Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, it was with a deep sense of loss that I learned that my dear friend and committee colleague Jim Saxton will retire at the end of the 110th Congress. Jim has served the Third Congressional District of New Jersey with the highest distinction for the past 23 years. Jim and I have not always been on the same side on a number of environmental issues; however, there is no question that he always articulates his views with passion and conviction. When I became chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee on January 3, 1995, I was honored to appoint Jim Saxton as the first chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. He served as chairman of that subcommittee during the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. He was a superb subcommittee chairman and sponsored a number of important conservation measures that became law during the Clinton administration. This included the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997. This landmark law, which has been extended several time, created the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund to assist this highly endangered species whose population had been decimated to less than 40,000 elephants living in the wild. As a result of his law, in the past decade the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved 183 grant proposals to assist Asian elephants. There is no question that these projects halted this species' slide toward extinction. A second bill was the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 1998. This measure, Public Law 105-242, statutorily created the framework for volunteer activities within the National Wildlife Refuge System. In the past 10 years, this Act allowed the number of volunteers to dramatically increase to nearly 40,000 Americans who contributed more than 1.5 million hours of service last year. The value of the volunteer work has been estimated in excess of $26 million and it represents 20 percent of all staff work done in the National Wildlife Refuge System. At a time when the Fish and Wildlife Service is suffering an operations funding crisis within the refuge system, it is difficult to imagine how this system would function without the valuable contributions of volunteers. A third measure was the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act of 1998. The fundamental goal of P.L. 105-312 was to eliminate the U.S. market for illegally obtained rhino and tiger products, and therefore, the incentives to kill these magnificent animals. Under this law, if a label on a product says that it contains rhinoceros and tiger parts, then we accept the manufacturer's claim and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for stopping its sale, confiscating any products, and persecuting the illegal importers. A fourth measure sponsored by Chairman Jim Saxton was the Arctic Tundra Habitat Conservation Act of 1999. This legislation allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake various conservation and management steps to reduce the exploding population of mid-continent light geese. These geese were systematically destroying the fragile arctic tundra in the Hudson Bay Region which is essential to the survival of millions of migratory birds. By all accounts, the implementation of this measure has been responsible for saving thousands of acres of vital wetland habitat. A fifth proposal which was signed into law was the Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Act of 2000. This legislation, P.L. 106-555, established a small grant program to fund the rescue and rehabilitation of marine mammals, it encouraged scientific work associated with live and dead marine mammals and it provided a small amount of financial assistance to marine mammal rescue centers. Federal agencies frequently ask marine mammal rescue centers to provide around-the-clock monitoring and veterinarian care to injured animals without giving them any financial assistance. This measure established a humanitarian partnership between Federal and non-federal entities. A sixth proposal was Jim Saxton's sponsorship of the Coral Reef Conservation and Partnership Act of 2000. Coral reefs are among the world's most productive ecosystems and they are often referred to as the ``rainforests'' of the oceans. These reefs are critical to the survival of thousands of fish species. Sadly, about 40 percent of all coral reefs are either degraded beyond recovery or in critical condition. This legislation was designed as a lifeline for our coral reef ecosystems by providing a limited amount of Federal funding to finance coral reef grants to assist in their protection and recovery. Finally, I am proud that Jim Saxton joined with me as an original co- sponsor of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. On October 9, 2007, we celebrated the 10th anniversary of this act which is Public Law 105-57. This landmark law established for the first time an ``organic'' statute for our 96 million acre national wildlife refuge system. It defined the term ``wildlife-dependent recreation'' to include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education. It also established a ``conservation mission'' for the system and required the completion of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge unit. The act gave wildlife dependent recreation priority consideration in refuge planning, management and funding. Finally, it required the Fish and Wildlife Service to evaluate the likelihood of ongoing historic uses on private lands prior to their inclusion within the system. Jim Saxton authored this important provision. This is far from an exhaustive list of Jim Saxton's legislative accomplishments in the resources arena. It is representative only of the 6-year period that he served as chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. Nevertheless, it clearly demonstrates his dedication and commitment to wildlife conservation which he exemplified throughout his congressional career. His constituents living in Cherry Hill, Mount Holly, and Toms River, New Jersey, will miss Jim Saxton and his lifelong advocacy of Theodore Roosevelt's vision and principles. I look forward to working with Jim through the 110th Congress. I wish him calm sailing seas in the days beyond Congress. ``May the wind always be on your back and the sun shine upon your face!''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Mica, and congratulate him on his good work on this legislation. This is a good bill. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar and Ms. Johnson for the work that you've done on this bill. This bill has been passed out of this House approximately three times, two times while I was chairman, and now Mr. Mica and Mr. Oberstar have got the bill to the President's desk. All the previous speakers are not here to beat up the President. I am here to say this bill should be passed; we should override the President's veto because it's right for America. It is an investment, and we are way behind in this investment. Some have said, well, we started out with a certain amount of money on the House side, the Senate had a certain amount, and we came out with more. Frankly, I think it should be about $40 billion. And I say this from a little bit of experience. We did the same thing in the Highway bill, it should have been $375 billion, not $285 billion, because it is an investment in the future and the infrastructure to provide the economy for this country that creates the jobs and makes us competitive worldwide. Without this bill, we will lose. Without this bill, we will not be able to achieve those goals. We will not save people's lives. But more than that, the next crisis we will face in this country is our water, the use of our water, the water to be used correctly, for transportation, for recreation and for the good of man. This bill is right. Let's override the President. Let's do something for America.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what could have been responsible bipartisan legislation. I have a great deal of respect for the chairman of the committee; he is a good friend of mine. But this is a bad bill. As the gentleman on our side, the ranking member, Mr. Pearce, has done an outstanding job, he mentioned in his statement to listen to the chairman of the committee and those who are promoting this bill that the mining industry has no regulations, no laws, they just run rampant, which is pure nonsense. We are not really addressing an 1872 mining law here. It is not about the royalty. They offered the chairman if he would strike title III, we might be able to work a bill, and he turned it down. This is about driving our industry, our mining industry overseas and away from our shores. This bill will do it. Just as I have heard in the past about legislation from that side of the aisle when you were in power that we are not trying to stop the logging industry in Alaska, we are just trying to make sure that we get our fair share. We went from 15,000 jobs down to less than 300 jobs. That was from the previous chairman. I also heard all the time about how when they were in power, how we were going to be energy independent. And now we are paying $93 a barrel for oil, $93 a barrel, because you have not acted and we didn't do also. But we didn't try to stop the mining industry in this country as this bill will do. This is not just about mining; this is about national security. Where do you think the metals come from to build our airplanes? Right now we are probably importing most of it. And I guarantee you, we will import all of it under this bill. We know, Mr. Rahall, this doesn't affect West Virginia. It doesn't affect his coal mines or any of the east coast States. But it does affect public lands in the West where our minerals are derived from. I say wake up, Mr. and Mrs. America and my colleagues. Wake up. China has gone into Chile now, and they control the copper that we must have for our hybrid cars. Yes, all of you, as I watch my good friend there working his BlackBerry, where do you think the metals and minerals came from for this? As we vote electronically today, the metals and minerals make that electronic system work. We are not talking about the royalty, here; although, I do think it is unconstitutional as the bill came out of committee because you rewrote the contract under the bill. It will be taken to court and that part of the bill will be struck. It will be struck. I tried to say that. But no, again this is not a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that was written primarily by the leadership of this House that in reality takes away the ability for the western States to produce the minerals that are needed. That is what this bill does. It does affect my State probably more than any other bill that has come out other than the Alaskan National Lands Act that put 147 million acres of land off limits. What remaining BLM land we have where we are trying to develop a mining industry will be precluded, taking away the benefit of the mining industry in the State of Alaska as it does in the western States. But it affects my State more, probably. Yes, we probably could have written a bill that would have recovered the dollars necessary to straighten out hardrock mining. But no, we have a bill that stops the ability of this Nation to be self-sufficient in minerals. Later on you will see a display about just how dependent we have become. I am hoping that this bill will be killed in the Senate, as most bills will be killed from the House side because no one wants to work with the Republicans at all. That is why you have an 11 percent rating of favorability. No ability to work across the aisle and say what will work and what are we trying to achieve. What are we trying to achieve? If you were looking for money from royalties, we could have talked about that; prospective, not retroactive, because that will go to court. But that didn't happen, and you left title III in, which requires so much impossibility of achieving a mining claim that they will go abroad. They will go abroad, and that's not right for this country. I have said all along, and I am going to be around here a lot longer than most people expect, and most of you probably don't like that, but I will be here just to say ``I told you so'' like I have done with the logging, what you did in my State and the logging industry and the west coast and on public lands. There is no timber industry. We are now importing our timber with no regulations. We have private timber in the eastern States, but not in the western States. I listen to you. We just voted on a bill yesterday to help out people who are going to be displaced because of losing jobs overseas, and you voted for that. And that is what this bill does. It will drive the industry out of the United States of America and we will be dependent upon China and Russia and all of the other countries for the metals and minerals we must have in our Nation to make sure we are economically strong, and then we cannot become strong. So as much as I love you, Mr. Chairman, this is a bad piece of legislation. I have been told don't worry about it, we will take care of it later on down the line. Well, I have been down that road before, too. So I am asking my colleagues on my side of the aisle and anybody that is thinking on that side of the aisle to vote against this legislation if you believe in this Nation. If you believe in this Nation being strong, if you believe in jobs in our country and not abroad, then you will vote ``no'' for this bill. If you don't believe that, then vote ``yes'' for the bill. And then go home and say, ``I repealed the 1872 mining law. Look what I did for you, Mr. Backpacker.'' But think of our country and our Nation. Think of our future. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor 586 members of the Alaska Army National Guard's 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry who recently returned from their yearlong deployment to southern Iraq and Kuwait. The guardsmen have been successfully serving as security forces in northern Kuwait and southern Iraq since October 2006, guarding camps and convoys heading into Iraq. The guardsmen come from all over my State, with members of the unit hailing from 80 different communities across Alaska including Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kodiak, Soldotna, Kenai, Nome, and many native villages. The unit also included National Guardsmen from New York, Mississippi, Illinois, Georgia, and Puerto Rico. This was the largest deployment of the Alaska National Guard since World War II and thankfully all 586 guardsmen who were deployed overseas returned home safely. Many of these guardsmen had never left Alaska prior to joining the National Guard, but none hesitated to serve their country. As I told the National Guardsmen at their welcome home ceremony at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, ``You can't support the troops unless you respect them. And I humbly respect you because you have done your job as you were charged to do so, and as volunteers. You left your families and you went forth and accomplished what you were taught to do.'' I truly believe that the importance of the National Guard to our country cannot be overstated, which is why it is important that we honor these citizen-soldiers. For this reason I am introducing the following resolution to honor these Guardsmen for their outstanding service to our country. H. Con. Res. 240 Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry of the Alaska Army National Guard deployment of almost 600 Alaskans was the largest deployment of the Alaska National Guard since World War II; Whereas the Alaskans of the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry came from 80 different communities across Alaska; Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry included 75 soldiers from New York, Mississippi, Illinois, Georgia and Puerto Rico; Whereas the 586 soldiers of the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry were mobilized in July of 2006 and deployed to Camp Shelby, Mississippi; Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry was deployed to Camp Navstar and Camp Buehring in Northern Kuwait; Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry courageously performed route and perimeter security missions, mounted combat patrols and inspections and searches of vehicles going into Iraq from Kuwait, among other assignments; Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry, over the course of 15 months in Kuwait and Iraq, inspected and searched over 30,000 semi-trucks; Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry designed all force protection plans in northern Kuwait; Whereas the families of the members of the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry have provided unwavering support while waiting patiently for their loved ones to return; Whereas the employers of members and family members of the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry have displayed patriotism over profit, by keeping positions saved for the returning soldiers and supporting the families during the difficult days of this long deployment, and these employers are great corporate citizens through their support of members of the Armed Forces and their family members; Whereas the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry has performed admirably and courageously; gaining the gratitude and respect of Alaskans and all Americans; and Whereas members of the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry received 7 Bronze Stars, 23 Meritorious Service Medals, 142 Army Commendations and more than 200 Army Achievement Medals for their outstanding service: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress-- (1) commends the 3rd Battalion, 297th Infantry of the Alaska Army National Guard upon its completion of deployment and brave service to the Commonwealth of Alaska and the citizens of the United States; and (2) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Adjutant General of the Alaska National Guard for appropriate display.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have several concerns with H.R. 1483. While I may support several subtitles within this bill, changes have been made that harm the positive intent of the legislation. An unexpected and unrequested increase, from $10 million to $15 million, in the authorization for new Heritage Areas was inserted by the Majority. No hearings have been held to discuss this change and we do not understand why it is warranted. The cost of this bill has ballooned to over $135 million. I have further reservations because the closed rule does not provide two Members of the House the opportunity to adequately represent their districts. Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Goode have expressed concerns that they do not want to be included in these Heritage Areas and would prefer to be removed. I believe a Member has the right to represent his district and decide which Federal designations will be created over his constituents. The committee has heard concerns that this bill would exacerbate the problem of Heritage Areas and their inability to operate without Federal funds. Heritage Areas are supposed to become self-sufficient: they were designed with that goal and that intent. This simply delivers more money to those heritage areas that have run through their authorization. The National Park Service testified that no National Heritage Area has succeeded in becoming self-sufficient. We have seen evidence that the National Park Service and some Heritage Areas are violating public law by using Federal funds for lobbying. They go so far as to instruct other groups on how to start new Heritage Areas and further this problem. In committee we sought to strengthen the private property rights protections. My Democrat colleagues believe this is the cure to a problem that does not exist. I urge them to reconsider and adopt real property protections that allow owners to withdraw from Heritage Area boundaries. This protection has been given to the last twelve Heritage Areas and should not be denied any new Heritage Areas. Finally, the committee has learned that Heritage Area boundaries may be used to impede the placement of critical energy transmission lines. At a time when the national grid is already heavily taxed and the threat of blackouts loom, we should not build obstacles to providing Americans with reliable energy.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support H.R. 505, and I do so in recognition of the long-standing ties between Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives, who themselves underwent a struggle to be recognized for the purpose of settling their aboriginal land claims. H.R. 505 concerns a struggle involving Native Hawaiians, who are seeking to formalize a kind of relationship among the Federal government, the State of Hawaii, and Hawaii's aboriginal peoples based on the powers of the Congress to regulate Indian affairs. I have been proud to work with my good friend, the Gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), to work on passing this bill for all the years we have served together. I want to recognize and congratulate the Gentleman for his iron commitment to this legislation and to the well-being of Hawaii and the nation. This Congress has passed several laws of unique application to Native Hawaiians, invoking the authority of the so-called Indian Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. An important example of these laws is when Congress conveyed lands in Hawaii for the purpose of benefiting the Natives. This has been supplemented with additional benefits and services exclusively for Natives based on their status as Natives. But there is a shortcoming in these laws: Congress has not yet authorized the Natives to organize a governing entity. At some point, we the Congress have to provide a means for the Native Hawaiians to administer these benefits in accordance with our current policy of promoting self-determination among Native American people in general. Native Hawaiians have largely stayed intact as a distinct community and we would be doing a great disservice to them if we did not set up a process for their recognition as a governing entity. The governing entity will be the vehicle they use to advance their economies, and preserve and pass on their special heritage and language to future generations. I understand that some Members have a problem with this bill. It has been said many times already but it's worth emphasizing again: H.R. 505 has the endorsement of the Governor, the Congressional Delegation and the State Legislature of Hawaii. It does not cut into programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Enrollment to the governing entity is elective. We can trace the genesis of this bill, embodying the hope of an indigenous people to control their own fate, all the way back to the overthrow of 1893. It has been a long road. I believe how we treat our native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are. Clearly, there is much in the history of our interactions with the native people of what is now the United States that makes us less than proud. But one of the great attributes of America has always been the ability to look objectively at our history, learn from it, and where possible make amends. Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, have an inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous, native people. They desire the right to exercise management over their own affairs and land. By law, a portion of income from the former crown lands of the Kingdom of Hawai`i (also called ceded lands) is allocated to benefit the native Hawaiian people. At present, that income is managed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency. Management of this income and Hawaiian lands should be done by a Native Hawaiian governing entity now that the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are elected by all the residents of the State of Hawai'i and not just Native Hawaiians. As has already been mentioned today, this legislation is supported by the great majority of Hawai`i's people, by its Republican governor, by our State Legislature, and by dozens of organizations, including the Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives. This legislation primarily affects the State of Hawai`i. Our state motto, which is the same as that of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, is ``Ua man ke ea o ka aina i ka pono,'' which means ``the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.'' This is a historic vote and one that helps to perpetuate righteousness by righting a historic wrong. I ask that you stand with the people of Hawai`i and oppose the Flake amendment, oppose the motion to recommit, and support passage of the bill. Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much). For these reasons, we owe a great deal of deference to the judgment of the elected representatives of the State of Hawaii. They are the ones who are accountable for this legislation on their islands. The Delegation of Hawaii understands best that Native Hawaiians have struggled for decades to achieve a status that adequately promotes their self-determination. Let's keep in mind that Congress has recognized Native Americans for various purposes over the years. We are not limited by a strict set of criteria such as those set forth in the Interior Department's Federal acknowledgment regulations. While these criteria are sensible to apply in some cases, a quick look at some of the Indian statutes passed in the early days of our republic make it clear that Congress viewed its powers to deal with Indians in a very broad sense. Opponents often say that Native Hawaiians are not a tribe and that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution limits Congress to recognize only tribes in the contiguous 48 States. The meaning of ``tribes'' in Article I, Section 8--commonly called the Indian Commerce Clause--is broad in scope. There is nothing that limits Congress to recognizing only the aboriginal people of the Lower 48 States. In fact, Congress was recognizing Indians for special reasons when they were in lands that were not part of the United States. And Congress has authorized the reorganization of reservations that were broken up and tribes that were terminated. Again, Congress has broad, plenary authority to recognize Native peoples. H.R. 505 is a good bill and it is a first, critical step for Native Hawaiians to deal with Hawaii and the Federal government in a fashion befitting their special status as a distinct Native community. In their wisdom, the Representatives from Hawaii have left issues regarding benefits, services, and lands to future negotiations with the newly organized governing entity. We can deal with these issues in a deliberative, careful fashion with the Native governing entity when it is organized. I'm pleased to support H.R. 505 and to advance a process for recognizing a Native Hawaiian entity.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I do thank both the gentlemen from Virginia. This is a good amendment. I urge the passage of this amendment. It does help the bill somewhat, and I think my colleagues would be wise to vote for it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I come from a State which has more of its land locked up in wilderness than any other State, 58 million acres. This is larger than the entire State of New York and accounts for 56 percent of all the wilderness in the United States, so I think I know wilderness. I know that a lot of wilderness in Alaska is designated for reasons that have little to do with the stated goals of the Wilderness Act. The designations have blocked vital uses of these lands and blocked access to State and private resources that we Alaskans were promised when we entered statehood. There have been and still are major consequences for what Congress did in 1980. In the East, where most of you come from, that is not always the case. All I can say is that if this is what Mr. Boucher and his constituents want in Virginia, then good luck. I can guess that one day, I think that one day they will regret this action. Given Virginia's population growth, the severe risk of forest fires, such as they are in California today, caused by sustained drought, I believe all but two counties have been declared disaster areas by the Governor last week, problems with gypsy moths and other agricultural threats to this area and the dampening effect that wilderness restrictions can have on the development of adjacent areas, you may wonder why you have brought this upon yourself. We should be looking to give the Forest Service more tools to manage our lands, not taking them away, which is exactly what wilderness does. Once this bill becomes law, our constituents, your constituents, may find that they may not be able to burn wood in their fireplaces that keep them warm in the winter because their quality of wilderness must be protected, or that a new school or hospital can't be built because the view shed for the wilderness could be affected. People are even talking about ``smellscapes'' when it comes to wilderness areas, so enjoy your Weber grill right now while you can. The committee should also know that H.R. 1011 designates nearly 27,000 acres of wilderness above what was recommended by the Forest Service. This is contrary to the recently revised Jefferson National Forest Plan, which took 11 years, millions of dollars, and extensive public involvement to create. We asked for this study. They followed the rules, but now we are ignoring the professional land managers. In addition, H.R. 1011 will endanger citizens living near this proposed wilderness area by tying the hands of the Forest Service, who need to perform proactive treatments that could reduce the risk of wildfires. Wildfires, I keep stressing that because we are seeing what is happening in California. If they cleared off those forests around those homes, they would not be burning today, but that was prohibited. Nonqualifying areas are now being actively managed for endangered threatened species protection, and this could come to an end. The amendment filed by Mr. Goodlatte helps mitigate some of these issues, and I will strongly support the amendment. Most notably, the amendment will remove 26 acres which contain a power line and remove 1,263 acres from the proposed designation to allow continued use of the Barton Gap Motorized trail and Wildlife Habitat Management in key areas. I could go on and on about this. I just want to warn people, it is not the area we are talking about; it is the Wilderness Act itself, and it should be upgraded. I encourage my chairman to do so so that we can address those problems that can occur from the designation of wilderness, taking care of gypsy moths, taking care of the fires, taking care of the ability to access and to have the availability of the area for public use. If we do not do that, then I think we are doing ourselves a great mistake. I do not live in this area. I am not affected by it. That's why, very frankly, I am not raising some of the objections that I should have raised to it. I think you will learn, though, in the long run, you are not doing yourselves a favor. The Forest Service themselves can manage this land in a manner that will take and provide for the people. It does not have to be designated as a wilderness area. Again, it has already been done. We have moved it out of committee, and I will say, again, may I not be on this floor when you come back to say we have to revise it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman that just spoke and his presentation. I just, again, wish that people would understand it's not the wilderness itself; it's how the act has been written. And if you think you're going to make a living off of coffee shops and tourism, these are low-grade paying jobs. I've seen it happen. I've seen my town of Ketchikan. We created a forest that we can't harvest and we took $80,000 jobs now down to the minimum wage. That will happen too. So I just, and it's too late, it's your district. You believe in what you say, and I commend you for it. But this is not the economy which I see, serving those that come from the larger urban areas, the elitists, as I call it. And this area, by the way, was farmed at one time, as you know, and timbered and mined. People had jobs that provided and produced. We are rapidly becoming a Nation of consumption and of no production, of pleasure and no sweat. Having said that, I have no other speakers, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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 thank the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for allowing this legislation to come to the floor of the House. As a sponsor of H.R. 830 and of the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982, I am pleased we are considering this legislation today. Although it is small, the land exchange provided by H.R. 830 will improve the ability of the Alaska Railroad Corporation to serve its customers who wish to visit Denali National Park. The construction of a turnaround track will increase scheduling frequency and flexibility. This not only reduces overcrowding of Denali at any one time, it makes the Park Service's job of managing visitation much smoother. This is a noncontroversial bill and enjoys the support of the National Park Service, the State of Alaska which owns the railroad, and the National Parks Conservation Association. For anyone who has not traveled on the Alaska Railroad, it is a journey you should not miss. For those who have had an opportunity to enjoy the splendor of Alaska's scenery aboard the train, I am sure you will agree it is a first-class experience. You may not know, but Alaska Railroad was once owned by the Federal Government; but Congress in its wisdom passed bipartisan legislation in 1982 to transfer the railroad to the State of Alaska. As Congress faces immense backlogs in caring for Federal assets, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here. We might consider transferring more of these assets to the States. Alaska has proven it can take a Federal asset like the Alaska Railroad and manage it for the benefit of everyone who uses it. I believe this is a fine piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I, along with my distinguished colleagues, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Faleomavaega, introduce today the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. This legislation will redress the inequitable treatment of the Native Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska--Sealaska Corporation--by allowing it to select its remaining land entitlement under Section 14 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, from designated Federal land in Southeast Alaska. Congress enacted ANCSA in 1971 to recognize and settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to the lands that Alaska Natives had used since time immemorial for traditional, cultural, and spiritual purposes. ANCSA allocated 44 million acres and nearly $1 billion to Alaska's Native people, to be managed by the 12 Regional Corporations, including Sealaska, and more than 200 Village Corporations. While Sealaska is one of the Regional Corporations with the largest number of Native shareholders, with 21 percent of all original Native shareholders, Sealaska received the smallest Regional Corporation land settlement--less than 1 percent of the total of all ANCSA lands. ANCSA declared that the land settlement ``should be accomplished rapidly, with certainty [and] in conformity with the real economic and social needs of [Alaska] Natives . . .'' However, after more than 35 years since the passage of ANSCA, Sealaska has still not received conveyance of its full land entitlement. As a result of its small land entitlement, it is critical that Sealaska complete its remaining land entitlement under ANCSA in order to continue to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of its Native shareholders, and of the Native community throughout Alaska. The Bureau of Land Management projects that Sealaska is entitled to receive between 355,000 and 375,000 acres pursuant to ANCSA. To date, 35+ years after ANCSA's enactment, Sealaska has secured conveyance of 290,000 acres. Accordingly, there are up to 85,000 acres remaining to be conveyed. ANCSA, however, limits Sealaska land selections to withdrawal areas surrounding certain Native villages in Southeast Alaska. The problem is that there are no lands remaining in these withdrawal areas that meet Sealaska's traditional, cultural, historic, or socioeconomic needs, and certain of those lands should more appropriately remain in public ownership. The selection limitations preclude Sealaska from to using any of its remaining ANCSA land settlement to select places of sacred, cultural, traditional, and historic significance located outside the withdrawal areas that are critical to facilitate the perpetuation and preservation of Alaska Native culture and history. Moreover, selection from the withdrawal areas would not allow Sealaska to meet the purposes of ANCSA--to create continued economic opportunities for the Native people of Southeast Alaska. Further, more than 40 percent of the original withdrawal areas are salt water and, therefore, not available for selection. Despite the small land base in comparison to all other Regional Corporations, Sealaska has provided significant economic benefits to not only Sealaska Native shareholders, but also to the other Native Corporations throughout Alaska. Pursuant to a revenue sharing provision in ANCSA, Sealaska distributes considerable revenues derived from its development of its natural resources--more than $300 million between 1971 and 2005--to the other Native Corporations. Unless it is allowed to select land outside of the designated withdrawal areas, Sealaska will not be able to select land that would allow it to maintain its existing resource development and management operations, or provide continued economic opportunities for the Native people of Southeast Alaska and economic benefits to the broader Alaska Native community through the revenue sharing requirements under ANCSA. The legislation presents a solution that would allow Sealaska to complete the conveyance of its land entitlement and enable the Federal Government to complete its statutory obligation to the Natives of Southeast Alaska, as promised under ANCSA. The elements of the legislation include the following: Sealaska would be authorized to select its remaining ANCSA land entitlement from a pool of land outside the existing withdrawal areas established in ANCSA, a majority of which is on existing forest service roads which has second-growth timber land. Sealaska would be authorized to use a majority of its remaining entitlement for economic development opportunities that would benefit its shareholders, the Southeast Alaska economy, and Native shareholders throughout Alaska. The legislation would also allow Sealaska to use a portion of its remaining entitlement for sites with sacred, cultural, traditional, or historic significance and for remote Native Enterprise sites with traditional and recreational use value. The legislation would allow the lands remaining in the withdrawal areas to remain in public ownership, almost all of which are roadless areas, old-growth timber lands, or land with important public interest value. I thank my colleagues and urge your support for this important legislation for the Native people of Southeast Alaska.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who has been a leader in this area.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest opposition to this bill. This bill, as brought forth by the majority, will increase the energy costs to all Americans. It increases the imports more than we are now, where we are now at 67 percent, of foreign oil, sending dollars overseas to compete against us and actually raise the war of terror. I am shocked that any union would ever support this bill. It will lead to the loss of jobs in all sectors of our economy. It is clearly the work of those, including the leadership on the other side, who do not appreciate the blessings of America's place in the world. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said, ``Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.'' This bill appears to be based on the consensus opinion that America is too wealthy, too strong and too influential in the world. The way we got there was to build the world's strongest economy by using the energy that God gave us. The popular consensus of representatives of this bill is if we use less energy and make it more expensive then we can unilaterally reduce our impact on the world. I have news for those who believe this: Nature abhors a vacuum. The U.S. has been the world's number one industrial economy since the Civil War. Since the Civil War. We got there by using our coal, our oil, our natural gas and our brains to create and use more energy to amplify human strengths to do more things than any other competitor on Earth. Along the way we became number one. Now, for the first time since the Civil War, our Nation faces serious competition to our number one status from China and India. China just surpassed Germany to become the third-largest economy in the world. Experts believe that within 20 years they will overcome this Nation. And with this bill they will. China already produces more CO2 than we do, which is the logical outcome of the relentless race to use more energy, because they understand energy use means economic growth. They are our competitors. They import energy around the world. They consume over half of the cement in the world today building their economy for tomorrow. So what does this bill do to prepare our Nation for competition? It tells us to turn the lights out. That is what this bill does. Mr. Chairman, I fear for our Nation. I fear for our young people. I fear for a Congress that does not understand that to stay in number one requires more energy, not less. Energy is the power of life. I fear for a Congress that does not understand the history of our blessed place in this continent of the world. I fear for my children and my grandchildren because what you are doing here today is dead wrong. And anybody who says this is the right thing to do does not understand the energy policy at all. President Ronald Reagan, who more than anyone understood the spirit that makes America great, often referred to our Nation as ``the Shining City on the Hill.'' Mr. Chairman, I fear we are witnessing nothing less than an effort to turn off the lights in what Ronald Reagan referred to as ``the Shining City on the Hill,'' because some believe we need to rest in our quest to make the world a better place. Our competitors in the world would like us to rest. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. There is no energy in this bill at all. We are faced with the ability not to have our ships float, our trains run, our cars drive and our trucks deliver because there is no energy in this bill. And I say shame on you. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am happy to introduce today the Native American Challenge Demonstration Project Act of 2007. This legislation acknowledges the special historical and legal relationship of the United States to Native American people and builds on the lessons we as a Nation have learned in the international arena and our often-failed efforts to bring jobs, income and hope to Native people here at home. Anyone who has visited Alaska Native communities or Indian reservations in the continental U.S. knows that Native people continue to lag behind their countrymen despite a rich cultural legacy and in some instances abundant natural resources on and under their lands. Native economies face a number of hurdles including geographic remoteness, distance from markets and population centers, and lack of or poor physical infrastructure. After decades of failed Federal efforts to revitalize Native economies, I believe the time is right to use what we know is working to reduce poverty, increase incomes, and encourage transparent governments in the developing world. Initiated in 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act has put forth ration has developed a model for reducing poverty and promoting sustainable economic growth. The bill I am introducing today would use these same principles to enhance the long-term job creation and revenue generation potential of Native economies by creating investment-favorable climates and increasing Native productivity. It would also administer Federal economic development assistance in a new way to promote economic growth, eliminate poverty, and strengthen good governance, entrepreneurship, and investment in Native communities. The Native American Challenge rests on four key principles that are as relevant to Native communities as they are to the developing world: (1) reducing poverty through vigorous private sector economic growth is a proven method of success; (2) rewarding constructive policies that are initiated and followed by the host government is a legitimate tool of United States policy; (3) operating as true partners with eligible entities increases the chances of success by maximizing communication and identifying and pursuing whatever mid-course corrections might be needed in tailoring an eligible entity's development plan; and (4) focusing on clearly-articulated criteria and concrete results by funneling Corporation attention and resources on those countries that have clear objectives, are willing and able to measure progress, and can therefore ensure accountability in their development plan. A critical component of the Native American Challenge is in its demand for accountability in the performance of the Compact terms and use of financial resources and this legislation would require that not later than March 15, 2008, and annually thereafter, the eligible entities shall prepare and submit to the Secretary written reports regarding the assistance provided under this Act during the previous fiscal year. These reports, with any additional information the Secretary deems relevant, will then be transmitted to Congress by May 15 of each year. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to correct an inequity for my Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans with regard to their native allotment issues. Approximately 2,800 Alaska Natives served in the military during the Vietnam conflict and therefore did not have an opportunity to apply for their Native allotment. In 1998, P.L. 105-276 amended the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) to provide Alaska Native Vietnam veterans an opportunity to obtain an allotment of up to 160 acres of land under the Native Allotment Act. P.L. 105-276 contains three major obstacles that prevent Alaska Native Vietnam veterans from selecting and obtaining their Native allotment. First, Alaska Native Vietnam veterans can only apply for land that was vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved when their use first began. Second, Alaska Native Vietnam veterans can only apply if they served in active military duty from January 1, 1969 to December 31, 1971 (even though the Vietnam conflict began August 5, 1964 and ended May 7, 1975). Third, Alaska Native Vietnam veterans must prove they used the land (applied for in their native allotment application) in a substantially continuous and independent manner, at least potentially exclusive of others, for five or more years. This requirement was not in the original Native Allotment Act, nor has it been required of other Alaska Native applicants in applying for their native allotment. Further, adjudication of use and occupancy issues will take years and will be very costly. My bill will increase the available land by authorizing Alaska Native Vietnam veterans to apply for land that is federally owned and vacant. The lack of available land under existing law nullifies the very purpose of granting Alaska Native Vietnam veterans an allotment benefit. This is true because most land in Alaska is not available for Alaska Native Vietnam veteran allotment applications under existing laws. For example, there is no land available in southeast Alaska because it either is within the Tongass National Forest or has been selected or conveyed to the State of Alaska or ANCSA Native Corporations. My bill will also expand the military service dates to coincide with the entire Vietnam conflict: August 5, 1964 through May 7, 1975. The expansion of military service dates to include all Alaska Natives who served in the military during the Vietnam conflict is consistent with the federal government's policy of providing benefits to veterans of the Vietnam War. The federal government has given public land benefits to veterans (or their widows or heirs) of every war beginning with the Indian Wars of 1790 and ending with the Korean conflict in 1955. Incidentally, Alaska Native veterans were not eligible for these public land benefits until 1924 because the courts had determined Alaska Natives were not United States citizens. My bill would extend the deadline of the allotment application to three years after the Secretary of the Interior issues final regulations under Section 3 of this bill. It also would correct the dates of Approval of Allotments to accommodate the extension of the application process of an Alaska Native Vietnam veteran. My bill would also assure ANCSA Regional and Village Corporations that if an Alaska Native Vietnam veteran makes his or her allotment selection within lands selected (and not necessarily conveyed) by those Corporations said Corporation's lands entitlement will remain intact. My bill would prohibit an Alaska Native Vietnam veteran from selecting lands within the right of way granted for the TransAlaska Pipeline or the inner and outer corridor of that right-of-way withdrawal (for security reasons after 9/11 attacks). It also would prohibit a veteran from selecting lands containing a building, permanent structure, or other development owned or controlled by the United States, another unit of government, or reserved for national defense purposes other than National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. My bill would also allow a veteran who made an allotment selection under Section 2(g) of this bill, before the date of the enactment of this bill, may withdraw that selection and reselect lands under this section if the land originally selected were not conveyed to that person prior to enactment of this bill. My bill will also replace existing use and occupancy requirements with legislative approval of allotment applications. Use and occupancy requirements would be replaced for several reasons: (1) Congress has made legislative approval available to all other allotment applicants under 43 U.S.C. Section 1634(a) (1) (A); (2) legislative approval of allotments prevents costly and lengthy adjudication of use and occupancy issues; and (3) many Alaska Native Vietnam veterans could not meet use and occupancy requirements as a result of military service. For example, the application of a deserving Alaska Native Vietnam veteran who was paralyzed during the Vietnam conflict would be rejected if that veteran were unable to complete the five years of use of the claimed land and had not used the land for five years before the war. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation for Alaska Native Vietnam veterans who served their country in a time of conflict. I want to remind my colleagues that we owe our veterans the respect, dignity and honor them so well deserve for fulfilling their duty and commitment to this great nation. Please do not deprive my Alaska Native Vietnam veterans their rightful opportunity to apply for their native allotment as was afforded other Alaska natives in my great State.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and the Minnesota delegation in expediting this process with the leadership of Mr. Mica and the leadership of both sides. I don't do this often when I say I told you so. As chairman, with Mr. Oberstar, we tried to put the money in to identify the weaknesses of the bridges and to repair them, and we were unsuccessful. We ended up with a $286 billion bill instead of a $375 billion bill. Mr. and Mrs. America, I believe it is time for us to wake up. We have to repair our outdated infrastructure, especially our bridges. You have heard statistics, 11,000 and on and on, how many are deficient. But there are about 500 in the same shape as the bridge in Minnesota right now that are a potential death trap to constituencies. We have to, as a Congress, grasp this problem and, yes, lo and behold, I would even suggest fund this problem with a tax. May the sky not fall on me, but with a tax. Make it a 3-year tax. Make it a 5-cent tax, and they will say we can't do that. But I would suggest respectfully that the American people will understand the importance if we fund it and if we address the issue of the bridges. We should do this. And maybe this is a wake-up call, and I hope The Post is wrong, that we all don't go back to sleep and watch football this fall and forget this tragic accident, because if we do so, then we are not fulfilling our obligation and our duty. So I stand here before you today saying I told you so. But I am also saying let's act as we should to protect our people in every one of our States.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify an ambiguity in a provision in the SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2007. Specifically, section 105(a)(99) of the bill refers to a project known as ``Dowling Road Extension/Reconstruction West,'' which goes in a west-east direction from Minnesota Drive to Old Seward Highway in Anchorage, AK. Unfortunately, the provision could be read to mean that the project goes in a westerly direction from Minnesota Drive to Old Seward Highway, which would create a result that would be completely incompatible with the project since it would put the road in the middle of a lake and a bog. The word ``west'' as used in section 105(a)(99) is part of the name of the project, and is not intended to indicate the direction in which the project should be built.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 691-747, I was absent due to a medical reason. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted as follows: 691--``yes,'' 692--``no,'' 693--``no,'' 694--``no,'' 695--``no,'' 696--``no,'' 697--``yes,'' 698--``no,'' 699--``no,'' 700--``no,'' 701-- ``no,'' 702--``no,'' 703--``no,'' 704--``no,'' 705--``no,'' 706-- ``no,'' 707--``yes,'' 708--``no,'' 709--``no.'' 710--``no,'' 711--``yes,'' 712--``no,'' 713--``no,'' 714--``yes,'' 715--``no,'' 716--``no,'' 717--``yes,'' 718--``yes,'' 719--``yes,'' 720--``yes,'' 721--``no,'' 722--``yes,'' 723--``yes,'' 724--``no,'' 725--``yes,'' 726--``no,'' 727--``yes,'' 728--``yes.'' 729--``no,'' 730--``yes,'' 731--``yes,'' 732--``yes,'' 733--``no,'' 734--``yes,'' 735--``no,'' 736--``no,'' 737--``yes,'' 738--``yes,'' 739--``no,'' 740--``no,'' 741--``no,'' 742--``no,'' 743--``yes,'' 744-- ``yes,'' 745--``yes,'' 746--``no,'' 747--``yes.''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I am dismayed that this Congress, including Members of my own party, has again decided to eliminate funding for the Denali Commission and cripple the economic lifeline to hundreds of small communities throughout rural Alaska. When health crises arise, options are often extremely limited in rural Alaska. Health issues or emergencies that require hospital care often involve costly air transportation that can take as much time and money as a flight from New York to Los Angeles, if weather permits. For local health care, the typical rural community health facility is aging, small and inadequate to provide necessary services. In one of its earliest decisions, the Denali Commission designated rural health care as a top priority for Commission support and is continuing its work to provide safe and appropriate infrastructure which will improve health care delivery for rural Alaskans. Through its health care program, and in partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Alaska health providers, the Commission is working to address the infrastructure needs of communities statewide to ensure all Alaskans receive safe and reliable health care. In 1999, the Commission was granted authority by Congress to address rural Alaska health care issues. This authority authorized the Denali Commission to plan, construct and equip health, nutrition and child care projects across the state. Potential projects include hospitals, health care clinics, and mental health facilities including drug and alcohol treatment centers. In 2001, the Commission identified rural primary care facility needs in more than 288 rural communities, and estimated the cost of needed rural primary care facilities to be $253 million. Since then, more than 200 communities have sought assistance from the Denali Commission. And in addition to constructing several essential village primary care clinics, the Denali Commission has funded major design initiatives for needed replacement hospitals in Nome and Barrow. It has now completed clinics in over 65 of these remote communities. Now, in 2007, Congress is telling the Commission that they no longer see a need for the Denali Commission. They are looking to cut $39 million when the real need in my State is several times that amount. Have the health care problems in rural Alaska been miraculously fixed overnight? Have any Members of the House visited Alaska and seen firsthand that rural health care is no longer an issue for Alaskans? The answer to both is a resounding ``No.'' The Commission works tirelessly each year to make sure that my Alaskans are not treated like second class citizens and eliminating these funds will be devastating. It is my hope that the Senate has more sense and will continue funding this essential program. I will work with my colleagues in the other chamber to make sure that this happens--Alaskans deserve better.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. My friends, this is a sad day in this body. Apparently the students of New Jersey are trying to take money from Alaskan students, pitting State against State instead of talking about education. I am a little bit chagrined with the gentleman from New Jersey. This is supposed to be a House of honor. You didn't tell me you were going to offer this amendment. You didn't talk to the gentleman from Hawaii on the amendment. You are attacking two States that are not contiguous to the United States. This is a harmful thing to do. We are a new State. I have poverty that you don't even think of, and yet you say you want my money, my money for my students that need to be educated to go to New Jersey. That is a sad day for this House. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee for putting this in the bill. And if we continue this, we will be called biting one another, very much like the mink in my State that kill their own. There is always another day when those who bite will be killed, too, and I am very good at that. I just think it is a disgrace to have one State, the education of one State, being pitted against another State. This is education. These are needy students, a minority that has been neglected, has not been helped to the degree they should have been over the centuries. I can truthfully say and pridefully say we have been good in the last years, over the last 35 years. I have provided education and supported education. My people have risen and become leaders because this Congress saw the wisdom of us providing us money. And now we have an individual from a State that doesn't have the greatest reputation in the world trying to take money from one State to give to another State. If that is the case, then let's just all have a big donnybrook right here. I'm ready. I'm really ready because what we are doing is dead wrong. I told the gentleman here about 2 years ago, shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on each one of you. And the guys that are trying to not spend money and the guys that are trying to balance the budget, to take and attack education in States, Hawaii and Alaska, that have the least representation as far as numbers go. And if there is guilt here, it is because I have been able to represent my State better than New Jersey. I would suggest New Jersey ought to elect some new Congressmen, I suggest respectfully, that can do the job. I believe that is really true. If they can't do the job, elect somebody new. I have done it. I am going to continue to do it. I am going to fight for my State, and I am going to fight for my State every time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have not yielded. I will not yield.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I don't know what the gentleman is talking about. I just said they were not well represented. Respectfully, if I can say that. I don't name anybody's name. I don't mention anybody. I don't specifically mention any names. And that is not why. For the rest of you that continue this constant harping on this floor about cutting monies from other areas under the guise of balancing the budget, I say shame on you, too. I say shame on you because we are not doing the legislative process any good. Regardless of who is in power in this House, Democrat or Republican, we should be leading this Nation and we are at a standstill now. That is one reason our ratings are very low, totally, and that is a shame. Because we do have the work of this Nation that we should be doing and we should be addressing and we should take care of it. I don't agree with everything that side does. We should not always agree on everything, but we should have the ability to get together and solve problems and to legislate, and we have not done that. So I am a little frustrated. And like I say, those that bite me will be bitten back. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Parliamentary Inquiry