Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. It is funny how these things happen, if the gentleman will just bear with me. It was never the intent, we never thought it was interpreted that way, that the guy who catches the fish cannot eat them. That would not affect me because I do not catch a whole lot, but I would suggest respectfully that is not the intention.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], is right. He has brought this to my attention. The definition in no way denies the recreational fishermen the pleasure of eating their catch, as long as the fish was caught during the appropriate season and met any State or Federal regulations, including size restriction, and other appropriate landing laws. My staff has contacted the National Marine Fisheries Service and their interpretation is the same as mine and the same as the gentleman's, that this definition does not preclude the recreational fisherman from consuming his or her catch if it meets the appropriate State and Federal rules.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House passage of S. 39, the Sustainable Fisheries Act. This legislation reauthorizes the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 through fiscal year 1999. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, the Magnuson Act was enacted in 1976 in direct response to the depletion of U.S. fishery resources by foreign vessels. The Magnuson Act expanded U.S. jurisdiction over fishery resources to 200 miles. The act also included provisions intended to encourage the development of a domestic fishing industry. The Magnuson Act created eight regional fishery management councils to manage the fishery resources within their geographic area. This means the councils were charged with determining the appropriate level of harvest to maximize the benefit to the Nation, while still protecting the long-term sustainability of the stocks. These councils are in the difficult position of balancing the often competing interests of commercial and recreational fishermen, and the often competing gear groups within the commercial industry. It is important to note that this legislation maintains and supports the current regional fishery management councils system. This legislation does include some reforms of the council process and requires new disclosure rules to deal with the perception of conflict of interest on the councils. Mr. Speaker, the House passed H.R. 39, the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, on October 18, 1995, by a vote of 388 to 37. I appreciate all of the hard work that members of the Resources Committee put into H.R. 39, and I especially appreciate the bipartisan nature of the entire process. I want to thank Mr. Miller, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Studds, the ranking subcommittee member, and Mr. Saxton, the subcommittee chairman for their dedication to creating a very good bill. Mr. Speaker, while S. 39 is similar to H.R. 39, in my opinion the House-passed bill is a much stronger bill. However, in the waning days of this Congress, we are in a position of accepting a weaker bill or accomplishing nothing for fisheries conservation and management. As Members are aware, the other body was negotiating the package until S. 39 was actually taken up on the Senate Floor. Because of the constant negotiations, the authors of the bill in the other body may have left a number of provisions unclear. I want to take this opportunity to clarify in legislative history the intent of several provisions in the bill. I have attached these clarifications to my statement. Mr. Speaker, while I would prefer having more time to conference with the Senate on a number of provisions in this legislation, this appears to be the best deal we can get under the circumstances. Having said that, I would like to highlight a number of the major themes of H.R. 39 also contained in S. 39, including: Provisions for the reduction of bycatch; for the identification and prevention of overfishing; for the protection of habitat necessary for the continued reproduction and long-term health of important commercial and recreational fisheries; and buyout provisions to reduce the harvesting capacity in overfished fisheries. Mr. Speaker, this legislation does a number of important things to better fisheries management in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ]. First, the bill recognizes that bycatch is one of the most pressing problems facing the continuation of sustainable fisheries, and one of the most crucial challenges facing fisheries managers today. In 1993, in the North Pacific alone, more than 740 million pounds of fish were discarded. This is clearly unacceptable. This legislation creates a new national standard that requires all fishery management plans and regulations to include conservation and management measures to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. In the event that bycatch cannot be avoided, plans and regulations should include efforts to minimize the mortality of bycatch to the extent practicable. While these provisions are not as strong as those in the House-passed bill, this is still a major step forward. The legislation also creates a new system for the identification and prevention of overfished fisheries. It is crucial that the management agencies within the Federal Government be pro-active in protecting fisheries rather than attempting to address overfished stocks after they are in a crisis situation. This legislation requires that the Secretary report annually on the status of fisheries and identify any fisheries which are over fished or approaching an overfished condition. The Regional Councils are then required to take steps to address any overfished fishery and include measures for rebuilding the overfished stocks. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the main provisions of S. 39 which will help to maintain a viable fishing industry through sustainable fishing measures. While not as strong as H.R. 39, this bill is a step in the right direction for sound fishery conservation and management. Mr. Speaker, I have been approached by a number of Members who support passage of this legislation, but share my concern about specific provisions which may need to be modified next year. Despite the number of misgivings I have about this bill, in my opinion, this bill is better than the alternative--no bill at all. A number of Members of the other body have threatened to kill this bill if the House makes any changes. I regret that they have taken that position and regret that the House is in a position of having to accept a bill which is not as good as the House-passed bill. Mr. Speaker, while I support passage of this legislation and urge all Members to do so, I also realize there may be some problems with the legislation which will need to be addressed in the next Congress. I am committed to working with Members next year to address outstanding concerns. If we had a few weeks or months left in this Congress, I would urge all Members to join me in sending the Senate a better bill than the one they have sent us. Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury. While most of the affected industry groups and the environmental community would like to see some minor modifications to this bill, a reluctant groundswell has urged the House to accept this legislation rather than lose all that we have worked so hard for. I urge all Members to support passage of S. 39 and send this important piece fishery management and conservation legislation to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, in their efforts to achieve consensus on S. 39, the authors of the bill in the other body accidentally left unclear some of the provisions in the bill. In order to avoid confusion on the part of those affected by these provisions--including the National Marine Fisheries Service, the regional councils, and the seafood industry--I will take this opportunity to clarify in legislative history the intent of these parts of the bill. Section 105(d) of S. 39 amends section 204 of the act in a manner similar to the House-passed bill by allowing permits to be issued for transshipment of fish. The Senate added a requirement that permit applications be forwarded to affected States and that the Secretary consult with the appropriate Marine Fisheries Commission. Since the Marine Fisheries Commissions are composed of individual States, it is obvious that the consultation requirement was meant to extend to any individual affected State that received a copy of the permit. Although this is inferred, rather than written directly, it is the intent of this provision that States, as well as commissions and councils, be consulted. Section 106 of S. 39 establishes a new national standard regarding bycatch which is similar to the new national standard established in the House-passed bill. The application of this new standard is expanded in section 108(a)(7) of S. 39, which describes new required provisions for fishery management plans. Both the standard and the required provision make clear that bycatch be avoided where practicable, and the mortality of unavoidable bycatch be minimized where practicable. The use of the term ``to the extent practicable'' was chosen deliberately by both the Senate and the House. Both bodies recognize that bycatch can occur in any fishery, and that complete avoidance of mortality is impossible. Councils should make reasonable efforts in their management plans to prevent bycatch and minimize its mortality. However, it is not the intent of the Congress that the councils ban a type of fishing gear or a type of fishing in order to comply with this standard. ``Practicable'' requires an analysis of the cost of imposing a management action; the Congress does not intend that this provision will be used to allocate among fishing gear groups, nor to impose costs on fishermen and processors that cannot be reasonably met. Section 107 of S. 39 adds an additional seat on the Pacific Fishery Management Council that is to be filled by a member of an Indian tribe with Federally recognized fishing rights. The Senate neglected to define this term, believing that its meaning is obvious. Unfortunately, a recent court ruling in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington regarding a subproceeding of United States versus Washington, which is under appeal, has clouded the previously clear meaning of this term as upheld by the Supreme Court. In order to avoid confusion in the definition of a term that has been clear for nearly 20 years, I want to make clear that is the intent of the Congress that the term ``Federally recognized fishing rights'' as used in regard to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, means a treaty fishing right that has been finally approved by the courts under the process defined in section 19(g) of the final court order under United States versus Washington, and the approval is not subject to further appeal. Section 107(h) of S. 39 amends section 302(I) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act by providing additional procedures for the operation of Regional Fishery Management Councils. Specifically, it requires individuals testifying before, or providing information to, a Council to disclose their background and interest in the matter at hand. This provision was included in the House passed bill. The Senate added an additional sentence to make sure that valid data is provided to the councils. Unfortunately, this sentence could be interpreted as precluding a fisherman, processor, or member of the public from providing information based on their own experiences. Clearly, this was not the intent of the authors of the bill. The council system was established specifically to allow public input into the fisheries management process. It is clearly the intent of the Congress that this provision is not meant to require a fisherman, processor, or member of the public to fully document every statement made in a letter to a council by providing fish tickets, landing receipts, processing records, or similar information. Section 109(3)(6) of S. 39 amends section 304(c)(3) of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act regarding the authority of the Secretary to propose a limited entry system under a fishery management plan or amendment prepared by the Secretary. The amendment is purely technical in nature and is not intended to modify the requirement that the Secretary obtain approval of a council before a limited entry system is put in place. In other words, the Secretary has no authority to prepare a plan for a fishery managed by a State or a Marine Fishery Commission and include a limited entry system in the plan without obtaining approval of the council within whose area of jurisdiction that fishery exists. Section 109(e) of S. 39 includes new provisions regarding overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks that are essentially the same as those included in the House passed bill. Both the House and the Senate noted that exceptions could be made to the time required for rebuilding. While the House was more specific in its list of exceptions, the Senate incorporated all of the House exceptions under the phrase ``other environmental conditions.'' It is the intent of this section that the phrase ``other environmental conditions'' includes factors beyond the control of the rebuilding program. The rebuilding provisions of section 109(e) also require the Secretary to prepare a plan or plan amendment if the council takes no action within 1 year. The Senate language as drafted is unclear on the time frame for Secretarial action. The intent of the Senate provision is that the Secretary take action within 9 months of the end of the period provided for council action. Section 110(d) of S. 39 amends section 305 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act by adding a new subsection (h) providing for a limited entry permit lien registry system. While establishment of the lien registry system by the Secretary is mandatory, participation in the system by limited access permit holders is not. It is the intent of the Congress that any permit holder registering a permit with the system comply with the requirements of this section, including paying any applicable fees. However, it is not the intent of the Congress that all permit holders register with the system; this is a discretionary action that each permit holder must decide to take after weighing the costs and benefits of participating in the system. Section 111(a) of S. 39 amends section 305 of the Magnuson Act by adding a new subsection to require the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Secretary of Commerce to consolidate the western Alaska community development quota programs that the council and the Secretary presently are implementing. Of co-equal importance, subsection (i)(1)(A) also requires the council and the Secretary to allocate to the single program a percentage of the total allowable catch--and with respect to crab fisheries a percentage of the guideline harvest level-- of each Bering Sea fishery. I am pleased that in drafting subsection 305(i)(1)(A) and (B) the Senate incorporated the text of paragraphs (1) and (2) of the amendment to section 313 of the Magnuson Act that is contained in section 14 of H.R. 39. In that regard, when the western Alaska community development quota program was considered by the Resources Committee, I and other members of the committee gave serious consideration to including a provision which would have mandated the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Secretary to annually allocate specific percentages of the total allowable catches and guideline harvest levels of each Bering Sea fishery to the western Alaska community development quota program, so that the percentages allocated are large enough to enable participating communities and organizations to accomplish the economic, social, developmental, and other objectives that implementation of the program is intended to achieve. However, we did not do so. Instead, H.R. 39 assigned the council and the Secretary the important task of deciding the percentage of the total allowable catch and guideline harvest level of each Bering Sea fishery that should be allocated to the western Alaska community development quota program. However, in recommending section 14 of H.R. 39 to the House, it was the intent of the Resources Committee--and by accepting the text of that portion of H.R. 39 it is the intent of the Senate--that, with respect to each Bering Sea fishery, the percentage allocated by the council and the Secretary shall be large enough to enable communities participating in the program to accomplish the program's objectives, and particularly the objective of establishing a sustainable local economy in each participating community. It is of particular importance to note that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council previously has allocated a least 7.5 percent of the total allowable catches and guideline harvest levels of Bering Sea pollock, sablefish, other groundfish species, halibut, and all crab species to the three community development quota programs. It is important to note the reason the House and Senate versions of the Sustainable Fisheries Act both mandate the establishment and implementation of the western Alaska community development quota program. In 1976 Congress, speaking through section 301(a)(4)(A) of the Magnuson Act, established as the policy of the Nation the regulatory principle that fishery management councils and the Secretary shall allocate commercial fishing privileges in the exclusive economic zone among U.S. fishermen in a manner that is fair and equitable to all such fishermen. Unfortunately, throughout the 1980's the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Secretary's regulation of commercial fishing in the Alaska portion of the EEZ did not allocate fishing privileges in a manner that was fair and equitable to the Eskimo and Aleut fishermen who live in 55 Native villages located from the northern coast of the Aleutian Islands north along the coast of western Alaska to the Seward Peninsula, as well as on the Pribilof Islands. To alleviate that regulatory omission, in 1991 the North Pacific Fishery Management Council established a western Alaska community development quota program for pullock, after which it established a second program for halibut and sablefish, and in June 1995 recommended to the Secretary the establishment of a third program for all other Bering Sea groundfish species, as well as all Bering Sea crab species. When S. 39 was debated on the Senate floor Senator Inouye, the former chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs and one of the Nation's steadfast champions of Alaska Native and other Native American rights, explained to the Senate the history of the western Alaska community development quota program and the important objectives the Senate intends implementation of the program to achieve. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Inouye. I also would like to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Ted Stevens, Alaska's senior Senator and the sponsor both of S. 39 and of the amendment in the nature of a substitute that the Senate adopted. As Senator Stevens rightly reminded the Senate, the intended beneficiaries of the western Alaska community development quota program are Native Americans for whose economic and social well-being Congress, the Secretary of Commerce has a well-recognized fiduciary responsibility. As Senator Stevens explained: The community development quotas are based in part on the authority of Congress to regulate the commerce of the Indian tribes. The communities of the west coast of Alaska are predominately Alaska Native people. They were there and fishing a long time before anyone else came on the fishing scene. As a matter of fact, there were no factory trawlers off Alaska from the State of Washington until about 9 years ago. . . . We are allocating a portion of the fisheries to the communities involved that are historic Native communities along our coast. In addition to directing the House's attention to the history and policy objectives of the western Alaska community development quota programs that the enactment of S. 39 will consolidate, I also would like to explain the manner in which the new subsection 305(i)(1) is intended to affect the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Secretary of Commerce's implementation of the program. Subsection (i)(1)(C) prohibits the North Pacific Fishery Management Council between the date of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and October 1, 2001, submitting to the Secretary a fishery management plan for a Bering Sea fishery, or an amendment to a fishery management plan for a Bering Sea fishery, or a regulation whose promulgation will implement a plan or an amendment if the Secretary's approval of the plan or plan amendment or promulgation of the regulation will allocate a percentage of the total allowable catch or guideline harvest level of a Bering Sea fishery to the western Alaska community development quota program. However, the aforementioned prohibition does not apply to the submission of a plan or plan amendment or regulation whose approval or promulgation will allocate a percentage of the total allowable catch or guideline harvest level of a Bering Sea fishery for which prior to October 1, 1995 the Council approved the allocation of a percentage of the catch or guideline harvest level to a western Alaska community development quota program. Bering Sea fisheries not subject to the aforementioned prohibition include the pollock, halibut, sablefish, crab, and other groundfish fisheries. It also is the intent of subsection (i)(1)(C) that the expiration in 1998 of the amendment to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area groundfish fishery management plan that made the initial allocation of pollock to a western Alaska community development quota program not subject pollock to the prohibition on Council authority that subparagraph (C) imposes. Subparagraph (C) also prohibits the Council from submitting and prohibits the Secretary from approving and implementing between the date of enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and October 1, 2001, a fishery management plan or an amendment to a fishery management plan that allocates a percentage of the total allowable catch or guideline harvest level of a Bering Sea fishery to the western Alaska community development quota program that is greater than the percentage of the catch or guideline harvest level that the Council approved for allocation to a western Alaska community development quota program prior to October 1, 1995. For example, prior to October 1, 2001, no more than 7.5 percent of the total allowable catches and guideline harvest levels of Bering Sea pollock and of each Bering Sea crab species may be allocated to the program. In June 1995 the North Pacific Management Council recommended to the Secretary that he approve and implement the allocation of 7.5 percent of the guideline harvest levels of each Bering Sea crab species and 7.5 percent of the total allowable catch of each Bering Sea groundfish species--other than pollock and sablefish--to a western Alaska community development quota program for those species. Rather than approving and implementing the immediate allocation of 7.5 percent for Bering Sea crab species, subsection (i)(1)(C)(iii) requires the Secretary to phase in his implementation of the Council's recommendation for crab species by in 1998 allocating to the western Alaska community development quota program 3.5 percent of the guideline harvest level of each crab species, by in 1999 allocating 5 percent of the guideline harvest level of each crab species to the program, and by in 2000 allocating 7.5 percent of the guideline harvest level of each crab species to the program, after which without further action by either the Council or the Secretary 7.5 percent of the guideline harvest level of each crab species will each year be allocated to the program unless in 2001, the Council submits and the Secretary approves and implements a percentage for a particular crab species that is less than 7.5 percent, or unless during a year subsequent to October 1, 2001, the Council submits and the Secretary approves and implements a percentage for a particular crab species that is a percentage that is either less than or more than 7.5 percent. Finally, subsection (i)(1)(D) eliminates the necessity for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Secretary to implement subsection (i)(1)(A) by the Council resubmitting or the Secretary reapproving a fishery management plan or an amendment to a plan that contains an allocation of the total allowable catch or guideline harvest level of a Bering Sea fishery to the western Alaska community development quota program, if the plan or amendment in which the allocation is contained was approved by the Council prior to October 1, 1995. For example, as a consequence of subparagraph (D), the Council is not required to resubmit to the Secretary the plan amendment it approved in June 1995 in order for the Secretary to implement the phase in of the percentage allocation of the guideline harvest level for Bering Sea crab species established by subparagraph (C)(iii). Similarly, in 1998 and during each year thereafter the Secretary shall continue to allocate 7.5 percent of the total allowable catch of Bering Sea pollock to the western Alaska community development quota program notwithstanding the expiration of the plan amendment in which the allocation initially was made, unless prior to October 1, 2001, the council submits and the Secretary approves and implements an amendment to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands area groundfish fishery management plan that allocates a percentage that is less than 7.5 percent, or unless subsequent to October 1, 2001, the council submits and the Secretary approves and implements an amendment to such plan that allocates a percentage that is either less than or more than 7.5 percent. The enactment of section 111(a) of S. 39 will provide the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Secretary of Commerce the statutory tools required to improve the efficiency of their implementation of the western Alaska community development quota program. And the enactment of section 111(a) will codify Congress strong support for the council and the Secretary's innovative effort to provide fishermen and other residents of Native villages on the coast of the Bering Sea a fair and equitable opportunity to participate in Bering Sea fisheries that prior to the creation of the western Alaska community development quota program was long overdue. Section 112(d) of S. 39 provides interim authority for limited State management of the Dungeness crab fishery in the exclusive economic zone adjacent to the States of Washington, Oregon, and California. This authority is provided only to ensure conservation of the crab resource outside of State waters; it is not intended to provide allocation authority to the States, nor to have an allocative effect on vessels based on size or State of registry. This is underscored by the provisions of section 112(d)(3), that make clear that State limited entry programs cannot be enforced against vessels of another State when those vessels are operating in the exclusive economic zone. Section 112(d)(2) also specifically limits the type of State authority allowed, providing the States only with authority that is generally agreed to now on a voluntary basis. This includes conservation-based rules on season opening and closing dates, minimum crab sizes, and requirements to release female crabs. This section also allows the State of Washington to impose area closures and limits on the number of pots that can be fished, but only if these are necessary to meet the requirements of a court-imposed mandate. It is not the intent that this gives the State of Washington authority to impose allocative regulations such as a ban on the practice of ``longlining'' pots--that is, fishing with pots that are connected to each other by a line. A ban on longlining would constitute an impermissible allocation regulation not required by the courts and is not allowed under the provisions of this section. Finally, the Congress strongly encourages the Pacific Fishery Management Council to develop a fishery management plan for the Dungeness crab fishery, in order to avoid future allocation fights of this nature. Section 113(c) establishes a new prohibited action that is punishable as a criminal offense. Again, the Senate language is vague on its face and requires clarification. The use of the adverb ``forcibly'' in the beginning of the new subparagraph added by this amendment should be construed to apply to all physical actions listed in the subparagraph, including assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, sexually harassing, and interfering. Since forcible bribery cannot occur, the adverb is to be read as modifying only the other verbs in this subparagraph. Section 116(a) of S. 39 establishes a mechanism for an industry- funded buyback program. Among other provisions, this section requires industry contributions--if required--to be deducted by the first ex- vessel fish purchaser. This requirement could impose an unwarranted burden on a seafood processor who stands to receive no benefit from a buyback program. The intent of the Congress is that a deduction system be designed that imposes no unnecessary paperwork or financial burden on the fish purchaser collecting the deductions. Section 203 of S. 39 modifies existing data collection requirements and establishes a new data collection program. It should be noted that--as a new provision of law--this section takes precedence over prior enacted law. The Office of Management and Budget has from time to time imposed rules interpreting the Paperwork Reduction Act to apply to collection of social, economic, and scientific data under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Notwithstanding the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act, these interpretations have resulted in an increased burden for data collectors and data providers alike. It is clearly the intent of Congress that the data collection provisions enacted in this bill are not to be interpreted as requiring Paperwork Reduction Act review or agency approval under that Act.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 39) to amend the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to authorize appropriations, to provide for sustainable fisheries, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will compliment the gentleman on the statement. He and I worked very closely on these issues in committee, and he is a great friend of Alaska natives and most people involved in American native group. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3378 was passed by the House earlier this year, sent to the other body, amended by the other body and sent back to us for further action. The other body amended the bill to make technical amendments to certain provisions in the Health Care Improvement Act and authorized several Indian Health care demonstration programs, the year 2000. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated September 25 from Chairman Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. This letter explains the support of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for 3378, as amended. The letter referred to follows: House of Representatives, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC, September 25, 1996. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Senate recently passed an amended version of H.R. 3378, a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to extend the demonstration program for direct billing of Medicare, Medicaid, and other third party payors. I remain concerned about the implications of passing this measure, but appreciate your interest in having it move forward, since the projects would otherwise expire September 30, 1996. It is my understanding that the Committee on Resources would like to bring the measure up for Floor consideration, with an amendment negotiated among the House Committee on Commerce, the House Committee on Resources, and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Based on our agreement to drop section 2(b)(1)(A)(iv), and to include in the record of the debate the statement regarding scholarship paybacks, the Committee on Commerce will not object to Floor consideration of H.R. 3378. By participating in this process of expending consideration of H.R. 3378, this Committee does not waive its jurisdictional interest in the matter. Although I understand a conference of this measure is unlikely, I reserve the right to seek conferees on issues within the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee during any House-Senate conference that may be convened. I want to thank you and your staff for your cooperation in this process. I would appreciate your including this letter as part of the record during consideration of this bill by the House. Sincerely, Thomas J. Bliley, Jr., Chairman. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I note that the managers have amended the other body's amendment to delete certain language which we feel is unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3378 is an important piece of legislation which has been admitted and then readmitted. It is a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to give it full support. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3378 was passed by this House earlier this year, sent to the other body, amended by the other body, and sent back to us for further action. The other body amended the bill to make technical amendments to certain provisions of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and to reauthorize several Indian health care demonstration programs through the year 2000. Among the technical amendments to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act made by the other body was legislation which clarifies that the Secretary may waive or modify the service obligation requirements, under the Indian health scholarship program, in a case of extreme hardship or for other good cause. In the past, the Secretary has granted a small number of such waivers, in accord with National Health Service Corps regulations. This change clarifies that this authority may be exercised specifically for the Indian health service scholarship program. Other than for severe hardship circumstances, such waivers have been considered in particular in cases where service has been performed by Indian health scholarship awardees in certain recruitment and training programs in academic institutions. In these cases, an individual scholarship awardee has served in a significant capacity in a program, funded by the Indian Health Service, designed to attract and retain American Indian and Alaska Native students in health professions training. In recognition of the enormous need for such recruitment and retention activities, it has been decided in a small number of cases that such service can be substituted, in whole or in part, for direct provision of health care. The managers emphasize that the primary purpose for the Indian health scholarship program is to increase the number of individuals providing direct health care to American Indian and Alaska Native people in areas and at facilities where access to health care is difficult or limited. Thus, service in such a capacity should remain the principal way that scholarship payback obligations are fulfilled. However, the managers recognize the importance of stronger, more targeted, and more aggressive recruitment and retention of American Indian and Alaska Native students into health care training, and that such efforts may be enhanced by having an Indian health scholarship recipient serve in such a program. When the major duties and responsibilities of an individual, who already has received training through an Indian health scholarship, are the recruitment and training of Indian health professionals, that individual may be contributing to the purpose of the scholarship program through increasing the number of available health care providers, even though that individual is not providing health care personally. Thus, there may be a small number of cases where such service is a good cause to waive or offset the scholarship service obligation. It has come to the attention of the managers that both the Indian Health Service and a number of tribal organizations have identified the need for greater flexibility in assessing payback obligations to best serve the health care needs of Indian people. The managers emphasize, in granting this additional flexibility to the Secretary, that they expect this avenue of fulfilling scholarship obligations to be limited. Most Indian health scholarship recipients will fulfill their service obligations by providing direct health care, and the Secretary is expected to exercise significant caution and considerable judgment is using this new authority. It must not be forgotten that direct health care service to Indian people, in addition to successfully having completed a health professions program, is a key component contributing to any individual's ability to recruit students. In conclusion, I note that the managers have amended the other body's amendment to delete certain language which we feel is unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3378 is an important piece of legislation which has been amended and then reamended. It is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to give it their full support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 544) providing for the concurrence by the House with an amendment in the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 3378.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I listen to the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from California, and it amazes me how anyone on that side can oppose this great project the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] has brought to the floor, the underground railroad, part of our history. How can they protest against this? I cannot believe it when this is totally discretionary, totally discretionary. It is one of the few bills I have ever seen that really is so totally discretionary. It is up to the Secretary absolutely and not even the Congress. We just give him the authority to really do this job if he wishes to do so. Now I am a little bit concerned because as my colleagues know, I heard some comments on this floor as if this is the first time this has ever happened? Please. The gentleman from Minnesota, when he was a chairman of the subcommittee, I saw this happen time after time, and all the great merits, open ended. I see bills open ended. I do not know how many hundreds of bills, under his leadership, passed were open ended. One of the reasons, I would suggest respectfully, a lot of the areas were made into parks were open ended, and the cost to the taxpayer was tremendous. But this bill, and very frankly the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman] has done a tremendous job, actually gives so much discretion to the Secretary whether it should be or should not be done, whether the study should go forth. And please do not insult the underground railroad and the activity in the Congress by opposing, for whatever reason I do not know. This is a good bill. I want to compliment the gentleman. He has done an excellent job. Let us just go ahead and move it. We have spent 20 minutes on this. I came here a little late because of the great traffic around Washington, DC, and I began to listen to this, and what a charade and waste of time when this bill should have been up and passed out of this House. Recognize the importance of this great historical moment; that is all I am asking. And if it was the first time, I might be a little more concerned. I see the staff talking to them now, whispering in their ear as they usually do. I love these staff whispering in their ear. They really made great strides. This issue should be passed on. Let us go on to something more important.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I rise in strong support of this legislation. My special interest in it is the Older Americans Indian technical fix. The bill clarifies certain provisions of the Older Americans Act to provide more flexibility to Indian tribal applicants in meeting application reporting requirements. It allows the Assistant Secretary for Aging to take into consideration the unique cultural and geographical circumstances facing the American Indians and the Alaskan Native populations, thus allowing the tribes to tailor supportive and nutrition services to better meet the diverse needs of the American Indian and Alaskan Native communities. Strict accountability, though, will still be retained, and standards will be retained. I think it is a great provision for this legislation, and I want to compliment the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I ask only, I would suggest to our friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, all I am asking in this legislation is, let the Congress, the House of the people, have some say. I cannot, for the life of me, see why anyone would object. Members have not heard me attack the U.N. I am very reasonably attacking those agencies that actually implement and instigate the heritage areas. All I am asking for is for us to play a role. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Cooley].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3752, the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996, asserts the power of Congress under article IV, section 3 of the United States Constitution over management and use of lands belonging to the United States. So that everyone understands, the concern here is the U.S. Congress--and therefore, the people of the United States--are left out of the domestic process to designate ``World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves.'' This will require the participation of the U.S. Congress and the citizens of this Nation in the process. Within the last 25 years, more and more of our Nation's land has become subject to international land-use restrictions. A total of 67 sites in the United States have been designated as ``UN Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites.'' These land designations under the World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve programs have been created with virtually no congressional oversight and no congressional hearings. The public and local governments are rarely consulted. The World Heritage Site program is based on a treaty. This bill does not suggest that the United States shrug off the World Heritage Site program. We have a domestic law implementing the program and H.R. 3752 proposes to change that domestic law so that Congress must approve the sites. In the case of Biosphere Reserves, the program is not even authorized by a single U.S. law or even an international treaty. That is wrong. Executive branch appointees--whatever their political party--cannot and should not do things that the law does not authorize. What is unreasonable about Congress insisting that no land be designated for inclusion in these international land use programs without clear and direct approval of Congress? We need to reemphasize the congressional duty to keep international commitments from floating free of traditional Constitutional constraints. Otherwise, the boundaries between one owner's land and another or even between the government's land and private property are too easily ignored. H.R. 3752 provides a process under which the United States may when desirable designate lands for inclusion under certain international agreements. This process will protect: State sovereignty, individual rights of United States citizens, and private interests in real property. This bill will also prevent attempts by the Executive branch to use international land designations to bypass the Congress in making land use decisions. H.R. 3752 is a good bill which will protect our domestic land use decision-making process from unnecessary international interference. I look forward to reporting this bill to the House for consideration. Mr. Speaker, if World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves have strong grassroots support, then why haven't we seen any evidence of this? I have here a letter from the chairman of the Minnesota Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, the Honorable Bob Lessard, which supports H.R. 3752 lamenting the lack of public input in these designations. I request that this letter along with the attached letters be entered in the Record. At our committee hearing, local elected officials from Eddy County, NM; Ulster County, NY; and Lake George, NY testified in support of H.R. 3752 and also criticized the lack of public process in making these international designations. Moreover, we also have received letters of support from the coalition of Arizona/New Mexico coalition and northern counties land use coordinating council in Minnesota. Senate, State of Minnesota, September 25, 1996. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, House Resources Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: I am writing to express my strong support for your bill the American Land Sovereignty Act (H.R. 3752) which would provide badly needed congressional oversight for areas designated as World Heritage Sites or International Biosphere Reserves in accordance with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Northwoods International Biosphere Reserve was proposed for much of northern Minnesota in the mid-1980's. This proposal included Voyagers National Park and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Thankfully, the area was withdrawn from consideration because of massive local oppositions. A bipartisan commission created by the Minnesota Legislature concluded, among other things, that the designation would be contrary to the purpose for which Voyageurs National Park was established. It was also found that this designation included provisions for creating buffer zones around federal areas. I understand that former Wilderness Society President George Frampton, who is currently Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, proposed creating biosphere reserves around all national parks and wilderness areas where roads would be closed and economic development would be eliminated. I also understand that dozens of these areas have been created throughout the United States with virtually no legislative oversight or public input. I consider this an appalling situation that needs to be remedied. As Chairman of the Senate Environmental and Natural Resources Committee, I am concerned about the motives and intentions of those who propose increased federal and state land use control under the guise of program administered by the United Nations. In that day and age of open government. I cannot understand how programs like these can continue without congressional oversight and local public input. As a result, I enthusiastically support the American Land Sovereignty Act. Senator Bob Lessard, Chairman, Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3752) to preserve the sovereignty of the United States over public lands and acquired lands owned by the United States, and to preserve State sovereignty and private property rights in non- Federal lands surrounding those public lands and acquired lands, as amended.

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 and to include extraneous materials on the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4168. This bill is similar to previous passed legislation, H.R. 3008, which sailed through this body earlier this year with bipartisan support by a vote of 411 to 10. This legislation includes language negotiated in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to provide a National Academy of Sciences study on how to dispose of the helium reserve. We bring this measure before the House again today because of the limited amount of time remaining in the 104th Congress. By passing this version of the bill, the Senate can act on the same measure and the bill can go directly to the President for signature. This bill demonstrates our commitment to put an end to bloated Government programs by shutting down an inefficient facility which has outlived its need and can't compete with the private sector. I thank my colleague, Mr. Cox, for his tireless efforts to bring this important bill to the floor. I also want to thank my colleague on the Committee on Resources, Mac Thornberry, in whose district the helium reserve is located and whose constituents are affected by the loss of jobs at the facility. Mr. Thornberry worked diligently through the committee process to find the best solution for his constituents, offered privatization alternatives to the plan closure, and pushed for reconsideration of how to conduct the sale of the helium reserve. Specifically this bill will: Get the Federal Government out of the helium business, including sale of the stockpile, and shut down an inefficient helium refinery. Ensure repayment of the helium debt. And, protect our domestic helium industry from undue disruption by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4168) to amend the Helium Act to authorize the Secretary to enter into agreements with private parties for the recovery and disposal of helium on Federal lands, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3973 is legislation which I introduced in consultation with the Alaska Federation of Natives. This legislation will authorize a study to assist in the implementation of the recommendations of the Joint Federal/State Commission on Policies and Programs affecting Alaska Natives and is needed to begin to address the social and economic crisis of Alaska Natives. The primary focus of the 1992 Commission study was to provide an in- depth analysis, with specific recommendations to Congress, the President of the United States, the Alaska Legislature, the Governor of the State of Alaska and the Native community on the social and economic conditions of Alaska Natives. The Commission completed 2 years of research, public hearings and task force discussion and submitted its report in May of 1994. The Committee on Resources held a joint oversight hearing in November of 1995 with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to hear testimony on the Alaska Native Commission report dated May 1994 from the Alaska Native Community, the Governor of the State of Alaska and from the administration. Their testimony focused on recommendations provided by the Commission report on how to address the extremely volatile social and economic conditions of Alaska Natives. This legislation is the outcome of the testimony accepted by all entities in the first step of addressing the crisis status of Alaska Natives. The Administration has verbally stated no opposition to this legislation and has a letter forthcoming. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 3973. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3973) to provide for a study of the recommendations of the Joint Federal-State Commission on Policies and Programs Affecting Alaska Natives, as amended.