Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce Anna-Marie Strange, daughter of Beth and Sam Strange of Kasilof, as the latest Kenai Peninsula recipient of the Girl Scout Gold Award. Anna-Marie, a fifth generation Alaskan, is the granddaughter of Barbara and Ed Meier and Tom and Ned Strange, Anchorage. Anna-Marie a member of Senior Troop 994, has been active in Girl Scouting for 11 years and recently received a Lifetime Membership in Girl Scouting as a gift from her long time Girl Scout mentor. For several years she served as an A.C.E. (junior counselor), at the Rainbow Trails Girl Scout Day Camp, and was a unit leader at the Nikiski Day Camp in 1994. She also completed the leader in training and counselor in training programs. In 1994, she traveled to Hokkaido, Japan with Susitna Council's Japanese Exchange Program. During the 1995-96 school year Anna-Marie served as a leader for Daisy Girl Scout Troop 32, Tustumena School. She has also worked as junior core-staff for the 1993 and 1995 Susitna Council encampments. For her Girl Scout Gold Award project, Anna-Marie cross-referenced the Project WILD, Project Learning Tree, programs as well as the films and activities available at the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge with the various levels of the Girl Scout program. She then compiled a book for local leaders to use when incorporating outdoor activities in their troop programming. To culminate and test out her completed project, Anna-Marie hosted a Wide-Game for local Girl Scouts at the refuge in late August. In addition to Girl Scouting, Anna-Marie has been active in many outside activities. She participated in swim team and cross-country skiing at Skyview, played the bassoon in both the Kenai Peninsula Community Band and Orchestra, and is active in Soldotna Methodist Church. She was salutatorian of Skyview High School, Band Student of the Year, and a member of the All State Honor Band and Borough Honor Band. She received the John Philip Sousa Award and Marine Corps Semper Fi Award in 1996. She is a member of the National Honor Society and Japanese Club, and received a Student of the Year scholarship from the Soldotna Chamber of Commerce. Anna-Marie is a certified life guard and swimming instructor, and worked at the Skyview pool for the past year. She also volunteered as assistant waterfront director for the local Cub Scout day camp in 1995 and in 1996 at the exhibits department of the Palmer State Fair. Anna-Marie is now a freshman at Gustavus Adolphus College, Minnesota, majoring in music education.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a measure that would provide critically needed tax relief to a few Alaskan Native whaling captains who otherwise may not be able to continue their centuries-old tradition of subsistence whaling. In brief, this bill would provide a modest charitable deduction to those Native captains who organize and support traditional whaling hunt activities for their communities. The Inupiat and Siberian Yupik Eskimos living in the coastal villages of northern and western Alaska have hunting the bowhead whale for thousands of years. The International Whaling Commission [IWC] has acknowledged that ``whaling, more than any other activity, fundamentally underlies the total lifeway of these communities.'' Today, under the regulatory eye of the IWC and the U.S. Department of Commerce, these Natives continue a sharply restricted bowhead subsistence hunt out of 10 coastal villages. Local regulation of the hunt is vested in the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission [AEWC] under a cooperative agreement with the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The entire Native whaling community participates in these hunting activities. However, Native tradition requires that the whaling captains are financially and otherwise responsible for the actual conduct of the hunt; meaning they must provide the boat, fuel, gear, weapons, ammunition, food, and special clothing for their crews. Furthermore, they must store the whale meat until it is used. Each of the approximately 35 bowhead whales landed each year provides thousands of pounds of meat and muktuk--blubber and skin--for these Native communities. Native culture dictates that a whaling captain whose crew lands a whale is responsible for feeding the community in which the captain lives. Customarily, the whale is divided and shared by all of the people in the community free of charge. In recent years, Native whaling captains have been treating their whaling expenses as a deduction against their personal Federal income tax, because they donate the whale meat to their community and because their expenses have skyrocketed due to the increased costs in complying with Federal requirements necessary to outfit a whaling crew. The IRS has refused to allow these deductions, placing an extreme financial burden on those who use personal funds to support their Native communities' traditional activities. Currently five whaling captains have appeals of these disallowances pending before the tax court of the IRS. The bill I am introducing today would amend section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide that the investments made by this relatively small and fixed number of subsistence Native whaling captains are fully deductible as charitable contributions against their personal Federal income tax. Such an amendment should also retroactively resolve the disallowance and assessment cases now pending within the statute of limitations. The expenses incurred by these whaling captains are for the benefit of the entire Native community. These expenses are vital contributions whose only purposes are to provide food to the community and to perpetuate the aboriginal traditions of the Native substance whaling culture. Each Alaskan Native subsistence whaling captain spends an average of $2,500 to $5,000 in whaling equipment and expenses in a given year. A charitable deduction for these expenses would translate into a maximum revenue impact of approximately $230,000 a year. Such a charitable deduction is justified on a number of grounds. The donations of material and provisions for the purpose of carrying out subsistence whaling, in effect, are charitable contributions to the Inupiat and Siberian Yupik communities for the purpose of support an activity that is of considerable cultural, religious, and subsistence importance to those native people. In expending the amounts claimed, a captain is donating those amounts to the community to carry out these functions. Similarly, the expenditures can be viewed as donations to the Inupiat Community of the North Slope [ICAS], to the AEWC and to the communities' participating churches. The ICAS is a federally recognized Indian tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (48 Stat. 984). Under the Indian Tax Status Act, donations to such an Indian Tribe are tax deductible (28 U.S.C., 7871(a)(1)(A)). The AEWC is a 501(c)(3) organization. Both the ICAS and the AEWC are charged with the preservation of Native Alaskan whaling rights. Also, it is important to note the North Slope Borough of Alaska, on its own and through the AEWC, spends approximately $500,000 to $700,000 annually on bowhead whale research and other Arctic marine research programs in support of the United States' efforts at the International Whaling Commission. This is money that otherwise would come from the Federal budget to support the U.S. representation at the IWC. Given these facts and internationally and federally protected status of the Native Alaskan subsistence whale hunt, I believe expenditures for the hunt should be treated as charitable donations under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. I ask my fellow Members to join with me in clarifying the Federal Tax Code to make this a reality for these Native whaling captains.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 412, Congressman Doc Hastings' bill to approve a settlement in a lawsuit filed by the Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District against the Bureau of Reclamation. This is a lawsuit which should not have happened. The Bureau of Reclamation was charged with designing and building an irrigation system for the District in north-central Washington State. Although the original canal and flume system date from the early 1900's, Congress has authorized rehabilitation, repair, redesign, and construction of new works in 1962, 1976, and 1987 in ever increasing amounts. But the system has never worked as promised. In 1990, the Bureau told the District that it was washing its hands of the system and sought repayments of approximately $300,000 per year for the District's small share of the project. However, the District refused payment, arguing that the irrigation system does not work as planned and that the project operation and maintenance costs were much higher than the Bureau of Reclamation had led them to believe. The District has filed two lawsuits in this case, the latest seeking $51 million in damages and forgiveness of its repayment obligations. I don't blame the District for withholding payment, because as you can see from the photographs of the project displayed in the chamber, this project is a turkey. I am also embarrassed for the Bureau, which has had decades to make this irrigation system work and failed. The District believes it can make the system deliver usable water by repairing it at a lower cost than the Federal Government. The Government agrees and is also seeking to be relieved of what could be substantial liability for this faulty system. CBO believes enactment of H.R. 412 will probably save the U.S. Treasury and the taxpayers money. The vast majority of the project costs are not borne by the District, but the Bonneville Power Administration and by any calculation the District is foregoing much more in claims than is the Federal Government. This is not a give-away of a Federal asset, as some might have you believe. Therefore, I ask Members to support H.R. 412 as reported from the Committee on Resources. The bill has bipartisan support from Members, the Administration, and even Citizens Against Government Waste. Let's put an end to this public works nightmare and settle what could be an expensive, protracted lawsuit.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller has offered similar fair market value amendments on the floor before. In the 104th Congress, H.R. 535 transferred the title of the Corning National Fish Hatchery from the Department of the Interior to the State of Arkansas. In committee and on the floor, Mr. Miller offered an amendment much like the one he offers today to require the payment of fair market value before the asset is transferred. He also offered this same amendment to H.R. 584, which transferred the Fairport National Fish Hatchery from the Department of the Interior to the State of Iowa. His amendments both failed resoundingly, in one case 96 to 315 the other by voice vote. The arguments made against those amendments apply equally here: First, the Federal Government does not want this asset--in this case the irrigation works. As you can see from the photographs displaying the deplorable state of the irrigation system and the harm that it has caused other public and private property, I can certainly see why the Federal Government is happy to transfer the works and avoid any past or future claims associated with its failure to operate. Second, the recipient has made some investment in the project in the past and will make substantial financial commitments to the project in the future. The Oroville-Tonasket Irrigation District has already paid $350,000 and will be obligated to pay at least $14 million to repair deteriorating water pipes. This district is also waiving its claims against the Government, estimated even by the Bureau of Reclamation to be $4.5 million at a minimum. In addition, the district is accepting liability for third party claims associated with the project. Finally, the district is also accepting a reduction on the time and amount of power it will receive to help pump irrigation water. This is clearly not a case of something for nothing. The district is a not-for-profit entity and having title to the project will allow it to raise the funds needed to repair the extensive piping system so that it will operate as promised by the Bureau of Reclamation. Third, transferring the project under the bill as reported from the Resources Committee will likely save the Federal Government money-- these are the words of the Congressional Budget Office, not mine. If the Miller amendment is adopted, the settlement agreement will be void and the parties will default to the courts. The Government will continue to be exposed to liability for damages. When the suit was filed in 1995, the irrigation district claimed $51 million in damages; these may have increased since then. In addition, the Government may ultimately pay for court costs and interest on the claims. These can be substantial. In the Whitney Benefits, Inc. versus U.S. case filed under the surface mining law, where the initial claim filed was for $60 million, the Government's failure to timely settle meant the U.S. Treasury was held liable for $150 million in principal and interest after 8 years of additional litigation. The Miller amendment will not save the taxpayers money but will only increase the exposure of the Federal purse and ultimately to the taxpayers. Fourth, like the fish hatchery transferred under H.R. 535, it is unclear what, if any, fair market value the irrigation works have. It is not as though these works are portable sprinklers so that other purchasers could make use of them. They are gigantic, fixed pipes which have a single use--to supply water for irrigation to the Oroville- Tonasket region, a job these works do poorly. The water in the system already belongs to the district. I know that I would not be quick to purchase these faulty, single-purpose works even at fire sale prices and I can't imagine others would either. The fair market value is likely to be zero or less. Fifth, opposition to transferring assets from Federal to local government ownership. Perhaps the real reason that this amendment is being offered is that its author is opposed to transferring any asset out of Federal ownership, whether a fish hatchery in Arkansas or an irrigation system in Washington. If this local government unit can repair and operate this Bureau of Reclamation facility and in doing so save the Federal Government money, then I say, let it. The proponent of the amendment also argues that this bill sets a dangerous precedent for future asset transfers. I should hope not, where the whole reason for the transfer is the total and complete failure of the Federal Government to design, build, and deliver a working irrigation system in the first place, an event I hope will be rare. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to once again defeat this killer Miller amendment and allow the parties to settle this lawsuit.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer legislation with the ranking minority member of the Resources Committee, Mr. George Miller. The 104th Congress considered several legislative bills to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act [ICWA], however, none of the legislative measures were enacted into law. In May 1996, the Committee on Resources and I directed the Tanana Chiefs Conference to begin a consultation effort with the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, National Indian Child Welfare Association, and tribes to draft ICWA legislation. Last year, tribal representatives met in Tulsa, OK, to reach a consensus to address concerns expressed with the ICWA. This legislation contains identical language which was drafted and agreed to by the Academy of Adoption Attorneys and tribal representatives in H.R. 3828. H.R. 3828 was favorably reported out of the Committee on Resources, however it was not considered by the House in the 104th Congress. This legislation addresses many of the concerns of the adoption of native children by providing notice to tribes for voluntary adoptions, terminations of parental rights, and foster care proceedings. It provides for time lines for tribal intervention in voluntary cases and provides criminal sanctions to discourage fraudulent practices in Indian adoptions. The proposal provides for open adoptions in States where State law prohibits them and clarifies tribal courts authority to declare children wards of the tribal courts. Additionally, it clarifies the limits on withdrawals of parental consent to adoptions. In addition, it states that attorneys and public and private agencies have a duty to inform Indian parents of their rights under ICWA, and provides for tribal membership certification in adoptions. These reforms resolve the ambiguities in current law which resulted in needless litigation, and have disrupted Indian adoption placements without reducing this country's commitment to protect native American families and promote the best interest of native children. Mr. Speaker, all of the provisions contained in this bill have been tentatively embraced by the Academy of Adoption Attorneys and tribal representatives. My committee will seek additional input from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Last year, both the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior embraced identical ICWA legislation. Additionally, Jane Gorman, the attorney for the Rost family embraced and supported passage of this legislation in the 104th Congress. The Rost case has been a sad and tragic case which was caused by an attorney who tried to cover up the natural parent's tribal membership and purposefully avoided checking with the grandparents and extended family of the children to see if the family was available to adopt these children. The sad part is that this attorney did not violate the law, but he inflicted sorrow on the Rosts, the grandparents of the children, and ultimately on the children themselves. This proposed legislation will impose criminal sanctions on attorneys who violate ICWA requirements in the adoptions of a native child. In closing, I believe we have acceptable legislation which will protect the interests of adoptive parents, native extended families, and most importantly, Alaska Native and American Indian children.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Miss Black Alaska for her success at the national Miss Black USA Pageant. Shannon Byrdsong represented Alaska well last Sunday February 23, 1997. Shannon is from Fairbanks, AK and is currently a student at the University of Oklahoma. Her parents, George and Vallie Byrdsong, made the trip from Alaska to proudly watch as their daughter advanced through the pageant held here locally at Howard University. After two nights of competition, Shannon ended as one of the top 15 finalists. While in the finals, Shannon was awarded both the Presidential Award and the Fundraiser Award. The Presidential Award was to honor Shannon for her strong leadership abilities. It was to award her for contributions to the community, while maintaining strong academic achievement. The Fundraiser Award was for accomplishing the most community support. It is significant to acknowledge this award, as young women competed from large States like California, Florida, and Texas. This support speaks a great deal about Shannon Byrdsong, as well as, the community she calls home.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and 66 other Members of the House, I am introducing the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act today. This legislation will require the specific approval of Congress before any area within the United States is subject to an international land use nomination, classification, or designation. International land reserves such as world heritage sites, biosphere reserves, and some other international land use designations can affect the use and market value of non-Federal lands adjacent to or intermixed with Federal lands. Legislation is needed to require the specific approval of Congress before any area within the United States is made part of an international land reserve. The rights of non- Federal landowners need to be protected if these international land designations are made. This legislation: First, asserts the power of Congress under article IV, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution over management and use of lands belonging to the United States; second, protects State sovereignty from diminishment as a result of Federal actions creating international land reserves; third, ensures that no U.S. citizen suffers any diminishment or loss of individual rights as a result of Federal actions creating United Nations land reserves; fourth, protects private interests in real property from diminishment as a result of Federal actions designating land reserves; and fifth, provides a process under which the United States may when desirable designate lands for inclusion in reserves under certain international agreements. I introduced this legislation in the last Congress as H.R. 3752, which simply required congressional approval of United Nations land designations in the United States. In a rollcall H.R. 3752 failed--by a 246-to-178 vote--to receive the two-thirds majority necessary to suspend the rules and pass the bill. I am amazed that a single Member of Congress would oppose legislation requiring congressional oversight of international land designations within the borders of the United States. What is unreasonable about Congress insisting that no land be designated for inclusion in international land reserves without the clear and direct approval of Congress? What is unreasonable about having local citizens and public officials participate in decisions on designating land near their homes for inclusion in an international reserve? Many, many Americans from all sections of our country have called my office to say that they are concerned about the lack of congressional oversight over UNESCO international land designations in the United States and to express their support for this bill. They are surprised by the expanse of our Nation's territory which is subject to various special international restrictions, most of which have evolved over the last 25 years. The most extensive international land use designations are UNESCO biosphere reserve programs and world heritage sites. These international land reserves have largely been created with minimal, if any, congressional input or oversight or public input. The Committee on Resources held a hearing on the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act in the 104th Congress. Seven witnesses including three local elected officials and a Member of Congress testified in support of this legislation. The former Representative and now Senator from Arkansas, the Honorable Tim Hutchinson, a cosponsor of H.R. 3752, outlined the problems associated with a proposed ``Ozark Highland Man and Biosphere Plan'' which was advanced without public input and has apparently been subsequently withdrawn after strong public opposition developed following discovery of the proposal; local elected officials from New York and New Mexico confirmed that there is little or no input by the public or elected officials into United Nations land designations. A Cornell University professor of government testified that ``if the bill is seen by some as symbolic, it is still a useful symbol. It is not at all inappropriate at this time to reemphasize the congressional duty to keep international commitments from floating free of traditional constitutional restraints.'' In becoming a party to these international land use designations through executive branch action, the United States may be indirectly agreeing to terms of international treaties, such as the Convention of Biodiversity, to which the United States is not a party or which the U.S. Senate has refused to ratify. For example, the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, adopted in late 1995, recommends that participating countries ``integrate biosphere reserves in strategies for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, in plans for protected areas, and in the national biodiversity strategies and action plans provided for in article 6 of the Convention on Biodiversity.'' Furthermore, the Strategic Plan for the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program published in 1994 by the U.S. State Department states that a goal of the U.S. Biosphere Reserve Program is to ``create a national network of biosphere reserves that represents the biogeographical diversity of the United States and fulfills the internationally established roles and functions of biosphere reserves.'' Also disturbing is that designation of biosphere reserves and world heritage sites rarely involve consulting the public and local governments. In fact, UNESCO policy apparently discourages an open nomination process for biosphere reserves. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention state: In all cases, as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, State [national] parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a property has been nominated for inscription pending the final decision of the [World Heritage] Committee on the nomination in question. Participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State party in the maintenance of the site, but should not prejudice future decision-making by the Committee. By allowing these international land use designations, the United States promises to protect designated areas and regulate surrounding lands if necessary to protect the designated reserve. Honoring these agreements could force the Federal Government to prohibit or limit some uses of private lands outside the international reserve unless our country wants to break a pledge to other nations. At a minimum, this puts U.S. land policymakers in an awkward position. These Federal regulatory actions could cause a significant adverse impact on the value of private property and on local and regional economies. At best, world heritage site and biosphere reserve designations give the international community an open invitation to interfere in domestic land use decisions. More seriously, the underlying international land use agreements potentially have several significant adverse effects on the American system of government. The policymaking authority is farther centralized at the Federal/executive branch level, and the role that the ordinary citizen has in the making of this policy through their elected representatives is diminished. The executive branch may also invoke these agreements in an attempt to administratively achieve an action within the jurisdiction of Congress, but without consulting Congress. The legislation introduced today will compel the Congress to consider the implications of an international land designation and protect the rights vested in non-Federal property before a designation is made.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, I'm pleased to introduce the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act (H.R. 856). This landmark legislation will end 100 years of uncertainty for the people of Puerto Rico and allow them to determine the political status for themselves and future generations. The text of the legislation is identical to the updated version of the bill introduced as H.R. 4281 in the 104th Congress on September 28, 1996. This bill reflects the efforts of many of my colleagues during the last 2 years to formulate a fair, clear, and complete process that will once and for all, provide for the final resolution of Puerto Rico's political status. This is the starting point in the process which is long overdue and the people of Puerto Rico deserve. The Legislature of Puerto Rico has once again asked the Congress to take action to resolve Puerto Rico's political status. Two weeks ago, a bipartisan delegation from Puerto Rico personally delivered copies of the resolution, asking the 105th Congress--and I quote: to respond to the Democratic aspirations of the American citizens of Puerto Rico in order to attain a process which will guarantee the prompt decolonization of Puerto Rico, through a plebiscite sponsored by the Federal Government, which shall be held no later than 1998. This bill answers the Legislature's request by providing for a vote on Puerto Rico's political status before December 31, 1998. As the only Representative from Alaska--a State that made the transition from territorial status to full self-government--I know first hand that the process does work. This bill provides the process by which Congress and the residents of Puerto Rico define and approve politically acceptable options through a multi-staged Democratic process. This allows for the political will of the United States and Puerto Rico to be determined freely and democratically. The U.S. Congress and the President have a moral obligation to act so the people of Puerto Rico can finally resolve their status. We are taking action today by re-introducing the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. Today marks the beginning of a historic effort by the Congress to actually solve Puerto Rico's political status. I appreciate the strong bipartisan support for this legislation by such a large number of Members of Congress during the 104th Congress, and now in the 105th Congress. I particularly want to thank Speaker Gingrich for his involvement and support of this measure since its inception. Puerto Rico's delegate, Resident Commissioner Carlos Romero- Barcelo, has been working side-by-side with the sponsors of this bill, and his cooperation and leadership has been critical to this endeavor. My colleague from New York, Jose Serrano, has also been particularly supportive and helpful in this process. I also want to thank Chairman Gallegly, Chairman Gilman, Chairman Burton, Chairman Pombo, and Mr. Kennedy from Rhode Island for their outstanding efforts to address Puerto Rico throughout the 104th Congress; Chairman Solomon of the Rules Committee for his excellent work on the fast track procedures, as well as all the other distinguished co-sponsors for both political parties. Resolving Puerto Rico's political status is a top priority of the Committee on Resources Oversight Plan for the 105th Congress. The leadership of the House also recognizes this as a matter of the highest priority. To demonstrate the commitments of this Congress to act quickly on this matter, three hearings have been scheduled on this legislation. The first will be held in Washington, DC, on Wednesday, March 19, 1997 to enable the leaders of the Government of Puerto Rico and the political parties to express their views regarding their preferred status. I will also ask the Clinton administration to present their formal position regarding the legislation at this hearing. In addition, two hearings will be conducted in Puerto Rico, the first in San Juan on April 19 and the second in Mayaguez on April 21. Those hearings will be dedicated to allow Congress to hear directly from the widest possible spectrum of views of the people of Puerto Rico. No proposal or idea will be excluded from the process, but we intend for Congress to work its will on this question in 1997. That is what the people of this Nation, including our fellow citizens in Puerto Rico, deserve from the 105th Congress, and in my view that is what the national interest requires us to do. Following is the text of House Concurrent Resolution 2, enacted by the Puerto Rico Legislature of January 23, 1997, which asks the 105th Congress and the President to sponsor a vote in Puerto Rico on political status before the end of 1998: House Concurrent Resolution 2 To request of the One Hundred Fifth Congress and the President of the United States of America to respond to the democratic aspirations of the American citizens of Puerto Rico, in order to achieve a process that guarantees the prompt decolonization of Puerto Rico by means of a plebiscite sponsored by the Federal Government, which must be held no later than 1998. statement of motives As the present century draws to a close and a new millennium full of hope is about to begin, men of good will must act affirmatively to leave any colonial vestige behind them. The United States of America has contributed to fundamental changes towards democracy and full participation in political processes in other countries, thus asserting the universal principles of human rights. Just as the United States has successfully promoted democratic values in the international sphere, it is now appropriate for that nation to attend to the claims for full political participation of the 3.75 million American citizens of Puerto Rico. On November 14, 1993, the Government of Puerto Rico supported a plebiscite on Puerto Rico's status. Three different political options were submitted to the People: Statehood, represented by the New Progressive Party; Independence, represented by the Puerto Rican Independence Party; and Commonwealth, represented by the Popular Democratic Party. This last option, redefined by its advocates, is based on a bilateral pact that cannot be revoked or amended unilaterally by Congress. It had the following essential elements: first, parity of founding with the states in federal assistance programs; second, tax exemption within the scope of the former Section 936 of the United States Internal Revenue Code, since repealed; and third, the power of the Commonwealth to impose tariffs on agricultural products imported into Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth option obtained 48.2% of the votes cast in the 1993 plebiscite, while Statehood obtained 46% and Independence, 4%. In a prior plebiscite, convoked by the Government of Puerto Rico in 1967, Commonwealth had obtained 60% of the votes, while Statehood obtained 37.8%. On December 14, 1994, the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico approved Concurrent Resolution No. 62. By means of this Resolution, Congress was asked to state its opinion on the redefinition of Commonwealth mentioned above. If the elements of that redefinition were deemed not to be viable, Congress was requested to inform the people of Puerto Rico about which status options it would be willing to consider in order to resolve our colonial problem, and what procedural steps should be taken to this effect. On February 29, 1996, the leaders of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Resources of the One Hundred Fourth Congress and its Subcommittee on Insular and Native American Affairs, together with the House Committee on International Relations and its Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, answered the People and the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico by means of a Statement of Principles, indicating the unfeasibility of accepting the redefinition of Commonwealth submitted in the 1993 plebiscite. These same Congressional leaders also expressed their interest in promoting Federal legislation so that the One Hundred Fourth Congress could expedite the steps to be followed in resolving the status problem of Puerto Rico. They fulfilled their pledge by submitting H.R. 3024 and S.R. 2019 with bipartisan support, for the purpose of responding to Concurrent Resolution No. 62, approved in 1994 by the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico. On June 28, 1996 four Congressmen who are members of the Minority Delegation of the House of Representatives of the United States also responded to Concurrent Resolution No. 62, through a letter in which they stated that ``it is clear that Puerto Rico remains a non-incorporated territory that is subject to the authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause . . .'', thus upholding the conclusions set forth in the February 29, 1996 letter, mentioned above. Barely a month later, on July 11, 1996, eleven Congressmen belonging to the Minority Delegation of the House of Representatives of the United States sent a letter to the Minority Leader of the House, stating their total support of H.R. 3024, which had been presented to that body in response to Concurrent Resolution No. 62. The Subcommittee on Insular and Native American Affairs of the United States House of Representatives, exercised primary jurisdiction over the matters set forth in Concurrent Resolution No. 62. While studying and approving H.R. 3024 on June 12, 1996, the Subcommittee considered proposals-- rejected until then--for the adoption of the redefinition of Commonwealth, either as included in the 1993 plebiscite ballot or, as an alternative, the non binding and never- adopted definition presented in a 1990 legislative report to the United States House of Representatives on the status of Puerto Rico. Both proposals on Commonwealth were overwhelmingly defeated in votes of ten to one for the first, and eight to one, for the second. On June 26, 1996, the House Committee on Rules adopted House Report 104-713, Part 2, which endorsed well-founded provisions for the purpose of facilitating congressional consideration of the measures that responded to the results of the self-determination process, as contemplated in H.R. 3024, which set forth a 3-stage decision-making process, with periodic referral in the event of an inconclusive result in any of the stages. We recognize that substantial progress was achieved during the One Hundred Fourth Congress in establishing a federal policy to promote the decolonization of Puerto Rico. But today, at the commencement of the work of the One Hundred Fifth Congress, the reality of the situation is that after almost a century during which Puerto Rico has been under the sovereignty of the United States, the Federal Government has never approved or implemented specific measures geared to promoting a process in a conclusive binding manner, by which the American citizens of Puerto Rico may democratically express their wishes regarding their final political status. We also recognize that even though important votes on the political status in Puerto Rico were carried out in 1967 and 1993 under the auspices of the Government of Puerto Rico, other voting events will be required in order to resolve the status question once and for all; and that Congress has still not defined the interests and responsibilities of the Federal Government regarding that process. The need to resolve Puerto Rico's political status persists. It must be carried out by means of an effective and enlightened process, whose legitimacy is acceptable to Congress, acting in the exercise of the sovereignty of the United States over Puerto Rico, pursuant to the full powers granted under the Territorial Clause of the Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 and which enables the People of Puerto Rico to achieve a sovereign political status through realistic and decolonizing alternatives. Following the plebiscites carried out by local initiative in 1967 and 1993 and the corresponding results, the Congress of the United States has refused to accept and implement as permanent and binding the definition of Commonwealth that was presented to the voters in 1993. As a result, we must establish a process based on options defined in such a way that both Congress and the American citizens of Puerto Rico recognize that a choice based upon perpetuating the lack of political suffrage and the subordination to the plenary powers of Congress under the Territorial Clause does not represent the best interests of the residents of Puerto Rico nor the rest of the United States. The final, permanent status of Puerto Rico should be consistent with the democratic principles of freedom, human rights and the goals of political, economic and social development that constitute the legacy of a century in which the political status of Puerto Rico has evolved within the flexibility allowed under the American constitutional framework. Although historical forces have caused the ongoing evolution of Puerto Rico towards self-determination to be delayed at sometimes and accelerated at others, now is the time to take the final step. This historic moment requires the adoption of measures that are carefully pondered yet decisive, in order to solve the political status of Puerto Rico by the beginning of a new century and a new millennium. In 1998 Puerto Rico must not complete one hundred years of colonialism under the American flag without at least being in an irreversible, inevitable process of decolonization. Be it Resolved by the Legislative Assembly of Puerto Rico: Section 1.--To request of the One Hundred Fifth Congress and the President of the United States of America to respond to the democratic aspirations of the American citizens of Puerto Rico, in order to achieve a means of guaranteeing the prompt decolonization of Puerto Rico through a plebiscite sponsored by the Federal Government, to be held no later than 1998. Section 2.--It is hereby ordered that this Concurrent Resolution be delivered to all members of the Congress of the United States of America, to the President, the Hon. William J. Clinton, and to the Secretary General of the United States. Section 3.--The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate of Puerto Rico are hereby authorized to designate a Special Joint Committee made up of legislators from the three political parties of Puerto Rico, for the sole purpose of personally delivering the text of this Concurrent Resolution to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro-Tempore and the Majority Leader of the Senate, and to the leaders of the Minority delegations of the Congress. Section 4.--This Concurrent Resolution shall take effect immediately after its approval.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, due to a family emergency, I am forced to return home to Alaska. During my absence the House will again take up the important issue of term limits. On two occasions, Alaskan voters voiced and voted their support for term limits. In the November 1996 election, a majority of Alaskan voters passed a ballot initiative requiring Congress and the State legislature to support a very specific term limit measure. In response to previous calls for term limits by Alaskans, I supported a term limits amendment to the Constitution when it came to the House floor in the 104th Congress. House Joint Resolution 73, offered by Congressman McCollum would have limited congressional term limits. I followed the wishes of my fellow Alaskans by supporting House Joint Resolution 73. I had planned to again follow the wishes of my constituents by supporting a term limits proposal this week. However, due to this family emergency, I will be at home in Alaska when this vote takes place.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with the cochairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, John Tanner, and our colleague, Cliff Stearns, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1997. This measure is basically identical to legislation I proposed at the end of the previous Congress. It has been nearly 80 years since the Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act [MBTA]. Since that time, there have been numerous congressional hearings and a distinguished Law Enforcement Advisory Commission was constituted to review the application of the MBTA regulations. Although these efforts clearly indicated serious problems, there has been no meaningful effort to change the statute or modify the regulations. Due to administrative inaction and the clear evidence of inconsistent application of regulations and confusing court decisions, it is time for the Congress to legislatively change certain provisions that have, and will continue to penalize many law-abiding citizens. I assure my colleagues, as well as landowners, farmers, hunters, and concerned citizens, that this legislation in no way undermines the fundamental goal of protecting migratory bird resources. Before explaining this legislation, I would like to provide my colleagues with some background on this issue. In 1918, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, that implemented the 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds between Great Britain--for Canada--and the United States. Since that time, there have been similar agreements signed between the United States, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union. The convention and the act are designed to protect and manage migratory birds as well as regulate the taking of that renewable resource. In an effort to accomplish these goals, over the years certain restrictions have been imposed by regulation on the taking of migratory birds by hunters. Many of these restrictions were recommended by sportsmen who felt that they were necessary management measures to protect and conserve renewable migratory bird populations. Those regulations have clearly had a positive impact, and viable migratory bird populations have been maintained despite the loss of natural habitat because of agricultural, industrial, and urban activities. Since the passage of the MBTA and the development of the regulatory scheme, various legal issues have been raised and most have been successfully resolved. However, one restriction that prohibits hunting migratory birds by the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area has generated tremendous controversy, and it has not been satisfactorily resolved. The reasons for this controversy are twofold: First, a doctrine has developed in Federal courts whereby the actual guilt or innocence of an individual hunting migratory birds on a baited field is not an issue. If it is determined that bait is present, and the hunter is there, he is guilty under the doctrine of strict liability, regardless of whether there was knowledge or intent. Courts have ruled that it is not relevant that the hunter did not know or could not have reasonably known bait was present. Understandably, there has been much concern over the injustice of this doctrine that is contrary to the basic tenet of our criminal justice system: that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, where intent is a necessary element of that guilt. A second point of controversy is the related issue of the zone of influence doctrine developed by the courts relating to the luring or attracting of migratory birds to the hunting venue. Currently, courts hold that if the bait could have acted as an effective lure, a hunter will be found guilty, regardless of the amount of the alleged bait or other factors that may have influenced the migratory birds to be present at the hunting site. Again, a number of hunters have been unfairly prosecuted by the blanket application of this doctrine. In addition, under the current regulations, grains scattered as a result of agricultural pursuits are not considered bait as the term is used. The courts and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, however, disagree on what constitutes normal agricultural planting or harvesting or what activity is the result of bona fide agricultural operations. During the past three decades, Congress has addressed various aspects of the baiting issue. It has also been addressed by a Law Enforcement Advisory Commission appointed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Sadly, nothing has resulted from these examinations and the problems still persist. As a consequence, landowners, farmers, wildlife managers, sportsmen, and law enforcement officials are understandably confused. On May 15, 1996, the House Resources Committee, which I chair, conducted an oversight hearing to review the problems associated with the MBTA regulations, their enforcement, and the appropriate judicial rulings. It was abundantly clear from the testimony at this hearing, as well as previous hearings, that the time has come for the Congress to address these problems through comprehensive legislation. From a historical review, it is obvious that regulatory deficiencies promulgated pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will not be corrected, either administratively or by future judicial rulings. Since there is inconsistent interpretation of the regulations under MBTA that the executive and judicial branches of Government have failed to correct, the Congress has an obligation to eliminate the confusion and, indeed, the injustices that now exist. It is also important that Congress provide guidance to law enforcement officials who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law and the accompanying regulations. It must be underscored that sportsmen, law enforcement officials and, indeed, Members of Congress all strongly support the basic intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that our migratory bird resources must be protected from overexploitation. Sportsmen have consistently demonstrated their commitment to the wise use of renewable wildlife resources through reasoned management and enforcement of appropriate regulations. Over the years, various prohibitions on the manner and methods of taking migratory birds have been embodied in regulations. Many of these prohibitions are decades old and have the support of all persons concerned with protecting migratory birds. In my judgment, it would be appropriate to incorporate these regulations in statutory law, and my proposed bill accomplishes that objective. This provision does not, however, restrict or alter the Secretary of the Interior's annual responsibilities to establish bag limits or duration of seasons. Nor does it prevent additional prohibitions, including hunting methods of migratory birds, from being implemented. Second, a fundamental goal of the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1997 is to address the baiting issue. Under my proposed legislation, no person may take migratory birds by the aid of bait, or on or over bait, where that person knew or should have known the bait was present. The provision removes the strict liability interpretation made first by a Federal court in Kentucky in 1939, and presently followed by a majority of Federal courts. With this provision, uniformity in the application of the prohibition is established. As important, however, is the establishment of a standard that permits a determination of the actual guilt of the defendant. If the facts demonstrate that the hunter knew or should have known of the alleged bait, liability--which includes fines and potential incarceration--will be imposed. If by the evidence, however, the hunter could not have reasonably known that the alleged bait was present, liability would not be imposed and penalties would not be assessed. This would be a question of fact to be determined by the court based on the totality of the evidence presented. Furthermore, the exceptions to baiting prohibitions contained in Federal regulations have been amended to permit exemption for grains found on a hunting site as a result of normal agricultural planting and harvesting as well as normal agricultural operations. This proposed change will establish reasonable guidelines for both the hunter and the law enforcement official. To determine what is a normal agricultural operation in a given region, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be required to annually publish, in the Federal Register, a notice for public comment defining what is a normal agricultural operation for that particular geographic area. This determination is to be made only after meaningful consultation with relevant State and Federal agencies and an opportunity for public comment. Again, the goal of this effort is to provide uniformity and clarity for landowners, farmers, wildlife managers, law enforcement officials, and hunters so they know what a normal agricultural operation is for their region. In addition, the proposed legislation permits the scattering of various substances like grains and seeds, which are currently considered bait, if it is done to feed farm animals and is a normal agricultural operation in a given area, as recognized by the Fish and Wildlife Service and published in the Federal Register. Finally, the term bait is defined as the intentional placing of the offending grain, salt, or other feed. This concept removes from violation the accidental appearance of bait at or near the hunting venue. There have been cases where hunters have been charged with violating baiting regulations as a result of grain being unintentionally spilled on a public road, where foreign grain was inadvertently mixed in with other seed by the seller and later found at a hunting site, and where foreign grain was deposited by animals or running water. These are examples of actual cases where citations were given to individuals for violations of the baiting regulations. Under my proposed legislation, the hunter would also be permitted to introduce evidence at trail on what degree the alleged bait acted as the lure or attraction for the migratory birds in a given area. In cases where 13 kernels of corn were found in a pond in the middle of a 300-acre field planted in corn or where 34 kernels of corn were found in a wheat field next to a freshwater river, the bait was clearly not the reason migratory birds were in the hunting area. First, it was not intentionally placed there and, second, it could not be considered an effective lure or attraction under the factual circumstances. These are questions of fact to be determined in a court of law. Currently, however, evidence of these matters is entirely excluded as irrelevant under the strict liability doctrine. In 1934, Congress enacted the Migratory Bird Conservation Act as a mechanism to provide badly needed funds to purchase suitable habitat for migratory birds. Today, that need still exists, and my legislation will require that all fines and penalties collected under the MBTA be deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. These funds are essential to the long-term survival of our migratory bird populations. Finally, this measure proposes that personal property that is seized can be returned to the owner by way of a bond or other surety, prior to trial, at the discretion of the court. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the proposed Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act is to provide clear guidance to landowners, farmers, wildlife managers, hunters, law enforcement officials, and the courts on what are the restrictions on the taking of migratory birds. The conflict within the Federal judicial system and the inconsistent application of enforcement within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be resolved. The proposed legislation accomplishes that objective without, in any manner, weakening the intent of current restrictions on the method and manner of taking migratory birds; nor do the proposed provisions weaken protection of the resource. Finally, the proposed legislation does not alter or restrict the Secretary of the Interior's ability to promulgate annual regulations nor inhibit the issuance of further restrictions on the taking of migratory birds. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to carefully review the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 1997. It is a long overdue solution to several ongoing problems that regrettably continue to unfairly penalize many law-abiding hunters in this country.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to introduce on Tuesday, February 4, along with our distinguished colleagues John Dingell, Jim Saxton, and John Tanner, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This measure, which is the product of several years of careful deliberation, would be the first comprehensive refuge reform legislation since the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966. In fact, this is an improved version of the bill that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted on April 24, 1996, by a vote of 287 to 138. By way of background, it is important to note that the National Wildlife Refuge System is comprised of Federal lands that have been acquired for the conservation of fish and wildlife and offer recreational opportunities for millions of Americans. Totaling about 91.7 million acres, the System provides habitat for hundreds of species, including nearly 700 kinds of birds, 200 mammals, 250 reptiles and amphibians, and 200 kinds of fish. These refuge lands are not Federal parks, wilderness areas, or national marine sanctuaries. In fact, hunting and fishing occur on more than 95 percent of the total acreage of the System. The first wildlife refuge was created at Pelican Island, FL, in 1903, by one of our Nation's most prominent sportsmen and conservationists, President Theodore Roosevelt. Today, the System has 511 refuges, which are located in all 50 States and 5 territories. These units range in size from the smallest of 1 acre at Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota to the largest of 19.3 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. In the last decade, more than 80 refuges and approximately 4 million acres have been added to the System. Funding for refuge acquisitions comes from two primary sources: First, annual appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and second, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which is funded from duck stamps and refuge entrance fees. In fiscal year 1995, $410.9 million was collected from our Nation's anglers and sport hunters. While the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, authored by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, has been a landmark law, there are many people who believe that this act is in need of modernization. For instance, there is no statutory list of purposes for the National Wildlife Refuge System, there is no statutory definition of what constitutes a compatible use of a refuge, refuges are not managed as a national system, fishing and hunting are arbitrarily prohibited on new refuge lands until governmental studies are completed, and there is no requirement to complete comprehensive conservation plans for any of the 511 refuges. Under the terms of our new legislation, we have established for the first time a nationwide set of six purposes for our Refuge System. These purposes are: to establish a nationwide network of lands to conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and plants; to preserve, restore, and protect endangered and threatened species; to conserve and manage migratory birds, anandromous fish, and marine mammals; to allow compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, which has been defined as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education; and to fulfill international treaty obligations. Second, we have defined the term ``compatible use'' by using the language the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incorporated into their operating regulations years ago. While a refuge manager will retain the power to determine what is a ``compatible use,'' this definition should provide the guidance needed to make the proper decision. Third, wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed to occur during the interim period after the land has been acquired, but before the implementation of a management plan, as long as the refuge manager determines that those activities are compatible. The author of this ``open until closed'' provision is the Gentleman from New Jersey, Jim Saxton. It is an essential change because there are a growing number of Americans who are angry and frustrated over the Service's land acquisition process. These Americans have worked hard to protect certain lands, they have contributed millions of dollars to the purchase of refuge lands, and they have found, much to their dismay, that for no rational reason their favorite fishing spot is not off limits during open-ended periods of governmental studies. Fourth, this legislation provides that fishing and hunting should be permitted unless a finding is made that these activities are inconsistent with public safety, the purposes of the specific unit, or are not based on sound fish and wildlife management. Finally, the proposal requires the formulation of conservation plans for each of the 511 refuges within 15 years of the date of enactment. It is important for the public to know what kind of archeological, natural, or wildlife resources exist on these refuges, and the allowed public uses of these resources. This inventory has been a goal of the environmental community for many years. While this is a brief overview of the provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, there are a number of things that the legislation does not address. For instance, it: does not permit or require hunting and fishing to occur on every wildlife refuge. These activities must be found ``compatible'' and must meet a three-part test. Fishing and hunting can only occur on refuges when consistent with sound fish and wildlife management practices, with the fundamental reasons the refuge was created, and with public safety; does not affect Federal, State, or local water rights. This bill does not limit the ability of the Federal Government to secure water for a refuge; does not facilitate nonwildlife-dependent uses such as grazing, farming, mining, oil and gas development, jet skiing, etc. As under current law, nonwildlife-dependent uses may continue to occur when compatible, and when the Fish and Wildlife Service lacks legal authority or sufficient ownership interest in the property to prevent them. But this bill does not mandate, enhance, or protect such uses; does not increase or decrease the size of any of the 511 refuge units; does not permit unapproved pesticides to be used by row farmers or anyone else in the Refuge System; does not permit the commercialization of our Refuge System. To repeat, this bill makes only compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses a purpose of the system. They are clearly defined as fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education; and does not limit the Fish and Wildlife Service's ability to acquire new refuge lands at existing refuges. In fiscal year 1998, the service will propose to spend millions of dollars to acquire additional new acreage for our Refuge System. Our bill will not delay, stop, or otherwise affect those acquisitions. It is my hope that during the debate on this bill in the 105th Congress, we will witness an accurate portrayal of the true impact of the provisions of this proposal. It is time to stop the misrepresentation of this bill as an effort to require hunting on refuges and the commercialization of the System. This legislation is supported by the American Archery Council, the American Sportfishing Association, B.A.S.S., Inc., the California Waterfowl Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, International Bowhunters Organization, Masters of Foxhounds Association of America, Mzuri Wildlife Foundation, National Rifle Association, National Wild Turkey Federation, New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen, North American Waterfowl Federation, Quail Unlimited, Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. It has also been endorsed by the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, which has a membership of more than 200 Members of this body. Finally, this legislation is an improvement over the President's Executive Order of March 25, 1996. While the Executive order contains nonbinding ``directives'' to the Secretary of the Interior, our legislation statutorily establishes six purposes for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Executive order is also deficient in that it does not stipulate that 511 individual refuge units should be managed as a national system or that conservation plans should be completed. Furthermore, like all Executive orders, it suffers from the inherent problem that unlike statutory law, it can be easily modified, replaced or ignored by future administrations. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Wildlife Refuge System must be managed more effectively in the future. This System needs to have a statutory list of purposes, uniform guidelines to determine what activities are permissible, comprehensive conservation plans, and the enthusiastic support of the American people who finance this System with their hard earned tax dollars. These are the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. It is a sound piece of conservation legislation that reaffirms the legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt and the vision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. I would urge my colleagues to join with me, John Dingell, Jim Saxton and John Tanner in this important effort to improve our National Wildlife Refuge System. This legislation will ensure that this system is alive and well for all our constituents for many years to come. It is interesting to note that the year 1997 has been designated as the ``Year of the National Wildlife Refuge System''. It would, therefore, be fitting to enact the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act this year.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I submit for publication in the Congressional Record the rules of procedure for the 105th Congress adopted by the Committee on Resources on February 5, 1997. Rules for the Committee on Resources

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation that will ameliorate problems stemming from the U.S. Postal Service policy that prohibits the users of commercial mail receiving agents [CMRA's] from submitting a standard change of address form to expedite routine mail delivery service. In nearly all cases when an individual changes residency, the U.S. Postal Service facilitates prompt and accurate mail delivery by encouraging the postal customer to file a mail forwarding change of address form. Atypically, when a CMRA customer relocates, that individual is responsible for informing all potential mailers of any change of address. This policy creates delays and may exacerbate mail fraud as testimony has shown that the first line of defense against fraud is accurate information regarding postal addresses. Current policy is contradictory to the Postal Service's charge to ensure prompt, accurate mail delivery service. This important legislation will benefit all parties in this particular mail delivery chain: the U.S. Postal Service, the CMRA's, and most important, the postal customer.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing the New Wildlife Refuge Reauthorization Act of 1997. By way of background, our National Wildlife Refuge System is comprised of 91.7 million acres of Federal lands that provide essential habitat for hundreds of species and offer recreational opportunities for millions of Americans. The first wildlife refuge at Pelican Island, FL, was created in 1903 when President Theodore Roosevelt signed an Executive order setting aside three acres of land as a preserve and breeding grounds for native birds. Today, the system has 511 refuges, which are located in all 50 States and 5 territories. These units range in size from the smallest of less than 1 acre at Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, to the largest of 19.3 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. In the last decade, more than 80 new refuges have been added to the system. The vast majority of our Nation's 511 refuge units were created administratively. In fact, less than 70 refuges have been designated by Congress. The authorizing committees, therefore, have had little, if any, input in the establishment of the other 460 refuges, which include the 192,493-acre Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge in Florida, the 254,400-acre Hawaiian Island National Wildlife Refuge, and the 572,000-acre Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge in Nevada. These Executive orders have set aside a huge amount of privately owned lands. Under current law, funding for refuge acquisitions comes from two primary sources: No. 1, annual appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund [LWCF], and No. 2, the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, which is financed from the purchase of a yearly duck stamp and refuge entrance fees. In the past, more than $1 billion in taxpayer money has been appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to acquire lands that become additions to existing units or entirely new wildlife refuges. This represents a substantial expenditure of money by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] without adequate input by Congress. By contrast, the Migratory Bird Commission, whose membership includes four bipartisan Members of Congress, regularly meets to evaluate and decide how Migratory Bird Conservation Fund will be spent. Under normal conditions, a Governor of a State, after consulting with local citizens, will recommend that a new refuge be created or that additional land be added to the system. It is a process that has worked effectively for a number of years. Regrettably, the checks and balances that exist on the uses of the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund simply do not exist in the allocation of money from the LWCF. Therefore, lacking such a review mechanism, we have a responsibility to carefully examine the recommendations of the USFWS and, if we so choose, to legislatively create any new wildlife refuge using LWCF money in the future. This is an essential change. Under the terms of the New Wildlife Refuge Reauthorization Act, no funds could be expended from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to create a new refuge without prior congressional authorization. This bill does not affect any land additions to the existing 511 wildlife refuges or those created with money from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Mr. Speaker, Congress must have a more meaningful role in the acquisition of hundreds of acres of new Federal lands. We should authorize new wildlife refuges just as we authorize new flood control projects, highways, national parks, scenic rivers, and weapons systems. After all, we are talking about the expenditure of millions of taxpayers dollars. Furthermore, at a time when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a $440 million backlog of unfinished wildlife refuge maintenance projects, a comprehensive review of the service's priorities is appropriate. I urge the adoption of the New Wildlife Refuge Authorization Act and want to thank our distinguished colleague from California, Richard Pombo, for his leadership in this important effort. By enacting this legislation, we will ensure that private property owners and their tax dollars are more adequately protected in the future.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this legislation to reauthorize and improve the effectiveness of the act of September 15, 1960, commonly referred to as the Sikes Act. Since coming to Congress in 1973, I have led the fight to enhance and conserve the vital fish and wildlife resources that exist on our military lands. The Department of Defense [DOD] manages nearly 25 million acres at approximately 900 military bases nationwide. These lands contain a wealth of plant and animal life, they provide vital habitat for thousands of migratory waterfowl and they are home for nearly 100 Federally listed species. The Department does a superb job of training our young men and women for combat. Regrettably, they often fail to do even an adequate job of comprehensive natural resource management planning. At far too many installations, management plans have never been written, are outdated, or are largely ignored. Furthermore, when these plans do exist, all too often they are not coordinated or integrated with other military activities. While this bill will make a number of improvements in the Sikes Act, it does not undermine in any way the fundamental training mission of a military base. What the bill does is expand the scope of existing conservation plans to encompass all natural resource management activities, require management plans for all appropriate installations, mandate an annual report summarizing the status of these plans, require that trained personnel be available, and ensure that DOD shall manage each installation to provide for the conservation of fish and wildlife, and to allow the multipurpose uses of those resources. In addition, the bill extends the act's authorization for the next 3 years at half of its previous funding level. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial bill. In fact, during the last Congress, it was thoroughly considered by both the House Resources and National Security Committees. It was approved by the House of Representatives unanimously by voice vote on July 11, 1995. Regrettably, the other body took no action on this measure. While I am today introducing a bill that is identical to the one that was overwhelmingly adopted by the House, I am committed to reauthorizing this longstanding conservation measure. With that in mind, I intend to meet with representatives of the Departments of Defense and the Interior, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and members of the House National Security Committee. I am confident that together we can develop a strong and effective reauthorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, Jim Saxton, for joining with me in this effort and I commend the Sikes Act Improvement Amendments of 1997 to the membership of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to extend the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988, an historic conservation measure that continues to be successful in its ongoing efforts to save the flagship species of the African Continent. By way of background, my colleagues may recall that by the late 1980's, the population of African elephants had declined by almost half. In 1979, the total elephant population in Africa was approximately 1.3 million animals. In 1987, fewer than 700,000 African elephants were alive. While drought, disease, and human population growth contributed to this dramatic decline, the illegal killing or poaching of elephants for their ivory tusks was the single most important reason why thousands of these magnificent animals were slaughtered. During its peak, as much as 800 tons of ivory were exported from Africa each year, equivalent to the deaths of up to 80,000 elephants annually. In response to this serious problem, Congress enacted the African Elephant Conservation Act--Public Law 100-478. A primary objective of this law was to assist impoverished African nations in their efforts to stop poaching and to develop more effective elephant conservation programs. To accomplish that goal, the legislation created the African Elephant Conservation Fund. Since its creation, Congress has appropriated over $6 million to fund some 48 conservation projects in 17 range States throughout Africa. In addition, over $7 million has been generated through private matching money to augment the Federal support made available through the grant program. With these funds, resources have been allocated for conservation projects to purchase antipoaching equipment for wildlife rangers, create a comprehensive reference library on the African elephant, undertake elephant population census, develop and implement elephant conservation plans, and move elephants from drought regions in Zimbabwe. In fact, the Zimbabwe project was the first time in history that such a large number of elephants were successfully translocated to new habitats. Without these conservation projects, I am convinced that the African elephant would have continued to decline and would have disappeared from much of its historic range. Instead, what has happened is that the population has stabilized and, in fact, is increasing in southern Africa, the international price of ivory remains depressed, and wildlife rangers are now much better equipped to stop unscrupulous individuals who are intent on illegally killing elephants. The African Elephant Conservation Fund has provided desperately needed capital for projects in various African countries and a diverse group of internationally recognized conservation groups, including the African Safari Club of Washington, DC, the African Wildlife Foundation, Safari Club International, and the World Wildlife Fund, has participated in these efforts. In fact, the African Elephant Conservation Fund has been the only continuous source of new money for African elephant conservation efforts for the past 8 years. In June of last year, the House Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans conducted an oversight hearing on the effectiveness of the African Elephant Conservation Fund. At that time, a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testified that the Fund ``provided a critical incentive for governments of the world, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work together for a common conservation goal. This is not a hand out, but a helping hand.'' While the African Elephant Conservation Fund has facilitated the development of a number of successful conservation projects, the battle to ensure the long-term survival of the African elephant has not yet been won. In fact, it is essential that this critical investment be continued in the future. Therefore, the fundamental purpose of my legislation is to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to expend money from the African Elephant Conservation Fund beyond its statutory expiration date of September 30, 1998. I am proposing that the authorization of appropriations for the fund be extended until September 30, 2002. With this extension, I am confident that additional worthwhile conservation projects will be funded and that the African elephant will survive in its natural habitat for many future generations. I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort by supporting the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1997.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, in a rollcall on September 26, 1996, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996, which would reestablish the Congress as the ultimate decisionmaker in managing public lands and maintain sovereign control of lands in the United States, failed--by a 246 to 178 vote--to receive the two-thirds majority necessary to suspend the rules and pass the bill. The bill simply requires congressional approval of international land designations in the United States, primarily UNESCO World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves. These designations, as presently handled, are an open invitation to the international community to interfere in U.S. domestic land-use decisions. I am amazed that a single Member of Congress would oppose legislation requiring congressional oversight of international land designations within the borders of the United States. What is unreasonable about Congress insisting that no land be designated for inclusion in international land use programs without the clear and direct approval of Congress? What is unreasonable about having local citizens and public officials participate in decisions on designating land near their homes for inclusion in an international land program? Many, many Americans from all sections of our country have called my office to say that they are concerned about the lack of congressional oversight over UNESCO international land designations in the United States and to express their support for H.R. 3752. I want to say to them that this fight has not ended. I plan to introduce this bill again in the 105th Congress. I would like to include the following recent articles about the debate over H.R. 3752. I urge my colleagues to read these commentaries. Congress Fails To Veto U.N. Role in National Parks (By Cliff Kincaid) In a sign of mounting anti-United Nations sentiment, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) got about 60% of House members--246 to 178 (see rollcall next week)--to vote in favor of his ``American Land Sovereignty Protection Act'' (H.R. 3753) on September 26, but because the bill didn't get the two-thirds approval needed under suspension of the rules procedures, it ultimately failed. Thirty-three Democrats voted for the popular piece of legislation, 15 Republicans voted against it. The bill would have required congressional approval before federal officials seek special U.N. status for U.S. parks and public lands. It was brought to the House floor just two weeks after Rep. Young had convened an informative September 12 hearing of his House Resources. Committee to highlight how the United Nations has been brought in to ``protect'' literally tens of millions of acres of federal land. The hearing focused on how President Clinton complied with a U.N. recommendation to kill a gold mine project outside Yellowstone National Park. Citizens and local officials from Montana, New Mexico, Wyoming, Colorado and even New York testified that the United Nations has been involved in labeling public lands in their communities as World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves without their knowledge or consent. They said the U.N. involvement including proposals for ``buffer zones'' around these areas, threatens private property rights, property values and economic development. In the United States there are now 20 World Heritage Sites, designated under the terms of a 1972 treaty, and 47 Biosphere Reserves, designated under a 1970 U.N.-sponsored ``Man and the Biosphere'' program that has been implemented without the benefit of a treaty. The programs are run out of the U.N Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris. According to Rep. Young, these U.N.-designated areas comprise more than 51 million acres--68% of all National Parks, Preserves and Monuments, including the Statute of Liberty and Independence Hall. Unwilling to take the side of the United Nations against Congress, not one major environmentalist group accepted an invitation to testify and no Democrats on the committee showed up at the hearing to oppose the bill. The Clinton Administration did, however, send Assistant Interior Secretary George Frampton to testify against the Young bill. Frampton was clearly perturbed by Young's effort to promote his legislation by asking his congressional colleagues, ``Is Boutros Boutros-Ghali zoning land in your district?'' Ironically, Frampton's own dealings with the United Nations in the Yellowstone matter were a major factor in prompting the hearings and the proposed legislation. clinton's yellowstone deal Circumventing the lawful process of completing an Environmental Impact Statement to determine what threat, if any, was posed by a proposed gold mine, Frampton last year invited a foreign U.N. delegation to make a brief visit to Yellowstone, which is both a World Heritage Site and a Biosphere Reserve, to call for a ``buffer zone'' around the park and to declare it ``in danger'' from the mining project. The leader of the delegation was a German, Bernd Von Droste, who has called for global energy taxes to enable the United Nations to better ``protect'' these areas. After the U.N intervention, the mining company, Crown Butte Mines Inc., agreed to White House demands to cancel the project in return for a vague presidential promise of some federal land somewhere else. ``This President believed the U.N. has more value than the Congress,'' Rep. Young angrily declared, vowing to push his sovereignty bill and subject Clinton's Yellowstone deal to congressional scrutiny. But the administration's Frampton dismissed these concerns. ``People are nervous the U.N. is coming,'' he sniffed. He insisted the U.N. designations simply promote environmental cooperation and actually serve to attract tourists. When told, however, that the United Nations had complained that Yellowstone was too crowded by tourists, he just replied, ``I was not aware of that.'' Indeed, environmental groups not only wanted the gold mine stopped, but have suggested greatly restricting tourism within the park. Myron Ebell of Frontiers of Freedom, a group started by former Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R.-Wyo.), said Frampton was part of a ``cabal'' of federal agencies and environmental groups that regard the United Nations as a `'weapon'' in their campaign to deindustrialize America. Paul C. Jones, executive director of the Colorado-based Minerals Exploration Coalition, said the involvement of the United Nations in Yellowstone was ``unprecedented'' and amounted to an international ``land grab.'' The House support for the Young legislation is only one indication that opposition is building. Rep. Tim Hutchinson (R.-Ark.) testified that citizens in his own state, including a group called ``Take Back Arkansas,'' had thwarted the designation of the Ozark National Forest as a Biosphere Reserve because they didn't want their ``prized national treasures'' subjected to international agreements that might conflict with U.S. law. In a case involving Mount Mitchell State Park in North Carolina, citizen action forced park authorities to actually take the words ``United Nations'' off a wooden sign leading into the park. For her part, Nina Sibal of UNESCO testified that passage of Young's legislation was ``a sovereign decision'' of the United States. Her French UNESCO associate, Pierre Lasserre, however, did venture the opinion that the name of the ``Man and the Biosphere'' program should be changed because it sounds ``sexist.'' U.N.-Sponsored Aliens Land in Yellowstone (By Gayle M.B. Hanson) The Clinton administration allowed an obscure treaty to establish U.N. authority over Yellowstone National Park, the Statue of Liberty and other American sites. House Democrats backed the power grab. Okay, so maybe there were only a handful of individuals involved, and maybe they didn't actually arrive in the dead of night protected by whirring black helicopters and hell- bent on clandestine maneuvers. But the fact that four members of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's, or UNESCO's, World Heritage Committee traveled from halfway around the globe to the Idaho-Montana- Wyoming border area in summer 1995 to investigate a ``dangerous'' situation unfolding at Yellowstone National Park has some people still scratching their heads in disbelief. The aforementioned (dare we say it?) aliens were invited to poke around on their fact-finding mission at Yellowstone by Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks George Frampton Jr. Frampton, at the behest of the U.S. Park Service and a cavalcade of environmental groups including the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society and the Wilderness Society, an organization Frampton once led, officially sought the intervention of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee to remedy what they called ``extremely serious threats'' by a proposed gold mine near the park. The initial correspondence from the environmental groups to the World Heritage Centre in March 1995 requested that Yellowstone be put on the List of the World Heritage in Danger due to the mine that was planned on its perimeter. The World Heritage Centre followed up with a letter to Frampton in June requesting a detailed analysis of the site to determine whether it should be included for consideration as endangered at their July meeting in Paris. On June 27, Frampton responded on behalf of the Clinton administration in a lengthy letter in which he pleaded for intervention by the U.N. group and urged that international investigators immediately be sent to Yellowstone. ``[Interior] Secretary Babbit and I are informed of the nongovernmental conservation group concerns as transmitted to the Centre,'' Frampton wrote to Bernd von Droste, the World Heritage Centre director. ``We believe that a potential danger to the values of the park and surrounding waters and fisheries exists and the Committee should be informed that the property as inscribed in the World Heritage List is in danger.'' In short, invoking a madcap treaty, the Clinton administration accepted U.N. sovereignty in these matters and called upon a U.N. agency to save Yellowstone. Several months later four individuals from the Centre flew to the rescue. ``I was there the entire time they visited,'' says Paul C. Jones, executive director of the Minerals Exploration Coalition, a mining-advocacy group. ``We were in the midst of a very long, very serious, congressionally mandated process to produce an environmental-impact statement on the mine proposed for the park. We were strictly following the rules as spelled out by the National Environmental Protection Act. When suddenly, with the appearance of the U.N., what had been an ordinary process became a political debate. And it was apparent that these people had made up their minds before they even got there.'' During their visit to the proposed site for New World Mine, north of Cooke City, Mont., the four visitors had the opportunity to interact with many of the more common local species including environmentalists, park-service representatives and mining-industry honchos. In fact, each member of the visiting U.N. team traveled in an overland vehicle (read Jeep) with their own locally supplied good-guy environmentalist and evil mine representative. This allowed for a continuing dialogue to be maintained wherein each side could bark loudly at the other. The visitors also took time out from their research to discuss the future of the park with the many reporters who had gathered from around the globe. Adul Wichiencharoen of Thailand, who heads the World Heritage Committee, went so far as to tell a reporter from Montana's Billings Gazette that the park might be improved by the addition of several million additional acres of land. ``Certainly the forest areas around Yellowstone belong to the same ecosystem,'' he said. ``All of these lands must have protection so their integrity is not threatened.'' The end result was that the visitors returned to the World Heritage Centre, presented their findings in Berlin that November and the world body voted to place Yellowstone on its lists of endangered sites. The resulting international bad press effectively derailed the permit process and in late August the mine owners agreed to a land swap with the U.S. government, ridding them of their parcel of $65 million worth of property in a location yet to be determined. Where was Yogi Bear when he was needed? It isn't certain. But the circus of events that took place in the mountains was enough to send House Resources Committee Chairman Don Young of Alaska to urge passage of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996 faster than you could say Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Young's proposal simply provided that Congress be allowed to assert its authority over what American landmarks make the World Heritage List. The World Heritage List is a product of the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage, a treaty taking precedence at law over the U.S. Constitution. Since it was adopted in 1972 (the United States was its initiator and first signatory), the convention has been used to project the authority of a U.N. agency over an ever-growing list of officially designated cultural and natural sites. Commemorative photos are taken. Plaques are installed at qualifying locations. National sovereignty is eroded. At present 496 cultural and natural sites throughout the world are included on the list. They cover a diverse compendium, including such buildings as Independence Hall, the Statue of Liberty and the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and such areas of regional and national interest as the Florida Everglades and Mount Everest. ``Land designations under the World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve programs have been created with virtually no congressional over-sight and no congressional hearings. The public and local governments are rarely consulted,'' says Young. Instead, in the case of the World Heritage List, sites generally are recommended for this internationalization by the National Park Service. Twenty such sites are within the confines of the U.S. borders; two additional sites, Yellowstone and the Everglades, are on the list of endangered heritage sites. Hundreds of additional sites around the globe are pending inclusion on the list. If neither the first McDonald's nor Yankee Stadium has yet to be included, it could be an oversight. Certainly the UNESCO folks are looking to improve their holdings. ``An analysis of the World Heritage List has shown that the industrialized world, religious Christian movements, historical cities, historical periods and `elitist' architecture are over-represented,'' according to World Heritage Centre documents. Well, so much for getting McDonald's on the list. Now the World Heritage Centre is willing to admit that for the moment it is a dog that barks but has no bite. It can't yet force the United States to do anything about its national parks or turn over the Statue of Liberty. But these people are nothing if not ambitious. Although UNESCO admits that it has no enforcement teeth (which begs the question of why there should be such a list in the first place), the Clinton administration first strongly asserted its desire that Yellowstone be put on the endangered list and then opposed passage of Young's bill, which would have taken nomination of sites to the World Heritage List out from under the relatively opaque operations of the Interior Department and placed them in the hands of Congress. ``If Congress wishes to micromanage these international programs, it could assume that responsibility,'' claimed Rep. George Miller of California, the senior Democratic member of the House Resources Committee. ``However, it is very ironic that this Congress is willing to spend its waning days fixing programs that are not broken. . . .'' Critics slap their heads, roll their eyes and wonder if a treaty really has ceded American sovereignty over the Statue of Liberty and Independence Hall. They note with suspicion the administration's loathing of the proposed Young bill, going so far as to promise a presidential veto had it passed. They ask why we have Clinton protecting a list that supposedly doesn't matter--from a bill that supposedly doesn't matter. Some who testified in favor of the bill argue strongly that congressional oversight is constitutional necessity. ``If these international programs are seen as harmless because they are merely symbolic, Congress is entitled to think competing concerns also deserve `symbolic' recognition,'' testified Jeremy A. Rabkin, an expert in constitutional law from Cornell University. ``[The bill] seems to me a modest but useful statement that global enthusiasms should not be allowed to run roughshod over our traditional constitutional principles.'' But if the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996 didn't stand a chance this time around, and the bill, while it received a majority of votes, did not receive the two- thirds vote necessary for it to pass under the rules of suspension, it still is not a fight that's finished. Young has vowed to keep the pressure on when the 105th Congress convenes. ``While I'm pleased that a strong majority of the House supported this legislation, I'm amazed that a single member of Congress would oppose having congressional oversight of international land designations within the borders of the United States,'' Young says. Clinton administration claims of U.N. authority over Yellowstone and the Statue of Liberty are meanwhile continuing to give conservatives a bad case of dyspepsia.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Congress has passed this important legislation. As a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I have been involved with efforts to amend and reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act since last year. This bill is also very important to my home State of Alaska. S. 1505 achieves significant pipeline safety regulatory reforms. It also recodifies many requirements contained in existing law. I want to emphasize that these recodifications are not intended to diminish or affect the Secretary of Transportation's ability to exercise regulatory discretion. One of the most important goals of this legislation is to allow the Department of Transportation to build effective partnerships with States, the public, and industry. For example, this bill authorizes the Secretary to conduct risk management demonstration projects. These projects will allow the Secretary and industry to continue to build upon the partnerships they have been developing. We recognize the benefits of allowing pipeline operators to implement individually tailored risk management plans in place of one-size-fits-all Federal requirements. In addition to the risk management demonstration projects, we expect that the Secretary will continue to exercise flexibility and discretion with respect to the standards and requirements of this bill and of existing law. We recognize that technological progress made by industry may result in alternative and more effective methods to achieve pipeline safety goals. It is not our intent to allow rigid requirements to prohibit the use of these innovations. For example, alternative external inspection devices using x-ray or magnetic flux technology may be more effective and cost-efficient than smart pigs when used on above-ground pipelines, such as those in pipeline facilities on Alaska's North Slope. In these situations, the Department should use the authority it possesses under existing law to exercise the flexibility necessary to achieve goals in an effective manner.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the updated United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 4281, which contains provisions regarding the role of language in Federal and local law as developed in consultation with the Republican Policy Committee during our deliberations on H.R. 3024 regarding English. I want to thank Members of the House Leadership, including key chairmen from various committees, for contributing their time and energy at this hectic point of the Congress in forging a consensus regarding the need for the Congress to consider this important measure affecting the people of Puerto Rico. I particularly want to commend Mr. Christopher Cox, Chairman of that Committee, for bringing to bear his considerable expertise and providing intellectual leadership in seeking the kind of compromise that could and should have been reached. It was just yesterday, on Friday, September 27, that I introduced H.R. 4228, a version of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act with proposed revisions we had hoped would provide a basis for final agreement on this legislation. It was expected that we then would take the revised bill to the floor of the House for a vote in the form of an amended H.R. 3024: the original bill providing for resolution of Puerto Rico's status through a Congressionally prescribed process of self-determination. Although overwhelming approval of H.R. 3024 by the House was at hand, key sponsors of H.R. 3024 were not willing to go to the floor and ask for its approval without making a one-word change that would have brought the proposed revisions within the boundaries of limited government, rule of law and constitutionality. I had agreed to include the amendments as proposed in H.R. 4228 in order to move the process forward and try to resolve differences about the bill, and I stood by that commitment. But it became clear that unless there was a correction of one word the bill would not meet the most minimal test of constitutionality, and many of the bill's strongest supporters felt that was an unacceptable way to proceed. To be specific, Section 4(b)(C)(7) of the amendments as proposed would impose a requirement that English be the exclusive language of instruction in public schools in Puerto Rico should it become a state. Although the Congressional Research Service had provided a written legal opinion to the author of this provision on July 31, 1996, concluding on the basis of Coyle v. Smith (221 U.S. 559) that this provision would not withstand even the lowest standard of constitutional scrutiny, its inclusion was insisted upon. The commitment of the 104th Congress to English as our national language could have been carried out in the context of self- determination for Puerto Rico by simply changing the word ``the'' in the last sentence of Section 4(a)(C)(7) to the word ``a,'' which would have been consistent with the use of the word ``an'' instead of ``the'' in the preceding sentence. This imprecision and inconsistency, coupled with the failure to address a valid constitutional question, led to inability of several Members to concur in the process that would have been required to bring the matter before the House. The sponsors of this bill had wanted to see it approved by the House prior to the adjournment of the 104th Congress because we felt that we had a commitment to do all within our means to implement the principles set forth in a February 29, 1996, response to Legislature of Puerto Rico Resolution 62 of November 14, 1994, asking the 104th Congress to establish constitutionally valid political status definitions for Puerto Rico. However, the desire to get our work done in a timely way, out of respect for the elected legislature in Puerto Rico and commitment to resolution of the status of 3.7 million U.S. citizens, was not seen by key Members as sufficient cause to ignore a constitutional flaw in the language, especially one that so easily and reasonably could have been corrected. I believe in limits on Federal power, and I believe in the 10th Amendment reservation of rights to the States and to the people. I took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution, to protect and defend it, and while I was willing to introduce H.R. 4228 as I agreed to do in order to move this bill forward through the process, it was not acceptable to the sponsors of the bill to knowingly ignore a constitutional infirmity. I am as ready as anyone to vote for a law that I believe to be constitutional even though I know it will be tested and may be struck down as a result of judicial review. That is how our constitutional system works. But that is not what this problem was all about. Here we were faced with a proposal to impose of the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico, should they choose and should Congress grant admission to the union, a requirement that Congress has never imposed on any other State. Making clear the determination and commitment of Congress regarding English as the official language of the Federal government in Puerto Rico should it become a State, and regarding continuation of the current law in Puerto Rico making English an official language, is something we could have worked out as the legislation moved forward. Those provisions were acceptable at this stage and could have been refined. But the imposition of a Federal requirement that violates the 10th Amendment and would discriminate against U.S. citizens in a future State of Puerto Rico has an almost coercive or even punitive dimension that should not be part of a democratic self-determination process. It is bad enough that U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico do not have equal rights under the current territorial clause status. To suggest that inequality would continue if Congress admits Puerto Rico as a State is something to which the sponsors of this legislation would not be a party. With statehood comes equal protection and due process rights which Congress cannot take away, and the proposal to deny a future State of those rights knowing that such denial is constitutionally impermissible can only have the effect of confusing rather than clarifying the choices before Congress and the voters in the territory. Ironically, the provision imposing English language as the exclusive language of public instruction would be constitutionally plausible if it were imposed on the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in an exercise of the territorial clause of Congress at the present time. Only as a State or a separate nation will Puerto Rico be constitutionally protected from the degree of Congressional discretion that exists under our Constitution with respect to unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico. A constitutionally guaranteed status subject to the same limitations on Federal powers as other States enjoy, or a status governed by the law of nations and treaties between sovereign countries, are the options that would enable the people of Puerto Rico to protect and preserve their language and their culture. Only the current status leaves the residents of Puerto Rico, with their current less than equal statutory citizenship rights and impermanent political status, vulnerable to the broad discretion of a future Congress, which will not be bound legally or politically by whatever status arrangement may exist today. These are the realities that need to be understood so that informed self-determination can take place. Misinforming the people in Puerto Rico that, in the event of statehood, Congress could do something that we know it cannot do in a State would impede rather than advance the goal of free and informed self-determination. That is why one word, not even a noun or verb, was too important for the sponsors of this bill to ignore. The bill I am introducing today, H.R. 4281, contains a new Section 3(b), a new Section (4)(a)(C)(7), and a new Section 4(b)(1)(C) that will be the referred to as we develop legislation to be introduced in the 105th Congress which will address the issue of English as an official language in a manner that supports rather than undermines the process for free and informed self-determination under the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act when it becomes law.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 4236.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4236.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and yeas.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and all those who have worked very hard on this legislation. It is not everything I wanted. As I stressed before, we will be back. MacArthur said that, and he came back, and I will come back with a bigger and better army, and we will achieve those goals. I think it is important to understand one thing. There is little in this bill for this chairman. Most of this is, very frankly, in areas that passed the House, and as the gentlewoman from San Francisco said, this is a strong train with the Presidio, but most all of this legislation already passed the House. It is the unworkable situation that occurs in the other body, where the holds can be put on and on and on, that really, I think, hurts the process. Somewhere and somehow we have to expedite that process so when the House speaks, at least there should be a time limit to return the bill to the floor. It is unfair to tie everything, very frankly, to one horse. It is not the correct way to legislate. We have done that. Hopefully the Senate will see the wisdom of adopting it, and we will go on next year and hope to do bigger and greater things.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker], one of the leaders in this effort.