Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in reintroducing the ``Indian Tribal Surface Transportation Improvement Act of 2003'', a bill to reform and improve Indian Reservation Road, IRR, program.

In the past two Congresses the Committee on Indian Affairs has held hearings on the problems with the IRR program and this bill provides much-needed clarifications to better meet the transportation needs in Native communities.

Involving as it does transportation and related issues, this bill includes an initiative I proposed last session to support commercial vehicle driving training programs at tribal colleges and universities.

Although reservation roads comprise just 2.63 percent of the Federal highway system, less than 1 percent of Federal aid has been allocated to Indian roads. This bill would allow the already-authorized funds for Indians to reach the intended beneficiaries.

As with any community, Indian reservations need efficient and effective road financing and construction to develop healthy economies and raise the standard of living.

It is no secret that when entrepreneurs, Indian or non-Indian, calculate whether to invest in a community they first look to see if the basic building blocks exist within the community: roads, highways, electricity, potable water, and other amenities.

Unfortunately, despite recent successes some Indian tribes have had with gaming, energy and natural resource development, most Indian tribes still suffer from poor infrastructure that thwarts investment and economic growth.

Building on the successes of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, this bill authorizes the Federal Lands Highway Administration to create a 12-tribe pilot program to contract directly for roads funding.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in re-introducing legislation to assist Indian tribes to fight the scourge of alcohol, drug and associated mental health problems in their communities.

Native Americans continue to be plagued by chronic alcohol and drug addictions which destroy their bodies and souls and inevitably require mental health treatment as well.

There are a good number of Federal agencies involved in treating these problems and, through no fault of their own, agency efforts are often un-coordinated and ineffective as a result.

Relying on models that are proven winners, the ``Native American Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program Consolidation Act of 2003'' authorizes Indian tribes and tribal consortia to string together these disparate programs and services and bring them together in one comprehensive and coordinated package.

In addition to achieving economies of scale in these Federal services, the bill would also encourage the use of automated clinical information systems and bring to bear state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment tools

The two main themes of this bill, better use of resources combined with technological innovations have proven successful in other areas like Indian job training.

Just this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Thompson launched a new effort aimed at combating chronic health problems in minority communities.

Substance abuse and diabetes are included in Secretary Thompson's effort and this bill would go a long way in assisting Federal and tribal governments in that battle.

The mechanics of this bill are also consistent with the broad contours of the President's Management Agenda, increasing the effectiveness of Federal services without increasing the budget.

For these reasons, I am hopeful the bill will be well received by the Administration and the tribes so that it can be considered speedily in the weeks ahead.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important initiative and ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as I did last session, I am again pleased to introduce the ``Indian Tribal Contracting and Federal Lands Management Demonstration Project Act'' to expand the highly-successful Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and to bring Native knowledge, values and sensitivity to the management of our Federal lands.

I want to emphasize that this initiative is a starting point for a broader discussion about whether Federal law sufficiently protects sacred Indian places that are located on Federal lands.

Americans react viscerally when lands and sites held sacred are threatened. Whether the site in question is the Little Bighorn Battlefield in Montana; the American Cemetery at Omaha Beach in Normandy, France; or religious and ceremonial sites held dear by Native people.

Twenty-five years ago Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act which declared that it is ``the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.''

A series of hearings held by the Committee on Indian Affairs over the past two years revealed that the AIRFA policy remains aspirational and the goals of that Act have not been realized.

The clashes between economic and cultural interests will also sharpen as our nation's needs for economic activities, such as logging, energy and mining, increases.

In 1970, President Nixon's Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs changed forever Federal Indian law and policy. The President also signed into law legislation transferring the sacred Blue Lake lands back to the Pueblo of Taos. These two events set the stage for both the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, 1975, as well as the AIRFA, 1978.

The legislation I am re-introducing today will build on these precedents by setting up a Demonstration Project to expand opportunities for Native contracting on Federal lands. One goal of this bill is to bring to bear the knowledge and sensitivity of Native people to activities that are currently being carried out by Federal agencies.

Under the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would select up to 12 tribes or tribal organizations per year to provide archaeological, anthropological, ethnographic and cultural surveys and analysis; land management planning; and activities related to the identification, maintenance, or protection of lands considered to have religious, ceremonial or cultural significance to Indian tribes.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Fairness to All Fallen Vietnam War Service Members Act of 2003. Almost forty years ago, our country started sending a generation of young men off to fight in Vietnam. Over 58,000 American soldiers gave their lives to their country in and around the lands, skies, and seas of Vietnam.

The legislation I am introducing today is based on language which I previously introduced toward the end of the 107th Congress.

The ultimate sacrifices many of these men have made are honored on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall here in Washington, D.C. There are, however, names that are missing from the wall, names that rightfully should be there with their fallen fellow Americans. It is now time to correct that omission.

On the morning of June 3, 1969, the United States Destroyer, USS Frank E. Evans, was cut in half during a training exercise by the Australian aircraft carrier, Melbourne. The front half of the destroyer sank in three minutes claiming the lives of seventy-four men.

While these men were not lost due to enemy fire, they were involved in serious combat only days before this tragedy. At the time of the accident, the USS Frank E. Evans was taking part in Operation Sea Spirit in the South China Sea which involved over 40 ships from Southeast Asia Treaty Organization Nations. These brave men were instrumental in forwarding American objectives in Vietnam.

The fact is these men died while serving their country and are due the rights and honors they deserve, including being listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall.

Two of my fellow Coloradans, Brian Crowson and Del A. Francis were on board that fateful morning and survived this horrible accident. Sadly, 74 of their fellow sailors were not as fortunate.

At a time when we rightly honor heroes across our country, should we not also take the necessary step to ensure that our past heroes are also honored?

This legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to determine an appropriate manner to recognize and honor Vietnam Veterans who died in service to our Nation but whose names were excluded from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall. It further asks for input from government agencies and organizations that originally constructed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall regarding the feasibility of adding additional names. Finally, the bill asks for appropriate alternative options for recognizing these veterans should it be deemed that there is no logistical way to add these names.

As a veteran of the Korean War, I personally understand the ultimate sacrifice many of our brave men and women have made for the price of freedom. This recognition should not be taken lightly.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate as well as the USS Frank E. Evans Association so that we can pass this long overdue legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator Inouye in introducing the ``Federal Acknowledgment Process Reform Act of 2003''.

Since 1997 I have offered changes to the Federal Acknowledgment Process, FAP, which is the process by which Indian groups are ``recognized'' by the United States as tribes.

Recognition of a tribal group as a tribe brings with it the privileges, immunities and rights accorded to Indian tribes.

In recent years, the FAP has been described as ``broken'', ``too lengthy'', ``too costly'', ``without integrity'', ``not transparent'' and ``inconsistently applied'' to name but a few.

For petitioners that have waited literally generations for a final answer on their application, the process is too lengthy.

For petitioners of modest means driven to seek the financial support of ``a backer'', the process is too costly.

For interested parties who feel compelled to file Freedom of Information Act requests to secure information, the process is not transparent.

And for the uninitiated and those not familiar with the governing legal regime, the regulations do appear to be inconsistently applied.

The FAP has not been with us forever. In 1978, the Department of Interior established regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, 25 CFR Part 83, to ``establish a departmental procedure and policy for acknowledging that certain American Indian groups exist as tribes.''

Since this administrative procedure was set up in 1978, over 270 groups have petitioned under the regulations, with 18 groups being awarded acknowledgment as a tribe, and 19 groups having been denied.

This means that nearly 230 groups are still waiting to hear on their petitions.

For those who think the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, BAR, is a serial grantor of recognition: just last week the Golden Hill Paugussett group in Connecticut was preliminarily denied acknowledgment.

The delays petitioners face have led to understandable frustration: the Indian Affairs Committee has received testimony from groups where the individuals that originally filed the petition have passed away, and the struggle is carried on by their children, and even grandchildren.

Some petitioners have become so tired of waiting that they have sued the Secretary of Interior and some courts have forced the BAR to produce decisions by dates-certain.

Unfortunately this ``queue jumping'' has created adverse incentives, as more groups file lawsuits.

The kinks in the process have also caused understandable frustration on the part of other, non-Indian groups. These frustrations have led to voluminous Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests, and even lawsuits, as these groups have tried to secure information or seek a better understanding of the regulations.

As you might expect, once the lawsuits get started, paper starts churning. The BAR staff testified to the Indian Affairs Committee that their anthropologists, genealogists and historians spend 40 percent of their time just making photo-copies in response to FOIA requests.

The bill I am introducing today will resolve many of the problems I have described. It will do this first by introducing discipline into the process. Under this bill would-be-petitioners must include enough information in their ``letter of intent'' so that the BAR and other interested parties have a better idea of the context of the group. Obtaining more information will better assist the Secretary of Interior in providing notices to the group and interested parties; and the bill requires that such notices go out within 90 days, insuring timeliness.

Secondly, this bill will provide more resources to petitioners and interested parties, based on the needs of the group or party, something on which all observers of the process seem to be in agreement.

Third, this bill will provide more resources to the Department of Interior, another point on which there seems to be wide agreement.

I do not propose to merely throw more money at this problem. Instead, the bill establishes a research pilot project that will draw upon independent research institutions and consultation with the Smithsonian to expand the research capacity of the BAR.

The bill will also provide a resource to the Assistant Secretary that is sorely needed: an independent research and advisory board that can be called on by the Assistant Secretary to act as a peer reviewer and a second source upon which the Assistant Secretary can base his determination on a petition.

This board will consist of certified professionals and will be available to the Assistant Secretary: 1. at his discretion, if the Assistant Secretary and BAR disagree regarding whether particular criterion have been met in a petition; and 2. to provide outside peer

review and a second opinion on a proposed final determination.

The board will give the Assistant Secretary greater assurance in the soundness of his determination, and will provide a more solid foundation for any later appellate review.

Finally, this bill will provide the certainty of a statutory basis for the acknowledgment criteria that have been used by the BAR since 1978.

There appears to be widespread acceptance of the substantive validity of the criteria, but questions have been raised regarding whether those criteria should be codified. This bill answers that question definitively.

This bill addresses the criticisms of the FAP by increasing the transparency, consistency and integrity of the process, and at the same time removes some of the bureaucratic hurdles that have caused the process to be too costly and time-consuming.

I urge my colleagues to support this important measure and ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, this morning during the debate on the Check 21 open rule, I warned this body that open rules are a rarity, an endangered species, if you will. Well, here we are about to consider not an open rule but a closed rule on two noncontroversial bills. But what do you expect? This is the norm. This is business as usual in this House.

I also want this Chamber and the American people to remember this moment, because it is historic. This also is a rarity here. We finally have seen a tax cut that the Republicans do not like. In the dead of night, faced with the decision of either providing tax relief for 12 million working families or giving a tax cut to Donald Trump, the Republicans chose Donald Trump and left the children out in the cold.

And who exactly is left behind by this glaring omission? Nearly one in five children of our active duty military. These families are only making around $27,000 a year. They did not

have the good fortune to be born with the last name of ``Gates'' or ``Buffett'' or ``Cheney.'' But they are trying to make a living, and they are doing so by serving their country. These are children of people who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the Republicans, in their greed and zeal for tax cuts for their rich friends, decided these families do not need any tax relief.

Now, of course, Republicans claim that they provide tax relief only for people who pay income tax, but we all know people pay more than just income tax. There is a payroll tax. There is property tax. There is a sales tax. But the Republicans in their warped thought process consider payroll tax relief and child tax credit a new form of welfare. We heard this argument earlier this morning, and it is outrageous; and quite frankly, it is insulting to these hardworking Americans.

As we all know, this could not be farther from the truth. It is the Republicans who encourage welfare in the Tax Code by giving tax breaks to corporations that flee this country for tax havens in other countries. Their disingenuous argument does not fly with the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the legislative process in this body is broken. There is no excuse for the majority's actions. We are here today to reconsider two bills that should have been passed under suspension of the rules. The bills are not controversial, but the majority's actions are.

As we all know, on Tuesday three bills were defeated under suspension of the rules. House Democrats using one of the few procedural tools at our disposal, voted against these bills, not on their merits but to express our frustration that the House leadership refuses to allow for consideration of a bill that would give our working families the tax relief that they deserve.

So today is also payback day. I think it is shameful and spiteful; and it is, unfortunately, very typical around here. They will not say it on the other side of the aisle, so I am going to say it right here now.

What is the payback? Among other things, showing disrespect for one of the finest individuals ever to grace the halls of Congress. The one bill that was defeated on Tuesday that is not on today's schedule is the bill to name a Federal building in Indianapolis for former Senator Birch Bayh. We should be naming multiple courthouses in this country for Birch Bayh.

Their tactics will not work. We are not going to be intimidated. We are going to keep talking about the issues that matter to working Americans, and issues like tax fairness are high among them. If the Republicans were serious about tax relief and if they were serious about their support for working families, they would schedule a vote to reinstate this provision. That is what we are fighting for. That is what we are asking for. But they will not, because they are not serious about this. They are merely providing lip service, telling Americans what they want to hear while padding the pockets of their wealthy friends.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of this debate on the rule I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to provide for the consideration of the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill to help the people the Republicans would rather leave behind.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

(Mrs. Jones of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

(Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article that appeared in USA Today on this day that says, ``Military Kids Get Slighted on Tax Credit.''

The article referred to is as follows:

[From USA Today, June 5, 2003]

Study: Military Kids Slighted on Tax Credit

Parents earn too little to qualify for the provision

(By William M. Welch)

Washington.--Nearly one in five children of active-duty

U.S. military families won't benefit from the increased tax

credit signed last week by President Bush because their

parents earn too little to qualify, a study being released

today concludes.

The finding by the Children's Defense Fund, a liberal

advocacy group, comes as Bush and Republican congressional

leaders are under increasing fire for agreeing to omit

working poor families from the increased child credit

included in the $350 billion, 10-year tax cut plan and aid

for states.

Those military families would have received a check of up

to $400 per child under a provision that the Senate added to

the bill. But that ``refundable'' credit to families who pay

little or no federal income tax, but do pay payroll taxers,

was deleted in final negotiations between Bush and Republican

leader of Congress.

Families who have children and earn more than about $27,000

a year are due to receive checks next month of up to $400 per

child, as an advance on an increase in the credit from $600

to $1,000.

The group said 250,000 of the 1.4 million children in

active-duty military families will not qualify for the

benefit because of the omission.

An additional 750,000 children denied the benefit have

parents who are military veterans, the fund concluded. It

based its findings on latest U.S. Census data.

Democrats, liberal groups and some moderate Republicans in

Congress are trying to build pressure on Bush and GOP leaders

to pass legislation quickly extending the credit, to those

families that were left out.

Democrats immediately invoked U.S. troops still in Iraq as

a political justification for another bill expanding the

credit.

``Thousands of military personnel, people who put their

lives on the line for our country, won't receive the child

credit unless we correct the child credit unless we correct

the bill,'' Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., said.

The $3.5 billion cost would be paid for by cracking down on

business tax avoidance schemes under the Democrats' proposal.

They said fast action was needed to assure 12 million low-

income families are able to receive a check when the

government begins mailing them to more affluent families

starting July 1.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Minority

Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., were negotiating a possible

agreement that would permit the Senate to vote, perhaps this

week, on competing proposals aimed at providing just such a

remedy to the working poor.

Republican leaders of the House of Representatives are

resisting the move. They say Bush didn't propose giving the

added credit to the working poor as part of his original

economic stimulus plan, and that sending tax refunds to

people who pay no federal income tax may be bad policy.

``This is something that has been blown out of

proportion,'' said Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who is on the

tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. ``It was not part of

the original bill, nor was it part of the bill in the House.

. . . We never debated it. . . . It is a new idea, and it is

one we ought to think about.''

In another effort to build pressure, a coalition of liberal

groups today begins airing TV ads in Washington blasting Bush

for leaving the working poor out of the child credit benefit

increase.

The Center for Community Change is buying a relatively

modest amount of airtime, but it is encouraging hundreds of

like-minded groups to air the same ad in other cites.

The ad shows two children: one too poor to qualify for the

increased credit and another, whose parents make more money,

who receives it. ``President Bush chose the most fortunate to

get the most,'' an announcer says.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on the other side?

Mr. Speaker, how many speakers does the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) have to discuss this issue?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman want to use some of his time now?

Mr. Speaker, we have used up several speakers. I think for balance, if one of the gentleman's speakers is here, they could go.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, if it was such a good idea, number one, why did you remove it? Number two, I do not recall us ever having voted on this in the House. It was inserted in the Senate. Let us be accurate.

That is outrageous.

Let me say for the record what I am outraged at what is in the paper today, that nearly one in five children of U.S. military families will not benefit from the increased tax credit signed by President Bush.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Georgia his tax package is about welfare for the rich. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to see if anyone on the other side wants to respond. We are waiting.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we are not going to get an answer to that question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 30 seconds. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can help millions of children and working families. We have heard the other side defend the indefensible.

Mr. Speaker, if they do not want to help millions of working families, they should at least have the guts to go on record as voting no instead of hiding behind procedures. So let this House work its will. Let us have a little democracy in this Chamber. Vote on the previous question so we can bring up the Rangel bill and literally help millions of children in this country.

Working Families Tax Credit Act of 2003--Summary of H.R. 2286, June 4,

2003

Republicans have left moderate-income families behind in

their zeal to cut taxes on millionaires, contrary to their

``leave no child behind'' rhetoric.

H.R. 2286 helps moderate-income working families and is

revenue neutral.

provisions

Provides Child Credit to More Working Families: Lowers to

$7,500 (from $10,500) the amount of the wages a family must

have before refundability of the child credit begins. This is

identical to a provision that was included in the house

Democratic alternative on the economic stimulus legislation.

The credit would be allowed for approximately 19 million

additional children by reason of this change.

Increases Benefit for Working Families: Increases partial

refundability from 10 percent of wages to 15 percent of

wages. Again, this is identical to a provision that was

included in the Democratic alternative. This would result in

an average credit increase of over $300 per child.

Helps Families of Soldiers in Combat: Allows refundability

for families of soldiers in combat zones even though combat

wages are not taxed.

Speeds up Marriage Penalty Relief for Lower Income Working

Couples: Makes effective immediately the marriage penalty

relief in the Earned Income Tax Credit that was provided in

the 2001 tax cut. This is the only marriage penalty relief

not accelerated in the recently enacted tax bill.

Does Not Increase the Deficit: Closes corporate loopholes:

prohibits tax shelters, and taxes corporations that move

headquarters offshore (expatriates).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

I wanted to say to my colleagues in the House, I certainly intend to stay on the subject matter of this rule equally as much as all the Democrats who have been speaking at least.

I want to talk to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about this child tax refundable credit which they are so indignant about. Because I want to remind them, you all had nothing to do with putting it on the books, nothing. We were glad that you like it because it was a Republican idea, but every single one of you, every single one of your speakers has voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to help you a little bit out here and just kind of remind you so far we have heard from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), all good folks. However, they have all voted against this refundable tax credit, May 16, 2001, when the Republicans put it on the books. I do not know what you were thinking.

This thing that you were pretending to champion, you voted against. It was a Republican idea. Where were you when the battle was being fought? I am going to review a little bit of history, and let me say to this, you all are looking around stunned which I understand.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, let me jog the gentleman's memory. Here is what the situation was, and the gentleman is a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules and has lots of bills that pass through his desk, so I will not hold you responsible for knowing everything.

Prior to 2001, the child tax credit was $500 per child. It was passed under a Republican bill and, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) pointed out, it was signed by President Clinton. So you can claim a little bipartisanship there, even though that was passed by Republican votes when it was in the House, but prior to 2001 the child tax credit was $500. The credit was not refundable for most families. However, for a family with three kids or more, the credit was refundable; and it was not offset by the earned income tax credit. That was prior to 2001.

Now enter President Bush and the 2001 tax cut. Under that, the proposal was to increase the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. The credit was $600 for the year 2003, and it was scheduled to reach $1,000 per child in 2010. That law made the child tax credit partially refundable for all families with children, not just those who had three kids or more.

Now, we had the vote on that May 16, 2001, and I have got the Roll Call from that, and at that time every one of you all voted against it. As a matter of fact, 197 Democrats voted against this.

So, Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats come out here looking for some rhetoric, and the big rhetoric of the Democratic party this year really that has been led by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) is, we could have torn that statue down a lot cheaper.

I know a lot of folks are against the war. And then it was, well, the plan is not working when we were going up the Euphrates. And then as soon as they tore down the statue, I know a lot of folks on the left, and I want to say not all the members of the Democrat party but a lot of folks on the left were disturbed that a 23-year-old Marine corporal who was in theater had the audacity of hanging an American flag on a Saddam Hussein statue. Of course, he was denounced in the liberal, left-wing community for doing that.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Let me say to my friend from Tennessee, that is why I said not all the Democrats but a lot of folks on the left denounced the fact that that flag was hung.

I would also point out that you were not one of them.

Reclaiming my time, I will yield further to you in just one second.

I am very pleased that you all are listening. Let me do this, because I am being generous here, but my ranking member of the Committee on Rules says that maybe we should do this a little bit more on your time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I am glad that not only does the gentleman listen to fine speeches like mine, but he also reads the paper, which is very good.

I suspect it is probably The New York Times or The Washington Post.

Let me just say this, does that article point out that my colleagues voted against phasing in the tax cut, the refundability, in 2001? That is all I want to say.

What I would love to hear from our Democrat colleagues, Mr. Speaker, who are saying I voted against this tax cut and a tax cut which was a jobs bill, took 3 million working families off the tax roll, 3 million, and I understand they wanted them on. We thought it would be helpful for the working families of America to get off the tax roll. The reality is they voted against it. They wanted to keep them on. I understand that. I just wish they would acknowledge in the year 2001 that they voted against the child tax refundability clause, and I have the vote in my hand; and I can submit it for the Record, Mr. Speaker, and do that.

If my colleagues want to be helpful, what they ought to do on some of these tax bills that are aimed at creating jobs is say, hey, we want to amend the bill and we will do this. We will do this in a spirit of a democratic, small D, democratic House and process. We are going to vote for the bill if we put in some of their ideas, because this is the way it really should work, the best of their party and the best of our party combined together to put out just the best thoughts and do what is right for working families.

Let me point out that a family of four making $11,000 a year pays no income tax, pays about $842 in payroll taxes and receives $4,140 under the earned income tax credit. We think that is good. We think it also would be helpful, though, if my colleagues could join us in making these child tax credits permanent because their idea that they are concerned about now might have some merits. Why do they not join us in saying we are going to make these child tax credits permanent? We are not going to do a bait and switch, when in the year 2011 they are gone.

While we are at it, because we all know that a family of mom and dad have great potential for stability, why do we not end the marriage tax penalty together? Again, I throw out an olive branch to my colleagues, could they join us in making the marriage tax penalty permanent? That would be very helpful for the working poor. There are so many things that we could do together.

Another idea is the 10 percent tax bracket, the 10 percent rate. Could my colleagues join us in making that permanent? These are all things that could help the working poor.

We are not going to say we have the franchise on helping the working poor just because we voted to take 3 million off the payrolls and my colleagues voted against it. We are saying maybe they can join us on the next job creation package and come up with something that is in the best interest of all of us.

I would love to yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, but we are getting to the point we have got a lot of Members who want to go ahead and have a vote, and I am a little concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me say this. Our objective is to get people working, and that was the real goal of this to get folks working.

Let me say this to my friend from Tennessee: if the gentleman wants to join us in making the child tax credit permanent; the marriage tax penalty, eliminate it permanently; the 10 percent tax credit, make that permanent, he and I need to get together because I think we can move the ball down the road, and that is all we want to do.

I am just saying that the planned, orchestrated campaign of the Democrat Party to denounce something that they all voted against in the year 2002, I just wish the speakers would say I voted against this in 2001, but it is a great idea and now I am mad that the Republicans are not doing it this way; I want it done even though I did not share any of the burden by being responsible and voting for it.

I want to end with this. There are a lot of differences between the Democrat and the Republican parties. They seem to be the group of frivolous lawsuits and starving trial lawyers. We are the party of tort reform, ending frivolous medical liabilities, making health care affordable and accessible. They seem to like unemployment checks and government handouts. We like paychecks, jobs and opportunities.

They like welfare and low expectations. We like welfare reform, jobs.

Mr. Speaker, here is the situation with welfare reform, Mr. Speaker. We passed welfare reform at a time when there were 14 million people on welfare. At that time, we were called all kinds of names, and they were saying it was heartless and we were mean-spirited and everything else and that these folks were unable to help themselves. What is interesting is in 1996 when we passed welfare reform, we had 14 million people on welfare. Today, that number is down to 5 million people, too high; but we need to continue working on that. The 9 million people are now tax paying, working, enjoying the opportunity, sharing in the American Dream. They are glad that we passed welfare reform.

There is a component in this that the Democrats are proposing which is simply welfare, and I think there may be some merit in that. I have no trouble at all in a healthy discussion on tinkering with welfare reform. This is good for everybody, but what our tax package was about was creating jobs, and we are going to continue to be the party of welfare reform, jobs and opportunity.

Committee on Ways and Means

child credit refundability fact sheet

What was the child credit prior to 2001?

Prior to 2001, the child credit was $500 per eligible

child. The credit was not refundable for most families.

However, for families with 3 or more eligible children, the

credit was refundable to the extent the family had payroll

tax liability that was not offset by the Earned Income Credit

(EIC).

How was the child credit expanded in 2001?

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of

2001 significantly expanded the child credit in two important

ways.

(1) The law gradually increased the credit from $500 to

$1,000. The credit was $600 for 2003 and was scheduled to

reach $1,000 in 2010.

(2) The law made the child credit partially refundable for

all families with children--not just those with 3 or more

children. The credit is now refundable by an amount equal to

10 percent of the family's earned income in excess of

$10,000. The $10,000 threshold is indexed annually for

inflation (it is $10,500 for 2003), and the 10 percent

refundability rate will increase to 15 percent in 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. President, during his State of the Union speech this week, President Bush emphasized the importance of local and charitable initiatives that help define the character of the many communities that make up the mosaic of our country. I have come to the floor today to discuss a community tradition that is unique to many of Alaska's remote villages and which should be recognized and supported by the Federal Government.

Subsistance whaling is vital to the survival of several Alaska Native communities. In many of our remote villages, the whale hunt is a tradition that has been carried on over many millennia. As part of that tradition, it is the custom that the captain of the hunt make all provisions for the meals, wages and equipment costs associated with the hunt.

After the hunt, the Captain is repaid in whale meat and muktuk, which is blubber and skin. However, as part of the tradition, the Captain donates a substantial portion of the whale to his village in order to help the community survive the harsh winter.

While the International Whaling Commission, IWC, has banned commercial whaling, it has specifically recognized the cultural significance of whaling to the Alaska Native community and has allowed them to continue the seasonal hunt. The IWC recognizes that the traditional whale hunt is not carried on for financial gain. Although the hunt generates no financial gain to the whaling captain, the captain incurs real expenses.

Since the whaling captain is not engaged in a business, he is not permitted to deduct the costs he incurs from his taxes. In order to maintain the traditional hunt and to offset some of the costs incurred by the Captain, I am today introducing legislation that would allow the captain to claim a charitable deduction of up to $10,000 to help defray the costs associated with providing this community service.

I want to point out that if the Captain incurred all of these expenses and then donated the whale meat to a local charitable organization, the Captain would almost certainly be able to deduct the costs he incurred in outfitting the boat for the charitable purpose. However, the cultural significance of the Captain's sharing the whale with the community would be lost. Moreover, since there is no commercial market for whale meat because of the international whaling bank, there is no way to set the value of such a charitable contribution.

This is a very modest proposal and I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I speak today on behalf of Alaska's most vulnerable individuals, our children, the disabled, and the elderly poor. Since its enactment in 1965, the Medicaid program has helped States provide low-income and disabled individuals with access to vital health care services. In 1997, Congress allowed States to take on certain health-related responsibilities for children. The Denali Kid Care program, a Medicaid expansion, has been very successful in providing health services for Alaskan children. Unfortunately, under current law many Alaskans who rely on this program could lose some or all of their Medicaid coverage. This is because Alaska's Federal Medical Assistance percentage, FMAP, adjustment, a correction to the Medicaid formula due to the high cost of health care in Alaska, will expire within the next 2 fiscal years. An FMAP correction is necessary for Alaska because this ``one-size-fits-all'' formula does not account for variations in cost-of-living, and does not consider Alaska's higher federally mandated poverty level.

First of all, the FMAP formula was developed in 1946, 13 years before Alaska was admitted to the Union. This archaic formula is used to calculate the Federal share of Medicaid costs for each State. The calculations are based on the per capita income of individual States relative to the national per capita income. In this way, States with higher per capita incomes end up paying a higher percentage of their Medicaid costs. This formula appears to work well for States near the national norms for most economic indicators. It most certainly does not work in the State of Alaska, however, where these economic indicators appear more frequently as statistical exceptions and outlyers.

The problem is fairly simple: it just costs more to do business in Alaska, and this includes health care. A national per capita income threshold is not a fair indicator unless it takes into account the cost of living in that area. The cost-of-living adjustment for Federal employees in Alaska suggests that it costs 25 percent more to live in Alaska than in the lower 48, and Federal employee salaries are adjusted accordingly. A dollar simply does not buy the same thing in Alaska that it does in the lower 48.

This is especially true for health care costs. Estimates suggest that, on average, it costs up to 71 percent more to deliver health care services in Alaska. American Hospital Association data shows that Alaska has the highest average expense per hospital admission of any State in the Nation. But let's talk real numbers again. If you were to be admitted to a hospital in Oregon, on average the cost would be $6,649.00; in Alaska the same average hospital stay costs almost double, $10,859.00. There are also higher costs associated with limited road access and necessary air ambulance service for rural and isolated communities, but the Medicaid FMAP formula does not consider any of these additional costs.

In addition to the higher cost of services in Alaska, the Federal Government sets the poverty level 20 percent higher in Alaska than in any of the lower 48 States. This means 1 out of every 5 Alaskans is eligible for Medicaid. The problem is that this is essentially an unfunded Federal mandate because the FMAP formula, again, does not change to reflect this additional requirement. The higher demand for services that results from the higher poverty level dilutes our resources. The Medicaid FMAP formula was developed before Alaska became a State and does NOT provide the funds to cover all of those who are eligible.

However, in 1997 and again in 2000, Congress recognized that the Medicaid FMAP formula was unfair for Alaska and enacted an adjustment to the formula. Due in part to this more equitable funding and a careful re-allocation of resources, Alaska now: has the lowest age- adjusted death rate for breast cancer in the Nation; has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the Nation; and has one of the lowest percentages of low birth weight babies in the Nation.

These are encouraging statistics, but more can and must be done to improve access to quality health care. All disabled and low-income Americans, including Alaskans, have been assured access to quality medical care. Alaska has proven it can deliver this quality care, but only with the necessary adjustment to the FMAP formula that recognizes the reality of Alaska's needs.

This issue is timely because the Congress has the opportunity to allow the State of Alaska to plan for the future. Planning is the essence of good management, and when it comes to health care, we must allow States to plan for future needs. In short, the Federal Government must remember its commitment to Alaskans, and allow my State a benefit that all other states have, assurance that money for vital Medicaid services will not just dry up and disappear.

Alaskans do not seek charity, we seek equity. The Congress has supported this request twice before, and I ask for an additional extension to honor Federal commitments to my state. The legislation that I am introducing today will permanently adjust the Medicaid formula for Alaska. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will support this vital legislation that will preserve my State's ability to provide health insurance to the most vulnerable Alaskans.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to establish the Denali Transportation System.

This bill in intended to help create in the same beneficial transportation system in Alaska as exists for every other State in the Union. It is patterned after a similar effort adopted years ago for the Appalachian region, which has demonstrated beyond any doubt that transportation investment is wise investment.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to fund the costs of construction of the Denali Transportation System, at a level of $450 million per year from Fiscal Year 2004 through Fiscal Year 2009. As new roads are constructed, they will become part of the National Highway System.

As my colleagues are aware, Alaska's ability to develop a strong economy for the benefit of the State and the nation is deeply impaired by the lack of transportation. This affects all aspects of life in the 49th State, from the delivery of fuel and essential services to individuals and families in our many remote villages, to our ability to develop Alaska's abundance of valuable natural resources. Only our major cities have modern roadways, and many of those remain isolated.

No State, or its citizens, can prosper without adequate transportation systems. In much of the country, such systems have been in place since before

the American Revolution, and have been constantly changing, adapting and being upgraded ever since. In much of Alaska, in contrast, residents are still forced to travel between communities by boat, or on frozen rivers, just as they did when the Territory of Alaska was first purchased from Imperial Russia. In this day, and age, such a situation is completely unacceptable. It is a lasting mark of neglect, and it is past time to rectify it.

The Denali Transportation System will provide far greater benefits than costs. As we enter an era where gigantic natural changes are occurring in the Arctic environment, and ice-free maritime transportation through the Arctic Ocean is expected to become a reality within decades, it is critical that we begin to prepare ourselves for those changes. Adequate transportation connections to, and within, America's only Arctic State are imperative.

As we debate a Federal budget during a time when the economy is struggling, let us not forget that the key to long-term prosperity is wise investment. Investing in Alaska is investing wisely. We have incomparable resources and vigorous citizens. It is time we have the transportation system that will allow those assets to be used as they should.

Mr. President, I ask unanimously consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.