Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I rise today in support of H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act. This bill supports all schools in the State of Minnesota, creates good-paying jobs in northern Minnesota, and makes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness whole for the first time since its creation.

First, a little bit of history. When Minnesota became a State in 1858, sections 16 and 36 of every township were set aside in trust for the benefit of schools. The State could use, lease, or sell the land to raise money for education. In the beginning, the State leaders decided to sell some of the more valuable parcels of school trust lands. But around the turn of the century they realized they needed more sustainable plans and began putting the school trust lands to productive use: timber and mining in my district. As Democrat State Representative Denise Dittrich has so ably educated me, these lands are not so much owned by the State as held in trust by the State and owned by the schoolchildren of Minnesota. It is the responsibility of school trust fund trustees to maximize the return of these lands for the benefit of this fund for our children. This is written in the Minnesota constitution.

But in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The lands within the Boundary Waters cannot be logged, leased, sold, or mined in order to preserve the unique wilderness character of this pristine land. But as a result of its creation, Minnesota and its students have been faced with an 86,000- acre problem for over 30 years. Eighty-six thousand acres of State- owned school trust lands have been landlocked within the borders of the Boundary Waters and have been unable to produce critical funding for Minnesota public education. It is imperative that we resolve this longstanding problem. Our goal is to preserve and protect the Boundary Waters and allow State-owned school trust lands to raise revenue for Minnesota education. It's a win-win. Unfortunately, Minnesota schoolkids and their teachers have been cheated out of public education funding now for over 34 years.

Finally, after years of inaction, stalling, and dilatory tactics by special interest groups, Republicans and Democrats have come together in Minnesota and said: Enough is enough. On March 22 of this year an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans in the State passed senate file 1750 by a vote of 53-11 to pass the bill. On April 3, the house followed suit, passing their bipartisan bill by 90-41. On April 27, Democrat Governor Mark Dayton signed the bill into law.

H.R. 5544 executes the bipartisan State plan. This bill would exchange State-owned school trust lands trapped in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to the Federal Government in exchange for Federal Government-owned land outside the Boundary Waters. Additionally, this bill includes important provisions that would ensure Minnesotans can maintain their hunting and fishing rights within the Boundary Waters. To be clear, this bill does exempt only the land exchange portion from NEPA. The land exchange itself would have no environmental impact, and any future development

would still be subject to strict State and Federal regulations. Again, a land swap is merely a redrawing of maps and has no environmental impact in and of itself.

I want to be very transparent here, though. One of my goals is to have this bill create good-paying jobs in northern Minnesota. The lands listed in senate file 1750 are rich in natural resources. Many of them lie within portions of the Superior National Forest that are already being successfully mined for timber. It's a working forest and creates thousands of good-paying jobs in the region. Northern Minnesotans need these opportunities, and every American benefits from the steel and the lumber that goes into our cars and our homes.

I generally support the aims of NEPA, but obstructionist and special interest groups have a track record of abusing the NEPA process. The State of Minnesota cannot afford to be sued by environmental groups for years into the future just for the sake of blocking this land exchange. I will not allow special interest groups, acting in bad faith, to abuse the NEPA process and use frivolous lawsuits to block and derail this land exchange at the taxpayers' expense. Schoolkids and teachers in Minnesota can't wait years, possibly decades, for this funding. In the school district where I live, North Branch, Minnesota, some classes have 40 kids and the school has been reduced to a 4-day school week. You call this progress?

This legislation will generate a lot of funding for our schools and create good-paying jobs. Importantly, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act would not eliminate a single acre of Boundary Waters land and cost nothing to the American taxpayer. In fact, it would add acreage within the existing wilderness area boundaries while giving Minnesota schoolchildren the land that rightfully belongs to them.

I urge my colleague to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

The Secretary already has the authority that the amendment is supposed to possess. That's what got us here in the first place. This amendment would undermine the purposes of the bill by giving the Secretary the option to continue the delaying and obstructing of a land exchange with the State of Minnesota. This is an issue that Minnesota and the Federal Government have been working on for over three decades under existing authorities. This amendment would only continue the status quo, so I must oppose it. Stalling the process further helps no one, least of all the schoolchildren and teachers of Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, we've had public input for over 30 years, and that has culminated in the bipartisan State Senate File 1750 that was passed earlier this year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the State legislature and signed by Democrat Governor Mark Dayton. The public has spoken. The bill has the support of the people of the Eighth District of Minnesota, and it would execute a bipartisan plan passed by the Minnesota Legislature and signed by the Governor. The only groups that oppose this bill are fringe groups, many of those being from out of State.

This amendment would give the environmentalists free rein to sue the Federal Government and have attorneys' fees paid for by the taxpayers of the United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

In addition, we have heard a couple of times today, Where is the map? Well, here it is. Here is the map. H.R. 5544 no longer contains a direct reference to the Forest Service map because H.R. 5544 is executing a State bill, State File 1750, which does specify lands to be exchanged in section 4 of the bill.

Subsection 3. Priority.

An exchange of the State land under this section shall give

priority to the exchanges that provide the most opportunity

for revenue generation for the permanent school fund, and

priority shall be given to lands within the Superior National

Forest in the Mesabi Purchase Unit in St. Louis County and in

the following townships of St. Louis County:

Township 59 North, Range 14 West;

Township 59 North, Range 13 West;

Township 60 North, Range 13 West;

Township 60 North, Range 12 West.

The Minnesota DNR has maps of these lands. The Forest Service has maps of these lands. Actually, they're available online.

Last year, the Forest Service prepared maps for an earlier draft of H.R. 5544, but when the State passed Senate File 1750, we changed the references in the bill from the Forest Service maps to the State-passed plan.

The reason why H.R. 5544 doesn't specify lands is because it executes the State plan, which does specify the lands. Again, the maps are available from either the Forest Service or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, because of the way this amendment is worded, I have some concerns about how it's going to affect mining and timber jobs in the new school district lands.

I yield to the gentleman to explain how he thinks the amendment would affect jobs in the Eighth District of Minnesota concerning mining and lumber.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague if he knows how much mining taxes contribute to the State of Minnesota.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time.

He is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, as you can see from the most recent ``Mining Tax Guide'' from the State of Minnesota, the Eighth District of State of Minnesota contributes $79.1 million to the State of Minnesota. That is just not inclusive of the income related to taxes from jobs from the mining that will go on in the State of Minnesota.

Is the gentleman opposed to mining in Minnesota? Can he give me an example of how he has supported mining?

I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to tell my colleague how much mining and timber contributes to the school trust fund.

Mr. Chairman, in the most recent school trust fund report, it shows that mining and timber contributed $23.17 million in 2011. Now, maybe that doesn't sound like much here inside the Beltway; but I tell you what, that's a lot of money where I come from.

Does the gentleman think that schools in Minneapolis are adequately funded? I'll answer that for you, probably not. Because in North Branch, Minnesota, where I live, public schools just went to 4 days, and then we've got 40 kids in a classroom. I think our teachers and kids could use the extra funding.

Also I'm very interested right now that now the gentleman is very concerned about small business interests in the rural communities. I find that very enlightening.

I yield to the gentleman if he could tell me how a small business would be affected by this land exchange and job creation.

Reclaiming my time, obviously the gentleman from Minnesota does not think any money going into the school trust fund is beneficial. Decisions such as these should not be made by Washington bureaucrats in D.C. They should be made by Minnesotans, and that is how we got into this mess in the first place.

The bill merely executes a bipartisan State plan signed by the Governor, State senate file 1750. We cannot trust Washington political appointees with the power to derail this land exchange at the expense of Minnesota schoolchildren and their teachers.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment is unnecessary and would only further serve to delay implementation of the overall bill. The valuation of the lands to be exchanged as required by Minnesota senate file 1750 requires that the lands not only be substantially equal in value, but that the valuation is done ``in a manner as agreed to between the State commissioner and the authorized representative of the United States.'' In addition, subsection (d) of H.R. 5544, on page 4, requires the survey to be satisfactory to the Secretary of Agriculture.

We have had 30 years of delay, 30 years of appraisals, 30 years of mapmaking. We don't need any more. These are the lands of the children of Minnesota, and they're entitled to them.

Mr. Chair, the State knows what the land is worth just as well as the Federal Government. We can do it for lower cost since so much of the work has already been done. The lands have been identified. Here's the map. This section right here and this section right through there.

This amendment is a stall tactic, quite frankly, to increase the administrative burden and increase costs to the State.

Subsection (d) also requires for the State to cover all costs. It is grossly unfair to ask the State to pay for an appraisal and then be made to comply with bureaucratic Federal rules in the process of valuation. The legislation leaves the Secretary ample authority to properly protect taxpayers and does not waive any applicable appraisal standards. Both H.R. 5544 and Minnesota Senate File 1750 require negotiations to be mutually agreed upon, and the lands conveyed to the State would be subject to all applicable State and local laws.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act. This bill will support the teachers and schoolchildren in the State of Minnesota, create well-paying jobs in northern Minnesota, and make the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, for the first time in its existence, whole.

We have to have a bit of context here.

When Minnesota became a State in 1858, sections 16 and 36 of every township in Minnesota were set aside in trust for the benefit of schools. The State could use, lease, or sell the land to raise money for education.

In the beginning, the State leaders decided to sell the more valuable parcels of the school trust lands, but around the turn of the century they realized they needed a more sustainable plan and began putting the school trust lands to productive use for timber and mining. This has been the goal of the State for over 100 years, and it has produced dividends for generations for our school kids.

As DFL State Representative Denise Dittrich has so ably educated me on, these lands are not so much owned by the State as held in trust by the State and owned by the schoolchildren of Minnesota. It is the responsibility of the school trust fund trustees to maximize the return on these lands for the benefit of this fund. This is a critical point. This is part of the Minnesota Constitution.

But in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. These lands within the Boundary Waters cannot be logged, leased, or mined in order to preserve the unique wilderness character of this pristine land. Thousands of visitors from around the country come to enjoy this beautiful area. But as a result of its creation, Minnesota and its students have been faced with an 86,000- acre problem for over 30 years.

Eighty-six thousand acres of State-owned school trust lands have been locked within the borders of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, unable to produce critical funding for Minnesota public education. It is imperative we resolve this longstanding problem. Our goal is to preserve and protect the Boundary Waters and allow State-owned school trust lands to raise revenue for Minnesota education.

Unfortunately, Minnesota school kids have been cheated out of public education funding for over 34 years now. In the past, there have been a number of working groups, studies, and resolutions. Finally, after years of inaction, stalling and dilatory tactics by special interest groups, Republicans and Democrats together in Minnesota said enough is enough.

It's been referred to as Mr. Cravaack's bill. That is not, in fact, the case. This is Minnesota's bill.

On March 22 of this year, an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans from the State senate passed senate file 1750 on a vote of 53-11. On April 3, the house followed suit, passing a bipartisan bill 90-41. On April 27, our Democratic Governor, Governor Mark Dayton, signed the bill into law.

H.R. 5544 executes a bipartisan State plan that Governor Dayton signed into law earlier this year. H.R. 5544 would exchange State-owned school trust lands trapped in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to the Federal Government in exchange for Federal Government-owned land outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.

This bill includes important provisions that would ensure Minnesotans can maintain their existing hunting and fishing rights within the Boundary Waters. In addition, the bill exempts the land exchange process from NEPA.

The land exchange itself would have no environmental impact on any future development and would still be subject to strict State and Federal regulations.

Intuitively, a land swap is merely a redrawing of maps and has no environmental impact in and of itself. The mentioned activities, mining and logging, do, in fact, have environmental impact and would be subject to the full Federal and State review. Not one environmental protection is lost in the execution of this bill.

I want to be very transparent here. One of the hopes of my constituents is to have a bill to create good-paying jobs in the timber and mining industries. The lands listed in S.F. 1750 are rich in natural resources. Many of them lie in portions of the Superior National Forest that are already being successfully mined for iron ore and harvested for timber. It's a working and managed forest.

These activities employ thousands of workers and support tens of thousands of other ancillary jobs in the region. Northern Minnesotans want these and need these opportunities, and every American benefits from the steel and lumber that goes into our cars and into our homes.

While I generally support the aims of NEPA, the State of Minnesota has some of the strictest environmental standards in the country and a track record of successful regulation of mining and logging.

On the other hand, obstructionist special interest groups have a track record of abusing the NEPA process to sue and delay. I do not want these groups to continue to delay this land exchange, preventing Minnesota schools from receiving the funding that they need and, quite frankly, they deserve.

The State of Minnesota cannot afford to be sued by environmental groups for years. Some of those arguing for NEPA are, in fact, arguing that defending lawsuits is an appropriate use of the taxpayer dollars and that it's okay to transfer wealth from State coffers to special interest groups. Interesting to note, many of these special groups aren't even from Minnesota.

Make no mistake. This will be passed and a bipartisan land exchange is going to get done. I will not allow special interest groups, acting in bad faith, to abuse the NEPA process and use frivolous lawsuits to block and derail a land exchange. If I could trust special interest groups to act in good faith and if I could trust the Federal bureaucracy to act promptly, I would include NEPA in this legislation.

The teachers and schoolkids in Minnesota can't wait years, if not decades. Currently, some of the schools in Minnesota have classrooms with over 40 kids, and some school districts, like mine in North Branch, have been reduced to a 4-day school week. I ask, is that progress?

This legislation will generate a lot of funding for our schools and create good-paying jobs. Importantly, the Minnesota Education Investment Employment Act will not eliminate a single acre of Boundary Waters land. In fact, it would include wilderness acres to the existing Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness boundaries while giving Minnesota's children land that rightfully and constitutionally belongs to them.

I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5797) to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 5797.

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

Mr. Speaker, in March 2010, the U.S. Coast Guard ruled that Mille Lacs Lake was a federally navigable body of water based on historical interstate commerce.

Specifically, the Coast Guard justified their actions by using a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determination from 1981 that said because lumberjacks in the 1800s floated logs on Mille Lacs Lake and down the Rum River, Mille Lacs Lake should now be made a federally navigable water body. Currently, the Rum River is dammed in three places, and the same Corps of Engineers report said that the dams prohibit through navigation. In addition,

two previous Army Corps determinations in 1931 and 1974 also considered the river nonnavigable.

I would like to submit the U.S. Coast Guard determination for the Record.

Memorandum

From: D. L. Nichols, CAPT, USCG, CGD Eight (dl).

To: S. L. Hudson, CAPT, USCG, CG Sector Upper Mississippi

River (s).

Subj: Navigability Determination for Mille Lacs Lake,

Minnesota.

Ref: (a) 33 C.F.R. Sec. 2.36; (b) 33 C.F.R. Sec. 3.40-1; (c)

33 C.F.R. Sec. 3.45-1.

1. For the purpose of determining its jurisdictional

authority, the Coast Guard has determined that Mille Lacs

Lake is a ``navigable waterway of the United States.''

2. The geographic boundary between the Eighth Coast Guard

District and the Ninth Coast Guard District currently runs

through Mille Lacs Lake. This navigability determination is

for the entirety of Mille Lacs Lake. The Ninth District Legal

Staff has reviewed and agrees with this determination.

3. No federal statute addresses the navigability of Mille

Lacs Lake, and no federal court has determined the

navigability of the waterway. Furthermore, Mille Lacs Lake is

not subject to tidal influence. This navigability

determination is based on the historical use of the waterway.

Specifically, Mille Lacs Lake has been used, in connection

with other waters, as a highway for substantial interstate or

foreign commerce.

4. Navigability determinations are administrative findings

based on the criteria set forth in 33 C.F.R. 2.36. The

precise definitions of ``navigable waters of the United

States'' and ``navigability'' are dependent ultimately on

judicial interpretation and cannot be made conclusively by

administrative agencies.

5. This opinion solely represents the opinion of the Coast

Guard as to the extent of its own jurisdiction to enforce

laws and regulations, and does not represent an opinion as to

the extent of the jurisdiction of the United States or any of

its agencies.

I thank my respected colleague for his kind remarks, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation to Minnesota.

I yield back the balance of my time, as well.

Mr. Speaker, for far too long--over 30 years, in fact-- Minnesota and its students have been faced with an 86,000-acre problem.

When Minnesota became a State in 1858, sections 16 and 36 of every township were set aside in trust for the benefit of schools. The State could use, lease, or sell the land to raise money for education. Then, in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. These State school trust lands within the Boundary Waters cannot be timber harvested, leased, or utilized for their minerals. Thus, they are not generating money for the school trust. As a result, approximately 86,000 acres of State trust lands are currently locked within the borders of the Boundary Waters and unable to produce critical funding for Minnesota public education.

Ultimately, Congress got us into this situation in the first place, and Congress will have to get us out.

On June 8, the Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, conducted a comprehensive hearing on this legislation. Our goal: preserve and protect the Boundary Waters and allow State-owned school trust lands to raise revenue for Minnesota education through utilizing our timber and mineral resources.

It is imperative we resolve this longstanding problem. Minnesota law specifies these lands must earn money for the school trust. In fact, the State has a constitutional responsibility to earn a financial return from these lands to fund the education system.

That is why I introduced H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act, which will give State-owned school trust lands trapped in the Boundary Waters to the Federal Government in exchange for Federal Government-owned land outside the Boundary Waters. This legislation is needed for the Federal Government to execute the bipartisan plan recently agreed upon by the Minnesota Legislature and signed by the Governor.

Our economy cannot wait, and our kids in the classroom shouldn't either. This legislation will produce new opportunities to create well- paying jobs and additional revenue for our schools.

Minnesota's school trust lands are a 154-year investment in our future. Times are tight, and our schools and teachers could use the help. Currently, some school districts in Minnesota, including mine in North Branch, have classes with up to 40 students and have scaled back to 4-day school weeks.

Just recently, the largest paper in Minnesota, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, penned an opinion piece which stated that enactment of this legislation would be a boon for our economy in the Eighth. Unfortunately, special interests are attempting to derail this broad, bipartisan land swap plan, which

includes jobs for Minnesotans and additional revenue to fund our schools. To swap these lands trapped within the Boundary Waters for lands located outside the Boundary Waters--to simply execute this Federal action--our State, its people, and our students should not endure years of litigation and disingenuous delay.

Importantly, the Minnesota Education Investment Employment Act would not eliminate a single acre of Boundary Waters land. In fact, it would add Federal wilderness acres to the existing boundaries. The Boundary Water Canoe Area wilderness would therefore become whole.

The Boundary Water Canoe Area is an important and vital aspect of the Eighth District of Minnesota, and we will take care of it. As a side benefit--the bill guarantees Minnesotans will retain their existing hunting and fishing rights in the Boundary Waters.

Now, more than ever, it is our duty as Minnesota's leaders to honor the State's obligations owed to Minnesota students and restore the integrity of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness. This is a team effort, and I am ready to work with involved stakeholders and my colleagues to put Minnesota schools first.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Today, I rise in support of my amendment, as well as in support of the underlying bill.

H.R. 4402 is a commonsense, pro-growth piece of legislation that would simply facilitate a timely permitting process for very important mining projects throughout the United States.

The United States cannot continue to depend on foreign countries to supply critical precious and rare Earth metals. This is a vital strategic disadvantage to the security of the United States. What happens if, one day, a supplying country decides it doesn't want to export or decides to restrict precious metals? What if our sea lanes become controlled by those who are not friendly to the United States? These mines are not something we can turn on and off at the flip of a switch.

These mines are multi-million if not billion, dollar projects that take years of capital investment just to get going. This bill is as much a strategic defense bill as it is a jobs bill. According to a University of Minnesota-Duluth study, 2.5 ancillary jobs are produced for every mining job. These are good-paying jobs that we cannot afford to lose.

My amendment will also allow mining projects that have already applied for a permit and are currently in the permitting process access to the new expedited procedures. My amendment falls along the same commonsense thinking that the underlying bill comes from, which is that 30 months is plenty of time to complete the total review process for permitting a mine. Currently, there are numerous projects in the permitting pipeline that have taken way too long and that still have no definitive end in sight.

One such project is in my district. PolyMet Mining initiated an environmental review of its proposed NorthMet copper and nickel mine back in 2005. Since then, the company has invested over $40 million for EIS inquiries. That is 7 years and counting for just environmental reviews. Another project that is just getting under way in the Eighth District is the Twin Metals project, which will also produce thousands of Minnesota jobs for both construction and long-term operations.

In a 2009 study, the University of Minnesota-Duluth found that more than 12,000 Minnesota construction jobs will be created in Minnesota if all strategic metal mining projects currently under study move forward.

In 2009, the UMD study also estimated that more than 5,000 direct long-term Minnesota mining jobs will be created when all strategic metal mining projects currently under study become operational.

Minnesota needs these jobs, and the country needs the minerals that these mines produce, and everyone needs a definitive permitting timeline that is reliable. Unfortunately, PolyMet is not a unique project. Seven years and $40 million is not even the worst example of inefficient permitting. Many other mining projects have been stalled for even longer due to inefficient and, at times, an agenda-driven permitting process.

Another example is the Montanore mine in Montana. It has been in the permitting process since 2003. The Montanore project was previously permitted by the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service, and other cooperating Federal agencies in 1993, following a full EIS process. The company chose not to proceed with the project until 2003 and has been working to obtain the same Federal permits since that time.

Mr. Chairman, I could give example after example of how inefficient and onerous our Federal permitting process is, but there's just not enough time to do so. These multiyear delays in processing Federal permits for many good projects are impeding thousands of jobs, massive investments across the country, and are blocking domestic production of much-needed rare Earth strategic and critical precious metals.

This amendment would ensure that these projects, like all future projects, are given a firm timeline that communities can count on while, at the same time, more than addressing concerns.

I urge passage of this amendment and the underlying bill.

I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to the time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind our colleagues that mines aren't just permitted and then forgotten. They're constantly monitored.

The precious metals we're talking about go into our cell phones, our computers, our weaponry, and even our catalytic converters. We need these materials now, and we cannot be held ransom by China. May I remind you, 600 pounds of copper goes into every windmill.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise today in support of my amendment, which would prohibit the utilization of funds by the Secretary of Transportation to research or implement a distance-based fee system, commonly referred to as vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, that would levy a fee on a surface transportation vehicle user based on the distance traveled.

Mr. Chair, it is no secret that our current highway trust fund system is going bankrupt. The Federal gas tax designed to support this fund finds itself increasingly unable to pay for better roads, bridges, and rail due to several factors:

People are driving less due to a weak economy and high gas prices;

The creation of more fuel-efficient cars allows people to fill up less frequently at the pump;

And let's not forget about how Congress has been raiding the gas tax proceeds for decades to fund alternative transportation activities that in no way help maintain and improve roads and bridges we drive, such as building bike paths and planting flowers.

There is an important need to come up with new, better ideas on how to appropriately fund our highway trust fund system. However, I am here to tell you today that the concept of using a vehicle miles traveled fee system is not one of those better ideas.

Requiring people to pay for the miles they travel each year is not acceptable on a number of levels:

A VMT tax would be expensive to implement because every car would need to be fitted with a device that both records the miles driven and transmits the information to a government database. This complicated system would cost millions of dollars to install these devices in new vehicles, and it would cost many millions more if older vehicles and motorcycles are expected to be retrofitted with these devices;

The cost required to administer this taxation is expensive and inefficient, especially compared to the Federal gas tax, which provides an inexpensive form of taxation that is collected directly from refineries and importers;

Further, the requirement of an electronic mileage-tracking device to be installed in all cars also poses a significant privacy concern and a severe threat to our private information should one of these systems be hacked or corrupted. The potential for privacy abuse is a hazard waiting to happen. Government databases have already been compromised in the past, and this government system would be no exception;

Finally, the VMT tax would impose a ``regressive tax'' that would hit constituents in rural districts like Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, the district that I represent, harder than any others. My constituents often have to drive many miles more than urban counterparts to perform the same daily tasks, like going to work, grocery shopping, dropping the kids off at school, and making deliveries for their small businesses. My constituents are already struggling to make ends meet with the current gas prices. Penalizing them for nothing more than living in a rural area will put them over the edge.

In sum, the VMT tax would produce a strongly negative reaction from the public--and for good reason. Americans don't like paying for the gas tax, and they are sure going to be even more unhappy about having to deal with an administrative and privacy nightmare that VMT promises. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of my amendment, which would prevent the Secretary of Transportation from using funds to research or implement this harmful fee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Sir, I can give you my commitment that I believe in a robust transportation system within the United States. We need it for economy and commerce, we understand that. But definitely, the VMT is a toxic part of this puzzle that we just can't use. I look forward to finding other alternatives to be able to fund the robust transportation system that I believe the United States needs. I thank the gentleman very much for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment.

This amendment is a simple one. It prohibits the use of taxpayer funds in furtherance of the implementation of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme.

Starting in January, the European Union began to unilaterally apply the Emissions Trading Scheme, ETS, to civil aviation operators landing or departing from one of the EU member states.

Under the Emissions Trading Scheme, EU member states will require international carriers and operators to pay emission allowances--and in some cases penalties--for carbon emissions resulting from their operations. The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme will apply to the entire length of the flight, including those flights outside the European airspace.

For instance, for a flight leaving Los Angeles for London, taxes would be levied not only for the portion of the flight over the United Kingdom, but also for portions of the flight over the United States and international waters.

Despite serious legal issues and objections by a majority of the international community, including the United States, India, Russia, China, and the International Civil Aviation Organization, the EU is pressing ahead with its plans. Russia, China, and India are taking very clear actions in opposition of EU's emission scheme. China and India have directed their air carriers not to comply with the EU's ETS requirements. China has delayed Airbus orders, India is threatening in- kind retaliation, and Russia is threatening to deny airspace access to European air carriers.

The European Union's unilateral application of the Emissions Trading Scheme onto U.S. operators without the consent of the United States Government raises significant legal concerns under international law, including violations of the Chicago Convention and the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement.

The Emissions Trading Scheme will actually harm efforts to reduce global aviation emissions. By taking money away from the airline industry that would otherwise be invested in NextGen technologies and the purchase of new aircraft--two proven methods for improving environmental performance--the EU is siphoning scarce money to be used as each member state sees fit.

A better approach to address aviation's impact on global emissions is to work with the international civil aviation community through the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, to establish consensus-driven initiatives to reduce emissions. However, because the EU has made no effort to delay or retract the illegal Emissions Trading Scheme, this amendment is necessary to ensure that American taxpayer dollars will not be used to further the Europeans' unilateral and questionable scheme.

Last October, the House passed H.R. 2954, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit U.S. carriers from participating in the Europeans' illegal scheme. A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. It is my hope that the Senate will move

quickly towards its passage. That legislation, along with this amendment to the Transportation appropriations for fiscal year 2013, will send a very strong message to our European friends that an illegal and unilateral action to address aviation emissions is not the proper course of action to deal with this issue. This must be a consensus- driven solution, not an international mandate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Cravaack

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Minnesota, and I rise in support of his motion to instruct. We will continue to stand ready to negotiate with the Senate.

As a conferee, I have partaken in some of these meetings myself and have negotiated in good faith with Senate staff. Unfortunately, no Senators.

The highway trust fund is bankrupt, and the Federal highway program is in need of serious reform. Congressman Walz is quite correct in that we cannot continue to kick this can down the road. And I will say the conferee House positions are fair and practical.

Allowing States the flexibility in order to address their specific transportation needs just makes sense. We have a $15.7 trillion debt; 46 percent of our debt is foreign owned, 30 percent owned by one country, China. We do not have the luxury, as the Senate bill requires, to spend money on things like wildflowers and, at the same time, the trust fund is bankrupt.

And as Mr. Walz and Mr. DeFazio point out, bridges are in disrepair and roads are crumbling. We need to get our priorities in order.

The House bill consolidates and eliminates programs, as opposed to creating $3 billion a year and increasing new programs like the Senate bill. This is not extreme; it's fiscally responsible.

The 293 bipartisan House Members voted to approve the Keystone pipeline, a fair and practical approach to helping lower gas prices at the pump and creating tens of thousands of jobs without hurting the environment.

Finally, the House positions of streamlining and significantly reducing the time it takes, without harming the environment, to build a major road project in this country is a practicable position; 15 years to permit, design, and build is not.

The Senate steadfastly refuses to cut any bureaucratic red tape that is associated with building a highway or bridge. We need to stop good- paying construction jobs from being endlessly tied up.

If the Senate is serious, as we are, to get this done early next week, I hope that they engage in good faith in a bicameral fashion.

I thank my colleague from Minnesota again for bringing this up. This is a very important position, I support his motion to instruct, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I thank my good friend from Alaska for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1272, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2012, of which I am an original cosponsor.

I represent five of the six bands that constitute the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, which is a sovereign, federally recognized tribal entity and the sole plaintiff in the litigation whose settlement gives rise to this legislation.

The five bands that reside in my district are: Bois Forte, Grand Portage, Mille Lacs, Leech Lake, and Fond Du Lac.

I've met with the representatives from all five bands on a number of occasions in the 112th Congress, and they've all made it very clear to me that it is more than past time to bring resolution to this longstanding issue. I agree.

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe entered into a $20 million legal settlement with the United States Government in 1999 to compensate for damages stemming from the improper taking of land and valuation of timber under the Nelson Act of 1889.

These settlement funds have been sitting in a Department of the Interior trust fund ever since and with interest have grown to about $28 million. That money now belongs to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. The United States' only role in this has been to temporarily hold it in trust for them until it can be distributed. Thus I've joined with my fellow Minnesota Representatives, Mr. Peterson and Mr. Paulsen, in cosponsoring the legislation before you today.

This legislation puts forth a disbursement formula which reflects and honors the formula decided democratically by the governing body of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, known as the Tribal Executive Committee. This formula voted for and passed by the committee supports a per capita apportionment of $300 each to each member, followed by a six-way split for the remaining settlement funds. Importantly, H.R. 1272 will distribute the settlement funds according to the formula that has been determined by the CBO to have no budgetary impact.

It is always difficult to craft a compromise between such varied and competing interests. However, the compromise represented in this bill respects the decision of the governing body of the entity that brought forth the claim on behalf of all six bands, and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims recognizes as having the constitutional authority to enter into a proposed settlement on behalf of all six bands. All six bands shared equally in the expense of the risk of prosecuting the case, and the tribal executive committee provided the six bands an equal opportunity to vote on how the judgment funds should be distributed.

The release of the $28 million to the members of the Chippewa Tribe will have positive implications far beyond just righting a past wrong. This money will flow directly into the hands of the bands and their members, sparking much needed consumer activity and, hopefully, investment in the reservations in northern Minnesota. This will benefit the entire region.

H.R. 1272 is the solution that must be enacted in order to fulfill the U.S. Government's legal obligations, conclude its litigation with the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, and release over $28 million in settlement funds in a fair and expeditious manner. Thus, I am hopeful that my colleagues will join me in support of the bill that brings resolution to this longstanding issue.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2013 Homeland Security appropriations bill to prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, from using taxpayer dollars to process the release or administer alternatives to detention to illegal immigrants who commit a crime in violation of section 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Importantly, this section requires the U.S. Government to detain illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes until the illegal alien is deported to their home country. For example, section 236(c) would require ICE to detain an alien that committed murder until the alien is deported.

I think this is a very commonsense provision. In fact, my opinion is that criminal illegal aliens shouldn't be in the United States in the first place, but that's a debate for another day.

Make no mistake, I believe that the vast majority of ICE employees are great Americans, and I personally appreciate the work they do to ensure the Nation remains a nation founded under the rule of law. However, ICE does not always operate in accordance with section 236(c). For example, ICE has allowed criminal illegal aliens who are waiting for a deportation hearing to leave Federal detention facilities and reenter the general public if the criminal illegal alien is fitted with a GPS tracking device or regularly checks in with an ICE supervisor. This is very troubling to me, Mr. Chairman.

In August 2010, ICE policy for releasing dangerous criminal aliens proved deadly. According to a Freedom of Information Act report, illegal alien Carlos Montano was sentenced to over a year in jail for a second DUI and was released from ICE custody wearing only a GPS tracking device. This is in direct violation of section 236(c) and is a violation that had tragic consequences. On August 1, Montano got drunk, got behind a wheel, and collided head on with a vehicle carrying three nuns. The head-on collision killed 66-year-old Sister Jeanette Mosier of Virginia.

To protect innocent citizens from criminal illegal aliens, I firmly believe we need to enforce our immigration laws, especially section 236(c). Mandating the detention of dangerous criminal illegal aliens is plain common sense.

Last year, this amendment overwhelmingly passed the House in a bipartisan vote, but the provision was stripped out in conference. So I'm offering the amendment again this year.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

I thank the gentleman.

And I also believe that this is a good use of taxpayer dollars. I do not believe in releasing illegal immigrants that commit serious crimes.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Sir, ICE is not following existing law, and this would prohibit the funds to ensure that those funds would not be used to allow illegal immigrants that have committed heinous crimes to be readmitted back into the public for any reason.

Will the gentleman yield?

This would prevent illegal aliens from being released back into the general public that have committed crimes either on a bracelet or by ``checking in'' with their ICE supervisor.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what alternate reality they're speaking of. I'm speaking of the reality of this world. I'm speaking of Mr. Montano, who got drunk and got behind a wheel of a car because he is on a GPS tracking device after committing a heinous crime and being tracked, supposedly, by ICE.

I'm taking about illegal aliens that are let into our society, and the majority of whom don't come back to their supervisor, but they also just disappear into the fabric of the country. That's the reality that I'm speaking of to protect the American public from illegal aliens that are illegally in the United States that have created a heinous crime against Americans. This is the reality that I'm speaking of.

This law will defund ICE to ensure that illegal aliens that have committed heinous crimes that are not deported back into their home countries are kept detained until such time as they are deported or remain in custody.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider my amendment at this point in the reading.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the fiscal year 2013 Homeland Security appropriations bill to increase the funding for the Federal Flight Deck Officer--or the FFDO--program. This amendment is fully offset, costing the taxpayers no additional money. This amendment is also supported by the National Rifle Association.

Mr. Chairman, 9/11 woke us up. The reality is that we live in a very dangerous world with varied and morphing threats. While screening can reduce some threats, terrorists are constantly probing and exploiting our weaknesses. FFDOs, along with Federal air marshals, act as a chief deterrent, but ultimately the last line of defense is the Federal flight deck officer.

Reinforced doors are an important step to slow an attacker and buy time, but ultimately the armed pilot is the last line of defense in someone taking over the aircraft to be used as a weapon of mass destruction. Let me say that again. The last line of defense is not the secured cockpit door, but the armed pilot behind it.

According to estimates by the Air Line Pilots Association, Federal flight deck officers only cost $15 per flight segment. Currently, FFDOs defend over 100,000 flight segments per month and 1.5 million flight segments per year. Thousands of Federal flight deck officers have been certified for the program, despite a budget that hasn't grown since this program's inception. Federal flight deck officers pay many of the expenses out of their own pockets for the privilege and the honor to defend our country from terrorist attack.

This year, the Obama administration proposed to half the program, effectively shutting it down. With their proposal of only $12.5 million in funding, the program would not be able to recertify all of the pilots in the program or even maintain its current management structure, and it certainly would not be able to train any new Federal flight deck officers.

I'm thankful that Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price have restored the funding levels to the same as they were last year at $25.5 million, but level funding means that over a thousand pilots who have expressed interest in becoming FFDOs cannot be vetted or trained. Also, at this funding level, the program could only train a limited number of pilots who have been vetted and would take almost 10 years to process the current backlog, to say nothing of future pilots who may volunteer for the program.

With the coming mandatory retirement of many pilots at the age 65 and with the combination of fewer new FFDOs coming online, the program will not provide the same level of deterrence.

I'd like to reiterate that the increased funding for the program will not come at a greater expense to taxpayers, and the increase in this amendment of $10 million is fully offset.

For only $15 per flight, Federal flight deck officers provide the most cost-effective aviation security program in existence. As a former Federal flight deck officer myself, I can personally testify about the sacrifices and expenses pilots undergo to participate in the program. They actually pay to protect and defend the Nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, over 700 pilots have been vetted and not trained; 1,500 pilots have applied for the program but have not yet been vetted. It costs about $6,000 per pilot to put them through the backlog for check and training. At current funding at $25.5 million, they're only able to bring about 250 new pilots per year on board, which leaves them in less than a status quo status, probably declining once the age of 65 hits many of the pilots in backlog.

Funding is the bottleneck, rather than the training center capacity. $10 million would not clear the backlog that currently exists. It would be a good start, though.

The proposal to reduce the funding for screening and maintenance and screener PC&B by $5 million each, we

have strong approval of many organizations for this program, including the Airline Pilots Association.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most valuable programs and deterrents that is in the air at the current time. It costs again, once again, $15 per flight to protect the American traveling public. To me, Mr. Chairman, this is a no-brainer.

Offered By: Mr. Cravaack

Amendment No. 13: Page 15, line 23, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $10,000,000) (reduced by

$10,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would protect universities, nonprofits, and businesses who receive Federal grants from having to implement the light bulb ban. Even though the Department of Energy has been prohibited from carrying out the light bulb ban by last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill, and will in this bill as well in section 316 of FY12 omnibus appropriations bill, it however included a requirement that recipients of all Department of Energy grants in excess of $1 million certify that they will replace all light bulbs in their facilities that do not meet the energy-efficiency standards instituted by the 2007 energy bill.

This requirement was driven by the Senate. The House passed a DOE spending bill that did not include a similar provision or debate and vote on this significant requirement. This is a particularly burdensome provision that in some ways goes well beyond the actual light bulb ban that prohibits manufacture and sale of 100 watt bulbs, and beginning in July 2013, 75 watt bulbs.

Rather than allowing the DOE grantees to replace bulbs as they burn out, this requirement forces small businesses and universities across the country to immediately replace existing light bulbs. This makes absolutely no sense. This forces extra costs on grant recipients and effectively means funds otherwise intended for actual research activities must instead be dedicated to purchasing new light bulbs to replace perfectly functional ones. This amendment allows the House to explicitly go on record opposing this unnecessary and burdensome requirement.

I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last year, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, testified that the administration was preparing to expand the scope of projects eligible to receive Harbor Trust Fund monies. She alluded to the administration's interest in using the Harbor Trust Fund for port security, among other things.

While I support the funding of port security through appropriations, I oppose repurposing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund while our Nation's maritime infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. Eight out of 10 of the Nation's largest harbors are not dredged their authorized depths and widths.

Mr. Chairman, make no mistake: This has direct impact on American job creation and prosperity. When American ships have to light load to clear the shallowest channel, American economic productivity is lost.

For instance, every inch silted in the American Laker Fleet collectively, per voyage, leaves 8,000 tons of Minnesota

iron ore on the docks in Duluth. That's enough to produce over 6,000 cars.

Moreover, light loading causes increased transportation costs for our exports and decreases our national economic competitiveness. Every billion dollars in exports, Mr. Chairman, translates into 15,000 jobs.

We must, Mr. Chairman, ensure that the monies intended for dredging are not siphoned off for other programs. My amendment will prohibit monies from being used by the administration to develop a plan or draft legislation to expand the scope of projects eligible to receive Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund monies. American shippers are taxed specifically to maintain the channels they and our Nation depend on. It is imperative that we ensure that the Harbor Trust Fund monies be spent as they were intended, thereby ensuring American competitiveness and proliferation of American jobs.

I am thankful that the administration has dropped this misguided proposal in their budget proposal this year, but the only way to ensure that this doesn't return in a midnight rule is to prohibit the funding in this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Offered By: Mr. Cravaack

Amendment No. 17: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would express a sense of Congress that fighter wings performing the 24-hour Aerospace Control Alert missions provide an essential service in defending the sovereign airspace of the United States in the aftermath of 9/11.

Mr. Chair, the tragic events of 9/11 exposed holes in our nation's air security and reinforced the need for the U.S. military to take the steps necessary to significantly increase our ability to intercept hostile aircraft. Today, there are fighter jets placed at strategic points all across the United States, charged with the mission to provide air defense through the detection, deterrence, and if necessary, defeat of hostile air attacks. These sites, known as Aerospace Control Alert sites, have fully armed aircraft and trained personnel on 24-hour alert, 365 days a year.

One such Aerospace Control Alert site resides in my district. The 148th Fighter Wing of the Minnesota Air National Guard, also known as the ``Bulldogs,'' operates out of Duluth, Minnesota, and provides force protection of our country's northern border between Madison, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon. The Bulldogs have been performing the ACA mission successfully for years and were selected for the Raytheon trophy, which is awarded for outstanding performance to an Air Force or Air National Guard fighter unit with a mission in air defense. In fact, I am proud to say that the Director of the Air National Guard, Air Force Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III announced just this month that the 148th Fighter Wing was selected as the 2012 Air Force Association Outstanding Air National Guard Flying Unit.

Given the importance of the 24-hour Aerospace Control Alert mission to our national security, I was greatly concerned when I learned a few months ago of NORAD's proposed reduction of the 24-hour alert mission requirement at two Aerospace Control Alert (ACA) sites in the Continental United States. It is my understanding that this proposal was submitted in line with the President's budget request for FY 2013 and the U.S. Air Force's decision to make force structure changes.

My concern grew when I learned of a January 2012 GAO report that reviewed NORAD's 2010 analysis on whether it could change the number and location of its fighter sites without affecting the military's ability to defend the country against airborne attack. GAO's conclusion was that this NORAD analysis did not adequately balance risk with targeted budget reductions.

I recognize that our country's current fiscal reality necessitates the Department of Defense to tighten its belt and look for ways to do more with less.

However, I think it is imperative that decisions that directly affect our nation's ability to defend itself should be made on the basis of risk-management principles that balance risk and costs.

Therefore, I also rise today in support of Section 352 in the underlying bill, which would direct the Secretary of Defense to maintain our nation's existing eighteen ACA sites until the Secretary submits a report that shows the cost-benefit analysis and risk-based assessment of how future ACA changes would affect the DOD budget and force structure.

I would like to thank Congressman LoBiondo for adding this important provision to the bill, and I urge the adoption of my amendment in recognition of a critical asset in our nation's defense system.