Chip Cravaack

Mr. CRAVAACK

Mr. CRAVAACK. I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment is unnecessary and would only further serve to delay implementation of the overall bill. The valuation of the lands to be exchanged as required by Minnesota senate file 1750 requires that the lands not only be substantially equal in value, but that the valuation is done ``in a manner as agreed to between the State commissioner and the authorized representative of the United States.'' In addition, subsection (d) of H.R. 5544, on page 4, requires the survey to be satisfactory to the Secretary of Agriculture. We have had 30 years of delay, 30 years of appraisals, 30 years of mapmaking. We don't need any more. These are the lands of the children of Minnesota, and they're entitled to them. Mr. Chair, the State knows what the land is worth just as well as the Federal Government. We can do it for lower cost since so much of the work has already been done. The lands have been identified. Here's the map. This section right here and this section right through there. This amendment is a stall tactic, quite frankly, to increase the administrative burden and increase costs to the State. Subsection (d) also requires for the State to cover all costs. It is grossly unfair to ask the State to pay for an appraisal and then be made to comply with bureaucratic Federal rules in the process of valuation. The legislation leaves the Secretary ample authority to properly protect taxpayers and does not waive any applicable appraisal standards. Both H.R. 5544 and Minnesota Senate File 1750 require negotiations to be mutually agreed upon, and the lands conveyed to the State would be subject to all applicable State and local laws. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time, obviously the gentleman from Minnesota does not think any money going into the school trust fund is beneficial. Decisions such as these should not be made by Washington bureaucrats in D.C. They should be made by Minnesotans, and that is how we got into this mess in the first place. The bill merely executes a bipartisan State plan signed by the Governor, State senate file 1750. We cannot trust Washington political appointees with the power to derail this land exchange at the expense of Minnesota schoolchildren and their teachers. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to tell my colleague how much mining and timber contributes to the school trust fund. Mr. Chairman, in the most recent school trust fund report, it shows that mining and timber contributed $23.17 million in 2011. Now, maybe that doesn't sound like much here inside the Beltway; but I tell you what, that's a lot of money where I come from. Does the gentleman think that schools in Minneapolis are adequately funded? I'll answer that for you, probably not. Because in North Branch, Minnesota, where I live, public schools just went to 4 days, and then we've got 40 kids in a classroom. I think our teachers and kids could use the extra funding. Also I'm very interested right now that now the gentleman is very concerned about small business interests in the rural communities. I find that very enlightening. I yield to the gentleman if he could tell me how a small business would be affected by this land exchange and job creation.

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, as you can see from the most recent ``Mining Tax Guide'' from the State of Minnesota, the Eighth District of State of Minnesota contributes $79.1 million to the State of Minnesota. That is just not inclusive of the income related to taxes from jobs from the mining that will go on in the State of Minnesota. Is the gentleman opposed to mining in Minnesota? Can he give me an example of how he has supported mining? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CRAVAACK. He is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time.

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

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, because of the way this amendment is worded, I have some concerns about how it's going to affect mining and timber jobs in the new school district lands. I yield to the gentleman to explain how he thinks the amendment would affect jobs in the Eighth District of Minnesota concerning mining and lumber.

Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Secretary already has the authority that the amendment is supposed to possess. That's what got us here in the first place. This amendment would undermine the purposes of the bill by giving the Secretary the option to continue the delaying and obstructing of a land exchange with the State of Minnesota. This is an issue that Minnesota and the Federal Government have been working on for over three decades under existing authorities. This amendment would only continue the status quo, so I must oppose it. Stalling the process further helps no one, least of all the schoolchildren and teachers of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, we've had public input for over 30 years, and that has culminated in the bipartisan State Senate File 1750 that was passed earlier this year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the State legislature and signed by Democrat Governor Mark Dayton. The public has spoken. The bill has the support of the people of the Eighth District of Minnesota, and it would execute a bipartisan plan passed by the Minnesota Legislature and signed by the Governor. The only groups that oppose this bill are fringe groups, many of those being from out of State. This amendment would give the environmentalists free rein to sue the Federal Government and have attorneys' fees paid for by the taxpayers of the United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. In addition, we have heard a couple of times today, Where is the map? Well, here it is. Here is the map. H.R. 5544 no longer contains a direct reference to the Forest Service map because H.R. 5544 is executing a State bill, State File 1750, which does specify lands to be exchanged in section 4 of the bill. Subsection 3. Priority. An exchange of the State land under this section shall give priority to the exchanges that provide the most opportunity for revenue generation for the permanent school fund, and priority shall be given to lands within the Superior National Forest in the Mesabi Purchase Unit in St. Louis County and in the following townships of St. Louis County: Township 59 North, Range 14 West; Township 59 North, Range 13 West; Township 60 North, Range 13 West; Township 60 North, Range 12 West. The Minnesota DNR has maps of these lands. The Forest Service has maps of these lands. Actually, they're available online. Last year, the Forest Service prepared maps for an earlier draft of H.R. 5544, but when the State passed Senate File 1750, we changed the references in the bill from the Forest Service maps to the State-passed plan. The reason why H.R. 5544 doesn't specify lands is because it executes the State plan, which does specify the lands. Again, the maps are available from either the Forest Service or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise today in support of H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act. This bill supports all schools in the State of Minnesota, creates good-paying jobs in northern Minnesota, and makes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness whole for the first time since its creation. First, a little bit of history. When Minnesota became a State in 1858, sections 16 and 36 of every township were set aside in trust for the benefit of schools. The State could use, lease, or sell the land to raise money for education. In the beginning, the State leaders decided to sell some of the more valuable parcels of school trust lands. But around the turn of the century they realized they needed more sustainable plans and began putting the school trust lands to productive use: timber and mining in my district. As Democrat State Representative Denise Dittrich has so ably educated me, these lands are not so much owned by the State as held in trust by the State and owned by the schoolchildren of Minnesota. It is the responsibility of school trust fund trustees to maximize the return of these lands for the benefit of this fund for our children. This is written in the Minnesota constitution. But in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The lands within the Boundary Waters cannot be logged, leased, sold, or mined in order to preserve the unique wilderness character of this pristine land. But as a result of its creation, Minnesota and its students have been faced with an 86,000- acre problem for over 30 years. Eighty-six thousand acres of State- owned school trust lands have been landlocked within the borders of the Boundary Waters and have been unable to produce critical funding for Minnesota public education. It is imperative that we resolve this longstanding problem. Our goal is to preserve and protect the Boundary Waters and allow State-owned school trust lands to raise revenue for Minnesota education. It's a win-win. Unfortunately, Minnesota schoolkids and their teachers have been cheated out of public education funding now for over 34 years. Finally, after years of inaction, stalling, and dilatory tactics by special interest groups, Republicans and Democrats have come together in Minnesota and said: Enough is enough. On March 22 of this year an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans in the State passed senate file 1750 by a vote of 53-11 to pass the bill. On April 3, the house followed suit, passing their bipartisan bill by 90-41. On April 27, Democrat Governor Mark Dayton signed the bill into law. H.R. 5544 executes the bipartisan State plan. This bill would exchange State-owned school trust lands trapped in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to the Federal Government in exchange for Federal Government-owned land outside the Boundary Waters. Additionally, this bill includes important provisions that would ensure Minnesotans can maintain their hunting and fishing rights within the Boundary Waters. To be clear, this bill does exempt only the land exchange portion from NEPA. The land exchange itself would have no environmental impact, and any future development would still be subject to strict State and Federal regulations. Again, a land swap is merely a redrawing of maps and has no environmental impact in and of itself. I want to be very transparent here, though. One of my goals is to have this bill create good-paying jobs in northern Minnesota. The lands listed in senate file 1750 are rich in natural resources. Many of them lie within portions of the Superior National Forest that are already being successfully mined for timber. It's a working forest and creates thousands of good-paying jobs in the region. Northern Minnesotans need these opportunities, and every American benefits from the steel and the lumber that goes into our cars and our homes. I generally support the aims of NEPA, but obstructionist and special interest groups have a track record of abusing the NEPA process. The State of Minnesota cannot afford to be sued by environmental groups for years into the future just for the sake of blocking this land exchange. I will not allow special interest groups, acting in bad faith, to abuse the NEPA process and use frivolous lawsuits to block and derail this land exchange at the taxpayers' expense. Schoolkids and teachers in Minnesota can't wait years, possibly decades, for this funding. In the school district where I live, North Branch, Minnesota, some classes have 40 kids and the school has been reduced to a 4-day school week. You call this progress? This legislation will generate a lot of funding for our schools and create good-paying jobs. Importantly, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act would not eliminate a single acre of Boundary Waters land and cost nothing to the American taxpayer. In fact, it would add acreage within the existing wilderness area boundaries while giving Minnesota schoolchildren the land that rightfully belongs to them. I urge my colleague to support this bill.

Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CRAVAACK

Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act. This bill will support the teachers and schoolchildren in the State of Minnesota, create well-paying jobs in northern Minnesota, and make the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, for the first time in its existence, whole. We have to have a bit of context here. When Minnesota became a State in 1858, sections 16 and 36 of every township in Minnesota were set aside in trust for the benefit of schools. The State could use, lease, or sell the land to raise money for education. In the beginning, the State leaders decided to sell the more valuable parcels of the school trust lands, but around the turn of the century they realized they needed a more sustainable plan and began putting the school trust lands to productive use for timber and mining. This has been the goal of the State for over 100 years, and it has produced dividends for generations for our school kids. As DFL State Representative Denise Dittrich has so ably educated me on, these lands are not so much owned by the State as held in trust by the State and owned by the schoolchildren of Minnesota. It is the responsibility of the school trust fund trustees to maximize the return on these lands for the benefit of this fund. This is a critical point. This is part of the Minnesota Constitution. But in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. These lands within the Boundary Waters cannot be logged, leased, or mined in order to preserve the unique wilderness character of this pristine land. Thousands of visitors from around the country come to enjoy this beautiful area. But as a result of its creation, Minnesota and its students have been faced with an 86,000- acre problem for over 30 years. Eighty-six thousand acres of State-owned school trust lands have been locked within the borders of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, unable to produce critical funding for Minnesota public education. It is imperative we resolve this longstanding problem. Our goal is to preserve and protect the Boundary Waters and allow State-owned school trust lands to raise revenue for Minnesota education. Unfortunately, Minnesota school kids have been cheated out of public education funding for over 34 years now. In the past, there have been a number of working groups, studies, and resolutions. Finally, after years of inaction, stalling and dilatory tactics by special interest groups, Republicans and Democrats together in Minnesota said enough is enough. It's been referred to as Mr. Cravaack's bill. That is not, in fact, the case. This is Minnesota's bill. On March 22 of this year, an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans from the State senate passed senate file 1750 on a vote of 53-11. On April 3, the house followed suit, passing a bipartisan bill 90-41. On April 27, our Democratic Governor, Governor Mark Dayton, signed the bill into law. H.R. 5544 executes a bipartisan State plan that Governor Dayton signed into law earlier this year. H.R. 5544 would exchange State-owned school trust lands trapped in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness to the Federal Government in exchange for Federal Government-owned land outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. This bill includes important provisions that would ensure Minnesotans can maintain their existing hunting and fishing rights within the Boundary Waters. In addition, the bill exempts the land exchange process from NEPA. The land exchange itself would have no environmental impact on any future development and would still be subject to strict State and Federal regulations. Intuitively, a land swap is merely a redrawing of maps and has no environmental impact in and of itself. The mentioned activities, mining and logging, do, in fact, have environmental impact and would be subject to the full Federal and State review. Not one environmental protection is lost in the execution of this bill. I want to be very transparent here. One of the hopes of my constituents is to have a bill to create good-paying jobs in the timber and mining industries. The lands listed in S.F. 1750 are rich in natural resources. Many of them lie in portions of the Superior National Forest that are already being successfully mined for iron ore and harvested for timber. It's a working and managed forest. These activities employ thousands of workers and support tens of thousands of other ancillary jobs in the region. Northern Minnesotans want these and need these opportunities, and every American benefits from the steel and lumber that goes into our cars and into our homes. While I generally support the aims of NEPA, the State of Minnesota has some of the strictest environmental standards in the country and a track record of successful regulation of mining and logging. On the other hand, obstructionist special interest groups have a track record of abusing the NEPA process to sue and delay. I do not want these groups to continue to delay this land exchange, preventing Minnesota schools from receiving the funding that they need and, quite frankly, they deserve. The State of Minnesota cannot afford to be sued by environmental groups for years. Some of those arguing for NEPA are, in fact, arguing that defending lawsuits is an appropriate use of the taxpayer dollars and that it's okay to transfer wealth from State coffers to special interest groups. Interesting to note, many of these special groups aren't even from Minnesota. Make no mistake. This will be passed and a bipartisan land exchange is going to get done. I will not allow special interest groups, acting in bad faith, to abuse the NEPA process and use frivolous lawsuits to block and derail a land exchange. If I could trust special interest groups to act in good faith and if I could trust the Federal bureaucracy to act promptly, I would include NEPA in this legislation. The teachers and schoolkids in Minnesota can't wait years, if not decades. Currently, some of the schools in Minnesota have classrooms with over 40 kids, and some school districts, like mine in North Branch, have been reduced to a 4-day school week. I ask, is that progress? This legislation will generate a lot of funding for our schools and create good-paying jobs. Importantly, the Minnesota Education Investment Employment Act will not eliminate a single acre of Boundary Waters land. In fact, it would include wilderness acres to the existing Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness boundaries while giving Minnesota's children land that rightfully and constitutionally belongs to them. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. CRAVAACK

Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank my respected colleague for his kind remarks, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation to Minnesota. I yield back the balance of my time, as well.

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in March 2010, the U.S. Coast Guard ruled that Mille Lacs Lake was a federally navigable body of water based on historical interstate commerce. Specifically, the Coast Guard justified their actions by using a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determination from 1981 that said because lumberjacks in the 1800s floated logs on Mille Lacs Lake and down the Rum River, Mille Lacs Lake should now be made a federally navigable water body. Currently, the Rum River is dammed in three places, and the same Corps of Engineers report said that the dams prohibit through navigation. In addition, two previous Army Corps determinations in 1931 and 1974 also considered the river nonnavigable. I would like to submit the U.S. Coast Guard determination for the Record. Memorandum From: D. L. Nichols, CAPT, USCG, CGD Eight (dl). To: S. L. Hudson, CAPT, USCG, CG Sector Upper Mississippi River (s). Subj: Navigability Determination for Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota. Ref: (a) 33 C.F.R. Sec. 2.36; (b) 33 C.F.R. Sec. 3.40-1; (c) 33 C.F.R. Sec. 3.45-1. 1. For the purpose of determining its jurisdictional authority, the Coast Guard has determined that Mille Lacs Lake is a ``navigable waterway of the United States.'' 2. The geographic boundary between the Eighth Coast Guard District and the Ninth Coast Guard District currently runs through Mille Lacs Lake. This navigability determination is for the entirety of Mille Lacs Lake. The Ninth District Legal Staff has reviewed and agrees with this determination. 3. No federal statute addresses the navigability of Mille Lacs Lake, and no federal court has determined the navigability of the waterway. Furthermore, Mille Lacs Lake is not subject to tidal influence. This navigability determination is based on the historical use of the waterway. Specifically, Mille Lacs Lake has been used, in connection with other waters, as a highway for substantial interstate or foreign commerce. 4. Navigability determinations are administrative findings based on the criteria set forth in 33 C.F.R. 2.36. The precise definitions of ``navigable waters of the United States'' and ``navigability'' are dependent ultimately on judicial interpretation and cannot be made conclusively by administrative agencies. 5. This opinion solely represents the opinion of the Coast Guard as to the extent of its own jurisdiction to enforce laws and regulations, and does not represent an opinion as to the extent of the jurisdiction of the United States or any of its agencies.

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

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

Mr. CRAVAACK

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Speaker, for far too long--over 30 years, in fact-- Minnesota and its students have been faced with an 86,000-acre problem. When Minnesota became a State in 1858, sections 16 and 36 of every township were set aside in trust for the benefit of schools. The State could use, lease, or sell the land to raise money for education. Then, in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. These State school trust lands within the Boundary Waters cannot be timber harvested, leased, or utilized for their minerals. Thus, they are not generating money for the school trust. As a result, approximately 86,000 acres of State trust lands are currently locked within the borders of the Boundary Waters and unable to produce critical funding for Minnesota public education. Ultimately, Congress got us into this situation in the first place, and Congress will have to get us out. On June 8, the Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, conducted a comprehensive hearing on this legislation. Our goal: preserve and protect the Boundary Waters and allow State-owned school trust lands to raise revenue for Minnesota education through utilizing our timber and mineral resources. It is imperative we resolve this longstanding problem. Minnesota law specifies these lands must earn money for the school trust. In fact, the State has a constitutional responsibility to earn a financial return from these lands to fund the education system. That is why I introduced H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act, which will give State-owned school trust lands trapped in the Boundary Waters to the Federal Government in exchange for Federal Government-owned land outside the Boundary Waters. This legislation is needed for the Federal Government to execute the bipartisan plan recently agreed upon by the Minnesota Legislature and signed by the Governor. Our economy cannot wait, and our kids in the classroom shouldn't either. This legislation will produce new opportunities to create well- paying jobs and additional revenue for our schools. Minnesota's school trust lands are a 154-year investment in our future. Times are tight, and our schools and teachers could use the help. Currently, some school districts in Minnesota, including mine in North Branch, have classes with up to 40 students and have scaled back to 4-day school weeks. Just recently, the largest paper in Minnesota, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, penned an opinion piece which stated that enactment of this legislation would be a boon for our economy in the Eighth. Unfortunately, special interests are attempting to derail this broad, bipartisan land swap plan, which includes jobs for Minnesotans and additional revenue to fund our schools. To swap these lands trapped within the Boundary Waters for lands located outside the Boundary Waters--to simply execute this Federal action--our State, its people, and our students should not endure years of litigation and disingenuous delay. Importantly, the Minnesota Education Investment Employment Act would not eliminate a single acre of Boundary Waters land. In fact, it would add Federal wilderness acres to the existing boundaries. The Boundary Water Canoe Area wilderness would therefore become whole. The Boundary Water Canoe Area is an important and vital aspect of the Eighth District of Minnesota, and we will take care of it. As a side benefit--the bill guarantees Minnesotans will retain their existing hunting and fishing rights in the Boundary Waters. Now, more than ever, it is our duty as Minnesota's leaders to honor the State's obligations owed to Minnesota students and restore the integrity of the Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness. This is a team effort, and I am ready to work with involved stakeholders and my colleagues to put Minnesota schools first.

Mr. CRAVAACK

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind our colleagues that mines aren't just permitted and then forgotten. They're constantly monitored. The precious metals we're talking about go into our cell phones, our computers, our weaponry, and even our catalytic converters. We need these materials now, and we cannot be held ransom by China. May I remind you, 600 pounds of copper goes into every windmill. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CRAVAACK. Today, I rise in support of my amendment, as well as in support of the underlying bill. H.R. 4402 is a commonsense, pro-growth piece of legislation that would simply facilitate a timely permitting process for very important mining projects throughout the United States. The United States cannot continue to depend on foreign countries to supply critical precious and rare Earth metals. This is a vital strategic disadvantage to the security of the United States. What happens if, one day, a supplying country decides it doesn't want to export or decides to restrict precious metals? What if our sea lanes become controlled by those who are not friendly to the United States? These mines are not something we can turn on and off at the flip of a switch. These mines are multi-million if not billion, dollar projects that take years of capital investment just to get going. This bill is as much a strategic defense bill as it is a jobs bill. According to a University of Minnesota-Duluth study, 2.5 ancillary jobs are produced for every mining job. These are good-paying jobs that we cannot afford to lose. My amendment will also allow mining projects that have already applied for a permit and are currently in the permitting process access to the new expedited procedures. My amendment falls along the same commonsense thinking that the underlying bill comes from, which is that 30 months is plenty of time to complete the total review process for permitting a mine. Currently, there are numerous projects in the permitting pipeline that have taken way too long and that still have no definitive end in sight. One such project is in my district. PolyMet Mining initiated an environmental review of its proposed NorthMet copper and nickel mine back in 2005. Since then, the company has invested over $40 million for EIS inquiries. That is 7 years and counting for just environmental reviews. Another project that is just getting under way in the Eighth District is the Twin Metals project, which will also produce thousands of Minnesota jobs for both construction and long-term operations. In a 2009 study, the University of Minnesota-Duluth found that more than 12,000 Minnesota construction jobs will be created in Minnesota if all strategic metal mining projects currently under study move forward. In 2009, the UMD study also estimated that more than 5,000 direct long-term Minnesota mining jobs will be created when all strategic metal mining projects currently under study become operational. Minnesota needs these jobs, and the country needs the minerals that these mines produce, and everyone needs a definitive permitting timeline that is reliable. Unfortunately, PolyMet is not a unique project. Seven years and $40 million is not even the worst example of inefficient permitting. Many other mining projects have been stalled for even longer due to inefficient and, at times, an agenda-driven permitting process. Another example is the Montanore mine in Montana. It has been in the permitting process since 2003. The Montanore project was previously permitted by the State of Montana, the U.S. Forest Service, and other cooperating Federal agencies in 1993, following a full EIS process. The company chose not to proceed with the project until 2003 and has been working to obtain the same Federal permits since that time. Mr. Chairman, I could give example after example of how inefficient and onerous our Federal permitting process is, but there's just not enough time to do so. These multiyear delays in processing Federal permits for many good projects are impeding thousands of jobs, massive investments across the country, and are blocking domestic production of much-needed rare Earth strategic and critical precious metals. This amendment would ensure that these projects, like all future projects, are given a firm timeline that communities can count on while, at the same time, more than addressing concerns. I urge passage of this amendment and the underlying bill.

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

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

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

Mr. CRAVAACK

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan amendment. This amendment is a simple one. It prohibits the use of taxpayer funds in furtherance of the implementation of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme. Starting in January, the European Union began to unilaterally apply the Emissions Trading Scheme, ETS, to civil aviation operators landing or departing from one of the EU member states. Under the Emissions Trading Scheme, EU member states will require international carriers and operators to pay emission allowances--and in some cases penalties--for carbon emissions resulting from their operations. The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme will apply to the entire length of the flight, including those flights outside the European airspace. For instance, for a flight leaving Los Angeles for London, taxes would be levied not only for the portion of the flight over the United Kingdom, but also for portions of the flight over the United States and international waters. Despite serious legal issues and objections by a majority of the international community, including the United States, India, Russia, China, and the International Civil Aviation Organization, the EU is pressing ahead with its plans. Russia, China, and India are taking very clear actions in opposition of EU's emission scheme. China and India have directed their air carriers not to comply with the EU's ETS requirements. China has delayed Airbus orders, India is threatening in- kind retaliation, and Russia is threatening to deny airspace access to European air carriers. The European Union's unilateral application of the Emissions Trading Scheme onto U.S. operators without the consent of the United States Government raises significant legal concerns under international law, including violations of the Chicago Convention and the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement. The Emissions Trading Scheme will actually harm efforts to reduce global aviation emissions. By taking money away from the airline industry that would otherwise be invested in NextGen technologies and the purchase of new aircraft--two proven methods for improving environmental performance--the EU is siphoning scarce money to be used as each member state sees fit. A better approach to address aviation's impact on global emissions is to work with the international civil aviation community through the U.N. International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, to establish consensus-driven initiatives to reduce emissions. However, because the EU has made no effort to delay or retract the illegal Emissions Trading Scheme, this amendment is necessary to ensure that American taxpayer dollars will not be used to further the Europeans' unilateral and questionable scheme. Last October, the House passed H.R. 2954, which directs the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit U.S. carriers from participating in the Europeans' illegal scheme. A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. It is my hope that the Senate will move quickly towards its passage. That legislation, along with this amendment to the Transportation appropriations for fiscal year 2013, will send a very strong message to our European friends that an illegal and unilateral action to address aviation emissions is not the proper course of action to deal with this issue. This must be a consensus- driven solution, not an international mandate. I yield back the balance of my time.