Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Woodall for yielding to me today. Madam Speaker, I offered four amendments to improve this bill and benefit northeastern Minnesota, but, like last week, all four were rejected. They were not rejected on the…
Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Woodall for yielding to me today.
Madam Speaker, I offered four amendments to improve this bill and benefit northeastern Minnesota, but, like last week, all four were rejected. They were not rejected on the merits, of course, but they were rejected in the Rules Committee before even being debated on the floor.
Two of my amendments would have removed onerous studies put in place by seasoned politicians from the Twin Cities and Washington, D.C. These studies in the committee report language are simply designed to delay important job-creating mining projects in my district.
Unfortunately, these politicians play politics with the consequence of killing jobs because, to them, our livelihood and these mining projects are nothing more than some faraway idea in a faraway land. Their well-funded interest groups oppose these jobs, so they attempt to move the goalposts, lay down more red tape, require more studies, and make it impossible--or at least attempt to make it impossible--to permit.
I say this: we can do both. We can mine and keep our environment pristine and clean.
However, to my constituents, these projects are a reality. These good-paying jobs will put food on the table, and they will put gas in our car and clothes on the backs of our children. These jobs will allow us to work, recreate, play, and raise a family in northern Minnesota.
These projects not only mean good-paying, union-protected mining jobs in cutting-edge industry, these projects can mean a larger property tax base, increased enrollment in our schools, and a population growth in our communities.
These mining projects are a big part of our economic engine, yet Washington, D.C., and Twin City politicians can sneak language into a committee report to undermine a fair process, while arbitrarily rejecting my amendments.
Another amendment I introduced would have ensured no funding is available to list the gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act. As I testified last night at the Rules Committee, the gray wolf has recovered. Even the Obama administration attempted to remove it from the Endangered Species Act in 2013.
In northern Minnesota, wolf attacks on cattle and domestic pets are becoming far too common, burdening our farmers who already are struggling. One small northern Minnesota county alone accounted for 21 confirmed wolf attacks on cattle, and local officials expect the number to be much higher, as many cattle that simply go missing are likely wolf attacks.
Because the gray wolf is listed as Federally endangered, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is unable to control them. Our local experts, who truly understand the problem, have their hands tied because politicians in this town, Washington, D.C., think they know best. But they do not.
I thought my final amendment was a no-brainer, Madam Speaker. It would have increased the Forest Products Timber Sale program by a little more than $6 million. Because it is in the National Forest System, it would have no negative budgetary effect.
The Forest Products Timber Sale program provides needed resources for Forest Service personnel. It allows them to research, recycle forest products, and find new ways to market them.
Meanwhile, an increase to this program means getting our loggers out in the woods and creating jobs for our communities. This would have directly benefited both Superior and Chippewa National Forests. It would have allowed our loggers and our Forest Service personnel to handle local environmental challenges like ensuring fallen trees do not contribute to forest fires.
My amendments would have directly benefited the small, rural communities in northern Minnesota. Unfortunately, powerful politicians used the system to their advantage by rejecting my amendments and preventing even an open debate on the issues.