Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, Congress established Alaska Native Settlement Trusts in 1988 to provide permanent health, education, and welfare benefits to Alaska Natives, who are among the most economically disadvantaged populations in the United States.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code has, in many cases, impeded the creation and funding of Alaska Native Settlement Trusts. As a result, Alaska Native Settlement Trusts have not been able to function in the manner Congress originally intended to provide benefits for Alaska Natives. To remedy some of these tax issues, I have sponsored H.R. 3524, which permits an Alaska Native corporation to deduct contributions to their settlement trust.

The provisions of H.R. 3524 were not included in H.R. 1, and the tax bill also adversely increases Alaska Native Settlement Trust tax rates from 10 percent to 12 percent. This would make it more difficult for Alaska Native Settlement Trusts to provide long-term benefits to Alaska Natives.

Mr. Speaker, I request that the provisions of H.R. 3524 be included in the final conference report that results from the conference committee.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for those remarks. He has been great to work with. His staff has been outstanding. I thank him for his commitment to working on the inclusion of H.R. 3524 and maintaining existing rates in law with regard to Alaska Native Settlement Trusts, and, more generally, for his support of the Alaska Native community.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Black and Chairman Bishop for including ANWR, the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, in the budget process.

I am looking forward to this. With this legislation, we contribute money to solving some of our national debt.

The small area of 1002 in the National Wildlife Refuge is an area of 2,000 acres, smaller than Dulles Airport.

Potentially, though, we have a little over 20 billion barrels of oil. Think how much money that would bring to the Treasury immediately through the bidding process.

This is an issue I have been working on for the last 45 years. It is time we passed it. Once it went to the Senate, and President Clinton vetoed it because it wouldn't help us with that embargo we had at that time.

Now is the time to make sure this Nation is independent totally. It won't happen overnight, but only Congress can do this. It is not a wilderness area. It is designated to be drilled at the behest of the Congress for the good of the Nation.

It will reduce the debt. Again, I said I expect bids of about $10 billion to $20 billion just to have the right to drill. With the new royalties that are coming down from the Secretary of the Interior, we will have not only a large amount going into the Treasury, we will have about 776,000 new jobs created by the discovery of this oil.

We have already seen what we have been able to do in other States by fracking and becoming more energy independent and how that controls the OPEC nations. But this is the area which oil has been developed by God. It is only going to be available to the United States, and it is time that this Congress steps forth and brings this to fruition for the people.

We will hear a lot from the other side of those interest groups that have no knowledge at all about the area I am talking about. We hear that the caribou herd will be affected. It is ironic that Prudhoe Bay has produced 17 billion barrels of oil, and when we started, there were 5,000 caribou. Now we have about 31,000 caribou. Oil didn't disturb them.

Oil is not evil. It is the necessity for this Nation socially to create jobs. It will make a healthier economy. I am asking my colleagues again to consider this legislation. It is necessary for this Nation. It is necessary, very frankly, for the good of this Congress. With $20 trillion in debt, I have yet to hear anything that will create new wealth. You can cut all you want to cut, I will cut what I want to cut, but you have to create new wealth. You have to bring it into the fold of the general budget process and for the economy of this Nation.

Let's not keep putting our heads in the sand and saying: Oh, we don't need to do this; it is not the time to do it. Now is the time for the good of the Nation and because we are in debt.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider this in this budget. I compliment Mrs. Black and her work, her chairmanship, on the budget. It is a very difficult process.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment to increase funding of bilateral tuberculosis (TB) assistance, and I want to thank Representatives Engel (D-NY) and Green (D-TX) for joining me. The three of us are Co-Chairs of the Tuberculosis Elimination Caucus and have long worked toward that goal. This includes domestically, such as in the State of Alaska, which suffers from high per-capita TB rates in the United States, but also internationally.

The U.S. Agency for International Development does a tremendous amount of work across the globe providing aid. One of its most important battles is against TB, which kills more people worldwide than any other infectious disease. In 2015 this amounted to 1.8 million people dying, out of the 10.4 million affected. This is more than HIV and Malaria combined. To make things worse, TB is preventable and curable.

Imagine if the Centers for Disease Control came out and said next year there is going to be a new disease. That this disease is going to infect over 10 million people and kill almost 20 percent of them in just one year. I imagine we would take it very seriously.

This is not an old world disease. TB is real and it is deadly. Pandemics of infectious disease in recent years have shown us the need to combat them ahead of time, not wait until it arrives at our shores. We have come a long way in combating TB, but more work needs to be done.

This amendment makes that possible and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that was successfully included in the House fiscal year 2017, which prohibits funds in this act being used to implement the Obama administration National Park Service rule that interferes with the State's wildlife management authority on national preserved lands of Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, when we became a State, we were guaranteed to have management of all Federal lands and State lands on fish and wildlife management. Under the Obama administration, they tried to do differently on the wildlife lands, and now they are trying to do it on the BLM lands and the park preserves, not the parks themselves.

I suggest, respectfully, if you want to follow the law, you adopt this amendment, as it should be, as is proposed, and we will be able to manage lands we were guaranteed by this Congress to the State of Alaska.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), my good chairman from the Appropriations Committee.

You know, I rarely do this, but I'm deeply disappointed in my good lady from Washington. * * *

This was a preserve, and we were guaranteed this in the Alaska National Lands Act. No more. No more. And the State, under the Constitution, has the right to manage fish and game.

Now, I know your side doesn't believe in State's rights. You don't; I do. My job is to protect my State, not your State--my State.

And what you said a while ago was really nonsense. It was written by an interest group, not yourself. Maybe

your staff is affiliated with the Humane Society or some other group, and I'm disappointed.

My Native people support this amendment. You talk about natives. Alaskans, our first Americans, support this amendment. And I really am disturbed. * * *

I am still talking.

I didn't say ``damn.'' You said it.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my offending words.

And to the gentlewoman, I do apologize. I get very defensive about my State. We have gone through these battles for the last, actually, 45 years, and we are a State. I have my people to represent, as you do yours. I do apologize for my statement. I recognize it was out of order, so I hope you accept my apology.

And I thank the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, which was successfully included in the House fiscal year 2007 Interior appropriations bill, prohibits the funds to be used by the Bureau of Land Management to change their existing placer mining plans of operations with regard to environmental mitigation in Alaska.

Alaska is one of the very few places left in the United States where placer mining is being still conducted. Unfortunately, unelected bureaucrats have targeted these small mom-and-pop, usually retired people, family miners from attaining unattainable regulations under the falsehood of protecting the environment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a sound piece of legislation that should be accepted by this committee and this body to make sure those people elected participate in mining on lands that are old. This is a mining area that has been mining for the last 100 years, yet the BLM has decided they are going to take these little miners and put them out of business.

Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of my amendment. It is very simple. It protects the smaller people of America. Let them do what they wish to do. Letting them have an activity after they retire I think is actually important. As I said before, it was adopted before.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I, again, urge passage of the amendment, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work.

This is a mom-and-pop operation. If I thought it was going to do anything wrong--it has been mined for 100 years. They came in, they had a guy in a wheelchair, and they made him walk to his mine because you couldn't use a mechanized vehicle. Now, that is not good personnel.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank both Chairman Simpson and Chairman Frelinghuysen for their work on this legislation, but I would like to engage in this colloquy about the Denali Commission in Alaska.

My proposal would have restored funding for the Denali Commission to its fiscal year 2017 level to continue the great work that it does to support the constituents of the rural areas of Alaska. My proposal would also restore the 2017 funding levels for the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Northern Border Regional Commission.

The Denali Commission started in 1998 with Senator Stevens as an independent Federal agency designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska. With the creation of the Denali Commission, Congress acknowledged the need for increased interagency cooperation and a focus on Alaska's remote communities.

The Denali Commission operates in the most geographically diverse and challenging area in America, twice the size of Texas. In fact, this area would encompass both the Delta Regional Authority and the Appalachian Regional Commission. I continue to believe the Denali Commission is a model of efficient and innovative government. The Commission has also improved the living conditions of rural areas of Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Simpson has done the best he can, and you cannot believe all the programs that the Denali Commission provides for the State of Alaska and my constituents. I would appreciate Mr. Simpson looking at maybe a future time that we could fund it at the level that we were in 2017.

Mr. Chairman, I do urge Mr. Simpson, as the chairman, to understand how important the Denali Commission is to Alaska.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that Mr. Simpson just mentioned it was eliminated by the administration, and he did restore some of the money. I am just requesting that, if he gets any more money, we would look for it in the Denali Commission so that the work it has done is well rewarded.

Mr. Chairman, I thank both the chairmen for the work they have done establishing the Denali Commission in past years, and let's go forth.

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that should have been settled a long time ago.

In 2009, this Congress passed a land exchange piece of legislation, very similar to this, and we made one mistake. We did put into it the ability to have the Fish and Wildlife Service make recommendations. Even then, the recommendations were on a positive side.

The last administration decided, under the Secretary of the Interior, not to build an 11-mile road to save my constituents, the Aleut people from King Cove, in favor of a goose, and the people who live in King Cove weren't really considered.

Now, this is a road that is 11 miles long that goes not through the Izembek Refuge, but through some of the areas, mostly just along the edge. And the argument you will hear is that they will disturb the geese. You will hear it disturbs the eelgrass that the geese and the loons live on. The road will bother them.

It is ironic; the refuge itself, which this refuge is not a new area, it has been inhabited by man, frankly, in the last generation, and they built about 70 miles of road to supply a military base called Cold Bay, which is the airport we are trying to seek this road to connect it with King Cove.

They actually take tourists that arrive in Cold Bay and take the bus and go out the same road, not the one we want to build, but a road right next to the so-called lagoon and the eelgrass for the tourists. And for some reason, tourists don't bother geese. That is what I can't quite understand. But it is all right for them to do that, but not allow the people of King Cove to save their lives.

Since the refusal to build this road, 19 people, my constituents, Aleut people from King Cove, have died because they could not be evacuated to the airport so you could fly them out.

Now, some people will say, well, they have got an airport. Yes, 1,600 feet, winds are blowing 90 miles an hour, you try to get off. Or put yourselves on a boat and go across in 30-foot waves.

And you will hear, well, we built them and they got a hovercraft. They never wanted it. They knew it wouldn't work. The Clinton administration said,

oh, this is our solution and it is better than a road that would disturb the geese, so they accepted the use of it, and it did fail.

The hovercraft does not work, yet we will have an amendment later on, the area that did not ask for it is going to be requested to pay the money back. I didn't hear anybody, by the way, say, because a levee failed and we put money into it, they had to pay the money back.

So let's really consider what we are talking about here. We are talking about 11 miles, single lane, gravel-covered road to provide access to Cold Bay for people in the community who do not have access to a hospital, which is 600 miles away in Anchorage.

We had one lady evacuated at a cost of $250,000 by the Coast Guard. The helicopter crashed, and she lost her life.

We had two other elders that went across with a crab boat. They had to put the people into a crab pot because there was no way to get to this airport.

So, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting to my fellow colleagues, let's do what is right. This does no harm to the refuge. It, in fact, saves lives, gives them an opportunity to take and experience the medical care that all the rest of us have. Let's do the right thing today.

Let's not be caught into special interests that say it is going to hurt the refuge. I know many even got phone calls: Oh, this is going to be terrible.

The truth of the matter is it is not terrible. It is the right thing to do. So I am asking my colleagues, let's vote ``yes'' on this bill. Let's vote ``no'' on the amendments. Let's do what is right today in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

This amendment is mischievous and trying to defeat what we are trying to do today. The amendment is wholly unnecessary to mitigate impacts of migratory birds in Izembek Refuge. Again, the single-lane noncommercial 11 miles has no affect upon the wildlife, the waterfowl, of any kind.

It would allow, again, the Secretary, or one of the other Secretaries of a lesser part, like Fish and Wildlife Service, to delay the project. It is an effort, again, to delay the project.

We didn't expect--by the way, when we say there are 70,000 or more public comments, there was less than 100 from Alaska. These are outside comments. This whole idea of public comments sometimes doesn't make sense when they are nowhere near the Izembek Refuge or this road.

Sometimes I think we get caught in this idea that, oh, we have got all of these public comments against something or for something, let's look at where they are from.

This amendment, again, as I say, is mischievous. It is trying to kill the project. It should not be done. It is being pushed by the environmental community, again, to kill this project.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, you probably got some phone calls. Frankly, they don't know what they are talking about. So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which is an attempt, again, to stop this road. Let's build this road for the people of King Cove.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. I made a mistake and I said ``yield,'' when I should have said ``reserve.''

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on this again.

I stress the fact that the Federal Government is going to receive 43,000 acres for additional wilderness in exchange for 42 acres. I mean, I don't know how many deals you can ever work that you get that kind of deal. This is a great thing for the refuge. It is the right thing for the refuge.

Again, as we go about this bipartisan legislation, we expected in 2009 to have this road built. That is why we are back here. It is not the first time. For 40 years this community has been trying to get this road built.

We thought that we had it in 2009, but because of the administrations that were unfavorable to it, and the slowness of the report of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and then having Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell say, ``No, there are other alternatives,'' when they did not work.

So I am suggesting, respectfully, that, again, this amendment is trying to kill the bill. It is not trying to provide a solution to anything.

Respectfully, I would say this again: vote against this amendment. Let's defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, may I just inquire how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who is the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Again, may I suggest we talk about this legislation. We thought 9 years ago or 8 years ago that we would have this road built. There is no Federal money involved in it. It is a road that needs to be done, and if we reinstate this language, what will happen is there will be a time where the road again will be studied and won't be built. For forty years, they have waited and lost lives, and we are talking about letting the Federal Government get involved again.

Mr. Chairman, I am saying this is the time to build the road.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, in order to fully ensure that this emergency route will not be slowed down by unnecessary regulatory delays, my amendment makes minor changes to section 7 to conform to the text of H.R. 218 with the Senate text of S. 101.

Section 7 of the underlying bill waives the NEPA process because the NEPA process had already been completed in 2014 under Secretary Jewell. An environmental impact statement has already been published. Secretary Jewell ignored the public health and safety aspects that killed people because we don't have a road.

There is no reason to make the people of King Cove go through the time-consuming and expensive process again when it was done so recently. The people of King Cove have fought for this road for 40 years. People have literally died, again, because of the lack of this road to Cold Bay which has a 6,000-foot airstrip.

Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Again, Mr. Chairman, let's not wait again for 40 years or 9 years or 10 years. This has already been done by the study. The impact statement has already been done. The NEPA process has already been done. It has been done recently, and this is not a cheap effort for a small community. So I am suggesting, respectfully, this amendment be adopted so we can build a road.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would penalize the State of Alaska for a Clinton administration decision by making them pay back grant money for the costly and often unreliable emergency hovercraft system.

Residents of King Cove never wanted this system and only agreed to the compromise when it became clear the Clinton administration would oppose any effort to authorize the construction of this lifesaving road.

After years of working in good faith to make the solution work, King Cove had to abandon the system due to exorbitant cost and, frankly, mechanical failures on the craft. It was very expensive to run.

Very frankly, the amendment attempts reparation but it targets the wrong group. The amendment puts a price tag on the safety of King Cove residents who have sought more reliable access to medical care for decades.

Congress does not require Louisiana to pay the Federal Government for the failed levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina before building new ones and should not be charging the residents of King Cove for constructing this road.

By the way, furthermore, the amendment seeks repayment from the State of Alaska that did not receive money; however, the grant money is for temporary emergency relief efforts which were largely awarded to the local governments.

Mr. Chairman, again, I think this amendment is a punitive amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who is the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Bishop of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as we close on this particular amendment, let me say I would never consider this amendment uppity. I would consider it cute and a gotcha amendment because the reality is, unlike what has been alluded to, the community did not want this hovercraft.

They wanted what was promised them in the bill, which was an 11-mile road to connect to the rest of the road. It was forced upon them by the Clinton administration that said: This is it; take it or leave it.

They tried to make it work. The bottom line is the system didn't work. But the Clinton administration here, 6,000 miles away, forced on to local residents who knew they would have a problem something that did not work, and they quit doing it simply because they could not afford to maintain that hovercraft.

The hovercraft is for sale; but no one needs a hovercraft. That is why this community now is stuck with the decision that we made 6,000 miles away because we know what is right for King Cove, Alaska, instead of allowing them to have some kind of control over their own lives.

What Mr. Young said is accurate. When the levees broke along the Mississippi and the Missouri, we didn't go

to those States to insist on it. When there are wildfires that take place in the West, including the gentleman from Arizona's home State, we don't go back to Arizona and force them to pay for all of it. This is simply an amendment that is cute, and it is a gotcha amendment. But it is also wrong.

It was also pointed out the grants went to the community. The community is not being required under this amendment to pay it back, it is the State, which simply means the amendment is also poorly written if it ever was indeed supposed to be a sincere amendment.

This is one of those things that we don't need to go through. The options are very clear. We have gone through the process. Vote against this particular amendment.

Vote ``yes'' on the bill and ``no'' on the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to people on the other side. This is a good rule. I want to compliment the Rules Committee.

It is crucially important to recognize that this is an issue that means lives: 19 people have died out of that community of King Cove-- mothers, children, husbands, brothers, uncles, and aunts--because they didn't have a road.

We passed legislation similar to this in 2009 that granted a land exchange--and was a massive land exchange--of 43,000 acres for 260 acres from the State of Alaska to construct this road. I think that is a fair exchange for an 11-mile road--single lane, gravel covered--just so they have access to save lives.

Those who speak against it have never experienced the wind that howls through that area when you try to land a plane or take off, you have a sick person with you, and you crash. Or go across the bay when waves are 30 feet high, and the evacuation of those ill people to an area that is only 11 miles away on an unfinished road and they die. Human beings, Alaskan constituents, that have medical aid only 600 miles away and stopped by 11 miles that is not allowed because supposedly there is a better way. And there is no

better way than a road in the weather condition I am speaking of.

When you think about it, I often listen to the other side of the aisle in voting against something like this, yet they will defend the right to save certain animals, but they don't want to save human life. That is wrong.

This is a good project. It should be built. I am hoping this body recognizes that lives are important and recognize the fact that this road doesn't disturb any of the wildlife. It is ironic that they will say it is going to disturb the geese that live off of eelgrass. The closest road that comes to this one bay is 11 miles away--11 miles. And the same area as this wildlife range has miles of road in it already, miles of road already in place. One of those roads already in place goes right by the lagoon where the tourists go watch the geese.

Now, why can't a tourist go by an area and watch the geese and it doesn't disturb them, but if someone is sick, dying, in a bus, ambulance, car, or truck, that is going to disturb the geese?

This is a nonsense argument by environmental communities around this Nation that want to put a stop to anything that benefits mankind and save the wildlife, say from New York or San Francisco, and don't know what they are talking about.

My job is to protect my people. This is not going to cost the taxpayers a nickel. This is going to be a project that is well done, and it will not disturb the wildlife they are so-called trying to protect.

So I ask my colleagues on this floor to think about humanity. Think about that person, be it your mother, your daughter, your son, your aunt, your uncle, your brother, and you would want to see them die because they are trying to protect a goose?

Shame on you. Shame on those who vote against this bill, saying: This is more important--I live in New York or California. This goose is more important than human life.

I think it is time we use a little sense in this body, a little understanding. Let's build this road. Let's pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 220, allows for the expansion of the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project on Kodiak Island, Alaska--by the way, which is larger than New Jersey.

The Terror Lake Hydroelectric project provides 31 megawatts of hydropower capacity to the Island's approximately 13,789 residents and, of course, the largest Coast Guard station in the United States.

Kodiak Island is roughly the size, as I mentioned, of New Jersey. This means it is reliant upon the electric generation on the Island mostly by hydro at this time, some diesel.

With the growing electrical demands of the residents of Kodiak, the Kodiak Electric Association will not be able to meet their needs without requiring additional resources or will be forced back to increasing the use of diesel. There is no reason why a hydro-rich community like Kodiak should ever have to rely on diesel fuel for power generation. They wish to expand their operation by increasing their water resources, and I agree.

My legislation allows the Kodiak Electric Company to divert small flows of additional water from Upper Hidden Basin into Terror Lake by digging a 1.5 mile underground tunnel.

This diversion will increase the water resources at Terror Lake by 25 percent, resulting in an additional 33,000 megawatt-hours of generation each year and totalling an estimated output in the project of approximately 168 million megawatt-hours annually.

The issue at hand is the tunnel would need to go through Kodiak Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is Federal land, to the State land where the water diversion would be located.

My legislation authorizes the Kodiak Electric Association to occupy not more than 20 acres of Federal land to construct, operate, and maintain the Upper Hidden Basin Division expansion without further authorization of the Secretary of the Interior under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Alaska has tremendous hydroelectric potential, and I look forward to moving additional commonsense reforms to provide our rural and remote communities for new opportunities to obtain reliable and affordable hydropower.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Fish and Wildlife Service supports this, there is no objection to it, it is a solution waiting to happen, so we are going to dig a tunnel. This is really about a tunnel.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, legislation set to pass today to reauthorize and improve upon the Carl Perkins--a Member of this House in the past--Career and Technical Education program.

As a former teacher, it is my firm belief that school is not just and cannot be one size fits all. The Carl Perkins funding has allowed school districts and school boards from across the country to develop innovative programs to educate our Nation's youth.

I have always supported alternative forms of education. Education not only trains the mind, but trains our Nation's youth with valuable skills to succeed outside the classroom and in the workforce.

Many students in my State and across the Nation rely on nontraditional opportunities to achieve success, and Carl Perkins grants have done the job of providing additional opportunities for our youth.

In my State, these programs have led the way to providing our workforce with valuable certificates and credentials in Alaska's many industries. They include: qualification for Alaska's maritime and transportation industry; certifications in welding and carpentry; pre- apprenticeships for electricians, heavy equipment operators, and ironworkers; medical certifications, such as EMTs and certified nursing aides; certification of OSHA and HAZMAT agencies; and culinary arts and building maintenance repair.

These are all programs, Mr. Speaker, that help the working person and the young person to become prepared--just not going to college. They can become someone that can contribute to the good of our State and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation. I proudly stand here to support H.R. 2353.

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last Sunday to be an observer in Puerto Rico for the plebiscite and watch the people of Puerto Rico make the decision that they would like to be the 51st State.

I think it is time for this Congress to make the 3,400,000 American citizens part of the United States--in full grandeur, as every one of us have--and have a chance of making sure we can vote for everyone to be part of this.

I think it is time that America should stop colonizing. If I am not mistaken, this is the last Nation that has a colony. The great America of the United States has a colony, and I think it is time that we change that. Vote in Congress to make sure that we have the 51st State.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Maryland, Steny Hoyer, for the support. It is going to take a lot of effort. There is a lot of naysayers out there. But, again, I believe so strongly that we treat every American equally.

This is a civil rights issue, and they have voted 97 percent in favor of statehood. As you know, I led this battle with your help in 1997. We had a vote, and, with your side, I won by one vote. Puerto Rico and Alaska didn't go anywhere, but I ask every American to think about it.

Let's make this the last colony. Let's make this the 51st State.

Mr. Speaker, we just had the Arkansas delegation. My colleagues may have noticed that I was with them. Alaska and Arkansas have a great deal of similarity, both starting with an A.

I served with Jay Dickey. I can tell you that he was my friend.

To his family, even the other day when I heard that he had passed away, I tried to call his cell phone hoping that they would answer it, and it was Jay's voice. Here is a gentleman in this body that was a great basketball player, a good coach, tennis player, and a fine athlete. But more than that, he was a friend to many Congressmen in these Halls.

As was mentioned, he tried to save us all. Some he succeeded with and some he did not. He worked with me for many years and finally accomplished his goal, and I thank him from the bottom of my heart.

I know the Lord is taking care of him because he was a true American. He was a person that cherished his job, served his district well, and was an ally and a friend for those that believed.

I want to thank Jay Dickey for his efforts to make this country better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman, Mr. McClintock, and the ranking member for her work on this legislation. Much has been explained about it. This is a good piece of legislation.

I am not going to take a great deal of time, but it shows that we can work together. The stakeholders got involved 4 years ago. We wanted to make this permanent. We worked it all out last year and we passed it, and it got bogged down on the other side.

It is a chance where we can show and take programs and put them together with tribes and have a better efficiency for the dollar we spend. If we do more of that in this Congress, we will have a lot better Congress and a better nation.

This is a small minority group that has done well under these programs, and it is not a new law. In 1992, I was here when we passed it. We would like to see to fruition the work put together by Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Bishop, Mr. Brady, and Chairwoman Foxx. They all worked together with their staffs to put this, I think, excellent piece of legislation together to put to the voters on this floor, and I urge the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, my bill--the Indian Employment, Training, and Related Services Consolidation Act--enables tribes and tribal organizations to offer highly effective workforce development initiatives that uplift Native communities around the country. We passed this bipartisan legislation in the House by a voice vote at the end of last Congress, and the Senate simply ran out of time to secure final passage.

H.R. 228 makes the Tribal ``477 Program'' permanent and improves its administration. The 477 Program allows tribes to combine employment, childcare, and job training funding from a variety of federal sources and conduct consolidated, comprehensive reporting. Participants have leveraged these advantages to develop and run innovative programs that have had a meaningful impact on thousands of Alaska Native and American Indian families. In addition, the efficiencies of the 477 Program save both tribes and the federal government money, time, and resources.

Congress established the 477 Program in 1992 as a demonstration program. The Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes in Southeast Alaska was actually the first in the nation to begin operating a 477 program and to this day continues to benefit from offering services through 477.

The 477 Program has a proven track record of success and allows for bold approaches to address significant education and training needs that exist in Indian country. This program is what tribal self- determination is all about. Tribes understand their members best and know how to use these tools for creating and expanding employment opportunities in their communities.

My bill improves accounting procedures and reporting mechanisms to uphold the original intent of the program, ensure that agencies treat tribes fairly, and set a foundation for participants' continued success.

I would like to thank the members of the 477 Tribal Work Group who, over the last 4 years, have been stalwart advocates for this legislation and did not give up at the end of last Congress.

I would also like to thank Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and their staffs for making this bill possible and working to move it to the floor quickly this year. Finally, I offer my thanks to Chairman Brady, Chairwoman Foxx, Chairman Goodlatte, and their staffs for their assistance with the legislation.

I urge adoption of H.R. 228 today and encourage the Senate to take up this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for bringing this legislation to the floor.

H.J. Res. 69 is very simple. It overturns an illegal rule by the Obama administration--an illegal rule.

This House created the State of Alaska in 1959, under the Statehood Act. It clearly granted Alaska full authority to manage fish and game on all lands in the State of Alaska, including all Federal lands.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980 further, in fact, verified what the Statehood Act did: protecting the right of the State to manage fish and game.

Mo Udall was chairman of the Interior Committee at that time, and he agreed that this was the right thing to do. The thing that we had to do was make sure there was no misinterpretation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and the Statehood Act.

What occurred under the Obama administration is that--your administration, on that side--in the wee hours of the night, they passed a rule that took that away from the State. And it is huge, if you think about it: 16 refuges, 76.8 million acres. That is bigger than most of the States in this Union. They took the right away from the State to manage fish and game.

There has been a lot of interest groups and some Members of Congress that have been conveying falsehoods, flat out dishonesty on what the taking back of the management of fish and game will do. They talk about killing puppies and grizzly bears. That does not happen, nor, in fact, is it legal in the State of Alaska under our management.

The opposition will claim there was consultation with the State of Alaska. If that is the case, why did Alaska file suit to overturn this rule? There was no consultation.

Yesterday, I met with most of the leaders of the Alaskan Native community that live in this area in the refuges and around the refuges. Not one of them support the rule passed by the Obama administration.

The other side says they are all for helping the American Indians, the first people, yet they are supporting a rule that is illegal. Illegal. I want to stress that.

This rule passed by the Obama administration is opposed by the total delegation, the Governor, all the elected officials in the State of Alaska, and it is an infringement upon the State of Alaska, and it should be an infringement upon your States.

Maybe we ought to go back to every State in the Union, maybe even Virginia, and see how we might change the right of Virginia when the Federal lands were involved in the State of Alaska.

You stood up in front of this body and held your hand and said: I swear to uphold the Constitution of America and laws pertaining to it. Every one of you took that oath. Every one of you. Yet, you stand on this floor, and some of you will say: Oh, we have to protect the wolf puppies. That is not what this is about. It is about the law. It is the Statehood Act, the right of Alaskans, and the right of Alaska to manage all fish and game.

If you vote against this resolution, you are saying the Congress does not count, nor can we keep our word. We will do whatever is popular at the time. I say: Shame on you. You said you would uphold the Constitution.

Let's pass this legislation that Mr. Bishop has brought to the floor. Let's turn back that illegal law that they are trying to impose upon the people of Alaska and the American people. If you don't believe in that, then I suggest you resign from the body, because you are not upholding the law that you swore you would do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members of this House for their support of the legal aspects of the State of Alaska.

Madam Speaker, under the decorum of the House, I won't call it bull. I will just say it is a lot of misinformation and outright story tales, the information conveyed to these gentlemen and the ladies from The Humane Society. That is what it is.

There is no sport hunter who is going to be shooting cubs and sows. In fact, there is no one in the State who does not support my resolution of organized hunters, viewers. I have not had any of that.

Yes, you got some letters. And I believe the best way to judge is, if they don't like what I am doing, don't elect me. I am speaking for the people from my State, not Virginia, not a used car salesman. I am speaking for my people.

The second false claim is it allows aerial shooting and gunning of bears. That is not what this is about. It is about the law, and we will win it in court. But I don't want to win it in court. I want to establish the fact that an agency does not have the right to break the law.

As far as Dan Ashe goes, well, did he have any specialists? No. He did this because of interest groups, governing by interest groups, not the hunters, not the Alaskans, not the gunmen of Alaska, but The Humane Society that put out all of this propaganda.

Denning of wolves--and, by the way, I have to remind people. We used to den wolves. I have done it myself. I got paid 50 bucks for every wolf I got. You know who paid me? Uncle Sam did when we were a territory. And when we became a State, we did not allow that.

So let us do our job as a State, instead of having this Congress try to stop it with an agency.

So I am asking my colleagues to vote for the law, as you should uphold as you took your oath for this office, the law.

And if you continue this misinformation, I feel sorry for you, and I feel sorry for the interest groups.

So, Madam Speaker, I do urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, from January 28, 2015 through February 5, 2015, I missed recorded votes #49-#68. I was unable to vote, as I contracted the flu and was considered contagious at the time. My doctor advised me to remain home until my fever subsided. Despite receiving the flu shot, I was one of the many Americans to come down with the flu this year.

I would like to reflect how I would have voted if I was in attendance:

On Roll Call #49 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit).

On Roll Call #50 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 351, LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act).

On Roll Call #51 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 361, Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act).

On Roll Call #52 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 615, Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act).

On Roll Call #53 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 623, Social Media Working Group Act).

On Roll Call #54 I would have voted yes (Previous Question).

On Roll Call #55 I would have voted yes (Agreeing to Resolution, H. Res. 70).

On Roll Call #56 I would have voted yes (Approving the Journal).

On Roll Call #57 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit).

On Roll Call #58 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 596, To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care- related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010).

On Roll Call #59 I would have voted yes (Previous Question).

On Roll Call #60 I would have voted yes (Agreeing to Resolution, H. Res. 78).

On Roll Call #61 I would have voted no (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 50 by Cummings Part C Amendment #2).

On Roll Call #62 I would have voted no (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 50 by Connolly Part C Amendment #3).

On Roll Call #63 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit).

On Roll Call #64 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 50, Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015).

On Roll Call #65 I would have voted no (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 527 by Schrader Part A Amendment No. 4).

On Roll Call #66 I would have voted no (On Agreeing to the Amendment to H.R. 527 by Lee Part A Amendment No. 6).

On Roll Call #67 I would have voted no (Motion to Recommit).

On Roll Call #68 I would have voted yes (Passage of H.R. 527, Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015).