Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Science, and the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3104) to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, beginning in Fiscal Year 2001 Congress began providing funds for a vessel time charter for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, to use in addressing the critical hydrographic survey backlog. The vessel time charter added a third method of acquiring the data needed to update and improve the hydrographic charts of our nation's waterways. These charts are essential for our national security, defense and economy. NOAA now uses (1) its own hydrographic survey vessels, (2) data--contracts under the Brooks Act, and (3) a long-term, multi-year, vessel lease/charter of a private sector vessel with contract hydrographers. The long-term vessel lease/charter, is now completing its first year of operation. I rise today to urge NOAA to reprogram funds to extend the current charter through the end of this calendar year. This extension will allow enough data to be gathered to determine whether the continued use of the time charter is cost effective, and competitive with other methods of acquiring hydrographic data. It will also keep the contract going long enough to determine if fiscal year 2006 funds are available for continued long term vessel charters. To emphasize the bipartisan importance of this issue, I ask that the May 31, 2005, letter to the NOAA Administrator that my good friend and colleague, Norm Dicks signed with me, be entered into the Record. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, May 31, 2005. Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and Atmospheric, Administration, Herbert Clark Hoover Building, Washington DC. Dear Admiral Lautenbacher: As you are aware, the Nation faces a huge backlog of critical hydrographic survey work. To reduce this backlog, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had developed a three-pronged approach. NOAA is using 1) its own hydrographic survey vessels and personnel; 2) data acquisition contracts; and 3) a leased vessel staffed by contract hydrographers. In fiscal years 2002 through 2005, Congress provided funding and specific direction to NOAA to enter into a multi- year vessel lease. After a lengthy bid process, the Military Sealift Command entered into a lease on NOAA's behalf that included a base year, and 4 one-year options. The first year of that lease will soon end, and unless it is extended this portion of the hydrographic surveying initiative will end. The bidders, including the winning bidder, based their bids on a 5-year lease period. Therefore, it was very disappointing to learn that NOAA does not intend to exercise even its first annual lease option, especially since NOAA appears to be satisfied with the work that has been done by the leased vessel. We have requested that the Appropriations Committee include funding to continue the vessel lease program in fiscal year 2006. This will allow NOAA time to acquire and examine cost data on the lease to determine if vessel leasing is a cost effective method of acquiring hydrographic data. While this request is pending, we urge you to extend the vessel lease with the roughly $1.6 million remaining of the amounts already appropriated for that purpose. This will hold open the door to allow NOAA to exercise the first annual contract option if Congress appropriates vessel lease funds in Fiscal Year 2006. Both Congress and NOAA deliberated long and hard before establishing the longterm vessel lease program as an additional method to reduce the survey backlog. Given the time and effort it has taken to get that program under way, it would be very inefficient for NOAA to kill the program this year, and then go through another multi-year contract bidding process starting next year. Therefore, we urge you to use the remaining funds to extend the vessel contract. Thank you for your expeditious consideration of this request. We look forward to your prompt response. Sincerely, Don Young, Congressman for All Alaska. Norman D. Dicks, Member of Congress.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. Chairman, I know where I can spend 29 million of those dollars real quick. I regret today, and I say this because I really truly regret, because I have great respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, but I have to oppose this legislation because it fails to include the funds necessary to implement the Pribilof Islands' environmental cleanup agreement between the State of Alaska and NOAA. The Pribilof Islands lay in the middle of the Bering Sea. Two of the islands are inhabited today, St. Paul and St. George. Neither was inhabited until the 1780s, when the Russians forcibly relocated residents of the Aleutian Islands to the Pribs to harvest the then- valuable pelts of the North Pacific fur seal and the stellar sea lion. The Russians retained ownership of the land and the profits from the harvest. After the United States purchased Alaska, the Federal Government treated the Pribilof residents no better. Like the Russians before us, we retained ownership of all the island property and the fur seal profits. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and its successors were the employer, municipal government, overseer, and landlord of the islands' residents. The profits from the fur seal trade offset the entire purchase price of Alaska, $7.5 million, in less than 20 years. However, by 1983, profits from the fur seal trade no longer offset the expense of managing the islands, when the decision was made to transfer ownership and responsibility for the islands to the residents. This was not a humanitarian undertaking. The profits were gone, so the Office of Management and Budget saw no need to continue to own the islands. The framework for this transfer process was laid out in the 1983 amendments to the Fur Seal Act. Unfortunately, the transition plans have not gone smoothly, quickly, or efficiently. In 2000, Congress adopted further amendments to the Fur Seal Act that were designed to get the process back on track. Since then, significant progress has been made. However, additional environmental cleanup work remains to be done. Unfortunately, the bill before us provides no meaningful funds for the cleanup, not even the insufficient $7.3 million requested by the President. It includes $3.5 million to be divided between three environmental cleanup projects, one of which is the Pribs. It also allows the agency to reprogram unobligated balances for the project, something NOAA can already do. I cannot deny that, prior to the year 2000, NOAA's project management was terrible. Right now, though, it has improved. In the year 2000, the agency brought in new project managers; and these managers, especially Dave Kennedy and John Lindsay, have defined the scope of the project, established meaningful cost estimates and timetables. From 1996 through 2000, NOAA cleaned up 11 sites. Since 2000, the agency has cleaned up 75 sites. Nine sites remain. Of course, these timetables and cost estimates are only meaningful if sufficient funds are provided to carry them out. This year, no cleanup work will be done because of the funding cuts. This means the cleanup will not be finished in 2006 as planned, but will lapse into 2007. Congressional cuts in the administration's cleanup request in fiscal years 2003, 2004 and 2005 have been devastating. Effectively eliminating funding in fiscal year 2006 means that we are abandoning this project and saying it is okay for Federal agencies to pollute native lands with impunity. When developing the Fur Seal Act amendments in 2000, Congress undertook a detailed review of the transition scenario established in the 1983 Fur Seal Act amendments. By 1983, the fur seal profit had diminished, and Federal expenditures on the islands had risen to $6.3 million annually. NOAA estimates that 95 percent of those expenditures were for municipal and social services. In 1982, NOAA proposed a scheme to transfer municipal operations on the islands to local control and end the Federal subsidy. That plan consisted of four parts: the first was a $20 million trust fund. The trust fund was established and fully capitalized. Second was the construction of useable harbors by the State. The State was very clear in testimony before Congress that it had made no such commitment, and in fact it did not fund harbor construction. Third, the government would transfer most of its land to the local entities. That transfer is still not complete. Fourth, the islands would manage and retain the income from the fur seal harvest. The government ended that commercial fur seal harvest the next year. Given the failure to carry out two of the four pieces of the transition plan, and the complete abrogation of a third piece, Congress decided in 2000 to finish the cleanup and land transfer. Because of the chronic underfunding of the cleanup program, it will take roughly an additional $16 million and two more years to complete the work required by the two-party agreement between NOAA and the State of Alaska. If we put it off further, or underfund the remaining work this year, it will take longer and cost more. I know and have great respect for the chairman of this subcommittee, and I know that he cares deeply about oppressed people throughout the world. Before finishing this bill, I hope he will look at the embarrassing history of our government in regards to the citizens of the Pribilof Islands and realize the least we can do is remove the environmental contamination which occurred under NOAA. Mr. Chairman, because of this issue, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2862.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alaska?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this motion to instruct the conferees. It is a beautifully drafted, I thought, solution to a problem. But I will tell you after reviewing it that if we go to 92 percent and we insist that they be no less than what is in H.R. 3, there will be a problem of having a higher number in de facto. I think we can get there. I just do not think we ought to be instructing the conferees and having the illusion of actually going above to what we vote with 417 votes for in this House. I will urge the gentleman to consider that as we go to conference that I will do everything in my power to get more money. I think what we ought to be concentrating on is, that yesterday was the seventh extension that we had on this legislation. It is not this body's fault. It is not the House and the people's fault. It is the other side who decided not to finish this product. Yes, we just got the papers today, before we go on this short recess so it has hamstrung us. I want us to get to conference. I want the conferees to be nominated today. I want us to get the staffs working together to solve this problem. Try to get more money than was there, but sticking with the number of House-passed so that we finally get some stability within the States. Everything the gentleman said about traffic is absolutely right: it has got worse in the last 4 years. We have seen a tremendous increase of automobile and trade traffic, and we are not addressing that issue as we should be. I have tried to explain to the people that this is just another step forward. When we do get this bill, it is every intention I have by the first or the middle of June that we will have this bill on the President's desk. But that is just the beginning. We will come back again, and with the gentleman's help, again and again and again until we solve this problem with transportation in this great Nation of ours. Yes, we are mobile compared to the rest of the world, but we are very quickly becoming less mobile. We are becoming standing in traffic. We are not able to deliver next day. We are losing effort. We are losing what I call productive hours. And more than that we are losing the edge globally. We are going to have a vote here in the near future on CAFTA, or whatever they call that thing, Central America. We had a vote on NAFTA. We had a vote on GATT. We had a vote on world trade, et cetera, et cetera; and this is well and good, but if we are going to get into that business of trade and production and import and export, we have got to have the transportation system in place. We have to have the rail in place, which it is not. Every railroad we have today is oversubscribed. We have not laid any new rail access or relieved the congestion on the highway. We have not improved, what I think is necessary, truck lanes, which is in our bill. We have not done the things we should have done and everyone says, well, it will take care of itself. Well, that is a very shortsighted, I think, point of view for this country. So for those who look upon this bill as the final thing, whatever we come out of a conference, if it is 289, 284, 283, whatever it will be, if it is 290, that is just the beginning. And I hope you take time to understand that. I again reluctantly oppose the motion to instruct. We will be together in that conference, and we will hopefully together achieve the goals they are seeking. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation which will correct an injustice to five Southeast Alaska Native villages. For over 25 years, the Southeast Alaska Villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell have been denied fundamental rights and compensation afforded other Alaska Native villages under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). ANCSA fails to recognize these five villages for the purposes of establishing urban or village corporations under the Act. Consequently, the Alaska Natives from these villages have been denied the rights afforded other Alaska Natives to proper settlement under ANCSA of historical land claims. A significant number of Natives enrolled at each of the villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell during the original ANCSA process, but they were denied the opportunity to establish village or urban corporations in 1971. Consequently, although Natives enrolled to these villages during the ANCSA process and did become at- large shareholders in the regional corporation for Southeast Alaska, Natives from these five communities were denied rights to land and local resources that Natives enrolled to other village and urban corporations in Southeast Alaska received under ANCSA. ANCSA prohibits the Native villages in Southeast Alaska from obtaining an administrative and/or judicial solution. Section 11 of ANCSA establishes a general process for determining Native village eligibility for villages outside Southeast Alaska. A completely different process was set forth under Section 16 of ANCSA for determining the eligibility of Native villages in Southeast Alaska. Unlike Section 11, there is no provision in Section 16 providing an appeal right or other procedures for qualification of Southeast Alaska Native villages not included in the original list. Appeals to the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board of the U.S. Department of the Interior in 1974 and 1977, on behalf of Natives enrolled to the villages of Haines, Tenakee and Ketchikan were denied based on a narrow, technical reading, of ANCSA Section 16. The Appeals Board ruled that Section 16 prevents the Board from even considering whether ``unlisted'' Southeast villages could be determined eligible for benefits, thus precluding any administrative or judicial redress. In 1994, a congressionally directed study determined the omission of these Southeast Alaska Native villages from ANCSA to be erroneous. In 1993, the Federal government contracted with the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska, Anchorage, to prepare a report on the status of these villages. ISER presented its report to Congress in February 1994, concluding that the eligibility requirements for villages eligible to form Native corporations were met by the Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee and Wrangell. The report notes that, with the exception of Tenakee, the communities appeared on early versions of Native village lists, and their subsequent omission was not clearly explained in any provision of ANCSA nor in the accompanying legislative history. In short, the ISER report found no distinction between the five communities and other Southeast Alaska communities listed in Section 16, and thus no justification for omission of these five Southeast Native communities from ANCSA. A solution to the myriad of issues that have prevented a resolution to this situation has presented itself in past congressional sessions. These past legislative attempts have failed for a variety of reasons outside the control of the Southeast Alaska Native villages. My legislation addresses these issues and seeks to build a solid, bipartisan coalition of support among key members of Congress, the Administration, and other outside interest groups. The legislation presents a compromise that has been favorably received by the affected villages, Sealaska Corporation, the state and others. The elements of the compromise include the following: The Native residents enrolled to the five Native villages will be allowed to organize five urban corporations, one for each unrecognized community. The newly formed Corporations would be provided the following compensation package: The Congress would recognize the five communities as Alaska Native Villages, pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Secretary of the Interior would offer, and the Urban Corporation for each community could accept, the surface estate to approximately 23,000 acres of forest lands. Sealaska Corporation, the Native Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska, would receive title to the subsurface estate to the designated lands. The Urban Corporations for each community would receive a lump sum payment to be used as start-up funds for the newly established Corporation. The Secretary of the Interior would determine such other appropriate compensation to redress the inequities faced by unrecognized communities for the past 30+ years. I thank my colleagues and urge your support for this important legislation for five Southeast Alaska communities.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of a fine man, long-time Alaskan Jon Scribner. Jon was from Juneau, where he had served as the Regional Director of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. In this job, Jon managed transportation issues for Southeast Alaska. He loved his job and did it well; he will be badly missed by his many friends and co-workers in Juneau. Scribner, 63, died May 12, 2005 at elevation 3,100 feet, in an accidental fall while returning from a successful climb of Mount Stroller White near Juneau. He was born March 1, 1942, in San Francisco, California and was raised in Weed, California. Jon majored in civil engineering and played basketball at the University of California Davis. For part of his senior year, he had been a bench warmer until he entered late into a game when his team was so far behind that the coach figured the game was lost. Jon intercepted passes, stole balls, and single-handedly scored about a dozen points in less than two minutes. Davis won and Scribner started the rest of the season. After UC Davis, Jon earned a master's degree in engineering from Stanford, which had a distinguished program in environmental engineering. He married Kathryn (Kit) Duggan of Carmel, California, on June 10, 1967. After Stanford, Jon served his nation honorably in the Army Medical Service. Captain Scribner taught at the Medical Field Service School at Fort Sam Houston, Texas from 1967 to 1969. He had been selected as faculty based upon his academic record and related credentials. Jon and Kit moved in 1969 to Alaska, and he worked for the Alaska Department of Health and Welfare in Fairbanks. In 1971, they moved to Juneau, where he served as director of air and water quality for the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. He was a senior official in the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, serving as assistant deputy commissioner for design and construction and as director of the department's Southeast Alaska Region. He served at the pleasure of Governors Hammond, Sheffield, Cowper, Hickel, and Knowles. His repeated reappointments attest to his integrity and hard work. He retired from state service in 1997 after a career publicly recognized for professionalism and accomplishment. When he left the department, then-Juneau Mayor Dennis Egan proclaimed his retirement date, Feb. 7, 1997, as Jonathan Scribner Day in the city. The proclamation included thanks for Scribner getting a Thane Road project out to bid on his last day of work. In the legislature, the speaker of the House and president of the Senate signed a statement honoring Scribner for his contributions. ``All Alaskans, both now and in the future, will continue to benefit from his efforts,'' it said. The couple raised their family in Juneau, where they enjoyed boating, hunting, fishing, bird watching, scuba diving, and hiking. They made frequent visits with family to the Mount Shasta area of California. He traveled Southeast Alaska with his 24-foot Bayliner cruiser, Mandy Ann, speeding family and close friends from one end of Southeast Alaska to the other. He is survived by his wife, Kit; his daughters, Jennifer Laitinen and her husband Todd, and Amanda Mallott and her husband Anthony; his son, Nathan; and his grandson Tyler and granddaughter Addison. Lu and I send our deepest sympathies to them in their hour of loss. We hope they are comforted by the memory of Jon's very full life, and of his many friends and admirers. I consider myself one of them.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Simmons-LoBiondo amendment, and I thank my friend from Connecticut for bringing this important amendment to the floor. This amendment will maintain the integrity of the Coast Guard as a distinct entity within the Department of Homeland Security. Section 888 of the Homeland Security Act states that the Coast Guard shall be maintained intact with all of the Service's authorities, functions, and capabilities. The Coast Guard's research and development program has in the past concentrated on the development of strategies and resources aimed to improve the Service's ability to perform all of its traditional and homeland security missions. The Coast Guard's traditional missions include search and rescue, drug and migrant interdiction, marine environmental protection, ice operations and aids to navigation. It is imperative that we maintain the Coast Guard's ability to perform these important traditional missions in addition to the Service's homeland security mission. Just this year, we have seen the importance of the Coast Guard's oil spill response and prevention program. I am extremely concerned that the transfer of research and development funds to the Department will forever change the Coast Guard's abilities to balance its resources and personnel to carry out its many and varied missions. We must protect the multi-mission nature of the Coast Guard. We should provide funding for Coast Guard research, development, test and evaluation directly to the Service in the same manner that we provide all other Coast Guard funds. This is what the law demands and this is the right thing to do. I urge my fellow members to support the Simmons-LoBiondo amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lobiondo amendment. The Coast Guard's Deepwater Program will result in a nearly complete recapitalization of the Coast Guard's fleet of vessels, aircraft, and supporting systems. The Coast Guard's legacy assets are failing at an alarming rate, jeopardizing the success of Coast Guard missions and the lives of Coast Guardsmen. We must bring the new assets that will be procured through the Deepwater Program online as quickly as possible. The current bill will not only fail to accelerate the rate at which these assets become available, but it dramatically slows down the delivery of these critical assets. Following the events of 9/11, the Coast Guard has taken on significant responsibilities to protect maritime homeland security in addition to carrying out its important traditional missions of search and rescue, illegal drug and migrant interdiction, oil spill response and prevention, and fisheries law enforcement. We must provide the resources necessary to allow the men and women of the Coast Guard to successfully carry out these missions. The Deepwater Program will provide these assets and I applaud the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation for his amendment to provide funding to procure the assets needed by the Coast Guard. I thank the chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the passing of a fine man, long-time Alaskan Max Lyon. Max was from Fairbanks, where he was the Director of Transportation for the Fairbanks North Star Borough. In this job, Max managed transportation and environmental issues for the Borough. He loved his job and did it well; he will be badly missed by his many friends and coworkers in Fairbanks. Max was born in 1947 in Owosso, Michigan, but he grew up in DeKalb, Illinois. He was an avid sportsman. He enjoyed hunting, fishing, and flying, and was a life member and Board President of the Tanana Valley Sportsmen's Association. He was a devoted husband and father, a community leader, and a good friend to many long-time Fairbanksians. Before becoming an Alaskan, Max served his nation honorably in Vietnam. Immediately after graduation from high school, Max enlisted in the U.S. Air Force and was trained as a jet-engine mechanic. He was sent to Viet Nam where he was stationed at DaNang Air Base. During his tour in Viet Nam, Max volunteered his time to teach English to Vietnamese students and was known as ``Teacher'' to many of them. He received an honorable discharge in 1969. That year, Max went to work in Sycamore, Illinois, where he met his future wife, Diane Leonhard. They married on May 16, 1970. In 1973, Max went to work for American Transit, which in 1977 sent him on a temporary assignment to Fairbanks to establish their first city transit system. That was the company's big mistake. Max and Diane fell in love with Alaska, and at the end of the 18-month assignment, Max resigned from American Transit and stayed in his adopted home for the rest of his life. Over the next several years, Max worked as a mechanic and service manager on heavy duty trucks and then went to work for Dixon's Gun Shop. In 1982, Max bought the gun shop and owned it until 1985, when he sold it to build his dream house, a log home overlooking Fairbanks. The Borough hired Max as Assistant Transportation Director in 1989, and he soon was promoted to Transportation Director, a job he held under several Borough Mayors until his untimely death this past weekend. Max was a member of the Elks, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and was a life member of the National Rifle Association. Max loved the outdoors. It was what drew him to Alaska and kept him here. He loved his hunting and fishing camp near Kobuk, in interior Alaska; he spent as much time there in the Spring and Fall as he could. He also loved Baja California, where he planned to spend the winter months during a richly deserved retirement. He had just broken ground on a new house there. Most of all, Max loved his family--his wife, Diane; his children Kristine and Andrew; his grandchildren Jordan and Jack; his mother Marlene; and his siblings Terry, Tim, Peggy, Cheryl, Robin, and Melissa. Lu and I send our deepest sympathies to them in their hour of loss. We hope they are comforted by the memory of Max's very full life, and of his many friends and admirers. I consider myself one of them.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to eliminate endless litigation--and the associated economic hazard to Alaska--over the valuation of oil that is shipped through the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline System, TAPS. The current litigation over this issue concerns valuations used in connection with the ``TAPS Quality Bank,'' which shippers make payments into or receive payments from depending on the quality of the crude oil they inject into the pipeline. This litigation has been ongoing since 1989, and there is no end in sight. Unfortunately, the incentive of parties to litigate is compounded because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, apparently has authority in these cases to impose changes in oil valuations on a retroactive basis. My bill provides that, after December 31, 2005, the FERC will no longer have authority to apply changes to Quality Bank valuations on a retroactive basis. In other words, if FERC makes changes in the method by which oil shipped through the pipeline is valued, they must do so only on a prospective basis. This will impose a strong incentive for parties to the existing litigation to settle before the end of this year, and ensure, with respect to any future changes to valuations, that no TAPS shipper is exposed to the kind of retroactive liability that could accrue in the existing dispute. Since its opening in June 1977, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, has carried crude oil from Alaska's North Slope to Valdez where the oil is shipped to market. The pipeline carries crude oil from various sources and of varying quality. The oil is injected into the line before the pipeline's Pump Station One near Deadhorse, Alaska and commingled as the blended stream of oil travels south to Valdez. The TAPS Quality Bank was established to compensate producers of higher quality crude oil for the difference in the value of the crude injected at the North Slope and that of the lower-quality commingled stream received in Valdez, since each shipper receives a quantity of the blended stream in Valdez equivalent to the amount it injected into the line. Companies injecting low-quality crude oil pay into the Quality Bank, while companies injecting high quality crude receive a payment from the Quality Bank. In addition, between the North Slope and Valdez, two refineries, Flint Hills and Petro Star, withdraw a portion of the common stream from TAPS, partially refine the crude oil into products such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, and reinject into TAPS the other components of crude left over after their refinery processes. Each fuel extracted from the crude is called a ``cut.'' To compensate other shippers for the lower relative value of the oil the refineries return to TAPS, refiners also pay into the Quality Bank. The objective of the Quality Bank is to make monetary adjustments so that each shipper is in the same economic position it would enjoy if it received the same oil in Valdez that it delivered to TAPS on the state's North Slope. The methodology used to determine Quality Bank payments has been a subject of controversy since the Quality Bank's creation. The problem arises because there is no independent market for the crude injected on the North Slope and thus no way to objectively determine its value. The methodology is set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Since the early 1980s, FERC-approved methodologies have been challenged in court and revised multiple times. In 1993, the majority of North Slope shippers proposed and FERC approved a settlement calling for the use of a ``distillation'' methodology, which would value crude oil based on the market price of various cuts created when the components are separated based on different boiling points--the distillation process. This methodology replaced the former ``gravity'' methodology where oil was valued based on its relative gravity. Since 1993, disputes have focused largely on the valuation of cuts at the highest boiling points--the ``Heavy Distillate'' cut that evaporates at temperatures between 450 and 650 degrees F. And the ``Resid'' (residual) cut, which includes the portion remaining after distillation of all other cuts at boiling points up to 1050 degrees F. Two additional cuts are also at issue, the VGO and Naphtha cuts. In 1997, responding to a DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, FERC approved a settlement with a revised valuation methodology for Distillate and Resid. Under the FERC order, the new valuation methodologies were to be applied on a prospective basis only. Later, the DC Circuit in 1999 told FERC to revise some particular details of the Resid valuation and also held that FERC had ``failed to provide an adequate explanation'' as to why the new methodology should not be made retroactive to 1993. Responding to the ruling, the Administrative Law Judge, who in 1997 had decided that all changes should only apply prospectively, reversed his position and released a decision in August 2004 calling for changes in the Resid and Heavy Distillate cuts to be applied retroactively, in the case of Resid to as far back as 1993. In addition, the administrative law judge decided to apply new valuations for VGO and Naphtha, prospectively. Currently, the judge's decision is awaiting a final decision by the FERC on whether to impose the Initial Decision or alter it. There are clearly major public policy implications resulting from this Quality Bank issue. While the bank is a ``zero sum'' game as far as money paid in and out of the bank is concerned, the impacts on the parties and thus on the citizens of Alaska are anything but equal. For decades Alaskans suffered from the effects of having to import all refined fuel products into the state from West Coast refineries. Besides higher prices caused by transportation, that left the state wholly dependent on fuel supplies that needed to travel at least 2,000 miles on average to reach Alaska consumers--sometimes through bad weather and difficult sea conditions. With the construction of in-state refineries, Alaskans finally saw greater security of supply, less dependence upon weather for shipment arrivals, and the possibility of lower fuel prices because of potentially reduced transportation costs. The greater dependability of fuel supplies improved aviation freight shipments at the Anchorage and Fairbanks international airports, helping create jobs in air freight and related industries. The recent decision of the FERC Administrative Law Judge to apply new Quality Bank methodology assessments retroactively, however, places the economics of in-state refineries at risk. That in turn not only impacts the job security for the roughly 400 Alaskans who work at the refineries, but also threatens the state's energy and economic security. The problem is that both of the refineries must make long- and short- term business decisions based on crude costs when they process crude oil into product. Refineries optimize their production slates based on current market realities. It is difficult for them to operate, given low profit margins, if oil values can change years later as a result of Quality Bank decisions. They simply have no way to make rational business decisions when the cost of their products can be determined retroactively long after they can protect themselves for perceived mistakes in FERC-approved valuation methodologies. This certainly threatens the ability of the refineries to attract capital, money needed for them to modernize and meet new ultra-low sulfur diesel ``clean fuel'' requirements soon to go into effect. My Delegation last fall in report language added to the federal budget expressed its concern with the equity of long retroactive Quality Bank valuation adjustments. Last autumn we urged FERC to look carefully at the justice of the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this case and we encouraged all of the eight parties-- including the State of Alaska--to reach an out-of-court settlement of the 1993 case to bring finality to this complex case before it harms in-state refinery capabilities. We wanted to avoid a legislative solution to this purely Alaskan case. We renewed our pleas for action in a letter sent to FERC on April 5th. In the intervening six months, while two mediation sessions have occurred, the parties report little or no progress toward reaching a mutually agreeable settlement. While opinions may differ on whether Congress should intervene to settle the on-going case, there is little doubt that Congress should step forward to prevent such an arcane dispute from ever again threatening Alaska's energy industry. For this reason, I am introducing today legislation identical to S. 822, already introduced by Senators Stevens and Murkowski, to limit the ability of FERC in the future to make retroactive the impacts of future Quality Bank valuation methodology changes. I plan to push for inclusion of this provision in the energy legislation being considered by Congress this year. By this legislation, after Dec. 31, 2005, FERC still will be able to change the methodology for determining the value of oil flowing through the pipeline but will not be permitted to apply changes to Quality Bank valuation methodologies on anything other than a prospective basis I have proposed this provision to prevent this legal nightmare from happening again. This provision will first eliminate the perverse current incentive for all sides to promote further litigation regarding Quality Bank valuations based on the expectation of a retroactive application of changes that would result in a large economic windfall. The retroactive application of valuation methodology changes encourages the sides in a dispute to sue in hopes of gaining a larger benefit in the future. This is a ``lottery,'' however, that Alaskans are guaranteed to lose. By setting Dec. 31, 2005 as the date that FERC can no longer apply Quality Bank valuation methodologies on a retroactive basis, the legislation will put the FERC and the litigants on notice that the current dispute must be resolved by the end of this year. Requiring FERC to apply valuation methodology changes in connection with any future disputes on a prospective basis only will eliminate the risk and uncertainty associated with the prospect of nearly unlimited retroactive application of Quality Bank payment methodology changes. That will allow all Quality Bank participants to be able to conduct business with the certainty of knowing that prices received and paid for oil today cannot be altered years down the road. In addition, this will eliminate the strong incentive that currently exists for some parties to engage in endless litigation, in hopes of gaining windfall benefits from retroactive application changes. While I, along with Senators Stevens and Murkowski, continue to call on all sides in the current dispute to compromise and settle this case now, this bill will discourage if not eliminate this type of dispute in the future--a benefit for all Alaskans.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, from April 30-May 2, 2005 more than 1200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, D.C. to take part in the national finals of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education. I am proud to announce that the class from West Anchorage High School will represent the state of Alaska in this prestigious national event. These outstanding students, through their knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, won their statewide competition and earned the chance to come to our nation's capitol and compete at the national level. While in Washington, the students will participate in a three-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which they ``testify'' before a panel of judges. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles and have opportunities to evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. It is important to note that the Educational Testing Service (ETS) characterizes the We the People program as a ``great instructional success.'' Independent studies by ETS have revealed that We the People students ``significantly outperformed comparison students on every topic of the tests taken.'' Congratulations to Elizabeth DeYoung, Monique Eniero, Roberta Gordaoff, Danielle Johnson, Jayme Johnson, Vassar Louis-Bradford, Gareth Olds, Michael Pascual, Courtney Prokosch, Alexander Richert, Gerriane Villanueva, Jeffery Wittsey and their teacher Pamela Orme. I wish these students the best of luck at the We the People national finals and applaud their outstanding achievement.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), as originally enacted, limited Alaska Native Regional Corporations from enrolling Natives born after December 18, 1971, as shareholders in their respective corporations. Subsequent amendments to ANCSA have allowed Regional Corporations to include Natives born after December 18, 1971 (often referred to as ``New Natives'' or ``Shareholder Descendents''), if existing shareholders of the Corporation adopt a resolution at an annual meeting. Thus far, very few Native Corporations have adopted resolutions to include Shareholder Descendents, in part because the standard for adopting a resolution is too high. Existing law provides that a resolution is considered approved by the shareholders of a Native Corporation if it receives an affirmative vote from a ``majority of the total voting power of the corporation''. At any given annual meeting; however, the total voting power of the corporation is not exercised. Accordingly, it is possible that eighty-five to ninety percent of the voting proxies at an annual meeting would be required to vote in favor of a Shareholder Descendents resolution. This is an extremely difficult threshold to meet. Accordingly, the attached proposed amendment would allow a Shareholder Descendents resolution to be approved by a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy at an annual meeting. If a change is not made to the existing voting standard for adoption of a Shareholder Descendents resolution, the promises of ANCSA are potentially left unfulfilled, at present, two generations of Shareholder Descendents.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for their fine work on a good piece of legislation that starts our process in becoming independent, providing energy policy, which I have heard none from the other side. Remarkably, when I hear people talking about new innovative ideas, they do not tell me what ``new'' is. We are fossil-fuel oriented, and I will admit to that. And we are also dependent, and we have to admit to that. And we are talking about an area that is not pristine, an area, in fact, that should be developed that is 74 miles from the pipeline, an area that we have developed already in Prudhoe Bay, and we can see the great damage that is done up there. The caribou are using the pipeline to rub their backs on. The caribou are calving around the wells. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has never been there; so he would not know. And we have polar bears now that are using the line for a transportation corridor. So, Madam Chairman, those who would support the Markey amendment are really supporting terrorism because you do not want to develop the domestic fuel supply in this country, and we can. We should be doing this right now. And I hear people tell me it will only affect us 10 years from now. If you had done it when I asked you to do it 20 years ago, we could have solved that problem. The thing that sort of strikes me the most is I hear people talk about special interests. In fact, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) mentioned it today about special interests, serving up special interests. But I would like to just read a little short letter that I happened to pick up off a Web site. It says: ``Dear friend, in a few short hours the Republican energy bill will be brought up for debate and a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. I need your immediate help to ensure that this terrible bill never becomes law. ``Last week in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I offered a series of amendments to increase the average fuel efficiency'' and it was turned down by the Republicans. ``I then offered an amendment in the Committee on Resources to strip a provision from the bill that would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.'' The Republicans again voted against it. ``If we allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge we will forever ruin this unique wilderness and allow the oil industry to target all 450 National Wildlife Refuges . . . ``For the last 5 years, I have led the battle in the House to stop the Republicans in the Congress from selling off one of our greatest natural resources to the powerful special interests. Help me continue to fight to expose to the American people the dangers of this extreme and ineffective action by making a contribution today.'' Just, by the way, dial in to www.edmarkey.org/contribute. That is a special interest. ``Help me to continue to fight for sensible, clean and independent energy future and shine a light on the Republican Party backroom attempts to cater to special interests by making an immediate contribution. As Justice Louis Brandeis used to say, `Sunshine is the best disinfectant.' '' This is a blatant use of an issue to raise money, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. To raise money on an issue that has nothing to do with energy, energy that this country needs. We are no longer the only buyers on the block in this world with China and India in the field. And if we do not wake up, we will have a collapse in our economy. We must develop not only ANWR but other sources of fossil fuels in this country as well as nuclear and as well as hydro and as well as wind and all those other forms of energy and quit talking about pipe dreams, because if we do not, there will not be the jobs for the future generations and this country cannot lead this world. And to have someone stand on this floor and offer an amendment that will take out the only provisional production is against America, against this great Nation, and, in fact, would do the wrong thing for this Nation. So I ask Members to vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment. Keep this good bill intact. Let us produce energy for this Nation. Let us provide for future generations.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 3, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make such other necessary technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I insert into the Record an exchange of letters between myself and Chairman Pombo regarding H.R. 3. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, March 9, 2005. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Transportation, and Infrastructure, Rayburn HOB Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, as ordered reported from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on March 2, 2005. I believe that the Committee on Resources has a substantial jurisdictional interest in many provisions of this important legislation including streamlining of procedures under the National Environmental Policy Act and resolving confusion on highway construction and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Further, this Committee maintains jurisdictional interests in provisions affecting recreational trails, highways on federal public lands (including national parks, Indian lands and public domain forest lands), the National Scenic Byways Program, projects to benefit wildlife, highway safety as it applies to Indian country. Recognizing that this historic bill is scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives this week, and noting the strong spirit of cooperation and coordination your staff has shown mine in the development of this bill, I will forego seeking a sequential referral of H.R. 3 to the Committee on Resources. Waiving the Committee on Resources' right to a referral in this case does not waive the Committee's jurisdiction over any provision in H.R. 3 or similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that you support my request to have the Committee on Resources represented on the conference on this bill, if a conference is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill. Following your mark-up of H.R. 3, I want to acknowledge your efforts on the bill's environmental provisions, many of which touch upon Committee on Resources jurisdiction. I commend your efforts to streamline the environmental review process under the National Environmental Protection Act as well as Section 4(f) procedures. However, I do have serious concerns about the provision dealing with the pilot program for mass transit in National Parks. This provision address issues that lie squarely within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources and should be addressed in that context. Moreover, the bill passed last year by the Senate, S. 1075, contained a number of troubling provisions that I feel should not be included in any version of transportation legislation. These provisions include language relating to the Endangered Species Act and programs to address invasive species. Thank you for not including these provisions in your bill. I appreciate your leadership and cooperation on this bill and I look forward to working with you to see that H.R. 3 is enacted into law soon. Sincerely, Richard W. Pombo, Chairman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 3 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 144, the final period of general debate may be in order before the disposition of amendments.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3.