Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 756) to reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Act to promote international action to reduce marine debris, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 756.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time to manage the bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Garamendi and, of course, Peter DeFazio. This is a good piece of legislation. I had a House bill similar in fact, too. This came over from the Senate side, but I am not really interested in whose bill it is but, more likely, getting things done. So this is a good bill. And debris is what I am interested in as one of our biggest issues; it has been well explained by both speakers prior to me. It is getting bigger, like I say. What is it? Tenfold more. And the tonnage is already there. We have to look at preventing the debris, but also what do we do once it is in the ocean. I have some ideas. And, hopefully, later on, we can explore those ideas, how we will recover and utilize that debris, because it does harm our maritime lives, and it makes the ocean really a garbage dump, and we don't want that. So this is a good piece of legislation. I thank each person that has been involved in it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a person of great merit on the occasion of her 75th birthday. It is often stated that the United States is great because it is a nation of immigrants. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with this statement with the addition of the word legal in front of immigrants. Mall Chaney is an example of such a person who worked within the law to become a citizen of the United States. I understand that it is not an easy task. Mall was born in Estonia in 1943 in the middle of World War II. At that time Estonia was in peril at the hands of Russia as well as Germany. However, it was her parents' concern about Russia that caused them to flee. Russia had seized her mother's brother and sent him to Siberia never to be heard from again. As a professional chemist, Mall's father feared being pressed into Russia's weapons development program or much worse. When Mall was about six months old the family consisting of her mother, father, and sister fled under cover of night with basically nothing but the clothes on their backs. The family spent several years in a Swedish refugee camp and then in the general population of Sweden. In 1951 Mall and her family were sponsored by a family friend from Canada and were able to migrate to Canada. Mall lived in Canada until she married John Chaney, a resident of Florida, in 1982. Mall became a U.S. citizen and has paid homage to the United States by respecting our laws, becoming a respected and loved member of the community, the state of Florida, and the country. Happy Birthday Mall, and best wishes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, 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. Mr. Chairman, Alaska has a long history of placer mining operations, beginning in the early 1800s and continuing through today. In fact, Alaska is one of the few places left, including California, that has placer mining operations. Most placer mining operations are small, but it as a robust industry in Alaska, providing hundreds of jobs and contributing to the growth of rural Alaskan communities. The Bureau of Land Management's Fortymile plan, finalized in the last days of the previous administration, upended decades of successful placer mining land management in the Fortymile Planning Area. The Fortymile plan imposed an overly complex regulatory framework on small-scale placer mining operations as part of an ongoing effort to discourage mining activity in the area. The Fortymile miners previously agreed to environmental remediation standards, and under the new plan proposed by the BLM, they are expected to reclaim land that they have not mined and mitigate in ways they did not agree to in their approved operation plans. They are expected to remediate land that was impacted by placer mining over 100 years ago, which adds to their financial burden and makes it economically impractical for miners to continue their operations. This language has been included in the appropriations report language by unanimous consent for the last 2 years. This is a necessary piece of legislation and amendment to this bill to make sure the BLM recognizes that miners do have obligations, they have met their obligations, and the agencies have gone against them. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments from the chairman, and especially the comments from the gentlewoman who understands and has opposition. I would like to remind everybody, again, the reclamation was taking place, the mitigation was taking place. They changed the rules after they agreed on it. This is not a newly mined area. This has been mined before. In fact, I just came from there on the Fourth of July. Chicken, Alaska. This is where this mine is. Lots of mom-and-pop operations, retired people. Chicken, Alaska. You know why they call it ``Chicken''? They couldn't spell ``ptarmigan.'' That is why they call that small community that. They are trying very hard, but very frankly, the BLM came in with this plan. It is not working. In fact, they are spending very large amounts of money trying to implement their reclamation concept when it doesn't work. And I will challenge anybody to show that these miners are not doing their best, but their proposal is trying to put them out of business. I just think that is wrong. If I thought they were doing some harm, I would definitely not be for them. I have been there. I have seen it. I have watched what they are trying to do. An agency, I think, has forgotten their role, and they don't support mining. BLM is supposed to. And they have made it very nearly impossible for, very frankly, a mom-and-pop operation to do so. So I hope the gentlewoman can see her way to allowing this amendment to this bill. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment No. 72 to provide additional funding for the Native American CDFI Assistance Program. This program supports critical economic development in Native communities, which face significant barriers to accessing basic financial services and capital. For example, almost all Alaska Native villages in my State do not have banks and are not connected to the road system. The Native program provides financial assistance and technical assistance awards on a competitive basis to Native CDFIs, allowing them to effectively build wealth and further economic self-determines in Native communities. These mission-driven Native organizations are working to finance businesses, create jobs, expand and improve affordable housing options, and much more. The Native program accounts for a small portion of the fund's overall budget but has a significant positive impact, which includes empowering Alaska Natives to improve their economic well-being in my home State. Without my amendment, a cut to the Native program in FY 2019 would be especially devastating to our Nation's impoverished and underserved Native communities. I urge my colleagues to support this noncontroversial bipartisan amendment to restore funding for the Native program. My amendment, when considered with Representative Steven Palazzo's CDFI amendment, would restore the program to the current enacted level of $16 million so the Native organizations may continue growing small businesses, create jobs, and promote vital economic development in Native communities. I would like to thank the Native CDFI Network and the amendment's cosponsors, Representative Gwen Moore, Colleen Hanabusa, and Tulsi Gabbard. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. This is a good amendment to this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kindness in recognizing me, but also for bringing up this bill. I also thank Mr. Kennedy for his support. This is Senator Sullivan's bill, although I had a companion bill on the House side. What has been said here prior to me is really what we are addressing. Domestic violence is a terror on our society. No one is immune to it, be they rich or poor, whatever race or ethnic group you may belong to. It cuts across the aisle. Unfortunately, far too many Alaskans have firsthand experience in this reality. In 2015, a survey of Alaskan victims found that, out of every 100 adult women, 40 experienced intimate partner violence, 33 experienced sexual violence, and one in three adult women in Alaska have been a victim of stalking in their lifetime. Not only must we do more to prevent this epidemic from growing, we must also do more to help the survivors, and that is what the POWER Act does. It allows the victims to have pro bono legal representation from the legal profession to take and present their cases. I believe this bill is well and long overdue. If I can refer to what Mr. Kennedy said, I have a little experience myself. A dear friend of mine, who was a friend of my late wife, used to get beat up by her husband because he was drinking all the time. My wife asked: Why don't you just hit him? She said: Well, I couldn't do that. Violence begets violence. Well, my wife at that time was very young, and she said: Well, I wouldn't put up with it. About 2 weeks later, there was a knock on our door and my wife answered. She opened the door and our friend said: I did it. She said: What did you do? The woman said: My husband beat me up. He passed out, and I hit him with a frying pan when he was asleep. I wouldn't suggest that solution, but she had no other recourse, no way to be represented legally to go to the courts. I am saying this should be passed. To have representation in the courtroom is a good piece of legislation. Again, I thank Mr. Goodlatte for bringing this bill to the floor, Mr. Sullivan, and all those people involved with it. It is long overdue.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in H.R. 200.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of my legislation, H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. Mr. Chairman, as one of the sponsors of the original bill way back in 1975, and I fought to secure enactment in 1976, I can say it is probably the most successful legislation that ever passed this House to create a sustainable yield of fisheries for the United States of America. I first wrote what would become the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and it hasn't been reauthorized since 2006. For 6 years, I have worked with Members of this body on both sides of the aisle to improve this legislation. I know some of my colleagues will say that I didn't do enough to ensure the act retains the strong bipartisan nature of the original bill. It is important to remember the legislative history. While it is true that the version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that became law passed the House under suspension of the rules, the original bill passed the Natural Resources Committee after a long markup by a vote of 26-15, with only four Democrats voting in favor of the bill. So this point that the previous reauthorizations were noncontroversial and nonpartisan is not true. My legislation, H.R. 200, would make a number of improvements to the original act in order to ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen in coastal communities. The legislation tailors Federal fishery authorities in order to give councils the proper tools and flexibility needed to effectively manage their fisheries, and will support a more robust domestic seafood industry and greater job creation across the country. This legislation allows added flexibility for fishery managers to rebuild depleted fisheries, more transparency for fishermen in science and management, and a requirement for NOAA to provide better accountability on how fees are collected and used. It also authorizes appropriations for the act for 5 years. I am proud to say my bill protects our commercial and recreational fishing interests, and will allow councils to do their job in a more streamlined and effective manner. My bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act. It allows for regional management of fisheries. The law gives guidance through its national standards and creates the process that allows the councils to develop fishery management plans. This legislation was written for fishermen to ensure they are able to catch sustainable yields of fish for the communities. It is critical for the protection of coastal communities and for allowing the stakeholders to be part of the management of the fisheries. To address the ever-changing needs of fisheries and fishery communities, Congress has passed various amendments to this act. Changes were based on knowledge of the times gained through experience, improvements in science, and better management techniques. In the mid-1990s, Congress addressed overfishing, included protections of habitat, improvements for fisheries science, and reductions in bycatch. These were the issues of the time, and they were addressed as needed. One of these problems also included the lack of resources to fund stock assessments to provide needed data to the regional fishery management councils, something that continues to be an issue today. The act was last amended in 2007. Congress included measures that set science-based annual catch limits to prevent overfishing, including a requirement to end overfishing within 2 years. Accountability measures were adopted, which meant harvest reductions if harvest levels were exceeded. Work to develop H.R. 200 began 6 years ago. The committee held over a dozen hearings, with testimony from over 100 witnesses. As with past reauthorizations, and in line with a main purpose of the act--to balance conservation with economic use of the resource--H.R. 200 takes a middle-of-the-road approach to fisheries management. While some today may complain the bill's flexibility rolls back scientific protections, that statement is just not accurate. The flexibility in the bill is based on science. Rebuilding of fish stocks will be based on the biology of fish stock. Harvest levels will still be based on science and set at levels where overfishing will not occur. The regional councils will continue to follow recommendations of their science and statistical committee. During every reauthorization cycle, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is updated to be closely in sync with current-day science, management techniques, and knowledge. As the fishermen, communities, councils, and fishery managers develop better techniques and learn lessons from implementing the law, Congress can take that knowledge to improve that law. Flexibility is a cornerstone of the law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act promotes regional flexibility that recognizes differing ocean conditions, variations in regional fisheries, different harvesting methods and management techniques, and distinct community impacts. Again, I want to stress: this bill was written for fish and communities, not for the interest groups. I will not stand by and watch other interest groups hijack this piece of legislation, taking away the sustainable concept of our fisheries and the healthy concept of our fisheries and the healthy concept of our communities for other reasons and other causes. While my name will be on the bill as the sponsor, we all know that bringing legislation to the floor is a group effort and we would not be here today talking about fish without the support of other members and a tremendous amount of hard work from staff. So I thank Chairman Bishop and even Congressman Huffman and his staff--I had to say that--the bill's cosponsors on both sides of the aisle; staff on the Natural Resources Committee, Lisa Pittman, Charles Park, Richie O'Connell, Bill Ball, and former staffer Dave Whaley; and members of my staff, Mike DeFilippis and Martha Newell. Mr. Chairman, I have to remind people that when we had this bill passed originally, we were catching about, I would say, 2 percent of our fish, and after the passage of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we are catching all but 1 percent and foreign countries are only catching 1 percent. This is a good piece of legislation. It has worked in the past, and it will work better in the future. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), my good friend.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, they are promoting the opposition to this bill from interest groups that don't have any interest in commercial fishing, period. Let's be real about this. What hurts me, I have heard them say that it removes science from fisheries. Let's explore this. No one is listening, but that is okay. For starters, the words ``science'' and ``data'' appear 34 times throughout the bill. Section 207 directs the councils to establish a plan for cooperative research that brings together a wide variety of high-quality, non-Federal data to support existing data. This is about States, coastal areas, villages, communities, fishermen making decisions instead of the Federal Government, and I know they don't like that. Section 208 directs the Secretary to work with the States to find the best way to incorporate State data, just not their own data. Section 301 directs the Secretary to develop a strategic plan for conducting stock assessments for every stock in a fishery's management plan. Again, science. Section 303 replaces an arbitrary 10-year rebuilding requirement. If the fish come back quicker under this bill, H.R. 200, they could be fished at a sustainable yield level. Under the present law, which I wrote, they can't do that. Otherwise, we lose years and management of the fish for a period of time. That is up to the councils under H.R. 200. Section 306 directs the Secretary to expedite approval of high- quality State data in the Gulf of Mexico to better advantage those recreational-heavy fisheries. Finally, everything in this bill continues to be bound by the scientific principle of the Magnuson mandate to utilize the best available science for management decisions. There is nothing in this bill that weakens it, nothing. Yet I keep hearing the constant waves of dissension on the other side because they don't want to renew and make a better bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I again would like to talk about this legislation, the H.R. 200 bill. I am disappointed in the other side. It is a partisan issue, and, unfortunately, it is. I was listening to the speakers on the other side, and they really don't have a concrete reason to object to this bill other than what they are being told by those who don't want commercial fishing, and they don't want recreational fishing. They may not say that, but in reality, that is really what they are seeking. Now, I again go back to myself and the period of time when the 200- mile limit occurred. Why did it happen? I was in Kodiak, Alaska. None of you were even born, probably, at that time. I was in Kodiak, Alaska, looked out 12 miles off the shore of Kodiak, and there was a wall of lights. I said: What is that? This was before I was a Congressman. He said: That is foreign fishermen catching our fish--catching our fish, America's fish. When I got elected to Congress, one of the first things I did was try to develop the Magnuson-Stevens Act with Gerry Studds from Massachusetts. He was in the majority; I was the minority; and I explained to him what was happening. He went back home to a fishing district and then said: You have got a good idea. Let's develop an economic zone 200 miles out, and we will control the fisheries in that area. So we worked together bipartisanly, wrote a bill with a concrete suggestion for sustainable yield for fish, fishermen, communities for America, and for our coastal States that are involved in commercial fisheries and recreational fisheries. We passed that bill, yes, out of the House, I believe, pretty much unanimously. Went to the Senate side, and the Senate sided with Magnuson-Stevens and decided to do the same thing. Out of that, after we had opposition from just about every liberal in the business--for what reason, I don't know, other than they thought it would affect the international sea--it was finally signed into law by President Ford. From there, we have gone to the best managed fisheries in the world. From there, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, we have been able to achieve what we should do. But we have grown in science. We have grown in more knowledge about how and where we should fish and when. People talk about the species that were depleted. There were no species until this bill was established. And we rebuilt them, and we are still rebuilding them under our science under this bill. But it gives that flexibility to States to help manage. Now, I know on that side of the aisle, they believe that the Federal Government can do everything--in fact, they should do everything because we don't know what we are doing. The States aren't really States, they are part of the Federal Government, instead of the other way around. I argue that knowledge within States with science available and science under present law under this bill, which we do not extinguish, is really the crux of this issue, that the 200-mile limit, the H.R. 200 bill, my bill today--not because of me. I did not write this bill for myself. I wrote it for the communities, for the fish, and the fishermen for America. Those that oppose it, I said: Uh-uh. They are not listening to the communities. They believe Big Government can do best for them and States should not be involved. I argue it is the States' issue to protect their fish, yes, with supervision of the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?