Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, on the first day of the session, I joined with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and a bipartisan group of Members in introducing H.R. 70. Mr. Chairman, on May 9, the committee heard testimony from the administration, the State of Alaska, California independent oil producers, maritime labor, and other proponents of our proposed legislation. The administration testified in favor of the bill, but indicated that the bill should be amended, first, to provide for an appropriate environmental review, second, to allow the Secretary of Commerce to sanction anticompetitive behavior by exporters, and, third, to establish a licensing system. On May 17, the committee adopted a substitute amendment supported by the administration. I am pleased to offer today a committee print that has the support of the administration. The committee print would bring the bill in substantive conformity with title II of S. 395 and includes provisions requested by the administration. In a nutshell, the committee print provides for the following: ANS oil exports--carried in U.S.-flag vessels--would be authorized, unless the President determined they were not in the national interest. Before making his national interest determination, the President must consider an appropriate environmental review, as well as the effect of exports on jobs and consumers. In making his national interest determination (within 5 months of enactment), the President could impose terms and conditions other than a volume limitation on exports. The Secretary of Commerce then would be required to issue any rules necessary to implement the President's affirmative national interest determination within 30 days. If the Secretary later found that sustained material oil shortages or sustained prices significantly above the world level had caused sustained material job losses, he could recommend appropriate action by the President against an exporter, including modification or revocation of the authority to export. Administrative action under the bill would not be subject to traditional notice and comment rulemaking requirements. As under S. 395, the President would retain his authority to later block exports in an emergency. In addition, Israel and other countries pursuant to the International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan would be exempted from the U.S.-flag requirement. Finally, the committee print also would require the General Accounting Office to prepare a report assessing the impact of ANS exports on consumers, independent refiners, shipbuilders, and ship repair yards. Enactment of this legislation would at long last allow exports of our State's North Slope crude oil when carried on U.S.-flag vessels. When enacted, this legislation will allow the State's most important and vital industry to finally sell its products in the global marketplace. To put the proposed legislation in perspective, I think it would be helpful to explain the origins of current law. The export restrictions were first enacted shortly after the commencement of the 1973 Arab- Israeli War and the first Arab oil boycott. At that time, many people believed that enactment of the export restrictions would enhance our Nation's energy security. Indeed, following the second major oil shock in 1979, Congress effectively imposed a ban on 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. Last year, for the first time, imports met more than half of our domestic demand--not because consumption has risen, but rather because domestic production has declined so enormously. Even though imports are up, they come today from far more secure sources than in the 1970's, when energy security was of such a paramount concern. Today, over half of our imports come from the Western Hemisphere and Europe. Mexico and Canada are among our largest suppliers. We not only are less dependent on the Middle East and Africa, but we have stopped buying crude from Iran, Iraq, and Libya. In addition, international sharing agreements are in place and the United States has filled a Strategic Petroleum Reserve with 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. If I may just digress from my written statement, Mr. Chairman, last month the highest part of our trade deficit, which was the highest we have had in 7 years, was the importation of fossil fuels. In fact, the production on the North Slope has now entered a period of sustained decline. In California, small independent producers have been forced to abandon wells and defer further investments. By precluding the market from operating normally, the export ban has discouraged production in the United States. This bill is intended to change that situation. H.R. 70 would require the use of U.S.-flagged--U.S. crewed vessels, not U.S. built. May I compliment my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], for not offering that, because, very frankly, it would have caused us great concern within the shipbuilding industry and within the unions themselves. Small independent producers have been forced to abandon wells or defer further investments. Faced with glut-induced prices for their own crude, these small businesses have laid off workers, further exacerbating market conditions caused by the long recession in California. By precluding the market from operating normally, the export ban has had the unintended effect of discouraging further energy production. We want to change that situation. In an effort to quantify the likely production response and to evaluate benefits and costs of Alaskan oil exports, the Department of Energy conducted a comprehensive study last year. In its June 1994 report, the Department concluded Alaskan oil exports would boost production in Alaska and California by 100,000-110,000 barrels per day by the end of the century. The study also concluded that ANS exports could create up to 25,000 jobs as well. The sooner we change current law, the sooner we can spur additional energy production and create jobs in Alaska and in California. 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 who remain vital to our national security. In recognition of this concern, our proposed legislation would require the use of U.S.-flag vessels to carry exports. The U.S. Trade Representative has assured Congress that this provision does not violate our GATT obligations. Based on the testimony presented to the committee and our own assessment of the issue, we concur with the administration's view that this provision is fully consistent with all of our international obligations. Our proposed legislation also ensures that an appropriate environmental review will be completed before the President makes his national interest determination. I think it is important to emphasize that in order to be in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the environmental review required under the bill need not include a full-blown environmental impact statement, even if the review determines that some adverse environmental impacts may arise from exporting of ANS oil. As long as those impacts can be mitigated by conditions on exports included in the President's national interest determination, NEPA is satisfied. We have given the President discretion to have the relevant agencies conduct the type of environmental review considered appropriate under the circumstances. In fact, the procedure set forth in the committee print for making the appropriate environmental review tracks the well- recognized procedure whereby an agency may forego a full environmental impact statement by taking appropriate steps to correct any problems found during an environmental assessment. If the EA does reveal some 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. In its June 1994 Study, ``Exporting Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil,'' the Department of Energy ``found no plausible evidence of any direct negative environmental impacts from lifting the ANS export ban.'' Under the circumstances, we believe the review procedure established in the committee print--a 4-month study containing appropriate mitigating measures--properly balances the facts known to Congress and our policy objectives. Moreover, it fully complies with NEPA. In closing, let me emphasize that this ban no longer makes economic sense. For too long, it has hurt the citizens of Alaska, it has severely damaged the California oil and gas 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. To reduce our net dependence on imports, we can take an important first step by enacting this proposed legislation. The maritime industry and the oil industry have shown they can work together to promote the common good. We hope we can soon show that the administration and Congress can work together as well to promote our national security, spur energy production, reduce our net dependence on imports, and create jobs. May I say in closing, Mr. Chairman, this is H.R. 70. They can insert everything after the enacting clause of the Senate bill as it passes the Senate. We will be discussing those things that will be argued today on the floor with the Senate in conference. Keep in mind we are working on a House bill that passed out of our committee pretty nearly unanimously by voice vote, and had strong bipartisan support. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this legislation and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I have heard this argument over and over again about what a great giveaway. This amendment, very frankly, would drive the mining industry, as I have said again and again, off our shores. We would stop what little industry we have left today. The one bright spot in this industry is the gold mining. Across the United States it employs people, it makes new jobs. This money is not going anywhere. The Federal Government does not make any money, and to say this is a ripoff is the same old litany I have heard time and time again written by the Sierra Club, written by the environmental community, trying to drive [[Page H 7120]] our industry off our shores, and all the other countries of the world today, they are trying to get the mining industries to come in, and they are doing it because they delete royalties, they encourage by tax incentives, they give the land away free to get the jobs on their shores. The 1872 mining law has worked, and I may suggest to the gentleman who just spoke previously he ought to know about the condos, because he has spent many a time in those places. May I suggest respectfully, if I can, that this amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from West Virginia was offered last year, was adopted by the majority of them on that side, opposed by our side, and to have our side offering this amendment is wrong. I say to my colleagues, If you want to keep our jobs on our shores, employing people not flipping hamburgers, but doing real jobs that develop a resource and resources on these lands, then you ought to take and turn down this amendment. It is a bad amendment on this legislation, but more than that it is, and sadly the Parliamentarian would not rule in my favor, it is legislation on an appropriation. And now I remind my leadership we were not going to do that with our side. We are doing it by this amendment today. I do not agree with it. I think it is wrong, it is inappropriate. It is wrong for this Nation, it is wrong for this industry. We must continue to work for America.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy amendment. I say to the gentleman, ``Shame on you, Mr. Kennedy.'' Mr. Chairman, this would cause a loss of $250 million of receipts to the Treasury, and these figures are the Treasury figures, a loss of $60 million in revenue for sharing of counties and schools around these areas, a loss of 15 jobs for every 1 million board feet not harvested, and, if we reduce it by 1 billion board feet, think how many jobs will be lost there, 25-percent reduction to the timber program which is already four times slower than it was 5 years ago. Let us not kid ourselves. My friends, this amendment is to stop the total timber industry in the United States, especially in the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. This is what this is about. I ask, ``Where else do you have 3,000 acres that don't have roads in it already?'' This is an attempt to stop all logging so we no longer have the opportunity to reduce a renewable resource. That is why I say, ``Shame on you.'' This is a renewable source. This is not something that will not grow back. This is something that has to be done, and managed, and should be, and we are not cutting the timber we were 5 years ago, so I suggest respectfully this is a bad amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill. My amendment reduces funding for two unnecessary aircraft and some vehicles to be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These savings are then made available to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for two purposes. In 1906, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Allotment Act to allocate lands to Native Alaskans. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 repealed the 1906 Allotment Act and an allottee must have filed an application with the Department of the Interior by December 18, 1971. It has been over 23 years since eligible allottees filed their applications and there still remains a need to resolve the on-going case load of Alaska Native allotment disputes at the Department of Interior. In February of 1994, the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, the Alaska Legal Services, and the Alaska Federation of Natives met to discuss solutions to resolve these disputes, propose to close the last of Native allotment cases and an attempt to finalize land dispute problems in this area. This amendment intends that half of these funds--$442,000--be used for the Alaska Native allotment attorney fee program at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This will provide funds for representatives for Native allottees with cases with pending at various stages of review within the Department of Interior and before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. The need for outside counsel in these cases is required because of the attorneys within the Department of Interior recognize a conflict of interest between the Native allottees and their institutional clients. The remaining funds are to added to the Bureau's Wildlife and Parks program as additional funds for monitoring and enhancement of the salmon returns within the Arctic-Yukon-Kustokwim regions in Alaska. The Athabaskan, Yup'ik and Inupiaq Natives of western and interior Alaska live a subsistence way of life from harvests of different fish and mammals. Although these resources supply most of their food needs, they also need cash to purchase essentials such as gas, and nonperishable foodstuffs and harvesting equipment such as boats, outboard motors, nets, and rifles. Commercial fishing provides that small but necessary income since other jobs are scarce and seasonal in rural Alaska. Fishing income averages $4,000 from about 7 weeks of fishing and the per capita income in the villages of these regions is about 60 percent of the U.S. national average. Beginning in 1990, chum salmon stocks in these regions declined significantly and spawning escapements were inadequate. For the upcoming fishing seasons, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is predicting below average return of salmon to these regions. This program fund is intended for salmon monitoring, enhancement and restoration and research projects in these regions.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my esteemed colleague, Mr. Tom Coburn's amendment to the Interior appropriations bill. His amendment restores funding to local schools which receive funding from the Department of Education to support the special educational needs of Alaska Native or American Indian students. While Mr. Coburn's amendment does not restore the Office of Indian Education, it provides for program funds within the Department of Education to schools who provide academic tutoring, personal counseling, career counseling and other services to Alaska Native and American Indian students who are at risk. As a former educator, I believe it is vital that native students be given a fair opportunity to achieve their highest potential. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Coburn amendment to restore $52 million for the Department of Education program funding to schools who help disadvantaged children meet high standards.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Well, I am not on the committee, and, very frankly, I just know I am on the authorizing committee, and we are going to review the Fish and Wildlife Service and all of the other agencies that come before my committee. I have not had time to do that, that is all. We will do it. If they can justify it, we will go forth at a later date. By the way, we will have time as it goes to the Senate and goes to conference, the gentleman from Washington and the gentleman from Ohio, if they are in fact needed and can be justified, that can be handled at a later date. But, frankly, I am concerned that the money is being spent by these agencies when they could be spent in other areas. Now, that is what I am saying here.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Apparently they were requested by the agency, but I do not believe they have been justified, and I really will tell you sincerely, kind sir, that one of our biggest problems, they request these vehicles, they have not shown where they are going to be used; I am letting them purchase the 54, but not the 113.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Two new ones. And I am also striking the 113 passenger vehicles, the 54 remaining for them, the 59 for police work I am striking, because they never justified the use of those vehicles, and I am transferring that money to the BIA.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly, but enthusiastically, rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Much of what the gentleman said is true, but let us keep in mind that these properties that we were supposed to be purchasing were set off limits by another Congress. In fact, if we look at the GAO report, which I requested with the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], that was reported in 1995, we purchased in 1993, through the agencies, a little over 203,000 acres of land. The Forest Service purchased 72,000; the LM 27,000; the Fish and Wildlife, 82,000; the National Park Service, 22,000. What we have done in the past, and I will respectfully say, we have now hopefully addressed that issue with a commission that will look at our parks. We hope to come forth with another recommendation that we do not constantly create these units without proper scientific research and input. Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree that there is $11 billion in the fund to buy these properties. We have not. We have used them. All administrations, including this one, have used these moneys to balance the budget, or other purposes than what they were collected for. But more than that, we have stopped drilling off shore too. There is no drilling taking place in the United States, other than in the Mexican gulf. There is a little off of Alaska. There is none around the United States and I do not think anybody here is advocating that. None in Florida. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that the gentleman from Ohio said that we did on this side, I am saying this for our Members, agreed to a budget target to balance it by a certain time. So, Mr. Chairman, I am going to request, respectfully, we vote no on the gentleman's amendment, although much of his argument is correct as to how this has been misused. But I do believe if we want to reach that target, we should reject the amendment, support the chairman of the committee, and go forth with our business.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I will not take a great deal of time. This is a very simple amendment. What my amendment does, very frankly, is to strike the funding for 59 new vehicles for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for police activities and two airplanes for the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is my strong feeling that these are not needed at this time, and, in fact, these monies should be transferred, and that is what my amendment does, to the BIA.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are two things: The Fish and Wildlife Service now has an exorbitant amount of aircraft that they provide, and I would not like to get into the subject totally tonight. In my State alone we have over 110 aircraft. There are plenty of aircraft to be chartered out, and my argument all along has been every time they acquired aircraft, if it is from the military or any other place, it takes tax dollars to maintain and operate those aircraft, in direct competition with aircraft that are available for contract. I can go to Alaska, and I hope you have a chance, the gentleman has been to Alaska, and we can go on the turbo-goose, we can go into everything but a big jet. I am saying it is time we get out of this business. I am not striking the aircraft that they have now, but the two aircraft they have requested, I am saying no more. Until they can come to me and justify that aircraft, they can show what the need is, I do not think we ought to be having any more aircraft for them.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. May I suggest, I see my good friend from California and I listened to my good friend from Wisconsin, and it has nothing to do with the militia or any other thing. What I am suggesting respectfully, have not seen the justification for this amount of new vehicles. Remember, this is what we call roaded areas. They may be needed. But we have not so far found out if that need is true. Second, the aircraft, may I stress, is nothing new. Right now they have a humongous fleet of aircraft operating all across the United States at the taxpayers' cost, and very frankly cannot justify them. I have been fighting this issue for the last 15 years, as I was in the minority. And I will tell you right up front that they cannot come to this House or this committee or any other committee and say that they can truly justify the cost to the taxpayer for this fleet of aircraft. That is all I am saying. They want two new airplanes. That is wrong. This has nothing to do with the militia or anything else. I am saying if you look at the moneys being spent, this is incorrect. You can say what you want to say.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Not at this time. I am going to be addressing it probably in title II concerning aircraft, concerning vehicles, and we can direct it at that time, I believe, maybe I am wrong, to the area which the gentleman from Michigan and yourself are seeking.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I happen to think the gentleman from Ohio and yourself have made an agreement here that we want to restore the moneys for Indian education. Is that correct?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There are other ways to restore this money other than taking it from the fossil fuel research. I will have amendments later on down the line that would save in the realm of $108 million that is unnecessary to spend at this time for the purchase of new vehicles and aircraft for agencies that have no reason to purchase them other than to have their own private fleet. What I am suggesting is that there is plenty of room in this bill to transfer moneys into. I think the gentleman from Michigan will agree, and yourself and the gentleman from Ohio, this is a much higher priority than to purchase hardware for those that want their own little playground to play on with their own little play toys. So I am glad you have reached this agreement. But I do not support the gentleman from Wisconsin taking it out of the fossil fuel research. I think in the meantime, before we get to title II, we can work out an amendment that can get the moneys to the American Indian education fund.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from Alabama put it very clearly: This is not about the author of the amendment's statement about money. This is about, very frankly, the environmental community opposes this dam. Let us get beyond that. Let us go to the commitment we have made to the American Indian. Let us make that commitment one not of the forked tongue. This project has been worked on for over 100 years. It is time that this Congress speaks with a straight tongue and fulfill our obligations. I would suggest respectfully that if we do not do so, we have gone back and repeated what we have done over the years, breaking our word again and again. I would suggest respectfully this amendment is not appropriate if we are to fulfill our obligations. I urge a strong no vote. Let us speak with a straight tongue, and not forked tongue.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1141) to amend the act popularly known as the Sikes Act to enhance fish and wildlife conservation and natural resources management programs, as amended.

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