Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I understand that these are tough budget times and we have to make a lot of cuts if we're going to balance the budget. However, I also believe that we have to make every possible effort to retain adequate levels of funding for public broadcasting.

This March, I signed letters to two Appropriations Subcommittees in an attempt to protect funding for public broadcasting. For decades, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has aired educational programs and helped our children to learn to read, to understand basic math, and to engage in the study of science. It would be a shame to deny the next generation beneficial programs like Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, and Bill Nye the Science Guy because of budget problems.

Public broadcasting is more than education though. Even as newspapers are sputtering, trying to compete with the internet, 38 million people still listen to National Public Radio (NPR) every week. In Alaska, many communities rely on public broadcasting. The majority of our state can be described as remote and many Alaskans get their news exclusively from a single radio or television station. Fourteen stations, nearly half of those in Alaska, are critically dependent on federal funding and would likely close their doors if they lost that money. This would effectively strand numerous Alaskan communities, leaving them cut off from any form of news or even emergency communications.

I support the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, and the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program. Funding these programs is not just good for the country, it is vital.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4347) to designate the United States courthouse located at 709 West 9th Street in Juneau, Alaska, as the ``Robert Boochever United States Courthouse''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4347.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4347 would designate the United States Courthouse in Juneau, Alaska, as the Robert Boochever United States Courthouse.

Judge Boochever served our country as a captain in the U.S. Army during World War II and then moved to Alaska in 1940, where he worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office and in private practice. In 1972, he was appointed to the Alaska

Supreme Court and served 3 years as the chief justice. In 1980, he was the first Alaskan appointed as a judge to the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and served as a Federal judge for more than 30 years until his death in 2011.

Judge Boochever's commitment to the law and service made him a well- respected jurist, and so I am pleased to be the sponsor of this legislation. I support the passage of this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2039) to allow a State or local government to construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open space lands.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 2039.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 4367, a bill which would remove the current requirement under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act that ATM machines

have a physical label indicating the fee charge. Currently, ATM machines have both a physical posted notification and an on-screen prompt that inform the customer of any fees prior to the withdrawal or transfer of money. These fees are often used to offset the cost of a patron withdrawing money from an ATM owned by another financial institution.

H.R. 4367 is an essential piece of legislation which prevents greed- motivated individuals from fraudulently removing the physical fee notification and then filing frivolous lawsuits on financial institutions for not having the physical notification posted. This fraud forces financial institutions to waste huge amounts of money on legal fees, some as much as $500,000, merely to defend frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, the cost of this litigation forces banks to raise their ATM fees to deal with the action of a few unscrupulous individuals exploiting a legal loophole.

Today, virtually all ATM machines display on-screen notifications of a transfer fee, prior to allowing the customer to withdraw money. Altering the law so that banks are only required to post an on-screen fee notification will help them avoid expensive, unjust, and unnecessary lawsuits. H.R. 4367 is an essential and necessary part of modernizing our financial regulations to fit the needs of the digital world. Please know that I firmly support H.R. 4367 and would have voted in favor of it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that I believe should be exempted from the wholesale repeal of ACA, and that is section 10221-- which is the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) provisions of the bill. I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives not to forget that with the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, there would also be a repeal of the permanent reauthorization of the IHCIA, which ensures that American Indians and Alaska Natives will have access to improved health care.

The IHCIA amendments enacted in 10221 of ACA were developed completely separate from ACA and had a distinct legislative history. The IHCIA amendments were developed in a more than decade long process involving tribes, tribal organizations of the federal government on how best to update the quite out of date IHICA--which had its last major reauthorization in 1992.

While I was a proponent of considering the IHCIA independently, ultimately the IHCIA provisions were included in ACA. The ACA was a legislative vehicle that was moving so that the IHCIA provisions could finally be enacted.

There are a number of key provisions within IHCIA that will greatly enhance the well being of tribal communities. Such provisions include: new and expanded authorities for behavioral health prevention and treatment services; authorities for demonstration projects including projects for innovative health care facility construction and health professional shortages; and authority for the provision of dialysis services.

The health of American Indian and Alaska Native people, who already endure some of the largest negative health disparities, should not be negatively affected because the IHCIA provisions, through chance, were included in ACA.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the measure before us today. While the Supreme Court may have ruled Obamacare constitutional on the basis that it is a tax, that doesn't make it good policy. We owe it to the American people to repeal this middle-class tax hike and instead enact real reform that will rely on reasonable and proven market-driven solutions that do not trample on individual rights.

As we craft our replacement to Obamacare, however, we must protect one positive provision that was enacted as part of the law: the Medicaid funding included beginning addressing the longstanding disparity for Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories compared to the states. This funding represented a shared commitment between the federal and territorial governments to ensure the fiscal solvency of the territories' Medicaid programs. Although this additional funding was added to Obamacare legislation, it represents the culmination of years of discussion between the federal government and the territories, and is entirely separate from the rest of the law. If this funding is not replaced, Puerto Rico will

once again be forced to cover 80 percent of the cost of its Medicaid program--a burden that would be unfathomable and fiscally unsustainable if placed on the states. If hundreds of thousands of Puerto Ricans have willingly served in the U.S. military with honor, wearing the U.S. flag proudly on their uniform, then surely we can treat the U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico fairly in Medicaid.

When Puerto Rico Governor Fortuno took office in 2009, he inherited a $3.3 billion budget deficit. A true fiscal conservative, he made the difficult choices necessary to reduce this deficit by 90 percent in FY2013. Failure to replace this Medicaid funding would not only have dire consequences for the neediest residents of Puerto Rico, but would also jeopardize the Island's economic recovery and marginalize the tough choices and sacrifices made by Governor Fortuno and the 3.7 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico over the past 3\1/2\ years. With this in mind, I would like to express my commitment to work with my colleagues to ensure we restore this vital funding.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Chairman, this is a simple amendment. It addresses the roadless areas in national forests but, specifically, in Alaska. It does not overturn the roadless areas.

This is an attempt, as previously stated in this Congress, that highly mineralized areas would not be affected by the roadless area. It directly affects the Vulcan find of rare minerals, rare Earth.

And I have to address my colleagues for a sense. Now, right now China controls the rare Earths of this world. Yet, we have tremendous deposits in Alaskan lands and in other lands of this Nation. But rare Earth is the future of all this high technology that people do support, and the so-called things that we try to develop are from rare Earth.

It's wrong to have China control the price, control the quantity and availability for modern technology when we have our own. All we're asking in this is to make sure that an area that has high potential areas of rare Earth be accessible to the water.

And the rules of roadless area do not apply. They were exempted before. They should be exempted now. But a ruling in 2011 made this area unaccessible for the development of rare Earth for this Nation.

If you believe in the independence of this Nation, if you believe the importance of technology for the future, then you'll support this amendment. This is the right amendment for the right time to make sure we have this development.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I thank the gentleman.

Again, this is specific for an area of rare Earth that's for the future of this Nation. This amendment should be adopted, and I urge a ``yes'' on my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I enjoy people from Massachusetts and New Jersey talking about my State. It really always excites me that they really know a lot. They know nothing.

This roadless area was open for mining development; and, actually, exemptions of certain rules couldn't allow it. Last year, they said, no, this couldn't be done, having access to this rare Earth for the Nation--for the Nation--this small area. All they want to do is get to the water. What good is rare Earth for this Nation if you can't get to it? We might as well stake a claim on the Moon. I mean, this is 17 million acres of land that have already been set aside, all but 1 million acres. All I'm asking for is access for the American people, access to this mineral deposit for the American people for the future, for the technology that is needed so as not to be dependent on China.

Now, he may be representing China instead of New Jersey, and I respect that; but I'm talking about respect for this Nation. This amendment should be adopted for the good of the people of this Nation if you're thinking about the future. Ironically, that side offered an amendment to narrow this bill to only rare Earths. That amendment was offered, and I can't understand that.

All I'm saying is, if you want access to rare Earth, then pass this amendment. Make it good for the Nation. Let's not be listening to somebody who, very frankly, doesn't understand

the need--and this is a person who is a doctor, bless his heart, who understands the physical needs for the future, yet he says we're going to protect this little, narrow spot just to access water for the people of America. This is what this amendment does.

I'm trying to get something done for America. I'm not playing politics in this. It really doesn't affect Alaska to that extent other than the fact that it's in the State of Alaska. It does affect other States, but quite frankly, I want it for Alaska. It's my job. I'm not affecting New Jersey. I don't ever introduce an amendment or oppose anything for New Jersey. If he wants something in New Jersey, if he wants to drill in New Jersey, I'd support it. If he wouldn't want to drill in New Jersey, I wouldn't support it. If you follow what I'm saying, this is important for the people of America, and I urge the passage of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

One last comment.

He says there is no restriction and that we can go ahead and mine this Earth. You can't develop it. It's that simple. All exploration had to be done by helicopter. There was no access by road. To develop it, we must have this road to water access. This is a good amendment. It provides this Nation with the right minerals that are necessary for future technology. We should adopt this overwhelmingly if you're thinking of the Nation instead of an interest group.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Members of this body, I want to congratulate the staff, primarily. We mentioned some of them before. The work that they put in this bill is awesome, when they're dealing with the dark side. And you did such a good job of getting things done that we tried to get done in H.R. 7.

I will agree with the gentleman from Oregon about the future and what we have not done in this body because the public still does not believe we need to do what should be done, and that is to pay for the infrastructure through a system that's fair to everyone and quit thinking there's a magic wand to get this job done to build our infrastructure as it should be. We are declining each year.

I would like to thank the chairman also, Mr. Mica. He's absolutely right. When I was chairman, we had a $289 billion, 5-year bill. It's been in place now 8 years. And I'm quite proud of TEA-LU. But the chairman was, yes, with his hands tied, because we did not and have not in the Congress retained what I think is a constitutional right of every Congressman: direct money in directions that they know best, without costing the budget one dime. Now we've transferred this money to the State Departments of Transportation, and I think that's really a wrong way to do it, because they're not elected. They don't know what's best for a State.

But Mr. Mica did an outstanding job. Mr. Duncan did an outstanding job. And the staff did an outstanding job to make really a small silk purse out of a sow's ear. But now we have to go forth and do another legislative bill in the very near future and explain it to the public: you don't like those potholes, you don't like that wobbly bridge, then you better support the concept of a user's fee or some way to raise the money, because you won't take it out of the general fund.

We have to do this for America if you want a sound economy. Our economy is based upon energy and the ability to move product to and from. If you don't do that, you don't have the America I know.

Mr. Speaker, I've been very disturbed to hear today that it's inappropriate for the National Rifle Association to take a position on this resolution.

It should be clear to everyone that as a long-time NRA board member, I take a back seat to no one on Second Amendment issues. On this resolution, I can tell you that it is entirely appropriate for the NRA to take a position.

We are here today because Congress has a duty to hold our government accountable. We have a duty to ensure those in charge protect the public and the Constitution. Congress was misled when Administration officials initially briefed the appropriate Congressional committees. The U.S. Attorney General's office denied knowledge of a gun walking operation after whistleblowers reported troubling allegations. However, they later admitted certain officials with the Attorney General's office did have knowledge at the time Congress initially reviewed allegations of gun walking.

I am deeply troubled by reports the ATF forced law abiding gun dealers to do something they knew was wrong--to sell guns to individuals they normally would not sell to. The Administration designed this outrageous program to reportedly reduce gun violence along our SW border. And an innocent American Border Patrol agent paid the ultimate price for this ill-conceived plan.

There are those who believe that there were ulterior motives at play. We already know about at least three e-mails from ATF officials discussing how they could use information from ``Fast and Furious'' to make the case for a new gun control proposal--the Obama administration's proposal to impose a new--and, I believe, illegal-- reporting requirement on dealers who sell multiple long guns to individuals in the southwest border states. The administration has defended that rule in court, and by their logic there's no reason it couldn't be expanded to all guns in all states.

That would be a system of national gun registration. And that makes this a Second Amendment issue.

We as elected lawmakers must have all relevant facts to hold whoever approved Operation Fast and the Furious accountable. I stand with my colleagues here today who believe that the Oversight Committee has been denied all relevant evidence on who approved this terrible operation. The Oversight Committee's investigation has been thorough. The committee has followed the evidence in pursuit of the truth, not in pursuit of a political agenda. What brings us here today is the fact that this effort has been stonewalled by this Justice Department and this White House. The American people deserve to know the truth. The family of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry deserves to know the truth. Members of Congress deserve to know the truth. Today's vote will bring us one step closer to learning the truth.

I support this legislation. It's long overdue. Title VI of this legislation is a good step forward in Pet 4 in Alaska, so it is with great amazement that I listened to the two previous speakers.

Wind power, you can take and cover every acre of the United States, including the parks and refuges, and put solar panels on them, but you'll only produce 20 percent of the consumption of energy we use today. Now, think about that--no parks, no refuges--all solar panels, and we're going to take care of the problem. By the way, it has to be transported to a battery, taken and made by rare earths from China.

That's what this is all about. It's nonsense.

The idea that wind is going to solve the problem and that solar is going to solve the problem, that's nonsense because, in reality, fossil fuel, to this day, is the only fuel that can move an object, ladies and gentlemen. It moves your car; it moves your truck; it moves your plane; it moves your train; and it moves your ship that brings all the product to and from the United States.

You're not going to do it with a beanie on your hat. You're not going to do it with solar panels that have to cover every acre of the United States of America. It's because we're collecting the power of the Sun down here at the bottom of the pyramid. We're not collecting from the source. If you want to go far, if you want to be really reaching into the future, collect it up there and beam it down to a point where we can create electricity.

This is a good bill because, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Tipton said it right. In his bill, we do have action on wind and solar, although it will not work, and we know it won't work. We need fossil fuels now until we have the time to produce another source of energy that does not need electrical batteries to run a car. We're going to plug a car in? Nonsense. It won't happen, because you need to produce energy from some other source to create the electricity. You're against nuclear power. You're against hydropower. By the way, you'd like to take and grow our way into new power by using corn--a food--for energy. That's absolutely nonsense.

Shame on you to say this is not a good bill. This is a good bill. It's not a nonsense bill.

Today, the NPRA remains in various stages of exploration, and experiences no shortage of interest from producers. However, there have been a series of bureaucratic delays that have impeded production from this vast area. This bill seeks to remedy that situation and give the American people the energy resources they need.

The Trans Alaska Pipeline System is running at one-third capacity. Soon, without the addition of increased oil supplies, that pipeline will no longer be economical to operate. Carrying 11% of our Nation's supply, TAPS is critical infrastructure for this nation that must be protected. This winter TAPS was shut down for a period of days and fuel prices on the West coast shot up immediately in a drastic manner. Luckily, NPRA is only tens of miles from existing pipeline infrastructure that leads into TAPS.

A few weeks ago, clearly acknowledging that increased supplies will bring down energy prices, President Obama released 30 million barrels of oil form the Strategic Petroleum reserve. The National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska has 2.7 billion barrels and already has infrastructure in place to bring the oil to market!

Title VI of H.R. 4480 is a good first step towards harnessing the potential that these federal lands in Alaska have to provide domestic energy supplies.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2578. I'm primarily interested in the Sealaska provision. It's very important to understand something: the Alaska Tongass National Forest is 17 million acres of land. We're asking for 77,000 acres of land to be transferred to the Sealaska Corporation that has already been cut.

There is no old-growth timber involved in this. It gets Sealaska away from sensitive areas, including municipal watersheds, and onto areas already zoned for timber management on a road system. The exchange lands are near Native villages on Prince of Wales Island where unemployment is about 25 percent.

This bill supports the Forest Service by making Sealaska timberlands more accessible to rural and mostly Native communities, where unemployment is above 25 percent. Sealaska's land base will then support a sustainable timber rotation in perpetuity.

This bill affects approximately 77,000 acres in the 17 million-acre Tongass forest. It's already protected by designation, so it cannot be harvested.

Sealaska and its contractors combined make up the largest for-profit sector employer in southeast Alaska, providing over 360 jobs. Including direct and indirect payroll, it's almost 500 jobs.

This bill also finalizes Sealaska's Native land claim rights passed in 1971, and it does not entitle the Natives to an acre above what the 1971 Native Claims Settlement this Congress passed that limits it to them.

H.R. 2578 supports timber jobs while conserving environmentally sensitive lands in community watersheds. Failure to pass this bill may spell the end of Sealaska's timber program as early as 2012 and the loss of timber jobs in an Alaska private industry that's decreased 90 percent since 1990 because of action of this Congress when they passed the Alaska National Lands Act and put most of the land off limits.

Because the Forest Service is either unwilling or unable to offer an adequate timber supply in southeast Alaska, the remaining industry relies on Sealaska timber. The Alaska Forest Association testified:

AFA strongly supports the passage of H.R. 2578 without delay. Passage of this bill is critical to the future of our remaining industry.

Most importantly, the bill finalizes the land claim settlement for 20,000 Alaska Native jobs in southeast Alaska.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go to the ``Bull Dip'' awards, the Bull Dip awards for information put out on this legislation. We're talking about 77,000 acres that have already been cut. The Bull Dip award goes to those people who say there's transfer of over 50,000 miles of road. There may be 5,000 miles' worth, maybe 500 miles of road, but it's already roads that have been built on acreage that has already been harvested.

The other area of the Bull Dip award is the fact that the road will not be accessible to public use. It will be used for public use. There are no restrictions, not any action that will be taken to prohibit anybody from choosing these lands or moving on these lands.

All I'm asking today is give--an action of this Congress in 1971--the right to the Native people to land that's not old-growth timber.

It's not old-growth timber. This is land that's already been cut over, but they want to use it like Silviculture, growing timber forever, not like the Forest Service now, keeping old timber not cut. This is the right thing to do.

The idea that we would have people sending out propaganda--I know there's an outfit called Red States saying this is going to cost the Federal Government money and it's a giveaway. It's strange that that same operation doesn't like the Federal Government. I'm asking that this Federal land that's already been harvested over be given to the Alaska Native people, as they should have it. And they're trying to stay away from the old-growth timber. That's what they're trying to do. If I was doing it myself, I'd cut the old-growth timber; it's dying anyway. But nobody wants to do it; they don't recognize it.

I sat on this floor and watched the Alaska National Lands Act under George Miller, my good friend, say: don't worry, we'll have a timber industry. We've lost 15,000 jobs in southeast

Alaska--high-paying jobs--because of the so-called ``environmental movement.'' That does not make sense. That does not make sense for America. This is a renewable resource that should be utilized correctly. Let's pass this legislation.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Seventeen million acres are set aside already.

I strongly oppose this amendment. I know this amendment may have good intentions, but it is misguided. It will hurt the employment in the Native villages of Alaska. We have studies that show that the employment would not increase if we cannot export some of our logs.

By the way, this amendment was in the Natural Resources Committee, and it was defeated 30 13.

Last night, the Alaska Forest Association wrote in strong opposition to the amendment. And, very frankly, it is not right for the government to tell somebody on private land where they can sell their product. The only person who should be able to do this is the owner of a product. We don't tell where the Californians can sell their rice. We don't tell Weyerhaeuser where they should sell their timber. And so we shouldn't be telling a private landowner where to sell their timber.

In fact, if we had the Tongass National Forest, what little land we have left of less than a million and a half acres that is federally owned as far as harvesting capability, if the Forest Service would do their job, we'd have some timber to harvest, but they're not doing it. But what timber they do harvest on Federal land, they allow 50 percent of old-growth timber sales and 100 percent of new growth, 100 percent to be sold. So this is a little bit, I say, not sincere in the sense that this is not going to create jobs, and the Federal Government is already allowing timber to be sold wherever they wish to.

I would suggest respectfully that the amendment is not placed correctly. I would like to keep the timber in the United States, but if the market's not there, or if the bid is not as high as overseas people who bid on it, then you have to let the private person, in fact, sell his timber.

I would suggest respectfully that the thing that concerns me the most in this whole argument is some of the arguments against this legislation. This is about a Native group. It's a corporation, but it's a Native group of villages put together that have a high unemployment. We're getting all kinds of bull dip all across the Internet now saying that this, in fact, is going to give away. It's talk about roads being given away. This is timber area that has already been cut, and they do not want to cut the old timber area.

They're trying to have a good industry built by silviculture, and this is what's so important here. But for some reason, like I say, they're winning the ``bull dip'' awards of the whole year on this legislation.

Now, I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, but it's not right to have a private entity be told by the Federal Government where they can sell their product. We don't tell rice growers or tell anybody else where to sell their product. They sell it to the best market, and this is about the best market.

This would be wrong because they will have timber in a few years. I'd say maybe 50 years they'll have the best timber stand in the whole State of Alaska because this area has already been cut. They'll take them thin, and they'll be able to sell this timber at a high price, probably to the United States by then because we'll all be long gone.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1272) to provide for the use and distribution of the funds awarded to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, et al., by the United States Court of Federal Claims in Docket Numbers 19 and 188, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

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

In 1999, the United States Court of Federal Claims awarded a $20 million settlement to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, pursuant to the Nelson Act and various treaties that are not covered by the Nelson Act, for various accounting obligations of the Federal Government. These funds have been held in trust and have not been disbursed. H.R. 1272 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to disburse the balance held in trust to the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.

I would like to thank Congressman Chip Cravaack and the sponsor of this bill, Congressman Collin Peterson, for working with the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and for getting this bill to the floor.

I urge the adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack), the author of the bill.

I have no further speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this legislation.

And I misspoke a moment ago. Congressman Collin Peterson has been fighting this battle for years and years, and I'm glad to finally see that he has succeeded. He is the prime sponsor of this legislation, along with Mr. Cravaack and Mr. Paulsen. So we're on the right track. And I want to congratulate you. Perseverance overcomes many things, and you persevered this time.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2938) to prohibit certain gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona, as amended.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, Congressman Franks from Arizona.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I have one more speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Will the gentleman yield for a moment? If he doesn't have the time, I will yield him additional time.

Does the tribe in question have a casino on their own property?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any more speakers?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I can say that this is somewhat difficult for me because I have a rule about laws that are being passed in Members' districts, and I usually support. Mr. Franks represents that district.

And I will say, Mr. Grijalva has made some statements. I would suggest Congress makes laws, and Congress can remake laws. Lawsuits, that's a scare tactic. They can sue all they want. One of the problems we have in America today is we have too many lawyers, so you can sue anything and anybody, anytime, anywhere.

This is a battle about a State and a large group of American Natives that reached an agreement. Mr. Gosar said this very clearly. He was there, and they reached an agreement and they are signatories. We had a hearing on this legislation. We had a quite intensive hearing, and that was brought up. And, of course, they can cite all the arguments they want, but they also understand that when a State is involved under Native gaming laws, which I and Mr. Udall sponsored, the State had to be directly involved; otherwise, you wouldn't have gambling anyplace in Arizona because the State would not have agreed to that if there hadn't been an agreement between all of the tribes, there would be no more than was established in the compact. And I think we have to consider the State's belief in this because that does affect the State. They probably wouldn't have any gambling at all.

This money from those five existing casinos is shared, even by the tribe requesting this casino outside their territory where they have their own casinos, they want it in the Phoenix area, and we all know that. This is about money. There's no doubt about that. But what concerns me the most is the compact. When I listen to this, when you make an agreement and you're a tribe and you agree to something, don't try to go around and change that later on by asking some lawyers. We talk about finances and where the finances are coming from. We can find that out, too, later on.

So with the understanding that this is an Arizona battle, but as chairman, I have to listen to both sides, and right now I come down on the side that Arizona, the State of, has an agreement, and we ought to live by it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Mano Frey originally hails from Yakima, Washington, where he grew up with a relatively small family of ten sisters and seven brothers.

After graduating high school, Mano attended Seattle University where he majored in civil engineering. In 1970, Mano took a small break during his senior year to set off with his close friend for Alaska. Their destination? The now-famous city of Valdez, Alaska.

After experiencing the wonders and magnificence of what some call ``old Alaska,'' Mano decided to delay college in favor of joining Laborers' Local 341. Almost immediately he was dispatched to pour concrete for a new school using a 90lb pavement breaker.

Soon, Mr. Frey became a steward for the drillers and powder men at the main terminal camp for the Trans Alaska Pipeline. The job, which at the time was the biggest in world history, had over 25 thousand people working on the line from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez.

His reputation grew within the union's leadership and in 1977 he was appointed to be the area's business agent. A year later they asked him to transfer to the union's headquarters in Anchorage. Soon after Mano became the union's president. In 1981, he attained the job of Business Manager, a position he held until he became International Vice- President and Regional Manager for LIUNA's Northwest Region.

During his time in Alaska, Mano left his mark as a leader. On more than one occasion, Mr. Frey was recognized by the Alaska Journal of Commerce as being one of the top ten most powerful people in Alaska. He was the first and only labor leader to be given the Public Service Gold Pan Award by the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.

For a decade, Mano Co-Chaired the premier advocacy group Arctic Power, which advocated for the opening of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil exploration. To bring significant economic development to the State of Alaska and Nation.

Leading the program, Mano oversaw the huge advocacy effort to open the nation's largest oil reserve. Legislation to open ANWR has passed the House 12 times due in no small part to the work of advocacy groups like Arctic Power and the Alaska Congressional Delegation. The bill even passed the Senate once, only to be vetoed by President Clinton soon afterwards.

But, in his own inimitable style, Mano never lost faith and continued to push for the opening of ANWR, with the knowledge that if you ever let up on your goals, you certainly will never reach them.

It was with that same determination that Mano served as the Alaska AFL CIO's executive president from 1984 until 2003. During his tenure, Mano also had the privilege of serving on the National AFL CIO's Executive Council. Upon his retirement from the Alaska AFL CIO, and in recognition of all the years of hard work and dedication to the working men and women everywhere, the organization named him President Emeritus.

In 2003 Mano became a Vice President and Regional Manager for the Laborers International Union of North America. He served this organization and its members with honor. He demonstrated on numerous occasions that he not only cared about how all of the Local unions under his jurisdiction fared, but that the most important mission was the welfare and quality of life of the members and their families.

On behalf of all the working men and women of Alaska and beyond, whose lives

you enriched and livelihood you protected, I thank and wish you a happy retirement as you transition into your next chapter in life.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

At this time, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy regarding the Polar Sea, the Coast Guard's second heavy icebreaker. It has been decommissioned and will soon be put in dry dock to prepare it for scrapping. However, I believe that before the resale of the Polar Sea is significantly reduced by removing its propellers and shafts that the Coast Guard must consider another option.

To date, the Coast Guard has not yet officially surveyed the private sector for interest in the Polar Sea in its current condition. Private sector interest in the Polar Sea may increase after the summer's Arctic drilling season, when permitted drilling is expected to be shortened due to heavier than usual ice.

My good friend from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and I are offering this colloquy to delay the scrapping. Our goal is to specifically instruct the Coast Guard to provide a survey of whether or not there is a better use for this vessel.

I was prepared to offer an amendment today that would direct the Coast Guard to report back to Congress on the condition of the Polar Sea, the costs associated with reactivating the vessel for service, and the interest of private or public entities in purchasing and operating the Polar Sea.

This amendment would have prevented the Coast Guard from moving any major equipment or systems from the Polar Sea until the Coast Guard submitted its report to Congress. Unfortunately, this amendment is subject to a point of order, but I would ask the chairman for his support and commitment to work with me and Mr. Dicks on this important issue as we pursue an alternative legislative fix in the Transportation Committee. Time is of the essence.

I yield to my good friend from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

I am thankful for the understanding of the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. This is important to our Nation and especially Alaska, and I do appreciate your consideration.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gardner