Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am introducing today calls for the federal government to buy 349 acres of recreational land from the City of Craig, Alaska. The land includes a trail leading to Mount Sunnahae, its trailhead, a parking area, and mountaintop property. The legislation requires an appraisal before purchase. The bill also allows for a $250,000 appropriation to the U.S. Forest Service for trail maintenance and property rehabilitation.

I am introducing the bill at the request of Prince of Wales Island residents. The City of Craig is the economic center of Prince of Wales Island--which is the third largest island in the country. The town contains the major retail shopping and service outlets on the island. Craig also has the most active and largest commercial fishing harbor and fleet on the island. But the local economy, like many other parts of South East Alaska, has suffered from a downturn in the timber industry. In the early 1980's, the city and Prince of Wales Island were the center of a solid timber economy that provided thousands of direct and indirect jobs to the Island. Much of that is now gone as a result of terrible Federal forest management policies. According to the Alaska Department of Labor, unemployment rates in Craig regularly exceed 20 percent. This is more than twice the national average. This bill will help community expansion and development as well as facilitate Forest Service land management.

One of the Forest Service's main administrative facilities, the Craig Ranger District Station, is located in Craig. The Craig Ranger has management authority over approximately one million acres on Prince of Wales Island. Right now, there is not any Forest Service land near the Ranger Station. In an unusual situation for Alaska, the Ranger Station is an in-holding among private, state, and City owned land. So when visitors come to the Craig Ranger Station to orient themselves to the Forest, there is no onsite recreation. However, the city of Craig owns almost 350 acres of prime recreational land including a dedicated trail in the immediate vicinity from the Ranger Station. The Forest Service should own this land so that it can integrate the parcel into its land management plans.

The property to be acquired by the city of Craig is a cannery site dating from the early 1900's which has not been used since the early 1980's. It is prime land for the city to redevelop in order to provide economic stimulus in Craig. The parcel could be used by Craig to develop a good port and harbor and to provide first class land for retail merchants and other community services.

The Federal Government will receive equal value in land from the city. The passage of this Act is good for the public and for the residents of Craig.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for carrying this load. I had to come to this floor because there has been a lot of misunderstanding about this legislation.

All the way through this legislation the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and his staffer, Stacy, were involved in this legislation as it passed from the committee and to this House floor. I was charged as chairman of the committee to meet with the Senate, and it is a two-way street, and the Senate and the House did meet.

By the way, in this bill, for the other side, the Democrat side, the provision included a special rule to maintain the minimum AIP entitlement at small airports that had lost passengers. That was the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. McGovern) piece of legislation. It included a sense of Congress on fifth freedom and seventh freedom flights. That was the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). Increase the Metropolitan Planning Organization, MPO, participation in airport planning

process; that was the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). A requirement to provide additional information to families affected by aircraft accidents, that was from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). Restrictions on flights to Teterboro Airport, that was the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). Flight attendant certification; deadline of issuance of stage 4 noise reduction rule; curriculum standards for maintenance technicians; provision on foreign repair station security. All of these came from the other side, and they are in the bill.

The conference did meet at the request of the Senate side and, at that time, the Democrats offered an amendment to prohibit the FAA from contracting out any more air traffic control towers and it lost.

And it lost. And I have to remind everybody in our bill I protected 95 percent of the control towers. Sixty-nine could have been contracted out; sixty-nine. Under of the Clinton administration 194 were contracted out. And no one said a word, privatized and no one said a word. I protected 95 percent of it. But because of the misinformation, the cry of anguish, now we went back to the old law, existing law, the way it existed for the last 10 years. And that is the law we had that was stripped out of this provision.

And, very frankly, I was disappointed that there was nobody signing the conference report from the other side. We tried to finalize it before it expired, this act itself, and now we are on the floor today. And I ask my colleagues, the good in this bill far outweighs what is said bad about it. It allows our airports to function. It improves our airports, and it improves safety all the way through this legislation.

I know there has been a lot of disinformation, and, unfortunately, I cannot control everything that happens in this House. I wish I could. I would like to be given about 20 minutes as a dictator, I would straighten everything out. But that will not happen. This is a democracy.

But this, overall, is a good piece of legislation. Yes, I even arrived at a solution with the delegation from D.C. and Virginia on the slots, an agreement we made. So there are not that many slots requested from the Senate. And I prevailed on the House side.

So I hope with the information that is given us in the debate on the rule, and the debate itself, you understand that this bill is, overall, a good piece of legislation with the bodies on both sides of the aisle having to work together to arrive at a solution.

Now, we can demagog this more and more; we can rattle on about it more and more. But in reality, the legislation before you today should become law, and I hope it will be passed on.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for the work he has done on this legislation and the abuse he has taken over the last month and a half. He has stood up better than most people. I want to thank the staff, especially, for the work they have done over this period of time. I also want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). He is probably the most knowledgeable person in this House about aviation and has worked on it longer than anybody else, understands the problems and the needs. I would also like to say that I do appreciate the time that he has spent with me and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) on writing, I think, a very good piece of legislation.

I will say this: I learned one thing. I will never let a cow out in the pasture without a halter again. This thing sort of got away from me a little bit, but it is still a good bill. It is a bill that should be done; it should be passed. The conference report is very, very, very vital. It does reauthorize the Federal aviation part for 4 years.

I understand the part that has been the most controversial, which is the air traffic control privatization. I will say that when we did pass this in the House, we did not allow any of that to occur. I was in a position that I had to recognize a result instead of just a philosophy and a position that had to be achieved, and that was to try to compensate for interests outside of even the conference. And that was to try, and I thought we had done a good job of protecting, 95 percent of the control towers. That is what we do in the bill. But I had to agree to, and I will not apologize for it, to 69 and, yes, I will say, I took mine out; it was originally 71. But that is the process of the conference.

But this bill does a lot of the other things besides that. That is what the most emphasis is upon. It does fund the small community air service program, the essential air service programs. It provides an increased airport improvement grant funding for the improvement of our airports. There are streamlining airport project reviews that are very important to get our airports built. Increases the number of slots at Reagan National Airport, with which some may not agree, but it was not the abundance of slots that there were on another bill. We kept the slots to a very minimum. It provides flight crew training and certification.

Very frankly, as my colleagues know, this industry has taken a tremendous beating. We need this legislation to pass. We need it to become law. We need to get on with the idea of making sure our airports are safe under this legislation, and that we have the ability to move passengers safely and on time, and that we are not delayed by, I think, inactivity by another agency which sometimes does not do the job they should, and people are frustrated. I have talked to thousands of people today that are not afraid to fly; they are just afraid of the harassment of going to the airport. So I think we must address that.

Overall, again, this, I believe, is a tremendous piece of legislation. It has some flaws, but when we work with two bodies and there are interests from the other side, we have to give some, we take some, and we end up with a result. I believe the result is a good piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) brought up the name of Alaska, I wish he understood the reasons this is in there. The gentleman talks about jobs. He may not have been to Alaska, but Alaska is in a unique position for refueling. That is something that is very important to my airport. Already, the airlines the gentleman is talking about have gone to Vancouver and solicited bids to land in Vancouver, break down their cargo and ship it to the United States. We are part of the United States.

The difference between survival of the airport in Alaska, in Anchorage, is this part of this amendment. If it was not adopted, we would lose more than 400 jobs, 400 American jobs. And yes, I can say it is not point to point. These planes will come in, the cargo will be broken down and the planes will be refueled and sent back. The shipment will then be taken by Northwest and other airlines to other parts of the United States. It will create jobs, it will not lose jobs in Alaska.

The gentleman talks about foreign. If the gentleman wants them to go to Canada, that is what will happen if Members vote against this bill. My airport will not survive. This is one of the biggest money makers for my airport, and to have someone say this is going to give jobs to foreigners is nonsense.

We are different. We are closer to the Orient. We are not New York or New Jersey, which is about the size, by the way, of Kodiak Island. Our survival is the Orient market. That is what we are working on. This is what this bill does.

By the way, this is not my amendment. I am defending it because my senior Senator insisted upon it in the conference. We are a conference, and this is what this product is all about. Some may not agree with it, but I am saying it is about the survival of my airport.

Just keep in mind, I hear about this, I am concerned about some of the misinformation coming from certain groups about the damage this will do to airlines in this Nation. It will not do so. It will benefit labor. It will benefit the workers in Alaska, and it will benefit my State of Alaska. That is what I am elected for.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3087) 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, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge immediate passage of H.R. 3087, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003. The immediate enactment of this legislation is necessary to continue the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier and surface transportation research programs within the Department of Transportation for an additional 5 months after fiscal year 2003 and ends on September 30, 2003, just 6 days from today.

If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President before the end of this fiscal year, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees until Congress enacts an extension. Failure to pass a bill before the end of September also means that no State will be reimbursed for the Federal share of their transportation project costs, thus subjecting the Federal Government to breach of contract claims by the States. Moreover, high- wage infrastructure construction jobs, engineers, planners and other related jobs, would be lost. New highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to the States, transit construction will be halted, and the Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulation on the highways and at the borders will end.

I would like to thank at this time the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and his staff for their cooperation in drafting provisions of this bill under the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and his staff for their assistance in preparing the provisions in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R. 3087 provides over $14 billion in contract authority to the States to continue Federal highway programs and over $3 billion to continue grants to transit agencies around the country. It provides $142 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and $125 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for highway safety grants.

Although this extension will provide funding for 5 months, on March 1 Congress will be faced with the same situation we face now; all the programs and the operation of the agencies will come to a screeching halt again.

I want to stress my continued commitment to the multiyear reauthorization bill, but I am also committed to introducing a bill that meets the needs and improves our highways and transit systems and provides jobs. Obviously, we have to find the revenues necessary to enact the authorization that best meets the needs of the country.

It is my intent, all with the help of God and everybody else, to introduce a bill before we adjourn this session of Congress. I am working very closely with the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), to achieve a bipartisan agreement that will result in the best possible bill.

We expect to produce legislation that is developed in consultation with the Members of this House to solve their transportation problems, provide more equity to the States and reduce gridlock throughout the Nation. In the interim, Congress must pass H.R. 3087 so that these important infrastructure programs and the jobs associated with them can continue.

I am submitting my full statement for the record, but I want to clarify that while I support the bill that is before the House today, I also introduced H.R. 3088, which was not scheduled. H.R. 3088 would have kept these programs operating through March, and also had a grace period during which the States could have been reimbursed for their expenditures and also could have used some of their unobligated funds.

My personal view is that we should have passed a 6-month extension with a grace period, but I am trying to work cooperatively with the other body and with the leadership. I have been assured today that H.R. 3087 passes, and, when it does, the other body will take it up and pass it without amendment and send it to the President immediately so there are no disruptions of these programs. My support today is based on that assurance. That is the reason I have compromised on the length of the extension and the removal of the grace period for the States. We do not have the time to continue a debate on this extension. It must go to the President immediately and become law.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge immediate passage of H.R. 3087, the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2003.

The immediate enactment of this legislation is necessary to continue the highway construction, highway safety, transit, motor carrier, and surface transportation research programs within the Department of Transportation for an additional 5 months after fiscal year 2003 ends on September 30, 2003, just 6 days from today.

If Congress does not pass a bill and send it to the President before the end of this fiscal year, four Department of Transportation agencies will close their doors and furlough their employees until Congress enacts an extension.

Failure to pass a bill before the end of September also means that no State will be reimbursed for the Federal share of their transportation projects costs, thus subjecting the Federal Government to breach of contract claims by the States.

Moreover, high wage infrastructure construction jobs, engineers, planners and other related jobs will be lost.

New highway projects will be shelved, safety grants will not be provided to States, transit construction will be halted, and Federal enforcement of motor carrier safety regulations on the highways and at the borders will end.

The total amounts provided in H.R. 3087 reflects 5/12s of the budget authority and associated outlays in the 2004 budget resolution that Congress passed this year.

I would like to thank Chairman Jim Nussle and his staff for their cooperation in drafting the provisions of this bill under the jurisdiction of the budget committee.

I also want to thank Chairman Bill Thomas and his staff for their assistance in preparing the provisions in the jurisdiction of the Ways and Means Committee.

H.R. 3087 provides over $14 billion in contract authority to the States to continue the Federal Highway Program and over $3 billion to continue grants to transit agencies around the country.

It provides $142 million for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to make grants to the States to enforce commercial safety regulations and to continue truck and bus inspections at our southern border with Mexico.

H.R. 3087 provides $125 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for highway safety grants, occupant protection grants, and alcohol driving countermeasure grants.

This legislation will allow the temporary transfer of funds among core highway programs, to give States flexibility in administering their programs under a short-term extension.

However, the bill provides that any transfers will be restored when the next highway and transit authorization bill is passed.

Although this extension will provide funding for 5 months, on March 1 Congress will be faced with the same situation we face now. All of the programs and the operations of the agencies will come to a screeching halt again.

I want to stress my continued commitment to a multi-year reauthorization bill but, and I also remain committed to introducing a bill that meets the needs and improves our highways and transit systems and provides jobs.

On a national basis, congestion costs more than $67 billion annually--more than 3.6 billion hours of delay and 5.7 billion gallons of excess fuel consumed.

The average driver is losing more than a week and a half of work, 62 hours a year, sitting in gridlock. The average cost of congestion per peak road traveler is $1,160 a year.

For every $1 billion invested in Federal highway and transit spending, 47,500 jobs are created or sustained.

Nearly a third of all fatal crashes each year are caused by substandard road conditions and roadside hazards.

More than 42,000 Americans are killed and 3.3 million are seriously injured each year on the Nation's highways.

Obviously, we have to find the revenues necessary to enact the authorization that best meets the needs of the country.

It is my intent to introduce a bill before we adjourn this session of Congress. I am working cooperatively with my ranking minority member, Congressman Oberstar to achieve a bipartisan agreement that will result in the best possible bill. We expect to produce legislation that is developed in consultation with the Members of this House to solve our transportation problems, provide more equity to states, and reduce gridlock throughout the Nation.

In the interim, Congress must pass H.R. 3087 so that these important infrastructure programs and the jobs associated with them can continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, who does an outstanding job.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentlewoman has talked about, about getting out of Washington, D.C. As the gentlewoman knows, I am very sympathetic; and we will be addressing it in the full bill to try to solve some of those problems of having the ability to get the people out of Washington, if necessary, in a quick fashion.

Our biggest goal of, I believe, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and members of the committee is to really address the issues of congestion across this whole Nation. I have had the privilege of being in 40 different States in the last 2 years. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has traveled with me and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri). We go across this Nation, and we find a tremendous equal problem in every big city. New York, with all due respect to New York, if that one bridge was blown up, you would have 12 million people stranded with no way to supply. San Francisco and, I would suggest, L.A., Houston. So we have a national problem about congestion and the ability to move product and people to and fro; and it is my hope on this committee, with the members of this committee and with the help of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the staffs which we have, we will work really hard and we will be able to introduce a bill before we break this session that will meet those needs.

Mr. Speaker, if I had full authority, we would not only meet the needs; we would be able to have the money. But under this system, this is a two-tiered system; it has to go from this committee to another committee, and that committee will have the responsibility of trying to raise the funds to meet the needs that we are going to pass out of the committee to do the job for the people, to be able to move the people in case of an emergency, but also to make sure that commerce continues to grow. Without the ability to grow, without the ability to have transportation, our economy will shrink. So that is my goal on the committee, and I am confident we can achieve those goals. The American public wants to do this. I am confident that as time goes by there will be a greater bit of wisdom in certain parts of this great city of ours to understand the needs as I have presented to the committee and the committee will be able to send to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record at this point a letter from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to myself regarding H.R. 3087.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Budget,

Washington, DC, September 23, 2003.

Hon. Don Young,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure,

Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Young: I understand that the House is

expected to consider a five-month extension of TEA21 and

concerns have arisen as to whether this would have adverse

budgetary implications for highway, highway safety, and mass

transit programs when a long-term extension is considered

next year.

In particular, concerns have been raised that the Committee

on Transportation and Infrastructure would be penalized

should the short-term extension expire before the

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releases it baseline

projections early next year. As you know, CBO is generally

prohibited from assuming the continuation of any expired

mandatory program.

I am confident your committee will not be penalized for any

temporary lapse in its spending authorities. For purposes of

enforcing either the 2004 or 2005 budget resolution, the

appropriate baseline would be the baseline underlying the

budget resolution. The 2004 budget resolution assumes a

multi-year extension of TEA21, and I can assure you that the

House budget resolution for 2005 will also assume such an

extension and I will work to maintain that position in

conference.

Further, it would be my intent, if necessary, to request

that CBO produce an alternative baseline that assumes a full

year extension and I would use this baseline to develop the

FY 2005 budget resolution. Accordingly, it will make little

difference as to whether the House ultimately adopts a five-

or six month extension. Either way, I will make every attempt

to ensure that the operative baseline reflects the

continuation of these critical highway, highway safety, and

mass transit programs.

If I may be of any assistance as you move this important

bill, please do not hesitate to contact me or Rich Meade,

Chief of Staff of the Budget Committee, at 6-7270.

Sincerely,

Jim Nussle,

Chairman.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will state that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) makes a great statement, and I am well aware of what he said about the time frame.

As we know, my druthers were 6 months. That probably would not have solved the problem. But it is my goal to have a bill before this session is closed down, introduced and vetted, and it is our hope that we can do our job as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and that this House will move a bill over to the other body before the deadline; and I believe we can do that.

Now, whether the other body can achieve its goals with five committees that handle this legislation is another story, let alone the conference. So it is going to be very difficult. But our job in this House, and I hope the gentleman agrees with me, is to do our job and to move the legislation, to move the ball forward, get it to the goal line, and then, hopefully, they will have the wisdom to drive it over and make a touchdown with the help of the other body. If not, unfortunately, we will probably be back here, but that is not my intent. My intent is to achieve that goal. But now we have to pass this, get it down to the President, have him sign it so our highways across this Nation can continue to be built, the jobs will still be in place, and the infrastructure can continue to grow as it needs to be.

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

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. 3087.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I will compliment the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for his hard work and that of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) on this legislation. It is a bipartisan piece of legislation, and I am very pleased today that we are considering it because this has been delayed for numerous years.

I also would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) for their good work and their understanding, because that is one of the roadblocks we had, and they were able to sit down and work out a solution to a very complex problem in their State. In California, I feel sorry for them because there are 53 of them, and so they have a real problem. In Alaska, there is only one of us. If I start arguing with myself, I know it is a problem; but these gentlemen were able to get together, and I want to compliment them.

As I said, this bill has been stalled for 2 years, but we got together and we have been able to get past the rhetoric, identify real issues and come up with workable bipartisan solutions that will actually help the Corps of Engineers carry out its mission. This negotiation involved a lot of give and take, as I just mentioned. The result does not represent my initial positions nor those of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and that is the nature of compromise.

The compromise language gives the Corps of Engineers the tools it needs to improve and expedite water resource projects. These provisions earned the support of all the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and deserve the support of all Members of this House.

Now that the debate over corps reform is past us, both the Congress and the Corps of Engineers can focus on meeting the Nation's navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration needs to provide economic and national security to improve our quality of life.

I know some will complain about the cost of the Corps of Engineers projects, but these investments are critically important to the economy. Over 13 million jobs are dependent on trade, but our harbors are not ready to meet the increasing demands of international trade.

Our farmers and our electric utilities depend on efficient waterways to move grain and coal, but over half are over 50 years old and two have been operating since the 19th century. And may I stress this again. Our goal in this committee is to relieve congestion. We must use our waterways to the best of our ability, as they are doing in other countries.

Many communities along the rivers and shores are not protected from hurricanes and flooding, even though the cost of recovering from a flood is an average six times greater than the cost of investing in the infrastructure needed to prevent those damages.

Finally, there are worthwhile environmental restoration projects to provide both environmental and economic benefits. The Water Resources Development Act addresses the needs in communities all over the country.

Again, I want to thank the Members that worked on bringing this bill to the floor. It is a bill that can do the job for the Nation. I am very, very excited about having this legislation on the floor today.

Mr. Chairman, there will be two amendments. My understanding is that one amendment will be offered and withdrawn. The other amendment, and I hope everybody listens very carefully, because I do have concerns about the effect on our ports, but we will discuss that in debate on those amendments and hopefully listen to all the arguments and then make the right decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the chairman of the committee and rise in opposition. I do this somewhat reluctantly because the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has talked to me about this issue over some time.

But to have a cliche, I do not think this amendment does anything right now but muddy the waters, and this is a very clean bill, and I would suggest respectfully that although his endeavors have great merit, that to put it on this bill, at this time, would be a detriment to the bill itself. We have had most, I would say all of the harbors speak out very strongly about this.

As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) said, if this was to be left in the bill or be adopted in this committee, then I think there would be a great opposition to the legislation because of OMB. And I would prefer that not to happen. I would prefer this to be a clean bill. I will work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) to try to solve this problem because I happen to agree that there ought to be some revenues generated from all the cargo containers that come into our ports, but I do not believe this is the appropriate vehicle to do so.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) say harvesting timber in parks? Is that what the gentleman said? Does the gentleman believe that is occurring? If so, then the gentleman is misinformed. Again, the gentleman is misinformed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. For those who have been speaking, there will be roadless areas in their districts.

The roadless rule was struck down this week for the second time. The first time it was reinstated by the appeal of the liberal ninth circuit. Like many of the actions that have been taken by the so-called Clinton administration, if it was an administration, on their way out of office this rule was found too unacceptable. Luckily, for the State of Alaska and the Forest Service, and the Bush administration has already realized, ANILCA, which most of my colleagues were not around, settled the matter of multiple use in Alaska forests. We cannot rewrite existing law. They are rightfully progressing with the removing of the Tongass and Chugach from consideration under this rule. Now, they will be able to use property management for all of America's forests, not just Alaskan ones.

Again, it always reminds me, why in the world would somebody from Connecticut and Florida come down to talk about the State of Alaska? I know that the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is from Washington State, but does not know anything about the Tongass, does not understand what we are talking about here. This is existing law. What my colleagues are trying to do is something that is incorrect to my people and to the forests, to the harvesting of the forest, which is a management tool.

And, by the way, the most we can cut out of 19 million acres in the Tongass, the most we can cut is less than 500,000 acres, if that is possible. And every time I hear this argument, I wonder where are you from. What are you thinking about? Are you just mimicking the words fed into your ears from the so-called environmental community? What an air- headed idea that is. I say shame on you.

Look at the facts. I listened to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) a while ago talking about science, including science. The studies on the Tongass have been made by the scientists. They said what we are trying to do is correct, and you want to ignore that because you are pandering to a group of people. Shame on you.

Because the gentleman referred to the 9th Circuit, it was overturned, because that is a bunch of liberal left- wingers anyway. It was overturned because they were wrong. Everybody knows that.

Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?

The timber companies do not lay out plans. It is the Forest Service itself that lay out the plans.

And number two, there are no----

I heard you.

I would just like to remind the good lady there are no grizzly bears in southeast Alaska. There are brown bears but not grizzly bears. And we should know a little bit about that after we talked about baiting bears today. They are not grizzly bears. They are brown bears. That means that you do not know, frankly, what you are talking about.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I have the greatest respect for the chairman, and I had hopes that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) would accept the suggestion of the chairman. I will say this respectfully, that sometimes in this game Members learn when to hold them and fold them.

But I also would support the gentleman's amendment. This business of archaeology is crucial. It has been proven that these two centers, one in the district of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) and one in the district of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), are doing jobs beyond what is required by the Park Service. This is driven by OMB; I do not believe it is driven by the committee.

I hope Members understand it is important that we have this service available to us as professionals. These two agencies, these two centers, have done an outstanding job not only for the Park Service but for the military branches, for other branches within the government, and they are called upon because of their expertise.

This is a small amount of money. Like I said, the committee has done their job, and I understand the restrictions which they are under. I urge the committee to consider what the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) have suggested. This is important enough to ensure that these monies are funded for and not cut back. I believe in a lot of privatization, but archaeology is a system that has to be addressed by professionals, and these people are truly professionals.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this debate, and we are talking about Utah; but this proposal by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) probably affects Alaska more than any other State in the Union.

We had some agreements. We are talking about the law, and to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), your father agreed to it that we would have and shall have access across the lands. The Udall amendment probably would prohibit that, overriding another law; and that disturbs me a great deal.

Now, we do not have the roads that we are showing in Utah; we have mostly dog trails, the snow machine trails now. Trails are used from village to village across, yes, wilderness lands. If the gentleman from Colorado will look at that map, he will see that his father did a great job.

Most of our State lands intercede with Federal lands, and we cannot get across those. We are trying to preserve this right to cross those lands and utilize those trails for which they were established. I am quite concerned that even with the second-degree amendment, I am not sure that we will have that right. We would have to probably go to court again. But I am suggesting the second-degree is better than the Udall amendment, and we ought to look at this.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) had a good point. Eventually, we will decide this and let people understand that there are rights of States, and the 1976 law grandfathered all the rights-of- way in. That was the extinguishment of FLPMA. I was here and I believe the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) was here at that time too; he may not have been. But that was the agreement that was made.

We have to keep those agreements. We cannot continue to break those agreements we made just because it helps a certain interest group. I keep stressing that. Most of the people promoting this provision now do not know the institutional history of what the Congress did and why we did it.

Now, the RS 2477 was for a reason. Most communities established these rights-of-way and the roads that developed their communities. In our case, it was dog trails and a lot of other things that happened during the wintertime, and that is how we got from one community to another community. We ought to be able to continue that as a State's right.

So keep in mind as we go forward with this that we understand what we are doing and the laws that this Congress passed in the past. I urge the adoption of the second-degree amendment and defeat of the first- degree amendment, and then let us try to adjust it as we go through.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I am just concerned that the way it is written it precludes what we made an agreement to. If I can be assured later on we will discuss it as time goes by.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleagues, Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, Congressman Dale Kildee of Michigan, and Congressman Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978. It is now a quarter century since enactment of the ICWA. The Act has been vital to the existence of Indian tribes and their families. Yet, because certain ICWA provisions have not been adequately implemented Congress's promise to protect the integrity of Indian families and tribes remains partially unfulfilled. This bill clarifies Congress's intent with regard to the ICWA in a way that would achieve full compliance with this intent.

Many of this bill's provisions are included in direct response to tribal comments on H.R. 4733, an ICWA bill I introduced last year in response to tribal concerns. This bill was drafted with the input of the Association of American Indian Affairs, Tanana Chiefs Conference, National Indian Child Welfare Association, National Congress of American Indians, various tribes and other concerned organizations. The changes that the present bill make to H.R. 4733 also reflect input from each of these named organizations. The primary goal in drafting these amendments was to improve permanency outcomes for Indian children who are placed in substitute care at a rate higher than any other group of children in America.

It has been my policy to have all affected parties participate in the legislative process to help finalize a bill for passage. With this in mind, it is my intent to later include in the legislative process other groups that are working to improve permanency outcomes for Indian children. In 2003, we still have numbers of American Indian and Alaska Native children being adopted out of their families, tribal communities and States even when qualified members of their families are available for placement. We continue to have this problem in Alaska and I have been asked to introduce amendments to further clarify the ICWA. The amendments include, among others, provisions that would:

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

Require detailed notice to Indian tribes in all voluntary child custody proceedings, to parents in voluntary adoption proceedings, and to parents and tribes in all involuntary proceedings.

Clarify the right of Indian tribes to intervene in all voluntary State court child custody proceedings, provided that the tribes file 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.

Require notice to extended family members and recognize their right to intervene in State child custody proceedings.

Require attorneys, public and private agencies to provide detailed information to Indian parents of their rights under ICWA.

Limit 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.

Clarify tribal jurisdiction in Alaska.

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

Narrow the grounds upon which State courts can refuse to transfer cases to tribal courts.

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

Define the circumstances under which State ICWA violations may be reviewed by Federal courts and provide for Federal review of State ICWA compliance.

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

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

Extend 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.

Make it easier for Indian adoptees to gain access to their birth records.

Establish that foster and adoptive homes licensed or approved by Indian 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 Indian children shall be controlling even when another Federal law may have different requirements.

I think it is appropriate that Congress further clarifies the ICWA to ensure that American Indian and Alaska Native children are not snatched from their families or tribal communities without cause. In July 2001, the Child Welfare League of America offered American Indians something they have longed to hear for more than three decades: an apology for taking American Indian children.

``It was genuinely believed that Indian children were better off in white homes,'' said Terry Cross, Executive Director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association. (San Antonio Express News, Sunday, July 1, 2001 Article.)

That changed in 1978 when Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act. Even now, Cross cites problems. ``Sometimes social workers are not properly trained to identify children as Indian. Or agencies fail to notify tribes of adoptions.'' (San Antonio Express News, Sunday, July 1, 2001 Article.)

I believe these FY 2003 ICWA amendments to be acceptable legislation which will protect the interests of prospective adoptive parents, American Indian and Alaska Natives extended families, and most importantly, American Indian and Alaska Native children.

We will seek additional input from the Department of Justice, the Department of the Interior and the Department of Health and Human Services. I am hopeful that these agencies will again embrace this legislation so that we can affirm this country's commitment to protect Native American families and promote the best interest of Native children.

I urge and welcome support from my colleagues in further clarifying the ICWA to ensure no more American Indian or Alaska Native children are lost.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of James P. Rausch who retired on July 3, 2003, after 32 years of public service. At the time of his retirement, Jim was the Chief of the Congressional Affairs Office, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He was a part of the Chief of Engineers' executive staff and the Chief's principle advisor for all legislative and congressional activities.

Jim is a lifelong resident of Maryland where he attended Towson State University and later earned a Master's Degree from the University of Maryland. Jim started federal service in 1971 with the Baltimore District of the Army Corps of Engineers where he worked on the Corps Chesapeake Bay Study and provided floodplain management services to communities to help them develop plans for reducing flood damages. In 1982 Jim accepted the first of several positions at the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. While at Headquarters, Jim served a one- year Congressional Fellowship here in the House of Representatives. In 1991, Jim was selected to head up the Legislative Initiatives Branch in the Planning Division. He served as the principal contact for civil works matters for coordination with House and Senate public works committees. Jim had the lead on the development and defense of the Army Civil Works Legislative Program, which traditionally becomes the starting point for Congress as it puts together the water resources development acts to authorize important water resources projects and policies for the Corps of Engineers. He moved to his last position in the Corps in 1998 where he helped design the functions and structure of that office.

Jim and his wife Diane, who is a recently retired school teacher, will enjoy a trip to Ireland this summer. After that, I am sure that they both will remain active in community and government affairs for many years to come.

Jim Rausch has been a valuable member of the Corps team. Working mostly behind the scenes, Jim has been a key factor for many years in putting the right face of the Corps of Engineers before the Congress. At the same time he has communicated back to the Corps leadership the interests of the Legislative Branch. His comrades at the Corps and the

people of this country have been well served by this dedicated public servant. He will be greatly missed by his friends at both the Corps and on Capitol Hill. The understanding and appreciation of the Corps of Engineers here in Congress will remain strong thanks to his many years of faithful service to the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the Emergency Directed Rail Service Act. We have now reached a point almost exactly one year after Amtrak's last shutdown threat. Only an emergency ``loan'' under the otherwise crippled Railroad Rehabilitation Finance (RRIF) program and an emergency appropriation prevented Amtrak from shutting down, stranding thousands of commuters on and off the Northeast Corridor, and ending freight service on the Corridor. (The ``loan''--supposedly for 90 days--has not been repaid to this day.)

Based on last year's threat, I introduced an earlier version of this bill, to provide a ``safety net'' of emergency directed service powers under the auspices of the Surface Transportation Board if Amtrak did shut down. Such a threat is still present. Amtrak has pending funding requests far in excess of the President's budget request and has made no significant structural or financial changes in the last year. Thus the nation's commuter railroads and freight service on the Northeast Corridor are still hostages to a new shutdown threat.

This legislation is intended to prepare the nation for the possibility that Amtrak will either repeat its prior threat, or that Amtrak's precarious financial situation will cause an involuntary cessation of service. This bill is part of my effort to make sure the country is as prepared as possible should any such shutdown occur.

I am particularly concerned about the effect on freight movements in the Northeast and on commuter operations around the country and consequently on our national economy. An Amtrak shutdown could adversely affect the economy in the Northeast United States, because considerable freight would not be able to get to its destination-- especially plants where the Northeast Corridor is the only rail access. Moreover, commuters in the Northeast and around the country may not be able to get to work, either because the commuter authority operates on Amtrak infrastructure or because the commuter authority uses Amtrak employees to operate or maintain its trains.

Last year, before introducing the predecessor of this bill, I wrote to Linda Morgan, the then Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board, and asked whether the Board had the power to direct freight and commuter service that would be adversely affected by an Amtrak shutdown. Ms. Morgan responded that the STB was unclear whether it would have the power to direct freight and commuter service in the event of an Amtrak shutdown and that its emergency powers have ``never been tested before in this context . . . and . . . could be challenged in court.''

This country needs someone to have the power to address the fallout on freight railroads and commuters if Amtrak shuts down. The legislation I introduce today does just that. It makes it clear that the STB has the authority it needs to act in the event Amtrak ceases service.

In particular, the bill would give the STB the authority to order the continued maintenance, signaling, and dispatching of the Northeast Corridor. It would give the STB the authority to use federal funds to compensate the entity that conducts these services and to indemnify it with respect to any increased liability exposure. It would also authorize the STB to direct service and to provide interim financial assistance to commuter operations around the country affected by an Amtrak shutdown.

Further, current law requires that to the extent possible the Amtrak employees who already perform the work should do the work required by the directed service. The bill I introduce today would not change that requirement.

The nation may have narrowly avoided a rail transportation crisis last year, but there is no guarantee that we will not see a recurrence. Given the precarious financial situation of Amtrak, it would be irresponsible not to put a ``safety net'' of appropriate emergency powers in place. If Amtrak manages to recover, this legislation will prove to be very inexpensive insurance under which no claim had to be made. But if Amtrak shuts down, having this insurance in place will prove to be the wisest of investments.

Mr Speaker, I have, somewhat famously, opposed H.R. 1472, a bill which attempts to single out bears as a species to be managed by the House of Representatives instead of local wildlife experts. I believe this bill is a ``one size fits all'' attempt at government, inappropriately taking local control away and nullifying local expertise. I am not alone on my position against this bill. I would therefore like to submit for the Record the following letter from the National Rifle Association, which explains their opposition to the bill as well.

June 2003.

Dear Representative: As the leading voice for millions of

American gun-owners and hunters, the National Rifle

Association wishes to advise you of our opposition to H.R.

1472, the ``Don't Feed the Bears Act of 2003.'' This

legislation would prohibit the use of bait in bear hunting on

all federal lands.

Although H.R. 1472 addresses one method of bear hunting,

the real issue here is about who manages resident wildlife.

H.R. 1472 opens the door to federal preemption of the rights

of the fifty states to manage resident wildlife, including

establishing the means and methods of hunting in a safe and

ethical manner. The NRA is unalterably opposed to such

federal infringement.

Congress has passed legislation giving the Federal

government management authority over certain categories of

wildlife which it felt required a national focus: migratory

birds, marine mammals, and endangered and threatened species.

At no time in its history has Congress selected an individual

species for federal management. H.R. 1472 sets this unwise

precedent.

This legislation is being advocated by organizations

opposed to all methods of hunting, not just the use of bait

in bear hunting.

Nothing could better achieve their goal of ending hunting in

the United States than a bill that federalizes wildlife

management. Rather than having to promote their views in each

of the fifty states, the anti-hunting community is seeking to

have Congress preempt the field.

Those states that allow the use of bait in hunting do so

because they have concluded that it is a humane method of

hunting, that it meets the ethical standard of ``fair

chase,'' and that it is a necessary tool for management of

their bear populations. H.R. 1472 places Congress in the

position of being a wildlife biologist, making decisions for

states on how certain wildlife populations must be managed.

If Congress were to adopt this legislation, it would be

placing itself in the position of having to address every

issue pertaining to wildlife management, not just one method

of bear hunting.

The NRA strongly urges you to oppose H.R. 1472 because of

its attempt to preempt the authority of the states to manage

resident wildlife. If you are a cosponsor of the bill, we

urge that you reconsider your support for it.

Thank you for your consideration of our views on this

important issue.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox,

Executive Director,

NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits any funds from the Homeland Security appropriation from being used to approve a security plan that permits the transporting of unscreened or uninspected cargo on passenger planes.

Air cargo is a potential area of vulnerability in our aviation security system.

In the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Congress moved to ensure that all checked baggage was screened for explosives. But carry- on baggage and air cargo is still not screened for bombs, at least not the plastic explosives that terrorists tend to use. However, carry-on baggage is screened by x-ray, and air cargo is screened by the ``known shipper program.'' In both areas, we could do better and I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Massachusetts to do so.

I am concerned that this amendment could be misinterpreted as requiring that all air cargo be put through an explosive detection system or be opened and physically inspected. If the plain language of the amendment required that, I would oppose it. That is clearly impractical, if not impossible. Currently, there are no machines large enough and quick enough to screen all air cargo in this way. And physical inspection is so cumbersome that it would grind our economy to a halt. This would be a particular problem in my State of Alaska, where the people are especially dependent on air cargo for obtaining necessary goods and service.

However, the amendment simply prohibits any funds from being spent to approve an airline security plan unless that plan provides that air cargo will be screened. Such screening is currently being done through the known shipper program and I would expect that to continue. Over time, new technology may enable us to improve air cargo screening and I would support the use of such technology as long as it would not impede the flow of air commerce.