Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can someone charge $14.3 trillion in debt, ask for a higher credit limit, and not propose a single solution about how to control their seemingly unrestrained spending. That is just what the current Administration has asked Congress to do and it is something which I joined 317 of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, in saying ``no!'' As every Alaskan family knows, there is no magic wand that will just waive debt away. Rather, debt must be managed, luxuries must be given up, and budgets must be made and adhered to. H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011 employs what should be a common-sense approach to controlling and paying down our bloated debt. By cutting today's spending and capping and indexing tomorrow's spending to our growth, we can begin to pay down the $46,000 that each and every American owes. To ensure that future generations do not make the same spending mistakes, H.R. 2560 will also encourage Congress to propose a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. With this amendment we can begin to restrain growth of Washington bureaucrats whose sole job is to prevent resource development and make everyone's life more complicated and more difficult. By forcing future Congress to spend only what they take in revenue, we can finally create a government which lives within its means. In the 112th Congress, I am a proud and original cosponsor of a balanced budget amendment and in previous Congresses I have voted for a balanced budget amendment five separate times. Since my first vote in favor of a Balanced Budget Amendment in 1982, I have supported the idea that Congress, like every American family, must make and stick to a budget. Alaskan families seem to understand this concept, it is time that Washington learned from their example.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall for taking action on the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act. This bill will restore the balance between the Federal Government and the states in the administration of the Clean Water Act. This bill contains a provision that is crucial to job creation in my state, as well as the entire nation. This bill will limit EPA's ability to veto dredge and fill permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. I had introduced legislation in both the 111th and 112th Congresses, and requested hearings, to address the EPA's veto authority over the Corps of Engineers when issuing 404 dredge and fill discharge permits. I want to thank the Chairman for working with me to accommodate my concerns. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act gives authority to the Army Corps of Engineers to issue permits for discharges of dredged or fill material into navigable waters at specified disposal sites. Permit applicants must meet requirements that have been established by the Corps and the EPA. In turn, the Corps issues these 404 permits for activities including construction, mining, farming, and other purposes. However, the Clean Water Act also gives EPA the authority to overturn the Corps decision if the discharge of materials will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds, fishery areas, wildlife, and recreation areas. While this language may have had good intentions, the EPA can stop a project simply by withholding the permit. Giving EPA so much authority over construction projects, mining activities, and energy production projects has become a problem in recent years, especially under the Obama Administration. This free-for-all veto authority hands the reigns of our economy over to an agency that lacks interest in our economic well being. The EPA is not concerned with recovering natural resources and creating jobs for the good of the Nation. They are concerned with delaying--and hopefully stopping--all new development in Alaska, and in your states as well. To illustrate the power of these permits, I simply point to 2 projects in my state: Conoco Phillips' CD-5 Development is the first step that allows our Nation access to the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, which stands to produce 2.7 billion barrels of oil. This project has been studied extensively over the last decade and measures have been taken to lessen environmental impacts. Due to pressure from the EPA, the necessary 404 permit was denied and remains in limbo, as the Corps is considering an appeal. Finally, I'll leave you with a hard fought success story of the Kensington Gold Mine outside of Juneau, Alaska. The operators of the mine had to take their fight to the Supreme Court to defend the validly issued permit for their tailings facility from challenges by environmental extremists. This operation employed approximately 300 workers during the remaining construction phase, and provides an estimated 370 direct and indirect jobs, including many for the local Alaska Native communities. This operation will generate an estimated $25 million in direct and indirect annual payroll, and will be the second largest private employer in Juneau. The Kensington Mine is a model project that fully meets economic recovery goals of the American public. Had the 404 permit never been issued, and had the Supreme Court not corrected the wrong of the 9th District, these economic benefits would not have been realized.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to thank the chairman for discussing this issue with me. I would just like to say to the chairman, I appreciate the fact that you recognize the importance of ports to move our products. I know that the ranking member does, also. I again thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would like, at this time, to ask the chairman to participate in a colloquy with me. I rise today to express my concern about our strategic ports. First, I want to thank the chairman for discussing this important issue with me. I think the chairman would agree that understanding and addressing vital infrastructure needs at our strategic seaports is of major importance.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Since 1958, the strategic seaport program has facilitated the movement of military forces securely through U.S. ports. Each strategic seaport has individual capabilities that provide the Department of Defense with the port facilities and services that are critical in maintaining the operational flexibility and redundancy needed to meet a wide range of national security missions and time lines. However, the existing infrastructure at many of the strategic ports may no longer be adequate to meet the needs of our military. I think the time has come to address these needs in both our authorization and appropriations process. That is why I worked with Chairman McKeon to include language in the defense authorization bill that will require a study of the infrastructure needs of these strategic ports. Once that study has been conducted, I believe it is of vital importance that this committee provide the necessary funding to address the needs of these ports.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again the gentleman is discussing the amendment and not the point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I made this announcement earlier in the day that I would allow the Member to have the 5 minutes to speak on the amendment even though it was subject to a point of order, if that courtesy was not abused. In recent points of order, that courtesy has been abused. I will continue to show that courtesy to Members who do not abuse their 5 minutes and who do not abuse the point of order. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, recently, I introduced H.R. 2320, which would make permanent the provisions of Section 646 of the Internal Revenue Code. Currently, these provisions are slated to expire on December 31, 2012. In 1971, Congress passed, and President Nixon approved, landmark legislation known as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). This legislation settled the aboriginal land claims of Native Alaskans in exchange for land selection rights and cash. The law was, and is, a bold and organic national experiment in Native land claims settlement. However, it has needed revision and refinement many times since. 1971. I am proud to have worked with my colleagues over the past several years to accomplish these improvements. In 1988, Congress enacted legislation to authorize Alaska Native corporations to establish ``settlement trusts.'' Their purpose was to provide benefits to Alaska Natives and permit a legal structure that would protect and preserve, for current and future Alaska Native generations, much of the value of the land claims settlement. The original ANCSA required Native groups to form Alaska state law corporations to receive, administer, and distribute the ANSCA settlement, and the 1988 legislation was recognition that the corporate form had not always been well-suited to this task. In part, this was due to the federal tax problems that attend the corporate form, although ironically in the years after 1988, it became apparent that the federal tax rules relative to trusts present their own complexities and problems that discouraged the use of settlement trusts. Congress enacted Section 646 of the tax code to address these problems. Section 646 provides for an elective regime for Alaska Native settlement trusts that (i) provides for a trust level tax at various rates ranging up to 10% in lieu of beneficiary level taxes; (ii) allows contributions to be made to these trusts on a tax favored basis; and (iii) streamlines administrative reporting for these trusts. When adopted, this elective treatment initially provided significant incentives to the use of settlement trusts to further the ANCSA settlement, and Alaska Native corporations utilized this provision to provide benefits through Alaska Native stettlement trusts. As I mentioned earlier, Section 646 is scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2012, despite the positive effects it has had for the Alaska Native community. The principal aim of settlement trusts is to provide funds to the Alaska Native beneficiaries. These beneficiaries are among the most economically disadvantaged persons in our country. Section 646 has worked well to provide an incentive for the use of settlement trusts, and must be continued. However, the looming expiration of Section 646 has had a chilling effect in recent years upon the establishment of new Alaska Native settlement trusts. Alaska Native corporations have no desire to exchange the corporate tax problems they already face for the tax problems accompanying the trust form that they will face if Section 646 is allowed to sunset. I introduced H.R. 2320 because a permanent extension of Section 646 will immediately remove the disincentive presented by the sunset of Section 646 for Alaska Native corporations to use settlement trusts to provide benefits to their Alaska Native shareholders. I would like to note to my colleagues that the fact that Section 646 is not already a permanent part of the tax code is a result of its unique procedural history, rather than a result of any substantive determination as to its merits or revenue concerns about its cost. Section 646 was originally enacted, along with several other provisions, as an unrelated, miscellaneous provision as part of the 2001 tax legislation which, because of the need to use the budget reconciliation process, was subject to a December 31, 2010 sunset provision. Rather than subsequently being made permanent similar to other unrelated, miscellaneous provisions in the 2001 tax legislation, Section 646 was extended for two years along with the 2001 individual tax rate reductions as part of the 2010 year-end tax legislation such that it is now scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012. Once again, the decision to enact a two-year extension (rather than a permanent extension) was not attributable to substantive or revenue considerations relating to Section 646 itself. Rather, it followed from a decision to enact a simple two-year extension of all of the expiring 2001 provisions without assessing the merits of alternative extension periods for each expiring provision being extended. Thus, it is fair to say that the current non-permanent status of Section 646 is an accident of the legislative process and that no Member has ever suggested that the provision should not be made permanent. Further, there was wide support for the permanency provision in the last Congress. H.R. 2320 would simply remedy this accident of the legislative' process and make permanent a provision that should have originally been enacted as such.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my interest in here is because I am from Alaska, and we have the finest wild salmon in the world. And we have people that are trying to--and especially under NOAA and FDA-- trying to approve the fact that they have genetically engineered a salmon. That's not natural. And our goal is, we have a supply of natural wild salmon for the State of Alaska and for this Nation, because I think that's crucially important, especially in this day when we have all those that accuse us of having artificial things, you know, pesticides, et cetera. This is a good amendment. It's an amendment supported by both sides of the aisle. It's not just Alaska. This is also for California, Oregon, and the rest of it. But mostly, I am the Congressman from Alaska. I think it's crucially important we understand that this should not be allowed, for the FDA to say, okay, a genetically raised salmon-- I call it a Frankenstein fish--should never be allowed in our markets. I have a group of individual Alaskans who not only make their living, but they are proud of their product. To have this occur and be promoted by the Federal Government is wrong. So I'm trying to save money. But I'm also saying genetically we should never allow it to happen in the fishing industry. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the chairman. I believe whoever has given him that information is wrong. We have a product made in the United States naturally. Why would we want someone to create a Frankenstein fish to compete against a naturally created God-given gift, and have it promoted by supposedly science? There's no science in this. In fact, they were trying to do and say we have to feed the world with artificial means. And I'm saying, okay. Do it someplace. But don't you do it with my and our salmon. Mr. Farr, listen to me very carefully. This is a very, very important thing because this is the greatest thing we have going, Alaskan natural wild salmon being sold in the market and the benefit, what they can do to have it replaced by a genetic Frankenstein fish. I'm saying this is wrong. All due respect to the chairman. What science are they talking about? They have a bunch of people created by the government that's going to take and put in, I call it traps or nets, and create a fish that's fed quickly. They say it can grow quicker, we're home. Well, what people are you talking about? Mr. Dicks, you better be listening because you catch most of my salmon. Don't you forget it. You had better stand on the floor and defend this because you're in deep trouble if you don't. I'll tell you that right now.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman. Since 1958, the strategic seaport program has facilitated the movement of military forces securely through U.S. ports. Each strategic seaport has individual capabilities that provide the Department of Defense with the port facilities and services that are critical in maintaining the operational flexibility and redundancy needed to meet a wide range of national security missions and timelines. However, the existing infrastructure at many of the strategic ports may no longer be adequate to meet the needs of our military. Language included in the bill will help us identify the infrastructure improvements necessary to ensure our strategic ports remain accessible to our military, as well as determine whether existing authorities and funding sources are adequate to facilitate making the necessary infrastructure improvements. This study is an important first step. I look forward to working with the Armed Services Committee on ways to improve our strategic ports to guarantee that they remain capable of supporting our military's operational needs.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to express my concerns about our strategic ports. First, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Smith, and members of the Armed Services Committee for supporting an amendment that I offered with Ms. Bordallo that would direct specific study and analysis of critical infrastructure needs at our Nation's DOD-designated strategic seaports. I think the chairman would agree that understanding and addressing vital infrastructure needs at our strategic seaports is of major importance.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1231.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is the second amendment of three today designed to close off portions of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil and natural gas exploration production, the opposite of what the bill under consideration today is about. The underlying bill is focused on opening the Outer Continental Shelf to safe and responsible energy production. H.R. 1231 aims to fulfill the promise that both Democrats and Republicans made to the American people when we voted on a bipartisan basis in 2008 to lift the moratoria on offshore energy production. Since taking office, President Obama and his administration have effectively reimposed the moratorium, and this bill would reverse his actions. This amendment proposes to take America in exactly the wrong direction in which we should be heading. Congress should not foreclose the possibility of future energy production. With the price of gasoline going to $4 and $5 a gallon, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and keep our focus on those offshore areas that contain substantial oil and natural resources, where increased American energy production will create new jobs, lower energy prices, and increase our economic and national security. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I ask how much time is remaining?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I rise in opposition to the amendment.