Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. tomorrow.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4148) to make technical amendments to the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act relating to contract support costs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is between $80 million and $100 million from $11 billion. That is what we call the striking or the marking of the CBO.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman I hope would support this legislation. He has a large native contingency in his district that strongly supports this legislation; and if he does not support it, I am sure they will be aware of it. If not, I will let them know about it. The main thing is that the reason the bill is different is the way it was scored. And I believe it was $11 billion. And as much as I believe there is justification there, we could not get it to pass the muster of other parts of this House nor the administration. What we are trying to do is make sure that any tribal group that enters into a forwarding of money to set up a program, which they have been guaranteed, that they are being paid retroactively if they are owed money and in fact will be paid in the future. I think that is only fair. Because what has happened many times is they entered into a contract and then the agency, BIA or IHS, do not pay the forwarded monies and in consequence they have to swallow it themselves, and that takes away from the health programs, very frankly, of the Native American people. I do hope that the gentleman will recognize the importance of this legislation; and although he may ask for a vote, I do not really put much truck in this administration. Although he is one of the opposite parties, I hope he does not either when it comes to Indian affairs. They have abused, misused, and misled the American Indians in the last 8 years. They have used them in the vote. They have used them for the money that they should have gotten and that they spent in other areas and very frankly that they are using now. There is over $2.5 billion that we cannot find that we know is there and the investigation shows it there. In fact, the Supreme Court has subpoenaed and filed in contempt Secretary Babbitt and I belief Secretary Rubin and the Treasury Department. So anytime anybody talks about the Indians getting too much or not enough, I am saying, look at the facts. I think it is very inappropriate, very frankly, to have the administration even think about a veto of this.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4148 makes technical changes in the Indian Health Self-Determination Education Assistance Act, and particularly to the contract support costs for the Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs programs previously administered by the two departments. This bill is technical in nature to ensure that tribal contractors recover their full and direct costs associated with these Federal programs, to receive funding for all Federal employees previously under the employment of IHS and BIA, and to direct the Secretaries of Health and Human Services to fully pay preaward and start-up costs without regard to the year in which such cost occurred. Many tribal contractors have paid their preaward and start-up costs out of their own funds and have not been reimbursed for these programs by IHS and BIA. This corrects this inequity and prevents tribes from using their own program funds to pay for these administrative costs. In a recent presentation at the Indian National Self-Governance conference in Nashville, Tennessee, Dr. Trujillio of the Indian Health Service reportedly told tribal representatives that the IHS supports enactment of H.R. 4148, as amended. Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill is technical in nature and has been supported by all tribal contractors. I urge an aye vote for this important bill for American Indians and Alaskan Natives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 964) to provide for equitable compensation for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 964, the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act, addresses a number of specific Indian and public land problems that will assist thousands of Americans. Title 1 of this bill will establish a Development Trust Fund in the Treasury of the United States for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe as compensation for the taking by condemnation proceedings by the United States of 104,492 acres of tribal lands. The Comptroller General has determined that the appropriate amount of compensation to pay the tribe would be $290,723,000 for this taking. Pursuant to S. 964, that amount and certain interest would be deposited by the Secretary of the Treasury into the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Recovery Trust Fund on the first day of the 11th fiscal year that begins after the date of enactment of S. 964. Annual payments will be made to the tribe consisting of the income generated from the investment of the corpus of the trust fund by the Secretary of the Treasury in interest-bearing obligations to the United States. Recovery funds have been created by Congress for four other Missouri River tribes which were impacted by the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin program. Title II of S. 964, the Bosque Redondo Memorial Act, authorizes the establishment of a Bosque Redondo Memorial in New Mexico to pay tribute to the 9,000 Navajo Indians forced in the 1800s to walk 350 miles to Bosque Redondo where they were incarcerated for 5 years. Title III expresses the sense of the Congress that public memorials commemorating military conflicts should be maintained in good condition; and to this end, the Secretary of the Interior should coordinate with Federal, State, and local officials to catalog these memorials and use the resulting information to promote and maintain them. This is based on a concurrent resolution sponsored by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan). Title IV requires the sale of a small historic site to the Chugach Alaska Natives and is noncontroversial. Title V incorporates the provisions of legislation sponsored by the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley). It adjusts the boundaries of the Richmond National Battlefield Park, expanding and completing the existing battlefield to include historically significant areas relating to the campaigns against, and in defense of, Richmond, Virginia. Title VI consists of two important sections addressing the needs of southeast Alaska and the Navajo Nation, respectively. Section 601 authorizes Southeast Alaskan Intertie system, a project critical to the future of southeast Alaska communities. Construction of an intertie will give southeast Alaska access to cheap, plentiful energy afforded through a power grid linking present and future hydroelectric sites. The Southeast Conference and the U.S. Forest Service have conducted a thorough environmental and economic analysis of this project. This section authorizes such sums that may be necessary for construction of the intertie on an 80/20 Federal-local cost-share basis. The other section establishes a program to assist the Navajo Nation. The problem here is not lack of cheap electricity. It is lack of any electricity in 18,000 structures. In this modern era, it is inconceivable that electricity is unavailable for any Americans. The Federal Government has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of Indians, and to this end the grant program established in Title VI is key to the future well-being of the Navajo Nation. This is a solid bill. It has been worked out with Senator Daschle. It is his bill. It has been worked out with everybody involved, and I believe it is a bill that should be passed and sent to the President. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Unfortunately, the gentleman has not been here that long to recognize one thing: we try to notify everybody. Every one of the bills have had direct notification to the persons involved. The Committee on Commerce, the chairman signed off on this legislation. It directly affects his district. Everybody that is in this bill that affects someone's district has signed off. If the gentleman believes in a representative form of government, that is the criteria. To my information, there has been nobody who has objected to these. We have been in contact with the White House. We have been in contact with Senator Daschle on a daily basis. We have been in contact with every Member dealing with a provision in this bill. Now, if some staff do not like this, just keep in mind this is about representation of those people elected. It is about nothing else. This is getting into the waning hours, and if the gentleman does not want to pass this legislation, fine. It does not bother me a bit, but I have been trying to work with Senator Daschle, and if the gentleman does not want to vote for this bill talk to Senator Daschle. He asked me to do this. I am doing it for him. I am doing it for those people involved in this bill, and that is what a chairman is supposed to do. This is not a process that we go through that takes a long period of time. One tries to get it done; notify those people who are affected; ask them whether they like it or not. If they like it, it works well, nobody objects to it, including the administration, then we do it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. In its entirety, he supports this bill. If he does not, I will not move it. I talked to him last week. He has been talked to every day; and if he does not support the bill, let me know now and I will bring the bill down right now.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this has been a long process, and I agree with the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) that this was really instigated by the beginning of CARA legislation when it put in those millions of dollars in the Fish and Wildlife Service. That is why I instigated the investigation. I want to thank my staff, Duane Gibson, who has worked very hard on this measure, and especially Christina Delmont-Small. For the record, she is now a Small instead of Delmont. She is on her honeymoon today and she cannot be here to actually enjoy the success of 2 years. But this issue is one, and I said after the hearings that the GAO reported to us, that this is not about who is present and what happened because of those people involved, not individually, but because the agency itself, beginning in 1990, and the acceleration of the expenditures of monies. We believe there was a tremendous amount of money that was spent very frankly illegally. Of those people that voluntarily established the Dingell-Johnson and the Pittman-Robertson fund that voluntarily putting into that every day thinking as they buy a fishing rod or a package of ammunition or a firearm or a bow, that it was going into reestablishing State programs on the State level so that they could have fish and wildlife not only to view but to hunt and fish, and we find that the money is being misspent. So what we are trying to do through this legislation, and even with the Senate provisions in it, is we have tried to say, okay, forget who has done it. Let us make sure it does not happen in the future. And we believe this has been done in this legislation, and we are strongly supportive of it. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation with a good aye vote. 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3671, which reforms the administration of the Pittman-Robertson and the Dingell-Johnson Acts. These acts established trust funds, paid for by sportsmen and women through taxes on guns, ammunition, archery equipment and fishing equipment for State fish and game departments to use for wildlife and sport fish restoration projects. Administration of these acts is the responsibility of the Fish and Wildlife Service. Oversight conducted by the committee, which I chair, the Committee on Resources, uncovered waste, fraud, and abuse of the administration funds by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 3671 on April 5 by a vote of 423-2. H.R. 3671 puts in place reforms that will prevent abuse and misuse of administration funds in the future. It caps the amount of funds for administration, provides clear direction as to how these funds will be spent, establishes audits, reporting and certification requirements, and establishes an assistant director to oversee the administration of these programs. The legislation also establishes a grant program for firearm and bow hunter safety and a grant program for multiple-state conservation projects that will enable States to work collectively on wildlife and sport fish restoration projects that cross State lines. The Senate has suggested some modifications to H.R. 3671, and I have agreed to those changes. The Senate slightly increased funding for the administration. They also increased funding for the Firearm and Bow Hunter Educational Grant Program and a Multi-State Conservation Grant Program. By stopping waste, fraud, and abuse and by cutting bureaucracy, the reforms in H.R. 3671 provide more dollars to State fishing and game departments on on-the-ground projects. They will ensure that the money paid into the trust fund by the sportsmen and the sportswomen in their district goes where it belongs, to State wildlife and sport fish restoration. Let us pass H.R. 3671 and safeguard the taxes paid by the hunters and anglers and guarantee continued wildlife and sports fish restoration as intended under the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Act. H.R. 3671, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Improvement Act overwhelmingly passed the House 423 to 2 on April 5th. This reform bill amends the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts. It provides clear direction to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on how to administer the wildlife and sport fish programs established under the Acts. Our oversight found that administration funds from the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs were being used in ways not consistent with either Act. For example we found that administration funds were used to pay for expenses for the rest of the Fish and Wildlife Service and they were used to create grant programs that were not statutorily authorized under the Acts. This is clearly not how the administration funds are to be spent. We did not want to leave any ambiguity as to how the funds can or cannot be spent. When there is ambiguity, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ``interprets'' what the law says, and the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson programs suffer the consequences. management study On April 5th, Representative Dingell and I engaged in a colloquy about the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and how they should undertake an independent, outside, top-to-bottom review to determine how many people are needed to administer the programs and what mixture of skills they should have. My only concern at the time was that any review be truly independent of undue influence. For that reason, I agreed with Representative Dingell that the study should be conducted provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the reviewer consult with the House Committee on Resources prior to and during the review, the Committee must agree with the parameters of the review and the Committee must be advised of the process of the review. I am disappointed to report that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service did not listen to what Representative Dingell and I said on April 5th. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service initiated and completed the management study without ever consulting with the Committee. In addition, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service instructed the consultant, The Center for Organizational Excellence (COE), to complete the project so that it could be used to impact this legislation. This sounds to me like lobbying legislation pending before Congress with Federal funds. It was not my intent, nor the intent of Representative Dingell, that the Fish and Wildlife Service use administration funds to lobby Congress on the reform legislation. The management study was not to be used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to preserve the status quo, it was to be used to assist the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in deciding how best to restructure the staffing with individuals with the necessary skills to meet the true administration needs of the programs and the letter of the law. I am further disappointed to report that the conclusions reached by COE on funding needs were not based on correct information. Information provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service to COE was inaccurate. Based on inaccurate information, COE reached the following conclusion regarding funding for administration: Although H.R. 3671 states that Federal Aid should continue conducting many of its current activities (such as training of States, travel to projects in-progress, consultation to States, etc.), the budget granted to Federal Aid under H.R. 3671 will not allow Federal Aid to continue all of these activities. This assessment is based on the data collected and analyzed by COE to date, including current workload and staffing levels and assessments provided by both Federal Aid and the IAFWA. (Federal Aid Division Resource Requirements Analysis, The Center for Organizational Excellence, September 29, 2000, page 5-2) COE reported to Committee staff that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service did not provide them with the spending levels that were in H.R. 3671 when it passed the House. In addition, it seems that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service did not explain to COE that the current workload includes tasks that are not considered administration under H.R. 3671. COE was unable to accurately assess the funding needs since the data they were given does not reflect the new parameters for administration established in H.R. 3671. COE was able to reach conclusions regarding how the programs were being administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the conclusions they reached about the current administration of the programs is troubling. The management report confirms what we found during our oversight--the United States Fish and Wildlife Service is not properly administering the programs. Regarding the issue of how administration funds are used, the report stated: Resources are not allocated the Regions and functions based on any systematic framework. This relates to the lack of strategic planning described earlier. It is not apparent that Federal Aid currently deploys resources to a particular area on any basis other than that is where resources were deployed last year. There is no evidence that customer requirements, organizational priorities, or other issues are taken into account. (Federal Aid Division Resource Requirements Analysis, The Center for Organizational Excellence, September 29, 2000, page 4-9) Regarding the grade of employees who are currently employed in the Regional Offices, the report stated: ``Our investigation of work processes revealed variations in how the core processes are performed and by whom, driven at least in part, by the different types of staff present in each Regional Office. For example, Region 2 and 6 have no staff in the grade range of GS 2-6. This raises the possibility that as all Regional Offices are performing the same core processes, Region 2 and 6 have core tasks performed by staff at too high a grade level (which leads to excessive payroll costs).'' (Federal Aid Division Resource Requirements Analysis, The Center for Organizational Excellence, September 29, 2000, page 3-1) Regarding how the Regional Offices have decided what types of positions need to be in each Region: ``Over the years, Regional Offices have added staff in an ad-hoc fashion, based on their interpretation of how best to meet their States' requirements and interests. There was no centralized methodology for determining what types of jobs or at what level are required to perform the workload of the Regional Offices. This may have been the best approach at the time, as the Regional Offices sought to provide the desired level and type of systematic staffing patterns among Regions, with little clear relationship to the workload of the Regional Office. Most importantly, staffing per Region has not been examined strategically and systematically, to ensure that Regional Offices are staffed to meet the mission of Federal Aid.'' (Federal Aid Division Resource Requirements Analysis, The Center for Organizational Excellence, September 29, 2000, page 3-1) The report shows us once again how much these reforms are needed. We suggest that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service provide accurate information to the COE and that the management study be continued and completed. In addition, that the management study be prepared for and issued to the House Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Prior to continuation of the management study, and regularly thereafter, COE shall consult with the Committees on the information used for, the parameters of, and progress made in the study and management analysis. funds for administration of the acts It was very important to set out in this legislation exactly how the United States Fish and Wildlife Service can spend administration funds. For an expense to be considered an administration expense available for funding under this Act, the expense will have to directly support the implementation of the Act and also consist of one of the twelve categories outlined in the Act. This will ensure the sportsmen that the administration dollars are being spent only on administration of the Acts. When we wrote this legislation we carefully thought out how administration funds should be spent and established twelve categories of allowable expenses. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service came back to us concerned that there could be another category that we had not thought of. Even though they could not come up with that ``other category'' or any additional expense, they expressed a need for spending flexibility for unforeseen expenses. We granted this flexibility up to a point. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service will be allowed to spend up to $25,000 of administration funds under each Act a year for an unforeseen expense, provided that they first inform the House Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works with an explanation of how much of the $25,000 they are going to spend and on what they are going to spend it. The House and the Senate Committees will have 30 days to get back to the Fish and Wildlife Service with their concurrence of the expenditures. It is not the intention of this Act that the funds for unforeseen expenses become a source of income for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The amount of funds available for administration of each Act will allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain their current level of 120 employees and to ramp-down to 110 employees in FY 2003. It is apparent that the programs have not used a systematic or logical approach to meet the staffing needs of the programs. It is important that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has the ability to change staffing and skills to meet the needs of the programs. This will allow the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to determine how many individuals are needed in the Washington Office and each Region to efficiently and successfully implement the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program. Starting in 2004, the funds available for administration will increase according to the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, allowing the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to keep pace with inflation and cost of living increases. firearm and bow hunter education and safety program grants H.R. 3671 establishes Firearm and Bow Hunter Education and Safety Program Grants for the States. These funds are meant to be an enhancement of the Pittman-Robertson funds the States already spend on hunter education. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, $7,500,000 will be available and in 2003 and every year thereafter, $8,000,000 will be available. This will enable states who can demonstrate that they have used the maximum amount of funds for hunter education under the formula in the law to have access to additional funds for hunter education and safety or for other uses authorized under the Act. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall continue to track how much States are spending for Hunter Education purposes. States who use the maximum amount of funds available under Section 4(c) of the law will have access to these funds. At the end of the year, any unexpected funds will be apportioned to the States who have used all of the funds available to them under Section 4(c) of the law. This program is meant to encourage States to fund hunter education and safety programs, construct or update shooting ranges and archery ranges and to enhance interstate coordination and development of hunter education and shooting range programs. The future of the shooting sports depends on the States taking a more active roll in hunter safety and education, providing shooting and archery ranges for the public and working with each other to accomplish these initiatives. multi-State conservation grant program H.R. 3671 also establishes a Multi-State Conservation Grant Program that will allow States to work collectively on projects that cross state boundaries. These grants will be available to States, groups of States and Non-Governmental Organizations. The grants are only allowed to be used to fund projects that do not oppose the regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife or the regulated taking of fish. It is important that a ``firewall'' be kept between the grant fund awarded under the Multi-State Conservation Grant Program and all other funds of the organization. The grant funds are not meant to supplement any other activity of the organization. They are only to be used for the explicit purpose of the grant. Organizations who apply for the grants may not use the grant funds to support activities that in any way oppose the regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife or the regulated taking of fish. If an organization is found to use the grant funds inappropriately, the funds will have to be returned and the organization will be subject to any applicable penalties under law. Under the Multi-State Conservation Grant Program, The United States Fish and Wildlife Service will be allowed to compete for the grants awarded to conduct the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. This is the only project the United States Fish and Wildlife Service can compete for. By allowing the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to compete for this grant, we do not intend that the Fish and Wildlife Service will automatically be awarded this grant. They will have to compete with others for this grant. We heard from many in the hunting, trapping and fishing community and the States that this survey wasn't the ``best product,'' but it was all they had. This bill will allow the States to have the opportunity to explore if another organization will be able to conduct the survey more efficiently and according to the parameters of the stakeholders. It is our intent that this legislation will put into the State's hands the control for this and all other Multi-State Conservation Grant Projects. And that when evaluating the merits of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal, as with all other proposals for this project and other projects, the Non-governmental organizations that represent conservation organizations, sportsmen organizations and industries that fund the Federal Assistance Program for State Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs will be consulted. administration costs for Dingell-Johnson Small Grant Programs H.R. 3671 establishes that the administration costs of the Dingell- Johnson small grant programs (Clean Vessel Act pumpouts, Coastal Program Conservation Grants, Boating Infrastructure and the National Outreach and Communications Program) will be paid out of the funds for those programs. The administration costs of the small grant programs will not be funded through the administration funds for the Dingell- Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. A total of $900,000 is available for the administration of these programs. assistant director for wildlife and sport fish restoration programs H.R. 3671 establishes within the Department of the Interior the position of Assistant Director for Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs. The funds collected from the excise taxes paid by sportsmen account for more than one-third of the whole budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service--in FY 2001 the amount to be collected is $528.7 million. Yet, these programs have had no presence at the Directorate level. In their Fiscal Year 2001 budget, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service budget requests for the following programs were: Migratory Birds & State Programs--$22.8 million. Fisheries & Habitat Conservation--$82.6 million. Endangered Species & Marine Mammals--$199.1 million. All of these programs have Assistant Directors and they each have responsibility for much smaller budgets than the Federal Assistance Program for State Wildlife and Sport Fish Programs. It is time that the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs are elevated in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and represented by an Assistant Director. We also found that the managers of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration programs lacked control over their own resources. Decisions on how to use personnel and administration funds were being made by individuals who did not have the best interests of the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs in mind. The creation of the Assistant Director position will alleviate this problem. The Assistant Director is very important to the success of these programs. The Assistant Director will be necessary to guide the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs under the new direction of this legislation. There will be important changes to how administration will be handled in the future. It will be crucial for this program, in order to establish a level of trust with the sportsmen who are paying the taxes, to show that the Fish and Wildlife Service truly wants the program to be run efficiently and according to the law. We need to assure the sportsmen and women, who pay the excise taxes that provide the millions of dollars for State wildlife and sport fish restoration programs, that their money will be used as it is intended under the law. The trust needs to be restored between the sportsmen and women who fund the programs and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. I urge you to pass H.R. 3671, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act, and put into place these much needed reforms of the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts. The bill incorporates the text of H.R. 4442, the National Wildlife Refuge Centennial Act that overwhelmingly passed the House on July 11th. This legislation recognizes a great achievement in conservation-- 100 years of the National Wildlife Refuge System. While this is an important milestone, this measure recognizes that we still have work ahead of us to reduce the maintenance and operations backlog within the Refuge System. It establishes a Commission to plan activities to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the System. The bill also requires the Secretary to submit a comprehensive plan for addressing the maintenance and operations backlog within the Refuge System. The American people deserve the finest Refuge System in the world. The bill also reauthorizes the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Since the Foundation was enacted into law in 1984, more than 3,850 conservation grants worth more than $490 million have been funded. These grants have been awarded to some 36 Federal agencies, 125 State and local municipalities, 92 colleges and institutions, and 852 different conservation groups. I have received letters in support of reauthorizing the Foundation from the California Cattlemen's Association, Ducks Unlimited, the Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Rifle Association, the National Trappers Association, Quail Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. While there was no specific testimony on S. 1653, the Resources Committee did conduct several comprehensive oversight hearings on the operation of the Foundation. Under the terms of this bill, the Foundation's Board of Directors would increase from 15 to 25 members; every dollar of Federal funding would be matched with a corresponding amount of non-Federal money; $20 million would be authorized for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and $5 million for NOAA; an annual report would be required detailing each conservation grant; affected Members of Congress would be given a 30- day notice when a project is proposed within their district; and statutory language has been included stipulating that no grant money can be used by the Foundation or its grantees for lobbying or litigation activities. This is a good bill that will allow the Foundation to continue to undertake a variety of valuable conservation projects throughout the United States. It is important to reiterate that lands acquired with Pittman Robertson funds are used for an array of wildlife dependent recreation activities such as fishing, trapping, and hunting. This use properly includes field trials with dogs. We expect that these activities will continue on acquired lands subject to reasonable restrictions supported by evidence to conserve wildlife and related habitat. Any guidelines issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding such uses must be reasonable, recognize the value of these activities, and be developed cooperatively with the states as well as affected user groups. Some elements within the Service appear to believe that intensive on-the- ground management actions are inconsistent with the purpose of Pittman Robertson Act conservation programs. The Committee strongly disagrees with any such conclusion. We remind the agency that intensive management is often the key to assuring that multiplicity of wildlife dependent recreation activities can coexist on wildlife lands and can occur with conservation objectives and purposes. This is the case with field trials. So I want no one to mistake that field trials are quite compatible on lands acquired using Pittman Robertson funds. The lands are for hunting and field trials facilitate hunting. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 3671) to amend the Acts popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act and the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act to enhance the funds available for grants to States for fish and wildlife conservation projects and increase opportunities for recreational hunting, bow hunting, trapping, archery, and fishing, by eliminating opportunities for waste, fraud, abuse, maladministration, and unauthorized expenditures for administration and execution of those acts, and for other purposes.

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 on H.R. 4148 and S. 964, the bills just debated.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the benefit of the Members a copy of the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office for H.R. 4721, a bill to provide for all right, title, and interest in and to certain property in Washington County, Utah, to be vested in the United States. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, October 10, 2000. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4721, an act to provide for all right, title, and interest in and to certain property in Washington County, Utah, to be vested in the United States. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them, The CBO staff contacts are John R. Righter (for federal costs), and Lauren Marks (for the private-sector impact). Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson (For Dan L. Crippen, Director). Enclosure. H.R. 4721--An act to provide for all right, title, and interest in and to certain property in Washington County, Utah, to be vested in the United States H.R. 4721 would transfer about 1,550 acres in real property in Washington County, Utah, to the federal government. As compensation for the government's taking of private property, the legislation would provide an immediate payment of $15 million, with a subsequent amount to be paid to Environmental Land Technology, Ltd., the property owner, at a later date. The amount of the second payment would depend, in part, on whether the federal government could negotiate a settlement with the property owner. Under a negotiated settlement, the second payment would include the difference between the property's appraised value and the initial payment of $15 million, plus interest accrued from the date of the legislation's enactment. Alternatively, if the amount of the second payment is decided in a court of law, it would include the remaining property value as determined by the court, accrued interest, reasonable expenses of holding The property from February 1990 to the date of the final payment, and reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees. The legislation would provide the full faith and credit of the United States to make such payments without farther appropriation. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4721 would increase direct spending by $15 million in fiscal year 2001. The amount of the second payment is uncertain and will probably be determined in court. Based on information from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), CBO estimates that a second payment of $43 million would be made in 2002. The estimated total of $58 million is the midpoint between the government's and the property owner's estimates of the property's value (between $30 million and $70 million), plus accrued interest and reasonable property and court-related expenses. This estimate assumes that, based on the wide difference in their estimates of the property's value, the two sides would be unable to negotiate an out-of-court settlement. Because H.R. 4721 would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. The changes in direct spending are shown in the following table. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to compliment the gentleman because he has introduced a bill to do just that, to take into consideration all of the facets of energy, to take and decide how many Btus we need for the future of this Nation. Right now that has not happened. In fact, the administration has closed down 34 refineries in the United States. The last refinery, built in 1980, was in Alaska. That is what has happened to us. The gentleman's bill, and I believe I am a sponsor with the gentleman, it says to bring to light the need for nuclear power, hydropower, wind power, for conservation, for gas, and for oil, and to put it all together in a package so that my grandchildren will have the ability to have Btus available to them so they can live, yes, a better way. I believe that is crucially important.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that many people are very much unaware of the new demand on electrical power. Twenty-five years ago we did not have that demand. The power being generated today, which we are now using mostly fossil fuels, natural gas, coal, no oil, but those two things, now the demand comes from that which we all take for granted, and that is the computer, the Internet. The Internet alone, just the Internet, not the total, the Internet alone increased the consumption of electrical power 7 percent this year. Seven percent of our energy now is being used by the Internet.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield one more moment, I said before that the only energy policy the administration has had is a set of knee pads so they can beg. The inappropriate conduct of trying not to allow us to produce energy, all forms of energy, in the last 8 years, has brought us to this point. We have to wake up. The gentleman's bill does it. I am proud to be a sponsor of it. I hope everybody that is listening, and I know I am not supposed to say this, but all my colleagues who are listening, I hope they understand we had better approach this with the positive side of production. We cannot, as we listen to Al Gore, conserve our way into self- sufficiency. That is impossible. Everybody knows it. As long as we are growing, and we are growing, our economy is growing, we have to have energy. That means all the forms of energy that we know, mankind is realizing today. To say no is wrong. By the way, if I may, gas, natural gas, $2.15 last year, $5.40 today, it is going to $6 because demand is so great. Many of the great fields that would have been drilled, should have been drilled, have been put off limits by this President and this Vice President. Let us have a policy of energy development and deliveries to our people so we do not have to go back. Instead of issuing knee pads to every American so they can beg for energy, let us have the ability to say, I am American and we have our own power.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I, again, rise in the special orders for my colleagues to understand the importance of the energy policy of the United States under this present administration, which is zero. There is no energy policy. In fact, under this administration, we have declined the use of nuclear. We have declined the use of oil. We have declined the use of coal. We have declined the use of hydro. And, in fact, there has never been a position where they have developed any new power as our population grows and our economy grows. We are using more power every day, and this administration has sought not to do it. During an election time, the presidential candidate, what is his name, Mr. Gore, decides to asks us to lower the price of fuel in the Northeast by using our reserves. Now, I cannot think of anything more ridiculous and using a reserve that was set up when I was here and this Congress set it up for strategic purposes, in case there was a cutting off of our shipping channels and we needed that fuel for military purposes. That is why it was set up. There is no shortage of oil. Yes, there is an increase of prices because we are dependent because of this administration's policy on foreign oil. Now, we have a lot of oil and gas in the United States of America. We just have not been able to find it or develop it because of the policies of the Department of Interior, the President of the United States and the Vice President. What I am very familiar with, of course, is Alaska. Everybody knows that Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, 16 billion barrels have been delivered to the United States. Every American citizen has benefited from that. It has not gone overseas. It was from Prudhoe Bay, developed in 1973 by this Congress because we had an embargo in place. What else do we have in Alaska? We have in Alaska a place called 1002 area, right here, right here, 74 miles from the existing pipeline that could deliver us a million barrels a day for the next hundred years. Everybody said what is a million barrels a day? I heard the other night that my so-called candidate, Mr. Gore, he is not my candidate, but the candidate of many unenlightened people, Mr. Gore said we should not destroy the pristine areas, the last ones we have in Alaska. Alaska, every area you see in Alaska has been set aside here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, all the way around 147 million acres of land, set aside for wilderness for a great purpose for the American people. Right up here we have 1.5 million acres that has the potential, 39 billion barrels of oil. That is 39 billion barrels of oil, a million barrels a day which we are now buying from Saddam Hussein that we could be producing and shipping through our pipeline to the American people. But what does Mr. Gore say? Oh, we cannot develop it. Show me one area where he suggested developing will occur. He has not done it in his 8 years, he did not do it when he was in the House, and he did not do it while he was in the Senate. He does not believe in it. To have him say now that we are going to use the reserve and not support opening this ANWR area to me is ridiculous. By the way, Mr. Speaker, the footprint is less than 12,000 acres, to give the American people, give the American people 1 million barrels a day for the next 100 years. That is what is so crucially important. But along those lines, keep in mind there has been no energy policy by Mr. Gore. He has none now; and he will have none in the future, other than the fact he wants us all to peddle bicycles. That is his idea. He raised taxes while he was in the Senate, and he has proposed raising taxes while he was Vice President. Remember, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues who drive back and forth and fly an airplane, those taxes were raised supposedly to stop our consumption. It has not done so, and in the meantime we have become more dependent, 57 percent today and by the year 2005 it will be 60 percent, which we will be dependent upon foreign countries for oil. By the way, anytime someone controls us 60 percent, we will do anything they tell us to do. As bad as it is, we will do it because they control us. That is what this administration has done to us; they have made us subservient to the foreign countries and not America. I always hear the Vice President talk about big oil. There is no big oil that belongs to America anymore; it belongs to the foreigners. He supported that. We have heard the previous speaker talk about the Lippo situation, the coal situation. There is another classic example where being dependent on foreign countries is wrong. We must as a Nation have an energy policy. We must have a President who understands the energy policy. This is crucially, crucially important.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to refute some of the comments that were made previously on this floor by Members of this House that know little about what they talk about, and that is energy and energy policy. I noticed the gentleman from New York was talking about the fragile environment in Alaska. He showed a picture, very frankly, that is not the area which would be drilled in Alaska that George W. Bush suggested last night. He showed a picture that is far south. This is the area of Prudhoe Bay, 74 miles away from the 1002 place where we would drill. If you notice the caribou here are around the oil rigs. In fact, our caribou herd has increased tenfold from where it was prior to the exploration in Prudhoe Bay, which provided to this Nation of ours every bottom barrel that has been delivered of the 16 billion barrels of oil. That is 16 billion barrels of oil that you would not have to import from the OPEC countries. You have to keep in mind, Mr. and Mrs. America, that we are now so totally dependent on oil, approximately 57 percent this year, that if there is not a policy change, it will be 60 percent by the year 2005. I watched the debate last night, and everybody else watched the debate, and I would suggest respectfully that George W. Bush's idea about energy production is vital to you. As you are sitting watching this, if you are a senior citizen and worrying about heating oil prices, right now we are importing, keep in mind, about a million barrels a day from Saddam Hussein. The area which we would like to explore, which is 74 miles away from the pipeline, 74 miles, has the potential, has the potential, of 39 billion barrels of oil. We could increase the production, going through the present pipeline, about a million barrels a day, equal to what we are importing from Saddam Hussein. We would not be dependent upon the OPEC countries. But that is just a small part. Alaska is just a small part. This administration, the Vice President and the President himself have closed 34 refineries since 1992 in the United States of America. The Vice President asked us to use our reserve to lower the prices, which it will not do so. But as we do take that oil, if he is successful in his attempt, the oil will have to be shipped and refined in Venezuela and then shipped back to the United States because they have discouraged the building of new refineries. The refineries themselves we have in place are running around 95 percent, which is unhealthy for the refineries because it is hard to maintain them at that level. We must consider the production and the refining capability, and this Nation with this administration has not done. I am going to suggest respectfully that there is no energy policy. I have said it once and I will say it again. The only energy policy this administration has had is to be on knee pads begging OPEC to produce more oil. That is not America. It is for us to set a policy, it is for the next President to set a policy to make sure that we are no longer dependent upon the OPEC countries. Coal, massive amounts across the Nation and Alaska being discouraged. Nuclear is not being utilized. It is being shut down. Natural gas, the demand has gotten so high now gas has gone from $2.15 a million to, in fact, $5.40 today. Now, that to me is wrong. If we can find, which we know we have when we are given the opportunities and areas are open, we can become at least 50 percent dependent upon ourselves. And my colleagues out there think businesses can be run with 57 percent of their companies owned by someone else, if they think they can do what they want to do when 57 percent is owned by someone else, they are sadly mistaken and know little about business or the economy. And that is where the United States is today, 57 percent today, 60 percent by the year 2005 unless there is a change in the energy policy. My State, yes, is an energy-producing State. Thank God for that. It was on this floor in the House right here in 1973 that we passed the pipeline bill that delivered to this Nation 16 billion barrels of oil spent in our country, not spent overseas, in our country. And to show my colleagues the results, the caribou herd is stronger, the environment is safer. And very frankly, this Nation needed it badly in 1973 because of the embargo; and it needs it today. I ask America to wake up about energy. Think about where we are going to be if we do not change that policy. George W. Bush mentioned it last night in the debate. We must have an energy policy today that increases the development and the production and the ability to refine our energy policy.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I was the sponsor of the pipeline bill; and it passed August in 1973 because we were in an embargo. The OPEC countries placed an embargo and our gasoline went from 23 cents to 54 cents, and we were frankly out of oil. We passed it here in 1973. We told the companies to build it in 3 years, and they did; and in 1976 they had the first barrel of oil that flowed through that line. And by the way, it all went to the United States. It did not go to Japan. All of it went to the United States. And we have produced about 16 billion barrels of oil. At the crisis of the Gulf War, for instance, we were producing 2,200,000 barrels a day. It averaged a million barrels a day. It has the capacity of 2 million barrels. But we put that pipeline in with all the safeguards that we can possibly have available in those days. That has been a long time, approximately 28 years ago. We put crossings for caribou to cross over at the cost of about $50 million. And by the way, they do not use them. They crawl under the pipeline because they like to be under the pipeline. The caribou herd has increased dramatically many fold over. Actually, the wildlife all the way around has increased. We have had, they say, a thousand spills. That is pure poppycock if I may say so. Because up there they call it a spill and they are very good about reporting it. If there is one drop of oil somewhere from a squirt gun or an oil can or the bottom of a truck, that is reported. There has been no major spill at all in this pipeline from the time it was constructed. The one people hear about is the Exon Valdez. That was the responsibility of one man, one captain that made an abrupt turn; and why we will never know. But in the meantime, I remind the American people that that oil which you receive is oil that we would not have to buy from the OPEC countries; and if we could produce 2 million barrels a day, which we could with ANWAR, and, remember, it is your oil, if we could produce 2 million barrels a day, that means we would be that less dependent upon those foreign countries.