Chip Cravaack

Mr. CRAVAACK

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

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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. CRAVAACK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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.

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

Mr. CRAVAACK

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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.

Mr. CRAVAACK

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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. CRAVAACK

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

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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.

Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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.

Mr. CRAVAACK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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.

Mr. CRAVAACK. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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. CRAVAACK. 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. CRAVAACK

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

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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.

Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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.

Mr. CRAVAACK

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

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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.

Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. CRAVAACK. I reserve the balance of my time.