Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a bill to solve a unique Alaska problem occurring in the city of Craig, a city located in the far southeastern part of Alaska on Prince of Wales Island, the third largest island in the country. Craig is unlike any other small town or village in Alaska. It has no land base upon which to maintain its local services and no ability to utilize many Federal programs which are dependent upon a large Alaska Native population for eligibility. Nevertheless, the community has grown from a mostly Native population of 250 in 1971 to over 2,500 residents, most of whom are not Alaska Natives. Despite this change in demographics, the town is surrounded by land selections from two different Alaska Native Village Corporations. In fact, 93 percent of the land within the Craig city limits is owned by these village corporations. Under Federal law passed in 1987, none of the village land is subject to taxation so long as the land is not developed. The city of Craig has only 300 acres of land owned privately by individuals within its city limits to serve as its municipal tax base. It can annex no other land because the entire land base outside its municipal boundaries is owned by the Federal Government as part of the Tongass National Forest or another Alaska Native corporation. As its population increases and costs rise, Craig's demands for municipal services increase. According to the State of Alaska, Craig is the fastest-growing first class city in the State. Since its large non- Native majority population makes the town and its residents largely ineligible for Federal programs which serve virtually all other ANSCA villages, it has requested a small conveyance of 4,532 acres of Federal land located not far from the town. That land entitlement would permit the city to develop a land base upon which it could support its increasing demand for municipal services. The land base which is included in this bill has been carefully chosen. It is less than 20 miles from the city and abuts the existing road system. It is the first available land from the city limits not owned by an Alaska Native corporation. The land will complete a sound management system by providing municipal ownership of land adjacent to both existing private and State-owned land. It will be a good use of this land which is nowhere near any environmentally sensitive lands such as wilderness areas. This part of Prince of Wales Island has roads, communities, and other developed sites near it. There will be no land use conflicts created by this conveyance. My bill provides a fairly simple and very reasonable solution to Craig's dilemma: it provides a direct grant of 4,532 acres to the city. While I reviewed a land exchange, the city has no land to trade. The city received no municipal entitlement because the Forest Service never agreed to any land selection by the State of Alaska in this part of Prince of Wales Island. The only substantial land near Craig besides the actual 300 acres on which Craig sits is owned by the Federal Government in the national forest or by Alaska Native corporations. I intend to hold a hearing on this bill early in the next session and begin the process to move the bill through the House to final passage in the Congress.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today we introduce the Common Sense Protection for Endangered Species Act of 2000. My efforts to improve and update the Endangered Species Act date back over my entire 26 years of service in the House of Representatives. The Endangered Species Act or the ESA, was originally adopted in 1973, with the goal of protecting those species of fish, wildlife and plants that were in danger of extinction. However, over the last 26 years the ESA has gotten off course. It is now in danger of foundering in a sea of bureaucratic abuse and misuse. The Committee on Resources has held over 25 hearings on the impacts of the Endangered Species Act since I became the Chairman. We have heard hundreds of witnesses testify regarding the misuse of this law for purposes that have nothing to do with protecting wildlife. We know that there are 1,197 U.S. species listed as endangered or threatened, yet no species has recovered due to actions taken under the Endangered Species Act. The ESA is a failure, when it is judged solely on the basis of the number of species recovered and it is a failure when you realize that it punishes those private property owners who do the most to protect wildlife on their property. We need to turn this failure into a success story and we can do that through the application of some basic common sense principles. First, we need to return more authority and responsibility for wildlife protection back to the states. The states have primary responsibility for wildlife and plants within their borders. The states have done the best job of managing their own wildlife. State programs to restore depleted species of game through good scientific management have been a resounding success. Species such as wild turkey, deer, elk, mountain lions, bear, and countless others managed by the states are becoming so plentiful that their numbers are now considered too plentiful in some areas. Almost every state has its own endangered and threatened species program. Most of the states are doing a better job than the federal government at protecting endangered species and they are doing it in a common sense fashion, unlike some of our federal agencies. However, we seem to be imposing the greatest number of federal resources in those states that have had the best endangered species programs. The State of California, under the leadership of former governor Pete Wilson, developed an endangered species program that is as stringent as the federal program and is the best funded state ESA program in the country, yet we have spent more federal ESA funds in California than in any other state. We need to insure that our scarce federal resources are used in those areas that need federal help--not in those states that are doing a good job. Let's stop duplicating the state's good work and let them do what they do best--manage their own wildlife. Second, it is absolutely imperative that when a new species is added to the list of endangered and threatened species, that the science used to justify that listing is accurate and adequate. We need to improve the quality of the scientific data used to list species. We can only do that by requiring the agency to use good science, not just whatever science happens to be available at the time a petition is received to list a species. When a species is listed that is not really endangered or threatened with extinction, there are severe economic consequences for local communities and for affected private property owners. This should be avoided through the use of well-founded science. Thirdly, we need to be fair to landowners who are affected by the listing of endangered species. Most endangered species are found on private lands. Private landowners need to be given incentives and rewards for protecting endangered and threatened species. Unfortunately, the ESA has been used against landowners to deprive them of the right to use their own property and to demand both land and money from affected landowners. The federal agencies that administer the ESA have been given extraordinary powers which they are using to force landowners to set aside ``in perpetuity'', huge amounts of privately owned lands that can only be used for one purpose--the protection of the public's wildlife and plant species. This type of treatment only discourages other landowners from providing habitat for wildlife. We need to guarantee the public's right to know what the federal government is going to require for the protection of endangered species. The public and affected landowners should be included at every step in the process and should have a right to be heard and to have their questions answered about what kinds of new regulations the government may be proposing. Fourth, we need to insure that when federal agencies' activities affect endangered species that the species are protected, but also those agencies need to fulfill their primary missions. We have seen examples of our military unable to prepare for the national defense because of the presence of endangered species on military lands. Flood control projects are delayed over many years resulting in ever increasing damage from floods. Much needed roads, bridges, and other transportation projects are stopped or delayed. Entire forests are closed to harvesting while timber workers are left unemployed. The list goes on and on. We must insure that the government keeps its promises to private property owners. The Fish and Wildlife Service has issued over 250 permits to various landowners for the use of their property. We need to insure that the federal government does not ignore those permits and demand even greater amounts of land and money in the future during the term of those agreements. Fifth, we must recover the populations of species and then be sure they are taken off the lists of endangered species. Under the current ESA, the federal agencies list species and then never remove them from the lists even when their populations increase dramatically. This is unacceptable. The federal government must work with the local community and affected landowners to develop workable recovery plans for species. The federal government must then keep its word to delist species when the communities make concessions to recover species. Our bill, the Common Sense Protections for Endangered Species Act of 2000 would bring back basic common sense solutions to help achieve all these goals. It would: 1. Improve the listing process by involving and relying upon the expertise of States. 2. Improve petitions and listing investigations and insure greater public participation in the listing process. 3. It would require the use of peer reviewed science to support the listing of species. 4. It would reduce conflicts and economic dislocation caused by federal agency shut downs and provide deadlines for agency decision making. It would insure that agencies fulfill their missions and provide a faster and surer method of resolving conflicts between agencies. It would insure that public safety will be protected. 5. It would allow affected citizens a full opportunity to participate in consultations; discuss the impacts of a biological opinion and any proposed alternatives, receive information on the biological opinion; and receive a copy of the draft biological opinion prior to its issuance. 6. It would prevent abusive and excessive demands on private landowners for their land and money as a condition of getting an ESA permit from the federal government and require reasonable deadlines for making permit decisions. It would insure that conservation agreements are binding on all parties to the agreement. 7. It would make recovery planning an inclusive process and would allow the Secretary to delegate to the states the development and implementation of recovery plans. Designation of critical habitat would become part of the recovery process. It would insure that recovery results in the delisting of species. While I would personally prefer to make even more improvements in the ESA, I feel that these changes will be a good first start toward bringing back a common sense and reasonable approach to our federal government's efforts to recover species. I fully support protecting the rights of private property owners and believe that you can't protect wildlife unless you protect property owners. I also recognize that in order to achieve any goal, you have to take a first step. This is our first step toward Common Sense Protections for Endangered Species.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would address several matters of concern to Alaska Natives through amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971. As my colleagues know, ANCSA was enacted in 1971, stimulated by the need to address Native land claims as well as the desire to clear the way for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and thereby provide our country with access to the petroleum resources of Alaska's North Slope. As the years pass, issues arise which require amending that act. The Resources Committee as a matter of course routinely considers such amendments and brings them before the House. The bill has three provisions. One of the provisions would restore 50,000 acres back to the village of Elim. The Norton Bay Reservation (later referred to as Norton Bay Native Reserve) was formally established in 1917 by an Executive Order and comprised approximately 350,000 acres of land for use of the U.S. Bureau of Education and the Natives of Indigenous Alaskan race. It is located approximately 110 miles southeast of Nome, Alaska along the shoreline of Norton Bay Reservation. Some of the burial grounds were mass graves of Natives who succumbed to epidemics of disease brought into the Eskimo culture by non-Natives. Today, Elim is home to about 300 Alaska Natives and a small number of non-Natives who live and work in the village. In 1919, Congress enacted a law requiring that any future Indian Reservations be established only by an act of Congress. In 1927, Congress passed an act which prohibited boundary adjustments to Executive Order Reservations other than an act of Congress. In 1929, President Herbert Hoover, by an Executive Order, reduced the size of the Elim reservation by 50,000 acres. The land was deleted from the Reservation for the benefits of others and was not offered to be restored to the original Reservation when lands comprising the Reservation were made available to the Native inhabitants of Elim under section 19(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The failure to replace these lands has been and continues to be a source of deep concern to the indigenous people of Elim and until this matter is dealt with equitably, it will continue to be a source of great frustration and sense of loss among the shareholders of Elim Native Corporation and their descendants. This bill will give the Elim Native Corporation 2 years in which to select no more than 60,000 acres depicted on the map dated August 1, 1999, and entitled Land Withdrawal Elim Native Corporation Land Restoration. It also authorizes the Elim Native Corporation to select and receive title to 50,000 acres of lands within the boundary of the lands described on the map. The Secretary is further authorized and directed to receive and adjudicate a selection application by the Elim Native Corporation, and to convey the surface and subsurface estate in the selected lands to the Elim Native Corporation subject to rules, conditions and limitations outlined in this bill. I am attaching copies of two letters (with my statement) from two individuals who support the restoration of 50,000 acres to the people of Elim. The first letter is from Mr. Donald C. Mitchell, Attorney at Law. Mr. Mitchell, over the course of 20 years, has worked on amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and has written a book regarding the history of the ANCSA. The second letter is from Mr. Rick Steiner, Director of The Coastal Coalition, a highly respected conservation group in Alaska. Their letters simply state a brief outline of support for the restoration of 50,000 acres to the people of Elim. Another provision of this bill would allow shareholder stock to be transferred to adopted Alaska Native children and to their descendants. Another provision would amend the definition of a ``settlement trust'' under ANCSA. This bill is the result of the work of the Alaska Federation of Natives, Elim Native Corporation and myself to restore 50,000 acres back to the Native peoples of Elim. The legislative language changes within the bill were revised with the technical assistance of the Department of the Interior. Donald C. Mitchell, Attorney at Law, Anchorage, AK, October 8, 1999. Re: Section 7 of H.R. 3013 (Elim Native Corporation Amendment). Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, Longworth Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representatives Young and Miller: On October 5, 1999 Mr. Young introduced, and the Committee on Resources was referred, H.R. 3013, the Alaska Native Claims Technical Amendments of 1999. In 1971 when it settled Alaska Native land claims by enacting the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) the 92d Congress determined that social and economic justice required that Alaska Natives who resided in a village located within the boundaries of a reservation that had been established for their benefit should be afforded an opportunity to select, and to be conveyed legal title to, all public land located within the reservation's boundaries. The Inupiat residents of the village of Elim took advantage of that opportunity, and the Secretary of the Interior conveyed the Elim Native Corporation legal title to the public land located within the boundaries of the former Norton Bay Reservation, as those boundaries existed in 1971. ANCSA was a milestone in the history of Congress's relations with Native Americans. But because it was by no means perfect, since 1971 subsequent Congresses have amended ANCSA on numerous occasions to provide Alaska Natives additional land selection opportunities when necessary to ensure that the Act achieves its objectives. The most important of those objectives is to afford Alaska Natives social and economic justice regarding their ownership of public land they historically used and occupied. As you know, from 1977 to 1994 I served as counsel to the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), which Alaska Natives organized in 1967 to lead the fight for a fair and just land claims settlement. In that capacity I over the years participated in developing a number of amendments to ANCSA that Congress enacted to ensure that the objective of affording Alaska Natives social and economic justice is achieved. One of the most grievous cases of social and economic injustice of which I became aware during my tenure as AFN's counsel was the caprice with which representatives of the federal executive in 1929 diminished the land rights of the Inupiat residents of the village of Elim by adjusting the boundary of the Norton Bay Reservation without their knowledge or consent. The facts regarding that situation are well-known and uncontroverted. During my tenure at AFN I and others on several occasions attempted to bring the Elim situation to Congress's attention, but we were no successful. As a consequence, I am delighted to find that section 7 of H.R. 3013 attempts to remedy the injustice that was inflicted on the Inupiat residents of Elim in 1929 when the boundary of the Norton Reservation was unfairly, and in my view unlawfully, modified. For that reason, I would respectfully, but strongly, urge you and other members of the Committee on Resources to favorably report section 7 of H.R. 3013 to the U.S. House of Representatives, either as part of H.R. 3013, or as a stand-alone bill. Sincerely, Don Mitchell.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce H.R. 3013, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to allow shareholders common stock to be transferred to adopted Alaska native children and their descendants and for other purposes. This bill is very similar to H.R. 2803, however, the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Department of the Interior have agreed to delete Section 7, the Partial Section Selections from the original bill. Other provisions in the bill contains revised language recommended by the Department of the Interior to address some of their concerns. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am introducing H.R. 3013 with language revision changes to three provisions of H.R. 2803. This is to allow our Committee to hold a hearing next Wednesday on a new and expanded version of H.R. 2803 which reflects changes recommended by the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Department of the Interior.

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. 2841, an act to amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands to provide for greater fiscal autonomy consistent with other United States jurisdictions. Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, September 28, 1999. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2841, an act to amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands to provide for greater fiscal autonomy consistent with other United States jurisdictions, and for other purposes. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is John R. Righter, who can be reached at 226-2860. Sincerely, Dan L. Crippen, Director. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate September 28, 1999 H.R. 2841--An act to amend the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands to provide for greater fiscal autonomy consistent with other United States jurisdictions, and for other purposes--as passed by the House on September 27, 1999 H.R. 2841 would provide the government of the Virgin Islands, a territory of the United States, more flexibility in issuing general obligation debt (that is, debt that the Virgin Islands secures by pledging its full faith and credit). Specifically, the legislation would allow the Virgin Islands to issue general obligation debt for any public purpose authorized by its legislature. It also would remove certain types of debt from the territory's limit on aggregate debt and would allow its government to pay bondholders on a monthly or quarterly basis. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that enacting H.R. 2841 would decrease governmental receipts by about $2 million over the 2000-2004 period, with the amount of forgone receipts totaling less than $500,000 for each year. The estimates loss of receipts would occur as a result of the government of the Virgin Islands increasing its amount of tax-exempt debt. Because the legislation would affect governmental receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. In addition, the legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement with the Governor of the Virgin Islands to establish financial controls and performance standards for the territory. Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, CBO estimates that providing the technical assistance would not significantly increase costs at the Department of the Interior. H.R. 2841 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. The legislation would provide significant benefits to the government of the Virgin Islands. The CBO staff contact is John R. Righter, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to provide for the continuance of higher education in the State of Alaska by conveying certain public lands in the State to the University of Alaska system. This bill is not a new idea: it follows on and honors a commitment Congress first made in 1915 when the then-territory was promised a generous land grant for higher education, but due to circumstances outside Alaska's control, was never completed. As a result, the largest state has the second lowest Federal land grant of all land grant institutions nationwide even though Congress intended each state to acquire a large grant for its higher education needs. The legislation I introduce today rectifies this gross oversight and puts Alaska's premier university on equal footing with other land grant institutions. This is only fair for a State with over 240 million acres of land owned by the Federal Government and most of that locked away from any development. The history behind this issue begins in 1915 when Congress reserved about 268,000 acres of public domain for the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines (the former name of the University of Alaska). However, barely any land had been surveyed at that time, and only a fraction could be transferred. In 1958, the Alaska Statehood Act eliminated the original 1915 grant, with no clear, historical record explaining why. Alaska's university land grant today stands at only 112,000 acres in total. If the same formula for granting lands were used as in some other states, Alaska could have received five million acres. A Federal land grant is vital to the future of higher education in Alaska. I believe its most important role is to make a top-tier educational opportunity available to those who otherwise must travel hundreds, even thousands of miles to the lower 48 States for college. I don't want to see this role compromised because the university is not on an equal footing with its competitors in the lower 48 States. The legislation introduced today will provide to the university system a grant of 250,000 acres of Federal land, and up to 250,000 acres more on an acre-for-acre matching basis with the State. The University may not select lands in national parks, refuges, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, or specific areas of the national forest system. Thus, those lands open to selection are those which Congress, as ANILCA declares, are ``necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and disposition . . .'' This bill also benefits the national conservation areas in Alaska. It conditions the Federal grant on the university's relinquishment of 13,900 acres of inholdings surrounded by national parks, refuges and wildernesses. The relinquished lands will be added to the units in which they are located. At its core, this in an education bill. By providing a land base with which to derive resources for the future, Alaskans will continue to receive the fruits of our university system without having to travel outside the State to colleges which were granted their full land entitlements.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, though I believe it doesn't go nearly far enough to rein in the political chicanery surrounding Antiquities Act withdrawals and declarations. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear opponents of this bill deplore the simple requirement that the President follow the National Environmental Policy Act--NEPA--the same stringent environmental review law that other federal agencies have to follow. Why does the President of the United States have the prerogative to make a small inholder in my state, owning just 20 acres inside a 6- million-acre park, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct extensive NEPA studies (on behalf of the Park Service) just to have access to his property. How can he justify this at the same time the public--American citizens--cannot demand these studies when millions of acres of land are about to be declared a monument? This is about accountability and credibility. It's hard to believe, but the public knew less about the President's motives behind the Grand Staircase Escalante withdrawal, than about his mysterious motives behind the pardoning of Puerto Rican terrorists! Only through the untiring work of my Committee on Resources did we reveal the politically motivated, back-room, election-year deal-making to sacrifice the rights of Utah school children just to please a few Hollywood actors. I am outraged at the abuse of the Antiquities Act, and it only makes me wonder who's next. Alaska? Arizona? Missouri? I guess that depends on where Republican districts are located, and which Hollywood celebrity bedazzles the President and his aides. But we all know that this is just politics as usual. This bill simply makes the President do what all other Americans are forced to do for major federal actions: do a NEPA Environmental Impact Study. If they truly believe that NEPA is a worthy law and protects our environment, then the Clinton/Gore Administration should be required to comply with it, just like everyone else.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted in favor of the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1501 offered by Ms. Lofgren. My vote should have been recorded as a vote in opposition to the motion.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1431 reauthorizes the Coastal Barrier Resources Act for five years and corrects mapping errors in three units of the System. The Coastal Barrier Resources System prohibits Federal development assistance on undeveloped coastal barriers and it is a sound natural resource management policy. The Act does not prohibit private development on private lands. However, it requires the landowner, not the Federal Government, to shoulder the burden of cost and assume the risks when developing dynamic barrier islands. Regrettably, the Federal Government has been known to make mistakes from time to time. This is the case with the System units that are addressed in H.R. 1431. Three otherwise protected areas--one in Florida, one in Delaware, and one in North Carolina--were mapped incorrectly when these units were created in 1990. At the time these otherwise protected areas were delineated, the Fish and Wildlife Service incorrectly included private lands that were not held for conservation purposes into the otherwise protected areas, in direct contradiction to the intent of the Act. This mistake effectively cut off Federal flood insurance for many existing homes. Similarly, the 1990 maps did not include all of the public lands that should have been included in the otherwise protected areas. H.R. 1431 makes changes to the maps to reflect the true boundaries of the underlying conservation areas, and it results in a net addition of more than 2,000 acres for the System. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will correct mapping errors that have adversely affected several private landowners for nearly a decade. H.R. 1431 is a good bill and I urge an aye vote.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1243, which reauthorizes the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. The National Marine Sanctuaries Program is our nation's underwater park system. This is a good bill that will improve the operation of the program. I strongly support the provision that limits NOAA's ability to designate new National Marine Sanctuaries until the management plans at existing sanctuaries are implemented and significant progress has been made toward completing on-site studies. With limited funding, it is inappropriate to spend scarce dollars to expand the system while management of the existing sanctuaries consistently falls short. Title II reauthorizes the National Estuarine Reserve System, a program which establishes Federal-state partnerships for managing and enhancing our estuaries. The program is supported with matching funds provided by the states and the Federal Government, and much of the day- to-day management of the reserves is left to the state or local partner. The National Estuarine Reserve Program is not a regulatory program, but rather maintains a mission of research, monitoring and education. One of the newest reserves is located in Kachemak Bay, Alaska, which is contiguous with the southeastern entrance of Cook Inlet. This reserve encompasses nearly 365 thousand acres of aquatic habitat. This reserve is managed in cooperation with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and provides an area for researching and monitoring important Pacific salmon habitat. I believe that the Kachemak Bay Reserve serves an important function for monitoring coastal resources and maintaining healthy fish stocks. I urge the adoption of H.R. 1243.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, the Bikini Resettlement and Relocation Act of 1999, H.R. 2368, is an important measure to help the relocation and resettlement of the people of Bikini Atoll. This community was displaced during the time of United States nuclear testing in the Pacific and while the U.S. was the administering authority for the islands under the United Nations Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Congress continues to have responsibility for the trust funds that were established during the trusteeship for the resettlement and relocation of certain island communities, including Bikini Atoll. The Committee on Resources conducted a Congressional pre-hearing briefing on May 10th and a hearing on May 11th, 1999, on the status of nuclear claims, relocation and resettlement efforts in the Marshall Islands. During the hearing process, the elected representative of the people of Bikini presented the Kili/Bikini/Ejit Local Government Council's May 12, 1999 Resolution, asking Congress to support a one- time 3% distribution from the Resettlement Trust Fund, which is used both for the cleanup of Bikini and for the ongoing needs of the Bikini people. In addition, the Marshall Islands Government expressed unqualified support for the Bikini request. Congress established the Resettlement Trust Fund in 1982 pursuant to P.L. 97-257 and appropriated additional funds in 1988 pursuant to P.L. 100-446. I introduced H.R. 2368 jointly with the Ranking Minority Member George Miller of the Committee on Resources on June 29, 1999, to respond to the request of the Bikini community and the government of the Marshall Islands. My statement of introduction appeared in the Congressional Record on that date with the text of the Kili/ Bikini/Ejit Local Government Council's May 12, 1999 Resolution on June 29, 1999 H.R. 2368 would: Authorize a one-time 3% distribution from the Resettlement Trust Fund for relocation and resettlement assistance primarily for the remaining senior citizens of Bikini Atoll [3% of $126 million or $3.7 million]; not require an appropriation of any funds by the U.S. Congress; not diminish the original corpus of the Resettlement Trust Fund [$110 million]; provide relocation assistance now to the surviving 90 members of Bikini who were removed from their home island, as it may still take years to complete radiological restoration of the atoll to permit safe habitation; and respond to the resolution of the Bikini Council requesting this legislative action by Congress. The Bikinians, for their part, have ensured the fiscal integrity of the Resettlement Trust Fund. They have selected reputable U.S. banks as trustees, hired well-respected and talented investment advisors and money managers, and provided for routine monthly financial statements and annual audits. Due to the Bikini Council's voluntary restraint on the use of these funds, and the success of the fund managers, the corpus remains intact, the trust fund has earned almost 14% annually, every dollar has been accounted for, annual audits are prepared, and monthly financial statements are sent to the Interior Department. In light of the strength of the trust, its fiscal integrity, the lengthy time a cleanup and restoration will take, and the special circumstances of the elders, the Bikinians wish to make a one-time 3% distribution from the Resettlement Trust Fund, with the understanding that the primary beneficiaries of the distribution will be the 90 surviving Bikini elders. Because of the excellent management of the trust fund, such a distribution will not require an appropriation of funds by Congress, nor will it diminish the original corpus of the trust. The authorization in H.R. 2368 for the people of Bikini is appropriate and consistent with the desires of the community of Bikini and congressional intent for the resettlement of the people whose lives and homes were disrupted by U.S. testing. This measure assists some of the people of the former Trust Territory community administered by the United States, who we still maintain relations through a Compact of Free Association. Without any additional cost to the U.S. taxpayer, Congress can be responsive to the remaining senior Bikini elders' resettlement and relocation efforts.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute an outstanding young woman who has been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by Farthest North Girl Scout Council in Fairbanks, Alaska. She is: Alisa Pierson. She is being honored for earning the highest achievement award in United States Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. The award can be earned by young women aged fourteen through seventeen, or in grades nine through twelve. Girl Scouts of the United States of America, an organization serving over 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the Gold Award program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award and the Girl Scout Challenge Pin, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the Girl Scout and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. As a member of the Farthest North Girl Scout Council, Alisa Pierson began working on her Gold Award Project during the summer of 1997. Alisa developed her time management and communication skills and then used them in the community by organizing and arranging a picnic at Alaskaland, an outdoor park in Fairbanks, for the residents of Denali Center, an organization that caters to senior citizens with special needs. She also volunteered her time at Fairbanks Community Hospital where she performed data entry for the Bio Medical Maintenance department. As a result of her accomplishments, Alisa developed greater leadership, organizational and planning skills. Her thoughtfulness also contributed widely to Fairbanks and it's surrounding communities. I believe that Alisa should receive the public recognition due to her for these significant services to her community and her country.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that would address several matters of concern to Alaska Natives through an amendment to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). As my colleagues know, ANCSA was enacted in 1971, stimulated by the need to address Native land claims as well as the desire to clear the way for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and thereby provide our country with access to the petroleum resources of Alaska's North Slope. As the years pass, issues arise which require amending that Act. The Resources Committee as a matter of course routinely considers such amendments and brings them before the House. Consequently, I am introducing this bill containing several such amendments to ANCSA in order to facilitate having its provisions circulated during the upcoming Congressional recess through the Congress and the Administration as well as the State of Alaska for review and consideration. This bill has nine provisions. One provision would allow common stock to be willed to adopted-out descendants and another would clarify the liability for contaminated lands. The clarification of contaminated land would declare that no person acquiring interest in land under this Act shall be liable for the costs of removal or remedial action, any damages, or any third party liability arising out or as a result of any contamination on that land at the time the land was acquired under this Act. Section 5. Alaska Native Veterans Section 5 of the bill amends the Act further to allow equal access to Alaska Native Veterans who served in the military or other armed services during the Viet Nam war. Alaska Natives have faithfully answered the call of duty when asked to serve in the armed services. In fact, American Indians and Alaska Natives generally have the highest record of answering the call to duty. Under the Native Allotment Act, Alaska natives were allowed to apply for lands which they traditionally used as fish camps, berry picking camps or hunting camps. However, many of our Alaska natives answered the call to duty and served in the services during the Viet Nam war and were unable to apply for their native allotment. This provision allows them to apply for their native allotments and would expand the dates to include the full years of the Viet Nam war. The original dates recommended by the Administration only allowed the dates January 1, 1969 to December 31, 1971. Our Alaska Natives veterans should not be penalized for serving during the entire dates of the Viet Nam conflict. This provision corrects that inequity by expanding the dates to reflect all the years of the Viet Nam war--August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975. Section 8. Elim Native Corporation Land Restoration In 1917, the Norton Bay Reservation was established on 350,000 acres of land located on the north side of Norton Bay southeast of Nome, Alaska for the benefit of Alaska Natives who now reside in the village of Elim, Alaska. The purpose of the establishment of the reservation included providing a land, economic, subsistence, and resources base for the people of that area. In 1929, through an Executive Order, 50,000 acres of land were deleted from the reservation with little consultation and certainly without the informed consent of the people who were to be most affected by such a deletion. After passage of ANCSA, only the remaining 300,000 acres of the original Reservation were conveyed to the Elim Native Corporation. This loss of land from the original Reservation has become over the years a festering wound to the people of Elim. It now needs to be healed through the restoration or replacement of the deleted fifty thousand acres of land to the Native Village Corporation authorized by ANCSA to hold such land. As I am sure my colleagues will agree, the history of our nation reflects many examples of injustices to Native Americans. As hearings will confirm, this is one of those calls out to be sensibly remedied and can be with relative ease as outlined in this section of the bill. Again, I am introducing this bill today to facilitate having its provisions circulated and reviewed during the August recess by the Department of the Interior, the State of Alaska and Alaska natives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to expand Alaska Native contracting of Federal land management functions and activities and, promote hiring of Alaska Natives by the federal government within the State of Alaska. This bill was developed in response to my request to the Alaska Federal of Natives at their retreat in August of 1998. Pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, tribes are authorized to enter into contracts with the Department of the Interior to directly administer programs previously administered by that agency. Congress strongly advocated this change to allow tribes to provide direct and improved services to their members. The bill entitled ``Alaska Federal Lands Management Demonstration Project'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a demonstration project in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 with no less than six eligible Alaska Native tribes or tribal organizations to manage a conservation unit or other public land unit within the closest proximity of that tribal organization. The bill further directs the Secretary to fully fund these demonstration projects in the same manner he would have funded the programs if they were still being managed by the Department of the Interior. It has always been my strong belief that Alaska Natives can manage conservation units or national park systems units as well or even better than the federal government. Alaska Natives have demonstrated their reliance of the land, the conservation of its bounty and great respect for the cautious management of its resources to preserve for future generations. I believe that Alaska Natives should be given the opportunity to manage federal conservation units that are in close proximity to their own lands. The Alaska regional non-profits worked long and hard to carefully draft a bill which would have the support of the Alaska Federation of Natives and all of the Alaska regional non-profits. I believe it is time that we authorize Alaska Native entities to manage federal conservation units in the manner consistent with lands that they have carefully preserved and utilized for thousands of years. This bill does exactly that.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, as co-author of H.R. 2454, I rise in strong support of the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act. The fundamental goal of this legislation is to stop the destruction of the Canadian Arctic Tundra by a growing population of mid-continent light geese. If we do not act, these valuable wetlands may be lost forever. Three years ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service joined with the Canadian Wildlife Service, Ducks Unlimited, the National Audubon Society and several State and Provincial Fish and Game Departments in forming the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. After carefully studying the problem, the Group issued a report that recommended that the population of mid-continent light geese, which now numbers more than five million birds, be cut in half within six years. The working group suggested that the food supply be reduced along U.S. Flyways, baiting of light geese be permitted, sharpshooters be hired to kill large numbers of geese and additional hunting methods such as electronic goose calls and unplugged shotguns be utilized. The Fish and Wildlife Service carefully reviewed these recommendations and it conducted an exhaustive analysis of the various wildlife management options to reduce the population. It flatly rejected the flawed idea of ``letting nature run its course'' because it would cause an environmental catastrophe and many of the suggestions of the Working Group were not implemented. In fact, in the end, the Service issued two modest rules which would have increased the harvest of light geese by allowing hunters to use electronic calls and unplugged shotguns. While these changes by themselves would not save the fragile Arctic ecosystem, they were a responsible step in the right direction. Once enacted these rules will reduce the population of mid-continent geese and more importantly they will slow the destruction of the Arctic Tundra that is being transformed from thickly vegetated wetlands to a virtual desert. In La Prouse Bay in Canada, which is a critical nesting site, more than 60 percent of the salt-marsh vegetation has already been destroyed or damaged to the point where it is unable to nourish birds. Regrettable, in response to a court order, the Fish and Wildlife Service withdrew their regulations and they are now completing an Environmental Impact Statement on mid-continent light geese. While that occurs, the Arctic Tundra will continue to be destroyed an acre at a time and these essential wetlands which provide life for literally hundreds of avian species, besides geese, will be irreplaceably lost. There is a better way. H.R. 2454 will reinstate the Fish and Wildlife Service's rules in their identical form. It is a temporary solution and it will sunset no later than May 15, 2001. This legislation is strongly supported by the Administration, the States, and by most of the conservation community including Ducks Unlimited and the National Audubon Society. In closing, let me quote from the Chairman of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group, Dr. Bruce Batt, who testified that ``the finite amount of suitable goose breeding habitat is rapidly being consumed and eventually will be lost. Every technical, Administrative, legal and political delay just adds to the problem. There is real urgency here as we may not be far from the point where the only choice is to record the aftermath of the crash of goose numbers with the related ecosystem destruction with all the other species that live there with geese.'' I urge an aye vote on H.R. 2454, a bipartisan bill that will save critical Arctic wetlands.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against Section 506 of the bill, found at page 36, lines 21 to 25. This language repeals the Denali Commission Act of 1998 and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2(b) of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to offer a point of order on Section 506 at this point in the reading.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the language beginning on page 37, line 23 and ending on page 38, line 13, as follows: Provided further, that Public Law 94-241, as amended, is further amended (1) in section 4(b) by deleting ``2002'' and inserting ``1999'' and inserting after the words ``$11,000,000 annually'' the following: ``and for fiscal year 2000, payments to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be $6 million, but shall return to the level of $11,000,000 annually for fiscal year 2001 and 2002. In fiscal year 2003 the payment to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall be $5,000,000''; (2) deleting the word ``and'' at the end of subsection (4)(c)(2); (3) deleting the period at the end of subsection (4)(c)(3) and inserting in lieu thereof ``and''; and (4) in section (4)(c) by adding a new subsection as follows: ``(4) for fiscal year 2000, $5,000,000 shall be provided to Guam.'' This language clearly amends an underlying statute, Public Law 94- 241, by reducing mandatory payments to be made to the Northern Mariana Islands and authorizes funds for another entity not contemplated in Public Law 94-241. This constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2(b) of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. I ask that the Chair sustain my point of order. Guam is due the $5 million that is in the present bill for compact impact. This administration should work to fund Guam for this unfunded mandate but not penalize Mariana's covenant funds. Mr. Chairman, I ask to sustain my point of order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the other traps do not work. So the gentleman does not know what he is talking about. The other traps do not work. It is impossible for them to transport those traps out to the areas they have to trap in, and they are not effective. The Conibear trap, which my colleague just talked about, is the most unselective trap of all. If one is a good trapper, they can set these traps to where they catch what they are seeking. They can do that. The Conibear catches anything and everything that touches it. That is what the gentleman does not understand. The leghold trap is not the most humane trap. The Conibear trap is a killer and it kills everything that steps into it. Not a leghold trap. If they are after mink they use one. If they are after a little larger, one and a half. It goes right on up. And they set them appropriately for the species they are trying to catch. This is a bad amendment. Like I said, the administration, every Fish and Wildlife person involved is against it. This amendment should be defeated, if not for good sound wisdom and science, but for the poor people of my State. Go ahead and take away their livelihoods. Feel proud of yourselves. Eliminate their chances. If it makes my colleagues feel good, then go right ahead and do it. But remember, they will have that on their conscience, especially when any scientist or any biologist will tell them that the leghold trap is the proper method to be used. I think the gentleman should reconsider his amendment, and I urge the defeat of his amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, as my good friend from Utah has mentioned, the administration is adamantly opposing the amendment and so is the International Association of Fish and Wildlife. But it never ceases to amaze me. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) has never seen a trap in his life. He has never seen a trap. He has never trapped. I am the only licensed trapper in this whole Congress, the only person who has ever done any trapping commercially and for subsistence. I will tell my colleagues what really disturbs me is that they are not looking at a management tool. But more than that, my colleagues wonder why I am upset about this. We have in my State a group of people that have to have trapping for their welfare. These are native people that they have surrounded by refuge lands. Yes, they say, they can do it for subsistence. But this is not for subsistence. This is for a livelihood. And my colleagues are going to take it away from them. I did not want that refuge, but it was created by this Congress around most of the villages of native people in my State. What the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is doing is taking the poor little guy and squishing him and eliminating his ability to make any livelihood at all. Now, I am ashamed of the gentleman for not even thinking of that. If my colleagues want to exclude Alaska, that is their business; but that is what should have been done. But they are hurting my people. I again say I am the only trapper that has done this professionally. I have never hurt an animal. The trap works efficiently, as the Department of the Interior says it does. It is a tool that must be used. By the way, if my colleague has an antitrap law in his State, he cannot trap on Federal lands. If he wants to do it, pass it in his State. But do not mess with my State.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Absolutely, as far as the sovereignty tribes. I understand those who are against gambling, but this was set up very carefully. The Secretary now is an arbitrator. And, very frankly, in most cases, in some cases rarely, there has been an agreement with the State and with the governor for the establishment of gambling activity. And I have studied this very carefully. If we go into this and adopt this amendment today, as good as it may feel for some, I can guarantee it will make an awful lot of lawyers rich, and I do not want any more lawyers rich.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman from Washington has actually put it very clearly. I would like to suggest to my colleagues that they are interfering with something that really I believe would be unconstitutional because of the Sovereignty Act.

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