Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 268 and feel it is appropriate to allow private fish producers to fully reimburse the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the costs of their certification to triploid grass carp. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began its involvement in the DNA certification of triploid grass carp nearly two decades ago. Since that time, the program has grown to more than 550 inspections per year for private producers whose fish are shipped to some 30 States. In fiscal year 1994, over $70,000 was spent by the Service on this program. This certification process is necessary to ensure that only sterile grass carp are released in public and private waters to control aquatic vegetation. Earlier this year, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced its intention to terminate this certification program. Since States will not allow the release of grass carp without the Service's stamp of approval, this legislation has become necessary. S. 268 will establish a fee-for-service system and it will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to retain those collected funds to cover the expenses of the triploid grass carp certification inspections. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this measure and compliment our colleague, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, for her leadership in bringing this matter to our attention.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 629 is a noncontroversial bill which will authorize the National Park Service to spend Federal funds to operate a new visitor center. The center will be developed with private funds and located on private lands just outside the entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park. The bill is consistent with Park Service plans, supported by the administration and will be funded from existing funds. Mr. Speaker, Rocky Mountain National Park is the No. 1 tourist attraction in the State of Colorado and a new visitor center will serve to educate the visitors about the park and its resources, while encouraging a partnership with the private sector. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I regret that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] raised the point of order. It may be, in fact, subject to a point of order. But this amendment is an example of what should be done. No one gave DOT the authority to which they are proving today. By duplicating what NEPA is doing, to slow [[Page H 9827]] up the process of issuing a launch site or launch vehicle; now that is an example of, I must say so, of why this Congress has allowed the agencies to run this country and why the people are upset. And if we cannot, in fact, and if the gentleman from Illinois would like to speak to me, I will speak to him, too, if in fact we cannot interpret what is in reality wrong in this Government by this body, then we are not doing our jobs, and I would withdraw the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I do hope my good friend on the committee will not raise the point of order. The background for this amendment, the National Environmental Protection Act, requires involvement of Federal agencies when activities constitute a major Federal action. Commercial Space Transportation Act requires the Department of Transportation to license launch vehicles and launch site operators. Department of Transportation, DOT, has determined licensing among constituents, alone constituents, major Federal action. It is acting as middleman in interpretation of NEPA requirements. Little or no Federal funding involved in the manufacturing, and structure and operation of launch sites or launch-like sites. Problem: DOT's interpretation of NEPA has increased regulatory burden and cost of compliance with NEPA. If I may continue, the problems are that DOT's interpretation of NEPA has increased regulatory burden and costs of compliance with NEPA. DOT requires extensive paperwork which is duplicative of the NEPA requirements. I want to stress that. This duplicates what is already put in place by NEPA. DOT has determined that it is a decisionmaker regarding whether environmental assessment is adequate or more costly. Time and money environmental impact statement is required. Now I have a solution. This is what my amendment does: Solution that eliminates DOT as the middleman or the interpreter of NEPA requirements. No NEPA requirements will be waivered. I want to stress that, my good friend from California. State governments and other Federal agencies will interpret NEPA requirements. The result will be streamlined regulatory process industry, more efficient, better able to compete with international marketplace. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment, and there is really nothing wrong with it. If my colleagues want to discuss the merits of it, let us discuss the merits, but what has happened, we have an agency here that has put itself in a position to interpretation when it is already in place with NEPA, and this is one of the reasons we have such a problem today in being competitive and so much disruption for the general public. It is why should two agencies be involved in something when we waive nothing, when NEPA sets down the requirements, when we have DOT saying this is what they interpret what NEPA interprets? It is an example of overgoverning what we are attempting to do, and in no way does this weaken, nor does it take away, a right of any group, or a right of a State or a committee to participate in the process. It is a good amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I urge the passage of the amendment. Point of Order

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, the conference report language on mining claims solves a problem, rather than simply deferring action. When enacted, miners seeking title to their claims will pay fair market value, not $5 an acre, which never occurred to begin with. Some mining claimants have complied with present law and now qualify under present law. This is America. They have filled all the obligations required under law. If a new law is retroactively applied without grand- fathering these claims, then the Federal Government will be exposed to billions of dollars in takings liabilities. You say fine. That is the taxpayers' dollars you are talking about. That is what you are talking about here, is controlled by the Government. These people followed the law, and we passed that law. And now you are going to make it retroactive. That is taking and the Government is susceptible to a lawsuit. Maybe you ought to be reliable yourselves. Maybe you ought to pay the bill instead of the taxpayer. If we are talking about future laws, that is different, but this applies to the present law that in fact is in effect today and those people followed that law. A ``no'' vote is the right vote for this motion to recommit. If in fact a ``yes'' vote is the overwhelming majority or the minority, then we have taken and implemented a taking of property from a private individual, a citizen of the United States. I have watched this from the floor before. Where this Congress thinks nothing about retroactive taxes, breaking people, taking their homes in the guise of good for all. This time if you do so, you are going to be sued. We are going to be sued. But none of us are held responsible. That is what is wrong. I hope that the people listening to this program, all 26 million of you, understand what this Congress may do today. That is, implement a lawsuit against you, not us individually, but against the taxpayers of America.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to restore 100 percent deductibility for meals which seafood processing companies are compelled to provide to their employees at processing operations located in remote areas of Alaska. This legislation is necessary because the limitations on the deductibility of business meals and entertainment enacted in 1986 and 1993 have inadvertently reduced the deductibility of these employer provided meals to only 50 percent. The consequence has been that these companies, most of which are small businesses, are forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional taxes simply because they must provide meals to their employees at remote locales where there are no other meal options. This legislation would conform the treatment of seafood processors under the Internal Revenue Code with the treatment of other employers-- such as operators of commercial vessels and oil and gas rigs--who must provide meals to their employees because the employees do not have another practical alternative to obtaining their meals. Under current law, these employers, because they must provide meals to their employees, are permitted to deduct the full cost of such meals as an ordinary and necessary business expense. The bill I am introducing would provide the same treatment for seafood processors in Alaska. The seafood processing industry in Alaska is primarily located in remote coastal areas of the State, almost all along the Aleutian chain of islands. Most of these facilities operate on a seasonal basis from spring through fall, and must fly their workers in for temporary periods. The processing plants are located near very small towns and native villages. In some cases the processing plant is the only human activity in the area. Because of this isolation and lack of infrastructure the firms which operate in the areas have no choice but to provide all meals consumed by their employees. In fact, these operations are so isolated that the employers must also provide all housing, recreation, transportation and medical services. There would be only about 40 firms which fall into the category covered by our legislation. Most employ under 100 people, although some are larger operations with hundreds of workers. But in all cases it must be emphasized that the employer is the only source of food and shelter for the employees and that the plants are located in very remote areas. In many cases there are no other settlements, and, indeed, no other human activity for many miles around. A final significant impact of the industry on our Nation comes from its role as a source of export revenue. Over 50 percent of the export earnings generated by the seafood industry nationwide originates in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. After years of suffering from huge trade deficits it is encouraging to see that our region of the country is making a positive contribution to our balance of payments. The changes to the tax laws in 1986 and 1993 which reduced the deductibility of business meal and entertainment expenses from 100 percent to 80 percent and then to 50 percent were justified as an appropriate limitation on a discretionary business expense with a significant personal consumption element. The decision was made that good public policy required changing the tax code so that the public was no longer helping defray the cost for business organizations to entertain clients and other business associates. However, Congress recognized that where the employer must as a practical or legal matter provide meals to employees--that it, where the employees do not really have the option of providing meals for themselves--that such a mandatory cost of business should continue to be fully deductible to the business. Under current law, employers of crew members on certain commercial vessels and employers of certain oil and gas workers, who provide meals to their employees when those employees have no real alternative means of obtaining food are permitted to deduct the full cost of providing the meals. The same precise situation applies to seafood processors in Alaska and they should be governed by the same rule. Their workers cannot go to a restaurant, they cannot go home and they cannot bring meals with them to work since they live in bunkhouses and do not have access to grocery stores. The companies which are covered by this amendment have paid the Federal treasury millions of dollars in taxes since 1986. These tax payments are both unintended and unfair. In attempting to correct the abuse of the three martini lunch Congress certainly did not intend to burden legitimate businesses which are providing meals to their employees in cases where those employees have no other source of food.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, throughout the West, a growing frustration with Federal land barons and their policies is rekindling the sagebrush rebellion. Nowhere are Federal land decisions more destructive to families and hard working people than in the 17 million acre Tongass forest in southeast Alaska. In a forest that large it should be easy to balance the uses and make people happy, but the Federal Government has failed miserably. The bill that I am introducing today gives Alaskans a chance to take control of their future in the Tongass National Forest. Today I propose a way to end the continuing Tongass brawl and give Alaskans a chance to resolve their differences at home. When this bill becomes law, and the Alaska State Legislature and our Governor take advantage of the privilege offered in the bill, ownership of the Tongass National Forest automatically transfers to the State of Alaska. One year later when the transition period expires, management of the Tongass will be in the capable hands of Alaskans. Everyone will have a better chance of stability. I have no choice but to make a proposal to liberate the Tongass and the Alaskans so adversely affected by the current Federal policies and requirements in the Tongass. Since statehood, it has never been worse in the Tongass. Nobody is happy. It takes 3 years for tourism operators to get access permits in a 17 million acre forest. Leaders in fishing groups complain existing protection for fisheries are not enforced. Crabbers fight for space and permits to store their crab pots. Cabin permits become Federal issues when simple improvements are made. Millions of dollars are spent on studies that produce no conclusions and call for more money for more studies. Even the environmentalists are so unhappy with decisions in the Tongass that they continually appeal and sue the agency. Time after time, the Federal Government has failed those who rely on the Tongass. Congress has withdrawn 6 million acres in the Tongass only to have the agency propose even more land withdrawals. A series of new Federal laws and more impossible regulations are added. Alaskans in the Tongass are frustrated with the leadership of the U.S. Forest Service, particularly the political appointees who control it. While they ignore the needs of Alaskans, their decisions produce no real benefit to the environment or to fish and game and do not consider the needs of people. I told the agency heads back in January that Alaskans had suggested the type of proposal that I am making today. I told them that I was considering a proposal that would transfer their lands. I asked that they improve their policies and decisionmaking on our national forests and public lands. I have seen no improvement. Decisions just keep getting worse. Even after the President's political appointees in the Government decided to cancel the large timber contract, they still refuse to offer timber to small business people. While 80 million board feet should be available for small mills, only 35 million board feet has been provided in the Tongass this year, most of it at the end of the season when it does little good. Communities in southeast Alaska are suffering. Productive, hardworking people are out of work. Forty-two percent of the timber jobs are gone in Southeast. The President's political appointees who control the Federal land managers just do not seem to care. They continue to propose problems instead of solutions. Alaskans and others realize that their State legislature is closer to the economic and ecologic needs in the Tongass. It has a much better understanding of policies that will bring peace to the Tongass than does the U.S. Congress and the Federal Forest Service. Given the choice, a majority of southeasterners would rather see the State of Alaska own the Tongass than continue with Federal management. Fifty five percent would support a Tongass transfer to the State according to a recent poll. Alaskans clearly favor what my bill seeks to accomplish. No particular group asked for this bill. I stress that point. No particular group asked for this bill, but I have listened to what Alaskans have been saying since the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act. I have discussed the ideas in this draft with Alaskans. I have listened to our Governor of Alaska speaking through Commissioner Willie Hensley. At Senator Murkowski's workshop on the Senate bill Commissioner Hensley said: The hallmarks which guide our [state] policies in connection with the Tongass include . . . maximum self determination for the people of Southeast Alaska with respect to land management decisions which affect them, and a minimum of legislative prescriptions from Washington D.C. My bill relies on the Governor's wisdom. My bill gives Alaskans a chance to achieve maximum self-determination for the people of southeast Alaska. There will be no running back to Washington, DC, to a Congress that uses the Tongass as a political pawn. Tongass policies will be Alaskan policies. Our Governor wants no Washington, DC, legislative mandates and that is what my bill proposes. I also heard elected leaders of the State legislature. This year the Alaska Legislature overwhelmingly passed Senate Joint Resolution 6. That resolution noted that America's Founding Fathers knew that control of land is power. They knew that centralized Federal Government with a substantial land base would eventually overwhelm the States and threaten individual freedom. Senate Joint Resolution 6 said: Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature urges the 104th Congress of the United States to . . . transfer to the states, by fee [[Page E 1873]] title, any federally controlled property currently held within the states admitted to the Union since 1802. Just last week, the Southeast Conference passed a resolution supporting the concept of transferring the Tongass to the State of Alaska. The Southeast Conference resolution said: Now, therefore be it resolved, that Southeast Conference supports the concept of transferring the Tongass National Forest to the State of Alaska, thereby allowing maximum self- determination by the people of Alaska in resolving existing conflicts and bringing stability to our region. I also heard from Alaskan families who now suffer as a result of Federal policies in the Tongass. People like the Gardners wrote me. They said: Dear Don Young: My husband and I moved here to Alaska about 6 years ago so we would not have to worry about him losing his job in the logging industry, and every since . . . it seems like a lot of really good people are being put out of work. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me why [the mills are closing.] If we only logged 4% of the Tongass National Forest in 40 years, don't you think there is plenty to go around!? Please help us keep the logging and mills and all of the families working. Sincerely, Shannon, Steve, and Amber Gardner. My proposal is in line with what the Governor desires, is more modest than the Alaskan Legislature urged, brings decisions in the Tongass closer to those like the Gardners, and is exactly what the Southeast Conference urged in a resolution adopted last week. This bill is a starting point. Critics and supporters should note this fact. It is a draft, a discussion piece so to speak, but it is a serious proposal. It is a proposal that I am making because the Federal Government has failed those like the Gardners and hundreds of others who write to me about what is going on in the Tongass. I have included at the close of my remarks a sampling of other letters from timber families in the Tongass. The business of transferring an entire 17 million acre forest to a State is a complex matter. How to make the best transition to State ownership raises complicated issues. It may take some time to refine the details and I do not want to leave anyone with the impression that this is a quick fix solution. We have talked to Alaskans about many issues raised by my bill and arrived at the draft proposal that I am introducing today. My staff and I will talk further with Alaskans as this draft proposal circulates. We may not have thought of the best solution for every issue, but I am anxious to hear thoughtful suggestions from Alaskans and others on how to best modify the bill to ease the transition. To be clear, we aim to get the Federal Government out of our business in the Tongass, to give decisions to Alaskans, and to accomplish this with a minimum of Federal strings attached. Before my committee takes action on the bill, we will hold hearings. We will give Alaskans and others a chance to provide thoughtful analysis of how the transition from Federal to State ownership should work. I look forward to this process. It will be telling. So that my proposal for Alaskans is understood, the following summary of the bill may be useful. In addition, I ask for unanimous consent that the full text of the bill and other material appear in the Record immediately following the summary. Summary of the Tongass Transfer and Transition Act tongass transfer process Within 10 years of enactment, the State of Alaska can elect to receive 100% ownership of all of the Tongass National Forest lands. The election is made when the legislature passes and the governor signs a bill that says (1) the state elects to receive the Tongass, (2) the land is transferred subject to valid existing rights, (3) the procedures and transition provisions of the Act apply to the transfer, and (4) the state will respect the rights guaranteed under ANCSA. Once such a bill is passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and the Secretary of Agriculture is notified, all of the United State's interest in the Tongass National Forest is automatically transferred to the State of Alaska. At that time, a one year ``transfer-transition'' period begins, during which a patent (title) to the Tongass is prepared by the Secretary and several transition issues are worked out between the State and other parties. Finally, at the end of the transfer-transition period, the Secretary delivers the Tongass patent on the ``patent date.'' During the transfer-transition period, the Forest Service still manages the Tongass and federal law still applies. Beginning on the patent date, the State of Alaska manages the forest and Alaska law applies to land in the Tongass with limited exceptions. On the patent date, the State generally becomes obligated for any outstanding federal obligations (such as leases, permits, licenses, and contracts). Basically the State assumes federal obligations. transition issues Several specific issues are also addressed during the transfer-transition period: Forest Service Employees.--During the one year transfer- transition period, the State of Alaska must interview each person employed by the Forest Service for purposes of reemployment with the State of Alaska's new administrative management system for the Tongass. Timber Receipts to the Federal Treasury.--For ten years, 25 percent of the net timber receipts for all timber sold in the Tongass is paid to the U.S. Treasury by the State of Alaska. Alaska Pulp Corporation Contract.--During the one year transfer-transition period, the State of Alaska must enter discussions with APC and within six months of the patent date, conclude an agreement that reinstates the APC contract. The agreement must include provisions that dismiss the APC lawsuit against the federal government and it requires the sale of the contract to a third party who agrees to construct a manufacturing facility in Southeast Alaska that utilizes pulp-grade logs. Subsistence.--The transfer of the Tongass will not affect subsistence use or management under title VIII of ANILCA. The bill requires federal management of subsistence on transferred Tongass lands until Alaska state law complies with title VIII of ANILCA. Landless Natives.--The State of Alaska is required to negotiate with the landless native communities and to reach agreement that allocates between 23,040 and 46,080 acres of surface estate in the Tongass. Land will be transferred for purposes of historical, cultural, economic, and subsistence use. Any timber harvested from such lands must receive primary manufacturing before it is exported from Alaska. Agreement must be reached within one year of the patent date. Timber Receipts For Local Governments.--For ten years after the patent date, the State of Alaska must allocate 25 percent of the net timber receipts from the Tongass directly to the boroughs, municipalities, and local governments for schools, educational materials, and community roads. Ketchikan Pulp Contract.--Beginning on the patent date, all federal obligations arising from the KPC timber sale contract shall become obligations of the State of Alaska. All benefits resulting from the KPC timber sale contract shall become benefits flowing to the State of Alaska. Mining Claims.--Federal mining claimants are given the option, for 15 years, of holding their claims under the federal law, which is administered by the State of Alaska. The claimholder could patent the claim during that time period. After 15 years, all federal mining claims that are not patented automatically convert to State of Alaska claims and are administered under the State mining law. At any time during the 15 year period, a claim holder has the option to convert the federal claim to a State claim. Timber Road Fund.--All timber receipts collected during the one year transfer-transition period are provided to the State of Alaska for a timber road program fund. Timber Exports.--The State of Alaska must prohibit export of unprocessed saw, utility and pulp logs originating from lands transferred for a minimum of ten years.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, I am pleased to restate my commitment to the gentleman from Guam in support of his efforts to allow some development of the territory's fisheries resources and allow any benefits from the licensing of foreign fishing vessels to accrue to the territories for conservation and management of the fisheries resources. I understand this amendment is being worked through the committee, with my staff and your staff, and, hopefully, we will arrive at a conclusion that will be beneficial to both of them. The merits of his amendment are strongly supported by the chairman. The one reservation we have, we will have to make sure of how the license fees will be utilized for the territory, and we are attempting now to work it out where it goes to the fisheries improvement area. I have been in your area, and I have seen some of the actions by some of the foreign countries which you get no benefit from. I think that goes totally contrary to the Magnuson Act. I would support it with work on the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I do believe the gentleman from Guam would like to enter a colloquy before we get in trouble.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. No.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. May I suggest nothing has been embarrassing. We have worked well over these years, and only the length of time that he and I have served. May I suggest that his area has been hardest hit. We thought we were doing great things in 1976, and we did. We worked to try to Americanize our fleet. Unfortunately, along the line, we did some things, or they did some things, that have damaged our fishing areas around our Nation very harmfully, ``they'' being our ownselves. So we have to address this legislation. This is a step in the right direction.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a unique period of time that we are faced with during this session. We have a bill that has been heard by the committee and we have worked on this bill for approximately 3\1/2\ years now. It is H.R. 39, the Fisheries Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, which I sponsored, along with my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 39, the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995, which I sponsored. Mr. Chairman, this legislation, as you will see, enjoys broad, bipartisan support from members of the Resources Committee and those members from coastal districts with fishing interests. For this bill to have come this far shows the bipartisan effort involved in the development of the bill. I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Saxton, Gerry Studds, and George Miller for their leadership in addressing the difficult issues in this important legislation. This reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 is crucial to continuing the sound management of this Nation's fishery resources. If Members take nothing else away from this debate, remember, this legislation is supported by Members on both sides of the aisle, by the fishing industry, and by the environmental community. This has been no small feat, and while some may not be entirely happy with the legislation, reauthorization of this act is very important to us all. Mr. Chairman, during the 103d and 104th Congresses, 10 hearings on reauthorization issues were held. This legislation represents an attempt to address the concerns raised at these hearings. This legislation may not be perfect; however, fisheries management is a complicated balancing act. We have attempted to address the concerns raised by commercial fishermen, recreational and charter boat fishermen, environmental organizations, fishing communities, fish processors, and other interested groups. 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 act created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils to manage the fishery resources within their geographic area. 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. This means the Councils must balance 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 the committee continues to strongly support the current Regional Fishery Management Councils system. This legislation includes some reforms of the Council process and requires new disclosure rules to deal with the perception of conflict of interest on the Councils. While this legislation deals with the fishing industry, it is environment friendly. In fact, you have probably received or will receive letters of support from many of the national environmental groups. We think that we have crafted a bill which will allow fishermen to make a living from the sea while also making them better stewards of the resources they rely on for their livelihood. Three major areas needed to be addressed in this reauthorization to maintain healthy fisheries and healthy fishing communities. For the domestic fishery resource to remain healthy, fishery managers must take steps to reduce bycatch and the mortality of discards in the fisheries, to prevent the overfishing of stocks and rebuild those stocks which are already overfished, and, finally, to protect habitat essential for the continued renewal of the fisheries. The reduction of bycatch in our fisheries is one of the most crucial challenges facing fisheries managers today. In the North Pacific groundfish fishery alone, more than 740 million pounds of fish were discarded, in 1993. That represents 16 percent of the total catch of the fishery. Much of that discard is of prohibited species. It is clear that this is unacceptable. We hope that the requirements of this bill will help Councils address the problem of bycatch, and we hope that fishermen will respond with innovative methods of reducing bycatch. In particular, this legislation requires the Regional Fishery Management Councils to amend all existing Fishery Management Plans to reduce bycatch to the maximum extent practicable. It also provides the Councils with the ability to offer incentives to fishermen to reduce their bycatch. A second area of concern is the protection of essential habitat. This has been a tough issue to wrestle with. We do not want to over-regulate the fishing industry; however, the Councils [[Page H 9117]] and the National Marine Fisheries Service should include in their Fishery Management Plans a description of what habitat is essential for the continued health of the fishery. The third area of change is to address the problem of those stocks which are already overfished or may be in danger of overfishing. This legislation requires the Secretary to report to Councils if any stock is approaching a condition of being overfished. This proactive identification of overexploited stocks will enable the Councils to take steps to keep the stocks from crashing. The bill also requires that Councils implement a rebuilding plan for any stock which is already overfished. If the Council is not able to implement a plan within one year, the Secretary is then required to implement a plan. Mr. Chairman, one of the most contentious issues that we have worked on this year has been the use of a limited access management system known as Individual Transferable Quotas [ITQ's]. This type of management system allocates a percentage of the harvest to vessels based on past history in the fishery, current level of harvest, and several other criteria. Since 1990, three fisheries have already turned to ITQ's as the preferable management option, the latest being the halibut/sablefish plan in the North Pacific. The use of ITQ's has been hotly debated at the Council level and now at the national level. I believe that there are many issues yet to be resolved on the use of ITQ's as a management tool. There are those who argue that this bill kills any chance of ever enacting another Individual Transferable Quota [ITQ] plan. It does not. It puts the brakes on the headlong rush to enact ITQ plans for all fisheries without examining other limited access options. I have heard of movements to manage a number of fisheries under ITQ plans including: Pacific crab stocks, Bering Sea groundfish, New England lobster, Gulf of Mexico red snapper, Atlantic bluefin tuna, and swordfish. I believe that there are those at the National Marine Fisheries Service who have been advocating the use of ITQ's for all fisheries and I think this should stop. This bill makes it clear that ITQ's are a tool that the Councils can use, but clarifies that the quota shares are not property rights and do not convey a permanent right to the resource. Some ITQ proponents do not like the guidelines we have put in this legislation. This debate has been going on for more than 2 years and will probably continue after this bill is passed by the House and the debate turns to the Senate, which is currently working to move similar reauthorization legislation. I think these guidelines bring some rationality to ITQ management systems. Mr. Chairman, the problem of overcapitalization is another issue which has been debated by many of our Members for years. You will hear the phrase that ``there are too many boats chasing too few fish'' quite a bit today. It is especially true in some areas of the country like New England. We have worked hard to create a vessel buy-out program which does not require huge expenditures of taxpayer money. This program is a delicate compromise that I want to thank Gerry Studds and his staff for working on so diligently. The program allows a buy-out fund to be initially capitalized from already appropriated Federal programs such as fisheries disaster programs. The fund will then be used to bring the size of fishing fleets to a rational number. Those vessels which remain in the fishery and benefit from the reduction in fishing effort will then repay the fund over a 15-year period. This is a compromise which works, and which will not bankrupt the Federal Government nor the fishing industry. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill, and one that has taken 3 years to develop. It is full of compromise, yet does not compromise on maintaining the health of the resource--which should be the goal of everyone here. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. I urge a ``yes'' vote when this bill finally gets to the floor on the Magnuson Act, the renewal of the fisheries conservation bill. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Some Members are interested in offering amendments to H.R. 39 who would be unable to participate this afternoon. Therefore, it is my intent to ask that the Committee rise after conclusion of general debate and, if I may continue, with my understanding with my good friend, the gentleman from California, that eventually this bill will pass this House to get over to the Senate after we consider all amendments that are to be offered. We must proceed, because this has been sunsetted now for 1\1/ 2\ years, so we would like to get it done.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I offer a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am confident the Navy would not be interested in beaches in Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I again stress for my colleagues to vote for this legislation. It is long overdue. I am very concerned, as the gentleman from Hawaii has mentioned, that at this late date that these questions might arise. It is an example, I think, of some incompetency down in the department, and I say that with some reservation in the sense I cannot blame everybody, maybe just one enthusiastic individual. I know Secretary Dalton has been talked to. I had hoped that there would be a total turndown of this and I expect that before we do vote on this legislation, if we vote on this legislation.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the comments of the gentleman from Hawaii. I understand the concern of the gentleman from Colorado. In my opening statement I mentioned that I was very concerned. This is not a new issue. I was, first, not notified by the Navy nor the national security branch that, so when I did find out that this possibly occurred, I contacted not only the two senior Senators from Hawaii, I also contacted by senior Senator from Alaska. I know I am not supposed to mention the other body. They said there was no problem. They had had the review and decided that these concerns were unwarranted. So I am still a little bit concerned that the Navy, after 15 months, now would editorialize and throw up this sort of smokescreen, if I may call it. Really what it means is they just do not want to get rid of anything they have, even though it is for a legitimate reason and a legitimate right, and to have justice served, this provision should be adopted. It bothers me because, if this is a brandnew issue, it has been sprung on the House, it would be a different story. It was not sprung on the House. This has been around for a long, long time. We hear Friday now that these things may occur which, as was said before, there is no documentation, in fact backing up their premise. So I am urging my Members to reject the argument from the Navy because I think they are flat wrong.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 402) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this very important legislation for the good of all. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 402, as amended in the Senate. This bill is the result of a 2\1/2\-year effort of the Alaska Federation of Natives, the State of Alaska, the administration, and my ranking minority member, Mr. Miller, and I thank them for their dedication and hard work. Sections 101 and 107 of title I of this bill have already passed the House in previous Congresses but were not acted on by the Senate. H.R. 402 makes several technical changes to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 [ANCSA] and the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act to address some of the unresolved land issues which have arisen since the passage of these Acts. This bill also adds a new title to address the issue of Hawaiian Home Lands. Title I includes specific land conveyances to Native corporations, the clarification of mining authority and administration of mining claims on lands conveyed to Native corporations, an authorization for technical assistance to Native villages to help with land reconveyances required under ANCSA, a report on Vietnam-era veterans who were eligible but did not receive land under the Native Allotment Act of May 17, 1906, the confirmation of Woody Island, AK, as an eligible Alaska Native village under ANCSA and further clarification regarding the application of section 7(i) of the ANCSA revenue sharing provision to Alaska Native Regional corporations. Title II authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to begin the negotiation process for 1,400 acres of Federal lands to be conveyed to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in exchange for Hawaiian Home Lands retained by the Federal Government and for compensation for lost use of these lands. This is an authorization only to establish a process for the exchange of lands as authorized in the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act. Mr. Speaker, all these provisions are long awaited, by both my Alaska Native constituency and the Hawaiian Native constituency to resolve some of the land disputes in the respective Native homelands and States. I want to thank Chairman Kasich and his staff for their thorough review of this bill in a short period of time and their cooperation in scheduling this bill on today's program. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest respectfully that one of the most frustrating things I have in this profession of mine is when I have people come to me and suggest ``we should have been notified.'' This bill has been on the burner for a long, long time, and the Senate provision for the Hawaiian homelands has been passed by the Senate many, many months ago. Now people are raising some questions, I want to suggest redundantly. I think those questions are moot, and should not be answered at this time because they are not germane to the subject we are discussing today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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