Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this en bloc amendment has been developed on a bipartisan basis and has the support of the minority leaders of the Resources Committee. During the Resources Committee markup of this bill, several Members wanted to offer amendments but withdrew them to allow time for compromises to be drafted. This en bloc amendment includes these compromises and makes technical amendments to the bill as reported. This amendment contains technical fixes which include a clarification in the weighing provision of the bill and correction of the placement of language addressing observer coverage. The amendment also contains language agreed upon by myself and other Members including: corrections to the Pacific Region Stock Assessment section; additions to the use of observers in ITQ systems; and changes to the Prohibited Acts section of the bill. I appreciate all the hard work by Members and their staffs in reaching agreement on the language in the en bloc amendment. I support this amendment and would urge my colleagues to also support it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment to eliminate transferability of individual quota shares. While I do not like the ITQ's, I want everybody to understand, I have supported and continue to support the regional councils in their role as managers of our Nation's fishery resources. In fact, the gentleman from California, I am going to tell him now, I had an amendment to his amendment, and I probably will not offer it, because my worthwhile staff reminded me I have always said not to interfere with the council's role in this. But this is a good amendment. ITQ's have been very controversial both in practice and from a policy perspective. One aspect that has caused a great deal of concern is the recipients of ITQ shares receive a windfall by being the only users of a public resource. I believe this amendment addresses the concern that fishermen are receiving windfall profits by selling their ITQ shares, while the general public receives nothing from the allocation of this public resource. I have heard from many fishermen that ITQ's give a few individuals a local on a public resource. The gentlemen's amendment makes sure that those who receive shares must fish them or lose them. If the shares are not fished by the fisherman for 3 or more years, they would revert back to the Secretary, who would then reallocate the share through an auction or other comparable bidding process. This reallocation will allow those who did not get an adequate share, or those who have fished, but did not qualify for shares, to bid on shares. This amendment eliminates the incentive to enact ITQ systems rather than other limited access options, because some fishermen believe they will reap a monetary windfall from the quota shares they receive. I want to again stress one of the biggest problems is the possibility of the acquisition of shares by, may I say those that may not be totally 100 percent American, and in controlling what I fought to do with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] in 1976, and that was to Americanize our fleet and to protect our stock and to have a sustained yield. What we find in many areas around the Nation is this is not occurring. So this really is, with the original language in the bill, a further attempt to make sure that we are looking at the management concept of the fisheries and not just a monetary concept of the fisheries. Now, I am all in favor of everybody making large profits. I am all in favor of everybody making a return on their investments. But, I am not in favor of a locked system. And the IDQ's do create a locked system. Now, if I understood the gentleman correctly, we are only talking about prospective IDQ's, not those that have already been issued. Because one of the things that I have resented in this Congress is that sometimes we become retroactive in tax laws and other laws and people that try to follow the laws that Congress has passed find themselves caught in an untenable position. Mr. Chairman, I do support the gentleman's amendment. I think it is a correct one to further make sure that we have the management tools that are necessary for the fisheries and they are not depleted to the point they were prior to 1976.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if I knew the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] was going to be so cooperative and so understanding on issues of fisheries, he should have joined our committee many, many years ago. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] and I have had a great working relationship concerning the seas. We have worked, I believe, although we had our discussions about to which degree we can go, but we have always sought to protect the species, provide the species, and make sure that the American fisherman does exist. [[Page H 10243]] Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has offered an amendment that has great merit. Again, I want to compliment the gentleman. One of my biggest fears over the years is after we Americanize the fleet, through no fault of the fishermen themselves, those that had the great, deep pockets from overseas, and other areas, would have the possibility of obtaining total control of the fisheries and thus we would have avoided what we were seeking to begin with, and that is an Americanized-type fishery, especially with the communities that live along the coast. So, I do compliment the gentleman and would suggest respectfully that he look forward to the future when we have this continued cooperation regardless of who sits in the chair. Regardless of what happens, that we work together on these important issues.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That is true.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, after the great and kind compliments the gentleman from California has given to me, which are rare and far between on this floor of the House, it is unpleasant for me to rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I do understand the gentleman's concerns about protecting fishing habitat from the potential adverse impacts of fishing gear, but I am also concerned about the possible unintended results of the gentleman's amendment. The Regional Fishery Management Councils, and by the way, none of them when we had our hearings, we had over 14 hearings in the last 4 years, none of them ever spoke in favor of this amendment. I want everybody to remember, the councils do not favor this amendment. Other interest groups may, but not the councils. The Regional Fisheries Management Councils currently have the ability to reduce adverse impacts that fishing gear may have on fishery habitat. Some councils have already taken steps to reduce the effects on habitat by closing off breeding and nursery areas during certain times of the year. While the language of H.R. 39 is discretionary, it sends a direct message to the councils that this is an important issue. It recommends that if steps have not already been taken to address this problem, the councils should take the necessary steps to correct any adverse effects that fishing may be having on essential fishery habitat under the council's jurisdiction. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that moving this language to the mandatory requirements section of the act will require councils to restrict certain types of gear. It could potentially heighten gear conflicts in fisheries where councils have already taken appropriate steps to minimize the impact on the habitat. And for those who are not aware of the fishing industry, this is a very competitive industry. There is little what I call comradeship between a troller, a purse seiner, a gill netter, or a hand troller. All of them are seeking part of this. And when we put the council into a decisionmaking factor of choosing one gear over other gear, when it may not be appropriate. In fact the gentleman said there could be no lawsuits. There is a reality that one group could sue the Secretary of Commerce, not the council but the Secretary of Commerce saying that another type of gear could be adversely impacting the habitat, thus gaining a bigger share of the fish. So I would suggest this just drives a bigger wedge between the gear groups and causes a tremendous problem with the council. The habitat is important and we have already suggested in the bill that they do take this and do promote habitat protection. But let us not [[Page H 10225]] make it mandatory, where there may be another way that they can protect the habitat and avoid the conflicts which would arise between the different gear groups and thus diluting the role of the council. Mr. Chairman, I do stress this. Only through the councils can this Magnuson Act work. Only through the councils can we truly manage this system. There are those under this administration and the past administration, so it is not partisan, that want to centralize the control of all fisheries here in Washington, DC. Think about that a moment. They want to bring it here, take it away from the councils, because they happen to think that they have more brains here in Washington, DC, than anybody else. We all know that is wrong. If my colleagues do not know it, I do not know where they have been. Mr. Chairman, it was set at the 1976 level to make sure that the councils do their work. In some cases, the councils have not worked and we have addressed that issue in this bill and will continue to address it. But it is important that we allow the councils to make these decisions. It is necessary to make sure it is a working unit. When it is mandatory, we are taking away the council's opportunities to function. Mr. Chairman, I do oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will submit my statement for the Record in opposition to the Goss amendment. I also suggest respectfully [[Page H 10241]] there will probably be another amendment offered at a later time that I hope everyone sees the wisdom of voting for. I have watched this Congress in the light of supposedly protecting, which I support, but also supposedly in making sure that all species are protected, which is well and good. But we have driven our tuna fleet overseas. When I first came to Congress we had 212 tuna boats. We have three left. They are catching tuna; I do not see any shortage of tuna, but without any regard to what we said had to be done in our waters or with our American fleet. We are doing the same thing with the shrimp fleet. If, in fact, what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse] mention is a fact, and I will not dispute what they say, if in fact that is occurring, that should apply to every country that we import those type fishes from, and then let the Americans, like I say, eat bread, otherwise have no shrimp. That is what it boils down to. I do not think it is fair to pick out just my shrimpers or somebody else's shrimpers. If what they are doing is supposedly biologically wrong, that should apply to India, China, Ecuador, or Mexico, which this whole thing started over the turtle. It always bothered me when I would go to Mexico and see people eating turtle eggs, and eating and drinking turtle oil for certain medicinal purposes, and having turtle boots, and our fishermen are saying no, you have to drag a TED. I do not think that is fair, nor is it equitable or correct environmentally.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes a great presentation of this buy-American amendment. He has been the leader in buy-American. He is so pro-American, that I will accept this amendment with open arms and embrace it and congratulate the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff members that have worked on this and not individually by name but each one of them knows how much has been put into it. This legislation will go, in fact, over to the Senate side, and we will go to conference. But the ultimate goal of everyone in this room is to make sure that our fishermen and our fish can coexist for future generations. This is a good and well-balanced bill. it should and will become law. It is time that this Congress acts in a positive fashion.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I commend my colleague for his tenacity on this issue. At every point in the reauthorization of this act, he has shown his commitment by continually pushing me and the members of the committee on this matter. Mr. Chairman, in response to the specific questions of the gentleman from California, I assure the gentleman I will make it a priority of the committee to find a solution that will adquately protect those stocks not covered by a fishery management plan from overharvest. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the gentleman this has been one of my goals. The gentleman is absolutely correct that many areas for other reasons have not had a fishing plan that would cover them, consequently I think they are being overfished and we will address this issue. Probably in conference, by the way.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Massachusetts and the other gentleman from Louisiana. This is an example of what should have been implemented in this Congress many, many years ago. We would not have the trade deficit we have today if we were to do so. But I will say, my favorite individual groups, interest groups, preservationists, and I could call them a whole lot of other things, somehow think that the so-called environmental movement only has to reside in the United States. We can clean all the air up; we can clean all the water up and save all the fish and all the furry animals and everything else. But we also buy from overseas. I just mentioned the turtles in a previous statement. You could go right down, I think you can go right down now to Mexico and buy turtle soup, turtle oil, turtle leather, yet our shrimp fishermen are penalized. I can go into the clothing industry and all the other industries, which most of my colleagues should be aware of that do not meet our standards but we buy it from abroad. We wonder why we have lost our jobs and why we have lost our other industries. We have lost 500,000 jobs in the oil industry overseas, supposedly to protect the environment of the United States. We lost our timber jobs to protect the spotted owl. Now we are buying timber from Canada, cutting the rain forests in South America. And we are continually not recognizing this environment is a one-world operation. We cannot have it on one end and say we are going to be pure on this end and dip this hand into the mud. That is what we have been doing. This amendment is an attempt to bring to light the unfairness of allowing and requiring our small, little tiny remaining industry in the fishing field to meet requirements supposedly for an interest group and not requiring them someplace else. The gentleman from Louisiana has done an excellent job in presenting this amendment. The only thing I have any reservations about is, will the Secretary of Commerce enforce the law? I want to suggest to this body, I have watched now six administrations, four Republican, two Democrat, I have watched department heads, undersecretaries, and secretaries thumb their nose at the Congress. I have said before, I will say it again, we ought to in fact cite them for contempt when they do not implement the law passed by this Congress. If we believe we are coequal branches of the government, when we make the laws, they are to implement them. And when they ignore us, they are wrong. That is why we do not have a great deal of faith in this government by the general public. I am not going to always agree to what this Congress does. Many times my friend from Massachusetts will support something that is totally way out on the left side. I will support something way out on the right side, but [[Page H 10245]] that is the system. But when there is finally a law passed and the President signs it, then to have one of the agency heads say we are not going to do it because it might interfere or hurt someone's feeling overseas, that is wrong. I think this body has a responsibility to cite those agencies and those people responsible for contempt when they do so.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have not considered that, although I do think we deserve the merit for this bill probably more so than the one it is named after. I do say this with respect. The gentleman and I put the work in on this bill. The gentleman was chairman of the subcommittee. It came through his committee. Unfortunately, history has a way, those that are still available are never remembered in good light. So after we leave, we will not know whether to rename the bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 at the request of the Alaska Federation of Natives. This bill is the result of the work of the legislative council of the Alaska Federation of Natives to correct existing technical problems with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA]. I am introducing the bill to begin the review process and to receive input of the State of Alaska, various Federal agencies, Native entities, and individuals affected by this bill. I fully expect the input process to refine and expand the legislation, and invite such input. I expect to work closely with George Miller, my ranking minority member to resolve any differences we may have with specific provisions in the bill. Further, we look forward to receiving further suggestions for additions to this package and working with Alaska Senators Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski to perfect the package. Ultimately, it is our intention to investigate and resolve controversial provisions which would prevent final passage of this bill. This bill makes a number of technical changes to ANCSA which addresses issues not anticipated at the time of passage of ANCSA. As the legislation is designed to resolve specific problems, it contains several provisions, and will probably contain more as a result of the hearing and input process. To offer a flavor of the nature of the legislation, a few illustrations are in order. For example, the bill would reinstate approximately 50,000 acres which were taken away by an Executive order in 1929 to the Elim Native Corp. This provision would reinstate and allow the Elim Native Corp. to receive their land entitlement selections. Another provision would extend the exemption period from estate and gift tax for stock through its period of inalienability. Another would amend ANCSA to correct an inconsistency in current Federal law by allowing regional corporations to elect to acquire oil, gas, and coal estates reserved to the Federal Government beneath native allotments surrounded by or adjacent to subsurface lands convey to the corporations pursuant to section 12(a) or (b) of ANCSA. Mr. Speaker, I offer this bill at this time to begin the process of reviewing each of these important provisions and others which affect Alaskans. I welcome input to add to, subtract from and amend this proposal so that a non-controversial substitute may be offered at a later date.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 39, the Clerk be authorized to make such technical and conforming changes as are necessary to reflect the actions of the House on the bill just passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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