Floor Statements

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. 3550. A bill to authorize funds for

Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit

programs, and for other purposes, with an amendment; referred

to the Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and

Commerce, Judiciary, Resources, and Science for a period

ending not later than March 29, 2004, for consideration of

such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the

jurisdiction of those committees pursuant to clause 1, rule

X. (Rept. 108-452, Pt. 1) Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have until midnight, Monday, March 29, 2004, to file a report to accompany the bill, H.R. 3550, to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Science, and the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3850) to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this House passed H.R. 3783, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2004, which provide for a 4-month extension of the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier and surface transportation research programs.

This bill provides for a 2-month extension, and includes the best provisions of the House bill and also some provisions sought by the other body. This bill is a bipartisan effort.

I hope this breaks the logjam that is currently in place. I can say to the gentleman from Minnesota, he and I know we should have had the 4 months, but the other body is insisting on 2 months. We made it as clean as possible, and they insisted on 2 months. So now we can possibly get this logjam finished so we can finish this legislation that is crucially important.

I do thank the gentleman for his cooperation on this issue. I am sorry we kept everybody here late tonight; but I cannot run the other body, as much as I would like to. Now we have to get this done so we do not stop our highway programs.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to help me out and pass this legislation that is badly needed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3850.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, March 1, 2004, at noon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a most distinguished public servant, Mr. David E. Schaffer, Senior Counsel on the Transportation Committee's Aviation Subcommittee. Mr. Schaffer is retiring after twenty-six years of Federal service, including the past 20 years with the Committee. His unmatched knowledge in the field of aviation, as well as his engaging personality, will be sorely missed in the halls of Congress. David's work stands as a prime example of the good that can be accomplished through public service. The American people have been quite fortunate to have Mr. Schaffer's expertise and guidance throughout his career. Every single aviation law passed in the last two decades is marked with David's creative ideas and approaches. As an attachment to my remarks, a list of all aviation laws passed during David's tenure is included.

David's ability to work with people on both sides of the aisle serves as a major reason for the overwhelming bipartisan support aviation legislation has gathered over the last twenty years. His evenhanded and steady demeanor, as well as his thoughtful approach to a matter ensures that all ideas are heard, and that every opinion is considered. The relationships that David has cultivated among both government and industry officials has allowed for a free exchange of ideas on a wide variety of issues. Such exchanges have helped foster the growth of our nation's aviation industry. He has earned an immeasurable amount of respect from everyone with whom he has worked, including Members of Congress, staff, and those in the transportation community.

David began his career in public service in 1978, when he joined the Office of General Counsel of the Civil Aeronautics Board as an attorney, specializing in rules, legislation, and litigation involving small community air service, international air service, consumer protection, and charters. In 1984, he began work with the Aviation Subcommittee as an Assistant Minority Counsel, becoming the Chief Minority Counsel in 1992, and Majority Counsel in 1995. Throughout his tenure with the Aviation Subcommittee, he has been involved in all aspects of aviation legislation, including safety, security, airline competition, international air service, the Airport Improvement Program, air traffic control modernization, Federal Aviation Administration reform, and oversight of the Federal Aviation Administration, Transportation Security Administration, and the National Transportation Safety Board.

David's leadership proved critical in the weeks following the events of September 11, 2001. His experience played an essential role in creating the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which helped restore confidence to the flying public. In a most precarious time for our nation, we were extremely fortunate to have someone like David Schaffer assisting us. Most recently, his assistance led to the successful passage of Vision 100, the FAA Reauthorization Act, which will have a lasting effect on the aviation industry for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in celebrating the retirement of David Schaffer, and wish him well in whatever venture he seeks next. I would also like to offer an extended note of gratitude on behalf of the previous Chairmen of the Transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee whom David has served with great distinction. We wish you good luck and again say thank you for all you have done for both the Congress as well as the American people.

Aviation Laws Passed During David Schaffer's Tenure

108th Congress

H.R. 2115, Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization

Act

S. 579, National Transportation Safety Board

Reauthorization Act of 2003

107th Congress

H.R. 2926, Air Transportation Safety and System

Stabilization Act

S. 1447, Aviation and Transportation Security Act

106th Congress

H.R. 1000, Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform

Act for the 21st Century

S. 2440, Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000

105th Congress

H.R. 2476, To amend title 49, United States Code, to

require the National Transportation Safety Board and

individual foreign air carriers to address the needs of

families of passengers involved in aircraft accidents

involving foreign air carriers.

H.R. 2626, To make clarifications to the Pilot Records

Improvement Act of 1996, and for other purposes.

H.R. 2843, Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998

104th Congress

H.R. 3159, National Transportation Safety Board Amendments

of 1996

H.R. 3539, Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996

103rd Congress

H.R. 904, To amend the Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity,

Noise Improvement, and Inter-nodal Transportation Act of 1992

with respect to the establishment of the National Commission

to Ensure a Strong Competitive Airline Industry.

H.R. 2440, Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1994

H.R. 2739, Federal Aviation Administration Authorization

Act of 1994

S. 1458, General Aviation Revitalization Authorization Act

of 1994

102nd Congress

H.R. 5481, FAA Civil Penalty Administrative Assessment Act

of 1992

H.R. 6168, Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, Noise

Improvement, and Intermodal Transportation Act of 1992

101st Congress

H.R. 968, Noise Reduction Reimbursement Act of 1989

H.R. 5732, Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990

H.R. 3671, To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to

extend the civil penalty assessment demonstration program.

H.R. 5131, To amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to

extend the civil penalty assessment demonstration program,

and for other purposes.

100th Congress

H.R. 2310, Airport and Airway Improvement Amendments of

1987

S. 623, Independent Safety Board Act Amendments of 1987

S. 1628, An original bill to extend the Aviation Insurance

Program for 5 years

99th Congress

S. 2703, Air Carrier Access Act of 1986

98th Congress

H.R. 5297, Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 1984

S. 197, A bill to direct the Secretary of the Department of

Transportation to conduct an independent study to determine

the adequacy of certain industry practices and Federal

Aviation Administration rules and regulations, and for other

purposes.

S. 1146, Aviation Drug-Trafficking Control Act

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3783) to provide an extension of highway, highway safety, motor carrier safety, transit, and other programs funded out of the Highway Trust Fund pending enactment of a law reauthorizing the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

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

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3783, the legislation now under consideration by the House, will continue for an additional 4 months the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier, and surface transportation research programs. These programs will be continued under current-law program structure and conditions.

This bill is necessary in order to give the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and our colleagues in the Senate time to complete a multi-year surface transportation bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3783 provides for over $31 billion in new funding authority, which reflects 9 months' work or nine-twelfths of the budget authority and associated outlays in the year 2004 budget resolution that Congress passed last year.

As my colleagues may know, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 3550 with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users, or TEA-LU. TEA-LU will begin to meet the needs and begin to improve our aging and deteriorating transportation infrastructure.

TEA-LU will address and resolve the funding inequity issue between the donor and donee States, create new jobs, and stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, the overall funding for transportation has not been resolved entirely; and, therefore, we must pass this 4-month extension.

Even though TEA-LU has been introduced, there are many issues remaining for this House to resolve. As I mentioned earlier, identifying the appropriate resources to support funding levels over the next 6 years is the primary challenge. If TEA-LU is reduced to the level of the Senate bill, many worthy projects and programs will be reduced or quite possibly eliminated from the bill.

In the interim, this 4-month extension is a must-pass bill. If we do not pass this bill and send it to the President before February 29, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees: the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

If we do not pass this extension, new highway projects will be shelved, States will not be reimbursed the Federal share of the projects, safety grants will not be provided to the States, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of our motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at the borders will suffer.

It is crucial that H.R. 3783 be passed by both the House and the Senate and delivered to the Senate before February 29. Our economy cannot withstand the shutdown of the national surface transportation programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).

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

I want to thank my good friend from Minnesota on his eloquent presentation. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and the committee members and the staffs who have worked so hard on this legislation and the parent legislation.

There is not much I can add to what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has said. Everybody knows where I am standing on this legislation; and by the way, the number 375 is not an artificial number. It is the number that came from the administration, what is needed to improve and maintain the existing highway system, when the interstate highway system becomes 50 years old, or will be 50 years old 3 years from now; and that is an old system.

This is the legislation that can solve the economic woes of this country, not just because of jobs but because transportation provides the resources for the prescription drugs, for Medicare, for education, for Social Security. All those things thrive on our economy, and our economy cannot provide the basis for those systems without transportation.

Truck traffic alone will increase 90 percent over what it is now in the next 15 years. Car traffic, the mileage being used will increase a huge amount over the next 15 years. The most expensive thing we can do today is not the five cents, not the two cents, not even using the funds out of the general fund for the trust fund, but to do nothing. To do nothing is the most expensive cost to the American people. The most expensive cost to the American people is to do nothing.

I can assure my good friends that I am working and my colleagues are working, and we are going to try to achieve the goal we seek; but I will not support a bill that goes so far below the needs. My administration is wrong in this, and I have told them that. I think most of my colleagues have read my letter to the President. They are dead wrong. Because if we do not do this, the legacy we leave behind will, in fact, I think be a legacy of incompetency.

I do not want to wear that label. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and myself and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the staffs and everybody, we are trying to do something that is right for this great Nation, a legacy for users, a need, jobs for America. That is the parent bill, H.R. 3550; and I hope we continue this discussion but reach a solution in the very near future.

The legislation we are addressing today is mandatory because if we do not do it, not only will the agency be shut down, but the States will not issue contracts for the upcoming building session; and so I urge full support for this legislation.

I will ask for a vote. I want my colleagues all to know that, because I think it is important we are on the record of where we stand as a body about building for the future of our great Nation in transportation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this extension is an important piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3783.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to make a number of changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. I believe there are three areas of the current Act that need to be changed. While the language I am proposing may not be the best way to address these concerns, I would like these proposed changes to spark a debate in the coming months.

In addition, I am including language to amend the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab rationalization program to address what I believe was an oversight in the plan. I believe this plan to rationalize the Bering Sea crab fishery is a living plan which will continue to be modified as changes are needed. I believe that the safety issues of this fishery necessitate some action, and I don't believe that no action is an option. Congress asked the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to give the Congress a proposal and they did so. We have studied this fishery for too long without doing something to make it safer. Having said that, I also believe that the plan to rationalize this important fishery needs to be dynamic and we need to be able to make adjustments as we see how the plan works. Everyone involved in this debate has good intentions, but we need to be mindful that good intentions sometimes cause unintended consequences. We need to watch the implementation of the plan very carefully.

Finally, I am asking the Secretary of State to determine whether the retired U.S. staff of two international fisheries commissions who worked in Canada were unduly harmed by exchange rates and to what extent their retirement packages have suffered as a result of the exchange rate.

Mr. Speaker, today, along with nearly every member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I and Congressman Jim Oberstar are introducing a truly historic highway and transit funding bill that will benefit every State in the Nation.

The introduction of this bipartisan legislation would not have been possible without the support and cooperation of Congressman Oberstar. In addition, the Chairman Petri of the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines, along with the subcommittee ranking Democrat, Congressman Lipinski were instrumental in getting this legislation written for introduction.

The legislation provides $375 billion over the next six years. This proposed level of funding is based upon the needs of our country as outlined in the U.S. Department of Transportation Condition and Performance report.

With this bill, we will have the resources to maintian our existing transportation infrastructure and begin to improve it as well. We can address our national congestion crisis and safety problems.

Our transportation infrastructure is old and getting worse. Thirty two percent of our major roads are in poor or mediocre condition and 28% of our bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.

Congestion is affecting our quality of life and costing our nation $67 billion a year--more than $1,100 for the average commuter each year.

Commuters are sitting longer and longer in traffic jams and billions of gallons of fuel is wasted each year due to congestion.

Most importantly, this country is facing a transportation safety crisis. More than 42,000 people die each year on our roads and highways. Nearly one-third of all these fatal crashes are caused by substandard road conditions and roadside hazards. This is totally unacceptable for the most advanced nation in the world.

Over the next six years, we provide $298 billion for highway, road and bridge improvements . . . and $69 billion for transit programs.

This legislation proposes to increase the minimum guaranteed percentage for every State from 90.5 percent to 95 percent by 2009. We understand that more equity is needed for all 50 States.

The bill significantly increases funding for highway safety programs.

In addition, the bill authorizes $17.6 billion for ``Projects of National and Regional Significance''--a major boost for these important projects.

It also authorizes $7.5 billion to address the problem of railroad- highway crossings and the elimination of road hazards.

Our legislation will also have another positive benefit by giving a major boost to our nation's economy. Nationally, this proposal creates more than 1.3 million new highway jobs over the next six years.

It is time to face the facts--our highways, bridges and transit systems are aging and not up to the standards which our citizens expect. We need to stimulate the economy and this important legislation will do just that. America's congestion and safety crisis will not go away--it must be addressed immediately.

Enactment of this landmark legislation is a legacy for all users of our transportation infrastructure, both today and for future generations and moves our aging transportation system into the 21st century.

Mr. Speaker, electron scrubbing is the only air control process that allows older power plants to meet the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) and the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) while burning the least cost, highest energy fuel--high sulfur coal. The electron scrubbing process removes almost all the pollutants emitted from power plants burning high sulfur coal. In a single step, the electrons convert the pollutants into a high grade, agriculture byproduct.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Chicago Operations Office (COO) has been briefed on the electron scrubbing project at Eagle Valley and has agreed to manage the program. However, DOE must first transfer $5 million in earmarked funds to the COO so the Director can immediately implement the program.

A letter of intent, dated April 16, 2002, from Greg Daeger, program manager for the electron scrubbing project at Eagle Valley, attests to the commitment and due diligence of Eagle Valley to implement the project pursuant to Congress' direction and intent.

Electron scrubbing uses high-energy accelerators for air pollution cleanup. DOE's COO has the technical management capability in accelerator-related programs and air pollution programs used in other DOE applications. This location is an ideal venue for the effective and successful oversight of the electron scrubbing program. The transfer of funds would allow COO to continue and expand its management of high technology air pollution programs in the area of high-energy electrons.

The energy bill directs DOE to ``use $5,000,000 from amounts appropriated to initiate, through the Chicago Operations Office, a project to demonstrate the viability of high-energy electron scrubbing technology on a commercial-scale electrical generation using high sulfur coal.'' Because it has both the authority and capability to oversee this demonstration project, $5 million must immediately be transferred from DOE to COO.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but I have some concerns. There are 60 separate authorizations in this bill; 10 were cleared through my committee. The remaining came from the other body. What bothers me is we have sent over to the other body a WRDA bill that they should be acting on. When we have that many projects in an appropriations bill without having to go through the due process, including my committee, I think it is inappropriate.

I have worked with the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee. My staff has worked with them, and we worked through what the House projects should be and they were cleared. But now we see a small WRDA bill. When the conference report was filed, I was a little shocked. In fact, it has two projects in this bill which were not asked for by either the House or Senate. Two projects were inserted by the Corps itself. I think this is a bad way to legislate.

The bill overall is a good bill, but what we ought to be doing is passing a

WRDA bill out of the other body and getting that done because this Nation needs a sound policy. This Nation needs restoration, it needs a sound project list to conclude.

The chairman and the ranking member did an outstanding job, but I hope this body keeps insisting to Members of the other body, two of them from each State, urge them to pass that piece of legislation that covers the whole Nation and not do it piecemeal, because it weakens the process and makes it difficult to do what we should be doing. I ask Members as we approach next year, we urge that body to act responsibly.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for H.R. 3198, ``The John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization Act of 2003.''

The Kennedy Center serves an important role in our Nation. Not only is it one of the most active theaters in the world, hosting millions of patrons each year to its seven stages, but is also one of the most recognizable theater buildings.

The legislation we are considering this afternoon, which I have offered with my colleagues Mr. Oberstar, Mr. LaTourette, and Ms. Holmes-Norton, reauthorizes the Capital Infrastructure program of the Kennedy Center for an additional three years. The bill also makes a number of important changes that will improve the management of large construction projects at the Kennedy Center.

This legislation will help ensure that the Kennedy Center continues to have a world class facility to house world class entertainment, which includes everything from classical opera to cutting edge films.

In addition to authorizing funds for maintenance, repair, and security as well as other capital projects, this legislation puts into place important tools for improved project management.

The legislation creates a project team for the plaza project. This team will include the secretary of transportation, administrator of general services, and chairman of the board of trustees of The Kennedy Center. This team will be responsible for overseeing all aspects of the plaza project through a project director, who reports to the project team and is appointed by the Secretary of Transportation.

The legislation also provides for ongoing review by the General Accounting Office of the plaza project until its completion, with periodic reporting to the Congress. The GAO will be looking at the personnel, policies and procedures used to carry out the project.

I support The Kennedy Center Reauthorization and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note that tomorrow, on November 8, 2003, will mark the 25th anniversary of enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). At a time when American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and families throughout the country were being ravaged by abusive child welfare practices that caused untold thousands of American Indian and Alaska Native children to be unnecessarily placed in foster homes, adoptive homes and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) boarding schools, the 95th Congress said no more and unanimously adopted the ICWA. I am proud to have been a member when that occurred-- truly one of the finest moments in the history of Congress and in my service.

The ICWA stands as perhaps the most important Indian law the Congress has enacted. For the first and only time, Congress explicitly acknowledged that the trust responsibility of the United States extends to ``protecting American Indian and Alaska Native children'' and the integrity of Native American families and tribes, a sine qua non to this Nation's commitment to securing the ``continued existence and integrity'' of Indian tribes as both governments and societies.

The ICWA recognized that tribes have a parens patriae relationship to their children that supersedes any like interest of the States. Accordingly, the law enhances the sovereign right of tribes to determine, under tribal law, whether and under what circumstances children require out-of-home placement. Concomitantly, the law reduces and conditions the authority of States in this regard by compelling an overarching commitment to preventing out-of-home and out-of-tribe placement of American Indian and Alaska Native children. When, as a last resort, placement occurs, the ICWA requires States to make every effort to return American Indian and Alaska Native children to their families and tribal communities. And, when that is not possible, the ICWA mandates that, except in unusual circumstances, these children are preferentially placed in tribal homes.

In the 25 years since enactment, the fulfillment of ICWA's purpose ``to protect the best interest of American Indian and Alaska Native children'' has been remarkable. Tribes have acted forcefully to help keep families intact. Because of the ICWA, many tribes and States have developed significant cooperative relationships aimed at eliminating State child welfare practices harmful to American Indian and Alaska Native families and children and implementing policies and practices targeted at maintaining the integrity of American Indian and Alaska Native families and tribes. As a result, ICWA's promise to benefit the welfare of American Indian and Alaska Native children has benefitted many thousands of these children, enabling them to mature into functioning and contributing citizens of their tribes and of the Nation.

Although the achievements of the ICWA are many and noteworthy, much remains to be done. Full and effective implementation of the ICWA has not occurred either because of deliberate resistance, outright obstruction, ignorance of or inattentiveness to ICWA's requirements, or just misunderstanding the relationship between the ICWA and the requirements of other federal child welfare laws. To address and remedy ICWA implementation problems of most concern to tribes, I introduced H.R. 2750 on July 15, 2003. This measure--

Clarifies that the ICWA applies to all American Indian and Alaska Native children involved in ``child custody proceedings'' (as defined in the ICWA) and defines the minimum efforts that must be undertaken to prevent the breakup of an American Indian or Alaska Native child's family through involuntary out-of-home placement.

Requires detailed notice to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes in all voluntary child custody proceedings, to parents in voluntary adoption proceedings, and to parents and tribes in all involuntary proceedings.

Clarifies the right of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes to intervene in all voluntary state court custody proceedings, provided that the tribe files a notice of intent to intervene or a written objection within 45 days of receiving notice of a voluntary termination of parental rights or within 100 days of receiving notice of a particular adoptive placement, and certifies that a child is a member, eligible for membership, or is the child of a member.

Requires notice to extended family members and recognizes their right to intervene in state child custody proceedings.

Requires attorneys, public and private agencies to provide detailed information to American Indian and Alaska Native parents of their rights under ICWA.

Limits parents' rights to withdraw consent to an adoption to 6 months after relinquishment of the child or 30 days after the filing of an adoption petition, whichever is later.

Clarifies tribal jurisdiction in Alaska.

Facilitates the ability of tribes without reservations, including tribes in Alaska and Oklahoma or with disestablished reservations, to assume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings.

Narrows the grounds upon which state courts can refuse to transfer cases to tribal courts.

Clarifies tribal court authority over children transferred to tribal court jurisdiction.

Defines the circumstances under which state ICWA violations may be reviewed by federal courts and provides for federal review of state ICWA compliance.

Provides for criminal sanctions for anyone who assists a person to lie about their American Indian and Alaska Native ancestry for the purpose of avoiding application of the ICWA.

Allows state courts to enter enforceable orders providing for visitation or contact between tribes, natural parents, extended family and an adopted child.

Extends ICWA (in some cases) to cover children of state recognized and Canadian Indian tribes, and children who reside or are domiciled on a reservation and are the child of a member, but who are not eligible for tribal membership.

Makes it easier to American Indian and Alaska Native adoptees to gain access to their birth records.

Establishes that foster and adoptive homes licensed or approved by American Indian and Alaska Native tribes in compliance with the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act shall satisfy the requirements for foster and adoptive home licensing under any other federal law.

Clarifies that the terms of tribal-state agreements regarding the care and custody of and jurisdiction over American Indian and Alaska Native children shall be controlling even when another federal law may have different requirements.

On this 25th anniversary of the ICWA, I urge my colleagues to take another historic step and enact H.R. 2750. Enactment would assure that on ICWA's 50th anniversary, American Indian and Alaska Native families are strong, their children are healthy and their communities are thriving. For the betterment of our Nation and all of its people, our legacy should be no less.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2443, the Coast Guard and Maritime

Transportation Act of 2003. The bill is a result of a bipartisan effort, and it deserves the support of all the Members. I especially again want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and the full and subcommittee ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), for their help and cooperation in developing this bill.

I want to stress that, again, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has mentioned, it has been a long time since this bill has become a law, and it is time that the other body acts as we pass it today.

I am pleased we are taking the action today to authorize funding for the most important programs of the United States Coast Guard and Federal Maritime Commission.

In addition to authorizing the fiscal year of 2004 FMC budget at the level requested by the administration, this bill authorizes the fiscal year 2004 Coast Guard budget at the level requested by the President, plus an additional $460 million.

Of this amount, $70 million is authorized for the Coast Guard domestic port security activities, $80 million is to equip four C-130J aircraft for Coast Guard missions, and $202 million is for the Coast Guard's Deepwater capital equipment modernization project.

We have also provided $39 million for an armed Coast Guard helicopter squadron, $50 million for Coast Guard foreign port security activities, and $19 million for the alteration of bridges which obstruct navigation.

H.R. 2443 will result in improved operation of the Coast Guard and the Federal Maritime Commission and safer, more efficient maritime transportation.

However, nearly one-third of our exclusive economic zone lies off the shores of Alaska. These waters include the Nation's largest fishery, and sufficient cruise ship and oil tanker traffic. Therefore, I am concerned about the ability of the Coast Guard to carry out its traditional search and rescue, fisheries law enforcement, and vessel inspection missions. There are concerns that some of these missions may be suffering as a result of the new emphasis on homeland security.

I remain optimistic that this legislation will provide the Coast Guard with the resources and legal authorities necessary to get the service back to an acceptable state of mission balance.

Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the exceptional work performed by the Coast Guard, often under dangerous circumstances.

I urge all my colleagues to support this bill which authorizes sufficient resources for the Coast Guard to carry out its many missions and make necessary improvements of laws governing maritime transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I again speak about the role of the Coast Guard in the great State of Alaska. We have more coastline than all the United States combined and more Coast Guard activities, not only in the fisheries, but again in the oil tanker business, and in the interception of all types of foreign vessels that occur.

I can only compliment my Coast Guard contingency in Alaska for the work they do in adverse conditions, flying in weather that you cannot believe, rescuing people, fishermen, and, yes, even some tourists, recovering them with helicopters and with ships themselves. They have done yeoman's duty day after day in very adverse conditions.

I will again stress, as one of the authors of Homeland Security, and I expressed at that time the Coast Guard be put at the top of the list in homeland security and they were, not at the bottom, which they were under the original proposal.

But I am still very concerned. There is a possibility that their mission, which is actually navigation, safety, interdiction of drugs, of doing duties which this Congress made them responsible for, now there is sort of an emphasis on security purposes and that alone. We must protect and make sure that does not occur, that they have their mission. In fact, I will at the appropriate time, not in this legislation but during the coming year, make a proposal that we take Coast Guard out of Homeland Security, put it back where it belongs and make sure it can do the missions that we have charged them with.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to understand the importance of this legislation. We will have some amendments offered. We hope to work most of them out before they are offered. We will debate those, and we will finally pass a very good piece of legislation for the United States Coast Guard.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, I gladly will accept a colloquy with the good gentleman.

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, my concern is that we were going to have another colloquy on something else that is very dear to your heart.

Madam Chairman, I cannot specifically answer the gentleman's question at this time. It is my intent to make sure the vessels, whatever vessels operate in these waters, will be under Coast Guard jurisdiction, and I think that is what the intent of this is. It is my intent, personally, as chairman.

The gentleman brings up a point about a Customs ruling that can be changed. I do not intend to do anything. As my colleague knows, I support the Jones Act equally as he does, and we will be reviewing this, and I am willing to work with the gentleman as this legislation goes forward to see if we cannot make sure that his and my ideas are implemented because I am not going to get involved right now with the trips to nowhere because I do not know the effect of this legislation on those activities at this time.

To my knowledge, no, and if that is the case, we will be taking care of that as time goes by. I was unaware of it. If that does this, we will be looking at it very closely.

No, and I believe if the gentleman is talking about the M/V Coastal, which vessels is the gentleman talking about?

Madam Chairman, if the gentleman is referring to

page 35, the Bluefin and the M/V Coastal Merchant, I do believe this applies as long as it is retroactive. We do not go back and disown them. We have to probably allow them to continue to operate as American-flagged vessels, these two vessels. There are only two vessels mentioned in the bill.

Madam Chairman, I can assure the gentleman that it is not my intent to do so at this time. That is why we will have the committee to review it, but if these vessels were actually authorized and they were done under a law of 1976 I believe it is, then we cannot make it say, no, they are no longer eligible.

Madam Chairman, I think the gentleman made a very good point about the bipartisan bill. As the gentleman read Members' names off of amendments that were worked out, it shows we can work together and that there is a good relationship between the majority and the minority. In fact, some of those amendments, if there was any hostility, I would not have accepted by some of the Members; but because we tried to work out the differences, I believe we have come out with a very good bill.

Again, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for their work on this legislation, understanding there will be some discussion on other amendments. Overall, we have settled every difficult amendment prior to coming to the floor. That is one thing I pride this committee on, is working behind the scenes, in front of the scenes, and making sure the scene is finally done. And this bill does it, and I compliment the gentlemen. I also thank the staff who worked very hard on this legislation over the past 6 to 8 months. We have come out with a very good product.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Is this museum going to be in the gentleman's district?

That is where the museum will be?

This will not be built on Federal land?

There will be no Federal funds and not on Federal lands. It is not on Federal property as was just mentioned? I think the point here, and I have, as the gentleman from Oregon knows, some great interest in condemnation proceedings, which I do not approve of, but I do think it is wrong, though, for this body to get involved in a local government and in a State process in a condemnation deciding which side it should be on. It should be left up to the local governments to do this because there are no Federal lands involved and no Federal funds. I think gentleman's presentation is correct. Although, I do not like condemnation proceedings, I do think we have to look at the local government's position as well as the State, and we should butt out, frankly.