Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. I heard you.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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----

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

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

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. 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.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I would say that that is correct. I am well aware of the proposal the gentleman has suggested. Frankly, I support it myself. But as the gentleman knows, we were threatened with a veto if it was amended in the committee, so the gentleman and I had a lot of work to do in conference, and, of course, the administration. I do think that we have to have the safest air system. I believe, Mr. Chairman, we do have the safest air system in the world. Some of the other countries have changed their systems, but I actually think we are doing a better job. It does not mean we cannot improve upon it, but we are doing a better job. The way we do a better job is keep the professional people in line and by making sure they are doing the job correctly, as they have been doing, and as the control tower people have done so far. I am well aware of it and I will be working with the gentleman. As the gentleman knows, this bill will pass today overwhelmingly, I believe, and we will have an opportunity to address this issue as time goes by. I thank the gentleman. I must say for the record, I don't believe anybody knows the air business better than the gentleman does. The gentleman has been a long time as subcommittee chairman when he was in the majority, and he knows this issue. We appreciate working with the gentleman, because this is a great value to our country, this transportation system we have. I do thank the gentleman.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on the occasion of the 100 years of powered flight, I rise in support of H.R. 2115, Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003. H.R. 2115 addresses the needs of the national aviation system today and in turn provides for its future. The Federal Aviation Administration oversees and ensures the safe and efficient use of our Nation's air space. The bill before us now supports this important work. It reauthorizes FAA for 4 years and allows for modest increases in funding levels for fiscal years 2003 through 2007. H.R. 2115 also ensures that the Aviation Trust Fund is used to finance airport capacity and safety projects. It also continues to provide general funds to pay for FAA safety functions that are in the public interest. Additionally, the bill makes a number of important legislative changes, such as: Funding the Small Community Air Service Program and the Essential Air Service Program; Increasing the number of slots at Reagan National Airport; Streamlining airport project reviews as passed by the House twice last year; and Prohibiting the privatization of functions performed by air traffic controllers. It goes without saying that the aviation industry is vital to the U.S. economy. H.R. 2115 provides for its stability and, more importantly, for its continued growth. I want to thank the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for working with me to draft H.R. 2115. As a result of this cooperative effort, we have bipartisan legislation that everyone in this House can fully support. I especially want to thank the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). H.R. 2115 clearly represents the hard work and the long hours they and their staff put into this effort. I appreciate their dedication in ensuring that the United States continues to have the safest and most efficient aviation system in the world. For that reason, I join with the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica); and the ranking member, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), in urging the immediate passage of this bipartisan bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my debate time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be permitted to control that time.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I think his amendment has merit, but I am going to talk about just the bill itself for a few moments. I want to thank again the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), especially my good chairman the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for doing the work on what I think of as a very good bill. Air travel is coming back, as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has mentioned before. It is important that we look at where we were before 9/11 and recognize that those challenges are raising their heads again: the on-time provisions, the utilization of our airstrips, technology which is now available which was not available before, before AIR 21 was there, and I think we can use our airports more effectively. It is our goal through this legislation and as the authorization for 4 years that we will see the time when we go beyond those numbers that we had prior to 9/11. But nothing happens in this body without the cooperation from one another. I think this is an example of how committees should work together in a bipartisan effort to achieve what is best for the Nation as a whole. This bill does that and I want to compliment again both sides, and I am very, very confident this bill will pass overwhelmingly, and I thank everybody that has been involved.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce amendments to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I am pleased to be joined in the co-sponsorship of this measure by both Republican and Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) became Public Law 94- 437 in the 94th Congress (September 30, 1976), and was amended by: P.L. 96-537--December 17, 1980; P.L. 100-579--October 31, 1988; P.L. 100-690--November 18, 1988; P.L. 100-713--November 23, 1988; P.L. 101-630--November 28, 1990; P.L. 102-573--October 29, 1992; and P.L. 104-313--October 19, 1996. The purpose of the Act is to implement the Federal responsibility for the care and education of the Indian people by improving the services and facilities of Federal Indian health programs and encouraging the maximum participation of American Indians and Alaska Natives in such programs, and other purposes. 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 9/11/01 events. Appropriations for 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. For FY 2003, Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to help provide health care services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. The IHCIA requires Reauthorization this year. Since 1998, the Indian Health Service (IHS) started the reauthorization process under the IHS's Tribal Consultation Policy by conveying a Roundtable to begin the discussion of the reauthorization and to give guidance to the consultation process which included all stakeholders, I/T/U (Indian Health Service/Tribes/Urban). Coordinators from the 12 IHS areas formed workgroups of I/T/U and National Indian Health Board (NIHB) representatives. These meetings were to inform the I/T/U's about the reauthorization process, and provide opportunities to discuss and reach consensus on recommendations for the Act. Four regional consultation meetings were held to provide further opportunities for I/T/U's to provide input, share recommendations from the 12 IHS Areas, and build consensus among participants for a unified position. The final report entitled ``Speaking with One Voice'' identified areas of consensus and differences. The IHS Director convened a National Steering Committee (NSC) to be responsible for the final drafting of the report on the IHCIA recommendations. The NSC is composed of one elected and one alternative tribal representative from each of the 12 IHS Areas, a representative from the National Indian Health Board, National Council of Urban Indian Health, and the Self-Governance Advisory Committee. During the course of the 4 meetings, this group's responsibility evolved from compiling a final report of recommendations to the drafting of the actual IHCIA reauthorization bill language. During the last year and a half, House Resources Committee, Office of Native American and Insular Affairs Committee staff, Cynthia A. Ahwinona, has traveled to ``American Indian and Alaska Natives country'' to observe the work of the NSC of the tribal leaders comprised to propose IHCIA reauthorization revisions to Congress. The draft bill was drafted by dozens of tribal attorneys and had technical, legal citation errors and, in some instances, was drafted very poorly and did not accomplish what was intended by the NSC. As consensus was arrived, House Resources Committee and several members of the NSC met with House Legislative Counsel, Lisa Daly, Edward Grossman and Pierre Poisson in person and via teleconference to start the redrafting of the bill. Invited participants included both the Republican and Democratic health staff of the House Resources Committee and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, a representative from the National Indian Health Board, representatives of the IHS, and tribal attorneys from the NSC. I want to personally thank Lisa Daly, Edward Grossman and Pierre Poisson of the House Legislative Counsel, Myra Munson of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endrieson and Perry, LLP. and Carol Barbero of Hobbs, Straus, Dean and Walker for all their efforts in the drafting of this bill. Thank you all, you have done a wonderful job. Attached is brief summary of each Title of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Reauthorization of FY 03. Indian Health Care Improvement Act Reauthorization of FY 03 Section 1. Short Title. Section 2. Findings. Sets forth the national goal of the U.S. in providing the quantity and quality of health services to bring the health status of Indians to the highest possible level. Section 3. Declaration of Health Objectives. Sets forth 6 Health Status Objectives to be reached by the year 2010. Section 4. Definitions. States the definitions of terms used throughout the Act. title i. indian health manpower The purpose of this title is to increase, to the maximum extent feasible, the number of American Indians and Alaska natives entering the health professions. It also seeks to assure an adequate supply of health professionals to the Service, Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and urban Indian organizations involved in the delivery of health care to American Indians and Alaska natives. This title covers recruitment, scholarships, extern programs, continuing education, community health representatives, loan repayment, advanced training and research, nursing, tribal cultural and history, inmed, health training, incentives, residency, community health aide for Alaska, and a University of South Dakota pilot project. 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 more than 300% of the rate for the U.S. population generally), so this title has a specific diabetes provision. It also includes the Indian Health Care Improvement Fund through which the Appropriation Acts supply funds to eliminate health deficiencies and disparities in resources made available to American Indians and Alaska Native tribes and communities. This title contains catastrophic health emergency fund; health promotion and disease prevention services; diabetes prevention, treatment and control; hospice feasibility; research; mental health; managed care feasibility; Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, Trenton and California contract health services programs; mammography; patient travel; epidemiology; school health education; Indian youth; psychology; tuberculosis; environmental and nuclear health hazards and women's health. title iii. facilities The purpose of this title relates to the construction of health facilities, including hospitals, clinics, and health stations including necessary staff quarters, and of sanitation facilities for Indian communities and homes. It also would require the IHS to annually report on Indian Health Service/Tribes/Urban (ITU's) needs for inpatient, outpatient and specialized care facilities, including renovation of existing facilities. It also would require newly-constructed/renovated facilities, whenever practicable, to meet the construction standards of any nationally recognized accrediting bodies. There is also a provision to waive the Davis-Bacon when a tribe has its own wage law and performs the construction project instead of IHS. title iv. access to health services The purpose of this title is to address payments to the IHS and tribes for services covered by Social Security Act Health Care programs, and to enable Indian health programs to access reimbursements from third party collections. This title states that any payments received by a hospital or skilled nursing facility of the IHS for services provided to American Indians and Alaska Natives eligible for benefits under the Social Security Act Health Care programs will not be considered in determining appropriations for health care of American Indians or Alaska Natives. Requires the Secretary to enter into agreements with tribes, tribal organizations and urban Indian organizations to assist them in enrolling qualified Indians in Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP (State children's health insurance program), and to enable tribes to pay premiums for coverage. Authorizes the Secretary to enter into agreements with I/T/ U's for receipt/processing of Medicaid/Medicare/SCHIP applications. Condition continuing approval of State Medicaid plan on taking steps to provide for Medicaid enrollment on reservations, and to obtain input from tribes in the State on matters relating to impact of changes in the State plan on Indian health programs. If tribe/tribal organizations performs outreach, the agreement may provide for 100% reimbursement of costs and assures that 100% FMAP (Federal Medical Assistance Payment) continues to apply to Medicaid and SCHIP services provided by tribes/tribal organizations who directly bill for the services they provide. Ensures that insurance companies must reimburse I/T/U's for the services they provide. Ensure that managed care plans must reimburse I/T/U's for the services they provide. Authorize IHS and tribal programs to receive reimbursement for all Medicare Part B services and eliminates ambiguity about Medicaid coverage. Authorizes Federal/State/tribal agreements for tribal operation of Indian SCHIP programs; places a Medicare-like rate ceiling on hospital services purchased under the IHS's Contract Health Service program; directs the Secretary of HHS to study the Medicare and Medicaid payment methodology for Indian health programs and report to Congress; and directs the Secretary to establish a National Indian Technical Advisory Group to assist the Secretary in identifying and addressing issues regarding the health care programs under the Social Security Act (including medicare, medicaid and SCHIP) that have implications for Indian Health Programs or Urban Indian Organizations. title v. health services for urban indians The purpose of this title is to establish 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. The Secretary through the IHS is authorized to enter into contracts or grants to urban Indian organizations to help these agencies with establishing and administering health programs which meet the requirements of the IHCIA and will require evaluations renewals. Authorizes the establishment of an Office of Urban Indian Health which shall be responsible for carrying out the provisions of this title, providing central oversight of the programs and services authorized under this title and, providing technical assistance to Urban Indian Organizations. The bill would also extend FTCA (Federal Tort Claims Act) coverage to urban Indian organizations (Federal law already extends FTCA coverage to tribally-operated health programs). title vi. organizational improvements This title addresses the establishment of the IHS as an agency of the PHS(Public Health Service). It covers the appointment of the Director of IHS by the President and confirmed by the Senate. This title also authorizes the Secretary through the Director of IHS to establish an automated management information system as well as other duties as assigned by the Secretary for the IHS. 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. The title addresses the responsibilities of the IHS as outlined by the Memorandum of Agreement pursuant to the section 402 of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986. The IHS will determine the scope of the alcohol and substance abuse among Indian people; they must assess the existing and needed resources for prevention of alcohol and substance abuse and the treatment of Indians affected. Finally, IHS must estimate the funding necessary to adequately support a program of prevention of alcohol and substance abuse and treatment of Indians affected. The IHS will also provide a comprehensive alcohol and substance abuse prevention and treatment programs, a rehabilitation and aftercare services, IHS youth program, and training and community education. In this section demonstration projects are outlined as well as grants focusing of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol effect. It also expands the authorization to establish inpatient mental health facilities in each Area. Authorizes funding for development of innovative community-based behavioral health services. The requirement of matching funds has been eliminated here. Allows the Fetal Alcohol Disorder programs to be funded under the ISDEAA (Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act). Provides for a program to treat both the victims and the perpetrator of child sexual abuse. And, has been expanded to allow Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations to obtain funding for behavioral health research. title vii. miscellaneous The purpose of this title is to address various topics including the President's reporting of the progress made in meeting the objectives of this Act to Congress at the time of submitting the budget. It also applies the Negotiated Rulemaking Act to the development of IHCIA regulations. Other provisions require the Secretary to develop a plan of implementation to submit to Congress; describe the eligibility of California Indians for IHS services and sets out the conditions for the issue of Indian health funding as an entitlement. amendments to the social security act Amendments to the Social Security Act appear at the end of the bill. These provisions are necessary to reflect a number of the objectives described above in the Title IV summary.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, be allowed to manage the remaining time on this side.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1527, the National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2003. The NTSB is a small, but extremely, important part of the Federal Government. Its dedicated staff investigates a broad range of transportation accidents each year. The bill before us now supports this important work by authorizing increased funding levels for the NTSB for fiscal years 2003 through 2006. The bill also requires the NTSB to notify aircraft operators of their right to appeal a board employee's decision that an event constituted an ``accident,'' whether an event is classified as an incident or an accident can have serious implications for an airline's license to fly and the insurance premiums the operator will pay. This problem was first brought to my attention by Coyote Air, a small airline in Alaska. In addition, the bill addresses the problem of delays in implementing important NTSB recommendations. While the NTSB has a good track record of working with agencies to ensure that its recommendations are implemented, some important NTSB recommendations remain open for years. For example, the NTSB's recommendations to improve runway safety have been on the NTSB's Most Wanted list of safety improvements since the year 1990. Also on the Most Wanted list is the board's recommendation to reduce fuel tank flammability. This recommendation was issued in December of 1996 after the crash of TWA Flight 800. Over 5 years later, this recommendation is still open. While we cannot expect instant results on complicated issues such as these, neither can we afford to wait 5, 10 years or more to address important aviation safety problems. To address this problem, H.R. 1527 requires that the Secretary of Transportation submit an annual report to Congress and the NTSB on the status of each recommendation that is included in the NTSB's Most Wanted list of safety improvements. The Most Wanted list represents the board's best judgment regarding which of these recommendations should be expedited. H.R. 1527 will bring needed attention to these recommendations. Finally, the bill authorizes the NTSB's family assistance responsibilities to be transferred to another Federal agency under certain circumstances. Under the bill, this transfer would occur when the accident investigation is transferred because it is determined the crash was caused by a criminal act. I join with the full committee ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); the Subcommittee on Aviation chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica); and the ranking member of that subcommittee, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), with whom I introduced H.R. 1527, in urging the immediate passage of this bill. I commend the NTSB for its tireless efforts to improve transportation safety; and I do urge the passage of this bipartisan bill, with the least amendments necessary. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.