Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1171, the Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012, reauthorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's, NOAA, Marine Debris Program at currently appropriated levels through 2015. The program has played a crucial role in preventing and reducing the amount of trash on our beaches and in the ocean. I think it's important to note that this program is not regulatory in nature. It takes a voluntary approach to improving the conditions of our marine environment. Failure to adequately address marine debris has major consequences on our economy. Large objects floating in our oceans threaten the safe navigation of cargo ships and recreational boaters. Derelict fishing gear costs commercial fishermen millions of dollars in lost revenue. And debris washing up on our shores forces the closing of beaches, a major blow to local economies reliant on tourism. In Alaska, NOAA's Marine Debris has worked with local partners to conduct more than 20 projects that have removed 750,000 pounds of debris from our shoreline since 2006. But the problem of marine debris is about to get worse for Alaska and other Pacific coast States. NOAA estimates there's 1.5 million tons of debris headed our way as a result of the 2011 Japanese earthquake and the tsunami. Alaskans are already finding Styrofoam, plastic, wood, and other lightweight debris washing up on our islands. In May, the Coast Guard was forced to sink an abandoned Japanese vessel laden with fuel oil before it broke open on the Southeast panhandle. Reauthorization of the Marine Debris Program is critical to help Alaska and other coastal States protect our economies and ecosystems and ensure the safety of those transiting our waters. I want to commend Representative Sam Farr from California for introducing this bill. As an original cosponsor of this important bipartisan effort, I urge all Members to support the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1171) to reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, during the Korean War, a war often forgotten by U.S. history books, many brave soldiers fought and sacrificed their lives in battles waged in brutal fighting conditions. In one such battle, American forces were surprised by an overwhelming Chinese military force at Jangjin Lake, also known as the Chosin Reservoir. From November 27 to December 13, 1950, these courageous American soldiers, including the 1st Marine Division, fought bravely to free themselves from Chinese encirclement and certain capture or death. Following this great battle, seventeen allied soldiers received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest honor this Nation can bestow upon a soldier, and more than seventy soldiers were awarded the Navy Cross. In honor of these brave soldiers, and at the request of two of my constituents, Richard Lilly of Wasilla, Alaska, and John Beasley of Palmer, Alaska, I recently introduced a bill to name one of the mountains in the Alaska Chugach National Forest after this monumental battle. This bill, H.R. 5928, the Mount Chosin Few Act, was intended to show support for the naming of this mountain, a mountain which would forever commemorate the 3,000 killed and 13,000 wounded American service members in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. On June 15, 2012, the Board of Geographic Names (BGN), independent of my legislation, acted on an existing request from Mr. Lilly and Mr. Beasley, to name Mount Chosin Few. This action was entirely within the Board's existing legal authority to address new name proposals. I am pleased that the BGN voted unanimously to name this mountain and, in doing so, honor those who fought and died, not just in this one battle, but during the entire Korean War. Recently however, I have learned of some concerns regarding the origin of the name, Chosin Reservoir and its American colloquial roots. In 1950s, the United Nations provided U.S. soldiers with Japanese maps of the Korean Peninsula, as Korean maps were not available. Due to the use of Japanese maps, U.S. forces and U.S. news sources used the Japanese name ``Chosin,'' instead of the Korean name ``Jangjin,'' to describe the body of water around which this great battle was waged. Consequently, given the great heroics of this battle and the play on words between ``chosen'' and ``Chosin,'' the Battle at Jangjin Lake has been known, by most Americans, as the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. Additionally, the media-friendly nicknames stemming from this battle, such as ``Frozen Chosin'' and ``The Chosin Few,'' have also been adopted into American history. Please know that I understand and appreciate the concerns of the Korean people and government about the difference in the names ``Jangin Lake'' and ``Chosin Reservoir.'' Such cultural sensitivities are significant and remind us of the amazingly complex differences that exist not only within ethnicities and countries, but also within individual people as well. In the melting pot of the United States, it can be easy to overlook these differences, as cultures blend and become more homogenized. While cultural sensitivity is important, I also recognize the significance that my constituents, and all those who fought in this battle, attach to the name ``Chosin.'' This is the name that evokes images in their minds of relentless cold and even more relentless fighting. I believe their sacrifice has earned them the gratitude of both of our nations and the right to name a mountain in Alaska whatever name they believe will most appropriately honor their fallen comrades. I hope the Korean government, and the people they serve, understand that the sacrifices made by those who have fought and died in the name of freedom are far more meaningful than the origin of the name of a mountain in Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I understand that these are tough budget times and we have to make a lot of cuts if we're going to balance the budget. However, I also believe that we have to make every possible effort to retain adequate levels of funding for public broadcasting. This March, I signed letters to two Appropriations Subcommittees in an attempt to protect funding for public broadcasting. For decades, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has aired educational programs and helped our children to learn to read, to understand basic math, and to engage in the study of science. It would be a shame to deny the next generation beneficial programs like Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, and Bill Nye the Science Guy because of budget problems. Public broadcasting is more than education though. Even as newspapers are sputtering, trying to compete with the internet, 38 million people still listen to National Public Radio (NPR) every week. In Alaska, many communities rely on public broadcasting. The majority of our state can be described as remote and many Alaskans get their news exclusively from a single radio or television station. Fourteen stations, nearly half of those in Alaska, are critically dependent on federal funding and would likely close their doors if they lost that money. This would effectively strand numerous Alaskan communities, leaving them cut off from any form of news or even emergency communications. I support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, and the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program. Funding these programs is not just good for the country, it is vital.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4347 would designate the United States Courthouse in Juneau, Alaska, as the Robert Boochever United States Courthouse. Judge Boochever served our country as a captain in the U.S. Army during World War II and then moved to Alaska in 1940, where he worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office and in private practice. In 1972, he was appointed to the Alaska Supreme Court and served 3 years as the chief justice. In 1980, he was the first Alaskan appointed as a judge to the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and served as a Federal judge for more than 30 years until his death in 2011. Judge Boochever's commitment to the law and service made him a well- respected jurist, and so I am pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation. I support the passage of this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4347.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4347) to designate the United States courthouse located at 709 West 9th Street in Juneau, Alaska, as the ``Robert Boochever United States Courthouse''.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2039) to allow a State or local government to construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open space lands.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2039.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 4367, a bill which would remove the current requirement under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act that ATM machines have a physical label indicating the fee charge. Currently, ATM machines have both a physical posted notification and an on-screen prompt that inform the customer of any fees prior to the withdrawal or transfer of money. These fees are often used to offset the cost of a patron withdrawing money from an ATM owned by another financial institution. H.R. 4367 is an essential piece of legislation which prevents greed- motivated individuals from fraudulently removing the physical fee notification and then filing frivolous lawsuits on financial institutions for not having the physical notification posted. This fraud forces financial institutions to waste huge amounts of money on legal fees, some as much as $500,000, merely to defend frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, the cost of this litigation forces banks to raise their ATM fees to deal with the action of a few unscrupulous individuals exploiting a legal loophole. Today, virtually all ATM machines display on-screen notifications of a transfer fee, prior to allowing the customer to withdraw money. Altering the law so that banks are only required to post an on-screen fee notification will help them avoid expensive, unjust, and unnecessary lawsuits. H.R. 4367 is an essential and necessary part of modernizing our financial regulations to fit the needs of the digital world. Please know that I firmly support H.R. 4367 and would have voted in favor of it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that I believe should be exempted from the wholesale repeal of ACA, and that is section 10221-- which is the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) provisions of the bill. I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives not to forget that with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, there would also be a repeal of the permanent reauthorization of the IHCIA, which ensures that American Indians and Alaska Natives will have access to improved health care. The IHCIA amendments enacted in 10221 of ACA were developed completely separate from ACA and had a distinct legislative history. The IHCIA amendments were developed in a more than decade long process involving tribes, tribal organizations of the federal government on how best to update the quite out of date IHICA--which had its last major reauthorization in 1992. While I was a proponent of considering the IHCIA independently, ultimately the IHCIA provisions were included in ACA. The ACA was a legislative vehicle that was moving so that the IHCIA provisions could finally be enacted. There are a number of key provisions within IHCIA that will greatly enhance the well being of tribal communities. Such provisions include: new and expanded authorities for behavioral health prevention and treatment services; authorities for demonstration projects including projects for innovative health care facility construction and health professional shortages; and authority for the provision of dialysis services. The health of American Indian and Alaska Native people, who already endure some of the largest negative health disparities, should not be negatively affected because the IHCIA provisions, through chance, were included in ACA.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the measure before us today. While the Supreme Court may have ruled Obamacare constitutional on the basis that it is a tax, that doesn't make it good policy. We owe it to the American people to repeal this middle-class tax hike and instead enact real reform that will rely on reasonable and proven market-driven solutions that do not trample on individual rights. As we craft our replacement to Obamacare, however, we must protect one positive provision that was enacted as part of the law: the Medicaid funding included beginning addressing the longstanding disparity for Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories compared to the states. This funding represented a shared commitment between the federal and territorial governments to ensure the fiscal solvency of the territories' Medicaid programs. Although this additional funding was added to Obamacare legislation, it represents the culmination of years of discussion between the federal government and the territories, and is entirely separate from the rest of the law. If this funding is not replaced, Puerto Rico will once again be forced to cover 80 percent of the cost of its Medicaid program--a burden that would be unfathomable and fiscally unsustainable if placed on the states. If hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans have willingly served in the U.S. military with honor, wearing the U.S. flag proudly on their uniform, then surely we can treat the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico fairly in Medicaid. When Puerto Rico Governor Fortuno took office in 2009, he inherited a $3.3 billion budget deficit. A true fiscal conservative, he made the difficult choices necessary to reduce this deficit by 90 percent in FY2013. Failure to replace this Medicaid funding would not only have dire consequences for the neediest residents of Puerto Rico, but would also jeopardize the Island's economic recovery and marginalize the tough choices and sacrifices made by Governor Fortuno and the 3.7 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico over the past 3\1/2\ years. With this in mind, I would like to express my commitment to work with my colleagues to ensure we restore this vital funding.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It addresses the roadless areas in national forests but, specifically, in Alaska. It does not overturn the roadless areas. This is an attempt, as previously stated in this Congress, that highly mineralized areas would not be affected by the roadless area. It directly affects the Vulcan find of rare minerals, rare Earth. And I have to address my colleagues for a sense. Now, right now China controls the rare Earths of this world. Yet, we have tremendous deposits in Alaskan lands and in other lands of this Nation. But rare Earth is the future of all this high technology that people do support, and the so-called things that we try to develop are from rare Earth. It's wrong to have China control the price, control the quantity and availability for modern technology when we have our own. All we're asking in this is to make sure that an area that has high potential areas of rare Earth be accessible to the water. And the rules of roadless area do not apply. They were exempted before. They should be exempted now. But a ruling in 2011 made this area unaccessible for the development of rare Earth for this Nation. If you believe in the independence of this Nation, if you believe the importance of technology for the future, then you'll support this amendment. This is the right amendment for the right time to make sure we have this development.

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman. Again, this is specific for an area of rare Earth that's for the future of this Nation. This amendment should be adopted, and I urge a ``yes'' on my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I enjoy people from Massachusetts and New Jersey talking about my State. It really always excites me that they really know a lot. They know nothing. This roadless area was open for mining development; and, actually, exemptions of certain rules couldn't allow it. Last year, they said, no, this couldn't be done, having access to this rare Earth for the Nation--for the Nation--this small area. All they want to do is get to the water. What good is rare Earth for this Nation if you can't get to it? We might as well stake a claim on the Moon. I mean, this is 17 million acres of land that have already been set aside, all but 1 million acres. All I'm asking for is access for the American people, access to this mineral deposit for the American people for the future, for the technology that is needed so as not to be dependent on China. Now, he may be representing China instead of New Jersey, and I respect that; but I'm talking about respect for this Nation. This amendment should be adopted for the good of the people of this Nation if you're thinking about the future. Ironically, that side offered an amendment to narrow this bill to only rare Earths. That amendment was offered, and I can't understand that. All I'm saying is, if you want access to rare Earth, then pass this amendment. Make it good for the Nation. Let's not be listening to somebody who, very frankly, doesn't understand the need--and this is a person who is a doctor, bless his heart, who understands the physical needs for the future, yet he says we're going to protect this little, narrow spot just to access water for the people of America. This is what this amendment does. I'm trying to get something done for America. I'm not playing politics in this. It really doesn't affect Alaska to that extent other than the fact that it's in the State of Alaska. It does affect other States, but quite frankly, I want it for Alaska. It's my job. I'm not affecting New Jersey. I don't ever introduce an amendment or oppose anything for New Jersey. If he wants something in New Jersey, if he wants to drill in New Jersey, I'd support it. If he wouldn't want to drill in New Jersey, I wouldn't support it. If you follow what I'm saying, this is important for the people of America, and I urge the passage of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. One last comment. He says there is no restriction and that we can go ahead and mine this Earth. You can't develop it. It's that simple. All exploration had to be done by helicopter. There was no access by road. To develop it, we must have this road to water access. This is a good amendment. It provides this Nation with the right minerals that are necessary for future technology. We should adopt this overwhelmingly if you're thinking of the Nation instead of an interest group. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, Members of this body, I want to congratulate the staff, primarily. We mentioned some of them before. The work that they put in this bill is awesome, when they're dealing with the dark side. And you did such a good job of getting things done that we tried to get done in H.R. 7. I will agree with the gentleman from Oregon about the future and what we have not done in this body because the public still does not believe we need to do what should be done, and that is to pay for the infrastructure through a system that's fair to everyone and quit thinking there's a magic wand to get this job done to build our infrastructure as it should be. We are declining each year. I would like to thank the chairman also, Mr. Mica. He's absolutely right. When I was chairman, we had a $289 billion, 5-year bill. It's been in place now 8 years. And I'm quite proud of TEA-LU. But the chairman was, yes, with his hands tied, because we did not and have not in the Congress retained what I think is a constitutional right of every Congressman: direct money in directions that they know best, without costing the budget one dime. Now we've transferred this money to the State Departments of Transportation, and I think that's really a wrong way to do it, because they're not elected. They don't know what's best for a State. But Mr. Mica did an outstanding job. Mr. Duncan did an outstanding job. And the staff did an outstanding job to make really a small silk purse out of a sow's ear. But now we have to go forth and do another legislative bill in the very near future and explain it to the public: you don't like those potholes, you don't like that wobbly bridge, then you better support the concept of a user's fee or some way to raise the money, because you won't take it out of the general fund. We have to do this for America if you want a sound economy. Our economy is based upon energy and the ability to move product to and from. If you don't do that, you don't have the America I know.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I've been very disturbed to hear today that it's inappropriate for the National Rifle Association to take a position on this resolution. It should be clear to everyone that as a long-time NRA board member, I take a back seat to no one on Second Amendment issues. On this resolution, I can tell you that it is entirely appropriate for the NRA to take a position. We are here today because Congress has a duty to hold our government accountable. We have a duty to ensure those in charge protect the public and the Constitution. Congress was misled when Administration officials initially briefed the appropriate Congressional committees. The U.S. Attorney General's office denied knowledge of a gun walking operation after whistleblowers reported troubling allegations. However, they later admitted certain officials with the Attorney General's office did have knowledge at the time Congress initially reviewed allegations of gun walking. I am deeply troubled by reports the ATF forced law abiding gun dealers to do something they knew was wrong--to sell guns to individuals they normally would not sell to. The Administration designed this outrageous program to reportedly reduce gun violence along our SW border. And an innocent American Border Patrol agent paid the ultimate price for this ill-conceived plan. There are those who believe that there were ulterior motives at play. We already know about at least three e-mails from ATF officials discussing how they could use information from ``Fast and Furious'' to make the case for a new gun control proposal--the Obama administration's proposal to impose a new--and, I believe, illegal-- reporting requirement on dealers who sell multiple long guns to individuals in the southwest border states. The administration has defended that rule in court, and by their logic there's no reason it couldn't be expanded to all guns in all states. That would be a system of national gun registration. And that makes this a Second Amendment issue. We as elected lawmakers must have all relevant facts to hold whoever approved Operation Fast and the Furious accountable. I stand with my colleagues here today who believe that the Oversight Committee has been denied all relevant evidence on who approved this terrible operation. The Oversight Committee's investigation has been thorough. The committee has followed the evidence in pursuit of the truth, not in pursuit of a political agenda. What brings us here today is the fact that this effort has been stonewalled by this Justice Department and this White House. The American people deserve to know the truth. The family of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry deserves to know the truth. Members of Congress deserve to know the truth. Today's vote will bring us one step closer to learning the truth.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I support this legislation. It's long overdue. Title VI of this legislation is a good step forward in Pet 4 in Alaska, so it is with great amazement that I listened to the two previous speakers. Wind power, you can take and cover every acre of the United States, including the parks and refuges, and put solar panels on them, but you'll only produce 20 percent of the consumption of energy we use today. Now, think about that--no parks, no refuges--all solar panels, and we're going to take care of the problem. By the way, it has to be transported to a battery, taken and made by rare earths from China. That's what this is all about. It's nonsense. The idea that wind is going to solve the problem and that solar is going to solve the problem, that's nonsense because, in reality, fossil fuel, to this day, is the only fuel that can move an object, ladies and gentlemen. It moves your car; it moves your truck; it moves your plane; it moves your train; and it moves your ship that brings all the product to and from the United States. You're not going to do it with a beanie on your hat. You're not going to do it with solar panels that have to cover every acre of the United States of America. It's because we're collecting the power of the Sun down here at the bottom of the pyramid. We're not collecting from the source. If you want to go far, if you want to be really reaching into the future, collect it up there and beam it down to a point where we can create electricity. This is a good bill because, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tipton said it right. In his bill, we do have action on wind and solar, although it will not work, and we know it won't work. We need fossil fuels now until we have the time to produce another source of energy that does not need electrical batteries to run a car. We're going to plug a car in? Nonsense. It won't happen, because you need to produce energy from some other source to create the electricity. You're against nuclear power. You're against hydropower. By the way, you'd like to take and grow our way into new power by using corn--a food--for energy. That's absolutely nonsense. Shame on you to say this is not a good bill. This is a good bill. It's not a nonsense bill. Today, the NPRA remains in various stages of exploration, and experiences no shortage of interest from producers. However, there have been a series of bureaucratic delays that have impeded production from this vast area. This bill seeks to remedy that situation and give the American people the energy resources they need. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System is running at one-third capacity. Soon, without the addition of increased oil supplies, that pipeline will no longer be economical to operate. Carrying 11% of our Nation's supply, TAPS is critical infrastructure for this nation that must be protected. This winter TAPS was shut down for a period of days and fuel prices on the West coast shot up immediately in a drastic manner. Luckily, NPRA is only tens of miles from existing pipeline infrastructure that leads into TAPS. A few weeks ago, clearly acknowledging that increased supplies will bring down energy prices, President Obama released 30 million barrels of oil form the Strategic Petroleum reserve. The National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska has 2.7 billion barrels and already has infrastructure in place to bring the oil to market! Title VI of H.R. 4480 is a good first step towards harnessing the potential that these federal lands in Alaska have to provide domestic energy supplies.