Don Young

Mr. YOUNG

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

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, this is a sham bill. I have heard people say there was no consultation. There has been consultation. The gentleman from California has driven a wedge between two groups of Alaska Natives, one that lives there, resides there, and is directly affected, and the other one is 400 miles away. We had testimony from that group. By the way, I am a Gwich'in. I may not be one, but my daughters are. My wife was. She would turn over in her grave right now if she heard this nonsense about the Gwich'in. You invited a group in Alaska. This used to be the House of the people. Instead of people putting their nose in my business, I am going to put it in your business. I will figure out a way to do that because this is wrong. This has been debated for 40 years, an area set aside by this Congress for exploration. By the way, we gave the Alaska Natives who live there at Kaktovik 70,000 acres of land for their social and economic well-being, and you are taking it away from them. You talk about a cultural aspect, you are hurting those people, and you don't care. I remember who you represent, and I understand that. You are a lawyer. To me, to have this type of bill on the floor is not only a waste of time for this House body but a bad thing for this Nation, but worse than that is going back on their word. I represent the whole State of Alaska. The people who live there, live on the Arctic slope, want this legislation, not the Gwich'in. Yes, they are being, very frankly, shilled and used for a sham, and that is a shame. You can be what you want to be. You can stand there holier-than-thou. You are doing something wrong to this Nation, the Alaska people, and the Alaska Native. You listen to one side. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, does the gentleman from California have the right to close?

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the former chairman of the committee and ranking member at this time.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I insert in the Record a letter from the president of Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, which is in strong opposition to this legislation. Voice of the Arctic Inupiat Point Hope, AK, March 20, 2019. Congressman Jared Huffman, Washington, DC. Representative Huffman, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat (VOICE) strongly opposes H.R. 1146 amending Public Law 115-97 to repeal the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) oil and gas leasing program. Beyond the fact that your bill would repeal an opportunity that the Inupiat people have fought for decades to achieve, we are struck by the lack of knowledge displayed in this legislation, which completely ignores the existence of the Inupiat people, and especially the people of Kaktovik. The Native Village of Kaktovik is a federally recognized tribe and the Kaktovikmiut have occupied the Coastal Plain for at least 11,000 years. The Coastal Plain is home to more than just caribou and none of the Coastal Plain is wilderness. It is not a place without people; it never has been--it has been continuously occupied by the Inupiat people and our ancestors for millennia, and we find it insulting that you fail to acknowledge this history Currently, the Coastal Plain is the home of a community of over 200 people. People who live, hunt, fish, raise their families, and hope for a secure economic future for their children. People who walk in the footsteps of their ancestors all over the land that Congress, without our permission, designated as the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge People that you have completely disregarded because they generally do not agree with you. In light of this, Congressman, your concern about human rights seems a bit pale. When we, Indigenous peoples, use terms like self- determination, sovereignty, economic equality, cultural survival, and traditional lands, they are more than just buzzwords. These are objectives that have long been denied us and for which we have had to fight for generations. It is not for you to ignore those ideas, nor the people fighting for them, in favor of those who are more aligned with your political agenda. To us, this issue goes beyond politics to the very sustainability of our communities, culture, and economy. The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act undermines the wishes of those of us living closest to ANWR and negates years of work by local stakeholders toward ensuring a sustainable economy for the people and communities of our region. We hope this letter might help you better understand the realities of life in the Arctic. H.R. 1146 preaches a ``moral responsibility to protect this wilderness heritage as an enduring resource to bequeath undisturbed to future generations of Americans'', but fails to acknowledge the basic needs of future generations of Arctic Inupiat. Our regional government, the North Slope Borough (NSB), is responsible for more territory than any other local government in the nation. The NSB receives over 96% of its revenue from property taxes levied on industry infrastructure on the North Slope, which enables them to provide services that were never accessible before in the Arctic. The Borough School District provides vocational and academic education for people of all ages; NSB health clinics provide modern medical services to residents in even the smallest and most remote of villages. The Municipal Services Department operates water, sewage, and electric utilities, plows roads and runways, and maintains landfills Other NSB departments provide housing, police and fire protection, search and rescue, and other critical services to our communities. Altogether, the NSB is the single largest local employer on the North Slope, employing over 63% of the workforce. These benefits of modern American civilization, common in the rest of the nation, have been built on the foundation of the North Slope oil industry. It is hypocritical of you, Congressman, to stifle the efforts of Kaktovik to secure jobs, a local economy, and income for their community while your state makes billions of dollars off the development of its own oil and gas resources. If you are concerned about the impacts of resource development, we suggest that you focus on your own state of California, which despite its green image, produces the dirtiest crude in America and has some of the largest refineries on the West Coast, which in addition to refining much cleaner Alaska North Slope Crude, also imports and refines oil from foreign countries like Saudi Arabia and Angola. The message this bill sends is that you prioritize the leisure whims of your California constituents above the needs of the Native people of Kaktovik. H.R. 1146 cites climate change as one of the main drivers of the bill. In reality, climate change--and the world's response to it--add additional layers to existing burdens that we, the Arctic's Indigenous people, are facing. We agree that climate change has deeply affected our traditional Inupiat ways of life. We do not agree that the solution to that problem is to create more wilderness that hinders our ability to provide for our people and respond to the impacts that we are facing. It is unfair for you to ask that we, as Indigenous peoples, carry the burden of climate change and the burden of mitigation so that you can fly back and forth to your home district with an easy conscience. Even with the services our local government provides, many of the people in the Arctic live in conditions that fall below acceptable standards of living, despite being citizens of one of the richest countries in the world. We are concerned and puzzled, then, by your focus on protecting eco- tourism and this idea of pristine, unspoiled wilderness--at the expense of an economy to sustain our children--that rich elites across America ``cherish.'' While we are certainly used to this harmful narrative by now, it does not seem in line with your democratic values. For our part, we do not see any contradiction between developing our resources and at the same time protecting our environment and wildlife. These are not diverging priorities but an integral piece to balance in the Arctic. The bill as introduced further ignores the historical and cultural trauma that is a part of this land and the Kaktovikmiut who inhabit it. The people of Kaktovik, in recent memory, have suffered through three forced relocations at the hands of the American military. Then, in 1980, the federal government took 23 million acres of land--without consent, consultation, nor a treaty between parties--and gave the people of Kaktovik back 92,000 acres of land immediately surrounding their village. A mere fraction of their traditional and ancestral lands. The ``deal'' was that this land was locked up, the Kaktovikmiut were unable to access Native allotments, cultural sites, and subsistence areas in the newly expanded Refuge in the summer months. No, they now live with extreme restrictions on how they can use their own lands as a result of the changes made by the federal government in how the land is designated, lands that the Inupiat people have been stewards over for thousands of years. Do you consider these human rights violations, Representative Huffman? We hope, at the very least, that this does not diminish ``the integrity of the National Wildlife Refuge System,'' which in itself operates on the mistaken Western idea that Indigenous peoples are incompetent at managing their own lands. The views of the Inupiat who call ANWR home are frequently ignored, and your bill reinforces the perception that the wishes of people who live in and around the Coastal Plain are less important than those who live hundreds and thousands of miles away. Mr. Huffman, you do not have to tell the Inupiat people, who have lived on this land for generations, the importance of our homelands--we see it, we know it, we depend on it, we are a part of it. We have something very important in common, that often gets lost in this debate--this false dichotomy of ``for'' vs. ``against'', republican vs. democrat, economy vs. environment--we all share a commitment to protecting this land and we would welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with you and the Gwich'in people, to whom we have extended many invitations for discussion, to protect this balance between responsible development and environmental protections that is integral to our way of life and the long-term sustainability of our culture. The Inupiat people have existed, and even flourished, in one of the most severe climates in the world for generations. We understand the balance needed to sustain our way of life and our communities; this priority is currently dependent on successful and safe oil and gas developments. We are confident that the health of the Porcupine Caribou Herd can be maintained given our success in maintaining the health of three other caribou herds that migrate within our region. We respectfully request that you remove your bill from consideration and come visit our communities to better understand the needs of our people and our communities. We would welcome the opportunity. Taikuu, Sayers Tuzroyluk, President, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat. Rex A. Rock Sr., Chairman. John Hopson Jr., Vice Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I also insert in the Record a letter of opposition from the Laborers' International Union of North America. LiUNA!, September 9, 2019. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: On behalf of the 500,000 members of the Laborers' International Union of North America (LiUNA), I want to express our opposition to H.R. 205, which would permanently extend the moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico; H.R. 1146, to once again prohibit oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR); and, H.R. 1941, which would bar offshore drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. Once again, jobs of LiUNA members who work in the energy sector are being targeted for elimination by environmental radicals for purely political purposes. There is absolutely no chance for these ``message bills'' to be enacted into law this Congress. So, instead of working to enact real job creating infrastructure legislation, union members see their jobs once again being denigrated and belittled. Energy independence is central to the future of the American economy and our standard of living. Unfortunately, the enemies of job creation continue to try to wall off and strand our domestic energy resources from development; killing jobs, prolonging our energy dependence on unfriendly foreign regimes, and saddling middle-class and lower-income families with rising energy costs. LiUNA members, in Alaska and elsewhere, know first-hand that when done responsibly, with union-trained workers, energy development can coexist with environmental stewardship. LiUNA and the other building trades unions invest significant resources into the training of our members that help develop the knowledge and skills they need to work safely and productively while constructing energy and other infrastructure to the highest standards. For the hard-working members of LiUNA and other building trades unions, these jobs put food on their families' tables and roofs over their heads. These jobs enable them to put their children through college, to save for retirement, and to spend money in business establishments that employ others. I urge you to vote against these ill-conceived bills. With kind regards, I am Sincerely yours, Terry O'Sullivan, General President.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I also insert in the Record a letter in strong opposition to this bill signed by over 20 entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Energy Alliance. September 5, 2019. U.S. Congress, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: We rely on American made energy to power our daily lives, communities and to grow a more prosperous future. Americans deserve clean, safe, reliable, abundant and affordable energy so that our families, communities and businesses can all share the opportunities American energy creates. Our country cannot afford to block access to new energy supplies and risk losing our energy advantage. That's why we ask you to oppose legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives next week that would slow scientific surveys and prevent access to new sources of American offshore energy in the Outer Continental Shelf. For more than seven decades, energy development in the Gulf of Mexico has worked collaboratively alongside tourism, fishing and Defense Department training activities. But H.R. 205 would permanently extend the eastern Gulf of Mexico moratorium on oil and natural gas activities. The Congressional Budget Office conservatively estimates that this could cost taxpayers $400 million in revenue over the next 10 years. Similarly, H.R. 1941 would block offshore energy development in the Pacific and Atlantic planning areas, and H.R. 1146 would lock up energy resources in the Alaskan Coastal Plain. Congress should support progress. Modern energy technologies have enabled an impressive record of environmental stewardship and innovation. But when the government chooses to arbitrarily and permanently close off areas to exploration and potential development, we simply increase our dependency on foreign sources. This reality is visible in places like California and Massachusetts. Despite abundant offshore oil and natural gas resources, California imports 57 percent of its oil supply, a staggering 37 percent of which comes from Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, to meet energy needs each winter, Massachusetts imports liquefied natural gas from Russia. American energy is produced with a smaller carbon footprint under significantly stronger environmental protections than energy produced anywhere else in the world. We ask you to embrace these homegrown opportunities that benefit American families, create high-wage jobs, strengthen the U.S. economy and protect our environment. Next week, the House of Representatives is expected to consider legislation undercutting domestic energy security and economic opportunity by limiting American energy access. We urge you to reject these bills and instead stand up for energy produced in America, by American workers for the benefit of American families. Sincerely, American Chemistry Council, American Council of Engineering Companies, American Forest & Paper Association, American Gas Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Pipeline Contractors Association, Consumer Energy Alliance, Distribution Pipeline Contractors Association, Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance, Independent Petroleum Association of America. International Association of Drilling Contractors, International Association of Geophysical Contractors, Laborers' International Union of North America, National Association of Manufacturers, National Ocean Industries Association, National Utility Contractors Association, Offshore Marine Service Association, Portland Cement Association, Power and Communication Contractors Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Oil and Gas Association.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I insert in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy on this bill which indicates that the President's advisers would recommend that we veto it, even though it is unlikely that it will ever get to his desk. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 205--Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019--Rep. Rooney, R-FL, and 18 cosponsors H.R. 1146--Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act--Rep. Huffman, D-CA, and 182 cosponsors H.R. 1941--Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act--Rep. Cunningham, D-SC, and 51 cosponsors The Administration opposes H.R. 205, the Protecting and Securing Florida's Coastline Act of 2019, H.R. 1146, the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act, and H.R. 1941, the Coastal and Marine Economies Protection Act. These bills would undermine the Administration's commitment to a prosperous American economy supported by the responsible use of the Nation's abundant natural resources. Development of our resources enhances our energy security and energy dominance, and produces high-paying American jobs; provides increased revenue to the Treasury, States, tribes, and local communities; and is a critical source of conservation funding. H.R. 1146 would prohibit the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management from administering an oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska. The bill would repeal a provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that directed the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program for the development of the Coastal Plain that would allow the use of no more than about 0.01 percent of the total acreage of ANWR for surface development of production and support facilities. The Administration supports environmentally responsible energy development in the Coastal Plain, also known as the 1002 Area, of ANWR. Such development is expected to increase America's energy security and independence, create jobs, and provide affordable, reliable energy for consumers while providing much-needed revenue to both the State of Alaska and the Federal Government. Similarly, H.R. 205 and H.R. 1941 would both restrict future oil and gas development in the Federal waters of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). H.R. 205 would amend the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) to make permanent the current temporary leasing moratorium on offshore leasing in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the west coast of Florida. H.R. 1941 would amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to permanently remove from consideration acreage for offshore leasing on both the Atlantic and Pacific OCS. Both of these bills would undermine OCSLA, which established a periodic, multi-stage planning process involving State and tribal consultation and a thoughtful comparison and balancing of the benefits and impacts to all the regions of the OCS. These bills would permanently constrain this careful administrative process. Under the bills, large swaths of the OCS would be off limits for resource development without the benefit of periodic assessments of the potential economic, social, and environmental effects of development, as required by existing law. Excluding these areas from leasing consideration could place more pressure for development on other OCS areas and constrain our ability to meet national energy needs as required by OCSLA. Additionally, each of these bills would eliminate the potential for future direct revenue that would otherwise be provided to the Treasury, and through revenue sharing, to the States, tribes, and counties where the development activities occur. In Fiscal Year 2018, energy development on Federal and Indian lands and waters generated approximately $9 billion in direct revenue from royalties, bonus bids, and rents. Of that revenue, $1.78 billion was disbursed to 35 States. The top States receiving Fiscal Year 2018 revenues were New Mexico ($634.9 million); Wyoming ($563.9 million); Colorado ($112.5 million); Louisiana ($91 million); and Utah ($76 million). Additionally, more than $1 billion was disbursed to Indian tribes and individual Indian mineral owners; $1.22 billion to the Reclamation Fund; $970 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF); $150 million to the Historic Preservation Fund; and $3.5 billion to the general fund of the Treasury. Prohibiting energy development in new Federal areas would hinder future administrations' efforts to make up for revenue lost as production declines from leases in aging energy fields. Such restrictions will tie the hands of future administrations and reduce their ability to enhance energy security through strong domestic energy production and to ensure affordable energy for American families. If these bills were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto them.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, as painful as it is to listen to all of that nonsense on the other side, I am glad to have logical people speak on this side. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Kevin Hern).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the presentation of the author of this bill. I have been in this House 48 years. We have been arguing about this ANWR for 40 of those years. We have passed it out of the house 14 times. And by the way, it was established by a Democrat President and a Democrat House to allow the 1002 areas to be explored if Congress said so. And that is what we have done. Now we have a sponsor from California who doesn't know beans about this business talking about big oil and about Trump. This has been a policy of this Nation to allow drilling there if the Congress spoke, and we did so. Under the tax bill, yes, but 13 times before that this House passed the legislation to have the 1002 explored. Just keep in mind, we are talking about an area of a 19-million-acre refuge and areas left inside, the 1002 area--the map behind me, if anybody can see that little tiny red dot, 2,000 acres, less than the size of Dulles Airport, less than the size of the Capitol grounds. And yet, we are trying to say, no, no development. We are trying to say that is not right, this is the last pristine area. May I say again, it is not the last pristine area. We have had approximately 30 years of development in Prudhoe Bay, the same type of terrain, same species of animals, same amount of caribou. In fact, we have more now than we had before after we started drilling. So this bill is a sham. And I listened to this with great interest. I always understand what they are trying to do, and it is also a sham to this Congress. This Congress spoke. It is a sham to this Nation. We are taking time away from what should be done in this Nation. We have sat, frankly, 2 years in this House and have done nothing. Unfortunately, we have heard also this is a cultural bill, and the Gwich'in supposedly is all this gentleman listens to, doesn't listen to the Inupiats. That to me is important. The people that live there want the drilling. The people at least 150 miles away don't want the drilling, but that is who they are listening to. So, again, my colleagues, this bill is the wrong step forward for this Nation. It is not about big oil. It is about the State of Alaska. It is about my constituents, not California; they have enough problems of their own. Just read the papers. So I am suggesting, with respect, this bill should not go anywhere. It may pass today, because there are a lot of people on that side who don't believe in oil. I understand that. But it is wrong to undo what Congress has done. And now I will suggest, respectfully, it is dead. You are wasting our time. It will not go anywhere, that is why I am not going to get really excited and go over there and--never mind. I would suggest, respectfully, I am going to see the death of this bill a long time before this gentleman is ever in this House again. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is about fairness, and when you have been in this office as long as I have been--I was here when we passed the 1984, the 1985, and the 1986 gaming laws--we tried and expected to do the right thing for all Tribes. I say I have been involved with this. When I was chairman, we tried to do the same thing. It is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. The most important thing is it is a simple matter of fairness. I will say it again. These two Tribes have been denied the same opportunity of every other federally recognized Tribe, including the Kickapoo Tribe, to engage in Class II gaming on their reservation. Class II is bingo. This legislation opens no new door to gaming in Texas. The Kickapoo Tribe has been offering bingo on their reservation for the better part of two decades with no interference from the State of Texas. Second, it should be noted that virtually all communities surrounding the Alabama-Coushatta reservation have passed a resolution endorsing this legislation. In fact, over 30 resolutions in favor of H.R. 759 show that support for the bill runs from the Gulf of Mexico to the Red River border on Oklahoma. This represents genuine grassroots support for the people who will be most impacted. Far from thwarting the will of the people of Texas, this legislation enables it. Mr. Speaker, from someone who has worked on this legislation a long time, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation to solve an unfair state.