Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I thought the gentleman's words were true in the sense that that would happen, I would probably support the substitute. In the bottom of my heart, I do not believe that will happen. We will be back here and our people will not be safe. That is not the correct thing to do to the American people. Let us not kid the American people. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the Senate bill, it has been brought up numerous times, and I think we have a right to speak of the Senate bill. I will continue to speak of the Senate bill. It is the Senate bill. Now you can answer my parliamentary inquiry if you would like to. The parliamentary inquiry is why could I not?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), who is a pilot, by the way, and flies here and yonder.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish the gentleman would stay for a moment to understand one thing. He is talking about yesterday, not today. Our bill changes all those things, and by the way, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers supports my bill. The best law force group in the country, they support my bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. The bipartisan bill was very close, up to one word, and I got derailed. The bill that is being suggested as a substitute is a bipartisan bill in only some people's minds and it does not give us the security, as I have mentioned before. We do change the system. I have heard people say it is the same old system. We do federalize. We do supervise. And we do, in fact, nationalize in some cases. We give the latitude to the President, do what is best for the best security for our flying passengers. That is what my bill does. The Senate bill does nothing. I will not be part of that which kids the public. I want to go to conference. I have committed, the President has committed to going to conference. We will write a bill with the help of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) very similar to what our bill is, which he agreed to, and he knows that. I am certainly chagrined at the fact that we are letting the Senate, and since when has the Senate become the gurus of transportation, I ask the gentleman from Minnesota? They are not. I believe we are. I am going to suggest that we vote for the Young-Mica bill, make it the right bill, go to conference and do the job correctly. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I do not know why I should read this explanation, it was read before, if anybody was listening; but the manager's amendment consists of a number of provisions that Members have requested in order to improve our bill. Some of these amendments clarify existing language in the bill to ensure that we truly have a better system of security for the traveling public. Others are intended to provide additional assistance to those who suffered substantial increased costs due to Federal security mandates since September 11. We change the title of the bill to better reflect the fact that this bill federalizes the airport screening process, and want to make that clear. The new title of this bill is ``Airport Security Federalization Act.'' The manager's amendment provides much-needed assistance to airports to meet their increased security expenses by authorizing $1.5 billion to cover increased security costs into FY 2003. The amendment authorizes the Under Secretary to deputize screeners as Federal transportation security agents and ensure that such agents operate under common standards, badges, uniforms, and insignias. We increase the requirements for retroactive background checks for screeners and airport employees. The amendment strengthens existing language in the bill on the screeners who check baggage and sets a deadline for screening of all baggage for December 31, 2003. The amendment addresses compensation for air marshals and ensures that they will be able to travel back to their homes without charge when they leave active duty status. This is a good amendment. This amendment has been discussed and greatly improves the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thought the one who offers the amendment has the right to close.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I hope people are listening to what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) had to say. We are setting up an unconstitutional thing of two- tiered citizenry. I hope we understand what that does. It means one can be a citizen, but one cannot work unless they have been a citizen for 5 years. They have already gone through the process and held up their hand, but they cannot work under that bill. Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of my bill. It is appropriate. It is the right thing to do. It makes the original bill, the base bill, better. It is a bill that, as I say, should be passed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. 3150.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation to provide for the equitable treatment of Alaska Native Vietnam veterans. My bill will amend Section 41 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). This section applies to the Native Allotments for Alaska Native Vietnam veterans. In 1998, P.L. 105-276 (Section 432) 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. There are approximately 2,800 Alaska Natives who served in the military during the Vietnam conflict who did not have an opportunity to apply for their Native allotment. When P.L. 105-276 became law, many Alaska Native Vietnam veterans were encouraged with the belief that they would finally receive recognition for their military service to the United States. Many Alaska Native Vietnam veterans saw this as their last opportunity to obtain land which had been used by their families for generations for subsistence purposes. That opportunity was lost to 1,700 Alaska Native Vietnam veterans who were excluded by the terms of P.L. 150-276 (which was harshly enforced by the previous Administration). P.L. 105-276 contains three major obstacles which prohibit Alaska Native Vietnam veterans an opportunity to select and obtain their Native allotment. These obstacles are so formidable that 48% of the total Alaska Native Vietnam veteran allotment applications which have been filed (as of September 27, 2001) have been rejected [according to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)]. The BLM also reports that only 116 applications for Alaska Native Vietnam veterans' allotments have been filed and 56 of those applications have been rejected. The reasons for all but 16 of the rejections are for one of the following reasons: (1) the land applied for is not available; and/or (2) the dates that the Alaska Native Vietnam veteran served during the Vietnam conflict did not coincide with those required under P.L. 105-276. P.L. 105-276's first obstacle is: Alaska Native Vietnam veterans can only apply for land that was vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved when their use of the land first began. Land that is available to Alaska Native Vietnam veterans for allotments is extremely limited or non-existent. For example, out of the 116 applications filed thus far, 36% have been rejected because the land applied for is not available under P.L. 105-276. Most land in Alaska is out of reach for Alaska Native Vietnam veteran allotments. Lands that are expressly not available for allotments are lands in a National Forest, selected by the State of Alaska or Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Native Corporations or under a public land law, camping sites, designated wilderness, and acquired by the federal government through gift, purchase, or exchange. The second obstacle is: 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). The dates of January 1969 to December 1971 were adamantly required by the previous Administration because they did not want to give up any additional federal lands in Alaska. Approximately 1,700 Alaska Native Vietnam veterans who served during the Vietnam conflict are not eligible for an allotment under existing law because they do not meet the military service date's requirement. Many of those 1,700 veterans did not even apply, but those who did have been rejected. Of all of the applications rejected, 13% were rejected because the Alaska Native Vietnam veteran's military service dates did not meet the existing requirements. The third obstacle is: 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 allotment applicants. This requirement further penalizes our Alaska Native Vietnam veterans and will certainly cause many applications to be rejected. Further, adjudication of use and occupancy issues will take years and will be very costly. My proposed legislation 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. In addition, vast areas of land in Alaska were withdrawn before most Alaska Native Vietnam veterans could have made qualifying use of the land. In contrast, federally owned ``vacant'' land is still available throughout Alaska and should be made available for Alaska Native Vietnam veteran allotments. My legislation will also expand the military service dates to the dates that coincide with the entire Vietnam era conflict: beginning August 5, 1964 and ending on May 7, 1975. The expansion of military service dates to include all Alaska Natives Vietnam veterans who served in the military during the Vietnam conflict is consistent with the federal government's policy of providing benefits to all veterans of the Vietnam conflict and not just to some of those veterans. This provision also fulfills the trust obligation to Alaska Natives. The limited military service dates have excluded many Alaska Native Vietnam veterans who bravely served during the Vietnam conflict. Never before has the United States given veteran land benefits to only a portion of those who served their country. The federal government has given public land benefits to all veterans (or their widows or heirs) of every war beginning with the Indian Wars of 1790 and ending with the Korean conflict in 1955. As Members will recall, 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 legislation will also replace existing use and occupancy requirements with legislative approval of allotment applications. The provision assures the legislative approval process affords due process protections of valid existing interests in the land a veteran claims. The use and occupancy requirements would be replaced with legislative approval for several reasons. First, Congress has made legislative approval available to all other allotment applicants under 43 U.S.C. Section 1634(a)(1)(A)--[Section 905 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) which extends the legislative approval of Native allotments that were pending at the time of passage of ANILCA]. Second, legislative approvals of allotments prevent costly and lengthy adjudication of use and occupancy issues. Legislative approval also prevents lengthy delays that will impede many Alaska Native Vietnam veteran applicants from ever receiving land during their lifetime. Third, there are many Alaska Native Vietnam veterans that could not meet use and occupancy requirements as a result of their service to their country, One example that illustrates this point is that a deserving Alaska Native Vietnam veteran who was paralyzed during the Vietnam conflict would be rejected if that veteran was unable to complete the five years of use of the claimed land and had not used the land for five years before the Vietnam conflict. My legislation addresses the formidable barriers that deserving Alaska Native Vietnam veterans face when applying for a Native allotment under P.L. 105-267. For many years, Alaska Natives have had a unique legal relationship with the United States. Because of this unique relationship, Alaska Natives have steadfastly answered a call to duty when the United States called during a conflict or an act of war. Alaska Natives did so in disproportionately high numbers during the Vietnam conflict. Those who answered the call during the entire Vietnam conflict should not be penalized for their service to their country. My proposed legislation will correct those inequities imposed by the last Administration in allowing all of the Alaska Native Vietnam veterans to apply for their Native allotment under the Native Allotment Act. I urge America's support of this legislation and of the Alaska Native Vietnam veterans who bravely served this great country during the Vietnam conflict. Fulfill our promise to all Alaska Native Vietnam veterans and allow them to obtain their Native allotment under the Native Allotment Act.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the proposed legislation titled ``Russian River Land Act'' on behalf of Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated. The purpose of this legislation is to ratify an agreement that settles a land ownership issue at Russian River on the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska. The agreement that this legislation ratifies was reached on July 26th of this year, after three years of negotiations between the Alaska Native regional corporation, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and the United States Forest Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The agreement covers lands at the confluence of the Kenai and Russian Rivers. The area surrounding the confluence of the Russian and Kenai is rich in archeological cultural features. It is also the site of perhaps the most heavily used public sports fishery in Alaska. Because of the archeological resources at Russian River, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. made selections at Russian River under the section of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act that allowed for selections of historical places and cemetery sites. The lands at the confluence are managed in part by the U.S. Forest Service and in part by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Seeking to protect the public's access to the sports fishery at Russian River, the two federal agencies and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. have reached agreement that requires federal legislation in order to become effective. Because this agreement provides for the continuing ownership and management by the two federal agencies of the vast majority of lands at Russian River, the public's right to continue fishing remains unchanged from its current status. Through negotiation and agreement, the two federal agencies and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. have found a way to fulfill the intent of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in a way that fully protects the interests of the public. I congratulate all three parties on reaching final accord on the long-standing unresolved issue of land ownership at Russian River. I urge passage of the Russian River Land Act.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the gentleman who just spoke, I happen to support reopening Reagan National Airport. He is another gentleman, by the way, that has never voted for anything I have ever wanted, and I do support opening that airport. It is the right thing to do. I want him to know that. I would also suggest that for those who question it, this committee has jurisdiction over some parts of this bill which we are bringing up tonight, but as the gentleman from Minnesota has mentioned, we do not have total jurisdiction. But I am going to do everything in my power, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota's, to make sure that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and the Speaker's commitment is followed through for the workers. But this bill tonight is so crucially important so that we can keep those jobs that remain still viable and we get the airline industry back on track so they can be rehired as they have lost their jobs. And we will do that. I would suggest one thing. I hope, and I know most of my colleagues have not read the bill; I say that sincerely because I am also a Member of this Congress. ``Documentation. Subject to subsection (b), the amount of compensation payable to an air carrier under section 101(a)(2) may not exceed the amount of losses described in section 101(a)(2) that the air carrier demonstrates to the satisfaction of the President, using sworn financial statements or other appropriate data, that the air carrier incurred. The Secretary of Transportation and the Comptroller General of the United States may audit such statements and may request any information that the Secretary and the Comptroller General deems necessary to conduct such audit.'' I am going to suggest that all losses must be documented and if they make false statements, they have committed a felony and it is a crime. Let us keep that in mind. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for the work he has done and the leadership he has shown on that side of the aisle with tremendous criticism from some of his Members. I did not face that on this side of the aisle at all. I also would like to thank the staffs on both sides. I may not name all of them because some of the names I may not know and I will not pronounce those I do not know. But the staffs put in yesterday, last night, today, last week, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and they worked 48 hours sometimes, so I thank the staffs for the work they have done. It is crucially important. We also had another player, or two players not in this body, in this bill that we had to work with. We had the administration. It is my administration, but I can tell you sometimes they can be very, very shortsighted. We also had the other body, and they can be equally shortsighted. But we had to bring this bill together so it can become a law. I am asking my colleagues tonight to keep in mind, this is not a bailout. This is an attempt to keep a vital part of our economy working. This is, in fact, crucial to the total economy of this Nation that we pass this legislation tonight. I urge my colleagues to think of this and to vote for final passage.