Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Reauthorization (IHCIA) with my fellow colleagues. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) requires reauthorization. It became Public Law 94-437 in the 94th Congress (September 30, 1976), and has been amended seven times. The IHCIA provides for health care delivery to over 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. Congress enacted a one-year extension to extend the life of the Act through FY 2001 but efforts at further extensions were interrupted due to the events of 9/11. Appropriations for the Indian health have continued through authorization of the Snyder Act, a permanent law authorizing expenditures of funds for a variety of Indian programs, including health. This bill responds to the changes that have occurred in the delivery of Indian Health services in the decade since the last reauthorization of the IHCIA. In this period, more than half of the tribes in the United States have exercised their rights under the Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act to assume responsibility to carry out programs of the Indian Health Service (lHS) on their own behalf. This, along with improvements in the IHS direct operations, have led to hospitals being accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditations of the Healthcare Organizations, and health delivery systems being tailored to expanded outpatient and home and community based services had become commonplace in the private sector. Medicare, Medicaid and other third party revenue were important to achieving these gains and are crucial for retaining them. Equally important is the need to reinforce the authority provided to tribal health programs under self-determination and self-governance to establish their own priorities and to determine the best way to respond to the specific needs of their tribal members. Some highlights of the ways this bill addresses these changes: Section 3. Declaration of Health Policy. Declares that it is the priority of the United States that the health status of American Indians and Alaska Natives should be raised by 2010 to the same level as is set for other Americans, instead of establishing lower thresholds as has previously been accepted, and establishes a policy requiring ``meaningful consultations'' with Indian tribes, tribal health organizations and urban Indian programs. Section 4. Definitions. Modernizes current IHCIA definitions and makes them consistent with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. Definitions of ``health promoting'' and ``disease prevention'' are expanded to encompass the full scope of these activities as recommended by the World Health Organization. Includes a definition of ``traditional health care practices'' that reflects the value of Native health practices. Title I, Indian Health, Human Resources, and Development. The purpose of this title is to increase, to the maximum extent feasible, the number of Indians entering the health professions and providing health services, and to assure an optimum supply of health professionals to the Indian Health programs and Urban Indian Organizations involved in the provision of health services to Indians. Title II, Health Services. The purpose of this title is to establish programs that respond to the health needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives. For example, American Indians and Alaska Natives have a disproportionately high rate of diabetes (death rate for this disease is generally more than 300% of the rate of the U.S. population), so this title has a specific diabetes provision. It also includes the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund through which the Appropriation Act supply funds to eliminate health deficiencies and disparities in resources made available to American Indians and Alaska Native tribes and communities. Title III, Facilities. The purpose of this title relates to the construction of health facilities including hospitals, clinics, and health stations necessary for staff quarters, and of sanitation facilities for Indian communities and homes. Title IV, Access to Health Services. This title addresses payments to the IHS and tribes for services covered by the Social Security Act Health Care programs, and to enable Indian health programs to access reimbursement from third party collections. Title V, Health Services for Urban Indians. This title establishes programs in urban centers to make health services more accessible to Indians who live in urban areas rather than on reservations or Alaska Native villages. Title VI, Organizational Improvements. This title addresses the establishment of the IHS as an agency of the PHS (Public Health Service). It also authorizes the Secretary to establish an automated management information system and authorizes appropriations to carry out this title. Title VII, Behavioral Health Programs. This title is revised from current law (which only addresses substance abuse programs) in order to focus on behavioral health. It combines all substance abuse, mental health and social service programs in one title and integrates these programs to enhance performance and efficiency. Title VIII, Miscellaneous. This title addresses various topics including the Secretary's reporting of the progress made in meeting the objectives of this Act to Congress. It requires the Secretary to develop IHCIA regulations, describes the eligibility of California Indians for IHS, establishes a National Bipartisan Commission on Indian Health Care, and authorizes appropriations. I urge my esteemed colleagues to act quickly to reauthorize the IHCIA to ensure we raise the health status of American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Mr. King in the efforts here and Mr. Lungren and, yes, even the minority in this case, on working on this legislation. I was somewhat taken back by the comments even made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, because this should not be a partisan issue. This should not be railing against the Republicans or should not be railing against Bush. If you want to make headlines, go outside and stand on your head. That is the best way to make headlines. What we are trying to do, as Mr. King said, is try to make our ports secure and we are trying to make them secure in a proper time fashion. We have already done some of this work that should have been done through the Transportation Committee. The Maritime Transportation Security Act does a lot of what is in this bill, and we are implementing it right now. The ports are more secure than what people will say and what you read in the newspapers. Yes, we can do better and we will. But Members keep in mind that what we are faced with today is how do we do it and do it in a fashion which continues to allow us to have a commerce circle. Without commerce, this country will fail. Now, I can suggest respectfully that there is a way and we will continue to do it, if the ports wish to do so, that they will unload their ships that have been screened thoroughly 100 percent overseas at point of origin. It will not take long for those shipping companies to make sure that the containers are screened 100 percent. Keep in mind what I said, that which has been screened will be first unloaded. I guarantee it will happen in the very near future. But what we have done here under this bill is try to make the right step forward, a good step forward, and to accomplish I believe what is correct, that is, eventually total security for our ports. I have some concern in the bill, and I have expressed to Mr. Lungren and Mr. King there are, and I understand why; but I hope as we go through this conference that there will be a recognition that the smaller ports will be recognized as much as the larger ports. Because under this legislation it primarily concentrates on the larger ports. And I do not believe that is what we are seeking. I think we should consider all ports that receive cargo containers from whatever origin they may be. And if they are not screened, they should not be allowed in. So I am saying the smaller ports should also be recognized. They are not under this bill. And we have to, as time goes by through the conference, try to recognize that those smaller ports have equal concern as well as the larger ports. And, lastly, I would suggest I have a deep concern about the grant program. We already have a grant program for port security. It is already on the books. It is already down in Homeland Security. And I will say in defense of the committee, the Homeland Committee, that there is in fact a lack of action through the Department itself. But I am hoping that we do not duplicate, that we do not do something that costs more money but gets less results. We can work this out through the conference, so we will have an opportunity to make sure either the Port Security Act itself, Maritime Transportation Security Act, which has a grant program in it, that if it is not being implemented correctly, that we rectify that, or in fact we might eliminate that so there are not two bills on top of one another causing more confusion and less real security within our ports. Again, Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat comfortable with this legislation in the sense that it has been well thought out. Again, I want to compliment the minority side and Mr. Lungren, Mr. King, for bringing this to the floor in time. I wish to say, if I can, I am a little concerned. I have been here probably longer than eight other people, and I do not like what I hear in these debates. Because it seems like everybody is saying the other guy is the bad guy, and we are the good guys. I thought we were here to solve some problems. This is a problem. I think this bill does it. I think we ought to keep our eye on the ball and protect our people and provide a flow of commerce, which is necessary. Mr. Chairman, I urge the people to consider this bill in total. If there would be a recommit, vote against the motion to recommit, and let us get forward and get this job done. If you only listen to the press outcry over the Dubai Ports World now-aborted takeover of certain U.S. port operations, you would not know that significant actions have been taken since 9/11 to improve the security of U.S. ports. Nonetheless, congress and the administration have taken important steps towards making our ports safer. These port security initiatives may not be as thorough and complete at this point as we would hope, and the press may choose to only cover the remaining gaps, but significant progress has been made. In 2002, congress enacted the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA). This legislation originated in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and significantly strengthened our ability to prevent and respond to maritime security incidents. MTSA required U.S. port facilities and the vessels calling at those facilities to prepare and submit detailed security plans to the Coast Guard. Those plans have been submitted and approved by the Coast Guard. This is the first nationwide effort to assess the state of port security and plan for improvements in that security. These plans are required for each and every U.S. port facility and each and every vessel that visits those facilities. Recently the administration has also completed the long awaited National Maritime Transportation Plan which was mandated by MTSA. In conjunction with the national strategy for maritime security, there is now a meaningful framework for assessing, planning for, preventing and responding to maritime transportation security incidents. Of course, all the planning in the world is worthless unless real assets are put in place to back up and carry out those plans. Such assets are being put in place, some more quickly than others. The Administration estimates that spending on maritime security has increased 700 percent since 2001. The Coast Guard has dramatically increased their security-related patrol hours and established 13 maritime safety and security teams as authorized in MTSA. Congress and the administration have committed to a 20 year rebuilding of the Coast Guard's ships, planes, and communications infrastructure. These new and upgraded assets will greatly improve the service's ability to carry out its maritime law enforcement missions, including port security. There are still portions of MTSA that have not been implemented in as timely a manner as I would wish. Transportation worker identity cards are still a work in progress, and virtually no progress has been made by the government on implementing long range vessel tracking. H.R. 4954, the Safe Port Act, makes some improvements to MTSA. At the request of the Coast Guard sub-committee chairman, Mr. LoBiondo, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the bill requires that the facility security officers identified in the security plans be U.S. citizens and that facility security plans be resubmitted when facilities change ownership. The bill also sets up a temporary system for verifying the identity of individuals with access to secure areas of seaports, and develop timelines for the implementation of transportation worker identification credentials. Perhaps most importantly, it authorizes maritime security command centers. These interagency facilities which already exist at several ports are crucial to coordinated Federal, State and local port security prevention and response efforts. Concerns remain about the safety of cargo entering the United States. We can all agree that the cargo must be secured at the earliest possible time and monitored throughout its journey. By the time it reaches our shores, it is too late to find out what is in a container and decide whether it is safe. Much of the Safe Port Act is designed to address these cargo supply chain safety concerns, and I comment Chairman King for his efforts in this area. There is one are in which I strongly disagree with the Safe Port Act. The bill removes the existing port security grant program from the Maritime Transportation Security Act and replaces it with a less focused grant program that is accessible only to very few ports-- ironically those that have the greatest resources available to pay for port security improvements. The Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (MTSA), established a grant program to make Federal funding available to assist ports, terminal facilities, and State and local governments meet maritime security requirements imposed by the act. This port security grant program is designed to address vulnerabilities that are identified through Coast Guard inspections, area maritime transportation security plans, and facility security plans that are all carried out under the MTSA. The Safe Port Act removes the port security grant program from the MTSA port security framework. If any changes are made to the program, those changes should enhance the connection between the existing maritime security framework under the MTSA and federal assistance. I hope that as we move towards conference on this bill that we will continue to work together to strengthen the existing port security grant program. I also disagree with the bill's proposal to restrict federal port security grants to only select ports or select projects. I do agree that we need to have criteria and a competitive process to determine which ports and projects should receive the funding; however, I object to the idea that any of our ports should be excluded outright from competing for this federal funding. Each of our Nation's 361 ports is connected to every part of this Nation through our intermodal transportation system. If we fail to implement real port security at any of our ports, we are failing in our efforts to secure our Nation from threats in the maritime domain. Under the MTSA, each port is required to operate under the same maritime security standards regardless of size or location. As a result, dedicated funding in the form of federal port security grants should be available to address security vulnerabilities at each of our Nation's 361 ports. In order to allow this important bill to move on an expedited schedule, I have decided not to offer an amendment that would return fairness, equity and effectiveness to the port security grant program. However, I look forward to working with Chairman King and the other conferees to make these necessary changes as we move to conference on this important bill. We can improve the grant program without reinventing the grant program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) control the remaining amount of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank Mr. Nussle and Mr. Spratt, especially in the realm of transportation. Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank Budget Committee Chairman Nussle and ranking member Spratt for their assistance during last year's Surface Transportation Reauthorization. The budget title of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Effective Transportation Equity Act, a Legacy for Users (SAFETEA LU) contains the vitally important funding Firewalls for the Federal Highway, Transit, and Highway Safety Programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. My committee is grateful for the Budget Committee's recognition of these important guarantees and their codification in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. I understand that the budget resolution incorporates certain assumptions for Function 400 Transportation Activities. First, all mandatory funding is assumed to meet the Congressional Budget Office's baseline. This is good news for the portions of our Highway, Highway Safety, Transit, and Aviation programs that are funded out of the Highway Trust Fund or the Aviation Trust Fund--it means that the authorized levels are assumed under the budget resolution. However, discretionary budget authority is assumed for these programs at the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request levels. This is not very good news for transportation programs. The President's budget request for surface transportation programs is almost completely consistent with the funding levels in SAFETEA LU, with only one major exception. The 2007 funding level for the Federal Transit Administration is $100 million lower than what was authorized in due to the Administration's failure to fully fund the ``Small Starts'' program. If the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill fails to restore this $100 million shortfall, that bill will be subject to the house rule XXI point of order against a bill or conference report that would cause obligation limitations to be below the guaranteed level set forth in section 8303 of SAFETEA LU. Unfortunately, the administration's budget request does not make a similar commitment to meeting our Nation's aviation infrastructure investment needs. Under the President's budget, aviation capital programs would receive $5.25 billion, which is $1.6 billion, or 23 percent, less than the level guaranteed by the Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. This reduction is extremely shortsighted, and will only serve to accelerate the impending crisis of congestion and delays in our Nation's aviation system. Unless we make the necessary investments in our airport and air traffic control infrastructure, delays will increase significantly as air travel continues to increase. To ensure that our aviation system remains safe, reliable, efficient, and able to accommodate the increased number of passengers anticipated in the near future, the transportation and infrastructure committee recommended in its fiscal year 2007 views and estimates that Aviation Capital Programs be funded at least at the $6.81 billion level guaranteed by Vision 100. The administration's budget request cuts funding for Amtrak from $1.3 billion in 2006 to $900 million in 2007. Over the years, proposed cuts in Amtrak funding have been repeatedly rejected by Congress. If the budget resolution assumes just $900 million for Amtrak, but Amtrak funds are subsequently restored during the appropriations process, other important programs will have to be cut in order to make up the difference. If the budget resolution assumes the President's budget request levels for the portions of these three programs that are funded with discretionary budget authority from the general fund, it could have a very negative effect on all the agencies and programs that are funded under the Transportation, Treasury, HUD, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. I am gravely concerned that the underlying assumptions in this legislation could force a painful choice among programs that are vitally important to the continuing economic well-being of our country. I sincerely hope that, when the appropriations committee makes funding allocations among its 11 subcommittees, the discretionary budget authority allocation to the Transportation-Treasury subcommittee reflects the full authorized levels for these transportation programs. This is not only for the sake of the Federal Highway, Aviation, Transit and Rail programs, but also to reduce the painful funding constraint on other domestic discretionary programs that receive funding under that subcommittee's annual appropriations bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 449, a bill to facilitate shareholder consideration of proposals to make settlement common stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) available to missed enrollees, eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18, 1971. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), as originally enacted, limited Alaska Native Regional Corporations from enrolling Natives born after December 18, 1971, as shareholders in their respective corporations. Subsequent amendments to ANCSA have allowed Regional Corporations to include Natives born after December 18, 1971 (often referred to as ``New Natives'' or ``Shareholder Descendants''), if existing shareholders of the Corporation adopt a resolution at an annual meeting. Thus far, very few Native Corporations have adopted resolutions to include Shareholder Descendants, in part because the standard of adopting a resolution is too high. As the law now exists, Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) may issue new stock to children of their original shareholders born after 1971 and missed enrollees and additional stock to Native Elders, but they may not do so unless a majority of the corporation's shares approve such a change at a meeting of the corporation's shareholders. However, because not all shareholders attend corporation meetings, it is difficult at any meeting to achieve a vote in which a majority of all shareholders, whether or not represented at the meeting, agree to have new stock issued. S. 449 amends the law to require that only a majority of shares represented at the meeting itself assent to the issuance of new stock, so long as a quorum is present, in order for new stock to be issued. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. As this body's only licensed mariner, I understand the lengths to which our Nation's mariners and vessel owners go, to obtain or renew their required licenses and documents. This bill will allow merchant mariners and vessel owners in the gulf region to continue normal operations under existing merchant mariner documents, licenses and certificates of vessel inspection. The bill will also allow the Coast Guard to continue its recovery of documents that were damaged by flood waters at the Regional Examination Center in New Orleans necessary to issue renewed licenses and documents in the future. The Coast Guard has done a remarkable job to restore most services in the gulf region despite suffering significant damage to Coast Guard facilities. However, as a result of coastguardsmen's tireless effort to protect the safety and security of our coasts many servicemen were called to duty when otherwise they would have been on leave. This bill assures that any member of the Coast Guard that was involved in the response efforts along the gulf coast will retain accumulated leave up to 90 days that would otherwise be lost. Lastly, this bill commends the men and women of the Coast Guard for their heroic and selfless service in response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita this year. I urge all members to join me in supporting the Coast Guard and the Merchant Mariner community for their continued efforts to restore normal and safe operations along our gulf coast.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Just remember, you should have grandfathered those existing programs in place. You just killed them.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Does the actual number save any money? Does it save any money?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, reluctantly I stand here and oppose this legislation, primarily because we did earmark some money last year for programs, and now we are just cutting them off period, no prewarning, no salaries, no billing rent, no heat, nothing, just kicking them out. I do not think that is the right thing to do. If you had grandfathered those programs in, I believe it would be a lot better. I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio, do you save any money or does the money just go back into the other programs that your committee decided ought to get funding?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3351, the Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2005. This bill would allow shareholder consideration of making Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) available to Alaska Natives born after December 18, 1971. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as originally enacted, limited Alaska Native Regional Corporations from enrolling Natives born after December 18, 1971, as shareholders in their respective corporations. Subsequent amendments to ANCSA have allowed Regional Corporations to include Natives born after December 18, 1971, often referred to ``New Natives,'' ``Afterborns'' or ``Shareholder Descendents'', if existing shareholders of the Corporation adopt a resolution at an annual meeting. Thus far, very few Native Corporations have adopted resolutions to include Shareholder Descendents, in part because the standard for adopting a resolution is too high. Existing law provides that a resolution is considered approved by the shareholders of a Native Corporation if it receives an affirmative vote from a ``majority of the total voting power of the corporation.'' At any given annual meeting, however, the total voting power of the corporation is not exercised. Accordingly, eighty-five to ninety percent of the voting proxies at an annual meeting would be required to vote in favor of a Shareholder Descendent resolution. This is an extremely difficult threshold to meet. Section 103 of H.R. 3351 would allow a Shareholder Descendents resolution to be approved by a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy at an annual meeting. If a change is not made to the existing voting standard for adoption of a Shareholder Descendents resolution, the promises of ANCSA are potentially left unfulfilled. This legislation would allow a Regional Corporation, provided the majority voted in favor of adopting a Shareholder Descendents vote, to enroll two generations of Shareholder Descendents to become shareholders in their respective corporation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important legislation affecting my Alaska Native ``afterborns.''

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, while I do not have any problems with the bill at this time, there is some concern that the bill may adversely affect the transportation projects, including those constructed under public and private partnerships. There is also a concern that the bill may have unintentional effects on the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970. I would like to thank the gentleman for including the language changes that we have suggested in the manager's amendment to help fix these problems. These changes are meant to clarify that this bill does not have any adverse impacts on issues under the jurisdiction of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Mr. Chairman, I ask that if we discover any additional problems with this legislation for transportation projects, you will agree to work with me in conference on a mutually agreeable solution.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I agree with the gentleman's goals and look forward to working with the entire delegation to meet the goals of this conference. I thank the gentleman for doing this.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 889) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006, to make technical corrections to various laws administered by the Coast Guard, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's motion to instruct. H.R. 889, which was passed unanimously by this House, includes a provision that would increase liability limits by approximately 50 percent for double-hull tank vessels and would, for the first time, establish higher liability limits for single-hull tank vessels. This legislation was developed through the regular committee process on a completely bipartisan basis. Further, this bill is supported by the oil and shipping industries as a commonsense measure that both increases the industries' responsibilities and maintains the protections of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to deal with any other major oil spills in the future. Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is one I agree with and, therefore, I urge that we accept it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, regular order.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Christine Kennedy, the Administrator and Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mrs. Kennedy has served the House of Representatives with distinction since 1972. Unfortunately, Mrs. Kennedy will be retiring at the end of this year and will be starting a new and I am sure equally rewarding private life. I know that she is looking forward to spending more time with her daughter, Lauren. I have known Chris since I came to Congress. Chris started her career with the Federal Government in 1972 as a clerk at NASA. She joined the staff of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in 1974 becoming the Administrator and Chief Clerk in 1995 of the Committee on Resources which was the successor Committee to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. When I moved from the Chairmanship of the Committee on Resources to the Chairmanship of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I asked Chris to take the position of Administrator and Chief Clerk of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Thank goodness, she agreed to do so. Chris is one of those people who often is unheralded and unseen but who is essential to the workings of this institution. She is one of the most organized and efficient people I know. You know that if Chris is on the job, the job will get done and will be done well. She is thorough and has a detailed knowledge of the procedures and processes that keep the Committee operating. In addition, she is loyal and generous to her colleagues, her friends, and to myself and my wife, Lu. We have relied on her in so many ways over the years to insure that our work with Committee, including the many codels and field hearings conducted by the Committee have been done in full accordance with the Rules. I want to express to her my deep appreciation for her hard work and for her support of my efforts as Chairman of two Committees. Without her efforts, our Committees would not have a record of accomplishment that is unmatched by any Committee. I know that I speak for my wife, Lu and for the Members and Staff of the Committee and for the many friends that she has made as a member of this Congressional family in wishing her all the best and many years of happiness in her new life. She will be missed in so many ways, but we expect that she will continue to be a member of our Congressional family in the years to come. Best wishes to a good friend and an outstanding staff member.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer legislation to help our nation and this body address the important task of disaster recovery. We are engaged in significant efforts to mitigate future disasters like Hurricane Katrina, and efforts to improve the way in which the aftermath of such disasters are handled. The Committee I Chair, Transportation and Infrastructure, held a hearing today on rebuilding efforts in New Orleans. Other Committees are investigating and exploring other aspects of the situation. But we will never legislate disasters away, and we will never improve recovery to the point where disasters are painless. Or inexpensive. Now, we can argue for months--and we probably will--about what causes the disasters this country faces regularly. Wild fires, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes: They all have some human component that does at least contribute to the scope of the damage, if not the cause. But here now I would like to move beyond that discussion, and instead focus on what we know that we must do in the aftermath: raise and distribute funds to rebuild lives, repair infrastructure, and reforge communities. We have so far appropriated $62.3 billion for recovery efforts in the Gulf region. There was another $8.5 appropriated for the Disaster Relief Fund for Fiscal Year 2005. Hurricane Katrina was a major disaster, but we have had others--there have been 1,572 major disaster declarations in the last 50 years, an average of 31 a year--and there will be more. We must find a way to meet the inevitable needs that will arise after future disasters. We cannot continue deficit spending. After numerous discussions with others, and based upon the successful program during WWII, I would today like to introduce legislation to begin a ``Disaster Recovery Bond'' program, similar to Savings Bonds, but with the income from the bonds dedicated to disaster recovery. This money would supplement funds in the Disaster Recovery Fund, providing an additional pool of funds to be used during large scale disasters like Hurricane Katrina. When a natural disaster--be it a hurricane, earthquake, tornado, or flood--hits a particular region or State, the rest of us can often feel disconnected because it's happening to ``them'' and not ``us.'' Buying bonds that are specifically designated for these types of disasters can help bring together Americans and create a sense of patriotism. This idea of individual Americans pitching in for the good of the Nation was instrumental in the success of the War Bonds during WWII. As a Nation, we are great at reacting. This was evident in the days and weeks after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita when the American people contributed millions of dollars to countless nonprofit organizations to assist their efforts in the affected Gulf Coast region. However, we need to think of the future and be more proactive. Purchasing Disaster Recovery Bonds will offer Americans an opportunity to contribute towards recovery and reconstruction efforts for natural disasters that have not yet occurred but are inevitable.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have not communicated with the gentleman from Minnesota, because I support what the gentleman wants to do, but I would suggest that if the gentleman from Minnesota and I can reach this agreement, and I am sure we can, we can come out with a resolution out of our committee immediately and bring it to the floor under unanimous consent, because what I think what the gentleman is asking is very legitimate. I will commit that to the gentleman as chairman of the committee, and I am sure the gentleman from Minnesota and I can work that out. So I give you that commitment.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. First, let me suggest that the statement they are going to bulldoze down thousands and thousands of homes because of Katrina that were not blown down is not true. The EPA gave us a briefing. The gentleman should have sat in on it. If he did not know, they found little toxicity in the water. There was nothing there that was being harmful. There could be mildew, but it is not from the toxicity in the water. I do not like to use the statement. Overexaggeration is not good for debate. Secondly, may I suggest it is the Coast Guard being required to do another mission, taking from the Coast Guard's real mission and requiring them to do something that should be done with EPA or Homeland Security but not the Coast Guard? I can tell the gentleman, he serves on the Committee on Homeland Security, I serve on that committee, and I can tell everybody on that committee and this committee, you are not going to whittle away at the Coast Guard having to do things that did not have to do with the mission to begin with. That is not going to happen on my watch. The idea that the Coast Guard will be required to find an alternative fuel or alternative toxic chemical in place of another, that is the EPA's job, not the Coast Guard. I do not know why the gentleman does not offer it to the energy bill or to the homeland security bill or some other bill. But why muddy the waters of the Coast Guard and require them again to have another mission? They have enough missions on their plate right now. I do believe this is a mischievous amendment. I believe that most of it could actually be done in the communities in which they live. I believe that the port cities can make those decisions themselves. Why should the Coast Guard have to do this, taking money away from the mission they should be doing, that search and rescue, saving our seamen, attending to our fishing pirates, doing the things they are charged to do? I am not going to add another responsibility to this Coast Guard. I had hoped the gentleman would withdraw his amendment. He has made his other statements. He can put this on another piece of legislation. He can argue, but this is a bill we have put together bipartisanwise. It is a bill agreed to by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and it is a bill that should be left intact.