Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Well, Mr. and Mrs. America in the gallery, then. I can address somebody I hope. Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the concept. Let us look at energy. Now, you cannot conserve your way into prosperity, nor can you conserve your way into independence with fuel or energy. And that is the suggestion of Al Gore, we are going to have conservation that will solve our problem. Not as our population increases. That is an impossibility. It is not correct. So I am suggesting we must think about where we find our oil and our gas. And we have it in Alaska. It can be done and has been done and is environmentally safe. We must allow this to happen for America. We must not allow the OPEC countries to control us, as they are doing now. They are the ones that are pulling the strings; they are the ones that raise the price of gasoline at the pump with the taxes that Al Gore added. They are the ones that make you pay more as you go to work or you take your young son to soccer or your daughter to piano lessons or vice versa. We as Americans have to have a policy. I believe our policy on energy has to be one of production, one of discovery and one of refining. I know I am going to introduce a bill the next session to give us an expedited process to build refineries. Because I have asked people, ``Why aren't you building refineries?'' They say, ``We can't build refineries under the present delay factors of this administration.'' That means we have to buy refined products from abroad. Most of the gasoline that you burn in your automobile and heating oil that you are using and the northern reserve which we are going to have after this Congress passes it comes from a foreign country, which means we are dependent. And so I ask you to make sure everybody understands this issue. Energy is the number one problem in America today and threatens our freedom and our security because in the last 8 years, we have allowed this administration to direct us with their policy to become dependent upon foreign countries. I am trying to offset that. Anybody that steps up here and talks about my State and how bad it is in ANWR and the Arctic wildlife range has never been there, they know little of it, and they are speaking the word of a written booklet from an interest group that wants us to become more dependent upon foreign fossil fuels. As we become more dependent, we have to respond to their desires. Maybe it could be negative to the American way. I ask everybody to wake up, all of my colleagues, and support me in the development of not only the 1002 areas in Alaska but the other fossil fuel areas in America. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman brought this up, because it is scrutinized Federally and by the State, the EPA, the DEC, the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and Fish and Wildlife; and it meets every criteria for safety in the promotion of wildlife. I go back to this picture again. These are caribou, and this is the oil field. These are caribou and calves, and this is the oil field. And by the way, many times they talked about the caribou herd, the porcupine caribou herd and how their calving area will be disturbed. And I have said all along, caribou calve when they want to calve and where they want to calve. And guess what, the last 2 years they have not calved anywhere near this area we want to drill in. The myth that is put forth by interest groups to somehow say we are better off buying oil from other countries where they do terrible damage environmentally with no safeguards when ours have all these supervisional agencies over them is wrong. And each one of you, Mr. and Mrs. America, as you go up to that pump, you are paying the OPEC countries, you are not paying the United States. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It would be 12,000 acres of 19 million will be totally disturbed by mankind. The rest of it is wilderness. By the way, the Congress set this area aside because they knew the oil was there. And that is one of the reasons it should be opened up. To give my colleagues an example, in the last 10 years we have lost actually 77 percent of our oil rigs because this administration has not promoted oil development. They have asked us to be dependent upon the foreign country. The domestic oil and gas industry has lost 500,000 jobs in the last decade. It is ironic to me in this political arena in which sit, Mr. Gore, the Vice President, says, big oil, big oil is bad. Foreign oil is good. Big oil is bad. Buy it from the foreign countries and be dependent. That is good. Let us be domestically dependent on the other countries. No, that is bad. So I am suggesting that Alaska wants to contribute to the ability of this country not to have to respond to the OPEC countries. And we are so close, 74 miles away. Remember, the pipeline is 400 miles long. We have the potential of 39 billion barrels of oil, and that is the largest reserve we know in the United States today. And yet we have people talking about destroying the environment. The environment will not be destroyed. But keep in mind, what right do we have as Americans to buy oil from Russia, and yes, we are doing that; to buy oil from the OPEC countries? Do they have any safeguards? They do not. They spill more oil in Russia in one day in the pipeline than we did in the Exon Valdez. And yet we want to buy oil from foreign countries to feed our appetites, that I would agree with. But each day we stop domestic production makes us more dependent, more responsive to the foreign desires. And they can run that price up. If my colleagues want to blame somebody for the high price, blame this administration. Blame this administration for really discouraging domestic production. They do not have an energy policy, none whatsoever. And if they want to read an interesting book, read Al Gore's book. He wants to destroy the combustible engine, put everybody on bicycles, like they are in China. And yet the other day he said we have got to lower the price of gasoline because it is hurting our economy and the people. The reason the prices are high is because the policy they have is to go to the OPEC countries and beg them to produce more oil. If we were producing our own oil, then we would not have to beg, they would be producing at a level which we would be producing it and the price would be stabilized.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am glad he asked that question. Because the area which we are talking about, the area called the 10-02 Area in the Arctic National Wildlife Range, is a very small part of 19 million acres. It is approximately 1,200,000 acres. And of that 12,000 acres would be disturbed. But it is only 74 miles away from the existing oil field and pipeline, 74 miles, which is a very small distance to tie these two areas in. It is an area that this Congress set aside when they passed the Alaska National Land bill by Senator Jackson and Senator Stevens because we knew the potential of the oil being there. And by the way, Mr. and Mrs. America, this is your oil. This is not the State of Alaska's oil. My goal is to try to make us more independent so we are not dependent on the foreign countries. This very small area that is not, by the way, the pristine area that people talked about, it is probably the most hostile area. And that is why I referred to the picture that the gentleman spoke before me about ANWAR was a picture that was false, false, false. I want people to remember that. It is a made-up picture or a picture taken in the southern part of that 19 million acres. And I ought to know because I live in that area. And so, when people say we are going to destroy the environment, and I listened to the Vice President talking about destroying the crown jewel, Alaska is the largest State, 2\1/2\ times the size of Texas. We have more wilderness than any other area in the United States including all the States put together. We have more pristine areas in the State of Alaska than any other area. They will never be touched by man. But this one area has the potential, very small as it is, to provide for the Nation itself so we are not dependent upon the Sadam Husseins a million barrels a day for the next 100 years. Now, keep that in mind what I have just said, by the next 100 years. Some people say I am exaggerating, that it is not true. This is exactly fact. And when someone says, we do not need the oil, it is only 6 months' times, that means we have no other production and would be totally dependent on Alaska and we never ever expected that. But we should be able to provide at least that million barrels a day so we do not have to buy it from Sadam Hussein. That is what is important to me.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman saying, there have to be competitive bids for wildlife. Who makes the decision what it will be, the Federal government or the States?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The Federal government makes the decision, whether it is correct or not, is that correct?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. So the States do not have the say-so? If the Federal Government does not agree, they do not get the money?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If they do not agree, they do not get the money?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said about George Frampton supporting it. That is probably the biggest reason to vote against the rule. The second thing is that every governor in the country now has blasted this agreement. Every governor. The mayors, the legislative bodies have blasted this so-called Interior appropriations. So do not give everybody how much they support it. In reality, the governors know right now we are back to square one. We have got to go back to the appropriators and grovel, hold our hand out and beg at the end of the session. By the way, Mr. Speaker, this has happened to us now for 6 years, 8 years, 10 years. Wait until the last moment, the Senate does not do anything, they hold it; and then the appropriators get together in the back room, and the cardinals decide what legislation is going to pass and not pass. The natives are getting restless, buddy. I am going to suggest respectfully, that is not the way this Congress was set up. It is not good legislation; it is wrong and against the House rules, but we are ready to go home, so everybody wants to vote for this thing. I am voting no and I am going to ask for a vote on the rule.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, that shows my colleagues how deeply I believe that CARA was the right way to go when I can take and sacrifice the great work that has been done for the State of Alaska that I worked on for the benefit of the Nation as a whole.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the States submit a plan for rehabilitation of wildlife in a certain area and if the Federal government does not want to do that, they do not get the money, under the gentleman's program?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. But the gentleman is letting the Federal government do it and not the States. That was the whole idea of CARA. CARA had an an idea how to spend the money on the ground. The gentleman likes big government.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, of course, I rise to oppose the rule, not because the rule is structured incorrectly, because it did not include CARA, as the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) mentioned. Most of my colleagues are aware that this House passed my Conservation Reinvestment Act 315 to 100 some odd votes. That is what the public wants, 5,285 organizations support that legislation. Unfortunately, the Committee on Interior tried to have ``CARA-lite'' passed, but I again stressed the point that for those that are listening to this program and those on the floor understand this is not CARA. It is, in fact, a system set forth that for each part of our CARA bill, historical preservation, urban parks, fish and wildlife restoration, native lands reclamation, land purchasing, all of it has to come back to the appropriating committee. For those listening to this, this is not CARA. I will say this to the Committee on Appropriations, I think that my biggest concern is, my colleagues have asked us to authorize, and when we authorize, unfortunately, my colleagues have decided our authorization is not correct, and my colleagues are going to do the authorization. So the rule recognizes my colleagues' role to authorize legislation and that is inappropriate and I think it is against the House rules. That is one reason why I am voting against this rule. And for the leadership of this House on my side of the aisle, I have never voted against a rule before that my colleagues asked me to vote for, and it is unfortunate my colleagues have not asked me to vote for this rule, in fact, my colleagues have not communicated with me on this issue. This issue is not going to go away I say to the appropriating committee, I will be here long after my colleagues are gone. I will win this battle to preserve our wildlife, because my colleagues do not do it in this bill. My colleagues have given a great authority to fish and wildlife but do not say how it shall be spent. My colleagues do not recognize the importance of fish and wildlife; and for those sportsmen, I hope they understand what the appropriating committee has done. This is a battle that is not over. We have a long ways to go, and I will win this battle for the people of America. My colleagues owe us $13 billion dollars and have not spent it. We will not spend it in the future. My colleagues will spend it for land acquisition with no property rights. Oh, my colleagues will do that, but will not protect the people of this Nation and provide them for the spaces that they need, because my colleagues did not do it in the past and will not do it in the future. My colleagues can say all they want about how great you have done in this bill, I say this out of friendship, my colleagues have actually put forth something that is hollow, something to appease the voters. When they do not read this bill, they will say what a great job. But when they find out, I will be back. I will be able to prevail. I am going to make sure that the space is there for our young people, to have the hunting and fishing and recreation is required and the urbans parts are put in place and the past is preserved for us. My colleagues do not do it in this bill. It is a hollow promise.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to convey to the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) the ownership of the irrigation works composed primarily of ditches, laterals, sump ponds and several wells on Reservation lands formerly operated by the Bureau of Indiana Affairs. Because the irrigation works is entirely on Reservation land and because the operational control of the irrigation works was transferred to the SRPMIC in 1997, this proposed legislative conveyance is anticipated to be a relatively straight-forward administrative transfer that should be carried out in keeping with the underlying goals of Indian self-determination, self- governance and economic self-sufficiency. As early as August 1993, the SRPMIC held discussions in the Community concerning the potential transfer of the irrigation works. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Salt River Agency (the local BIA office), and the Branch of Land Operations and P.L. 93-638 Contract administration met at that time to explore this conveyance. According to the Community, these consultations resulted in efforts by the SRPMIC toward assuming management and operation of the irrigation delivery system by: (1) its approval of SRPMIC Ordinance No. 199-95 Surface Water management (Ordinance) approved on May 3, 1995; (2) the partial completion of P.L. 93-368 Contract No. CTH55T61517-- Water Resources Program (Contract) awarded on August 10, 1993 through the final submission in August 1995 by SFC Engineering Co. report titled ``Irrigation System Evaluation and Rehabilitation Study for Lands South of the Arizona Canal,'' (3) the request by the SRPMIC for financial records of the project; (4) the establishment of monthly meetings between the SRPMIC and the Salt River Agency and its Branch of Land Operations to review the status, coordinate activities and share information; (5) the origination by SRPMIC of a report entitled ``SRPMIC Irrigation Project--Transfer of Operation and Maintenance from the BIA to the SRPMIC Community'' dated January 10, 1996. The irrigation works over the past 20 years or so unfortunately did not receive sufficient funding. As a result, the project facilities deteriorated, and if this deterioration were allowed to continue, the allotted landowners would receive less rent for a less efficient system. Even while the BIA operated the project, it was the Community which obtained non-BIA funds to line the main Evergreen Canal and some lateral mileage. Also, the Community is in the midst of a refurbishment program at a cost up to approximately $1.25 million over five years from the USDA/EQIP program. The cost to the Community above and beyond the amount collected currently from water users is approximately $200,000 per year. The original construction costs carried by the BIA are $3,313,192, which have long since been amortized to zero since the project dates back 84 years to 1916. It is important to note that the Pima people and their ancestors used gravity-fed irrigation for hundreds of years prior to federal involvement. Today, the Irrigation Works employees are no longer BIA employees as they were prior to 1997. They are employees of the Community. The equipment and buildings that were used in BIA's operation were transferred from the BIA to SRPMIC which now provides irrigation services for landowners and water users. The SRPMIC Water Resources Division manages this Irrigation Works Project. Based upon testimony from the Community, the irrigation system is managed with a staff of 12 full time employees including a division manager, an engineer, an agricultural engineer and other irrigation staff. It operates under a budget based on incoming water sales. About 8,000 acres of farmland are irrigated with the following system: (1) Evergreen Canal (main canal) 4.5 miles with 6 main check structures and 16 primary headgates; (2) 23.5 miles of lateral pipelines with 15 miles of lateral canals and 25 canal turnout structures; (3) 44 miles of drainage channels with service roads; (4) 12 irrigation wells (only 4 are useable); (5) 2 storage reservoirs and 2 sump ponds with 3 capable of pumping. Since June 1999, the SRPMIC and its representatives have had numerous discussions, consultations and negotiations with the Department of the Interior to reach a common understanding and agreement on legislative language to transfer the ownership of the irrigation works to the SRPMIC, as well as any remaining authority and responsibility that the Secretary has regarding the administration of such works, except for the Secretary's trust responsibilities. H.R. 2820 with the proposed amended text changes to be considered by the House fairly balances the interests of the Department of the Interior and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. The SRPMIC Water Code provides a detailed method of distributing and using this limited and sometimes scarce resource. Combined with the irrigation regulations and assessment schedule adopted by the SRPMIC tribal council, they appear to provide for fair treatment, equitable allocation and sensitive use of this important resource. The Community contends that the rights of allotted landowners will be enhanced by the operation of the system by the SRPMIC. And, while it appears that is the case, the legislation includes ample safeguards to help insure that allottee rights are protected. The SRPMIC has been operating the irrigation works project for nearly three years. By doing so, as well as by its operating other businesses, it has demonstrated its ability to manage and operate the system. Its reputation is one that instills confidence that the Community is clearly capable of operating, and is expected to operate, the irrigation works efficiently, effectively, and equitably. For the Community to operate this former BIA project and make it relevant in this millennium, the SRPMIC should have full responsibility and ownership of the irrigation works. The United States trust responsibility will continue unimpaired to the SRPMIC, to individual Indians, and to Indian allottees, as provided for in the legislation even as the Community assumes full ownership of and operations for the irrigation works. In furtherance of the United States policies of self-governance, self-determination and economic self-sufficiency with respect to American Indians, H.R. 2820, as amended, should be passed by the Congress of the United States and sent to the President, who is expected to sign the bill into law based upon the attached Departmental letter report supporting the bill. bill summary Section 1. Findings. The findings section sets forth the underlying considerations that are the backdrop for the enactment of this legislation. At its core, the bill recognizes the federal policies of Indian self-determination, economic self-sufficiency and self-governance and that the conveyance of the irrigation works is in furtherance of those policies. The findings also recognize and adhere to the trust responsibilities of the United States to Indian tribes. They recognize that the irrigation works are primarily a system of canals, ditches, wells, storage reservoirs and sump ponds on Reservation land. They convey too that, considering the community has been operating the works since 1997, the conveyance is viewed by Congress as an administrative action. The findings take cognizance of the fact that the Community's amended Water Code is currently in compliance with Section 2b. of the legislation. Section 2. Conveyance and Operation of Irrigation Works. (a) Conveyance: The Secretary is directed to convey the irrigation works to the Community in accordance with the legislation and other applicable law. The intent of this provision is to ensure that, while applicable law is to be fully adhered to, it is contemplated that the process involved should be a straightforward, relatively uncomplicated, and inexpensive administrative procedure. This is especially so given the nature of the facilities being conveyed and that the Community has been operating the irrigation works for the past three years. The bill language provides for the Community to continue as it is doing currently and retaining and expending operations and maintenance collections to be used for irrigation works purposes. Once the conveyance takes place, the bill language recognizes that the Community will then have full ownership of and operating authority over the irrigation works as provided in the bill. (b) Fulfillment of Federal Trust Responsibilities: A key provision of this legislation provides a balance between the need of the Community to be able to operate the irrigation works during the year 2000 and beyond and the need of the United States to be able to fulfill its trust responsibilities to Indian tribes, individual Indians and Indians with trust allotments. The language seeks to accomplish this by requiring that the Community's laws and regulations regarding management, regulation and control of water resources on the Reservation contain certain basic requirements and standards. The Community has currently brought its Water Code into compliance with the requirements and standards contained in the legislation (that amended Water Code is, and will be, on file with the Committee on Resources and the U.S. Department of the Interior). The two key requirements and standards are as follows: (1) This paragraph requires that a process continue to be included in the Community's laws and regulations to provide members of the Community, including allottees, a water system that, in turn, will provide a just and equitable distribution of water to achieve the goals of maximum beneficial use and conservation of water, while factoring in such considerations as the demand on the water resource, land use changes, and the varying quantity of water available to the Community. (2) This paragraph requires that a due process system continue to be included in the Community's laws and regulations to ensure the consideration and determination of a request from an Indian or Indian allottee for distribution of water for use on his or her land. It also requires that such laws and regulations continue to be provided through an appellate process, including a means for adjudicating denied or disputed distributions of water and resolution of contested administrative decisions. (c) Subsequent Modification of Laws and Regulations: The bill seeks to ensure that if the Community needs to or seeks to amend its laws and regulations after the legislation is enacted, there be a process by which that should be carried out. That process would involve generally a notice and wait procedure. The community would publish the proposed changes, and make them available to the Secretary at least 120 days before the effective date of the changes. The process also requires that, if a proposed change could ``significantly adversely affect'' the rights of allottees, then it would take the concurrence of both the Community and the Secretary in order for such changes to become effective. Although it is not expected that the community will need to amend its Code as it pertains to this subsection, it may. It is expected, however, that the Secretary will not seek to utilize this provision unless there were to be, indeed, a proposed change to the Community's Water Code that could significantly adversely affect allottee rights. (d) Limitations on Liability: This subsection provides that the united States is not liable for damages based on the Community's ownership and operation of the irrigation works except for those damages caused by acts of negligence by the United States before the date of enactment. Also, the subsection makes clear that nothing in the subsection should be construed to increase the liability of the United States beyond what is provided in the Federal Tort Claims Act. (e) Cancellation of charges: As has been the case in similar, although not identical, legislation in the past, as of the conveyance date, the charges for construction for the irrigation works deferred under 25 USC 386 are canceled. This is also, in part, in recognition that this project is comprised of deteriorating laterals, ditches, sump ponds, reservoirs and a few wells, some of which do not work currently, and some of the ditches are not even lined. The irrigation works is an aging gravity-fed system. It dates back to the early 1900s. In recent years the Community has contributed funds (as opposed to appropriated funds), that have been devoted to the refurbishment of the works. The construction funds committed to the project by the United States have long ago been more than amortized. By the Community assuming full responsibilities for the works, it is recognized that the United States is taking the next logical step to complete the process begun several years ago which resulted in 1997 with the transfer of operational management to the Community. If the United States were not to take this next step, the Community has indicated that it would be compelled to seek retroceding the irrigation works to the United States at significant costs to the United States. In such an eventuality, the U.S. would need to assign Bureau of Indian Affair employees to operate the works and commit federal funds to the works' refurbishment. (f) Project No Longer a BIA Project: The legislation provides that, once the conveyance has occurred, the irrigation works will not be eligible for federal benefits ``based solely on the fact that the irrigation works were formerly'' a BIA irrigation project. It also recognizes though that the legislation is not to be interpreted to limit or reduce in any way funds the Community may be eligible to receive under other federal law. Section 3. Relationship to Other Laws: This section makes clear that the provisions of this legislation are not to be construed to ``diminish the trust responsibility of the United States'' to the Community, to individual Indians or to Indian allottees within the Reservation. Enclosures: (1) Section-by-Section analysis; (2) Departmental Report on H.R. 2820: Letter from Hon. David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior to Chairman Don Young, Committee on Resources; (3) Resolution of Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Tribal Council. section-by-section analysis Section 1. Findings. This section expresses the findings of the Congress that--in light of a number of considerations, including that, in fulfillment of federal trust responsibility to Indian tribes, it is the policy of the United States to promote Indian self-determination and economic self-sufficiency--it is appropriate that the U.S. convey to the Community the irrigation works. Section 2. Conveyance and Operation of Irrigation Works. (a) Conveyance. This subsection authorizes and directs the Secretary to convey to the Community all rights and interests of the U.S. to the irrigation works. It further provides the authority for the Community to continue operating the irrigation works during the period from the date of enactment until the conveyance in accordance with this Act and 25 USC Sec. 450, including retaining and expending operations and maintenance collections for irrigation works purposes. (b) Fulfillment of Federal Indian Trust Responsibilities. This subsection provides that to assure compliance with federal trust responsibilities, the Community will operate the irrigation works under this Act and the Community's laws and regulations to assure fairness in the delivery of water to water users. It provides that the Community laws and regulations must continue to include-- (1) A process in which all members of the Community are provided a system of distribution, allocation, control, pricing and regulation of water that will in turn, provide a just and equitable distribution of water to attain the maximum use and conservation of water; and (2) A due process system to deal with requests by Indians and Indian allottees for distribution of water. (c) Subsequent Modification of Laws and Regulations. This subsection provides that, if the Community's laws and regulations are modified after the date of enactment of this Act, the proposed modifications will be published and made available to the Secretary before the effective date of those laws and regulations. Additionally, the subsection requires that the Community and the Secretary concur in any proposed changes that could significantly adversely affect the rights of allottees. (d) Limitations of Liability. This subsection sets forth the limits on the liability of the United States for damages from the Community's ownership and operation of the irrigation works. (e) Cancellation of Charges. This subsection provides for the cancellation of certain charges deferred under 25 USC Sec. 386(a) for construction of the irrigation works. (f) Project No Longer BIA Project. This subsection provides that, after conveyance, the irrigation works will no longer be a Bureau of Indian Affairs project and therefore not eligible for federal benefits based only on its status as a former BIA project. Section 3. Relationship to Other Laws. This section ensures that nothing in this Act diminishes the federal Indian Trust Responsibility on the Community's Reservation. The Deputy Secretary of the Interior, Washington, DC, September 20, 2000. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Resources Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter sets forth the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2820, to provide for the ownership and operation of the irrigation works on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's reservation in Maricopa County, Arizona, by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. We understand that the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (Community) will request that the attached bill be introduced as a substitute for H.R. 2820. The Department intends to support the attached substitute bill which represents a compromise reached between the Department and the Community with respect to original provisions of H.R. 2820 that were objectionable to the Department. Our support is contingent on the enactment by the Community of the attached amendments to its water code that will bring the code into compliance with the provisions of the substitute bill. We understand that the Community intends to enact these amendments to its water code before or shortly after the substitute bill is introduced. We recommend that action on the bill await assurances that the necessary changes to the Community water code have been made. Finally, the Department suggests Section 2(d) of the substitute bill be amended by removing ``employees, agents, or contractors'' from the clause. The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, David J. Hayes. Enclosures. Resolution Whereas, the Congress of the United States has under consideration the passage of H.R. 2820 to convey to the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (``Community'') the irrigation works formerly owned and operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and located on Community tribal and allottee land; and Whereas, as a result of negotiations that led to the development of H.R. 2820, and amendments thereto, the legislation's language contemplates that the Community will adopt certain amendments to its Surface Water Management Code prior to enactment of the legislation: Now, Therefore be it Resolved, That the Community hereby adopts the attached amendments to this Surface Water Management Code; and be it Resolved further, That such amendments are to become effective immediately; Resolved further, That, if substitute legislation for H.R. 2820 (1) is not passed by the Congress prior to the adjournment sine die of the 106th Congress, or (2) if so passed by Congress, but is not signed into law during the 106th Congress, the approval by the Community of these amendments shall become null and void. (i) in light of the foregoing and in order to-- (1) promote Indian self-determination, economic self- sufficiency, and self-governance; (2) enable the Community in its development of a diverse, efficient reservation economy; and (3) enable the Community to better serve the water needs of the water users within the Community, it is appropriate in this instance that the United States convey to the Community the ownership of the irrigation works.

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. 3986, a bill to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, September 20, 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. 3986, a bill to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington. If you wish further details of this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact if Rachel Applebaum, who can be reached at 226-2860. Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson (For Dan L. Crippen, Director). Enclosure. Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, September 20, 2000 (H.R. 3986: A bill to provide for a study of the engineering feasibility of a water exchange in lieu of electrification of the Chandler Pumping Plant at Prosser Diversion Dam, Washington, as reported by the House Committee on Resources on September 19, 2000)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce legislation for the establishment of a new national museum in Washington, DC, celebrating the contributions of the Jewish people to the United States and to the world generally. The museum will be called the National Museum of Jewish Heritage. It will profile the role played by Jews in the aesthetic, cultural, and intellectual history of Western Civilization. The new museum will offer to Jews and non-Jews alike a source of knowledge and information on a people whose contribution to a world we all share has been remarkable, and remarkably disproportionate to their numbers. The museum will offer to all an accessible doorway into the many facets of the Jewish legacy. Currently there is no museum in Washington, DC, and few, if any, elsewhere in the world, dedicated to presenting the full range of contributions made by Jews over the ages, and the relationship of those contributions to the civilization of which we all partake on a day to day basis. There is, of course, the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. It is however, devoted only to a most taumatic and anguished period of the Jewish experience. The new museum would offer a balance to that uniquely dark narrative. I believe that it would indeed be unfortunate for the rich Jewish history to be defined by that tragic chapter alone. The new museum will see that that does not occur. It will do so by profiling the many happy chapters of that history. It is a history to revere, and to learn from, and this new museum will allow this to happen in the Nation's Capital. The new museum will accomplish its important goals by creating galleries that sweep from the archaeological artifacts of antiquity to contemporary painting and sculpture, to music, literature, cinema, sports, science, military, education and, in general, to the world of creative ideas. The museum would mount the kinds of exhibits that reflect the diverse involvement and attainments of Jews across history and geography--from Einstein and Salk to Freud and Marx. The proposed legislation makes it clear that this will be a private initiative. No appropriated funds are being nor will be authorized. The role of the Government is highly limited. The President will appoint members of the Board of Directors. Honorary members will be appointed by congressional leaders. Other national museums may lend works or art and other objects to the new museum. The National Park Service will assist the museum in finding a site in the Nation's Capitol, which could be provided by the U.S. Government. The legislation will, however, offer the recognition and appreciation of the Government of the United States. I am proud of the contributions made by the Jewish people to the civilization we all enjoy. I am all the more proud to sponsor this legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I was saddened yesterday to hear of the death of my longtime colleague, Herb Bateman. I had the pleasure of serving with Herb on the former Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee from the beginning of his first term in Congress in 1983 until the Committee was dissolved in 1995, and since that time on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Having seen his work firsthand on these Committees, I can tell you that the United States maritime and shipbuilding industries have had no greater friend. He not only received the Propeller Club of the United States Maritime Industry Salute to Congress Award in 1995, but after announcing his retirement earlier this year, he was awarded the first ever Herbert H. Bateman Award by the American Shipbuilding Association and the Helen Delich Bentley Award by the Propeller Club of the Port of Washington. In his own district, he worked hard to see that the port of Hampton Roads remained competitive, and introduced legislation, which ultimately became law, to deepen the channels there to 55 feet. During his tenure on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, he served as the Ranking Member of the Oceanography and Merchant Marine Subcommittees. On the Oceanography Subcommittee, he successfully shepherded through legislation that created the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Chesapeake Bay Office, and authorized the Sea Grant oyster disease research program. That research has led to the first small steps that are now being taken to restore oyster populations in the Chesapeake Bay. Much of that work is being done at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at Gloucester Point. On the Merchant Marine Subcommittee, he authored legislation that established the National Shipbuilding Initiative. During his freshman term, he served on the Science Committee where he worked to support the interests of the space and aeronautical programs at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. His wife of 46 years, Laura Yacobi Bateman, worked at Langley before their marriage. He also used those two years to assure that the Department of Energy's Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility would be located in Newport News, Virginia. He was successful in that effort, and the completed facility is now conducting cutting edge research that will help us understand the most basic structure of the physical world. He also led the efforts to rename the facility for his personal political hero, and it is now the Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory. For the last 16 years, he served on the Armed Services Committee. On that Committee, he served as the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee for three terms, and later as the Chairman of the Military Readiness Subcommittee. He also chaired the Armed Services Committee panels on Morale, Welfare and Recreation and the Merchant Marine. In addition to working to assure that U.S. troops were treated fairly, and that the readiness of U.S. forces was maintained, Herb fought to secure construction of new nuclear aircraft carriers and new attack submarines. The construction of these vessels not only meant jobs for the largest employer in his district, Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, but more importantly assured our ability to project force throughout the world, when needed, and to protect our shores from attack. While he served on the Committee, two attack submarines were named for the two largest cities in his district, Hampton and Newport News. He was very proud that Laura served as the sponsor of the U.S.S. Hampton, which was named for her hometown. In keeping with maritime tradition, she conferred luck on the vessel by christening it on the first swing of the champagne bottle. The U.S.S. Newport News was named after Herb's hometown, where he had moved to as a child. Herb also worked to protect the numerous other military facilities in his district, and was proud that none were closed during the base closing process. The facilities in his district included the Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, the Army Transportation Command at Fort Eustis, the Naval Weapons Center at Dahlgren, the Aegis Training Center at Wallops Island, on Army training facility at Fort A.P. Hill, and Langley Air Force Base in Hampton. Not only did he support military facilities when in Congress, but he also served in the Armed Forces as an Air Force intelligence officer. Herb was proud to represent Virginia's First Congressional District, which he liked to call ``America's First District''. The district included not only Jamestown, where American representative government was founded, but also Williamsburg where America's democratic tradition was nurtured and matured, and Yorktown where our country's freedom was finally won. During his first term, a resolution that he sponsored was adopted to commemorate the signing of the Treaty of Paris that formally ended the Revolutionary War. In fact, Herb was honored to represent the U.S. Congress when he joined the Speaker of the British House of Commons, the Honorable Betty Boothroyd, in 1994 to celebrate the 375th Anniversary of the first meeting of an elected representative body in North America, the Virginia House of Burgesses. The House of Burgesses was the predecessor of the Virginia State Senate where Herb served from 1968 until he came to Congress. At different times, his district also included the James River plantations, the birthplaces of both George Washington and Robert E. Lee, and many Civil War battlefields. These include sites of the two Peninsula campaigns, Chancellorsville, the Wilderness, and the battle of Fredricksburg. He was successful in gaining Federal assistance for the privately-owned George Washington childhood home site, and funds to acquire additional historic property that was threatened by inappropriate development at the Fredricksburg and Spotsylvania National Battlefield Parks, and adjacent to the Colonial National Parkway. In addition to the founding of Jamestown, and the defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown, another major historic event occurred in the waters just off the Virginia Peninsula, the battle of the Monitor and Merrimac, or as the confederates called it, the Virginia. This one-day battle changed the course of Naval warfare forever. Unfortunately, the Monitor was lost soon afterward off the coast of North Carolina. The Monitor was located in 1972, and became the first United States National Marine Sanctuary. The Sanctuary headquarters is located at the Mariners' Museum only a few blocks from Herb and Laura's Newport News home. At Herb's request, Congress required the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to prepare a report on the long- term conservation of the MONITOR. As a result of that study, a multi- year project is underway to stabilize the wreck, and recover, conserve, and display historically significant portions of the vessel. I am sure Herb will be pleased to know that these important historic artifacts will be protected and displayed so near his home. Also near his home is the Monitor-Merrimac Memorial Bridge Tunnel. He helped secure the funds and permits for this important transportation project as well as the widening of the Coleman Bridge and I-95 improvements in the rapidly growing northern part of the district. In addition to its military, historic and scientific research facilities, Herb's district includes important natural features. He represented most of Virginia adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay, including much of the James, York, Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers. His district also includes the last significant chain of underdeveloped barrier islands which run along the Atlantic Coast from Chincoteague to Cape Charles. These islands lie off the Eastern Shore of Virginia, a rural area of great natural beauty that Herb was particularly proud to serve. In addition to supporting funding for the federal Chesapeake Bay Program, he also authored legislation that was adopted by Congress to create the Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge, supported the creation of the Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge, and successfully sought funds to expand the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge. This year, Congress is expected to approve funds he sought to begin construction of a new education and administrative center on Chincoteague, one of the most frequently visited refuges in the country. Herb also authored legislation to ban the use of highly toxic tributyltin paints in shallow waters. That ban has now been in effect for over a decade. Herb was educated and worked in the historic areas he was so proud to represent. After attending Newport News High School, he, like Thomas Jefferson, graduated from the College of William and Mary. While in the Air Force, he completed a law degree at Georgetown University Law School at night. After leaving the Service, he joined the Newport News, Virginia, law firm of Jones, Blechman, Woltz and Kelly. He retired from the firm as a partner when he was elected to Congress. After coming to Congress, he received an honorary doctorate from his alma mater in 1997. He also received an honorary degree from Christopher Newport College in 1992 and Mary Washington College in 1999. This is not a comprehensive list of Herb's work and achievements during his time in Congress, but it shows you how his life and work were intertwined with the parts of tidewater Virginia that he so ably represented for 18 years. I know his constituents will miss him, and it saddens me to think that he will not be able to enjoy the retirement that he planned to begin in January. My sympathy goes out to Laura, his children Bert and Laura, Bert's wife Mary, and Herb's beloved grandchildren, Emmy, Hank and Sam.

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. 4063, a bill to establish the Rosie the Riveter- World War II Home Front National Historical Park in the State of California, and for other purposes. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, July 12, 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. 4063, the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park Establishment Act of 2000. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. Sincerely, Barry B. Anderson (For Dan L. Crippen, Director). Enclosure.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation which will provide for the recognition of the King Salmon Traditional Village and the Shoonaq' Tribe of Kodiak, Alaska. For the past twenty years these two villages have worked with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior to seek tribal recognition. They have gone through the process at the Department of the Interior and it is now time to grant them recognition. I have two other villages going through the recognition process at the Department of the Interior, and if at time of mark-up of this bill they have addressed the concerns of the Department, we may include the two other villages from Alaska in this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I can only echo what the gentleman has said about Ron. Ron Lasch was my friend. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) has said, when I first arrived here 28 years ago, he was one of the first people who greeted me. I learned to enjoy, and not only enjoy but respect, his wisdom when it came to votes. He was one who could always say, this is the right thing for you, if you would like to see your way to vote that way. More than that, when I went through some trials and tribulations physically, he was one that watched out, with Joelle and Peggy, watched out for me and my health when I would get a little bit excited, and that happened quite often. He always was a great adviser and a good friend, and told me when I should in fact back down and go away for a while and come back when I had cooled off, and do what is correct. He is not really gone, he is just retired. He will still be around, I am confident, and give us a little bit of advice whenever we will ask for it. He will always be part of my career in this great House of ours, this House of the people. It is rare when we have an individual who is hired to work for a large body such as ourselves that stays stable and maintains the decorum and maintains the wisdom that is necessary to go forth with the job and to advise those that are elected. We hired him, as we hire the Chaplain and other Members of this House who have served for us, but he became more than just a hired person, he became part of us. As the gentleman from Michigan has said, he is a person we will miss. I am sure there will be some who will replace him some day, but not too soon. Ron, again, may I say, has been a great asset to this House. More than that, he has been to me an asset for my career. Ron, congratulations on your career. We will miss you, as the gentleman from Michigan has said, but in our hearts you will always be with us.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Ronald Reagan Recognition Act of 2000. Recent news reports indicate that the Interior Department is moving toward a complete moratorium on future memorials in the area known as the Mall in Washington, DC. Mr. Speaker, we can argue the merits of that proposal, but one thing is clear: Under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, Congress, not the Interior Department, has the authority to dispose of federal lands. A decision this important, about how, whether, and where American heros are memorialized on federal lands, should be made by, and in consultation with, Congress. One other thing is very clear: One such American hero, who is deserving of recognition among our great American statesmen, is Ronald Wilson Reagan, 40th President of the United States. Although President Reagan is, thankfully, still very much alive, he is not well. The scourges of Alzheimer's disease have greatly diminished his once tremendous mind. I am sure all my colleagues join me in wishing President and Mrs. Reagan long lives and good health. But tomorrow is promised to no one. We must not stand idly by and wait while the Interior Department eliminates the possibility of a future memorial to President Reagan, robbing future generations of Americans of the opportunity to recognize the tremendous contributions of this great American, and to do so in the midst of the other great Presidents and heros memorialized on the Mall. We must not stand by and deprive this generation of Americans of the opportunity to honor President Reagan themselves, in this small way. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Mall is the family album of the American people. It is where their heros are remembered, and where great accomplishments are celebrated. President Reagan is deserving of both honors. Ronald Reagan is an American hero deserving of recognition by this and future generations of Americans and visitors to the Mall from around the world. Future visitors to a Ronald Reagan Memorial on the Mall should be reminded that as President, Ronald Reagan initiated policies that won the cold war, protected and restored freedom and Democracy around the globe, lowered taxes on American citizens, tamed the economic threats of inflation and economic stagnation, and ushered in an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity across the nation, and his contributions merit permanent memorialization. Future visitors to a Ronald Reagan Memorial on the Mall should be reminded that the legacies of President Reagan include restoring faith in our system of Democracy and capitalism, returning pride in being an American, and renewing the honor and decency of the American Presidency, and are deserving of national recognition. Future visitors to a Ronald Reagan Memorial on the Mall should be reminded that the contributions of former President Reagan, and his status as a pre-eminent twentieth-century American statesman and one of the greatest American Presidents, merit and require a permanent memorialization alongside the other great American leaders memorialized on the Mall in Washington, DC. To accomplish these goals, this bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to identify appropriate lands within the area designated as section 1 of the Mall in Washington, DC, as the location of a future memorial to former President Reagan, requires identification of a suitable location, and selection of a suitable design, authorizes raising private-sector donations for such a memorial, and creates a commission to assist in these activities. Money spent on the memorial would be raised from private sector donors. A commission would be created to oversee the process. And a suitable site on the Mall would be selected, and marked as the ``Future Site of the Ronald Reagan Memorial.'' By statute, the memorial to President Reagan on the Mall will still not occur until 25 years after his death--hopefully long, long in the future. But we must begin the process now, while it is still possible. Remembering that the policies of President Reagan are responsible for the peace and prosperity we now enjoy is especially fitting now, while some national political figures are running around the country trying to take credit for the results. I find it a little like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. The many benefits of Ronald Reagan's policies of limited government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense are still very evident today. Those policies are why this nation is in the good shape we're in today. The fact that some people seem to have forgotten this is the strongest argument yet to begin the steps toward creating this memorial. I can think of no greater tribute, and no more fitting tribute, to a man who has done so much for his nation. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is the least we can do.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House S. 148, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. Neotropical migrants are birds that travel across international borders and depend upon thousands of miles of suitable habitat. Each autumn some 5 billion birds from 500 species migrate between their breeding grounds in North America and their tropical homes in the Caribbean and Latin America. Regrettably, the population of many neotropical migratory bird species had declined to dangerously low levels. There are many reasons for this population collapse including competition among species, hazards along migration routes, pesticide use, and loss of essential habitat. What is lacking is a strategic international plan for bird conservation, money for on-the-ground projects, public awareness, and any real cooperation between those countries where these birds live. While S. 148 will not solve all the problems facing neotropical migratory birds, it is a positive step. Under this bill, we would create a Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account. This account would be used to finance worthwhile conservation projects approved by the Secretary of the Interior. S. 148 has been adopted by the other body, and today we are considering a modified version of that legislation. This bill supports conservation initiatives in the Caribbean, Latin America, and the United States; extends the authorization period until September 30, 2005; lowers the Federal matching requirement; reduces the amount of administrative expenses; and stipulates that not less than 75 percent of the money appropriated under this act must be spent on conservation projects undertaken outside the United States. This is simply recognition of the fact that most of the problems facing neotropical migratory birds occur in foreign migration routes and that every effort should be made to spend these limited Federal funds on conservation and not bureaucracy. Furthermore, as the House author of H.R. 39, I do not expect that any of the money appropriated under this act will be spent on land acquisition in the United States. Finally, I want to thank my good friend, Congressman Richard Pombo, for his willingness to work together on this proposal, and I compliment Senator Spencer Abraham for his tireless leadership on this important conservation measure. I urge an ``Aye'' vote on S. 148.