Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I agree it is my understanding that the Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to undertake this review in a fairly rapid manner. My only concern that any review is truly independent of undue influence. For that reason, I agree with you provided the 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 we must be advised of the process of the review.

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

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman's comments; but I would suggest again with my amendment, the administration and the agency itself had said that they will reach the $19 million and we will only lose, if anything, none this time, all existing programs continue, and next year 10 people are lost, 10 after that, 20 in total; but we will have an accounting, and they will not have this fund which they can use. Remember, this is for the next administration. If there is a problem they cannot implement it because of this legislation, we always can address that. But I do not want anybody to be able to get into that cookie jar. As we remember in 1992, only 2 percent was used for administrative costs; and beginning in 1993 and on, it went up to the full 14 percent. So I do not want that to occur, because there is no justification for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), cochairman of the Sportsmen Foundation, 280 members now, and a great leader for the sportsmen's movement in the Congress.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson). It seems like great Americans have the name ``Peterson.''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which increases the funding levels in the bill from $10 million to $14 million for true administration expenses, but also assumes a transition period that reduces the number of program administrators from 120 to 100 over a period of 3 years, and then it adjusts upward thereafter based on the Consumer Price Index. This amendment makes other technical changes to make sure the bill conforms with the Pittman-Robertson Dingell-Johnson Acts that we are not omitting at this time. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest respectfully that this should answer the concerns of the gentleman from California about not having enough money. It raises the expenses, at least $5 million more. That is $19 million total. In 3 years, we drop the participation of the administrators from 120 to 100. Then if they need more after that, it will ratchet back up if necessary. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

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. I apologize. I think the staff has told me that is settled.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I think everything is taken care of. We have all agreed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I cannot argue against the gentleman's comments and I would gladly accept the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), who visited Alaska to make his fortune and returned home. (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind both of my speakers on that side of the aisle my amendment raises the fund from $10 million to $14 million with a $5 million grant that is $19 million, and I had information from the Department that said that they could operate very well with $19 million. We expect a decrease of personnel probably of 23 members of the total aid program, and that is all. What we are trying to do here is not this administration is future administration, this administration is on its waning days, but future administration, regardless of parties, will not have the opportunity to use these dollars that are paid in good faith by the sportsmen of America and then misspent. Even those within the agency today have told me privately, yes, they made a mistake, and they really would suggest that we are doing the correct thing. We will review this. We will have a very simplistic audit system. I have agreed to that. We will work with those people involved and make sure that in the future time, we will be able to see where they have been able to reach those goals. In closing, may I suggest, I have asked them time and time and time again give me the figures where they need it and how they want to spend it, and the agency itself has been reluctant. In fact, they have stonewalled us. I am trying to get those figures. I am working very hard. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have already informed the Fish and Wildlife of this issue; and, to my knowledge, there has been no fines of that amount, but they could occur. We have to change it so it could not occur. If there has been any fines placed after the passage of the law last year, they have been in the $100, $200, $300 range, and we expect to keep it that way.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, we hope that we will have a vehicle that the gentleman can do it, in fact the bill itself in the near future. I can assure the gentleman that we are well aware of this issue. I will suggest one other thing. It will be taken ahead of the next dove season. I can assure the gentleman from Alabama of that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to the attention of the floor. We cannot address it in legislation. It would not be germane. But I can assure the gentleman from Alabama that the bill that he voted on and I voted on and which I was a sponsor last year concerning this issue was not in the House bill. In fact, it was a clean bill that would really relieve the ``don't know,'' and have, as Fish and Wildlife was, issuing fines against those people. It was trying to take that away from the Fish and Wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Group have interpreted the bill on behalf of Senator Chafee, who is no longer with us, may his soul rest in peace, but he put this in the bill in the waning hours, which none of us knew about. We have been made aware of this by the gentleman's hunters and my hunters and the people involved in Fish and Wildlife Conservation. I have also suggested to the Fish and Wildlife not to interpret the law as the gentleman from Alabama mentioned. But we are going to try to address this issue in the very near future to make sure that the untold fines which are now being suggested be imposed upon individuals will not take place. I am one that does not believe in the baited field, but many times this could occur unbeknownst to the knowledge of the farmer or, in fact, the hunter itself, and it is unfair to put this type of burden upon those people. So I will do everything in my power to make sure that we address the fact that we never supported it.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as has been stated before, we sought an open rule. The Committee on Rules decided to give us the open rule. The law says that a percentage of that money, up to 8 percent for Pittman-Robertson and up to 6 percent for Dingell-Johnson, can be used for administration expenses. We have found out, though, that the maximum percentage was used in 1998. $31 million was used for administration purposes. Throughout the 1990s, the percentage escalated from 2 percent or 3 percent all the way to the maximum, which is 14 percent. Our year-long oversight project examined exactly how the $31 million was supposedly used to administer the important conservation acts. We found out, through the oversight, some very alarming things. Mr. Speaker, I suggest respectfully, in fact, we found out that the money was spent not as the law said it shall be spent, not for administrative purposes. The bill I bring to the House today is designed to make sure that not one dime of wildlife or sport fishing conservation trust funds are misspent again. We have been as accommodating as possible to concerns about adequate levels of funding for program administration, and with the open rule we want to be receptive to other ideas about how to make the conservation funds run more effectively. The bill was developed during a 7-month process with 14 wildlife and fish sport groups representing each State. These groups conceptualized the solutions based on the oversight work of the Committee on Resources. We held three oversight investigative meetings, and we had suggestions from those findings; and this bill is a result of those. The law as exists today does not authorize those expenditures which occurred; but rather than argue over that point, we focused on solutions which are in the bill that I bring to the Committee on Rules today. My cosponsor and I decided to fix the loopholes that the Fish and Wildlife Service point to when they try to justify their expenditure of administration of trust funds. This bill caps the amount of administrative expenditures at $10 million. We spell out exactly what expenses are authorized to administer the program. We add reporting and auditing requirements. We create a transparent multiple- State grant program where $5 million of the funds were improperly used for unauthorized costs. We use some of the savings to enhance hunter safety and education. We create an associate director of Fish and Wildlife, and sport fish trust funds to raise the profile of these important conservation activities and look out for the conservation trust funds. These are solutions of the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell- Johnson acts, two acts that are vital to the conservation and restoration of wildlife and sport fishing in the country. I have asked for only one amendment today under the rule that increases the level of funding from $10 million to $14 million, with a total level of funding of $19 million. We did this to ensure a transition period for 3 years during which there would be a slight reduction in staffing levels that manage that trust fund. My amendment takes the authorized level down from 120 employees in 2001 to 100 employees in 2003. That adjusts the level upward thereafter based on the Consumer Price Index. The amendment makes other technical changes to make sure that the bill conforms with other parts of the underlying Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson acts that are not amended. Other than that, we think we have a good bill. Overall, this is a good bill and should be passed and voted on by all my colleagues.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to make technical amendments to the contract support cost provisions of the Indian Self-Determination Act. These amendments are long overdue, and will finally keep faith with the hundreds of tribes and tribal organizations across the country that so ably carry out the Federal Government's health care and social service programs. One quarter of a century ago Congress firmly launched the Nation into the Indian Self-Determination era by enacting the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. One goal of the Act was to break the cycle of paternalism and despair in our Native American communities. A second goal of the Act was to foster self- reliance and independence. And a third goal was to begin dismantling part of our highly inefficient and distant Federal bureaucracy, by turning over the daily operation of Native American programs from the Federal Government to the tribes and tribal organizations themselves. Twenty-five years later the Indian Self-Determination Act experiment has proven to be a resounding success. All across the country American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and tribal organizations are administering contracts to operate the Federal Government's hospitals, clinics, law enforcement programs, social welfare programs, education programs and a raft of other initiatives serving some of the neediest people in our Nation. And they are doing this with greater efficiency and more services than we here in Washington could ever do it. In my great State of Alaska, the Alaska Native people have been at the forefront of this effort, leading the country's Native American communities in the administration of Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs. Over one-quarter of all IHS programs currently under Native American operation are operated by Alaska Native tribal organizations, who administer over $200 million annually in desperately needed health care programs serving remote villages, many in the midst of Third-World conditions. Likewise, Alaska Native tribal organizations operate the entire BIA system on their own. No other area of the country is as advanced in these respects. Despite its successes, the policy of self-determination has been consistently plagued by problems, with the most severe being the failure of the IHS and the BIA to fully pay contract support costs associated with carrying out these Federal Government programs under duly-executed contracts. This failure has amounted to a cruel hoax on the Native American people being served under these contracts. Let me explain. Mr. Speaker, the programs that have been turned over to Alaska Native and American Indian operation have from the beginning been severely underfunded. A Mr. Speaker, this should not be. In any other area where the Federal Government negotiates contracts with the private sector, the Federal Government fully pays the contractor's audited general and administrative overhead costs. Indeed if the government fails to pay, it can be held liable in a court of law. But somehow when it comes to Native American contractors, the Government thinks it's alright to change the rules, to break the contract, and to deny any liability regardless of the impact on the local people being served. Tribal contractors are made to be second-class contractors. Mr. Speaker, this is not right, and the bill I introduce today will put an end to this practice. In addition, the bill will overcome a number of the more technical problems that have plagued this system. Just one example will make this clear. Most Native American contractors administering IHS and BIA programs run a wide range of other federal programs too. For most tribes, the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General determines a reasonable and necessary administrative overhead rate required to carry out all these programs, using strict guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget. Under the controlling OMB circulars, each federal agency entering into contracts or grants with that tribal contractor is then required to abide by the government-wide indirect cost rate set by the OIG. This system would be fair to the Federal Government, fair to all of the funding agencies, and most importantly fair to the tribal contractors themselves, if everybody played by the OMB Circular rules. But many federal agencies do not. They either ignore the government- wide rate that has been determined by the Inspector General, or they recognize only a fraction of the rate. Once again, the Native American contractors are left holding the bag. In 1998, a ten-year-old class action lawsuit against the Federal Government was eventually settled for over $70 million over this failure alone. The bill I introduce today assures that no such liabilities will ever recur in the future. Further, this bill will clarify the rules governing the expenditure of contract funds; initiate a new measure to maximize efficiency in tribal program operations, improve Federal administration of the Act; clarify the rules governing the computation of contract support costs; provide the Federal agencies more time to plan for the transfer of Federal programs to tribal operation; and strengthen the Act's enforcement measures. Mr. Speaker, in recent years I and many of my colleagues have worked very hard to correct the inequities in the contract support cost system. We have done this because that system is integral to the success of our country's overall Indian Self-Determination Policy. I believe firmly in reducing the size of the Federal bureaucracy. I believe firmly in maximizing local control. I believe firmly in the sanctity of our Government's private contracts with Indian and Alaska Native contractors. And I believe firmly that the Nation's Indian Self- Determination Policy must be corrected so that there is no longer an unfunded mandate that is paid for out of the very same trust programs that serve the neediest of the needs of our First Americans. I therefore urge that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in seeing that this important legislation is enacted as swiftly as possible.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is redundant, number one. It relates to the export of Alaskan oil. The President now has the authority to do so. The cases in law, 104-58--Section 201, states that if the Secretary of Commerce finds that exporting oil has caused sustained material oil supply shortages or sustained oil prices significantly above world market levels, and further finds these supply shortages or price increases have caused or are likely to cause sustained material adverse employment effects in the United States, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall recommend, and the President may take, appropriate action concerning exports of this oil, which may include modifying or revoking the authority to revoke and export. Mr. Chairman, we also had a GAO report that says there is no impact on the West Coast, and I again remind the gentleman from Oregon that there is no capacity for refining the oil from Alaska. Frankly, I would like to sell it all to the lower 48 if they had refinery capabilities. So I ask the Chair to sustain the point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, may I explain the reason I brought the point of order?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, under rule 16 clause 7 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the amendment deals with a different subject matter than the text of the bill. The fundamental purpose of the amendment is unrelated to the bill which is offered. H.R. 3822 addresses issues relative to the U.S. policy regarding foreign assistance to other countries which engage in oil price-fixing of oil produced in other countries and imported to the United States. The subject of the amendment is very different from that bill. It would take away the authority of the President to determine whether to ban the exported oil produced on public lands within the United States to other countries. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and I ask my point of order be sustained

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I noticed one thing when I listened to this debate. If we can bottle the hot air that has been coming from some people on this side of the aisle over here, we can solve the energy crisis right now. I have never heard so many what I call knee-jerk reactions, if we check each one of your cheeks, you will see a black eye, about this whole oil crisis. The solution that I have heard today, we are going to have our strategic reserve drawn down. I happen to agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). If I was an OPEC member, I would say draw it, buddy, because when it is all going, you are going to pay $55 a barrel of oil. That is what I would do, and that is what they will do if we do that. What I want to talk about is the selling of Alaskan oil. My good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) talking about Alaskan oil, we sell from Alaska 55,000 barrels a day of heavy crude. And by the way, we also sell 59,000 barrels a day from California, heavy crude. Now, think about that a moment; but more than that, we are importing 8,650,000 barrels a day from the OPEC countries. If we would stop that 55,000 barrels, it would not stop one bit of the prices increased on the Western States. But more than that, you do not have the capability to refine the oil. The refineries are not there. They are not there, and they will not be there. And most of you know that. This is all, again, hot air. But more than that, we have to set an energy policy. This administration has not done so. I would suggest one thing, the only policy this administration has is a set of kneepads for Mr. Richardson, because he is going to have to beg and beg and beg again. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) also reminds us, they will drop the price of oil down to about $24, $25 a barrel, and we will go on our merry way, because this Congress, in fact, will not come to grips with producing oil. And by the way, gentlemen, all of you in this room are opposing opening ANWR; think about it a moment. I passed that bill in 1995, and your President vetoed it. That is 2,200,000 barrels a day that could come to the West Coast and the East Coast if we had the refining capability; but we do not, and trying to get a refinery built in this country is nearly impossible because it is of this administration. I am saying let us talk about real domestic production.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to be aware of a constructive and welcome agreement concluded this month by the Department of the Interior with the Rongelap Atoll Local Government which is a direct result of a bill passed by the House last year. H.R. 2970, ``A bill to prescribe certain terms for the resettlement of the people of Rongelap Atoll due to conditions created at Rongelap during United States administration of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.'' The primary intent of the legislation which I introduced with the Senior Democratic Member of the Committee on Resources, George Miller, was to extend for ten years the existing resettlement agreement initially required by Congress. Finally, the objective of Congress in H.R. 2970 was accomplished with the signing on March 10, 2000, of the Memorandum of Agreement on Implementation of the ``Agreement Regarding United States Assistance in the Resettlement of Rongelap Concluded Between the United States Department of the Interior and the Rongelap Atoll Local Government''. Rongelap is an atoll in Micronesia and the home of people and islands which was contaminated by high level radioactivity during the U.S. nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands. The United States provides assistance to this former Trust Territory community in accordance with the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, as well as subsequent treaties and agreements relating to the current resettlement projects at Rongelap Island. The background on H.R. 2970 and Rongelap resettlement is set forth in House Report 106-404. The Committee on Resources, which I chair, developed H.R. 2970 on a bipartisan basis, recognizing the success to date of the resettlement and radiological rehabilitation of Rongelap and the need to continue the decision-making process of the resettlement of Rongelap by the local atoll government, rather than directly by the Department of the Interior. However, the legislation was also in recognition that the Department of the Interior had done a good job carrying out the resettlement policies embodied in Section 103(i) of Public Law 99-239, Public Law 102-154, and Section 118(d) of Public Law 104-134. Specifically, in the bill, we agreed to continue for at least another ten years the current program under which the Rongelap Atoll Local Government (RALGOV) manages the Rongelap Resettlement Trust Fund and determines its use to achieve the resettlement goals defined by the Rongelap people and address their current condition of dislocation. On October 26, 1999, the House unanimously approved H.R. 2970, to extend by law the program for the resettlement of Rongelap which has been established by the Department of the Interior as directed by Congress under statutes authorizing resettlement assistance. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which is chaired by my good friend from Alaska, Senator Frank Murkowski. I believe the Senate's willingness to take consideration of H.R. 2970 if the current policy were not continued by agreement between DOI and RALGOV contributed directly to the recent conclusion of just such an agreement. What the DOI and RALGOV have now agreed to and accepted are indeed the same result as would have obtained under H.R. 2970. This outcome could have been accomplished by agreement of the parties or enactment of legislation, and I am pleased that the House action approving H.R. 2970 and the Senate's support for the underlying policy led the parties to take the initiative and agree to extend that policy for ten years as the House bill provided. While the Secretary of Interior necessarily retains the power to disapprove use of the trust fund in a way that does not advance resettlement or address the conditions of dislocation, we believe RALGOV established a good record administering the resettlement program. Use of up to 50% of the annual earnings of the trust fund for local government operations so that it can bear the costs and burdens of administering the resettlement program has proven the efficient and economical way to carry out the resettlement program. Without enabling the local government to support and manage the resettlement program directly, a community decision-making process and administrative structure that would duplicate the local government would have to be created to manage the resettlement process. Instead, the local government has taken responsibility for resettlement, dealing with dislocation and resettlement have become the central organizing mission and purpose of the local government instead of a program being carried out by the U.S. government. This has a democratic institution building effect for the community, and ensures a stable policy and program. This is important for planning purposes because resettlement is a long term project the ground rules for which should not change unless there is a good reason for it. I commend the Rongelap Atoll Local Government for its successful management of Phase I of the resettlement program. Mayor James Matayoshi has improved local government operations in order to make RALGOV administration of resettlement possible. Coordination and cooperation between the local council and the Marshall Islands government is enabling far greater progress than anyone expected. With the extension of the agreement for ten years, Rongelap leaders can confidently engage in long-term planning and take action locally consistent with the federally-funded resettlement plan to move forward in the process of both physical resettlement, radiological rehabilitation, and cultural recovery that is taking place under the resettlement program. Following is the agreement by the Department of the Interior with the Rongelap Atoll Local Government, dated March 10, 2000: Memorandum of Agreement on Implementation of the ``Agreement Regarding United States Assistance in the Resettlement of Rongelap Concluded Between the United States Department of the Interior and the Rongelap Atoll Local Government'' 1. With respect to implementation of the ``Agreement Regarding United States Assistance in the Resettlement of Rongelap Concluded Between the United States Department of the Interior and the Rongelap Atoll Local Government'', dated September 19, 1996, as amended, it is hereby agreed that Section 3 thereof, as amended effective September 29, 1999, shall terminate at the end of fiscal year 2010, unless extended thereafter by agreement of the Secretary of the Interior or applicable law. 2. This agreement shall enter into full effect upon its signature on behalf of the United States Department of the Interior and the Rongelap Atoll Local Government. Date: March 10, 2000. John Berry, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget. For the United States Department of the Interior. Date: March 10, 2000. Howard Hills, Counsel for Resettlement Affairs. For the Rongelap Atoll Local Government.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Mike Kelly on the eve of his retirement from Golden Valley Electric Association in Alaska. Michael P. Kelly has worked for 33 years; 17 of them were as Chief Executive Officer and President of the Golden Valley Electric Association. He is a leader within Alaska's utility industry. Throughout his thirty-three years he has grown Interior Alaska's lone electric co-op into a multi-million dollar enterprise which provides electrical service to an estimated 80,000 people. In fact, during his leadership GVEA has not raised its rates during the last 18 years. Mike has dedicated his career at GVEA to fighting for projects and progress that have benefited consumers in both Alaska's Railbelt and in Alaska's remote regions. He led GVEA's purchase of the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities (electric) System, and has been the facilitator in the construction of the Northern Intertie Project has serve in numerous leadership positions within the industry and in the community of Fairbanks, Alaska. Not only has Mike been a industry leader but more importantly he has been a community leader within Fairbanks as well as a civic leader within the Great State of Alaska. He serves on the Boards of Denali State Bank and the Fairbanks Memorial Hospital Foundation. Mike is a member of Fairbanks Rotary, a past board member of the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. He just completed eight years on the University of Alaska Board of Regents and was the President of the Board from 1996- 1998. Mike as a leader in the utilities industry are notable. Mike has received numerous national, state and local recognitions including the Northwest Public Power Association Raver Award in 1986 for displaying outstanding community service through leadership. Mike was recently named the 199 recipient of the Mason Lazelle Award, the highest honor awarded by the industry in Alaska, at the Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association's Annual Meeting in August, 1999. Mike graduated from Monroe High School and from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks where he majored in Business Management. He is a past recipient of the Business Leader of the Year Award from UAF Associated Students of Business. Mike is also an avid river boater and pilot and in his spare time he enjoys hunting, fishing, trapping and spending time with his family in the great Alaskan outdoors.