Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 507) to provide for the conveyance of certain inholdings owned by the United States to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 507 directs the Secretary of the Interior to take two 10-acre parcels into trust for a tribe in Arizona. These two parcels are both completely surrounded by either the tribe's reservation or by fee lands owned by the tribe. Before the parcels can be taken into trust, however, the Tucson Unified School District will first need to relinquish its possessory interest in one parcel. The school district no longer needs the land, which it had previously received under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act.

The Secretary of the Interior will also need to approve a lease agreement between the tribe and the school district for the construction and operation of a regional transportation facility on the tribe's land.

Both parcels would be utilized as part of a golf course that is currently under construction. Neither parcel is necessary for the construction of the golf course, but if the tribe does not acquire and use these parcels, they will be orphaned and of relatively no use to either the tribe or to the United States.

As has become customary when taking land into trust, the bill includes language that prohibits any gaming on the two parcels to be taken into trust.

Finally, I would like to commend the gentleman from Arizona for his bill, and I urge its adoption.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 803, which would ensure vital funding for workforce training programs utilized by Alaska Natives, Native Americans, and Native Hawaiians.

H.R. 803, as reported, contains a provision which establishes a 1 percent cap on the amount that each State can designate for Native employment and training grants out of their total funding allotment.

My amendment would instead require that each State provide exactly 1 percent for each program. This change is important because H.R. 803, as it currently stands, gives States the discretion to drastically reduce or virtually eliminate Native work-training funds.

Alaska Native, American Indian, and Native Hawaiian populations often rank at the bottom of labor-related categories like income, education, and unemployment rate. Since 1998, America's Native peoples have relied crucially on funding from the Workforce Investment Act to provide the necessary resources to educate their workforce to help reverse these trends. My amendment would guarantee that tribal funding continues.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

At this time, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).

Madam Chair, again I urge a ``yes'' vote. This amendment does solve some problems.

And I'd like to address the issue of training. We've been very fortunate in Alaska. We've used these dollars in training for our Alaskan Natives very successfully. We have aircraft training programs. We have carpenter training programs. We're training a group of Alaskan Natives to do the jobs that they can do not only in their tribal areas, but in the State itself. It makes for a sound economy.

On the reservation Mr. Cole mentioned, we still have that high rate. I hope we understand that I'm going to seek a new empowerment act for the American Indians to make sure that they don't have that high rate through training, availability, utilization of their land for the benefit of themselves so, in fact, we can continue to raise their standard instead of keeping 80 percent unemployment.

Again I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 2013, I was unable to vote because of medical reasons and missed rollcall vote No. 55, on passage of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

I strongly support reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was delayed for far too long. I am pleased that Congress was able to overcome the obstacles that blocked its final passage. VAWA's programs are a critical component of our Nation's effort to reduce violence and care for victims. Reauthorizing VAWA will help Alaska, and the rest of the country, combat the epidemic of abuse and rape that plagues our families and communities.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 44 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, this is an injustice what the Secretary of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife has done to a village called King Cove in Alaska. We had hearings, we had the lands transfer, we had everything going to work so these people could be safe--be safe to go to hospitals, be safe to fly out when the weather was bad. It was an agreement between the State, the Congress, and the village of King Cove. And along comes the Fish and Wildlife and denies them the trade that has to be necessary for this transportation corridor.

I'm urging my Senators to put a hold on the new Secretary of the Interior so she's not confirmed until this Secretary can, in fact, sign the law that will allow them to have safety once and for all. This process has been going on for more than 20 years. We finally got to a solution that's being stopped by this administration, the lack of knowledge about human life, who would rather protect something that does not exist.

This refuge has over 300 miles of road in it, but these people are being denied and need the safety. I'm asking Secretary Salazar, in fact, to take and do his job: overturn the Fish and Wildlife's recommendation, allow my people to be safe, and make sure they can continue to live their lives without the threat of the weather when it can be solved by an act of the Secretary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to continue the conversation on how to preserve and protect an important neighborhood in Fairbanks, Alaska from eventual destruction.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 443) to provide for the conveyance of certain property from the United States to the Maniilaq Association located in Kotzebue, Alaska.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

My bill, H.R. 443, directs the Indian Health Service to transfer 15 acres of Federal land in Alaska to the Maniilaq Association by warranty deed. The IHS has already conveyed these lands to the association by quitclaim deed; however, under Federal Indian health laws, transferring land by quitclaim deed could present some obstacles to the future use of the land by the association. The association is a nonprofit entity that runs Federal Indian health services for Native people in northwest Alaska. The land subject to this legislation is currently the site of a Native health facility and of proposed long-term care facilities and employee housing.

The administration testified in support of the land transfer, and we have heard no other objections to this bill which passed the House over a year ago by a 407-4 vote. The Senate amendment before us today makes four small technical changes to the bill, including changing verb tenses, clarifying the timing of the conveyance, and clarifying a definition. None are controversial and, some might say, even necessary.

I, again, thank Chairman Upton of the Energy and Commerce Committee for allowing H.R. 443, a bill that we share jurisdiction over, to be considered on the floor today.

I urge the House to adopt the Senate amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no other requests for time. I urge the passage of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to continue the conversation on how to preserve and protect an important neighborhood in Fairbanks, Alaska from eventual destruction.

In 1987, the Army entered into a Section 801 build-to-lease housing contract for 400-home community on seventy-six acres of land. These homes, consisting of three, four, and five bedroom units, a maintenance and leasing facility, associated roads and parking areas, landscaping, eighteen playgrounds, and a central heating system including 39 boiler houses, are an important source of housing for military families and the local area. This group of homes is more than just housing or a neighborhood, it is a community.

The housing lease for this Section 801 contract expired in 2007 and the ground lease is scheduled to expire on June 26, 2018. Without an extension of the ground lease, the 400 houses must be removed from their current location no later than 180 days following the expiration of the lease. The most likely outcome of this situation is a complete demolition of these properties.

Currently, these 400 houses are nearly 100% occupied (99% in August of 2012) which is an unbiased testament to the value of these houses. Additionally, the four and five bedroom units are a valuable but very limited resource for the large number of military families with multiple children stationed in the area. In fact, seeing the value of these homes to both the military community and the local tax base, several community leaders and interests have written to me over the past couple of years to express their support for extending the ground- lease under these homes.

While I understand that this is a sensitive issue, it simply does not make sense for 400 high-use and high-value homes to be torn down. There must be a better solution. This bill may not be that solution, but it is a critical step in the direction to finding one.

I thank the good lady for yielding.

This is a solemn moment. The gentleman from the Mariana Islands just gave a presentation. I would like to think Senator Inouye and I played a role in making sure he could stand on this floor and give that presentation.

Danny Inouye, the Senator from Hawaii--actually, he was the third Senator from Alaska. And excuse me, Danny, for saying this; I don't want to call you Senator at this time, but just Danny. He was always able to reach across the aisle and solve problems of the noncontiguous States with my friend, Senator Stevens. Hand-in-hand, two veterans. One lost an arm and one flew 36 missions over the Hump. Together, they were one, they were brothers, and they said that so many times--brothers in arms, brothers in supporting two noncontiguous States, brothers in solving problems for people across the aisle.

I didn't serve with Danny, but I knew him well because he was a friend of my people, the Alaska Natives. In fact, we had him 2 years ago at the AFN convention speaking to the need and necessity for the Hawaiian Natives to be recognized as the Alaskan Natives were.

He was an icon--a person that could work together. And he was--think about this--a young man that was Japanese. He was not in an internment camp. He volunteered for the America that he loved. He loved and served and lost, but he always won. He always won. But he did that by reaching the one arm he had left in his hand and shaking that hand and saying, Let's do it together. Let's work together. Let's not have the animosity, the rancor that's occurring today.

In fact, when I think about it a moment, I think, Danny, God bless you. You're in heaven. Hawaii is better off. Alaska is better off. But if we don't change our ways, you would be terribly disappointed. You would not be happy the way things are happening in this Congress, including the United States Senate.

And so, Danny, I will tell you one thing. You have Alaskans-- especially my wife, my children, and my grandchildren--that thank you for the efforts you put forth to take the aboriginal people and bring them into the mainstream of life, with the help of Senator Ted Stevens.

So God bless you, Danny, Senator from Hawaii, and the third Senator for the State of Alaska.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012. This important bill provides the funding and policy support for all of the programs and missions of the United States Coast Guard. The bill also includes policy and statutory provisions that are important to the entire maritime industry. Part of what our U.S. flag vessel industry does is assist us in developing our energy resources offshore whether in the Arctic or elsewhere. This effort will help us achieve energy independence. Without these working boats being able to operate both domestically and internationally, we as a nation would be lagging even further behind. We need to do what we can to support vessels that can and will do this work.

One such provision in this Coast Guard bill addresses the tonnage situation of the vessel Aqueos Acadian. The world of tonnage measurement is an arcane and complicated subject. However, it is vital to the operation and economics of any vessel. In this case the Aqueos Acadian, in its original configuration in 1973 when she was built, was certified in Coast Guard documentation to be 274 Gross Registered Tons (GRT), which is the official domestic tonnage measurement. Later in her career, the vessel underwent modifications (addition of a closed-in ``shelter deck''), which increased her domestic tonnage (GRT) as well as her international tonnage, which is measured differently than domestic tonnage under the International Tonnage Convention (ITC) rules. Later still in the vessel's history, the modifications that increased the tonnage measurements were removed and the vessel's official documents were then issued by the Coast Guard and ABS to reflect that the GRT had been reduced to 275, almost exactly the original GRT of 274. Vessels that are greater than 300 GRT have safety and manning requirements that are substantially more complicated than vessels at or below 300 GRT. At the time of the certification of the down-sizing modifications reducing the GRT, the ITC tonnage was not reduced because the Coast Guard's ability to administratively reduce international tonnage, once it has gone up, is either extremely arcane or non-existent--even if the vessel's domestic and international tonnage has in fact been reduced.

Aqeuos Corporation purchased the vessel for offshore work and, as stated above, its official documents reflected that the GRT had been reduced to below 300 GRT. Relying on those Coast Guard and ABS issued documents, the company sought Coast Guard administrative help to reduce the ITC tonnage commensurate with the recognition that the GRT had been reduced (prior enlarging modifications removed). In the Coast Guard Authorization bill (H.R. 2838) just enacted this week, there is language that allows the company to keep operating the vessel under its current documentation (below 300 GRT) and allows time to complete the tonnage reducing modifications that were not done by the previous owners of the vessel but which the Coast Guard has said must be done. Unfortunately the ITC tonnage reduction remains incomplete. The provision does not restore the vessel's ITC tonnage to that of the GRT, once the tonnage reducing modification is made in dry dock. This second step would afford to the vessel the same result that other vessels in the Aqeuos Acadian's class have, which, through a previous legislative grandfather provision, allows those vessels' GRT and ITC tonnage to be the same. This second step would not give the vessel a competitive advantage relative to other vessels in the Acadian's class, rather without it the company is at a competitive disadvantage with those other vessels in its class. As time goes by the vessel is losing out on potentially millions of dollars of domestic and international work.

It may be that the ITC provides for recognition of the lower tonnage administratively, but the path is not clear whether such an administrative route exists. Again in the case of this vessel, it is essentially being restored to its original tonnage at the time it was built in 1973. I understand the concern addressed by the ITC of vessels substantially changing their size. A larger vessel should be regulated at a larger tonnage. However, I have not been made aware of any vessel that fits this fact pattern of being enlarged and then substantially altered to be restored to its original tonnage. Unfortunately, the way that the ITC addresses this situation is to forever assign a vessel a higher tonnage even if it in fact has been reduced. That is simply unfair. Other vessels of the same class which did not undergo the enlargement are now enjoying a lower ITC tonnage. The equities are that this vessel should be similarly recognized once restored. This is an equitable case for assigning it the ITC tonnage as though it had not undergone the earlier enlargement.

While there may be a way to do this administratively, that process has not been made clear and seems to be a maze of arcane International Maritime Organization procedures. Thus, the case for correcting the international tonnage for this vessel is a compelling one based on a unique situation. The recognition of such a unique case as this would not undermine the U.S. credibility or the ITC itself, or cause any backlash in the international community. This vessel should not be force fit into a regime that does not recognize its circumstance. We need vessels such as the Aqueos Acadian to develop offshore energy resources as soon as possible. This provision gets part of the job done and in time perhaps an additional measure is needed. In the meantime, I strongly urge the Coast Guard to develop an administrative solution and I ask the Coast Guard to consider all of the factors mentioned above.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great American and a great Alaskan. Barney Uhart, a devoted father and President Emeritus of Chugach Alaska Corporation, passed away on Saturday, September 8th after a lengthy battle with cancer.

Barney's career with Chugach Alaska Corporation began in 1993, and in 2000, he became President and CEO. During his tenure, the company grew phenomenally, rising in revenue from $19 million in 1993 to over $1 billion in 2009. He was not only a charismatic leader and hard worker, but a close friend to many who worked with him over the years. His hard work and total commitment helped provide real, tangible, and ongoing benefits to the Native Shareholders of Chugach as he strove tirelessly to help fulfill the promises of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. His contributions to making the SBA 8(a) program a resounding success, not only for Chugach, but for all Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Native American Tribes, are truly outstanding, and we are all grateful to him for his achievements.

On July 6, 2012, Barney announced his retirement from Chugach to focus on his health and spend time with his family. The Board of Directors of Chugach Alaska Corporation appointed Barney ``President Emeritus'' in honor of his 19 years of service, dedication, and leadership.

Barney's career with Chugach began when he joined Chugach Development Corporation (CDC) as Operations Manager. With a background in Engineering and Business Administration, his project experience in managing Base Operation Services (BOS) contracts in extremely remote locations began 33 years ago when he went to work on his first BOS contract in 1979 on Wake Island.

Barney told of his Wake Island initiation by saying, ``I was living in Hawaii and one day I was helping a friend deliver office furniture to a place called Kentron International. I had no idea what they did, but it sounded like an exotic and exciting place to work where you would get to travel. The next day I put together a resume and slid it under the door. Then I had an interview, and after about 45 minutes, I thought the interview was over and I got up to leave when the manager said, `When can you leave?' The following Tuesday I was on a plane to Wake Island in the mid- Pacific and I still didn't know what Kentron International did.'' Clearly, Barney never shied away from a new opportunity.

Born in Fresno, California in 1952, Barney moved to Hawaii in 1970 after high school and his father's passing. During this time, the Vietnam War was still raging. Barney's brother had already done two tours in Vietnam, and he expected to be drafted at any time. Regardless, he enrolled in the University of Hawaii and played baseball. Barney then worked general construction until he decided it wasn't the area he wanted to pursue, and instead seized opportunity by the hand when he went to Wake on his first federal contract job.

In 1985 Barney spent a winter in Greenland on the Defense Early Warning (DEW) Line and was then offered a job as Superintendent of Administration for the DEW line, but declined because he didn't want to spend another year in the Arctic. As a result, he left to work for his first SBA 8(a) company in Hampton, Virginia where he helped grow the company in revenue from $200,000 to $6 million a year.

In early 1988, Barney was offered a job with an SBA 8(a) company in Louisville, Kentucky, and was promoted to Vice-President of Operations. He moved into the Company's new offices in Panama City, Florida. Later, he received a call from Mike Brown (Chugach's President and CEO from 1992 to 1999) who was working at that time for PMC, a subsidiary of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.

Mr. Brown received Barney's name from someone who worked with him at Wake Island years before. Based on that recommendation, Mike wanted Barney to become the BOS contract Project Manager at Amchitka Island, on the Aleutian Chain. Not wanting to move to Amchitka Island, Barney declined the offer and went back to Florida. Five months later, Mr. Brown called him again and offered him a job as Manager of Special Projects in Anchorage.

Years later, Barney recalled with a laugh, ``This time the position was in Anchorage, so I accepted, and one of the first jobs as Manager of Special Projects in Anchorage was to go out to Amchitka Island and evaluate the contract. So he kinda suckered me in with that one.''

While at PMC, the team he worked with received a Coast Guard contract, the Wake Island contract, and the contract to run Midway Island. By then he was Vice-President of Operations for PMC, when Mr. Brown, who had

gone to work for Chugach, along with Dusty Kaser (Chugach's President and CEO from mid to late 1999), recruited him again. His early work with Chugach Development Corporation (CDC) took him to Valdez for six months, and then to King Salmon for a year, and then to Adak, Alaska.

Barney recently recalled, ``During that time, the Chugach management team started marketing the Wake Island contract and we took it away from PMC in 1996. So you can see that Wake has been in my blood for a while, then we received a contract for the Army Housing and Maintenance at Fort Richardson/Fort Wainwright in 1995.''

By 1996, Barney became the Ops Manager for CDC and would often travel to the contract locations and oversee the start-ups. When he left to oversee the start-up of Wake for CAC, he returned full circle to the site from where he started 16 years earlier.

Barney later explained, ``By then I had become the BOS Ops Manager for CAC working for Dusty Kaser and the team started getting more and more contracts. Then I was promoted to Vice-President of Ops for CAC, and when I came back from starting up MacDill in late 1999, I was offered the job as president of CAC.'' In May 2000, the Board of Directors of Chugach promoted Barney to the position of President/CEO and he served as both until 2009 when the position was split to select a qualified Chugach shareholder to lead as CEO.

Mr. Speaker, Chugach has become a shining example of an Alaskan Native Corporation that has succeeded and thrived, and one that has provided tremendous benefits to its Native Shareholders and employees. Barney deserves his full share of credit for this success.

There can be no clearer expression of the excellence that Barney, and Chugach, have achieved over the years, than the words of Barney himself. And so Mr. Speaker, I close with an additional quote from Barney Uhart, a leader, a friend, and a champion of doing the right thing, and of doing things right. He will be deeply missed and his memory will stay with us forever.

``How have we gotten to where we are today? The reason is simple--the people. All the people associated with Chugach are responsible for this success. From the wisdom and direction of the Board of Directors; the patience of the shareholders; the vision and perseverance of management; and the dedication and drive of all the employees, this is what has allowed us to succeed.''

Mr. Speaker, May God bless and hold Barney Uhart and may He bless his family.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I apologize to my good friends, but this has to be a two-way street-- bipartisan--because I do believe that Jerry was an example of the Congress that I knew and loved where we worked together to solve problems. Jerry was very good at that. I, as chairman of the Transportation Committee, we worked through with Jim Oberstar, and we never had an adversarial vote in that whole period of time because he did believe in bipartisanship for the bills in transportation, not only in his district, but for the Nation as a whole.

Jerry was a gentleman at all times. Sometimes I get a little excited, and he would remind me as the chairman that maybe I could be a little more kinder. I told him that doesn't always work. That worked for Jerry. And I do respect his capability to not only serve in his district, but making sure that this Nation had a transportation system in place that would serve this whole Nation.

I look forward to Jerry's retirement--in a sense. I'm sure he'll do good and great things after this, but we will miss his time in Congress. And as a Republican, I definitely will miss him. I do thank Jerry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of a grateful Alaska Congressional Delegation, state, and country, to welcome four heroes to our nation's capital. On September 27, 2012, four World War II veterans are coming on an Honor Flight from Alaska to visit the World War II Memorial here in Washington, D.C.

The Honor Flight program was started in 2005 to provide national transportation to D.C. for veterans who might otherwise never see the memorials built in their honor. Initially run entirely by individual volunteers, the program has grown into a non-profit network of volunteers, organizations, and airlines that work together to extend this amazing opportunity to those who most deserve it.

The four veterans on this Honor Flight are World War II veterans: William Joseph Nuggent, Army Air Force; Louis Elmer Fessler, U.S. Army; Marc Stella, U.S. Marine Corps; Robert J. Ingram, U.S. Navy.

Mr. Speaker, these four veterans from Alaska join over 81,000 veterans, from across the country, who have traveled to our nation's capital since 2005 to visit and reflect on memorials built in their honor. This Honor Flight was made possible through generous public donations and contributions from those who wish to honor these heroes.

We truly can never repay the debt we owe the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who put themselves in harm's way to protect our freedom. The sacrifices made by these heroes--and the families they left behind--are truly incredible. These servicemen returned home with heavy burdens and scars from war, and still helped our nation rebuild and achieve unprecedented prosperity. Their honor, courage, commitment, and sacrifice brought freedom to much of the world, and allowed us to enjoy the freedoms we cherish today.

Please join me in thanking these Alaska veterans for their selfless dedication, commitment, and service to our great nation. God bless America and these brave men.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1171) to reauthorize and amend the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1171.

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

H.R. 1171, the Marine Debris Act Amendments of 2012, reauthorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's, NOAA, Marine Debris Program at currently appropriated levels through 2015. The program has played a crucial role in preventing and reducing the amount of trash on our beaches and in the ocean.

I think it's important to note that this program is not regulatory in nature. It takes a voluntary approach to improving the conditions of our marine environment.

Failure to adequately address marine debris has major consequences on our economy. Large objects floating in our oceans threaten the safe navigation of cargo ships and recreational boaters. Derelict fishing gear costs commercial fishermen millions of dollars in lost revenue. And debris washing up on our shores forces the closing of beaches, a major blow to local economies reliant on tourism.

In Alaska, NOAA's Marine Debris has worked with local partners to conduct more than 20 projects that have removed 750,000 pounds of debris from our shoreline since 2006. But the problem of marine debris is about to get worse for Alaska and other Pacific coast States. NOAA estimates there's 1.5 million tons of debris headed our way as a result of the 2011 Japanese earthquake and the tsunami.

Alaskans are already finding Styrofoam, plastic, wood, and other lightweight debris washing up on our islands. In May, the Coast Guard was forced to sink an abandoned Japanese vessel laden with fuel oil before it broke open on the Southeast panhandle.

Reauthorization of the Marine Debris Program is critical to help Alaska and other coastal States protect our economies and ecosystems and ensure the safety of those transiting our waters.

I want to commend Representative Sam Farr from California for introducing this bill. As an original cosponsor of this important bipartisan effort, I urge all Members to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the gentleman from California. Mr. Farr has been one of the leaders who has been concerned with the oceans, and this debris bill is crucially important to the State of California and especially to Alaska. Mr. Farr came to me many months ago and said we've got to get this done. We've got to get this done. A lot of people weren't interested, and now we finally get to a point where we see what's occurring from the tsunami, although we may not have that recur again.

The crisis in the ocean, though, is detrimental, as I mentioned in my opening statement, to the fishermen whom I represent and to the recreational people whom I represent. So to get it out of the ocean even before it reaches the beaches is crucially important. The beaches sometimes are sort of fun to beachcomb, but if there is something bad that's in the ocean, we should try to retrieve it sooner, if possible; and when it gets there, we really want to be able to take care of it.

There should be more money--I won't disagree with the gentleman from Washington--but we're moving this down the road. We'll see what happens on the Senate side, and we'll see if we can't get a little more effort, because it's a partnership program that makes

this thing work. A lot of people have interest in Alaska and in trying to clean the beaches after it arrives, and we're trying to get more people interested in cleaning the ocean up before it does arrive. Hopefully, it will work together.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no more speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, during the Korean War, a war often forgotten by U.S. history books, many brave soldiers fought and sacrificed their lives in battles waged in brutal fighting conditions. In one such battle, American forces were surprised by an overwhelming Chinese military force at Jangjin Lake, also known as the Chosin Reservoir. From November 27 to December 13, 1950, these courageous American soldiers, including the 1st Marine Division, fought bravely to free themselves from Chinese encirclement and certain capture or death. Following this great battle, seventeen allied soldiers received the Congressional Medal of Honor, the highest honor this Nation can bestow upon a soldier, and more than seventy soldiers were awarded the Navy Cross.

In honor of these brave soldiers, and at the request of two of my constituents, Richard Lilly of Wasilla, Alaska, and John Beasley of Palmer, Alaska, I recently introduced a bill to name one of the mountains in the Alaska Chugach National Forest after this monumental battle. This bill, H.R. 5928, the Mount Chosin Few Act, was intended to show support for the naming of this mountain, a mountain which would forever commemorate the 3,000 killed and 13,000 wounded American service members in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir.

On June 15, 2012, the Board of Geographic Names (BGN), independent of my legislation, acted on an existing request from Mr. Lilly and Mr. Beasley, to name Mount Chosin Few. This action was entirely within the Board's existing legal authority to address new name proposals. I am pleased that the BGN voted unanimously to name this mountain and, in doing so, honor those who fought and died, not just in this one battle, but during the entire Korean War.

Recently however, I have learned of some concerns regarding the origin of the name, Chosin Reservoir and its American colloquial roots. In 1950s, the United Nations provided U.S. soldiers with Japanese maps of the Korean Peninsula, as Korean maps were not available. Due to the use of Japanese maps, U.S. forces and U.S. news sources used the Japanese name ``Chosin,'' instead of the Korean name ``Jangjin,'' to describe the body of water around which this great battle was waged. Consequently, given the great heroics of this battle and the play on words between ``chosen'' and ``Chosin,'' the Battle at Jangjin Lake has been known, by most Americans, as the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. Additionally, the media-friendly nicknames stemming from this battle, such as ``Frozen Chosin'' and ``The Chosin Few,'' have also been adopted into American history.

Please know that I understand and appreciate the concerns of the Korean people and government about the difference in the names ``Jangin Lake'' and ``Chosin Reservoir.'' Such cultural sensitivities are significant and remind us of the amazingly complex differences that exist not only within ethnicities and countries, but also within individual people as well. In the

melting pot of the United States, it can be easy to overlook these differences, as cultures blend and become more homogenized.

While cultural sensitivity is important, I also recognize the significance that my constituents, and all those who fought in this battle, attach to the name ``Chosin.'' This is the name that evokes images in their minds of relentless cold and even more relentless fighting. I believe their sacrifice has earned them the gratitude of both of our nations and the right to name a mountain in Alaska whatever name they believe will most appropriately honor their fallen comrades. I hope the Korean government, and the people they serve, understand that the sacrifices made by those who have fought and died in the name of freedom are far more meaningful than the origin of the name of a mountain in Alaska.