Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961. As chairman of the Committee on Resources, we had joint jurisdiction over this legislation. But also being ranking on the committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I watched the building of this bill and watched what he has been able to do, and our committee, full committee, with the exception of two people, fully agreed with what we are attempting to do here, and that is to have clean water. We have to keep in mind what has been said prior to some of the other speakers about how bad this bill is. This bill achieves many things, but one of the main things that it achieves is clean water realistically. It requires clean water as it should be without the regulations, without the dominance of government interference. It is a needed bill. It has to occur. One of the things I have heard from most of the Governors around the country is whatever happens, you must review and revamp the Clean Water Act so we can make it apply to our communities and stop making us waste money on testing that is unnecessary, meeting requirements that are unnecessary. And in Alaska alone, which I will have an amendment later on, the biggest city in Alaska had to add fish guts to make sure we met the standards for the particular amount in the water that comes out at the end of the effluent. We had pure water. I could drink it. To say we want to stay with the present bill, the regulations that should never have been applied, is absolutely ludicrous. More than that, in this bill there is a provision which I hope everybody is listening. The one provision from this bill every State in the Union is the wetlands provision. You have seen what the wetlands have done to this country, how it has been implemented and enforced by a Federal Government without any jurisdiction of written law, other than a dredging law through regulatory law, where they can tell my State of Alaska that all of your land is wet. You have no longer a right to build or take and construct schools or do things good for your community because we have decided it is wet, without compensation. They have put inroads into our ability to take and produce. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we also have to keep in mind this Congress in 1971 gave 44 million acres of land to the Alaskan natives, the American Eskimos in Alaska. We gave that land to them as a commitment to them for their economic and social well-being. And what do we do under the wetlands provision? We take it away, because we tell them under the Federal control it is 98 percent wetlands. You call that justice? I am saying it is time we support this bill. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the committee have done an excellent job. When I hear members of the committee say this is a bad bill, I say shame on you. This is a good bill that should be passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the Striped Bass Conservation Act amendments and I compliment the author of the bill, Jim Saxton, for his leadership in moving this important measure. The Atlantic coast stock of striped bass are found in waters from North Carolina to Maine. They are highly migratory but move primarily along the coast within the 3-mile zone, which is subject to State fishery management. While striped bass populations have fluctuated dramatically in the past, the population suffered a drastic decline in the 1970s. In fact, striped bass harvests dropped from 15 million pounds in 1973 to 3.5 million pounds in 1983. In response to this serious problem, Congress approved an emergency striped bass study and the Atlantic Striped Bass conservation Act of 1984. This law requires all affected coastal States to implement management measures to conserve and protect the remaining stocks of Atlantic striped bass. While the resurgence of striped bass is a major fishery management success, H.R. 1139 will ensure that this remarkable recovery is not compromised in the days ahead. As reported from my committee, this legislation will reauthorize both the Striped Bass Conservation Act and section 7 of the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, which funds ongoing striped bass population studies. In addition, the bill focuses attention on stripers in the Delaware River and encourages greater public participation in the writing of management plans. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1139 and again compliment Jim Saxton and Gerry Studds for their outstanding leadership in this major conservation effort. I would hope more of our fishery management efforts prove to be this successful in the future.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the leadership of the 104th Congress is seeking to establish more equitable relationships between the Federal Government and the public lands States of the West. Before last November, Washington saw a resurgence of the misguided idea that central government control over the public domain must be expanded. The new congressional majority believes it is time to downsize the Federal bureaucracy, shift public lands to governments closer to the people, and recognize the role that the public lands in the West play in putting people back to work. Many Western States have also been told that the national interest demands that State and local concerns be accorded second-class status. In my State of Alaska, over half of our public lands were designated parks, wilderness areas, and refuges in the name of the national interest without any form of consideration in return. There are indeed times when the interests of the country compel action, but the interests and concerns of States and local governments must be recognized and addressed in such cases. Our public policy will be that there can be no unilateral action by the Federal Government without special consideration being afforded by the affected State and local governments. The controversial matter of nuclear waste storage offers an opportunity to implement this principle. A series of administrations and Congresses has deliberated and decided to proceed with waste storage facilities on public lands in Nevada. Unfortunately this Federal action has not been matched by the special consideration that the governments and people of Nevada, or any other similarly situated public lands State, deserve. I am considering an amendment to pending nuclear waste legislation to provide appropriate special consideration to Nevada and affected county governments. This amendment would provide to the State and the affected counties a combination of specific parcels of valuable land as well as an entitlement to select from a pool of public lands. These lands would be provided to offset the withdrawal of multiple use public lands for waste storage and related purposes and to afford special consideration. Some lands would be immediately available and others would be eligible for selection and transfer as the waste storage project proceeds. We welcome comments on this general proposal and are open to specific suggestions on how to make it address the needs in Nevada. It is time to redress the balance in public lands policy between the Federal Government and affected States and local governments. I look forward to working with the elected representatives in Nevada in applying this important principle to the waste storage issue.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to simplify the formula under which ski areas pay rental fees to the United States for the use of national forest lands. Nationwide, there are 132 ski areas on national forest land occupying 90,000 acres, or a mere one-twentieth of 1 percent of the National Forest System. For this use, the ski industry paid an estimated $20 million in rental fees in 1994. This new fee system passed the Senate during the 102d Congress but time ran out before the House could consider the legislation. At that time, a Congressional Budget Office review determined that the new fee system was revenue neutral to the United States. The new fee proposal is intended to return at least the same rental dollars to the U.S. Treasury as the current system created by the Forest Service. It will also guarantee increasing revenues in the future by utilizing ski area gross receipts as the measure for determining rental fees. Therefore, as ski area revenues grow, so will the return to the public for the use of those Federal lands. Furthermore, this legislation will assist in meeting our goals of reducing the size of the Forest Service by eliminating significant management problems with their existing fee system. The existing system is encompassed in approximately 40 pages of the Forest Service manual and handbook. The new system would change that by reducing the fee calculation to a simple formula based on gross revenue from clearly defined sources. This new system will greatly reduce bookkeeping and administrative tasks for both the Forest Service and the ski areas. This bill enjoys bipartisan support and I hope others will join us in supporting this sensible and efficient proposal which provides fairness to ski areas and the United States regarding rental fees and, at the same time, helps to downsize the Federal Government. This bill is intended to serve as a starting point to begin debate on this issue. I hope to hold hearings on this proposal soon after the recess and anticipate reporting this legislation out of our committee quickly. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to advise the House that I intend to consider a proposal for ski area permittees to purchase the Forest Service land on which they operate. Such a move toward privatization would further our goal of downsizing government and thus reduce the size of the Forest Service budget. If we are going to achieve these goals, we need to consider every aspect of Federal land management. Therefore, the committee is in the process of reviewing a proposal to sell certain ski areas on the National Forest System to the private entities that operate them. While we are developing this proposal, we will be hearing from those ski areas that want to purchase the Federal land they operate on as well as State governments, local governments, and others affected by this proposal. Presently ski areas have permits from the Forest Service that allow them to operate for up to 40 years. The Forest Service reviewed these areas and designated them as recreation sites utilizing the NEPA process. There is no question that the intention of the Forest Service is to maintain these sites as ski areas and that no other use is intended. This further supports the need for us to review privatization of these lands now dedicated to this recreational use. Many of these sites have been permitted ski areas for 30 years or more. If we have private individuals prepared to purchase the Federal lands that they operate a ski area on, it is logical that we appraise that land and sell it to the operator and remove the Federal management responsibility. The new fee system legislation that I have introduced today is a first step toward reducing Federal management responsibility and costs associated with ski areas on Federal land. However, I also intend to consider the next logical step of removing all Federal management and costs.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation that will ameliorate problems stemming from the U.S. Postal Service policy that prohibits the users of commercial mail receiving agents [CMRA's] from submitting a standard change of address form to expedite routine mail delivery service. In nearly all cases when an individual changes residency, the U.S. Postal Service facilitates prompt and accurate mail delivery by encouraging the postal customer to file a mail forwarding change of address form. Atypically, when a CMRA customer relocates, that individual is responsible for informing all potential mailers of any change of address. This policy creates delays and may exacerbate mail fraud as testimony has shown that the first line of defense against fraud is accurate information regarding postal addresses. Current policy is contradictory to the Postal Service's charge to ensure prompt, accurate mail delivery service. This important legislation will benefit all parties in this particular mail delivery chain: the U.S. Postal Service, the CMRA's, and most importantly, the postal customer.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 716, I rise in strong support of this measure to reauthorize and improve the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967. Mr. Speaker, one of the major motivations for this legislation was an incident that occurred last year when 258 United States fishermen were unfairly charged $1,100 each by the Canadian Government to sail through the Inside Passage. While we were successful in convincing the Canadians to stop collecting these illegal transit fees, the Fishermen's Protective Act [FPA] must be amended to allow these Americans to be compensated for their financial loss. My bill would reauthorize the FPA for the next 3 years; allow money to be deposited in the Fishermen's Guaranty Fund, regardless of whether Congress appropriates any money; expand the compensation provision to cover those Americans who paid the illegal fee assessed by the Canadians; and prohibit port entry to the vessels of any nation that assesses illegal fees on our vessels in the future. Furthermore, we are making it clear that we will fully protect the rights of U.S. fishermen. We will not allow Canada, or any nation, to violate international maritime law or fishing treaties without a swift response. I fully expect the United States State Department to vigorously seek reimbursement of these fees from the Canadians and not to simply make some weak or half-hearted effort because it may be inconvenient to our relationship with Canada. They broke the law and I want the more than $285,000 the Canadians collected paid back to our fishermen. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 716 and thank Jim Saxton and Gerry Studds for their bipartisan subcommittee support in joining with me in this important legislative effort.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, with pride and honor I acknowledge Walter McInnis, of Eagle River, AK, for his accomplishment of first place in the 1995 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary Voice of Democracy Broadcast Script-Writing Contest of the State of Alaska. Mr. McInnis will receive $1,000 in scholarship funds to apply toward his collegiate education. The Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program was started 48 years ago with the endorsement of the U.S. Office of Education and National Association of Broadcaster, Electronic Industries Association, and State Association of Broadcasters. Over the past 35 years the number of annual national scholarships has risen to 47 totaling $109,000 with a $20,000 scholarship to the school of choice going to the first place winner. Mr. McInnis, a junior at Chugiak High School, has not decided on where he would like to attend college. He plans on pursuing a career in law. His list of achievements include the American Legion's Scholastic Achievement Award and first and second year outstanding and honor cadet in the National Junior ROTC Unit. It pleases me to enter Mr. McInnis' winning essay into the Congressional Record. ``My Vision for America'' (By Walter McInnis) My vision for America. I see a place where Constitutional rights are more than just words on paper, written long ago in an age of idealism. Foremost among these rights must be education. Quality education, which sees to it that the Nation's youth are ready to assume the responsibilities of their parents. I see a place where certain Constitutional guarantees are unnecessary. A place where discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or religion is not only unconstitutional, but unthinkable. I see an America whose citizens understand that ``honor'' and ``duty'' are more than just cliches that sound good; that they are what sets leaders apart from followers. I see a nation willing to pay the price of being a world leader; willing to pay for a strong national defense, and I see a nation willing to use its strength to stand up for what's honorable. Because being a leader has nothing to do with making the easy decisions, or even the popular decisions; it's being able to make choices based on nothing more than ``they're the right thing to do.'' I see a nation that has all but eliminated crime through the equal application of mercy and justice. A society that understands that to be merciful without justice is foolish, and to be just without mercy is tyrannous. A society that rewards sympathy only to those who are repentant, instead of those with the most excuses. I see a nation who has come to the realization that resource management isn't such a difficult and confounding thing after all. For in the interest of development now and in the future, conservation is vital. A nation that also realizes conserving a resource is pointless if not to develop that resource for later generations. I see a nation that readily assumes responsibility. Because personal accountability is critical to success in all areas of life; from basic person to person honesty all the way to a national, political level. I see a people who have risen above a cynical derision of their government. I see a citizenry who have balanced their democratic duty to critique their government, with a respect for the same. After all if the voters are not responsible for their government, then who is? I see a people who also remember to respect their children and senior citizens. Senior citizens have made the sacrifices to get the country in the leadership role it now enjoys; and the leaders of today must realize that they do not own the country, but instead are holding it in trust for the generations to come. In conclusion, I envision America continuing its prominent role in world affairs. America must also continue to set the example for personal freedom and equality. It is crucial that the country reassume dominance in education, second best simply isn't good enough. Respect and responsibility must be the axioms which the country strives toward because a leader who does not respect other's opinions, and does not accept responsibility for his actions, does not deserve to be a leader.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, at the request of six villages of the Cook Inlet region, a bill to address a long standing unfulfilled obligation of the Federal Government under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to six Alaska Native villages within Cook Inlet region. Nowhere in Alaska were the competing interests for land so fierce as in southcentral Alaska. Nearly 20 years ago, Cook Inlet region and its six villages entered into a series of agreements with the Department of the Interior that were intended to address the competing land interests in southcentral Alaska and, at the same time, provide for the fulfillment of the Federal Government's obligation to them under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This bill that I introduce is intended to fulfill the ANCSA entitlement to the Cook Inlet villages. The villages within Cook Inlet region have worked diligently to secure from the Bureau of Land Management 29,900 acres of high priority lands selected over 20 years ago. Starting in 1979, BLM had issued a number of decisions and had taken a number of administrative steps towards conveyance of these lands. In spite of this long track record of moving toward conveyance, the Department has now indicated to the villages that it lacks authority to make the conveyances. I am convinced that the villages of Cook Inlet have an equitable argument that the conveyances are proper, and that further delay in conveyance will cause them unnecessary economic hardship. My legislation provides the additional authority to the Department and directs that these conveyances be made with no further delays.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Studds, has introduced H.R. 622, a bill to implement the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. This legislation will allow the United States to become a member of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization [NAFO]. Currently, the United States is not an active member in NAFO, even though we were involved in the negotiations which created this organization in 1978. Since this organization is active in recommending how resources that are harvested by U.S. fishermen are being managed and conserved, I support H.R. 622. This legislation will give the administration a more active role in NAFO's management and conservation recommendations, while giving U.S. fishermen greater access to the organization's research.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the rule on H.R. 4, however, I am deeply disturbed and angered that the Rules Committee has chosen to ignore a major committee which has jurisdiction on issues which affect the daily lives of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Many of my colleagues in the Committee on Resources are very concerned that this body has chosen to overlook the concerns of American Indians and Alaska Natives in the welfare reform bill and how deeply this action will affect them. American Indians and Alaska Natives have contributed much to this great country of ours and yet, again have been placed at the bottom of the totem pole. I offered a bi-partisan amendment to the Rules Committee, however, my amendment was not accepted. My proposed amendment would have set aside 3 percent of appropriations for block grants to Indian tribes. This would have allowed Indian tribes to operate their own block grant programs on the same basis as states. For those tribes who would have declined to assume this program funding, the funds would have reverted to the state. The State would then operate the program in the tribes service area according to their population. My amendment would have allowed American Indians and Alaska Natives to participate fully in the welfare reform process. Mr. Speaker, there is an obligation here, a trust obligation of fair and honorable dealings with American Indians and Alaska Native tribes. Tribes have a government to government relationship with the Federal Government and a right to self-determination in the operation of programs intended to benefit Indians. Congress and Presidents Nixon to President Reagan have recognized the special government to government relationship. Yet, the Rules Committee has failed to recognize the long standing trust obligations that this body and the Federal Government have to tribes. At current time, tribal programs suffer from two problems which handicap tribal social service programs. First, tribes generally can only contract for operation of secondary social service programs, since the Bureau of Indian Affairs programs are secondary and available only if an Indian is not eligible for other generally available programs (AFDC). Consequently, reform of the primary welfare system operating in tribal communities is beyond tribal control. Second, tribal social service programs, such as Indian Child Welfare Act, were funded on a competitive basis for 1 to 3-year terms. This disrupts tribal programs when funding interruptions occur. Despite the problems above, tribally run social service programs generally outperform state operated programs in tribal communities. [Indian Child Welfare: A Status Report (IHS/BIA 1988)]. Efforts by tribes to reform welfare programs have been opposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA], which in fiscal year 1994 attempted to cut off funding for tribally initiated Tribal Work Experience Program [TWEP] in the Tanana Chiefs Conference and Tlingit and Haida Central Council regions in my state of Alaska. It is interesting to note for this member of Congress that the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs took credit for the very TWEP program the Bureau tried to nullify. Within Indian country there is a consensus that welfare reform is needed and that tribes are best equipped to accomplish that task. By excluding tribes from reform of the primary welfare programs, this Congress has abandoned one segment of society truly in need and supportive of welfare reform. Tribes have some of the highest levels of poverty in the country. At least 51 percent of all reservation Indian families are below the poverty line. While the merits of the current welfare system can be reasonably debated, there is little doubt that it is not working for Indian people. This bill as written, excludes tribes from the primary welfare program. While the Child Care Block Grant program, the bill excludes funding for tribes in all of the other programs of the bill. Again, this body is not meeting the obligation of trust responsibility to American Indians and Alaska Natives and I must voice my grave concern with this inequity. Thank you for the opportunity to vote my objections in omitting American Indians and Alaska Natives in participating in the welfare reform bill currently being debated by this body.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation which will ratify a land exchange agreement in Alaska between the U.S. Forest Service and the Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Co. [KGCMC]. This land exchange is a novel and public-spirited agreement which will provide jobs in Alaska for my constituents, promote sound economic and environmentally responsible resource development, and further the interests of land consolidation on conservation system units in the Tongass National Forest without any cost to the Federal Government. This land exchange is a true partnership between the private sector, KGCMC, and the Federal Government. In fact, the Secretary of Agriculture approved the land exchange agreement on October 26, 1994. I look forward to working with all interested parties toward the successful enactment of this legislation. The Greens Creek Mine is located on Admiralty Island near Juneau, Alaska's capital. The mine was located under the general mining law while the area was within multiple-use lands in the Tongass National Forest. Subsequently, the area became part of the Admiralty Island National Monument through the enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA] in 1980. Because this mine had world class potential, Congress included a special provision in ANILCA to ensure that the mine could go forward. It provided a special management regime and specific provisions to permit perfection of the mine's claims. Under this special regime, the managers of the claims were able to perfect and patent 17 claims in the Greens Creek Mine which began operation in 1989. I remember the pride of all Alaskans when the Greens Creek Mine was opened. Unfortunately, low metal prices caused the temporary closure of the mine a year and a half ago. Since then, KGCMC has been working diligently to revise its mining development plan so that the mine can reopen in the near future. I hope that this reopening will occur soon. The land exchange agreement is the product of a nearly 10 year effort by KGCMC to deal with one of the problems created by the special management regime in ANILCA. Although that regime permitted the perfection and patenting of 17 claims, it did not provide an adequate time for exploration of all the area with mineral potential surrounding the Greens Creeks Mine. KGCMC estimates that approximately 8,000 acres surrounding the existing mining claims are of interest geologically. This area is now closed to mineral exploration and development because it is located in the National Monument. Under normal circumstances, in an operating mining district on general Forest Service or public domain lands, KGCMC would be able to explore any such areas. Since this area of interest has been off-limits to mineral exploration under ANILCA, KGCMC has been searching for a way to explore these areas. It has engaged in a multiyear negotiation with the Forest Service to develop a land exchange which would permit access to the area in a manner which is compatible with the monument designation provided by Congress. The management regime provided for in ANILCA permitted the development of the Greens Creek Mine under special circumstances. The mine is an underground mine and its footprint on the surface is quite small. There is a development area with a series of buildings and surface facilities such as tailings ponds, but generally the mine is located in a manner to minimize its effect on the area. For example, there is no permanent camp or town at the mine. All workers commute by boat daily from Juneau. The terms of the land exchange require KGCMC to utilize its existing facilities to the maximum extent possible to ensure minimal change to the existing footprint. Additionally, mining in any new areas would be under the same management regime by which KGCMC developed the existing Greens Creek Mine. Future exploration and development at Greens Creek will have minimal impact on the surface area and the mine will remain an underground operation. No open pit mining is permitted under the terms of the agreement, and the Forest Service will continue to administer the surface area just as it does now. to the Government, the community and the environment: First, upon completion of mining, KGCMC's existing patented claims and any other claims which it holds on Admiralty Island will revert to the Federal Government. Although these claims cover a small area, the Forest Service considers this reversion very important to its overall general management plan within the monument. Second, KGCMC will also fund the acquisition of 1 million dollars' worth of landholdings within the Admiralty Island National Monument and on other conservation system units in Alaska. This land acquisition process will take the form of either an exchange or the formation of a special land acquisition escrow account which would permit the Forest Service to make the acquisitions. In any case, none of these lands can be acquired except on a willing seller/ willing buyer basis. Third, the lands to which KGCMC will acquire subsurface title also reverts to the Federal Government when mining ceases. Fourth, finally, and most important to me, the exchange will improve chances that 250 jobs created by the mine will continue for a longer period of time once the mine reopens. While there is never any certainty in mining, KGCMC is hopeful that new ore will be discovered and mined. This would lengthen the life of the Greens Creek Mine and keep jobs generated by the mine in Juneau longer. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I introduce today simply ratifies the land exchange agreement. It cannot be implemented without this legislation because the parties agreed that this matter should be approved by Congress. I believe that this land exchange is good for all parties involved. It helps the environment; it promotes mining in Alaska; and it encourages a good corporate citizen to continue to work toward full development of the mining area in which its claims were located under very strict and rigorous environmental requirements. I look forward to pursuing this matter in the Resources Committee and reporting this bill to the House for consideration. This is an issue which should be quickly agreed upon by all parties.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, let us look at this amendment. This is the amendment to try to harvest dead, dying, dead trees. Double adjective. These trees burned last year. If we do not harvest them, they are rotted, they cannot be used, they are a waste. And it appalls me when I hear Mr. Porter saying this overturns court decisions, et cetera, et cetera. These are not live trees. These are burnt trees, 16 billion board feet standing, and all we are asking is for 3 billion board feet this year and 3 billion board of our American people working. There is no work for these mills, for the sawmills, for the people that make their living here, if we cannot have trees, and we stopped cutting live trees because of action of this Congress and the courts. It is time that we pass this Taylor amendment and this legislation. We did have hearings. There was a long, protracted hearing of a whole day. We heard from those people who are not only working, but from the biologists, that said for the health of the forest we must harvest these trees. Let us stand with the committee.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 421) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide for the purchase of common stock of Cook Inlet Region, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if I may, there is nothing different about this bill at all. We are just bringing it up under suspension today.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 402. This bill is the result of a 2-year effort of the Alaska Federation of Natives, the State of Alaska, the administration, and my ranking minority member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I thank them for their dedication and hard work. The bill is noncontroversial. Most of the provisions have already passed the House in previous Congresses but were not acted on by the Senate. We hope that the new congressional leadership will improve the track record on this bill. Mr. Speaker, 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. These include specific land conveyances to Native corporations, the clarification of mining authority and administration of mining claims on lands conveyed to Native corporations, a report on hazardous substances on lands conveyed to Native corporations, an authorization of technical assistance to Native villages to help with land reconveyances required under ANCSA, and a report on Vietnam-era veterans who were eligible but did not receive land under the Native Allotment Act of May 17, 1906. Mr. Speaker, all these provisions are long awaited, but I feel very strongly about section 6 regarding unclaimed land allotments for Native Alaskans serving during the Vietnam war. unable to file for their allotments. I do not believe that they should be penalized for fulfilling their patriotic duty. I hope that with this report, Congress will be able to enact additional legislation on behalf of these Alaska Native veterans. The version of the bill before the House has a minor change from the version reported from the Resources Committee on February 8. In section 5, we have restored the right of a Native corporation to concur in the selection of oil and gas rights allowed under the act. Our minority has agreed to this small improvement to the bill. I also 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 all the bills on today's program. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 402) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 715) to amend the Central Bering Sea Fisheries Enforcement Act of 1992 to prohibit fishing in the Central Sea of Okhotsk by vessels and nationals of the United States.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, I accept that invitation as well as you have been so generously accepting my invitation to travel to the great State of Alaska and participate in the cuisine as provided by our great blue waters. If I go to Cape Cod, I hope I have the added attraction of having that which can be provided by your ocean to my palate regardless of what contract I will be working under for the last hundred days.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the gentleman from Massachusetts brings up a very good point. Our seas are in serious trouble, primarily because of indiscriminate overfishing. This is just a small step forward, but we are going to address this hopefully on another level very soon in the Magnuson Act with an attempt to again arrest some of the misuse of our seas as far as fishing efforts. I am one who believes very strongly that there are enough fish if we take care of them, if we scientifically put them on a biological survival rate that we can continue to fish. But if we do not do something with the activities from all of the countries jointly we will be destroying that capability to provide the fish to all of the people of this world. So I again welcome my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Gary Studds, to the Committee on Natural Resources, because there is no one who has worked harder over the years to provide and protect the fishing industry for the continued yield of the species which we depend on than the gentleman from Massachusetts. So we will be looking forward to looking with him hopefully sometime in May, bringing to this floor a bill that will address the domestic side of this issue as well as the international side of this issue. For those who may not be aware of this, to me the sea has to be recognized as a provider, and it is our responsibility not only to protect but to conserve and to continue providing of the fisheries, as I have said before, that we depend so heavily upon. So again I welcome the gentleman from Massachusetts to the committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would say it is Okhotsk. I hope that satisfies the gentleman. I would spell it O-k-h-o-t-s-k.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts if he can also improve my pronouncement.