Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. There are two reasons. One is I am not terribly fond of what originally this Congress did about the Florida Everglades. This is one of the largest pits we have ever created as far as dollars and expenditures. And we have some difference of opinion from science about the benefit of what they are trying to do. I have heard this as Resources chairman. Secondly, although small in number, there are about 200 people that are directly affected by the actions that you propose. Now, that may be small in number for a lot of people in this room, but I am one that believes that the individual is all-important, not the mass.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order. This amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I think there are different alternatives. I think it can be done a different way. I am not convinced that this is the perfect way of doing it, as I mentioned to you. As long as, in fact, I have the opportunity to see a different way, I am going to try to have that happen. Now, I know the sincerity of the gentleman. I do not doubt that, but I am not convinced that everybody is right in this issue. I have people from Florida calling me, talking to me, asking me to do this. And very frankly, just because there is 200 does not make the project that important if they are going to be adversely affected.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will get back to the gentleman. What I am suggesting here is I do not want to see this happen, this to go on and on and on, and never be settled. If we can get the money from 1985 and not preclude the money beyond that and the earlier years, then I think we have achieved a goal. But right now, we know who is making the money out of this, and that is the lawyers who are presenting the cases and it is the lawyers for the government who are defending against government inaction, a malfeasance. So I am just saying, let us try to bring a conclusion to this, and let us really work on making sure from now on that the system works. Now, I will say when Ms. Norton became Secretary, the first thing I did was call her up and said get rid of the BIA and that accounting firm for the trust fund because it is not working. Mr. Babbitt was cited for contempt. But that is not the only person, the person before him, all the way to 1906, the government has not acted as I think they should, and I agree with the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), that is absolutely wrong. But right now we have to try to get this thing started so from now on we do not have the misuse of these funds and, in fact, the loss of these funds.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that means that we have to address that issue. We have to address that issue, maybe not in this legislation; I will be honest with the gentleman on that, I am not sure this will do it. But I am saying somewhere along the line we have to solve this problem. Create a grand master, make an accounting firm that will handle that and get out of the BIA, because as long as the BIA is where it is, we will never have a good system of accounting.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman. What I am suggesting to the people and those of us who support the American Indians, as I do, I think it is the responsibility of Congress. Because if we look at the trust, if we look at the trust, if we look at what is said about the American Indians, the trust belongs to the Congress. We have been neglectful in not pursuing and making sure that this issue had been solved in previous years. So I am asking us to sit down, as the gentleman mentioned before, and say, let us solve this problem, because they owe their money to themselves. We have spent that money somewhere. It is our responsibility. Like the gentleman says, they will say, we will not appropriate, we do not have the money. But somewhere along we have to step up to the plate and say listen, we have spent that money, we owe it to them, and we ought to take it and get it to them as soon as possible and shut the doors.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think most of you heard me yesterday on the floor. This provision should not be in this bill. This legislation was introduced in the Committee on Resources and it never had a hearing because we did not want one. We do not believe it is necessary. It has been repeated before. There have been many studies. The studies show, in fact, that the native groups are doing quite well in the gaming industry. Let us not kid ourselves, this is what this is all about. But also let us answer the question. I listened to my good friend, and I do respect him a great deal, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and his opposition to this amendment. He is really trying to target the gaming. Let us be knowledgeable about that and recognize that, and he has that right to do so. But he talks about the suicides and the poverty and the poor housing and the education level and the sewer problems, all those things that every Native American has faced over these years. Let us not kid ourselves. This is nothing new. But you ask why that occurs. I will tell you why it occurs. One of the basic reasons why is they are tired of having people study them and tell them how to solve their problems, of having the people come in with their briefcases, the Governors and this person and that person and say, ``We're going to study you,'' and they have to respond to the study. It happens every day. I live with them. I am close to them. My wife is native, my kids are Native American Indians, and I am proud of it. I think I have a little bit of knowledge about this. If you really want to help the Native Americans, let them help themselves, provide the money, but let them make the decisions, and not some commission. We know the problems. They know the problems. Let them solve those problems with their knowledge and their will and they will do it. We do not need another government study to explain this to everybody and spend that money out of needed funds. That is where these moneys are coming from. Let us give them credit. Intelligent, smart, persevering, if they have an opportunity and not the government to tell them how to do it and what they cannot do. Let us say you can do it and we will help you. You know the old saying, a hand down will help everybody up. Let us not put our hand on their head again with another study. My God, if you go back to the history of this Congress, how many studies have we had and spent that money to take and identify the problem? In my case I will tell you. My 12 regional corporations know the problem. They are addressing the problem. They know what can be done and they want to do it themselves and the money that is being spent on this commission ought to go to solving those problems and letting them do it themselves. That is what we ought to be doing today. It should not be in this bill. I told the leadership it should not be in this bill. We should not attempt to try to do it again and again and again. It solves nothing. There are those who will say this is about gambling. I guess maybe those that oppose this, taking it out, is about gambling. I happened to be the author of that original gambling bill with Mr. Udall. Some of you object to gambling and I understand that. I do not gamble myself, other than being elected once in a while. That is a gamble. But I will tell you one thing. I have visited most of these gambling establishments and seen what the people say about what it has done for their tribes. And, yes, there is outside involvement. You would not expect them not to have that. They hire the best. They do the job. If there is something illegally happening, then let us address that and we do that under the gambling commission and under the Justice Department. Both of those say there is nothing happening there that is illegal. If you want to be against gambling, and I am all for that, let us eliminate all gambling. Let us not have racetracks in Virginia. They do not have racetracks, but lotto, pull tabs. What else? Racetracks in every other State. Gambling in some States. Let us look at that. But let us not have a so-called quasi-study to take and identify the problems when we know what the problems are. I urge this Congress to think about that a moment. Let us let them help them lift themselves up. Let us not have a commission dictating to them what is wrong with their great race of people. That is all I ask you. Vote for this amendment. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) is right on. I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) is right on. For you appropriators again, it is not your fault. I say this. I do blame the Committee on Rules and the leadership for not making this issue for a point of order. It should never have been protected. We would not have had this debate if we had gone through the legislative process. Vote for the Hayworth amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with great interest to the debate, and I want to congratulate the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for bringing this to the floor to discuss. I also happen to agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall). This issue has been with us since 1906, and if anybody has a responsibility, it is this body, the Congress. Because it is our estimate, and when I say ours, the different accounting firms and not Andersen, but different accounting firms, there is about $12 billion unaccounted for that belonged to the American Indians. In my State alone since 1971, we cannot account for the BIA $800,000, and that is a short period of time. But I will say that what the committee is trying to do here, and I hope that as we go through this process, what I am worried about, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) mentioned, this is the Indians' money, and he is absolutely right, but what is happening is it is going to be the lawyers' money. It is going to be the lawyers' money. What the committee has tried to do, and whether they are right or wrong, and why they picked 1985 I do not know, is try to, in fact, pick the date that has the modern communications system for accounting, the computer system that is in place so that they can account for that period of time. I do not believe, and if I could ask, although I do not see the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) here, but somebody, perhaps the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) or the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), is there somebody who can tell me, this does not preclude or close off other investigations prior to 1985. Can anybody address that? Does anybody know? Is anybody listening?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this will probably be the first day that I ever vote against a rule because I believe very strongly in the principle of this House that you do not legislate on appropriations, and this is what this rule allows, especially concerning the Commission on Native American Policy. This is a bill that was introduced into the Committee on Resources and was never heard, never had a markup; and it appears in this legislation. I think that is inappropriate for this body. I believe, in fact, it is meddling with the American Native. There is not one American Native group that supports the provision of H.R. 2244. And to have us now, in appropriations, legislate is wrong. I hope everybody has my understanding of the American Native and the injustice and wrong that has been done to them all these years by supposedly the Government of the United States, and this is yet another example. This is an example where this Congress is going to say, we are going to review your activities. We are going to make recommendations and we are going to do to you what was not done by the Justice Department, by the BIA, the FBI, and the Office of Tribal Justice. We are now going to tell you what you have been doing wrong all these years. Now, that is not correct legislative process. So the first time since I have been in this body with the minority, when we were, and now with the majority for the last 8 years, I am going to vote against the rule because it is the wrong rule. And for those of you in the office, think about it for a moment. It can be you the next time. It can be you the next time where you look up one morning and find out something that you feel very strongly about and that is the American Native population or some other group that you feel equally as strong about, and a bill that has never had a hearing, never any input, no ramifications is now in an appropriations bill. I thought we were above that. And to the Committee on Rules members, I suggest to you, where did this come from and why? Ask yourselves that. So I am asking Members listening to this today, vote ``no'' on the rule, make them come back with a rule that protects the prerogative of the authorizing committee. This rule does not do so. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Rule. Section 141 of H.R. 5093 constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill. H.R. 2244 was introduced by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in this Congress with the exact same language to create this Commission. The authorizing Committee has chosen not to take up this bill for consideration. This proposed Commission on Native American Policy would ask whether Indian gaming benefits Indian communities, whether Tribal government gaming is regulated, and whether Tribal government is influenced by organized crime. I would like to point out, that at the gentleman from Virginia's request, the federal government--through the National Indian Gaming Impact Study Commission (NGISC), the Justice Department, and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGA) has already addressed these questions a number of times. In contrast to what was stated by the author of this provision, I want to point out that Indian gaming benefits Tribal communities. The NGISC found that gaming is the only proven method of stimulating economic development in Indian country. I also want to emphasis adamantly that Indian gaming is well regulated. In a July 3, 2002 Memo from the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (with the Criminal Division, the FBI, and the Office of Tribal Justice) found that Indian gaming is not influenced by organized crime. Additionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Organized Crime wrote to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on July 25, 2001, confirming the Inspector General's report in its own independent report. Also, the $5 Million NGISC study found that Indian Gaming is not unduly influenced by organized crime-- confirming DOJ reports. Tribes reimburse States over $40 million on State regulated Tribal gaming and have spent over $160 million on Tribal regulation of Indian gaming. The gentleman from Virginia's provision is wasteful and unnecessary. Millions have already been spent on the creation and study of the NGISC for the same issues. The $200,000 appropriations request to create yet another Commission to study Indian Gaming would not permit the Department of the Interior to accomplish a meaningful study. Lastly, the money for the Commission would come out of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) ``available funds'', which could be used for much needed trust administration rather than a study intended to reach pre- established conclusions. BIA is already underfunded in many of its program areas, and we do not need to request another duplicative study on Indian Gaming. I urge my colleagues to vote to delete Section 141 from H.R. 5093, the Interior Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act. This Bill is long overdue. Chicago O'Hare has been in need of a new runway for the last 20 years. It's annually one of the worst airports in terms of cancellations and delays. What's worse, problems at O'Hare ripple through our entire system, creating tie-ups and delays at dozens of other airports. This bill furthers the agreement reached by local and State leaders to allow the city of Chicago to go ahead with a proposed capacity expansion project from O'Hare. It likewise allows the State to go forward with its proposal for peotone and guarantees that Meig's Field will remain open. I support H.R. 3479 to address these vital national transportation issues and urge everyone to support this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), not a member of the committee, but of the important Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), an outstanding member of my committee. (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job on this piece of legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is stronger and better prepared today than on September 11. We have enacted numerous reforms which will make a repeat of last year's terrorist attack highly unlikely. However, no system is perfect. We must remain vigilant in the face of the constantly evolving threat of terrorism. We are fighting an often invisible enemy, an enemy that appears to be preparing and training for additional terrorist attacks, and an enemy that seeks to obtain the most dangerous and deadly weapons to use against America. This bill, H.R. 4635, will provide one last line of defense against terrorist hijackings. It will allow qualified pilots to volunteer to carry guns to use deadly force to defend the cockpit against terrorist hijackings. The pilots are already entrusted with the lives of every passenger on the airplane. Many of them have a law enforcement or military background and have experience with firearms. The administration has been unwilling to act on this important matter, so I believe Congress must do so. The bill as it stands is the result of a bipartisan compromise. I believe it is one of the most important security issues we face today. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and send a message with a strong bipartisan vote today. There will be amendments, and the agreement has been put forth, so I will oppose all of the amendments. Although my original bill had many of those parts of the amendments to be offered, this is a bipartisan effort to try to get a bill to the Senate, the other body, and on to the President's desk. Mr. Chairman, I heard in the debate on the rule that someone said the President probably will not sign this. I say he will sign it, because when people look at the logic of what we are trying to do today of arming the pilot, the captain of that ship, to defend that ship and his passengers against the terrorists, I think he will say that this has great wisdom. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for his efforts and the Committee on Rules to bring forth a good rule, because really that is what we are supposed to be talking about. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up a couple of points. Number one, when I originally sponsored this legislation, it is what I would like to have had adopted. There has been again this consultation, some agreements made, and I will oppose the amendments that will be offered, knowing full well that many of those amendments have great merit. But this is a small step forward, and it really should have been done a long time ago. I would just like to ask my colleagues to think a moment. Do we really think that 9-11 would have happened if our pilots had been armed as they should have been armed, as they were armed in 1984? Do we think that those terrorists would have had a chance if they knew those pilots would have been armed and the pilots were trained, as they are under this bill, in knowing how to respond in case of an attack on the cockpit? Do we think for a second that the tragedy that occurred on 9- 11 would have been a reality as it is today? Now, I have heard people tell me, well, once we get all of the safety programs in place at the airports, we will not need to have an armed pilot. The captain of that ship is still responsible for the ship and his passengers, just as under maritime law, and I am one of those. Our duty is to protect the passengers, our cargo, and to maintain control of the ship at all times. The only way we can do that is make sure they are armed adequately to defend themselves and their passengers and their cargo against those who would take it away from them, such as a mutiny or a terrorist attack. I suggest respectfully to those that oppose this legislation and those who say it is not necessary are not looking at the reality. We are not El Al. We are, in fact, having 20 million flights a day or a year take off from our airports. That is much more, it is much more than any other country. We are a nation of air travel. I think it is very, very important that we recognize that and pass this legislation and make sure that the President, the other body, and all of those involved in this understand that this is a final step to make sure that when I get on that airplane I will arrive safely at my destination, even if there is an attempt to take that airplane, because I know that pilot will have the ability to defend that cockpit and make my trip safer. That is what we are trying to do here today. It is a right, it is a necessity, it is what we should be doing on this floor for our flying people. It is important today to make sure we pass this legislation.

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