Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I insert in the Record a letter from me to Speaker Hastert regarding H.R. 5689, making technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU

House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, September 29, 2006.

Hon. Dennis J. Hastert,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: On June 28, 2006 the House passed H.R.

5689, making technical corrections to the Safe, Accountable,

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for

Users (SAFETEA: LU). Yesterday, I introduced a bill that

revises H.R. 5689 to incorporate changes that the Senate has

asked us to include (H.R. 6233). These changes are necessary

to ensure that all policies, programs and projects embodied

in last year's long-term highway, transit, and highway safety

authorization bill are implemented as intended by the

Congress.

On September 14, 2006 the House passed H. Res. 1000,

instituting a new standing order of the House with regard to

earmarks in authorization, appropriations, and tax measures.

H. Res. 1000 provides that, in order to consider a bill, the

committee of jurisdiction must list all earmarks included in

the bill and committee report along with the names of Members

requesting the earmarks.

The bi-partisan bill that I introduced yesterday has not

been reported by the Committee, so there is no report or list

of earmarks. In reading the standing order, I concluded that

the requirement that a list appear with this bill does not

apply because the point of order described in section 1(c) of

H. Res. 1000 does not lie against a bill considered under

suspension of the rules. I intend to move to suspend the

rules of the House to pass H.R. 6233.

This bill does not increase the amount of funding that is

designated for projects in SAFETEA: LU. There are changes to

the descriptions of projects that are currently in SAFETEA:

LU and there are some projects to replace projects in

SAFETEA: LU that cannot be executed or implemented. In this

correction bill, however, the total amount of funding

designated for projects is identical to the amount that was

designated in SAFETEA: LU.

Where this bill does provide funding (which is offset by a

rescission of contract authority), the legislative sections

providing such funding do not meet the earmarking definition,

because no entity is named as the intended recipient of the

funds. Where this bill does designate specific entities, or

amend underlying project designations in SAFETEA: LU, it does

not provide new funding. In addition this bill provides for

no new outlays. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has

scored the bill as reducing contract authority by $4 million

over five years.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Don Young,

Chairman

Madam Speaker, I an exchange of letters between Don Young and Richard Pombo for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Resources,

Washington, DC, September 28, 2006.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I have reviewed the text of H.R. 5681,

the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2006, and believe that

the Committee on Resources has a jurisdictional interest in

provisions in this important legislation dealing with

fisheries. Specifically, we have identified a provision

dealing with the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fishery

in the Northern Region of the management plan.

Recognizing that the House of Representatives has a

dwindling number of legislative days left before the 109th

Congress adjourns, I will forego seeking a sequential

referral of H.R. 5681. Waiving the Committee on Resources'

right to a referral in this case does not waive the

Committee's jurisdiction over any provision in H.R. 5861 or

similar provisions in other bills. In addition, I ask that

you support my request to have the Committee on Resources

represented on the conference on this bill, if a conference

is necessary. Finally, I ask that you include this letter in

the Congressional Record during debate on H.R. 5861 when it

is considered by the House of Representatives.

I appreciate your leadership on this bill and I look

forward to working with you on H.R. 586.

Sincerely,

Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to thank Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Petri, and especially Mr. Oberstar, the ranking member. This is a good team. We wrote a good bill, but the bill was quite large, and there were some errors in printing and errors in judgment in the sense that somebody had misinterpreted what we wrote, and this bill is truly a technical corrections bill.

The reasons it take a little time. As the gentleman from Minnesota mentioned, is because this is a two-body form of government, and there was some difference of opinion in the other body on what I will not mention, and it has taken us a long time to try to arrive at this technical corrections bill that gets done what we tried to do and intended to do and will do now in SAFETEA-LU.

I would like at this time, again it has already been said, but to thank the staff, minority and majority, Graham Hill, Ward, and Jim Tymon, and everybody that has worked on this legislation, along with the other body.

We now are at a point in the last days of this session that we will be able to get this bill done so we can go forth and implement what we did in SAFETEA-LU and that is getting transportation built within this country as it should.

The gentleman from Minnesota also mentioned about the foundation, and I have to say this because I know we are on this TV or C-SPAN and I will say that right now the institution of knowledge about previous law is crucially important for the next step in building infrastructure in this country. Much of SAFETEA-LU was based upon what was done in the previous transportation act and the next one, 4 years from now, will be based upon SAFETEA-LU, and that is crucially important to understand where we were before we can go forward from where we should be.

So for Members that say, well, this is an important institution, it is not important. If you want transportation to be built adequately and justifiably, then you go back through history and go forward on the blocks of building which we established in this legislation.

I just want that it is a good technical correction bill. It will be done, I believe, tonight; and the other body has

agreed to accept this, even though I cannot speak for them, but in doing so we will get the roads built, the bridges built and all the other programs the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned and that are in this

Mr. Speaker, I insert this exchange of letters between Don Young and Sherwood Boehlert for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Science,

Washington, DC, September 29, 2006.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Science Committee in matters

being considered in H.R. 6233--To amend the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other

purposes. The bill amends research portions of H.R. 3, Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A

Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59), which are within the Science

Committee's jurisdiction. The Science Committee acknowledges

the importance of H.R. 6233 and the need for the legislation

to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim

to jurisdiction over the bill, I agree not to request a

sequential referral. This, of course, is conditional on our

mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my

decision to forgo a sequential referral waives, reduces or

otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Science Committee,

and that a copy of this letter and of your response will be

included in the Congressional Record when the bill is

considered on the House floor.

The Science Committee also asks that you support our

request to be conferees on any provisions over which we have

jurisdiction during House-Senate conference on this

legislation.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Sherwood Boehlert,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the Texas delegation for working together to bring forth this bill and solving a problem. My job is to solve problems, and this bill does solve a problem. It takes two cities and puts them together, and allows the State to go forward and we won't have this problem before us anymore.

A lot of times we lose sight of solving problems in this body by hanging up on jurisdiction or hanging up on a small clause. But we are the people that write the laws, we create the laws, and we try to make them work.

This is a bill that will take and rectify a mistake, I believe, in the past, and bring both parties together, both cities together, all airlines together, and provide for the service of the people of Texas and this Nation. I urge the passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 491) providing for a correction to the enrollment of H.R. 6233.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

The Coast Guard has a great deal of authority, but they need the money and they need further authorization to do the missions we have charged them as the United States Congress. I hope and ask all of my colleagues to see the movie ``The Guardian.'' It explains a great deal what the Coast Guard does and why this bill should be supported.

I compliment Mr. LoBiondo, the chairman of the subcommittee, and those who work on the minority side to make sure that this legislation is good. This legislation is well-thought out, and as it is presented tonight, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska: Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure. H.R. 5830. A bill to amend section 29 of the

International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979

relating to air transportation to and from Love Field, Texas

(Rept. 109-600, Pt. 1); referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary for a period ending not later than September 15,

2006, for consideration of such provisions of the bill as

fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to

clause 1(l), rule X Ordered to be printed.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to suggest one thing. I deeply respect the individual from New York that just spoke against the legislation.

H.R. 5013 does not specifically address gun possession in emergency shelters. It addresses only housing except to prohibit future guns regulations above and beyond the Federal, State, and local law. This requirement was included to prevent the repeat of a short-lived FEMA effort to ban gun possession in the FEMA trailer parks in Louisiana.

H.R. 5013 does not override Federal, State or local laws restricting gun possession in various locations often used as shelters such as schools, government buildings and sports arena. That is what this bill does not do.

We address these issues, including the one where the Coast Guard was rescuing someone with a helicopter, they could not bring a firearm on board that vessel or that aircraft.

I would like to suggest this would never have had to happen if someone, and I will say government people, of what branch or other had decided they would take law into their own hands and go into a law- abiding home and confiscate a gun from a citizen who had done no wrong, was only trying to protect their home. That is the premise of our democracy and our Republic, is the right to protect your castle. Regardless of whether it is the hoodlum, the burglar, the murderer, the rapist, or the government, no one has the right to take away my ability to defend myself, nor my cherished ones from he would intrude upon my being and my home. That is the second amendment; that is my right.

To have a government, during a time of duress, the hurricane as bad as it was, to go into areas that were trying to protect themselves, and by the way, they went on television and said they did not have the manpower to address the looting, the rioters and the hoodlums but they had the manpower to go in and to take and confiscate arms from the law- abiding citizens of Louisiana, and by the way, I believe this is the only area it did occur.

So what I am suggesting in this legislation, I want to thank Mr. Jindal especially being the prime sponsor, this legislation precludes the government from taking away what is my cherished personal right to protect those I love, in a time a duress and, yes, even in a time of peace because you will never know when that peace will be eroded and taken away from you.

So this legislation is a step because someone else misstepped, and some would say it is not necessary, it will not happen again. I have been around here long enough to know never say it will not happen again.

So we should look forward to this legislation and pass it. Get on with it and let those government agencies that misstepped know that they now are under the scope of reality and what is right for this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2006. This legislation will improve accountability for the academic performance of children enrolled in the nation's public schools. My bill builds on the major reforms of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 signed into law on January 8, 2002 and offers improvements that address many of the unintended consequences of the federal legislation while holding states and school districts accountable.

As a former teacher, I am committed to providing our nation's children with the best possible education. I firmly believe in the original goals of NCLB but I understand that a ``one size fits all'' approach to student achievement is not possible. Alaska is more than two times the size the state of Texas, yet only has a population of 660,000 compared to the 22.9 million residents of Texas. As you can see, providing education services in Alaska can be difficult as 190,000 Alaskan students are literally scattered over 572,000 square miles.

Alaska has approximately 500 public schools and they are organized into 53 school districts. These include 34 city and borough school districts and 19 Regional Educational Attendance Areas which serve students living in towns and villages in politically unorganized areas of rural Alaska.

Alaska schools vary greatly in size. High schools in Anchorage, the state's largest city, may serve more than 2,000 students. Schools in other urban areas such as Juneau, Fairbanks, the Kenai Peninsula, or the Matanuska-Susitna Valley may serve hundreds and are similar to schools in small cities in the rest of the United States. However, many schools in rural areas are small, some with 20 or fewer students at a variety of grade levels. They may be many miles from population centers and services, and accessible only by aircraft or boat. In remote villages, schools often serve as centers of community activity.

In addition to the geographic barriers, Alaska, like many other states is faced with cultural obstacles. There are 20 different Alaska Native languages spoken in the state and during the 2004-2005 school year, students in the Anchorage School District spoke 95 different languages. Roughly 42 percent of students are from ethnic minority groups including Native Alaskan, Asian and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and African American.

Alaska is not alone in having to face unique challenges as it struggles to educate its children. Each state in this country one has geographic, economic or cultural barriers that impede its schools from reaching a level of success as mandated by NCLB. My bill will establish an improved framework for accountability that fairly and accurately assesses student, school, and school district performance. As a result, states and local school districts will be able to more strategically use their resources to bring about meaningful and measurable results.

This legislation contains more than 40 provisions that focus on five areas: Assessments, Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress, Sanctions, State Flexibility by the U.S. Department of Education and Non-Public Schools. Specifically the bill provides the following:

Assessments. The bill offers greater flexibility to states in the use of alternate assessments for students with disabilities based on the individual education program (IEP) and authorizes states and school districts to count the scores in the calculation of AYP. The bill also offers states the flexibility to use alternate assessments for students who are not proficient in English. In both categories of students the assessment instruments must be valid and reliable in measuring the performance based on the specific needs of the student. The bill would also grant states the flexibility to assess students more than once within the full academic year, and to use the higher scores in calculating the performance of subgroups.

Measuring Adequate Yearly Progress. The bill would authorize states to expand their AYP measurement systems to include gain score approaches like value-added and give partial credit for meeting basic proficient targets. Additionally, states would be permitted greater flexibility in using alternate methods of measuring AYP as long as the ultimate goals of NCLB are achieved. Use of these specific flexibilities would require approval by the U.S. Department of Education. Further, the bill would authorize school districts and schools with diverse student populations to calculate AYP in a way that more accurately reflects subgroup and school performance.

Sanctions: Public School Choice and Supplemental Services. The bill would strengthen the use of sanctions by applying such sanctions only when AYP is not met by the ``same group'' for two or more consecutive years in the same subject on the same indicator rather than applying sanctions when different groups or different indicators are involved from year to year in that subject. Additionally, the bill offers greater flexibility to states and school districts in the sequence of offering supplemental services and public school choice. Finally, the bill

requires more effective use of local funds by limiting the options of public school choice and supplemental services only to those students within the subgroup that failed to meet their AYP targets in the same subject for two or more years--not all the students in the school.

The bill would also remove restrictions from the current law that prohibit local school districts from providing supplemental services solely because the school district did not make AYP or is in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring status. However, the state would have to grant such authority to local school districts.

Restructuring. With respect to requiring schools or school districts to implement certain broad restructuring provisions, the total number of students not scoring proficient or above would have to exceed 35% of the enrollment, and Congress would be required to appropriate an increase for Title I of at least $2.5 billion over the previous year, and appropriate at the authorized levels contained in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.

State Flexibility. The bill would grant authority to the Secretary of Education to (1) approve state accountability plans that vary from the federal framework to align with effective state accountability systems, (2) grant statutory and regulatory waivers that are unnecessarily burdensome or duplicative of state requirements, and (3) make public any approved amendments to state accountability plans. Further, the bill would require that any waivers of the state's plan approved by the Secretary would be available to any state on a case-by-case determination provided the state or agency meets any requirements issued by the Secretary applicable to such waivers.

Non-Public Schools. The bill authorizes students enrolled in non- public schools who receive Title I services to be given the same assessments as public school students; and gives states the option to withhold Title I support to the non-public schools if their Title I students do not make AYP and perform at lower levels than their counterparts in the area's public schools for three years or more.

I am pleased to be working with the National School Boards Association and am looking forward to pushing this important legislation through the House and Senate. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5689) to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to make technical corrections, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 5689.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5689 amends the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users, or SAFETEA-LU, to make technical corrections. This bill was introduced by myself, Mr. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, Mr. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and Mr. Petri from Wisconsin, who worked together on the development and passage of SAFETEA-LU authorization bill last year.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is necessary because the technical corrections included in this bill have been identified by the Department of Transportation and are mostly of a conforming nature, or correct drafting errors. The most important correction we are making is the strengthening of the Federal highway research program by ensuring the continuation of legacy research programs carried out by the Department of Transportation. This bill has been scored by CBO and has no budgetary impact.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, it is the intent of the conferees that both the new king crab processor quota shares and the new c.opilio processor quota shares shall receive a designation based on the location in which crab was historically processed.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 103) to correct the enrollment of the bill H.R. 889.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on Senate Concurrent Resolution 103.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Senate Concurrent Resolution 103 clarifies the intent of the conferees that the Coast Guard review and assess the impacts of any proposed offshore energy facility on the navigation safety in Nantucket Sound and on the service's capabilities to conduct missions within and near the proposed facility.

The resolution will require the Coast Guard to establish terms and conditions that are necessary to safeguard recreational and commercial vessel traffic in Nantucket Sound before any draft environmental impact statement is made available for public review.

The resolution also provides that these terms and conditions will be incorporated into the requirements of any lease that is granted for the construction of a proposed offshore facility.

This provision will allow us to develop offshore alternative energy resources in a way that does not jeopardize the safety and security of the maritime community in Nantucket Sound.

I urge my colleagues to support this concurrent resolution and to support the underlying resolution.

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

At this time I yield whatever time he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the conference report on the bill (H.R. 889) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006, to make technical corrections to various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 889.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 889, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006.

This bill authorizes $8.7 billion in funding for the Coast Guard, including $1.6 billion for the recapitalization of Coast Guard vessels, aircraft and support systems.

Funding at this level would result in the acceleration of the Deepwater program and would provide a new, more capable fleet to support the Coast Guard's many traditional and homeland security missions.

The conference report also includes provisions related to Coast Guard's response in the regions that were affected last year by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the impacts of the storms on the maritime industry.

The conference report also requires safety inspection for passenger ferries, makes it easier to prosecute illegal drug smugglers, encourages the construction and use of U.S. flag liquefied natural gas vessels, enhances maritime security by increasing penalties for violations of the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and adjusts oil spill liability limits for the first time since the Oil Pollution Act was passed in 1990.

H.R. 889 also includes legislation passed by the House as H.R. 1412, the Delaware River Protection Act.

This bill was introduced by the Coast Guard Subcommittee chairman, our colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Frank LoBiondo. I commend him for his hard work on this measure.

H.R. 889 is a truly bipartisan bill and deserves the support of each Member of this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee who has done an outstanding job, a man who understands the Coast Guard and really has been leading the Coast Guard for the last 6 years, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Speaker, I echo the words of Mr. LoBiondo. This Coast Guard that serves this great Nation of ours has done such an outstanding job over the years in my 34 years in Congress that I can only just applaud each time I see a Coast Guard vessel or a member of the Coast Guard or the flag that they carry.

It is a unique privilege, being in a State that has probably the greatest challenge of all the States and probably the most involved with the Coast Guard. When I first arrived in Congress, we had one Coast Guard station, actually two, one in Juneau, which was a command station, and one in Ketchikan, which was relatively small. Since that time, over the last 34 years, we now have, I believe, the largest Coast Guard unit in the United States on Kodiak Island.

They do a great job not only patrolling and watching for foreign interference of our fishing fleet, but saving my constituents. Many times they go out in weather, and I don't know how many of you watch the show of the most dangerous fishing, the ``Dangerous Catch,'' they call it, but there you will see the Coast Guard involved rescuing people in hundred mile winds, or knots, of seas of about 40 feet, 50 feet, sometimes. Even so bad that it took a helicopter down last year when they were trying to rescue people off a foreign ship that was carrying soybeans.

But they do not only that, but they watch for oil spills which pollute our seas. They do it for the little fisherman going out in the small dinghy, in larger seas than he should have, to catch those big King salmon Alaska has that belongs to Alaska and doesn't belong to Washington State or Canada. And sometimes they get in trouble, and the Coast Guard is there. And the young men and women that enlist and stay voluntarily for years and years, I just compliment them.

This bill is a good bill. As mentioned by Mr. LoBiondo, John Rayfield has done outstanding work. There were very tiring times, especially in conference, because we are dealing with a conference, and they are very difficult in this business we are in. Conferences with the other side are equally difficult but sometimes ridiculous in the sense of what we have to negotiate for. But we believe we have negotiated a good conference. Liz Megginson, my legal counsel, has done very well on this legislation.

And for my colleagues, this is the end of 2006 as far as the authorization for the Coast Guard. As of today, we will be introducing a 2007 reauthorization bill; and we will be working on that, hopefully with expedited results, and getting the bill out of the House and to the Senate to decide and maybe having the finalization and being ahead of the ball game. That is what we are going to attempt to do to try to make sure that the Coast Guard gets the recognition, the organization, the authorization and be able to fulfill the mission that they have and will continue to have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just close by urging my colleagues to support this legislation.

The House has under consideration the conference report (109-413) to the bill H.R. 889 to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006, to make technical corrections to various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is rare that I would speak on this issue. I do support this resolution, but more than that, I would like to remind people why we are here.

There are not many in this room, but there are a few that remember 1939. I lived in that era and I listened to people speak about ``Hitler's really not a bad guy. He's just minding his own business. He's taking care of his people. We shouldn't be involved.'' Fifty-two million people later, we won World War II. We should have knocked him in the head when we had a chance instead of listening to Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Britain. We should have aggressively pursued him as we did Saddam Hussein. In my heart of hearts, I believe that we would be, in fact, in a nuclear war if we had allowed him to continue his trek.

But this President stood up and he was a leader and he stopped it. Now we have done that deed and we are in a place where we should continue and finish this job.

Someone said this is not a cut and run, that we have been there 3\1/ 2\ years. But I ask you to ask your military people, ask those people out at Walter Reed, as I have. Most of them are proud of their service and their duty. And I salute each one of them, him or her,

and the commanding officers who fulfilled their duty.

If you believe in democracy and believe in peace, we must continue this trip that we started. We must finish it and make sure that democracy reigns in the Middle East. If we do not do so, we would a do a great disservice to our armed services and America as a whole. Remember, ``He's really not a bad guy. He's just minding his own business. It's his country.'' Fifty-two million people later, the war was ended. Our people, their people. And I do not want to have that happen again.

Mr. Speaker, there have been many items of unfinished business which flowed from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, which was originally enacted on December 18, 1971. A number of these issues have been resolved over the years. Few of those unfinished items, however, stand out in my mind as much as the need to provide land selection rights to the members of the 13th Regional Corporation, which was formed by ANSCA primarily to represent Alaska Natives residing outside of Alaska at that time. Today, with the 13th Regional Corporation Land Entitlement Act, I address that objective. I am pleased to be joined in this sponsorship by my friend and colleague from Washington State, Congressman Norm Dicks. For me, both of us, this completes a significant goal of the original act. Let me give you the background of this issue and the story of the 13th Region.

In 1971, after years of debate, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, 43 U.S.C.S. 1601 et seq.--``the Settlement Act''--extinguishing claims by Native Alaskans based on aboriginal land rights. The act divided the State into 12 geographical ``regions'' which were to be composed as far as practicable of Natives having a common heritage and sharing common interests. In addition, nonresident Natives were given the option either to enroll in one of the 12 Regional Corporations established for each region or to elect, by majority vote, to form a separate 13th Regional Corporation to represent the interests of nonresident Alaskan Natives.

Provision for the 13th was focused upon serving the interests of nonresident Alaska Natives while affording them their fair share of the settlement. Some nonresident Natives had been dislocated during and after World War II, others left their homes to serve in the Armed Forces, many left to attend high schools and colleges in other States, and still others, for economic reasons, migrated south in the hope of attaining employment. Information about the Settlement Act and its implications for nonresident Natives was difficult to obtain, spotty and inconsistent in character, and generally insufficient to enable individual nonresident Natives to make reasoned decisions. In this situation, a majority of nonresident Alaska Natives felt that their interests could best be protected by forming the nonresident 13th to better control and direct their own affairs. Ultimately approximately 4,500 Alaska Natives chose to enroll in the new 13th. Wherever they resided then, or now, however, they were and are Alaska Natives, and we honor them.

In opting to join the 13 however, these nonresident Natives were deprived of the ability to fully participate in the settlement of their claims as that settlement was generally provide by the act. Let me be specific. Monetary payments under the Settlement Act were made through the Alaska Native Fund and distributed among all 13 Regional Corporations on a per capita basis, but land was distributed only among the 12 resident Regional Corporations and the Village Corporations within those regions. No additional money, however, was provided to the 13th to compensate for the absence of land. The Settlement Act also provided that the 12 Regional Corporations would share among themselves some of the revenues from all natural resource development occurring on the lands conveyed to them. The 13th did not receive this right.

In sum, Alaska Natives enrolled in the 13th did not receive any land, and did not receive additional money in lieu of land, and did not get any right to participate in distributions from the pool of natural resource revenue funds in which the other Regional Corporations shared. The 13th, being comprised of nonresident Alaska Natives, was thus denied full participation in the settlement provided by the Settlement Act. While some will claim that this was their choice, it seems clear that it was an inadequately informed choice and resulted in depriving over 4,500 members of the 13th of two of the three major benefits of this act. This bill seeks to resolve at least the absence of an entitlement to land.

Over the years, the effect of this inequity in the act has been to substantially disadvantage the shareholders of the 13th as they tried to build an economically successful corporation and to deny them the benefits of land ownership in Alaska. As an example, the 13th received its pro rata share of the monetary payments under the Act but was obligated to distribute 50 percent of those proceeds immediately to shareholders as they were received over a number of years. The remaining 50 percent provides the only capitalization for the small corporation with many scattered shareholders. Without a land base or resources to develop, the 13th did not have the economic base, nor the crucial development alternatives afforded other Regional Corporations. The corporation did not receive revenues from the development of resources, such as timber harvest which was accomplished in several regions, or a share of sec. 7(i) revenues, including petroleum revenues, which was a source of income for the 12 Regional Corporations. The 13th has survived but with some difficulty, and it is time to provide a fairer share of the settlement to them for their future.

To correct the inequity caused by the Settlements Act's failure to equally compensate nonresident Natives for the extinguishment of their aboriginal land claims, the 13th Regional Corporation Land Entitlement Act will place the shareholders of the 13th on a better footing with shareholders of the other Alaska Native Regional Corporations at least as far as land is concerned.

The proposal authorizes the 13th to select land from the excess lands previously withdrawn by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior on behalf of other Regional Corporations. The proposed legislation gives absolute priority to land selections by the State of Alaska and other Native Corporations--regional and village--and prohibits the selection of lands from within conservation system units--as defined in the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act. The 13th may not select from the National Petroleum Reserve, the Tongass or Chugach National Forests and other sensitive areas. In other words, the 13th is at the very end of the line for its land selections. This is nonetheless far more

equitable for the 13th than the present situation.

In proposing this legislation, the shareholders of the 13th are seeking equity by being placed on a stronger and more equal footing with respect to the Native shareholders of the other 12 Native Regional Corporations. This is supported by the Alaska Native community. This proposal has been endorsed by the Alaska Federation of Natives, and by the Association of Regional Corporation Presidents, and it has been thoroughly considered by the Alaska delegation.

My first term in Congress was the one immediately following the enactment of ANSCA in late 1971. I can tell you that neither the act nor its implementation focused much attention on the 13th. They were not fully represented, so Members of the Washington State delegation like the late Congressman Lloyd Meeds and Senator Henry Jackson took their side but were not able to accomplish land rights for the 13th, or a monetary settlement in its stead. Congressman Meeds believed throughout his life that this was a matter that required resolution.

What the 13th will receive under the new bill is, with one major exception, the same per capita land right that all other regional corporations received, no more and no less. The number of acres is arrived at by taking the total number of acres conveyed to the other Regional Corporations pursuant to section 12(c) of ANSCA--15,769,600 acres--and after subtracting Sealaska's shareholders--Sealaska received a separate entitlement--and the shareholders of the 13th--which received no land--dividing this 15,769,600 acres by 60,026, the number of original Native shareholders enrolled to the other 11 Native Regional Corporations. On a per capita basis, the shareholders of the other 11 Regional Corporations received approximately 262.7 acres per original shareholder. This per capita number multiplied by the 4,426 original shareholders of the 13th results in the 1,162,710 acres.

The bill gives absolute priority to land selections of other Native Corporations and the State of Alaska. Additionally, the bill prohibits the 13th from making selections within conservation system units, the Tongass and Chugach National Forests, the National Petroleum Reserve-- Alaska, and other potentially sensitive public lands.

The major exception is that all other interests, from the State, to other Native corporations and the conservation community, were able to make their land selections, and win congressional approval, when the land eligible for selection was prime, high on the list of priorities. The 13th comes behind all other priorities, including State and Native selections, national conservation lands, and others. The intent is that the land of the 13th is likely to be selected in a cooperative process with other land owners and can be complimentary to those selections, by other regions or villages, the State or other public purposes. I believe this is not only fair but good policy as Alaska moves forward. It is simply time to resolve this long-standing inequity and to provide the 13th with the right to do what all other Native regions have done. I urge my colleagues to join with me in achieving this goal this year.