vessel, the cruising with passengers is limited to inland waters, and the Coast Guard has authority to prescribe additional credentials as needed for the licensed crew. By adjusting the tonnage rating for licensing the M/ V Liseron's crew to be consistent with its safety inspection category, the M/V Liseron would be able to hire and retain more appropriate experienced crew familiar with Southeast Alaskan waterways and small passenger vessel operations, and be regulated the same as other similar or larger vessels with which the M/V Liseron must compete. Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker. I want to thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry for including my bipartisan amendment in this en bloc amendment. Mr. Speaker, the whole world is suffering through the terrible coronavirus pandemic. More than 14.5 million cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed globally, more than 600,000 people have already died, and both numbers continue to grow. All of us are witnessing the devastating consequences in lost livelihoods and increased food insecurity. As if that were not enough, some governments are using the pandemic as a pretext to infringe on the human rights of their people and to grab political power at their expense. It's clear that during public health emergencies governments may take steps to halt the spread of disease, such as restricting the movement of people, closing businesses, and limiting access to public spaces. But even during emergencies countries must comply with their human rights obligations. That means that emergency measures must meet certain criteria like being narrowly tailored, limited in duration, non-discriminatory and subject to oversight. Yet what we're seeing is that many governments are taking measures that do not meet these criteria. We're seeing unjustified restrictions on information and freedom of expression that block access to crucial information. We're seeing emergency measures that shift power to the executive branch and erode democratic checks and balances. And we're seeing the use of intrusive surveillance technology without privacy safeguards, to name only some of the worst trends. The coronavirus pandemic is a human tragedy of enormous scale. To allow it to become an excuse for governments to further erode democracy and human rights would amplify that tragedy many times over. We must not let that happen. The key to recovery is more democracy and respect for human rights, not less. This amendment authorizes actions to push back on those countries that use the pandemic to justify violating human rights. It includes reporting on how our government is working to counter disinformation about the pandemic, and on the nature and impact of the emergency measures countries take that result in rights abuses. It authorizes analyzing a country's response to the pandemic when determining eligibility for security sector assistance and requires the Department of Defense to track whether partner security forces have taken advantage of the pandemic to the detriment of the civilian population. And it requires the annual Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices to include attention to the misuse of emergency powers or surveillance technology. I'm very grateful for the strong bipartisan support this amendment has received from the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. I would like to thank my colleagues who have joined me as cosponsors: Rep. Ann Wagner (MO), Rep. Tom Malinowski (D- NJ), Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (F-FL), and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). I am also grateful for the support this bipartisan initiative has received from a number of well-known and highly respected human rights organizations, including the American Jewish World Service, Amnesty International USA, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Council for Global Equality, Freedom House, Human Rights First, Human Rights Watch, International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, PEN America, Project on Middle East Democracy, Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, the U.S.-Europe Alliance and the Washington Office on Latin America. Mr. Speaker, this amendment makes clear that the United States continues to support the protection of internationally recognized human rights, including the freedom of speech and a free press, during and after the coronavirus pandemic, and opposes using the coronavirus pandemic to justify policies that violate or undermine human rights. I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment and En Bloc 2 amendment in which it is included.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I am deeply honored to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to Sergeant Major James O. Schmidt, U.S. Army, Retired, of Anchorage, for his years of dedicated service to the United States of America. SGM Schmidt's military career spanned 22 years, over three decades, and three wars. What is even more remarkable than his years of dedicated military service, is how it began. In 1942, at the age of 14, SGM Schmidt lied about his age, joined the Army, and was sent off to training. He would go on to jump into Sicily with the 82nd Airborne Division during the war at just 15 years old. Subsequently, he was wounded and discharged once his true age was discovered after his mother wrote a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt regarding her underage son fighting in the war. Undeterred, SGM Schmidt would once again lie about his age and join the Navy. However, after several months in the Navy, they would also find his age and remove him from service. Thankfully, his determination to serve did not stop at the end of World War II. In 1946, at the age of 18, he would rejoin the Army and eventually fight in the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir in the Korean War. He would later go on to be accepted into, and serve in, Special Forces. As a member of the 7th Special Forces Group, SGM Schmidt would fight in Vietnam and Laos during the Vietnam War. Eventually, he became the Sergeant Major for all 7th Group's A Teams in Vietnam before moving to the 5th Special Forces Group. In 1965 SGM Schmidt would return to Fort Bragg and retire after 22 years of honorable service. However, retirement clearly did not sit well with the Sergeant Major. He returned to Vietnam, for a few years as a member of Air America, a passenger and cargo airline that was secretly owned and operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. SGM Schmidt is one of very few soldiers who has two stars on his Combat Infantryman Badge; he was also the recipient of the Silver Star with one Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Purple Heart Medal with one Oak Left Cluster. It is my honor to recognize the selfless service and sacrifice of SGM Schmidt on behalf of a grateful Nation.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on May 28, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 115, a motion to disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to go to conference on H.R. 6172.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on May 28, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 114, on passage of H.R. 7010, as amended. Personal Explanation

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on May 28, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 113, on passage of H.R. 6782.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on May 27, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 110 on passage of S. 3744.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, with great pleasure, I rise today in recognition of Ms. Ruth ``Ruthy'' Hebard and her recent draft to continue her basketball career at the professional level, in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). On Friday, April 17th, Ms. Hebard was drafted by the Chicago Sky as their eighth overall pick. Ms. Hebard played forward at West Valley High School in Fairbanks, Alaska where she was chosen twice as USA Today's Alaska Player of the Year, an incredible accomplishment. She led West Valley High to many state tournaments and when she graduated, became the first player in their school history to have her jersey retired. After high school, Ms. Hebard went on to play at the collegiate level for the University of Oregon where, this year, she was selected for the First-team All-American. Ms. Hebard is the second unanimous all- American basketball player in program history. Throughout her collegiate career for the Oregon Ducks, Ms. Hebard played in 144 games, playing an average of 28.7 minutes per game, and scoring 16.4 points per game. Additionally, Ms. Hebard has played on the U.S. National Team leading the team to many titles and awards. Madam Speaker, Ms. Ruthy Hebard is an inspiration to all Americans, especially young girls and all young people pursuing athletic success. I ask my fellow Members to congratulate Ms. Ruthy Hebard in her incredible accomplishments and wish her well as she continues on to the Chicago Sky.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Eco-tourism Vessel Equity and Relief Act of 2020.'' This is a bill to address and correct a regulatory mismatch of the manner in which a small passenger vessel that operates in Southeast Alaska is measured. Specifically, the M/V Liseron (United States official number 971339), a converted minesweeper that conducts overnight passenger cruises in the eco- tourism trade in Southeast Alaska, should be classified as the same regulatory tonnage for licensing its crew as is used for its safety inspection category, and the other vessels in the same trade. By way of background, the motor vessel Liseron was built in a U.S. shipyard in Tacoma, WA, in the early 1950's as one of a class of seven minesweepers under the auspices of the U.S. Navy for the French but was subsequently reacquired by the Navy in 1955. It was constructed to navigate shallow waters of bays, coastlines, and inlets having a shallow draft, which is why it makes for the perfect vessel to operate in Southeast Alaska. Specifically, the M/V Liseron is 145 feet long and 28 feet wide with a draft of 8.5 feet. Later delisted by the Navy, The Boat Company in Port Orchard, WA, acquired and restored the vessel in the late 1980's. After an extensive 16-month restoration in a U.S. shipyard facility in Tarpon Springs, FL, where the vessel was gutted and refitted, this vessel was placed into service in the early 1990's as an eco-tourism vessel in Southeast Alaska. The vessel's operations have a significant economic impact in both Washington State and Alaska. The vessel is homeported in Kitsap County, Washington State, where it undergoes needed maintenance and repair locally in Pacific Northwest shipyards, and where the vessel re-provisions for the next season's sailing in Alaska. Its operations during the cruising season in Southeast Alaska bring significant job opportunities and needed economic activity in local businesses by the company and its customers. The vessel enables tourists from around the world to come and enjoy the unparalleled scenic and natural beauty that Alaska has to offer. Operationally, the M/V Liseron has ten staterooms and is limited to 20 passengers. More critically, the vessel is currently inspected by the Coast Guard as a small passenger vessel in the 100 gross regulatory tonnage category. Notwithstanding that, the vessel has a larger tonnage entered on its certificate of inspection. This larger tonnage is due to the arcane nature of the U.S. vessel admeasurement laws, rules that govern the volumetric size of vessels. Larger competitor vessels can be 238 feet in length and carry 100 passengers, i.e., nearly 100 feet longer and 5 times the number of passengers, yet they are considered to be in the smaller 100 GT small passenger vessel category for both licensing and inspection purposes. Needless to say, the M/V Liseron has an equity disparity as the vessel must compete with similar or larger vessels in the eco-tourism trade. While the vessel is inspected and regulated for all safety purposes in a lower tonnage category, due to the higher tonnage rating entered on its certificate of inspection, the M/V Liseron must source crew from seafarers with deep water credentials (i.e., 500 GT) rather than for the shallower and protected waters of Southeast Alaska. The inequity is underscored by the fact that the M/V Liseron physically can fit within the volumetric profile of its competitors. That is, it is smaller, but the rules say it should be assigned a measurement of being larger. Further, the vessel carries far fewer passengers than its competitors. This seems to be a regulatory mismatch and creates the inequitable situation where a physically larger vessel that carries five times the number of passengers is determined to be smaller for crew licensing. And this mismatch results in the M/V Liseron to have its master and chief mate with a license in a much higher tonnage category. The legislation I introduce today corrects this inequity and regulatory anomaly. This legislation prohibits the M/V Liseron from undergoing any alteration of its size. Consequently, there is no reason why the smaller M/V Liseron that carries far fewer passengers must have a crew licensed in a larger tonnage category. To add to the inequity, a higher turnover for the master and first mate occurs because these mariners with the larger 500 GT licenses, which are more appropriate for deep water oceangoing vessels, leave whenever a deep-water position is available. This is understandable from their point of view. These 500 GT qualified crew get a larger tonnage license to work on larger seagoing vessels, not a smaller vessel operating in the shallow waters of bays, coastlines, and inlets in Southeast Alaska. This makes attracting 500 GT qualified crew that much more difficult. While the rest of the crew is stable, these two positions require that new hires undergo qualifying each time these positions turn over for these inland waters. If the master and first mate can hold 100 GT licenses it will result in less turnover and more appropriately experienced personnel that will contribute to even safer and consistent operation of the vessel. No alteration of the vessel itself is proposed nor will the crew size be reduced. Only two positions are affected by this legislation. Another aspect of the vessel's operations is the economic impact of the cancellations due to the COVID-19. The operation of the eco-tourism trade in Southeast Alaska is seasonal. As a result, the M/V Liseron has lost an entire season of revenue due to cancellations. Continuing an artificial barrier such as having to hire crew in a mismatched licensing category will only add to the vessel's difficulties to recover from this economic loss when they are able to resume operations. The tragic fire that occurred on board the dive vessel Conception on September 2, 2019, has brought additional scrutiny to small passenger vessels with overnight accommodations. Almost immediately after that fire an official marine investigation was commenced. I understand that in addition a criminal investigation is being conducted and will take a long time to complete. All of this is appropriate and should be done to get at the root of what went wrong on that vessel. As part of the safety concerns, the Coast Guard initiated a special Concentrated Inspection Campaign (CIC) to review the safety of all small passenger vessels with overnight accommodations. On October 8, 2019, the M/V Liseron was fully inspected by the Coast Guard as a vessel with overnight accommodations as part of this special inspection campaign. I understand that the CIC program included a job aid worksheet used by the Coast Guard inspectors to evaluate crew operations and procedures when inspecting the M/V Liseron and other overnight accommodation small passenger vessels. As a result of this special inspection, I understand that the Coast Guard confirmed that the vessel passed for every aspect of its certificate of inspection without exception and for crew performance. For passenger safety, the vessel has early warning and fire detection alarm systems, ready evacuation routes from each passenger cabin onto the main deck, and approved life rafts and vests. Having passed this rigorous and special inspection, the M/V Liseron is free of any of the issues on the Conception. The change brought about by this legislation will not create a vessel construction or safety issue. I urge all of my colleagues to join me to enact this statutory provision permitting the Coast Guard to treat this vessel as less than 100 gross tons for the purpose of applying the operational regulatory measurement under section 14305 of title 46, United States Code, provided that nothing is done to change the size of the vessel. By adjusting the tonnage rating for licensing the M/V Liseron's crew to be consistent with its safety inspection category, the M/V Liseron would be able to hire and retain more appropriate experienced crew familiar with Southeast Alaskan waterways and small passenger vessel operations, and be regulated the same as other similar or larger vessels with which the M/V Liseron must compete.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, I am deeply honored to express my gratitude to Lieutenant General Thomas A. Bussiere for his years of dedicated service to the United States of America, the Air Force, and the great state of Alaska. As Commander of Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Command Region, Alaskan Command, and Eleventh Air Force, at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, he is responsible for the integration of all military activities in the Alaskan joint operations area, operations to defend North American air sovereignty from foreign military aviation incursions, and the planning and execution of all homeland defense operations within the area of responsibility. In 1935 Brigadier General Billy Mitchell stated, ``I believe that in the future, whoever holds Alaska will hold the world. I think it is the most important strategic place in the world.'' Since taking command in August 2018, General Bussiere has expanded upon General Mitchell's sentiment and has become a tireless advocate for Alaska and Arctic readiness. So much so that he is the first Alaskan Command Commander to be designated as the USNORTHCOM Lead for Arctic Affairs. Since graduating from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps at Norwich University in 1985, General Bussiere has exemplified what it means to be an American Airman. However, he is more than the stars on his shoulders and the wings and ribbons on his chest that illustrate his military career. General Bussiere has also endeared himself to Alaska's communities. Additionally, he has continued to work with and advocate for Alaska Natives. In a show of respect, three Native communities bestowed Native names upon him; giving him the Inupiat name of Alongnonnuq, the Yup'ik name Evuneq, and the Tlingit name Litseenikaa. On January 13, 2020, Secretary of Defense Mark T. Esper announced that the President nominated General Bussiere for assignment as Deputy Commander, U.S. Strategic Command. While I am saddened to see him leave Alaska, I am proud that he will continue serving as a sentinel for our Nation.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Madam Speaker, on January 30, 2020, the House voted on H.R. 550, the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2019. This bill originally provided for a Congressional Gold Medal to be awarded to the U.S. Merchant Mariners of World War II in recognition of their service. When this bill was drafted, I was an Original Cosponsor, and proudly supported its passage in the House. Regrettably, I was forced to vote against the bill when it returned to the House. Upon its return, the bill was amended to include language I do not support that would repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) in Iraq and a prohibition against the use of military force against Iran. I am, however, proud to have cosponsored and voted for H.R. 5671, which contained the original language for the Merchant Mariners of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act of 2020.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Johnson has done a great job. That was a great presentation. I am very proud of him. Each person who has spoken on this legislation really put it in context about the Esther Martinez program started in 2006. I happened to be a cosponsor of that bill. I watched it pass and become a reality, and it has worked. What we are doing is reauthorizing a program that allows a culture to be retained through languages. In Alaska, we have 20 Native languages and 40-some dialects. As the gentleman said, we lost that for a long period of time. Language is what keeps the culture together. It is important for the past, important for the present, and important for the future. The University of Alaska has a program, the Alaska Native Language Center, which has worked very well since the 1970s. We were well ahead with this program, and we want to continue it. We have an innovative Alaska Native Cultural Charter School in Anchorage that teaches Yupik to all the students so there is an exchange, not just Native, but between other races, so they understand the language. I believe this is one of the best programs that we are able to achieve. The funding probably is still inadequate, but it is a continuation of good work by this Congress. I thank each one of you who has been participating in this, especially Representative Lujan. I am a little bit concerned, if I may. I don't want to speak about the other body, but we know who it is. They have taken Mr. Lujan's bill and sort of put their name on it, but we will forgive them because we will get it done. This is good legislation. I also would like to thank Representative Price, who co-chairs the American Languages Caucus with me. Again, congratulations. This is good legislation. The chairman has done well, and let's continue to act.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the ongoing epidemic of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Alaska Native and American Indian women and girls face disproportionately high rates of violent crimes including murder, rape, kidnapping, and trafficking. Alaska Native and American Indian women are 10 times more likely to be murdered than other Americans. The National Crime Information Center reported that, in 2016, there were close to 6000 reports of missing American Indian and Alaska Native women and girls. According to the Urban Indian Health Institute, Alaska is the fourth highest state in terms of the number of these cases. In Alaska, extreme isolation and lack of law enforcement in remote Native communities make it difficult to prevent and respond to these crimes. In fact, only one out of every three Alaska Native villages have any law enforcement at all. These villages are not connected to the road system, and it can take days for state troopers to respond to incidents, particularly when weather prevents flights from landing. Women and girls in urban areas also face risk factors, particularly when they are away from the support of family and culture. Given the scale of the crisis, it is troubling that tribes and Native communities do not have adequate resources to respond. Native communities around the country are governed by a varying patchwork of criminal jurisdictions that complicate law enforcement and leave Native women and girls unprotected. Native communities and tribes also lack full access to crime databases, which undermines the efforts of tribal law enforcement and tribal courts. In addition, the Justice Department, which is responsible for pursuing the most serious crimes in Native communities, declines to prosecute the majority of these cases. Instead of simply acknowledging these issues, Congress must act. We must reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA funds vital programs, like domestic violence shelters. The House's reauthorization bill expands legal authority for tribes to prosecute violent crimes against women. It also includes a new demonstration program, enhanced by an amendment I offered, that would expand Alaska Native villages' jurisdictional authority. We must pass the BADGES Act, which Rep. Haaland sponsored and I cosponsored. The BADGES Act improves BIA law enforcement recruitment and retention. The bill also improves federal law enforcement reporting mechanisms for missing and murdered Indigenous women. In addition, it expands tribal access to federal criminal databases. Congress must honor the trust relationship and pass this crucial legislation.

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I am urging a ``yes'' vote on this amendment and ``no'' on the legislation itself. And, again, I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) has done a great disservice to the people of Alaska, especially the natives. He has divided us, and that is not right. The floor of this House has divided a culture, different cultures, Alaska Natives, and it is for that I am deeply regretful. It shows what you can do when you interfere with other people's districts. This House used to be a House of the people. Now it is a House of what? What have they done in 2 years? Nothing. Now they are trying to undo what was done legitimately in 40 years. And so I understand it. You have the votes. I understand that. It is not going to become law. I hope you understand that. And we are going to have a sale--I hope you understand that--and then my people that I represent will, in fact, get their just due. I know that. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG. Again, might I may say, Mr. Chairman, this bill has been debated. It passed out of this House 14 times--14 times--with consultation. And with all due respect to my friend from Gwich'in, I would like to take a count of the caribou they have harvested in this last year and the year before. It is a very small number. The people who live there, right on the shores and with them, are saying this is okay. We developed Prudhoe Bay. We have more caribou now than we have ever had. This is, again, a sham. It is such a dishonest presentation of something that is not fact at all. But, again, in society, people can do that. I understand that. But we ought to understand one thing: This bill should never have came to the floor. Number two, it is not the first time. There was consultation. We did pass it--again, 14 times--out of this House, even when you were in control, and now it is the wrong thing to do. The Senate didn't pass the bill once, and Bill Clinton beat it to death. So I am just saying, again--not much use talking about it much more-- that we can go ahead and vote on this today, but this amendment solves one of the problems: true consultation with two groups of individual Alaska Natives, both having some say in it, one totally not listened to because you have never asked them, and that is an unfortunate thing. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, we discussed before that this bill was written by the gentleman from California. It only impacts Alaska and impacts it only, and I am the only Congressman. I strongly oppose this legislation. My amendment, very frankly, was to try to solve one of the problems, the lack of consultation with the people in Kaktovik, the Inuits, and only listen to one side, the Gwich'in. This amendment says, yes, they will have to consult with the Inuits, and they have to consult with the people of Kaktovik, and it would require them to understand that if they didn't agree with it, very frankly, this would not go forth. It is a good amendment. If the gentleman says this is culturally real, you have to listen to both sides. You have divided us. This amendment solves that problem. Adopt this amendment and make this bill a little bit better but not totally good. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.