Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, this is our opportunity, as we close this debate to thank everybody participating in the debate for their decorum and their honesty and their strong beliefs. I believe that this is the correct way to go. I believe it is the right thing to do. This is justice. I will strongly oppose the Solomon amendment. I will support the bipartisan amendment of Burton-Young-Miller, and I suggest respectfully that this is the right thing for Congress today. And as we stop this great century and begin a new century, the right thing to do for the Americans of Puerto Rico and the great United States of America.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). (Mr. BONILLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to the gentleman. In my passionate plea for Puerto Rico, I forgot the great Territory of Guam. We are working very close together. It slipped my mind. So I do apologize to the gentleman.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman's comments. I want everybody to understand one thing. As chairman of this committee, we did this job right. The gentleman talks about constitutionality. He does not know the Constitution from something else. We sent this down to the Justice Department. They reviewed it with the best constitutional lawyers. Everything in this bill is constitutional. I did this job correctly as chairman. To have someone say it is not constitutional or allude it is unconstitutional when it has been thoroughly scrubbed by those that know the Constitution, I think is inappropriate.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very historical moment, one that is long overdue. In debate on the rule, there were some statements made that I think should be clarified before I go into the full text of my presentation today, why I support this legislation. The Northern Marianas were mentioned and other territories were mentioned, and how they came into this great united part of our United States, even as territories are separate governments. But, for instance, the Northern Marianas, the Government of the United States and the Government of the Northern Marianas will consult regularly on all matters affecting the relationship between them. At the request of either government, and not less frequently than every 10 years there shall be an additional consultation taken. Mr. Chairman, over 100 years ago, this Congress was passionately discussing the 400-year-old colonial grip that Spain had on the islands adjacent to and south of Florida. Just over 2 weeks earlier, on February 15, 266 American servicemen lost their lives in Havana harbor with the explosion of the United States warship, the Maine. The monument to these gallant mean stands highest above all else in Arlington National Monument. Many others lost their lives in the ensuing Spanish-American War amid the cries of ``Remember the Maine.'' But why? This Congress declared war and sent Americans in harm's way in the defense of the sacred ideal: self-determination. America won the war, and assumed sovereignty over Cuba, Puerto Rico, and some of Spain's Pacific possessions. All but one are no longer territories. Only Puerto Rico still stands, after 100 years, a territory. Mr. Chairman, Congress promptly delivered on its promise of self- determination to the people of Cuba by providing for a process which permitted Cuba to become a separate sovereign after a few brief years. In contrast, the Rough Rider who had charged up San Juan Hill to ensure the United States' victory in the Caribbean had become President of the United States and urged Congress to grant United States citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico in his 1905 State of the Union address. Quote, ``I earnestly advocate the adoption of legislation which will explicitly confer American citizenship on all citizens of Puerto Rico. There is, in my judgment, no excuse for the failure to do this.'' I believe President Teddy Roosevelt's words are even more true today to this bill as when he spoke them in 1905. Our fellow Americans in Puerto Rico, now numbering some 4 million, have been loyal to this Nation and have valiantly fought in every major conflict. We have all benefited in ways that cannot be calculated from the bravery, the loyalty, and the patriotism of over 200,000 Americans from Puerto Rico who have served in our Nation's Armed Forces. It is clear that a heavy price has been paid by Puerto Rico for this country, which has yet to fully deliver on the promise of the U.S. General Miles when he landed in Puerto Rico 100 years ago this year: ``In the continuation of the war against the Kingdom of Spain by the people of the United States, in the cause of freedom, justice and humanity, their military forces have come to occupy the island of Puerto Rico. They come bearing the flag of freedom. They bring you the encouraging strength of a Nation of free people whose greatest power consists of justice and humanity for all those who live in their community. The principal objective will be to give the people of your beautiful island the largest extent of freedom possible. We have not come to wage war, but to bring protection, not just for you but for your property, in order to promote your prosperity and in order to obtain for you the privileges and the blessings of our government. It is not our purpose to interfere with any of the laws and customs present that are wise and beneficial.'' The Congress provided Puerto Rico with increasing levels of self- government for the first half of this century, culminating with the authorization in 1950 for the process of a development of a local constitutional government. By 1952, Congress conditionally approved a draft constitution submitted by the legislature of Puerto Rico. After those changes were made by Puerto Rico, the new constitutional government of the territory became effective under the name declared by the constitutional convention as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The establishment of local constitutional self-government did not alter Congress' constitutional responsibility under the Territorial Clause for Puerto Rico. However, it was under the first years of the commonwealth that President Eisenhower established the Eisenhower Doctrine regarding Puerto Rico which is still in effect today and is reflected in the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. After the local constitutional government of Puerto Rico was established, Puerto Rico was removed from the United Nations' decolonization list, prompting questions as to whether Puerto Rico was still a territory under the sovereignty of the United States and subject to the authority of Congress. President Eisenhower, a Republican, acted decisively by sending a message to the United Nations that he recommended that the United States Congress grant Puerto Rico separate sovereignty if requested by the Puerto Ricans through the legislature of Puerto Rico. While the legislature has never petitioned for separate sovereignty, the legislature sent joint resolutions to Congress in 1993, 1994, and 1997 requesting congressional action. Keep that in mind, because I have heard time and again that the Congress, by doing this, is dictating to the Puerto Rican people. But the legislature sent to this Congress in 1993, 1994, 1997 requesting congressional action to define the political status and establish a process to resolve, establish the process to resolve Puerto Rico's political status dilemma. Although in recent years the Puerto Rican legislature formally requested the Congress to resolve Puerto Rico's political status, U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico had been advocating action for over a decade. I remember the submission to Congress in 1985 to 1987 of over 350,000 individually signed petitions for full citizenship rights. This incredible grassroots effort was led by Dr. Miriam Ramirez of the nonprofit, nonpartisan civic organization, Puerto Ricans in Civic Action. Mr. Chairman I believe this initiative influenced the then president of the Senate to include in his first State of the Union address as President on February 9, 1989, the following request: ``I've long believed the people of Puerto Rico should have their right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum.'' Mr. Chairman, about the same time as President Bush requested Congress authorize a political status referendum in Puerto Rico, the three presidents of the three principal political status parties in Puerto Rico asked Congress to help resolve Puerto Rico's political status, as Puerto Rico has never been formally consulted as to their choice of ultimate political status. While Congress has yet to formally respond to the request of the President, the leaders of Puerto Rico, and the petitions of the Americans in Puerto Rico, this bill will do just what has been asked by the people of Puerto Rico in numerous years and numerous times by the president of the Senate, by the Presidents in the past in their platforms. The United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856, establishes in Federal law for the first time a process to resolve Puerto Rico's political status. I remind my colleagues it will not happen overnight, regardless of what we do here today. This is just a process that will take place. My colleague who was speaking on the rule said that the public is not aware of this action today. May I remind my colleagues that if we were to pass this bill today, and I hope we do pass this bill today, it must be passed by the Senate and the people of Puerto Rico must also pass it in 1998. It comes back to the Congress in 1999, and by 1999 we again in Congress must act. We must pass a bill approving the transitional stage. Then it goes back to the people of Puerto Rico. And, by the way, the start of the transition period begins in the year 2000. But this more than anything else is a bill that establishes the right to determine for the first time in 100 years their self-determination. It is a fair and balanced process that has been developed with an enormous amount of input. Mr. Chairman, I resent certain Members saying that this has not been fair. We asked all of those people involved, all three parties, to submit what their definition should be in this bill. We have in my substitute recognized commonwealth. We recognize independence. We set forth a process which will create a State. Mr. Chairman, if it does become a State, I am one of the few people, along with the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) that has gone through this process. I have heard some statements here today about English language only. When Alaska became a State, that was not a requirement. We had 52 different dialects in Alaska. People speak English. They also speak many other languages. It was not a requirement. Hawaii has two official languages. They have English and Hawaiian. New Mexico has two official languages, English and Spanish. The concept of the amendments that will be offered to this bill, especially the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), he is my good friend and we talk about what good friends we are, it is a poison pill amendment. America is a melting pot. It is a group of people coming together under one flag. We all speak different languages at different times. Some of us are more fortunate to speak more than one language, but we must always recognize the cohesive part of the United States, and that is being an American. English will come. But to pick out one part of this bill and to say this is a requirement before it ever happens is a poison pill amendment to this legislation. Let us talk about history again. This is the last territory of the greatest democracy, America. A territory where no one has a true voice, although our government does an excellent job, but there are approximately 4 million Puerto Ricans that have one voice that cannot vote. This is not America as I know it. This is an America that talks one thing and walks another thing. This is an America that is saying, if Members do not accept this legislation, ``no'' to who I think are some of the greatest Americans that have ever served in our armed forces and are proud to be Americans but do not have the representation that they need. This legislation is just the beginning. It is one small step of many steps. It is a step for freedom, it is a small step for justice, it is a small step for America. But collectively it is a great stride for democracy and for justice. This legislation should pass. The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) should be defeated. We should go forth and show the people of America, show the people of Puerto Rico, that our hearts are true, so that the rest of the world will follow the example of the great United States and free their territories and free the people so they can have self-determination. This is what this bill does, and that is all it does. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for consideration of the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856. The proposed open rule is consistent with the process which is followed by the Committee on Resources in the development of this bill to resolve the United States political status problem with Puerto Rico. This was an effort to reach out and include as many sectors as possible in a fair manner in which the facts were openly aired and examined without respect to special interests or local political considerations. I can confirm that as the chairman of the House committee of jurisdiction for territorial affairs, the committee followed and completed every legislative step in the development of this initiative during the past 4 years from 1995 to the present time. Five extensive hearings with the broadest participation possible were held in Washington and Puerto Rico. Testimony was heard from individuals with many different views on the future relationship of Puerto Rico and the United States. Special attention was given to allow the three principal parties in Puerto Rico, each representing the status of commonwealth, independence, or statehood, to present their preferred definition with their respective status options. Subsequent deliberations by Members of Congress were complete and exhaustive. All the issues have been raised and debated. Once Members examined the complexity of the problems, they realized that this bill is the most viable way to address the problems facing the United States due to failure to permanently resolve Puerto Rico's status. The bill's self-determination process in H.R. 856 is a carefully crafted three-stage process, a three-stage process leading to full self-government for Puerto Rico as a separate sovereign nation or a State of the Union if the majority of the people are ready to change the current form of local self-government as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Congress and the Americans of Puerto Rico will be required to vote in each of the three stages of the bill. I want to stress that. Congress and the Americans of Puerto Rico will be required to vote in each of the three stages of the bill, an initial referendum, a 10-year transition plan, and the final implementation act. If there is no majority for change, then the status quo continues and United States citizens of Puerto Rico are consulted again by referendum at least once every 10 years. The Committee on Resources overwhelmingly approved and reported it twice, first in the 104th Congress and now in the 105th Congress. I firmly believe it is appropriate and necessary for the full House to now consider the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856. In carrying out congressional responsibilities under the Constitution for territories, Congress will be able to directly respond to the request of the Legislature of Puerto Rico to the 105th Congress to define the status choices and authorize a process to resolve Puerto Rico's political status dilemma. I support this rule, and I will discuss in debate the merits of all amendments that come before us. I want my colleagues to understand this is nothing new. This is a project I worked on, my committee has worked on, the people of Puerto Rico have worked on for the last 4 years. It is time to act. It is time for this Congress, this House, to pass this legislation for America, for the people of Puerto Rico. This rule is a good rule, and I urge passage of the rule but, more than that, the defeat of some amendments and final passage of this legislation, long overdue for the people of Puerto Rico.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I do not want the full 5 minutes, but I do want to suggest to the Members on the floor that it is my intention to entertain the amendments that will be offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and that we will roll the votes until 9 o'clock. At that time, I hope the gentleman and the gentlewoman, and whoever is offering amendments, will have come to a fruition, finalization, of these amendments so that we can bring this legislation to the end of the day very quickly. That is my intent, to have no more votes until, I believe, 9 o'clock.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky. (Mr. Bunning asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 927, and I am very pleased to see that we are considering it today. We began the process of reauthorizing the National Sea Grant College Program more than three years ago, and I hope we can now conclude it quickly. Sea Grant was established in 1966 in order to improve our Nation's marine resource conservation efforts, to manage those resources more effectively, and to enhance their proper use. The program is patterned after the highly successful Land Grant College Program, which is familiar to many of our non-coastal members. For over 30 years, Sea Grant has successfully achieved its goals through a unique combination of research grants, marine advisory services, and education. This year, Mr. Ron Dearborn, who does an excellent job as Director of the Alaska Sea Grant College Program, is serving as President of the Sea Grant Association. Alaska's Sea Grant program has improved our understanding of commercial fish stocks, the factors affecting the size and health of those stocks, and the best economic uses for fishery resources. Using this information, we have developed effective management regimes, and we continue to create more jobs while minimizing long-term impacts to our fisheries. Alaska Sea Grant also supports a comprehensive Marine Advisory Service, which has provided industry training programs on topics ranging from marine safety and seafood technology to business management for fishermen and shoreside support facilities. Through proper training, we ensure that our industries, businesses, and individuals who depend on productive fisheries can continue to do their jobs effectively. Sea Grant is a perfect example of the type of program that we should support. The program produces tangible results that help solve local and regional problems and, most importantly, it maximizes immediate and long-range returns by matching Federal investments with State and private funds. The Resources and Science Committees were unable to reach agreement on reauthorizing legislation in the last Congress. In this Congress, H.R. 437, which was introduced by my colleague, Jim Saxton, and a number of other Members last year, and upon which S. 927 is based, passed the House by a vote of 422 to 3. S. 927 is similar to H.R. 437, it enjoys widespread support, and I am confident that by voting for it now we can finally reauthorize this important program. Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on S. 927. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce legislation to reauthorize a landmark conservation law known as the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. This historic legislation, which was enacted into law four years ago, was modeled after the highly successful African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988. The fundamental purpose of this law was to establish a Conservation Fund to finance worthwhile projects to assist highly imperiled species of rhinos and tigers. Sadly, the populations of these two flagship species continue to decline and, unless additional assistance is provided, they will continue to slide toward extinction. In the case of the rhinoceros, it has been estimated that their population has been decimated from 65,000 animals in 1970 to less than 11,000 today. In fact, in the case of two of the five species of rhinoceros, the Javan and Sumatran, there are less than 600 left in the world. While all five species of rhinoceros were listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in 1977 and a worldwide trade ban has been imposed, poachers continue to slaughter rhinos for their horns. These horns have been used for generations in Asian medicine to treat fever in children and as decorative handles for ceremonial daggers. Despite plummeting populations of rhinoceros, there is still an insatiable demand for rhino horn, which has made this commodity extremely valuable. In fact, African rhino horn can be worth as much as $10,000 per kilogram and rare Asian rhino horn is worth up to $60,000 per kilogram. The largest consumers of rhino horn live in China, Taiwan, and South Korea. Regrettably the situation facing tigers is even worse. Of the eight subspecies of tigers once found in the world, three have become extinct and the remaining five populations have been reduced from 100,000 tigers in 1990 to less than 5,000 animals today. Furthermore, the three subspecies of South China, Siberian and Sumatran all have populations that are estimated at less than 500 animals. Although commercial activities and human population growth have transformed large amounts of the tiger's habitat, illegal hunting has had the most dramatic impact. Despite the fact that all tigers are protected under CITES, tigers are killed for their fur and most of their body parts. Tiger bone is used in many forms of traditional Oriental medicines including powders, tablets, and wines that are consumed to fight pain, kidney and liver problems, convulsions, and heart conditions. Like rhino horn, the major consumers of these products live in China, Taiwan, and South Korea. According to CITES, during the past six years, South Korea imported about 10,500 pounds and China 78 tons of tiger bone. Sadly, the financial rewards of illegally killing a tiger are substantial. According to the World Wildlife Fund, a pound of tiger bone sells for over $1,400 and a tiger pelt may be worth up to $15,000. It is essential this market be destroyed and that people who live in the tigers' habitat begin to understand the consequences of exterminating an animal that has such a dramatic impact on so many other species. These were fundamental goals of the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. While it is still too early to tell whether this law will stop the population decline, it is clear that unless the United States takes a proactive leadership role in saving these species, they will soon only exist in remote wild locations or in zoos. Since its enactment, the Congress has appropriated $1 million over the last three fiscal years. While this is considerably less than the $30 million that was authorized, this money has funded 24 conservation projects to assist rhinos and tigers at a Federal cost of about $530,000. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is now evaluating an additional 70 proposals from organizations that are interested in helping to conserve these irreplaceable species. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it has funded 12 rhino projects, 6 tiger projects, and 6 projects that will benefit both species. These projects have included: an adopt-a-warden program in Indonesia; aerial monitoring of the Northern white rhinoceros in Zaire; establishment of a community rhino scout program for the survival of the black rhino populations in Kenya; investigation of poaching and illegal trade in wild tigers in India; a tiger community education program in Indonesia; and training of staff and surveys of four black rhino populations in the Selous Game Reserve in Tanzania. The sponsors of these projects, who are likely to match the grants with private funds, include the International Rhino Foundation, the Minnesota Zoo Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund. Based on the success of the African Elephant Conservation Fund, I am hopeful that these grants will make a positive difference in the fight to conserve rhinos and tigers. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Reauthorization Act, a bill to extend this landmark law for four years in the hope that it will help ensure that these vital species do not disappear from this planet.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Education and the Workforce be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3042) to amend the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act of 1992 to establish the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to conduct environmental conflict resolution and training, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which will correct a longstanding injustice to the Chugach native people of my great State of Alaska. Twenty-six years ago, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA] to settle the aboriginal land claims of Alaska natives. ANCSA, though not perfect, was a bold and innovative approach to settle the issue of native land claims. Its main purpose was to convey lands traditionally used by Alaska natives to a native regional or native village corporation for their use to secure long-term cultural and economic benefits for their shareholders. In 1980, I worked with many of my colleagues in this body to pass the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA] which, among other things, contained a provision which guaranteed access to Alaska Native corporations to their ANCSA lands. Without this access to their native lands selected under ANCSA, the act itself would become meaningless. Twenty-six years after the passage of ANCSA, and 15 years since the U.S. Forest Service and the Chugach Alaska Corporation entered into the ``1982 Settlement Agreement'' to convey to Chugach Alaska Corporation their lands and guarantee them access to these lands, the U.S. Forest Service has yet to provide the easements needed for such access. This is unacceptable and will soon produce irreparable harm to Chugach Alaska Corporation. My legislation will simply direct the U.S. Forest Service to fulfill their commitment to provide Chugach Alaska Corporation access to their ANCSA lands. The U.S. Forest Service is required to process the easement to accomplish access for Chugach Alaska Corporation. There has been considerable delay by the U.S. Forest Service to process this easement. Mr. Speaker, I plan to take this issue up when Congress is back for the 2d session of the 105th Congress and to pass this legislation. Both my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski support this endeavor and will work for passage.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing--along with our colleagues John Tanner, Cliff Stearns, John Dingell, and Curt Weldon--a new and improved Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act. This legislation is a revised version of H.R. 741, which I introduced on February 12, 1997. It is the product of many months of extended discussions with a number of conservation and hunting groups. This new legislation addresses concerns raised by the Clinton administration and other witnesses during the May 15 subcommittee hearing. For instance, the original bill codified the various prohibitions on the manner and methods of taking migratory birds that had been embodied in regulations over the years. During our hearing, both the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Wildlife Federation testified that this provision would restrict the Service's ability to respond to changing conservation and management needs. The Service is now grappling with a huge population explosion of snow geese and their permanent destruction of thousands of acres of Arctic tundra. In the next few months, the Service may recommend ways to stop this destruction, and has indicated that it is considering the use of electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, and intentional baiting. Since it was not my intention to deny the Service the flexibility to respond to this type of emergency, I have deleted the codification of existing regulations from this revised bill. Second, I have modified my solution to the problems caused by strict liability in baiting cases by establishing a knows or reasonably should have known standard that is reflected in the 1978 Federal District Court decision known as the Delahoussaye case. Under current law, if you are hunting over a baited field, whether you know it or not, you are guilty. There is no defense and there is no opportunity to present evidence in your case. It does not matter whether there was a ton of grain or a few kernels, whether this feed served as an attraction to migratory birds, or even how far the bait is from the hunting site. This interpretation--if you were there, you are guilty--is fundamentally wrong. It violates one of our most basic constitutional protections that a person is innocent until proven guilty. The language in the bill is identical to the Delahoussaye case, it has been effectively utilized throughout the fifth circuit, it has not imperiled any migratory bird populations, and it has resulted in numerous baiting convictions. A representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated earlier this year that the Service could support the statutory codification of the Delahoussaye decision. This is not a radical proposal. Nevertheless, there will be a few Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement agents who will oppose the elimination of strict liability. They will oppose it because currently there is nearly a 100-percent conviction rate in baiting cases since there is not an opportunity for the defendant to provide any evidence to oppose the charge. There is no need to provide intent or knowledge. If the bait is present and the hunter is there, guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, those who oppose the changes will suggest that the Fish and Wildlife Service will be unable to prosecute individuals for hunting over bait in the future, an assertion that is simply not true. If a preponderance of evidence so demonstrates, the defendant will be found guilty. This standard is far less stringent than beyond a reasonable doubt applied in all other criminal cases. Further, the Service has never challenged or attempted to overturn the Delahoussaye decision during the past 20 years. Moreover, it shouldn't matter whether there are only a handful or hundreds of people who have been prosecuted for unknowingly hunting over a baited field. Frankly, I was angry when I heard the testimony of a retired Fish and Wildlife Service agent who responded to this question from the subcommittee chairman: ``Have I ever charged someone for hunting over bait and I truly believed they didn't know the area was baited? Yes, but they were very few and far between.'' Since this agent had the option of just issuing a warning to these individuals, I am aghast that he chose to cite them anyway. Third, our bill includes a number of refinements and modifications dealing with soil stabilization practices, accepted agricultural operations and procedures, and the alteration of a crop or other feed for wildlife management purposes. In addition, the bill stipulates that the State fish and wildlife agencies will decide, in consultation with USDA State research, education, and extension services and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, what type of agricultural methods are accepted in a particular areaa. For instance, it may be appropriate to sow winter wheat for soil stabilization purposes in Maryland, but no one would suggest such a practice in Arizona. These recommendations, which are contained in section 3 of the bill, are the product of many months of careful deliberation by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies' Ad Hoc Committee on Baiting. This committee has representatives from each of the migratory flyways, Ducks Unlimited, the National Wildlife Federation, and the North American Wildlife Enforcement Officers Association. Finally, the revised bill deletes the section of H.R. 741 that would have required that all fines and penalties collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act be deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. I have been persuaded to allow these moneys to remain in the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund so that they can be used to buy essential wetlands habitat in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It has been demonstrated to me that each dollar paid into this fund is matched with at least $3 of private donations. In the past few weeks, I have shared copies of this legislation with a number of hunting and conservation groups. I am pleased to report that Ducks Unlimited, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources, the Izaak Walton League, the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, and the Wildlife Management Institute all have indicated they support the fundamental objectives of this legislation. While several groups have indicated they would prefer that baiting problems be alleviated through a regulatory solution, there was a consensus that the Delahoussaye decision should be codified in law. I am hopeful that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will issue new proposed baiting regulations before the end of this year. Otherwise, I will vigorously pursue the passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental purpose of this legislation is to provide clear guidance to hunters, landowners, law of enforcement officials, wildlife managers, and courts on what the restrictions are on the taking of migratory birds. This proposed legislation will not weaken the restrictions on the method and manner of taking migratory birds, nor will it weaken the protection of the resource. It will, however, allow individuals to have their day in court. It is patently wrong to convict hunters who do not know that a field or water is baited, for a few kernels of corn in a sunflower field, bait that is over a mile from the hunting site, or some grain found on the bottom of a pond or river. I want to again thank my distinguished colleagues for joining with me in this effort, and I urge a careful review of the new Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act. It is a long overdue solution to a problem that regrettably continues to unfairly penalize law-abiding hunters in this country.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation on behalf of numerous Alaska Native veterans who answered the call of their country to serve, fight, and preserve the rights of all citizens of the United States during the Vietnam war. Many of these same Alaska Native veterans continue to serve their country by becoming involved in their communities, and in local and State government. Others continue to serve their country by their enlistment in the Alaska National Guard, a reserve component of the Army. Alaska Natives, who were in service to their country during the Vietnam war, missed their opportunity to apply for a Native allotment under the Native Allotment Act. Many were in war zones and others had not received their application from the Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA]. It is my firm belief that our Alaska Native Vietnam veterans merit the same rights as other Alaska Natives under this act. It is morally wrong of our country, of which our Alaska Native veterans are first class citizens, to deny them the basic right afforded to other Alaska Native citizens under this act. This legislation will correct this inequity and give them the opportunity to apply for their allotment under the Native Allotment Act. I think it is appropriate that I offer this legislation prior to our national observance of Veterans Day, November 11, 1997. My legislation respectivefully requests of this administration not to tarnish the service of our Alaska Vietnam era Native veterans and to grant them the same rights to apply for their Native allotment. Another provision in this bill would restore land to the Elim Native Corp. By Executive Order 2508, January 3, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson set aside the Norton Bay Reservation ``for use of the United States Bureau of Education and the natives of indigenous Alaskan race'', including adjacent islands within 3 miles of the coast. This area contained 350,000 acres. In 1919, Congress mandated that the withdrawal of public lands for use as Indian reservations could only be made by an act of Congress (43 U.S.C. 150, 41 Stat. 34). Congress in 1927 declared that no changes could be made in the boundaries of Executive Order reservations for the use of Indians except by an act of Congress (25 U.S.C. 398d, 44 Stat. 1347). The 1927 act is applicable to Alaska (70 I.D. 166 (1963)). After the 1927 act, President Herbert Hoover issued Executive Order 5207 which revoked approximately 50,000 acres of land from the Norton Bay Reservation for use of homesteading by ex-servicemen of World War I. No ex-servicemen applied for any land within the old Norton Bay Reservation. When I brought this issue before the 102d Congress, the Secretary of Interior agreed that Elim was entitled to the 50,000 acres. See April 21, 1992, letter from deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management to Chairman Miller. The administration is ignoring the fact that only Congress can revoke reservation lands. Therefore, it is my lawful belief that Elim Native Corp. is entitled to the 50,000 acres and that the administration should disregard Executive Order 5207 issued by President Hoover and restore the 50,000-acre Elim entitlement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secetary, Washington, DC, April 21, 1992. Hon. George Miller, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your request for the Department of the Interior's (the Department's) views on eight proposed amendments to H.R. 3157, the ``Alaska Land Status Technical Corrections Act of 1991,'' a bill which would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). On February 24, 1991, the Department submitted written testimony on H.R. 3157, as introduced. The issues raised in our testimony still are of concern to the Department. This letter sets forth only the Department's concerns with the eight proposed amendments. The proposed amendments will be discussed in the same order and have been given the same headings as those submitted with your letter requesting our views. ratification of land transfers to caswell and montana creek This proposed amendment involves the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) and the Caswell and Montana Creek Native Groups, all of whom entered into a settlement agreement in 1982. Pursuant to the settlement, CIRI conveyed approximately 11,000 acres to each group with the understanding that the conveyances satisfied their entitlements under section 12(b) of ANCSA. The Department was not a party to the settlement agreement. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to ratify the transfers and satisfy the Department's ANCSA land transfer obligations to the two groups and CIRI. The conveyances to Caswell and Montana Creek were made by CIRI from lands received from the State of Alaska under Paragraph II and Appendix C, Part 1.A. (Kashwitna Pool) of the Terms and Conditions for Land Consolidation and Management in the Cook Inlet Area (ratified by Section 12(b) of the Act of January 2, 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1611 n.). Conveyances from Appendix C are debited from CIRI's entitlement under Section 12(c) of the ANCSA. The Terms and Conditions provided for methods of satisfying entitlements that are somewhat different from the normal procedures, i.e., ordinarily, the United States conveys land directly to groups but, by virtue of special legislation affecting CIRI, land is conveyed to the regional corporation and it then reconveys to village corporations and groups. In order to avoid a double charge for the Caswell/Montana Creek group entitlements, we recommend the following language by adding at the end of the proposed amendment: ``The ratification of the conveyances made by CIRI in this section shall not be a basis for or generate a claim by CIRI, or either of the groups named herein, for additional conveyances of land or money or any other thing of value against either the State of Alaska or the United States.'' elim native corporation land conveyance Under this proposed amendment, 50,000 acres of land would be withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights, for selection by the Elim Native Corporation. These lands were excluded in 1929 by Executive Order from the original Elim reserve. Elim was one of five native corporations that elected to take lands set aside in reserve for the benefit of Natives instead of participating in the ANCSA land selection process. Pursuant to its election, Elim received patent to 297,982 acres on September 14, 1979--the lands that were included in the Elim reserve on the date of entitlement under the ANCSA. Elim did not appeal the decision to convey and accepted the patent. We suggest that proposed amendment tie authority for conveyance of additional acreage to some existing entitlement. Moreover, the proposed amendment presents a problem in that about 11,440 acres of the described lands proposed for conveyance to Elim have been validly selected by the Native village of Koyuk. This would leave only 38,560 acres for Elim instead of the 50,000 they desire. If the proposed amendment is included in H.R. 3157, it should include clear Congressional intent and guidance as to which entity will receive the 11,440 acres, and a proviso that the conveyance is in full satisfaction of Elim's entitlement under Section 19(b) of the ANCSA. * * * * * The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely, Richard Roldan, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Unrecognized Southeast Alaska Native Communities Recognition Act. This legislation provides long overdue recognition of five Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell, which were wrongly denied the opportunity to establish and enroll in a Native corporation under the terms of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA]. The act also provides for a process to determine the lands or other appropriate compensation for the communities. This legislation is intended to rectify an injustice that is over 25 years old. In 1971, ANCSA was enacted as the means to settle the aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to their traditional homelands. The law provided for the establishment of Native Corporations, which were awarded land and compensation. Natives could enroll to 1 of 13 regional corporations and, within the geographic area of their regional corporation, to the village where they lived or had historic, culture, or familial ties. However, Natives in the five southeast Alaska villages of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell, were not recognized in ANCSA, and therefore were denied the ability to form Native corporations. The legislative and historical record of ANCSA does not clearly provide a reason for leaving these villages out of the process of forming Native corporations. A study ordered by Congress in 1993 examined why the five unrecognized communities were denied eligibility to form Native corporations. The study found that there was no meaningful distinction between the five communities and other communities in southeast Alaska recognized in ANCSA, and thus no justification for omission of the Native communities of Haines, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell from eligibility to form urban or group corporations under ANCSA. The Natives and their heirs in these communities deserve the chance to enroll to Native corporations. The legislation I am introducing simply grants recognition to these communities and enables them to form Native corporations. The bill also directs the Secretaries of Interior and of Agriculture to submit a report to Congress regarding lands or other compensation that should be provided to the new urban and group corporations that are established. This is the first, but most important step to bringing the struggle of the Natives of five southeast Alaska communities to a close.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, to conduct the rest of the debate on this bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, what remaining time do I have?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chairman of the subcommittee. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2493. As I mentioned, this is a bill that has been worked on very hard by the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and of course myself have worked through this legislation. I believe it goes far toward the stability of the grazing activity that takes place on public lands, protecting the lands environmentally, providing for the owners of those lands the base allotments, so they can continue their efforts to try to protect the environment through sound management of the grazing forage areas on our public lands. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2493, the Forage Improvement Act, was introduced by my good friend and colleague from Oregon, Congressman Bob Smith. Congressman Smith should be applauded for laboring tirelessly on putting together a bill that keeps the controversy out and the common sense in regarding grazing practices on our public lands. Congressman Smith has worked extremely hard to bring together the many sides of the grazing issue and has assembled a bill that helps the rancher whose livelihood depends on public land grazing without doing any harm to the rangeland resources. In fact, implementing this bill will ultimately improve the rangelands across the west. Controversy and confrontation on grazing of the public lands have been raging for years. It is clear that changes in current grazing laws and regulations are not only long overdue, but are absolutely necessary in order to resolve many of the grazing issues. H.R. 2493 makes these needed changes. For example, this bill will bring economic stability to those ranchers who use Federal land for grazing while at the same time generate additional revenue for the Federal Treasury. This will be accomplished by implementing a new grazing fee formula which is easy to understand, simple to track, and which charges a fair price to the rancher who buys access to forage from the Federal Government. Furthermore, the changes found in H.R. 2493 will improve rangeland conditions by increasing the focus on science-based monitoring. For far too long and for a variety of excuses the Federal Government simply hasn't done its job in assessing rangeland condition through monitoring. Congressman Smith's bill puts the emphasis back to what actually exists on the ground through a monitoring program that is science-based and which follows established protocols. This program will greatly enhance the decisionmaking process and help establish rangeland goals that are good for the land and achievable. Moreover, H.R. 2493 will establish a program of management flexibility to those ranchers who have demonstrated good land stewardship. This will help to keep the grazing lands in good and excellent condition. This is a good bill whose time has come. It does nothing to harm the environment. In fact, it will improve rangelands across the West. It treats the Western land grazer honestly and fairly. And in return, the U.S. Treasury makes more money and gets an improved rangeland resource. I urge all my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 2493. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Kake Land Exchange Act of 1997. This bill will provide for an exchange of land between Kake Tribal Corp. [KTC], a village corporation formed pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and the U.S. Forest Service. Specifically, the legislation makes possible an exchange in which the corporation transfers approximately 2,427 acres of its ANCSA entitlement lands surrounding the municipal watershed of the city of Kake, for an equal acreage of land managed by the Forest Service in the Saginaw Bay and Hamilton Bay areas. The bill serves two important purposes and enjoys the support of the Governor of Alaska, the city of Kake, Sealaska--the Regional Native Corporation--and the Alaska Federation of Natives, as well as other individuals and groups in southeast Alaska. The two primary goals of the bill are to protect and preserve the Gunnuk Creek Watershed, which serves as Kake's supply of drinking water, and to enable the shareholders of KTC to realize benefit from its land entitlement in fulfillment of ANCSA's purposes. The need for the bill was illustrated in the 1970's and 1980's when timber harvesting of the land in the Gunnuk Creek Watershed raised great concern in the community of Kake. To safeguard the watershed, logging activity on these lands halted. However, because the lands are owned essentially by a for-profit corporation, residents of Kake, many of whom are KTC shareholders, do not have total assurance that the watershed can be protected over the long term. This legislation solves this dilemma simply by allowing KTC to exchange the watershed lands for other timbered lands. The lands transferred to the Forest Service will have long-term protection, while the lands conveyed to KTC can be used for the benefit of its shareholders. In furtherance of the purposes of this bill, the city of Kake is willing to enter into an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to manage the watershed property, once the exchange is completed. I believe this is a prudent move, and can be pursued either as part of this legislation or separately. This exchange is an example of how economic development and protection of water resources can be simultaneously achieved in Southeast.