Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I appreciate the comments from the gentlewoman. I would suggest, respectfully, we should follow the law. We have given up the responsibility in this Congress to the President--not just this President, other Presidents. It is clear in the law nothing more than 5,000 acres can be withdrawn and put in the wilderness, without the okay of the Congress, in Alaska. No more clause. It stands for no more. Now, we have a President that says ``up yours'' to the Congress. That is not the way to run this business. We have a responsibility as Congressmen to do our job. And when he goes against the law through executive order, that is against this Constitution of America. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak to the provisions in the bill related to programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that address the monitoring and mapping of our Nation's coastlines. This function is an important function for the safety of navigation, environmental protection, and homeland security of the United States. There is little dispute that important commercial, military, and recreational activities are supported by this effort. While important across the entire country, I want to address the specific needs of my State of Alaska. I understand that there is a concerted effort by NOAA to improve sea subsurface surveys. I fully support their efforts and applaud them for continuing this important work. The safety of navigation for our waterways is extremely important. However, there is another dimension of survey that needs some attention also. Most of the shoreline in the Arctic along Alaska's northern and western coasts has not been mapped since 1960, if ever, and confidence in the shoreline depicted on the region's nautical charts is extremely low. Less than 10% of Alaska has contemporary shoreline data and less than 1% is mapped annually. There is also a disturbing lack of consistent elevation data. The current state of shoreline mapping leaves those who ply Alaskan waters and depend on accurate shoreline mapping for their livelihood unnecessarily vulnerable. Due to Alaska's vast size and sparse population, the cost of acquiring traditional high-resolution topographic data and mapping thousands of miles of coastline is a daunting endeavor. Alaska has more than 44,000 miles of shoreline, which more than doubles the shoreline of the entire lower 48 states. Further, the emerging importance of the Arctic is adding to the need for updated shoreline charts. Increased economic development and shipping transits require that the most accurate data be collected and up to date charts be produced. As a result, citizens and the State's economy are at risk. In addition to understanding sea-level rise impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, sea-level rise investigations are also important given that three quarters of Alaska's citizens live in coastal regions, which support 80% of the state's economic activity. Economic activity in Alaska's coastal zones includes world-renowned fish and shellfish industries as well as a burgeoning recreation and tourism industry. Many approaches are available. Some techniques can be a painstaking undertaking due to cost and logistical challenges because of the vast area and distances involved. As a result the data collected within Alaska can be fairly limited in coverage. Another promising technology is the use of satellite remote sensing that can help assist current NOAA efforts. The complementary use of optical and radar satellites can add a new dimension to remote sensing applications. Within the State of Alaska there is an emerging capability using this approach that is cost effective and not dependent on weather conditions. This capability includes the ability to download data and provide the refined products needed to create the needed mapping quickly and cost effectively. I understand that NOAA regularly uses both government and commercial satellite imagery to support nautical charting in Alaska. Regardless of the approach, I want to encourage NOAA to make a concerted effort to use funding received to reduce the backlog of outdated and uncharted shorelines in Alaska as quickly and cost effectively as possible in addition to continuing the important work of conducting the sea subsurface surveying. The economic and strategic importance of the Pacific Northwest region and the emerging Arctic require that this be done.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, I am pleased to report he has accepted some portion of our bill, but there is some question about the Endangered Species Act. We had a case in Alaska where NOAA, which I don't know how it happened, they put the Steller sea lion on endangered species because of fishing. There was no real connection between the fishing and the so-called decline in the Steller sea lions, and they killed a community with no science. We come to find out the Steller sea lion had moved away from the area where there was more abundant food, not from fishing. The fishing hadn't caused any problem at all, but it killed that community. I argue that in this case, if any of the fishing is endangered, that is okay, the fish itself. But when you have a species hurt the fishing community and it didn't affect the sustainable yield, you see why I think this amendment is incorrect. I think you have to consider, again, the purposes of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, which originated in the House, was for sustainable fisheries and sustainable communities. When you have another act interfere with that, that doesn't have any science, then I think it is incorrect. So I understand what the gentleman is saying. Electronically monitoring fisheries is good. The gentlewoman from Maine mentioned that. It is in the bill. There is a lot in this bill that is in the Sablan amendment. But what you are trying to suggest, you roll back the transparency and, I think, the community activity, which hurts the original base bill, which is the bill that I sponsored.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the gentleman from New Mexico's comments on this. This does not add an additional cost, and why people say that, I don't know. All this does is very simple, and I explained it when I explained my amendment, and I urge the passage of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering today makes a few clarifications to the underlying bill. It modifies language in the bill allowing for the use of graduate students in the collection of recreational fishing data. The fields of science the graduate students are studying is expanded, and when the students can be used is clarified. The amendment also clarifies that guidance prepared by the National Academy of Sciences regarding the economic benefits of commercial and recreational fishing within the mixed-use fisheries is to be given to the south Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico councils. The amendment will also modify the provisions in law regarding the council review of limited access programs to include not only the benefits of the program, but also any adverse impacts. Lastly, the amendment includes language to allow stock assessments to include information from universities, fishermen, fishing communities, and research institutions, in addition to State and Federal fisheries data. It will also require a schedule for when stock assessments should occur and allows for a waiver if certain stocks don't need assessments. These are good additions to the legislation, and I urge the Members to support the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this same amendment was offered in committee; it failed. It is my understanding that rigs and platforms are already required to eliminate harm under their leases. In fact, most of the fishermen I talk to on the Gulf say the platforms are really manmade reefs, and the red snapper love them. Overall, I don't support giving the National Ocean Council any authorities. The council is created by executive action, and until the Congress passes legislation regarding the National Ocean Policy, Congress should not implement measures to support it. This is not an action of Congress. This is an action by executive order. Remember, this bill originally was sustainable yield, sustainable communities, nothing to do with an ocean council deciding what is going to happen to override the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This is a bad amendment, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim 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. Chairman, we don't need any sanctuaries in this bill. We don't need some outside groups telling the fishermen, the communities, and the scientists--it is our belief--when they know little about it. I happen to have the largest coastline in the whole of the United States all put together, and we have done the job we should be able to do. This bill makes this job easier for the United States of America for giving us the ability to have a sustainable yield of fish and the communities to be taken care of. With that, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concern of the gentleman from Louisiana on the current status of red snapper management in the Gulf of Mexico and your interest to support actions taken by the Gulf States that are supported by many of your constituents. The amendment being offered today is a start in the process, but I respectfully suggest it needs further discussion. I support regional solutions but have concerns with proposals that will take the red snapper fishery outside of the Magnuson-Stevens Act management process. I am willing to continue to work with the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman Bishop, and other Members, as well as fishing groups involved, to try to find a resolution to the management issues impacting the red snapper fishery.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I would just, again, like to remind my colleagues this was requested by the communities so there wouldn't be a delay. We are not eliminating NEPA. There is already a process in the Magnuson Act which was not there in the original act, I will say that, and I did support it when it went in. But to duplicate it and to require outside interests that they cannot respect those in the community--which is really what her amendment would do. It lets other outside interest groups get involved in this issue of sustainable fisheries. This has always been a fishery community bill, not an outside bill or interest groups getting into the issues of sustainability and community activity through transparency. What you do is you start a duplication of the process. It is not necessary. We are not eliminating NEPA. We are just adding to it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank you to the chairman of the full committee. Mr. Chairman, history is a wonderful thing. People who went through the same experiences see things differently. For the record, I would like to correct the ranking member. While he is correct that the Magnuson bill that eventually became public law, H.R. 4946, passed the House under suspension of the rules, the original bill which passed the Natural Resources Committee, H.R. 5018, passed after a very long markup, with a vote of 26-15, with only four Democrats voting in favor of the bill. The gentleman from Arizona voted against the bill and signed dissenting views with six other Democrats. So this point that the previous reauthorization acts were noncontroversial and nonpartisan is not true. I think whoever wrote that for the gentleman ought to, again, do a little correct history. Mr. Chairman, as one who sponsored this bill way back in 1975, and it became law in 1976, it is probably the most successful legislation that ever passed this House to create a sustainable yield of fisheries for the United States of America. And to have someone try to hijack this legislation by interest groups when all those involved--the fishermen, the recreational, the commercial, the restaurants, the conservationists that know fisheries, the State of Alaska and all other States--support the Magnuson Act and the improvements we have made in this bill--yes, we have some flexibility. The bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act, the premier law, as I mentioned before. It allows for regional management of fisheries. The law gives guidance through its national standards and creates the process that allows the councils to develop fishery management plans. The councils provide a regional or constituent-based approach. Remember, this is not about the government. This bill was written by this Congress for the people, not NOAA, not NMSA, not the State Department, not the Sierra Club, and not the Pew group. It was written for fishermen for sustainable yields of fish for the communities. It provides a regional concept. It is critical to the protection of coastal economies and for allowing the stakeholders to be part of the management of the fisheries. To address the ever-changing needs of fisheries and fishing communities--and I have been through this thing four times from the original to today--the Congress has passed various amendments to this act. Changes were based on knowledge of the times gained through experience, improvements in science, and better management techniques. In the mid-1990s, Congress addressed overfishing, included protections for habitat, improvements for fisheries science, and reductions in bycatch. These were the issues of the time, and they were addressed as needed. A factor of that time also included the lack of resources to fund stock assessments to provide needed data to the regional fishery management councils, something that continues to be an issue today. Mr. Chairman, a lot of decisions are made without science. The act was last amended in 2007. Congress included measures to set science- based annual catch limits to prevent overfishing, including a requirement to end overfishing within 2 years. Accountability measures were adopted, which meant harvest reductions if harvest levels were exceeded. According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, we have now reached the point where overfishing has effectively ended in this country. H.R. 1335 started being developed 4 years ago. The committee held over a dozen hearings, with testimony from over 100 witnesses. As with past reauthorizations and in line with a main purpose of the act--to balance conservation with economic use of the resource--H.R. 1335 follows a middle road. While many today may complain the bill's flexibility rolls back scientific protections, that is just not accurate. The flexibility in the bill is based on science. Rebuilding of fish stocks will be based on the biology of fish stock. Harvest levels will still be based on science and at levels where overfishing will not occur. The regional councils will continue to follow recommendations of their Science and Statistical Committee. Mr. Chairman, during every reauthorization cycle, the Magnuson- Stevens Act is updated to be closely in sync with current-day science, management techniques, and knowledge. As the fishermen, communities, the councils, and fishery managers develop better techniques and learn lessons from implementing the law, Congress can take that knowledge to improve that law. Flexibility is cornerstone of the law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act promotes regional flexibility recognizing differing ocean conditions, variations in regional fisheries, different harvesting methods and management techniques, and distinct community impacts. Again, I want to stress this, Mr. Chairman. This bill was written for fish and communities, not all these other interest groups. As I said in the Rules Committee, I will not stand by and watch other interest groups hijack this piece of legislation, taking away the sustainable concept of our fisheries and the healthy concept of our fisheries and the healthy concept of our communities for other reasons and other causes. If you want to do that, do it in an independent legislation. We don't need any ocean antiquity acts.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 336) to direct the Administrator of General Services, on behalf of the Archivist of the United States, to convey certain Federal property located in the State of Alaska to the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 336.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 336 would direct the General Services Administration on behalf of the National Archives to convey property in Alaska to the city of Anchorage. I am pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation, which will bring savings to the taxpayer. The National Archives has determined that it no longer needs the property to be conveyed in the bill and wants to sell it as part of its efforts to shrink its space footprint and reduce costs to the taxpayer. The bill will require fair market value for the property based on an independent appraisal. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good piece of legislation. I want to thank Mr. Mullin for bringing it up. While we are on the subject, I would like to talk about the necessity of ICWA, the Child Welfare Act of this Congress past which I was a sponsor of. The gentleman is here. So we won't talk about ICWA today. We will just let Mr. McClintock get in here and make his statement. Eventually, Mr. Speaker, I will talk about the foster care homes, the need for volunteers, so we don't have 300 children in my State staying with State supervision instead of adopted. So we will talk about that later.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ms. Waters and especially the chairman, Mr. Pearce, for this legislation. It is something that we have worked on together with Tom Cole, many in this room. I would like to thank the Hawaiian delegation. It has always been an honor and a pleasure to work with the Hawaiian delegation with Alaska. They are two noncontiguous States, and we work well together and we will continue to do that. Mr. Kildee, I thank you for your uncle; he and I were dear friends and worked together on a lot of issues. I always respected that. I would like to thank the staff. Let's all not kid ourselves; the staffs of all our offices really put this together with our little bit of advice. Alex has worked very hard on my side, and I know your side has worked really well. That is a classic example, when staffs are willing to work together with the Members, Members are willing to work together, we can accomplish these goals. This is just not a bipartisan piece of legislation. This is legislation that is needed by American Indians, Alaska Natives. It has worked well, and I am hoping--I have talked to the Senators on the other side--that in reality we will get this legislation passed very quickly. This is a win-win situation for all of us, so I think we should take great honor and recognize what has been, will be done here today, and accomplish a goal that many times is not achieved. So again, I, with great feelings, thank each Member that has been involved in this, especially for the first people of America.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. The bill would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act)--the premier law governing commercial and recreational fishing in U.S. federal waters. The Magnuson-Stevens Act was first enacted in 1976 and was last reauthorized in 2006. I worked on the 2006 reauthorization with my friend and Senator, Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens was a champion for Alaska and the law bears his name as recognition of his dedication to supporting and protecting Alaska fishermen and the importance of fishery resources to coastal communities. I will miss working with my friend during this next reauthorization, but will remember him fondly as the legislation moves through Congress. Over the last two Congresses, I worked with the former Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, Doc Hastings, to develop the text of the bill. The Committee on Natural Resources held 10 hearings, receiving comments and suggestions from over 100 witnesses representing Members of Congress, the administration, state governments, regional fishery management councils, marine fisheries commissions, commercial and recreational (including for-hire charter) fishing groups, processors, academics, and environmental groups. Due to this in-depth review of the Act and the need to keep the process going forward to reform the law, I am introducing the bill the Committee reported to the House floor in the 113th Congress. The bill we developed in the 113th Congress would not have been possible without the knowledge and dedicated work of Mr. David Whaley, who retired from the Committee after twenty years of working on fisheries issues. I would like to acknowledge and thank Dave for his hard work and dedication over the years. I hired Dave in 1994 as my fisheries staffer for the Committee on Resources and he continued to handle Alaskan, national and international fishery issues, as well as marine mammal and ocean issues over his career on the Committee. Dave has been an invaluable resource to me and other members of the Committee during his twenty years of service on the Committee and we will miss his expertise and experience as we move this bill forward. The Magnuson-Stevens Act allows for regional management of fisheries. The law gives guidance through its National Standards and specifies the process through which the Councils develop their fishery management plans. While the Secretary of Commerce has final approval of fishery management plans, the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides for a regional approach where the Councils, hearing from its local constituency groups, can develop fishery management plans that best suit their fisheries and fishermen. This is critical for the protection of coastal economies and for allowing the stakeholders to be a part of the management of their fisheries. The Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act would update the Magnuson-Stevens Act to implement common sense reforms. The 2006 amendments were said to apply the `Alaska Model' of fisheries management to other regions of the country. The premise of this reform was good. The `Alaska Model' worked in Alaska due to stock assessments providing up-to-date fisheries data to allow the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to use adaptive management, providing optimal use of fishery resources to fishermen. The problem with trying to implement the `Alaska Model' in other regions was that these regions did not have adequate science--due to infrequent or out dated stock assessments--to support that type of management system. Instead of providing optimal use of the resource for fishermen, the implementation of the `Alaska Model' resulted in fisheries being restricted in regions that were considered `data poor' due to multiple levels of precautionary measures being applied because of inadequate scientific data. I believe the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act will allow for increased fisheries management flexibility and transparency, provide for improved data collection, create jobs, and--what I believe is very important-- create predictability and certainty for the coastal communities that depend on stable fishing activities. The Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act would reauthorize and strengthen the Magnuson- Stevens Act to ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen and coastal communities. The bill would make a number of improvements to the Act: provide flexibility for fishery managers when rebuilding depleted fisheries; provide flexibility for fishery managers when setting annual catch levels; provide more transparency for fishermen and others in both science and management; provide a schedule for obtaining better fishery dependent and fishery independent data especially for data poor fisheries; provide greater protection for confidential information submitted to regulatory agencies; encourage and promote cooperative research projects where scientists work with fishermen to develop sound scientific information; allow fishery managers to take the economic impact of their decisions into account when setting harvest levels; allow fishery managers to take environmental conditions into account when establishing harvest levels; allow fishermen in regions where catch share programs have been controversial to have a vote to determine whether a new catch share program will be implemented and to be provided better information when considering such a program; require NOAA to provide better accountability on how fees are collected and used; clarify the role of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in relationship to other federal statutes; and authorize appropriations for an additional five fiscal years at current authorized funding levels. As I've learned over the years as a legislator, laws are not written in stone. Congress's job is to review them, listen to constituents and modify the laws as needed. Laws that are stagnant do not help anyone. Times change and laws need to reflect new information and the needs of Americans. Constituency groups were influential in developing the 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Key aspects of the 2006 amendments were the goal to end overfishing through the requirement that annual catch limits not exceed scientific recommendations and accountability measures were instituted. Changes in the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act were also developed by listening to constituency groups at committee hearings, fishery managers at fishery council meetings and at national conferences, and reviewing recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences. Even the National Marine Fisheries Service recognizes the need for reforms and has proposed revisions to its advisory guidelines for National Standards 1, 3 and 7 of the Magnuson- Stevens Act. These proposed revisions recommend changes that would allow for increased flexibility in rebuilding programs, clarify guidance on which stocks require conservation and management and defines depleted stocks, among other items. These changes are similar to changes included in the bill I am introducing today. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have the new Chair of the Committee on Natural Resources, Rob Bishop, as a cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with him as the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act moves through Committee and the House. I also am pleased to have Representatives Bradley Byrne and Amata Coleman Radewagen as original cosponsors on the bill. I look forward to working with any Member of the House that is interested in reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This is an important piece of legislation and I urge Members to support its movement through the House of Representatives and 114th Congress.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, from January 28, 2015 through February 5, 2015, I missed recorded votes #49-#68. I was unable to vote, as I contracted the flu and was considered contagious at the time. My doctor advised me to remain home until my fever subsided. Despite receiving the flu shot, I was one of the many Americans to come down with the flu this year. I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I was in attendance: On Roll Call #49 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit). On Roll Call #50 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 351, LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act). On Roll Call #51 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 361, Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act). On Roll Call #52 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 615, Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act). On Roll Call #53 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 623, Social Media Working Group Act). On Roll Call #54 I would have voted yes (Previous Question). On Roll Call #55 I would have voted yes (Agreeing to Resolution, H. Res. 70). On Roll Call #56 I would have voted yes (Approving the Journal). On Roll Call #57 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit). On Roll Call #58 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 596, To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care- related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010). On Roll Call #59 I would have voted yes (Previous Question). On Roll Call #60 I would have voted yes (Agreeing to Resolution, H. Res. 78). On Roll Call #61 I would have voted no (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 50 by Cummings Part C Amendment #2). On Roll Call #62 I would have voted no (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 50 by Connolly Part C Amendment #3). On Roll Call #63 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit). On Roll Call #64 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 50, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015). On Roll Call #65 I would have voted no (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 527 by Schrader Part A Amendment No. 4). On Roll Call #66 I would have voted no (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 527 by Lee Part A Amendment No. 6). On Roll Call #67 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit). On Roll Call #68 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 527, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, during the week of January 6, 2015 I missed recorded votes #1-#16. I was unavoidably detained due to the death of my brother in California. I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I were here and sworn into office: On Roll Call #1 I would have voted present (Quorum Call). On Roll Call #2 I would have voted for John Boehner for Speaker. On Roll Call #3 I would have voted yes (Motion to Table). On Roll Call #4 I would have voted yes (Previous Question). On Roll Call #5 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit). On Roll Call #6 I would have voted yes (Passage of House Rules Package). On Roll Call #7 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 22, the Hire More Heroes Act of 2015). On Roll Call #8 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 26, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act). On Roll Call #9 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 37, the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act). On Roll Call #10 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 23, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act Reauthorization). On Roll Call #11 I would have voted yes (Previous Question). On Roll Call #12 I would have voted yes (Rule for H.R. 3 and H.R. 30). On Roll Call #13 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit). On Roll Call #14 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 30, the Save American Workers Act). On Roll Call #15 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit). On Roll Call #16 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 3, the Keystone XL Pipeline Act).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 4329, the NAHASDA reauthorization act of 2014. Over the last 2 years, I have had the privilege of working with a bipartisan group of my colleagues on this crucial legislation. I would like to first start by thanking and commending Mr. Pearce for his leadership in sponsoring this bill. This bill wouldn't have been possible without the efforts of Mr. Cole, Ms. Moore, Mr. Denny Heck, Ms. Hanabusa, Mr. Kildee, and all the others. I also would like to thank Chairman Hensarling for his dedication in moving this bill through the committee and for his statesmanship in resolving the difficult issues. I would be remiss without thanking Alex on my staff, who has done great work on this legislation for the good of the First Americans. Finally, it is important to acknowledge the many tribes and organizations that contributed to this legislation. These include the National American Indian Housing Council, which has developed a foundation for the legislation, and the Cook Inlet Housing Authority, which has been a tireless advocate in my State. As my colleagues note, NAHASDA continues to be a successful and well- liked program throughout Indian Country. NAHASDA exemplifies the spirit of self-determination by allowing Native communities to create their own innovative housing assistance programs in ways that best serve their members. This bill upholds the success of NAHASDA and includes improvements to the programs that empower Native communities to better confront their housing challenges. Furthermore, the bill responsibly streamlines administration of the programs so that both tribes and HUD will spend less time navigating red tape and more time advancing housing that makes a difference for native people. As we pass this bill, the Senate must act quickly to take up the legislation before the end of this Congress. I call on our colleagues in the Senate to recognize the bipartisan nature of the bill and listen to the voices on this side of the aisle in support of Indian Country. It is my hope that the legislation will be signed into law before the end of the year. As I said, I urge and I thank those for passage of this bill, H.R. 4329.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4846) to adjust the boundary of the Arapaho National Forest, Colorado, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.