Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, that is not true.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today, and I would just like to clarify some of the things that were said. The rules of this House, the Supreme Court say the committee can judge what is pertinent, not the witness. That is the rules and that is the Supreme Court. We told all three of these parties that was the case, and they still declined to answer. Let us make it perfectly clear that POGO is not the whistleblower. Neither are the gentlemen or ladies that are involved in these contempt citations the whistleblowers. The whistleblower, Johnson, was filed on top of for money. POGO now is under criminal investigation as I stand here and speak. Mr. Speaker, I know that this is such a serious debate, that we have to have more debate. So I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to clause 2 of rule XVI, to withdraw the resolution.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and, by direction of the Committee on Resources, I call up a privileged report (Rept. No. 106-801).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Resources, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 657) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

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. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today to set the record straight on some very interesting, but very misleading, allegations regarding the development of the coastal plain for our oil, your oil, in the State of Alaska. Let me make it perfectly clear that nobody cares about the environment more than Alaskans. We have balanced our environment with what the Nation needs. To give you an example of what we have been able to do with winter drilling, directional drilling, ice roads and pads, this is an oil field, what an oil well looks like in Alaska in the wintertime. This is the alpine field itself. I want everybody to look at what is on the floor. It is snow. It is ice. It is probably 40 below zero, very, very hard to live there. But after we are all done, this well will produce probably 300 million barrels of oil for you, all of it going to the United States. This is what it looks like when we finish drilling. That is the footprint. That is the footprint. It is not much larger than the desk that the Speakers speak from behind here. That is what is left. Anybody saying there is going to be a huge footprint is not looking, not thinking, not being there. And this is for us. This is Federal oil. And why should we not develop it? When I think of the footprint, I think of Boston or L.A. or Miami, those are really impacts upon the environment. But an even bigger impact upon our environment is our 58 percent dependence upon Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Venezuela, Colombia and Yemen. Think about that for a moment. That is a footprint. And by the year 2005, it will be 61 percent, unless we change our ways. Last year, we imported very nearly a million barrels a day alone from Iraq. A million barrels a day from Iraq. U.S. purchases from Saddam Hussein are $39 million each day we send him to build arms, to kill people, to potentially have nuclear war. Do we want that kind of footprint? In fact, I would like to show a real footprint. Not this one less than the size of this desk, but this one. Do my colleagues recognize this footprint? I would like to refresh our memories. This footprint was Kuwait. Does that look like it is good environment? Is that protecting the atmosphere with all the oil burning? That is the footprint, not what I had in my own footprint. Let us compare these two right here. I think it is pretty good, that is the footprint of those who are against developing our coastal plain. This footprint, green grass, wildlife, a little tiny thing not much bigger than that desk, or this one right here. That is the real footprint. Then we have another one. I keep hearing 95 percent of it is open for development. If I could have the next one, 95 percent is open for development. This is what we are talking about. We keep hearing from people on that side of the aisle from Massachusetts, who have never been there by the way, have no concept, wants to have a reserve of oil to heat the homes for the senior people and wants to buy it from the OPEC countries and pay $34 a barrel, or use it out of the reserve which was set aside for strategic purposes only for military. I was here, he was not. And to have someone to say that this is the way to solve our problem by spending our reserve and then to say that 95 percent of Alaska is open for oil development and coastal plain. This is closed from all the way here, all the way over to here, it is open here, closed, open and closed. Looking at that, 14 percent is open. The ironic part about it, people say 95 percent. And I said something time and time again, just because this carpet is blue does not make it the sky. This is carpet. And just because an area might be open, most of it is closed, does not mean there is oil there. And how can this Congress keep saying because of special interest groups, we must not develop the small little coastal plain area less than a million acres? About the size of the Dulles Airport, by the way. Madam Speaker, I desire to set the record straight on some very interesting, but very misleading allegations regarding the development of the coastal plain of my home State of Alaska. Let me say up front that nobody loves Alaska more than Alaskans and nobody cares more about protecting Alaska than the people who reside in our great state. What Alaskans have found in the more than 20 years of oil and gas development is balance. A way to balance our Nation's need for fossil fuels and our desire to conserve our precious natural resources. Alaskans accomplish this balance with technological advances such as directional drilling where development can tap oil and gas reserves from miles away. Technology has also reduced the size and impacts of these developments. Our soil and gas facilities on the North Slope have gotten smaller and smaller while becoming cleaner and cleaner. The surface disturbance of these areas is temporary and minimal. Advances such as ice roads and pads leave no impact upon the environment. But don't just take my word for it, let me show you a recent development site utilizing this new technology. This photo demonstrates the winter oil and gas operations that will deliver oil and gas resources to supply our Nation's demands. Now, let me show you the footprint this development leaves when summer arrives and the ice and snow have melted away. This is how Alaskans develop oil and gas resources in our State, with minimal impact, surface occupancy while maximizing protective measures for the environment. With this successful track record, I hope my colleagues can understand why it is so deeply troubling for me to hear comments from some of my urban colleagues who try to lecture Alaska and Alaskans about environmental impact. When I think of man's impact on the environment, my mind races to big cities, like Boston, with huge expanses of development and air quality issues. Not oil and gas production that services our national demand in an environmentally benign manner. Some of these same Members also advocate the creation of a Northeast heating oil reserve. While I may concede that there are some superficial merits to this notion, it will do nothing to solve the real problems our country faces regarding a domestic energy policy. While the band aid of a heating oil reserve sounds appealing, it is both unworkable and will rely on foreign imports to maintain the reserve's capacity. To address the heating oil issue, this administration decided to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in an effort to impact heating oil prices. This ill-conceived, political knee-jerk was opposed by both Alan Greenspan and Secretary of the Treasury Summers. In a September memo, they wrote the President that draining the reserve would be a ``major and substantial policy mistake.'' Unfortunately, their forecast was proven true at the expense of taxpayers. We don't need temporary Band-aids to fix our energy problems--we need lasting solutions to the problem of dangerously excessive dependence upon imports. Fifty-eight percent of our Nation's supply is delivered from foreign sources. That is especially shocking when you consider that the United States was only 35 percent reliant during the 1973 oil embargo. And even more worrisome is that more and more oil is being supplied from countries like Iraq. Ten years ago, we went to war in the Persian Gulf to stifle Saddam Hussein. Within the last year, this administration has allowed Iraq to export nearly 1 million barrels per day to the United States. Why? Because this administration's energy policy consists of one principle: When the price of crude gets too high, we ask foreign sources to increase production to drive down price. Madam Speaker, what kind of energy policy relies on our enemies to supply our Nation's needs? At the same time, this flawed policy provides millions of dollars to be used in a manner which places our global security in jeopardy. At today's prices, the United States reliance on Iraq's production hands Saddam Hussein more than $33 million per day. That adds up to nearly $1 billion per month. Thanks to this administration, Saddam Hussein receives funding that can be used to build weapons of mass destruction and carry forward his anti-U.S. agenda. Not only do these actions put our foreign policy and the national security at risk, they also are fiscally irresponsible and environmentally damaging. Imports of crude oil account for nearly $100 billion per year of our trade deficits--one-third of the entire trade deficit. Also, let's not forget what environmental protection looks like in these countries. This is a picture of environmental protection in the less stable foreign nations the United States is dependent upon. The fact is, that a development in Alaska, the size of Dulles Airport, can help address the supply needs of the United States as part of a comprehensive national energy policy with a balance to protect the environment. Like all new Federal actions, it will take the passage of a law to begin the development of the coastal plain. However, the coastal plain was set aside for future development in Sec. 1002 of the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The first line of this section clearly states the intent, ``The purpose of this section is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and other resources.'' And President Carter made this intent very clear at the signing ceremony when he said in the opening moments of that ceremony, ``This act of Congress reaffirms our commitment to the environment. It strikes a balance between protecting areas of great beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska's vital oil and gas and mineral and timber resources. A hundred percent of the offshore areas and 95 percent of the potentially productive oil and mineral areas will be available for exploration or for drilling.'' The intent to develop the portion of the refuge with the greatest potential for oil and mineral development is clear. President Carter made this point at the signing ceremony when he spoke of the offshore areas being completely open to development and the 1002 area being set aside for onshore development. Revisionists feel that the area set aside to provide ``vital oil and gas resources'' is now the biological heart of the refuge. These environmental extremists clearly have never visited the coastal plain of ANWR to witness how Alaskans have struck a balance between environmental protection and supplying this nation with the vital energy resources. Alaskans conserve the area our oil and gas developments occupy. We have only utilized 14 percent of our arctic coastline for oil and gas development--not the 95 percent some Members have erroneously stated. And we have reduced the temporary footprint these developments create. First generation developments utilized 65 acres. With 30 years of arctic experience, the same development would use less than nine acres. for some fields, directional drilling allows development without any surface occupancy. Many of the concerns revolve around the caribou that calve upon the coastal plain. As a Member who served in the Congress during the consideration and building of the Trans Alaska Pipeline, I have heard the allegation that oil and gas development will hurt the caribou that thrive within our State. This argument was made during the building of the 800 mile Trans Alaska Pipeline 20 years ago. It has now been dusted off and used in the debate against developing ANWR. Mr. Speaker, I think the truth about development's impact upon caribou can be easily found by looking at the impact over the past 20 years of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. When the pipeline was being built the caribou population of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd was at 3,000. Since development, populations have been as high as 23,400. The reason caribou have thrived on the North Slope is because our arctic development has relied on technological advances which actually help create a favorable environment for the wildlife. With directional drilling and ice roads and pads, the oil and gas industry can utilize technology to protect wildlife and the environment. Madam Speaker, developing the coastal plain of my home State of Alaska to responsible drilling is the right thing to do. This small development will supply this country with vital energy resources while doing no harm to the environment. Utilizing such a small area, as Congress intended, to service our Nation's energy needs is an important part of a comprehensive energy policy and something that can be done with balance to conserve the environment. It is something that the Native Alaskan population that call the coastal plain home want. It is something that a majority of Alaskans want. And oil and gas production from Alaska's coastal plain is something this nation needs.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3022) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain irrigation facilities to the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. 1509, the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act Amendments of 2000. This bill will demonstrate our Indian tribal governments can integrate their employment, training, and related services they provide. This legislation is important to all tribal governments, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1509) to amend the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992, to emphasize the need for job creation on Indian reservations, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. 2719, the Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and Tourism Act of 2000. This bill will establish an office of Native American Business Development which will coordinate Federal programs relating to Indian economic development. Mr. Speaker, this is a companion bill to the previous bill, and I support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2719) to provide for business development and trade promotion for Native Americans, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. 614, the Indian Tribal Regulatory Reform and Business Development Act. This important bill would establish a 21-member authority within the Federal Government to facilitate the removal of obstacles to business development with respect to the economies of Native American communities. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. We have many, many times where individual Indian tribes try to improve their lot only to find the process for developing an economic base is slowed down by the very government that they are under trust to. So I urge the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 614) to provide for regulatory reform in order to encourage investment, business, and economic development with respect to activities conducted on Indian lands.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2872) to improve the cause of action for misrepresentation of Indian arts and crafts.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of the proposed Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 1999. This bill authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to tribal justice systems to provide training and technical assistance for the development, enrichment, and enhancement of tribal justice systems. This legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to provide technical assistance to Indian tribes to enable them to carry out programs to support their tribal justice systems. Let me point out that all grants provided for in this legislation will be subject to the availability of appropriations. S. 1508 was passed by the other body on November 19, 1999. Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to many tribes, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1508) to provide technical and legal assistance to tribal justice systems and members of Indian tribes, and for other purposes, as amended.

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. 501, the Glacier Bay National Park Resource Management Act. This legislation passed the Senate with no opposition last November. The legislation was amended to remove some provisions that were controversial and should now enjoy the support of the House. The legislation requires the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Alaska to cooperate in the development of a management plan for commercial fisheries in the outer waters of Glacier Bay National Park, in accordance with Federal and State laws and any applicable international conservation and management treaties. The legislation also directs the Secretary of the Interior, once funds are made available, to develop a plan for multi-agency comprehensive research and monitoring program to evaluate the health of fishery resources in the park's marine waters. Once that program has been completed, the Secretary has 7 years to undertake the research program. In addition, the legislation will allow for the study of the impact of a subsistence harvest of seagull eggs by local residents. This legislation passed the Senate without opposition. I urge the House to support this bill and forward it to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 501) to address resource management issues in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska.