Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the so-called Tongass amendment. It disturbs me when I hear my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], speak about the Tongass because you have to understand what the Tongass amendment does. First, you have to also understand what the Tongass is. The Tongass Forest is a forest of 17 million acres of land, 17 million acres of land, I hope all of my colleagues listen to this, 7 million acres of wilderness already set aside by this Congress; 8.3 million acres in fact is not suitable for timber harvest. We have now 1.7 million acres of land that could be available for harvesting. And because of the action of the Forest Service under this administration, it has taken 585,000 acres out of the remaining 1.7 million acres and made it not available, contrary to the action of this Congress. I am going to suggest that the Tongass amendment does nothing to change the present law. This is in fact what was recommended by the Forest Service. What was previously said about exempting the Endangered Species Act is not true. What was said about cutting the rain forest is not true. We have, as I said, over 7 million acres already set aside by this Congress of old growth preservation and wildlife habitat. Now we have the administration coming down and saying by the Undersecretary that we must set this aside for old growth preservation and wildlife habitat. If that is the case, then what are we doing with the 7-odd-million acres; did we make a mistake there? If so, then let us reopen that. What we have done under this amendment that has been proposed by the Senator from my State is in fact set forth the original concept of the Forest Service itself. This is the Forest Service plan that was signed off by the Forest Service prior to this administration. I can tell Members this. We have closed over 300 mills in the northern part of this great Nation of ours in California, Washington, and Oregon. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] will recognize that, because of the Pacific pact. It is time to understand that this amendment offered by the other body is an amendment that creates jobs, still maintains the rain forest, the 7-odd-million acres. And those that suggest recommittal are in fact falling prey to those environmental groups that do not want Americans working, that would rather have Americans sitting idle and not harvesting those trees. The recommittal act itself is wrong. This is a bill that has been thought out, fought out and worked on. It should be accepted. We should vote ``yes'' on it. I ask our Members to consider the history of the Tongass. If they have a question, come ask me. Let me answer it. Do not read what is being said by certain groups who are not telling the truth. This is nothing new in this body. We have different groups telling flatout, dishonest, supposedly facts. Let us, in fact, have the truth. Vote for this bill, and vote against the motion to recommit.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are short of time. We have many speakers who would like to speak. I will not read the statement I had made, but I am happy to bring the conference report on S. 395 to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, it contains four provisions: Title I sells the Alaska Power Administration. Title II lifts the ban on the export of crude oil produced on Alaska's North Slope. Title III provides incentives to producers operating in the deep waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico. Title IV contains the provision dealing with emergency tug services in the mouth of Puget Sound, an authorization for a grant program for the Port of Seattle. Mr. Speaker, the controversial part about this conference report is, in fact, the deep water drilling holiday. I will not address that issue to the extent I would like to at this time because there are many other speakers. I believe very frankly that this provision does and will create new jobs for America. It will produce oil for America and it is not corporate welfare. I listened to the debate on the rule, and I heard many comments made on both sides about the CBO scoring. I am not going to question either one of these statements about what scores what. What I am going to ask the Members of this House to consider, those that are going to make the motion to recommit this conference report and why they are doing so and what it will possibly do to the industry that we are talking about today, we no longer have a domestic oil industry in the United States today. We are importing today over $1 billion a week into the United States of foreign-produced fossil fuels. We have heard many statements about this is not necessary. I can understand that statement but I cannot understand the rationale. I am going to suggest if we want to try to reestablish some form of domestic production off our shores, an area that has been supported by the Clinton administration and many other departments within this administration, then we ought to take and vote against the motion to recommit. On the part about exporting oil, we all know the jobs it will create, many jobs for America. It will create possibly 25,000 new jobs. I would like at this time to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for his efforts in leading this bill over the years. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House the conference report on S. 395. The Conference Committee worked very hard to ensure that all provisions were retained. What we have before us is a well- reasoned conference report which I hope will pass with broad bipartisan support. I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for his hard work and dedication on this issue. He has been the prime sponsor in the House of legislation to lift the ban on the export of Alaska crude for many years. I know he is just as happy as I am to see a final product come to the floor today. The conference report contains four titles: Title 1 sells the Alaska Power Administration; title 2 lifts the ban on the export of crude oil produced on Alaska's North Slope; title 3 provides incentives to producers operating in the deep waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico; title 4 contains a provision dealing with emergency tug services in the mouth of Puget Sound and an authorization for a grant program for the Port of Portland. Title 1 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration to entities within the State of Alaska, according to purchase agreements with the Department of Energy. The sale has strong bipartisan support, including the administration. I am not aware of any opposition. The Alaska Power Administration consists of two hydroelectric projects which were built to encourage economic development in Alaska. To date, these projects have served their intended purpose well. The State of Alaska and local electric utilities are set to manage the projects in a manner consistent with Alaska's future energy and development needs. The sale will relieve the Federal Government of the responsibility of owning and operating the projects. Taxpayers' interests will be served by recovering nearly all of the original investment in the projects. The sale also addresses consumers' concerns that hydropower will continue to be provided without a significant increase in rates. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the sale of this power marketing administration is in no way intended to set a precedent for the sale of any others. This provision has been considered by the House before and passed with broad bipartisan support. Title 2 of the conference report lifts the ban on exports of Alaska North Slope crude and requires the use of U.S.-flag, U.S.-manned vessels to carry those exports. Alaska is the only State presently subject to such a ban on the export of its resources. Present law requires that all oil transported through the Trans- Alaska pipeline be consumed in the lower 48 States. Alaska crude is forced into the west coast market, creating a glut and artificially low prices. This glut has allowed the west coast refiners to enjoy huge profits and purchase crude at a discount which they historically have not passed on to consumers. Mr. Speaker, this ban no longer makes sense. Rather than decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, it has discouraged domestic production and made us more reliant on imported oil. In June 1994, the Department of Energy issued a study which stated that lifting the ban would: create 25,000 jobs; preserve 3,300 maritime jobs; and increase U.S. oil production by as much as 110,000 barrels a day; all by the year 2000. With the support of the administration, this provision passed the House with strong bipartisan support on July 24 by a vote of 324 to 77. It is high time we lift the ban. Lifting the ban will create jobs, increase domestic production and investment. Title 3 contains the deep-water provision. The conferees adopted an amended offered [[Page H 11868]] by Representative Fowler to clarify that this inventive would in no way impact the Florida coast. This too is good policy that will create jobs, encourage domestic investment, and increase domestic production. I urge support for this conference report which is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall]. (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], the sponsor of the bill, who has been a leader on this issue for many, many years. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, apparently the gentleman from Connecticut believes his President is a rip-off artist because his President supports this very strongly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], a member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I suggest voting ``no'' on recommittal. We talk about a level playing field. There is no level playing field as long as the Federal Government is involved in leasing those lands. This is an attempt by this administration, this Congressman and the rest of this Congress to give us the opportunity to take and further develop those areas that cannot be developed under the present system. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, on this historic day for which the citizens of our great State have for so long waited, I am proud to bring before the House the conference report on S. 395. With adoption of this vital legislation, my State at long last will be authorized to export its most important resource, and thereby promote our national security, spur energy production, and create jobs. Because of the gracious offer of the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who along with our State's senior Senator has done so much to make this dream come true, I bring this bill before you as chairman of the conference committee. In that capacity, I rise to put title II in historical context and to describe in greater detail the substantive provisions of the bill, a discussion circumscribed by the more limited space available in the joint explanatory statement of the managers. The ANS export restrictions were first enacted shortly after commencement of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and the first Arab oil boycott. Many believed enactment of these restrictions would enhance our energy security. Following the second major oil shock in 1979, Congress went further and effectively banned exports. Much has changed since then. In part due to significant conservation efforts and shifts to other fuel sources, total U.S. petroleum demand in 1993 actually was lower than in 1978. Net imports also were lower. Yet, for the first time, imports last year met more than half of our domestic demand--not because consumption had risen, but rather because domestic production had declined so significantly. Even though imports are even higher today, they come from far more secure sources than in the 1970's. Over half of our imports now come from the Western Hemisphere and Europe. Mexico and Canada are among our largest suppliers. We have stopped buying crude from Iran, Iraq, and Libya. In addition, international sharing agreements are in place and the United States has filled the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with approximately 600 million barrels of crude oil. In short, our Nation is no longer vulnerable to the supply threats that motivated Congress to act in the 1970's. While we have taken the steps necessary to reduce our vulnerability to others, we have not done enough to encourage domestic energy production. In fact, production on the North Slope has now entered a period of sustained decline, while production is falling in the lower 48 as well. My committee heard compelling testimony, for example, about the problems faced by small businesses in California, which have felt first hand the effects of the current ban. Small independent producers have been forced to abandon wells or defer further investments. Faced with glut-induced prices for their own crude, they have laid off workers. By precluding the market from operating normally, the export ban has had the unintended effect of discouraging further energy production. Through adoption of the conference report, we will at long last change that situation. In addition to receiving testimony from small businesses hurt directly, my committee got advice from the experts as well. The Department of Energy, for example, provided Congress with a comprehensive study. The Department concluded that ANS exports would boost production in Alaska and California by 100,000 to 110,000 barrels per day by the end of the century. The Department also concluded that ANS exports could create up to 25,000 jobs. With the evidence now in, we know that the sooner we change current law, the sooner we can spur additional energy production and create jobs in Alaska and in California. To achieve this objective, I bring before the House the conference report authorizing ANS exports under terms substantially similar to the underlying Senate and House bills. The conference report authorizes ANS exports, making inapplicable the general and specific restrictions in section 7(d) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, section 28(u) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, section 103 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and the Department of Commerce's short supply regulations, unless the President determines that they would not be in the national interest. This provision negates, as well, any other existing law, regulation, or executive order that might otherwise be interpreted to restrict ANS exports. Before making his national interest determination, the President must consider an appropriate environmental review. We have given the President discretion to have a working group conduct the type of environmental review that would be appropriate under the circumstances. Because appropriate environmental review is not defined in the conference report or the National Environmental Policy Act, I think it particularly important to explain our intent in developing this term. In its report, the Department of Energy found ``no plausible evidence of any direct negative environmental impact from lifting the ANS crude export ban.'' In fact, the Department concluded that, ``[w]hen indirect effects are considered, it appears that the market response to removing the ANS export ban could result in a production and transportation structure that is preferable to the status quo in certain respects.'' The Department found, for example, that ``[l]ifting the export ban will reduce overall tanker movements in U.S. waters.'' The weight of the testimony taken before my committee and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was to the same effect. Thus, the conference report directs, as the appropriate environmental review, an abbreviated 4-month study. The environmental review is intended to be thorough and comprehensive, but in light of the Department's findings and the compressed timeframe, neither a full environmental impact statement nor even a more limited environmental assessment is contemplated. If any potential adverse effects on the environment are found, the study is to recommend appropriate measures to mitigate or cure them. In fact, the procedure set forth in the conference report tracks the well-recognized procedure whereby an agency may forego a full EIS by taking appropriate steps to correct any problems found during an EA. Under current law, if an EA reveals some potentially adverse environmental effects, an agency may take mitigating measures that lessen or eliminate the environmental impact and, thereupon, make a finding of no significant impact and decline to prepare a formal EIS. Similarly, as long as potentially adverse impacts can be mitigated by conditions on exports included in the President's national interest determination, NEPA is satisfied. In making his national interest determination, the President is authorized to impose appropriate terms and conditions, other than a volume limitation, on ANS exports. The conference report takes cognizance of the changed condition of national oil demand and [[Page H 11878]] available oil resources. The conference report is intended to permit ANS crude oil to compete with other crude oil in the world market under normal market conditions. To facilitate this competition and in recognition that the conference report precludes imposition of a volume limitation, the President should direct that exports proceed under a general license. Although crude oil exports historically have been governed through the use of individual validated licenses, this type of licensing procedure would not be appropriate here. The more appropriate model is the rule governing exports of refined petroleum products, which are permitted under a general license. First, the conference report explicitly negates the short supply regulations and the statutory authority underlying them as they relate to ANS exports. Our intent was to clear away two decades of accumulated obstructions to ANS exports. Second, the conference report specifically precludes the President from imposing a volume limitation. In almost every instance today, individual validated licenses on crude exports are necessary because of the need to deal with volume limitations, such as those imposed on exports of California heavy crude oil or ANS crude to Canada. Finally, it is our intent that the market finally be given an opportunity to operate. We do not want unnecessary paperwork to impede proper functioning of the market. The conferees recognize that some information is needed to monitor exports. Again, petroleum products provides the proper model. Shippers of petroleum products, like all exporters, submit export declarations at the time of export. This information is compiled into trade statistics by the Department of Commerce. Similarly, exporters of ANS crude under a general license would routinely file export declarations. These filings will provide any information needed for monitoring. Given the anticipated substantial benefits to the Nation of ANS exports, the President should make his national interest determination as promptly as possible. Of course, if the President fails to make the required determination within 5 months, ANS oil exports are authorized without intervening action by the President or the Secretary of Commerce. As many Members of this body know, there has long been concern in the domestic maritime community that lifting the ban would force the scrapping of the independent tanker fleet and would destroy employment opportunities for merchant mariners. There can be little doubt that Congress has a compelling interest in preserving a fleet essential to our Nation's military security, especially one vital to moving an important natural resource such as my State's oil. In recognition of this, the conference report requires that ANS exports be carried in U.S.-flag vessels. The only exceptions are exports to Israel under a bilateral treaty and to others under the international emergency oil sharing plan of the International Energy Agency. The U.S. Trade Representative has assured Congress that this provision does not violate our GATT obligations. Based on the testimony presented to my committee and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I concur with the administration's view that this provision is fully consistent with our international obligations. Moreover, it is supported by ample precedent, including in particular a comparable provision in the United States-Canada free trade agreement, as implemented under United States law. The conference report also directs the Secretary of Commerce to issue any rules necessary to govern ANS exports within 30 days of the President's national interest determination. In light of the clear benefits to the Nation of ANS exports, the Secretary should promulgate any rules necessary contemporaneously with the determination. In closing, let me emphasize that the current ban no longer makes economic sense. For too long, it has hurt the citizens of Alaska, it has damaged the California oil industry, and it has precluded the market from functioning normally. If left in place any longer, it will further discourage energy production, it will destroy jobs in Alaska and California, and it will ultimately hurt our seafaring mariners, the independent tanker fleet, and the shipbuilding sector of our Nation. As chairman of the conference committee, I thus urge my colleagues to support this historic legislation. Through swift enactment and implementation of this legislation, Congress and the administration can demonstrate their ability to work together to promote our national security, to spur energy production, to reduce our net dependence on imports, and, above all, to create jobs.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon]. (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] the subcommittee chairman. (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the royalty relief provision of S. 395, as adopted by the Committee on Commerce, has targeted deep water relief provisions that the administration supports for existing leases. It targets relief for only those leases that would not be economic without the release, and that is the Clinton administration. I include for the Record a letter from Secretary O'leary on this subject, as follows: The Secretary of Energy, Washington, DC, October 19, 1995. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 256, I call up the conference report on Senate bill (S. 395) to authorize and direct the Secretary of Energy to sell the Alaska Power Administration, and to authorize the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I suggest respectfully that those speaking, none of them support drilling in other areas, they have never supported drilling in any area to produce any oil for the domestic market. None of the speakers on that side of the aisle that have spoken in opposition to this conference report have ever supported any development of any oil field anywhere. I challenge them to show me that if I am wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] who is very, very well acquainted with this issue.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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 the conference report to accompany S. 395.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank my friends and colleagues for their leadership on the Animas-La Plata project, and for the inclusion of section 507 of the fiscal year 1996 energy and water development appropriations bill. I also support this language, and I urge this Congress to take a stand and ensure construction of the Animas-La Plata project in a timely fashion to fulfill the settlement. In 1988, Congress determined that this project was the best alternative for meeting the needs and interests of the parties to the settlement agreement. We passed the 1988 Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act in order to ensure that the senior water rights of the two Ute tribes were satisfied. As the chairman of the authorizing committee, I have a message for the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary has the responsibility under the 1988 legislation to build the Animas-La Plata project. In hearings on the fiscal year 1994 energy and water development appropriations bill, Secretary Babbitt stated: ``I understand that Congress has mandated that this project get going, and I will comply with the mandate.'' Mr. Secretary, you now have yet another mandate from the Congress, section 507 provides you with the necessary tools to move forward and build this project in accordance with obvious congressional intent. I urge you to move forward and build the Animas-La Plata project immediately so that the United States may preserve the integrity of the water rights settlement.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address some of the things that have been said on this floor in the recent moments of this debate. First, I want to stress one thing, in the reconciliation package that came out of our committee, the Committee on Resources, we addressed the grazing provisions that were mentioned by the gentleman from California. We in fact raised the fees for grazing. I do not see that in their substitute. The second thing, with what we call the hard rock mining provisions, for the first time we created a royalty provision for the taking of minerals from the so-called public lands. So we have addressed that. We just do not speak out in anger or frustration. We have really tried to do what we think is correct to help balance the budget. We are not giving anything away in this provision which came out of our bill that came to the Reconciliation Act. I would also like to suggest that there has been more misinformation, more flat out dishonesty, about the Alaskan Oil Reserve in the past, I would say, 6 to 8 months than I have ever experienced in my 22 years here. We have to keep a little bit of history in mind. In 1980 we set aside 147 million acres of land for single use purpose in the State of Alaska. But the Congress at that time said that we ought to look at the coastal plain, where the oil possibly could be, and then there would be a recommendation by the President whether we should drill. That recommendation came down after a period of time, a period of time, that said yes, the Congress should have leasing for oil on the oil reserve, the so-called ANWR area. There has been 40 days of hearings held since 1978 after the recommendation came down. It is estimated that there is between 3 billion and 30 billion barrels of oil 74 miles away from the existing pipeline. This area is strongly supported to be leased by the native people of Alaska. Many Members might have had a chance to visit with them. These are people that had little or nothing before the development of oil and now have what they think is their right due off of their land. They have water and sewage and schools and health, which they did not have before. But more than that, Mr. Chairman, we are now importing $1 billion a week of foreign oils--$1 billion per week. It is important that the truth of this matter comes forth. Do not look at the ads and the misinformation that has been conveyed to this body and to the general public. Let us look at this Reconciliation Act as a responsible resource development and protection of the environment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 716, the bill just considered.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to being note to what the gentleman from New Jersey has just said, this is truly a sound piece of conservation legislation. This makes sense. Unfortunately, many of the groups that support the conservation movements bring forth to this floor and talk about topics that are not true scientific conservation, and this is one. It is bipartisan supported and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] that the House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 716.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a collection of bills that passed the House and the Senate. I am the sponsor of one of the bills; the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts is another sponsor; the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] is a sponsor of another bill; I am the sponsor of another two bills; and Senator Stevens from Alaska is also a sponsor of the last remaining two bills. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring before the House H.R. 716, the Fishermen's Protective Act. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this legislation in the Senate, several other pending international fisheries bills were added to the original text of H.R. 716. This package of fisheries bills represents over 2 years of work on various bills dealing with the conservation and management of fisheries resources at the international level. Included in this package are the Fishermen's Protective Act, which passed the House on April 3, 1995; the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act, which passed the House on March 28, 1995; the Sea of Okhotsk Fisheries Enforcement Act, passed by the House on March 14, 1995; the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, which has been reported to the House and is awaiting floor action; and several other noncontroversial provisions dealing with the United States' obligation to the protection and conservation of fish species that are important to many nations, including the United States. I will now briefly summarize the provisions of H.R. 716, now titled the Fisheries Act of 1995, as amended by the Senate: [[Page H 10679]] Title I of the bill establishes permitting, reporting, and other regulations for U.S. vessels fishing on the high seas in accordance with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's Agreement To Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas adopted in 1993. Title II implements the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. While the Senate ratified this convention in 1983, it has taken until now to enact the implementing language for the U.S. participation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization [NAFO]. This title allows the United States to participate in NAFO, an international organization which assesses and manages high seas fishery resources off the Atlantic coasts of Canada and New England, and provides the mechanisms for United States selection of commissioners and coordination with other domestic management provisions. Title III reauthorizes the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act through fiscal year 1998. This act implements the International Convention on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas [ICCAT], which is an international treaty signed by 22 countries for the conservation and management of highly migratory species such as bluefin tuna and swordfish. This title also establishes procedures for the U.S. Advisory Committee and takes important steps in urging international cooperation with the recommendations of ICCAT. Title IV reauthorizes and amends the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 to protect U.S. fishermen whose vessels are seized by a foreign government under laws which are inconsistent with international law. This title also allows those United States fishermen who, last year, were forced to pay an illegal transit fee by the Canadian Government to recover those fees. Title V prohibits United States fishermen from fishing in an international area known as the ``Peanut Hole'' in the Central Sea of Okhotsk unless the fishing operations are in accordance with fishery agreements signed by the United States and Russia. This measure protects the important fishery stocks which travel through the Peanut Hole and allows the United States to pursue agreements with other fishing nations whose vessels fish in this area. Title VI prohibits the United States from entering into any international agreements which would be contrary to the United Nations global moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas. Title VII implements the Yukon River Salmon Treaty between the United States and Canada to protect and manage Yukon river salmon stocks. This title establishes the mechanism for the United States to appoint representatives to the Yukon River Panel, establishes voting procedures for the U.S. representatives, and authorizes appropriations for the U.S. contributions required under the treaty. Title VIII includes two miscellaneous provisions. The first corrects a problem encountered by U.S. vessels permitted under the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. The second establishes procedures under which the Secretary of Commerce may allow any foreign fishing for Atlantic herring and mackerel with the consent of the appropriate Fishery Management Council. This package of fisheries bills represents a lot of bipartisan work by both the House and Senate to continue the leadership of the United States in rational management of the world's fishery resources. I urge this legislation to be forwarded to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].