Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents funds from this act from being used to finalize, implement, or enforce the new Arctic regulations the Department of the Interior rushed to last week. In addition to the billions of dollars already spent--$7 billion--to develop these sales, these regulations would cost an additional $2 billion for the oil and gas industry. This regulation is nothing more than a tactic to lock safe Arctic energy development up in red tape because exploration would become full of unnecessary operational burdens. The National Petroleum Council Arctic report found that Arctic resources can be safely developed today using existing, field-proven technology. Locking up Arctic resources only hurts our Nation by preventing responsible energy development. I ask my colleagues to support the State of Alaska, stand up for the Alaskan Natives of the North Slope who support this production in energy exploration, and vote ``yes'' on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I can assure the young lady that the Natives of Alaska on the North Slope support this legislation. They want the development. They have talked about it. They have been really working close with the oil industry as partners. I think we ought to accept the fact that they are the most affected. If they want it, we ought to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prevents funds from this act being used to implement a Department of the Interior management plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which designates the entirety as wilderness. This would include the 1002 area that was set aside by Congress for potential development in the future, an area that holds 10 billion barrels of oil at the minimum and probably 37 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I am trying to do this because we already did this act. In the Alaska National Lands Act, we set that area aside. Now the Department that regulates it is trying to make it all wilderness with no drilling to take place. I ask for a ``yes'' vote. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the gentleman that this was an act of Congress that set aside the 1002 area by the Senator from Washington State. That is crucially important because it is an area that has great potential 74 miles away from the existing pipeline. It also is an area that has the Village of Kaktovik that supports the drilling and development in 1002. I am just saying that no agency has a right to overcome a law of the Congress. I am not talking about the 19 million acres. I am talking about the small acreage, a parcel no bigger than the Dulles Airport, to allow that to be continued to be considered by the Congress of the United States, who set it aside at the insistence of Scoop Jackson from Washington State with the help of Senator Ted Stevens and myself, for potential drilling. It has to have an act of Congress, but you can't drill in a wilderness area. So I am saying no money shall be spent. No regulatory agency can turn and make it an off-limits area to develop the oil if this Congress so decides. I urge a ``yes'' on my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that most people don't know what they are talking about. We follow the laws of the Congress. We should. I respectfully suggest that I am not suggesting the whole--and I am not supporting it right now--the Arctic Wildlife Range, I am talking about 100,000 acres of land that we set aside--the Congress. The Senate agreed to it. The conference agreed to it. And here we are trying to let a regulatory agency tell us how to manage it. That is inappropriate. I listened to another gentleman on this floor today talking about overregulation of the EPA. That is what is wrong with this Nation today, is regulatory law allowing the executive branch to run this Nation without the people's voice being heard. That is what is happening here. I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the funds in this act from being used to issue the final rule by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, which would seize authority away from the Alaskan Fish and Game of the State of Alaska to manage fish and wildlife for both nonsubsistence and subsistence uses on Federal wildlife refuges in Alaska. In addition, this amendment prohibits funds to be used on the existing National Park Service rule that interferes with State wildlife management authority on national preserve lands, which is guaranteed hunting under the Alaska National Lands Act in Alaska. The two rules in question violate the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the ANILCA, passed by Congress and signed into law in 1980, which protects the ability of the State of Alaska to manage wildlife across the State on State, private, and Federal lands. This Chamber voted in favor of a similar amendment and this language in the sportsmen's package, H.R. 2604, back in February. These regulations are nothing more than an illegal overreach of the Federal Government on the State of Alaska. It is agreed in the Constitution, and it is in the law that they manage all fish and game on all lands in the State of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed in the comments that were just made because all he said was not true. The State does not den; the State does not snare; the State does not trap; the State does not kill wantonly. The State manages. To have the Federal Government manage the game when it is the law and when it is in the Constitution of the State of Alaska--an agreement made with this body--and to have an agency take that over and with the propaganda that has been espoused on this floor from the Humane Society is inappropriate of this body. It is a flat-out lie. That is what it is. It is not true. The State manages, and they have not used these practices, but they have a right and should have a right to manage the fish and game on the property which was guaranteed to us. I understand where this pressure is coming from. We in Alaska face this every day. No one understands that we have people in Alaska and that we have natives in Alaska who actually want the State to manage their fish and game or who would like to manage it by themselves, which I do support; but to have the Federal Government come in is wrong, and it is against our Constitution. I will stand by this amendment to stop moneys being spent by an agency that has overreached. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments from the gentleman. I will say, though, that all of these instances that have been referred to have not happened under State management. I suggest, respectfully, that the Fish and Wildlife is no longer a manager of fish and wildlife. They have become people who prohibit activity on the refuges. That was not why these refuges were made. They were made by the people who hunt and fish, and now we are having other groups that say this is inhumane, which has nothing to do with it. I am a little bit shocked that we are reading the thing from the Humane Society, PETA, and all of these other groups. Those are not the true facts. I ask the gentleman to, please, look at the true facts. Management is crucial to the State of Alaska. As I mentioned before, we ought to really think about, maybe, management by the native corporations on their lands, too; but in having the Federal Government manage, it has done a miserable job of the management of game. Their idea of management is to just leave them walking around and to let nature take care of it. I happen to know a little bit about nature, and it doesn't take care of it. We are just talking about management, and the State has that right under its constitution; so I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, this amendment circumvents the established rulemaking process, which solicits public input and uses the best available science to reach a decision. Alaska's aggressive predatory control practices and disregard for science-based management in the approach of the Service would negatively impact the stability of the ecosystems and wildlife throughout the region. Thirty-one biologists and scientists stated on March 28, 2016, in a letter to Interior Secretary Jewell and Service Director Ash: The most current and best available science is clear that predator control measures that are intended to restore the herd, such as moose and caribou, are doomed to failure because the herds need to access nutrition. Their main limiting factor is Alaska's intensive management scheme, which is the wrong approach to conserving natural systems. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It prevents funding from this act to be used to remove 3 Arctic Sales that have already taken place from the 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program. The economic benefits that would be associated with offshore development in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are tremendous. In those two areas alone, we have the potential to produce about 23.6 billion barrels of oil and 104 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Potentially creating 54,700 jobs nationwide will generate billions of dollars in revenue for the State and local governments. May I suggest, respectfully, that this money can be used in conservation efforts, in land and water conservation funds. You can't have that program without the development of oil; yet everybody I know on that side supports the program. The second thing is, if I can say one thing, we sit with our heads in the sand when, across the border, China and the other nations are developing. We must, in fact, be part players of this program. We need to do it wisely and to do it safely and to do it for the benefit of the American people. Now, if you don't believe in fossil fuels, I understand that, but there is no way that we are not going to be using fossil fuels for many years to come. If we are to do so, let's use that which is safe. We have already proven it can be done safely in the Arctic. It is not the frontier that people think it is. It is 150 feet deep. If we don't do this off our shores, it will be done by foreign countries. I am asking the Department of the Interior not to withdraw those sales. It means money to the Treasury; it means we have less of a dependence on foreign oil; and it means we will be actively involved. When other countries are involved, we will be there with our equipment, and we will be able to have an oil spill recovery if they spill the oil, because they will not. I know how the parties play in this. We will. I urge the adoption of my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, these leases were put up for lease in 2017-2022. We are not asking for any additional new leases. We are asking for the leases that remain in the sales. Then we address the environmental issue as the sales take place before we have development. I am suggesting, respectfully, if we don't have those areas open, the 3 Arctic Sale areas, then the leases will not be issued in any other area. Oil is not where you want it to be--it is where it is. I am saying we can address all of the issues the gentlewoman is concerned with after the sales take place and we receive the money. If it can't be done safely, it can be stopped at that time. This happened with Shell. I am just saying not to let an agency or an administration get ahead of itself and say, ``Oh, we are going to take the leases back.'' That is the prerogative of an agency, yes; but the leases were put up to begin with, so we ought to take and accept that. Let's go through the process, and the process will follow through. Then we will decide on the environmental impact, on the culture. Then we will have the way to do it right and correctly. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. This is an area called the Forty Mile Mining District area in the State of Alaska that has been mined since 1895. There was an attempt by the BLM to go in and stop this mining. These are not large mines. These are mom-and-pop operations, placer operations. They put down ridiculous regulations and reclamation now, and they want them to reclaim the land back to the original state before it was ever mined, not of the disturbance of the mining they were doing. It is amazing to me that they would even think about doing this. I am talking about people who have been there for 20 years, most of them retired. They are really, if I have to say anything, the mom-and- pops of Alaska; they are the spirit of Alaska. All of a sudden, they have a big agency coming in and saying: You have to have a reclamation area, and this is the way that we want it done. Yet, they don't recognize what has been done in the past and how it has worked. What they are proposing is wrong, and it costs a considerable amount of money to these small mom-and-pop miners. One of our big plaques in the State of Alaska is the gold pan. Yet, we have this agency coming in for 140 acres. That is all they are talking about. For some reason, they got an idea that we want to put them out of business. I am just saying, no, they should not impose these regulations. Follow the State mining law, and the reclamation that takes place now works. Let them continue to do that, and we can reclaim the land. They are agreeable to that. They just can't do what they are asking them to do because they can't afford to do it. It is that simple. This is a simple amendment to try and protect mom-and-pop operations in the State of Alaska like you would do in your State for any other operation where the Federal Government is coming in and trying to take it away. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest one thing to the gentlewoman; we are only talking about 49 families. This is small. I am not talking about all the other placer mining. This is, in fact, the Forty Mile Miners. I mean, they have been there forever. Like I say, you can go there and it is like looking into a museum of 1859. And they are patented claims. It is their land. A lot of it is State land. They are claiming it because it is placer mining. The BLM is claiming they have the authority to impose a reclamation system that does not work. Did they consult? No. I am just saying, keep in mind that we are not talking about corporations. We are not talking about large industry. We are talking about, very frankly, if you go up there--and I wish you would--you will find out they are a pretty good group of older Alaskans, some hippies. We still have a few of those left. And they are not making any money. This is an occupation, but if they have to do what the BLM is suggesting they do--by the way, there are fish in that stream now, and it was mined in 1895. What they are asking, it will break them. They can't do it, and you will say good. Well, that is taking people--this is a huge area, the total area. That, I am not arguing. I am just talking about this little Forty Mile group. So give them a break. Let them go out and make enough money to buy Saturday night party time. I urge the passage of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Duffy's amendment. I have listened to his arguments very closely. My interest in this is the American Indian and Alaska Native and Hawaiian Native. My interest is because this program, the CDFI, is the one program where they have access to moneys, and they cannot get it from the standard lending institutions for their businesses that they are trying to create. And it has worked successfully in Alaska and in the lower 48, too. I would suggest, respectfully, that a lot of people don't understand, we don't have a road system. Most of our--in fact, all of our villages don't have banks, and this program can work and does work very well to try to improve their lot. And I say they have been successful at creating new jobs that create money. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest one thing. I listened to these arguments about the money we are appropriating, and I wish everybody would understand in this body we cannot create jobs by creating government jobs. That is not real money. That is money that is being consumed. And this body has been neglectful in creating jobs from resources and manufacturing from, have not supported, nor have they made the suggestion that this should be done. So we talk about these programs, we need to have money available to create jobs that create real money, and a lot of this is done in the rural communities in my State of Alaska and the Indian country in the lower 48. So I suggest the gentleman has a point, but not a strong enough point to have me vote for his amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House Floor today with a heavy heart. On June 11, 2016, a ``Bulldog'' in the Alaska Veterans community passed from our world, and joined his comrades from Vietnam, family, and friends in Heaven above. On behalf of the countless Alaskans who were touched by Retired Air Force Master Sergeant Fred ``Bulldog'' Becker, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my condolences with his son Fred, daughters Elizabeth, Melinda, and their many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I recall one special occasion when I joined Bulldog on our nation's birthday, July 4, 2010, after he and his brothers in arms rode across the country in honor of fallen Naval Chief Special Warfare Operator Lance Vacarro. From the moment we met so many years ago, to that day in 2010, and until his passing, his commitment to his fallen brothers was never-ending, and I will always treasure our friendship. Mr. Speaker, though Bulldog was never one to flaunt his own achievements, it is only fitting to mention several of them in recognition of this remarkable Alaskan. Bulldog served his country in the United States Air Force for 20 years, including three tours in Vietnam, before retiring in 1981. Among his many commendations, he is the recipient of the Air Force Commendation Medal with 1 Oak Leaf cluster, a Presidential Unit Citation, the Vietnam Service Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. Mr. Speaker, upon ``Bulldog'' Becker's retirement, he chose to call the great state of Alaska home. In Alaska, and across the country, he was a tireless advocate for our nation's veterans. He proudly dedicated his life to serving our nation, my home State of Alaska, and all those who wore the uniform of our great nation. Mr. Speaker, Master Sergeant Becker never backed down from a challenge. A proud member of the Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club and later the Combat Veterans Motorcycle Club, he always fought to ensure our men and women in uniform received the care and respect they not only deserved, but earned. Mr. Speaker, I have always believed that a hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than themselves. In the eyes of anyone who knew him, MSgt. Fred ``Bulldog'' Becker was a true American hero. Bulldog, Godspeed my friend, until I see you again, riding through the clouds of Heaven.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5278. May I commend Chairman Bishop for his kindness in recognizing my birthday and my anniversary. I am quite proud of that. I am 83 years old. I want a lot of you to remember the fact I still can kick tails and take names, so just keep that in mind. This is a bill that I do support. It has been worked together with the Puerto Ricans. It has been worked together with Representatives Grijalva and Pierluisi. I would say most all of the people involved in this recognize this is not everything we would want, but it is the bill, I think, that can help Puerto Rico today and now. It is not a bailout. That is for some people who keep saying it is a bailout. It does not allow taxpayer dollars to be used for paying down the Puerto Rican debt. I held a hearing in February on the oversight board concept, and it was clear that it was needed and it was testified in favor of. I understand some reluctance in Puerto Rico, but let's get this ship righted. Once we get it righted, restaffed, and the sails full of wind, then Puerto Rico will have a chance. I do support the multiple-step process. The bill combats the immediate crisis. It will help out Puerto Rico's ability to take and get credit. We need more long-term solutions, though, about the economic zones in Puerto Rico and how we improve the economy there so they can continue to grow. I want to compliment Mr. Duffy's amendment, and I will support Mr. Duffy and his work on this legislation. I do believe a HUBZone is very necessary in the contracting program. As I mentioned, I have been worked passionately on Puerto Rican issues on the floor of the House. Fifteen years ago, we had a vote about statehood. I passed it by one vote. I am a big supporter of statehood and always have been. It didn't occur. We didn't allow it. Right now, this problem has to be addressed. I again do compliment Mr. Bishop, Mr. Duffy, and members on that side of the aisle. Let's take our American people and Puerto Rico and give them the recognition that is necessary. Let's take and help them now so we can go forth.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank Chairman Tiberi for his kind work. We will miss the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and I thank him for this bipartisan effort because this is a good bill and I strongly support it. This measure includes many important provisions as you have spoken about. But especially important to Alaska is section 103 language from legislation, H.R. 672, a 5-year extension of the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Program. This demonstration program has worked well and has come to the aid of seniors in Alaska and healthcare providers across rural America. Congress created the program to provide increased Medicare reimbursements for hospitals across the Nation that are too large to be considered Critical Access Hospitals, but too small to be supported by traditional low Medicare margins on inpatient services. This program has helped three hospitals in Alaska: Central Peninsula of Soldotna, the Bartlett Regional Hospital in Juneau, and Mt. Edgecumbe in Sitka. These hospitals serve a wide variety of patients all across those vast areas. I do believe this is one of the better bipartisan efforts. Go back to the old days when we accomplished things together by talking with one another. It is vital we pass this bipartisan legislation and that the Senate act on it. I would suggest, respectfully, to both my chairman and ranking member, let's talk to the Senate and see if we can't get something done. Four hundred bills over there is wrong. This is one that shouldn't be hung up. I urge all my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.