Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Chairman, for those that are saying this is a nonenvironmental bill, and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) said that all environmental groups are against it, I would like it to say also that, yes, they are, because they have told people, and I have got confirmation of this, that they are just going to show the Congress how strong they are. Because I asked them specifically what was wrong with this bill. They could not give me an answer. Yes, they brought up the Chugach Road. But remember, Madam Chairman, my colleagues voted on this. It was voted on in this House; and I won, and my colleagues lost. We won that by 250 votes. Think about that a moment. We bring this up as an issue. They did not like the results, so now they are saying this is a bad bill. This is already law. We should pass it. It will be signed in law, the President will sign it, and that road will be built. But think about all those proposals in this package that said they were not hurt. By the way, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is not here, but the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is in here, and we did not hear anything about his bill, and he wanted it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale) came to me and said this is a good bill. We looked at it, and he wants it. Let us see. Oh, by the way, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney). The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney), that is interesting. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). Let us go down the line here a ways. There is the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). I can go on down. No hearings. But we reviewed these, and they were good pieces of legislation, and I happen to have the belief that this is a representative form of government. If someone thinks this is right for the district, they have to live with it. Now to have the environmental communities come out and say that this is bad environmental legislation, this is a disservice. It goes to show us how far the environmental community has gone in the United States. They are zealots. They think nothing of the people that live in those districts, nor the Representatives that represent them. I am terribly disappointed. In the rule I mentioned that those of us that have legislation in this bill and, in fact, do not vote for this bill, do not come to me next year and say, ``I need this.'' Think about it a moment. My colleagues asked for this. Now they say it is bad because they say there are wrong things in it. I will say this to the gentleman from New York. I said before he ought to be ashamed, because the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) worked very hard with him all through this last 2 years trying to reach a solution. The gentleman from Utah has given, and he gave more than I would have ever given. San Rafael I never would have given up, but he did trying to reach the compromise. Now to have opposition because certain interest groups call my colleagues on the phone and say this is a bad piece of legislation, my, God, when are they going to start thinking for themselves? It is time to start thinking about America and the people and not some interest group that has a bill around this highway. I am ashamed of those people that respond to those.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, this is a good rule that should be adopted. First of all, I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen). He has done an excellent job. In fact, he has done more than I would have done in the realm of trying to become reality in the sense of compromise with all walks, all thoughts, and all understanding. He has done an excellent job. This is a pro-environment, pro-park, pro-history preservation bill that will improve our national parks, wild and scenic rivers, heritage areas, national forests, and many other public lands. Most of the sections of this bill have gone through individual hearings and followed the legislative process on freestanding bills. Sixty-seven Members of this Congress from both parties have worked on separate pieces of legislation in this bill. We have worked closely with the Members on the important projects, Members of the Republican side and Democrat side. This bill affects 36 different States, the District of Columbia, and will benefit millions of people. I will not list all the projects of this bill, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) will speak about that in the general debate. Let me say, though, this bill is a delicate balance, a very delicate balance. There will be some Members who believe we have spent too much time on the parks, some who believe we have not spent enough. I think it is a good investment. There are those who are going to make the usual accusations we are not protecting the environment enough, but this bill creates new opportunities for recreation, for protection of our wildlife, and for improving the quality of life of Americans. This bill deserves the support of every Member of this House. May I say, Madam Speaker, that for those who may think about voting against this bill or this rule, I would suggest respectfully, because I have worked with each Member who has come to me, it is going to be very difficult in the future to listen to someone sincerely when they do not support their own legislation, or when they suggest that ``I want to have mine, but no one else gets theirs.'' I suggest that those things that are in Ohio, those things that are in Pennsylvania and California, Mississippi, all those other States, those Members had better think very carefully about this great bill. As far as the administration threatening to veto it, I have never for the life of me understood why we have to listen to the administration with regards to administration saying they are going to veto it. We are supposed to be the governing body for the people. If he wants to veto a parks bill, let the President veto it. I have no objection to that, if he wishes to do so. That is our form of government. But I have listened day after day to this President threatening vetoes. I am saying, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves if we listen just to the President. Under our Constitution, we are the House of the people. It is our decision. If we want to vote this bill down, fine, but do not vote it down because in fact he threatens a veto. If Members want a king, they can have a king. I suggest the President would make a very poor king.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1833) to amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to provide for further self-governance by Indian tribes, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1833, the proposed Tribal Self-Governance Amendments Act of 1998, would make permanent the Indian Health Service Self-Governance demonstration program. Thereby, Indian and Alaska Native tribes would be able to contract for the operation, control, and redesign of various IHS activities on a permanent basis. Pursuant to H.R. 1833, tribes which have already contracted for IHS activities would continue under the provisions of their demonstration compacts, while an additional 50 tribes would be selected each year to enter into compacts. H.R. 1833 also allows for the tribal contracting of programs outside the IHS, but within the Department of Health and Human Services on a demonstration-project basis. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1833 is a major piece of Native American legislation which we have been working on for months and months. This bill lays out 55 pages of findings, Secretarial obligations, Secretarial prohibitions, rulemaking requirements, reporting requirements, and tribal obligations. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), and his staff, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), and his staff, along with my staff, have worked extensively on this legislation. I commend them and their staffs for their perseverance through the scores of meetings which were needed to craft this bill. This is a landmark piece of legislation in the field of self- governance. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have had a part in its movement through Congress. I support H.R. 1833 and ask my colleagues to vote for this legislation and urge the passage by my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1154, H.R. 2370, H.R. 1833, and H.R. 2742, the bills just considered and passed.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2742, the proposed California Indian Land Transfer Act, would transfer eight parcels of excess Bureau of Land Management land to eight Indian tribes in the State of California. I recommend the adoption of H.R. 2742. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2742) to provide for the transfer of public lands to certain California Indian Tribes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1154) to provide for administrative procedures to extend Federal recognition to certain Indian groups, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1154, the proposed Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1998, is a bill intended to speed up the Federal recognition process and to update the existing procedures for extending Federal recognition to Indian tribes. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1154 would revamp the Federal recognition process for Indian groups by eliminating bias and conflict of interest and by establishing an independent, 3-member commission to review tribal recognition petitions. Among other things, H.R. 1154 would require a petitioning tribe to prove: 1, that it and its members have been identified as Indians since 1934; 2, that it has exercised political leadership over its members since 1934; 3, that it has a membership roll; and 4, that it now exists as a community. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important bill to the many Indian bands around this Nation who have a legitimate right to Federal recognition, but who have been denied that right because of a slow, cumbersome, and enormously expensive process. If there ever was a better example of justice being denied through justice delayed, I am not aware of it. Mr. Speaker, one tribe seeking recognition discovered recently, after 8 years of waiting, I say again, 8 years of waiting, that the bureaucrats down at the Interior Department have done absolutely nothing on the tribe's application for recognition because the Department bureaucrats had ``misplaced'' the tribe's paperwork. It took 8 years to find that out. I do not know what else is not getting done down at that Department, but I do know that the time has come to straighten out this mess. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. I urge the passage of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With all due respect for my good friend from Virginia, this is about recognition of American Indians who were here long before we were. We have seen delays, and yes, there may have been some that maybe have been misused, but that does not excuse the inactivity of an agency that had the responsibility. All this bill does is try to expedite the process so that delays do not occur. Let us not kid ourselves. There are those in this body that do not like American Indians. There are those in this body, in fact, that look upon them as the less of all minorities and have no recognition nor standing in our society. Their lands were stolen, their lands were taken, their lands were sold, and as long as they are down in the dumps, then that is where a lot of people want them to be. I think it is very unfortunate, very unfortunate that the gambling issue has been brought into this arena at this time. That is another act, an act that was passed by this Congress overwhelmingly. An act that has been used, yes, adequately in many areas, and in fact, honorably in a lot of areas. If there has been some wrong or injustice that occurred, then that is the responsibility of law, the responsibility of enforcement officers, the responsibility, yes, of this Congress, if it is necessary. But to say that this is an attempt to take and legalize and further spread gambling is incorrect. I am proud of my relationship and my work with American Indians. I think they should and have been recognized, but not nearly enough, for it is time for this body to understand we owe them, and we shall pay them, and we shall recognize them.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2370) to amend the Organic Act of Guam for the purposes of clarifying the local judicial structure and the office of Attorney General, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2370. I want to compliment the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood). This bill is the amendment to the Organic Act of 1998, which authorizes increased self-government for the U.S. citizens of the American territory of Guam. These changes have been the subject of hearings conducted by the Committee on Resources. A consensus of support of the proposed changes to Guam's Organic Act emerged from testimony by various people from Guam. Furthermore, the Guam legislature petitioned Congress for the changes now before the House. One provision would amend Guam's Organic Act to allow local law to provide for the election rather than the appointment of Guam's Attorney General. Another provision permits the quorum size requirement of the legislature be changed from the specific number of 11 out of 21 to a simple majority. While the proposed changes to the Guam local government are justified and appropriate, these kinds of changes can and should be done by Guam by the development and adoption of a local constitution. Congress authorized a formulation of a local constitutional government by Guam in Public Laws 94-584 and 96-597 in 1976 and 1980 respectively. The U.S. citizens of Guam can absolutely be certain that with the adoption of a local constitution, they will retain an inherent right to seek substantial changes in their political status. However, until Guam enacts a local Constitution, any changes to the basic laws governing Guam can only be done by Congress. Thus, the need for this House to provide authority for specific amendments to the Guam Organic Act to enhance the government of Guam. This is a good piece of legislation. I urge the passage of the legislation. When Congress acted years ago to permit Guam to change the size of its legislature, the quorum requirement was inadvertently not changed as well. That oversight is corrected with the necessary conforming amendment in the bill. These changes including the technical clarification of local legislative power all received bipartisan support in the congressional hearings. Before H.R. 2370 was approved by the Committee on Resources, the committee of jurisdiction, the legislation contained a section regarding ``Judicial Authority; Supreme Court of Guam.'' That proposed provision would have overridden the local Guam Public Law 24-139, enacted February 22, 1998. Guam's local law is clear decisive legislation, reflecting the desire of Guam's legislators for a specific type of administrative organization for the Judicial Branch of Guam which they believed would be best for the Guam community. While there were individuals who supported the judicial change proposed in H.R. 2370, which was also suggested to be consistent with results of an unscientific survey of public opinion regarding the judiciary on Guam, such a fundamental change to Guam's local self-governance should be done with the support of the Government of Guam; or, in a locally developed Constitution, not by a unilateral change in the Federal statute. Congress has considered changes affecting local self-government in the territories primarily based on a consensus by the people and their leaders. That consensus has been usually reflected in resolutions by the local legislature. During the past couple of years, the Government of Guam has informed Congress a number of times of requested changes to the Guam Organic Act or federal law. The provisions in H.R. 2370 as approved and reported by the Committee on Resources for full consideration by the full House have the general support of the leaders of Guam. Rather than continuing to petition Congress to make changes to the Organic Act regarding functions and powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Government of Guam, a constitution can be adopted to address those areas. Furthermore, any future changes to the local constitutional government would be through the local amendment process for the constitution, as exists today for Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands. The federal courts and if necessary, the Congress remain the safeguards to insure that the local constitutional government as amended is consistent with the federal Constitution and the intent of Congress. The Guam Legislature passed Resolution No. 85 on September 15, 1997, asking the U.S. 105th Congress to amend the federal law authorizing constitutional government for Guam. Congress is asked to explicitly state that the adoption of a constitution would not preclude or prejudice the right of self-determination by the people of Guam. Indeed, Congressional assurance is important so that the people of Guam know that the adoption of a constitution by Guam as authorized in federal law would not preclude their further right to self- determination. Guam would in fact enjoy a major degree of increased local self-government with constitutional government, which could be as the ``Commonwealth of Guam'' if that is what the people of Guam choose to call their finally-implemented constitution. The U.S. citizens of Guam can be absolutely certain that with the adoption of a local constitution they will retain an inherent right to seek a subsequent change in their political status. The right of continued self-determination after the adoption of a constitution in a U.S. territory is validated by the fact that the adoption of a local constitution in 1952 by the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico, as similarly preauthorized by Congress, has not precluded or prejudiced the people's further right of self-determination. Also relevant to Guam is the adoption by the Puerto Rico Constitutional Convention of Resolution 22 which called the new constitutional government structure, the ``Commonwealth of Puerto Rico''. Now, over four decades later, Puerto Rico's territorial legislature has asked the 105th Congress to define a process for further self-determination. Both the U.S. House and the Senate have passed measures this year explicitly supporting Puerto Rico's right to self-determination and a change of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to full self-government status when desired by a majority of the people of Puerto Rico. Clearly the adoption of a local constitution has not precluded the further exercise by the people of Puerto Rico of the right of self-determination and the adoption of a Guam constitution would not limit a future change in Guam's status. Out of respect to the Guam Legislature who petitioned the 105th Congress for clarification on this matter on behalf of the people of Guam, the entire text of Guam Resolution No. 85 follows. However, until Guam enacts a local constitution, any change to the basic laws governing Guam can only be done by Congress, and thus the need for this House to provide authority for specific amendments to the Guam Organic Act to enhance self-government for Guam. Guam Legislature Resolution No. 85: Relative to requesting the 105th Congress to amend the Organic Act by adding a new Section 6, to confirm that the adoption of a Constitution establishing local government shall not preclude or prejudice the further exercise in the future by the people of Guam of the right of self- determination regarding the ultimate political status of Guam. Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the Territory of Guam: Whereas, in 1976 the United States Congress enabled the people of Guam, pursuant to P.L. No. 95-584, to organize a government under a constitution of our own adoption, which upon approval by Congress and the people of Guam, would provide for local government over the internal affairs of our Island; and Whereas, when the current government of Guam structure for territorial government was established under the 1950 Organic Act, it was welcomed by the people of Guam as progress toward greater local government, but it was instituted without the consent of the people of Guam through a democratic act of self-determination or participation in the Federal lawmaking process on the basis of equal citizenship or equal representation; and Whereas, the 1977 Constitution of Guam, drafted pursuant to Federal and local statutes, was approved by Congress but was not approved by the people of Guam in the 1979 referendum; and Whereas, the process of establishment of internal local government under a local constitution was suspended after linkage was created between the draft constitution and the political status process; and Whereas, in light of representation and speculations inconsistent with the foregoing from 1979 to the present, it is essential for Congress to confirm its original and continued intention and expectation that authorization and approval of local constitutional government in Guam would not preclude or be prejudicial to the exercise of the right to self-determination, as part of the process through which ultimate political status of the territory of Guam is to be determined: Now therefore, be it Resolved, by the Guam Legislature, on behalf of the people of Guam, request the One Hundred and Fifth Congress of the United States to amend Public Law No. 94-585, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2899, as amended by Public Law No. 96-597, Title V, Sec. 501, Dec. 24, 1980, 94 Stat. 3479, by adding a new Section 6 to read as follows: ``Section 6. Establishment of local constitutional local government pursuant to this Act shall not preclude or prejudice the further exercise in the future by the people of Guam or the Virgin Islands of the right of self-determination regarding the ultimate political status of either territory; and be it further Resolved, that the Speaker certifies to, and the Legislative Secretary attests, the adoption hereof and that copies thereafter be transmitted to the President of the United States of America; to the President Pro Tempore, United States Senate; to the Majority Leader, United States Senate; to the Minority Leader, United States Senate; to the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate; to the Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives; to the Majority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives; to the Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives; to the Chairman of the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives; to the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, U.S. House of Representatives; to the Virgin Islands Delegate to Washington, U.S. House of Representatives; to the Guam Delegate to Washington, U.S. House of Representatives; to the President of the Mayor's Council; and to the Honorable Carl T.C. Gutierrez, Governor of Guam. Duly and Regularly Adopted on the 25th Day of September, 1997. Anthony C. Blaz. Joanie M.S. Brown. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to compliment the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood) in working with him on this issue, and we will continue to revisit this issue as time goes by. We hope someday that we would like to see the commonwealth, or whatever Guam wants to be, become what they want to be. And with the people in Guam and the efforts they have had in the past and the future, I am sure that will occur. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2000) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to make certain clarifications to the land bank protection provisions, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2000 is legislation I have introduced in consultation with the Alaskan Federation of Natives. Considerable time has been spent to resolve the Calista land exchange issue, and I want to thank all parties involved for their commitment to resolve this important land exchange for Calista. This land exchange was authorized to provide Calista with a means of economic self-sufficiency pursuant to the purposes of ANCSA. Under Section 8126 of the Defense appropriations Bill, the Secretary of the Interior and Calista were to determine a mutual agreement value for Calista's land. However, the two parties have been unable to arrive at a mutually agreeable value. Section 6 of this bill will eliminate this impasse by establishing a total value to be credited to Calista's lands and interests, as Congress has had to do in numerous other instances in 1976. In doing so Congress, will simply be providing the figure with Calista and the Secretary of the Interior were unable to determine. I have two letters of support for section 6, the Calista land exchange, from six conservation organizations. Mr. Speaker, these organizations stated their support for the Calista land exchange when the lands offered by Calista was 28,000 acres of surface lands and 182,000 acres of subsurface lands. Calista has gone further in their commitment to address conservation issues within the region by increasing their surface acres to 56,577 and subsurface to 161,938 acres. The land package includes an overall of 218,515 acres of land, one-third the size of Rhode Island. These five conservation organizations recognize the fish and wildlife habitat of lands offered for exchange by the Calista Corporation. All of these lands, interests in land and subsurface estates in the exchange are located within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. I would like to point out to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), my esteemed colleague, that the white-fronted geese and pacific brant are only a couple of the species which migrate to California from the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. It appears to me that Mr. Miller and I have birds of a feather which hold strong ties between our respective States. Let us hope this will carry over to the agreement of this important wildlife refuge land exchange. Lastly, the language contained in Section 6 of the Calista land exchange was coauthored by the Department of Interior, and the Calista Corporation reached a consensus with this important land exchange in America. At the request of the Department, Calista Corporation provided legal descriptions of lands being exchanged, a conservation easement agreement and added more surface lands. This was accomplished after intense discussion and negotiation of the Department of Interior. The language is also a product of efforts by Calista and the Department of Interior to address issues which were raised by that Department, the Office of Management and Budget, the General Services Administration, the House Committee on the Budget and the Congressional Budget Office. I urge my colleagues to support this important exchange for the good of the environment on the terms which are very extensive and lengthy negotiations to address all parties concerned. I urge my colleagues again to support the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: The Calista Conveyance and Relinquishment Document (CCRD) October 28, 1991 [Revised September 22, 1998] (Revised September 22, 1998 to reflect changes to previously included Calista parcels, additions of the NIMA and The Kuskokwim Corporation (TKC) tracts to the lands being offered, The TKC Conservation Easement, and other relevant edits.) Table Contents Calista Conveyance and Relinquishment Document (CCRD) I. Purpose II. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act III. The Calista Land Exchange IV. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Values V. Calista Land Package VI. Summary VII. Current Social Conditions VIII. Prehistory of Yukon Delta Region IX. Land Transaction Accounting X. Description of the Lands, Interest in Lands and Entitlements to Land to Be Conveyed

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4068) to make certain technical corrections in laws relating to Native Americans, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4068 would make certain technical corrections in laws relating to Native Americans. This is an extensive bill, and I will be as brief as possible. It corrects typographical errors in existing laws. It extends the leasing authority to 99 years for the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Cabazon Indian Reservation. It adds 0.062 acres of land, the driveway to an Indian cemetery, to the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribal Reservation. It adjusts the bearings provided for the Hoopa Valley Reservation South Boundary Adjustment Act. It expands the service area of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz Indians. It authorizes the Lower Sioux Indian Community to sell a 13.38 acre parcel of real property which the tribe owns in fee. It approves the transfer of certain water rights pursuant to the Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act. It amends the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act to define primary health services covered under the scholarship assistance program. Finally, there is a section in H.R. 4068 which authorizes the disbursement of certain interest income pursuant to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act. The Committee on Resources is concerned about the delay of the implementation of that act. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4068 is an important bill for numbers of Indian tribes. It does not pertain to many acres of land, but it does solve a lot of problems that have not been able to be solved, and I urge the passage of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4068, the bill just passed.