Richard Nolan

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Lee amendment. The American people have invested 10 years of precious blood and treasure into this conflict. The simple truth is that the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Army have failed to win the confidence of their own people. The fact is, the army has cut and run, leaving behind valuable equipment, and the fact is we have no friends in this conflict. It is time to get out and to stay out. Thank you, Representative Lee, for your amendment.

Mr. NOLAN

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

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the hard work that they have done in putting this appropriation bill together. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, there is a bipartisan group of us that have been meeting on a regular basis with the inspector general for Afghanistan and Iraq. He has over 200 investigators trying to determine where the funds have gone for this Afghan infrastructure fund. To hear the story, it breaks your heart. Of the last $100 billion that have been spent on Afghan infrastructure, they can't find where most of that money went. Why? Well, for several reasons. One is that Afghanistan is largely a cash economy. So if you want to do a project in any of the remote areas, you have to show up with a truckload full of cash. Secondly, it is now certified as the most corrupt nation in the world. It is the number one narco-state in the world, supplying more heroin than the rest of the world combined. As the U.S. troops withdraw, there is no way to audit these funds, there is no way to inspect these funds, and it is an absolutely unmitigated prescription for unparalleled fraud. It has got to stop, and today and tonight is the time to put an end to it. That is why I am offering my amendment here to stop any funds from going to this Afghan reconstruction fund.

Mr. NOLAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

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

Mr. NOLAN

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

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, many of us here grew up in a time in this country when our parents and our politicians weren't afraid to invest in America. I have been having a series of meetings, along with other Members here, with the inspector general for Afghanistan. He has 250 investigators. Of the last $100 billion in infrastructure that we have spent in Afghanistan, he can't find where the money has gone and/or where the projects have been completed. Yet, here we are today, with bridges falling down, roads crumbling, and we are debating legislation that gives an 80 percent cut in our transportation needs, imposes severe restrictions onto a program that is so crucial to our long-term economic growth here in this country. This program, the TIGER grant program, as you know, and the public needs to know, allows communities to compete for the funding of railroad upgrades, airport runways, highways, bridges, ports. Recently, at a meeting with the Transportation Committee, we had about 10 transportation leaders from business and commerce before the committee, and I asked the question of every one of them--every one of them: Is there any disagreement here that our roads, our bridges are crumbling? No. Make a note of it, Mr. Chairman. Second question, is there anyone here who disagrees with the notion that this is jeopardizing our economic growth and our ability to create good-paying jobs and facilitate the advancement of business interests? Nobody objects, Mr. Chairman. Make a note of it. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, is there anybody here--now, mind you, all of the Democrats and Republicans were there. Is there anybody here on this committee that rejects the notion that we need to find more revenue for our transportation, our infrastructure, not less? Nobody disagreed. So where does this notion come from that we should pass an 80 percent reduction in our TIGER grant program? Clearly, someone is not listening to the business and commercial interests in this country, and they are making a tragic and serious mistake. Recently, Duluth Harbor, in my district, was a recipient of a $10 million grant. As a result of that, we were able to restore an abandoned pier, dredge the harbor, so that the Great Lakes freighters could access it and extend the rail and the highway transportation accessing the terminal. We are losing $3 billion in business income a year through the Great Lakes because we are 10 years behind on the dredging. The Lakers are only operating at 80 percent of capacity. We are talking about real jobs. We are talking about real business income. We are talking about our future as a Nation. Mr. Chairman, this bill does contain some good and necessary increases in funding, such as the FAA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, but an 80 percent cut in this program that spurs innovation, that boosts American manufacturing, creates good-paying jobs, that is no way to invest in our future. That is no way to have a pro-growth, pro-jobs economy. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge all of my colleagues: Let's come together here. We have common ground. Let's be bipartisan. Let's reject this 80 percent cut. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Madam Chairman, my amendment prohibits construction of any projects in Afghanistan over $500,000--unless the U.S. Government can conduct proper audits, inspection, and oversight. Up to $79 billion has been authorized for new projects in this bill, most of which are outside the area in which our personnel can travel and operate safely and therefore will most likely go uninspected and unaudited. To date, $60 billion of the $100 billion of these so-called nation-building projects are completely unaccounted for. The blue area here in this first chart shows where our military and civilian personnel were allowed to travel and operate safely in the year 2009. The blue area in the second chart shows how dramatically the safe areas have been reduced. Moreover, since traditional banking services do not exist in these non-blue, non-safe areas, contracts are financed with truckloads of cash. It is the perfect recipe for fraud, graft, and abuse. It is time to stop it. Our Nation's taxpayers and our soldiers deserve better. Madam Chairman, Members of the House, I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act as a proud original cosponsor of the legislation. I want to join the chorus of people here in their praise for Judge Poe and for Congresswoman Maloney for the tremendous work that they have done over a number of years bringing this important legislation forward; and, of course, to Congressman Goodlatte and Congressman Scott likewise for bringing this forward. It is too troubling to know that there are 300,000-some children that are being sold into sex trafficking in this country, and that there are only some 300 beds for them when attempts are made to rescue, as Judge Poe just pointed out. These children aren't in some foreign country. They are right here in our own backyards. These are our own children. We can do so much better. While our national law enforcement officials are fighting this terrible scourge, there are many organizations like Men Against Trafficking in Duluth, Minnesota, in my own congressional district, who are out there providing safe harbor services for girls and boys that are rescued from this terrible scourge. This legislation represents the fact that Congress recognizes that we can be of assistance in fighting this terrible scourge. We do so with this act--again, of which I am a proud cosponsor. But I am so proud of what Judge Poe and Carolyn Maloney have done on this. What the bill does, it says that these children are the victims, they are not the criminal, as they have so often been treated in our society. They are the victims of child abuse, they are the victims of rape and violence and unmentionable crimes and terrible, terrible things. They are entitled to the protection, the medical services, the counseling, all that we can provide.

Mr. NOLAN. This bill establishes a Trafficking Victims' Fund, at no cost to the taxpayer, put on the backs of the real criminals in this: the johns, the rapists, the murderers. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I strongly urge passage of this bill.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, today, I rise to pay tribute to a former colleague, son of a miner, who rose to become the esteemed and respected chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure--the longest-serving Member of Congress from the great State of Minnesota--my predecessor, our dear friend, Congressman Jim Oberstar. Jim passed away quite unexpectedly over the weekend. My wife and I and several other Members of the House here were just with him on Wednesday night, and Jim was as fit as a fiddle, as fit as he has ever been. I commented to another couple there that Jim does 1,000 pushups every day, in addition to riding his bike; and Jim laughed and said: No, I only do 100 pushups every day. He was a remarkable person. I am joined here today by my colleagues from Minnesota--Congressman Kline, Congresswoman McCollum, Congressmen Peterson, Walz, Paulsen, and Ellison--joining me in this brief tribute. Mr. Speaker, Jim's respect in this House was really quite unparalleled. I recall one day last year when Jim came into the well of the House here and he was spotted by some of our colleagues. And someone started to applaud him, and the entire House burst into spontaneous applause--Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals. The only time I had ever seen anything like that happen before was when Hubert Humphrey walked into the House of Representatives, when he was on his death bed. Jim had just a giant intellect, spoke numerous languages. He had a big heart. He was a passionate public servant and a man of enormous accomplishment. There is no question our Nation is a truly better, more decent, more compassionate place for every day that he served so selflessly, with such honor and dignity and good humor. We loved him dearly, and we will miss him terribly. Mr. Speaker, I now ask that the House of Representatives observe a moment of silence to honor the incredible life of Chairman Jim Oberstar, our friend, our colleague.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues concerned about our nation's aviation industry and the delicate balance in our international relations to the pending decision by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx regarding the application of Norwegian Air International for a Foreign Air Operators Certificate. This important issue was addressed with utmost clarity recently by my friend, former U.S. Congressman Jim Oberstar in the following letter to Secretary Foxx. Jim Oberstar served in the U.S. House from 1975 to 2011 and was for many years Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. He is known as the nation's leading expert on Domestic and International Transportation issues. Former Congressman Oberstar urges Secretary Foxx to reject the Norwegian Air International Application. April 28, 2014. Hon. Anthony Foxx, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Secretary: I have watched with great interest the public debate over the application of Norwegian Air International (NAI) for a foreign air operator's certificate from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). As a former chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it is my strongly held view that the approval of NAI's application would run contrary to the U.S.-EU Air Transport Agreement and the labor article embodied in the agreement, and contrary to the best interests of U. S. commercial aviation. I respectfully urge you to reject NAI's application. During my 36 years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives on the committee of jurisdiction over international aviation trade issues, I witnessed dramatic changes in the U.S. and global airline industries. Beginning with deregulation in 1978 and continuing through the modern era of mergers, code sharing, anti-trust-immunized alliances, and expansive Open Skies agreements, much of the airline industry today is globally interconnected; U.S. airlines and their employees are directly impacted by the actions of foreign competitors more than ever before. During my tenure of watchfulness over the U.S. aviation industry, I sought to ensure that liberalization was pursued in bi-lateral agreements which assured a balance of benefits with our international trade partners, protecting the integrity, safety, and competitiveness of the U.S. aviation system. In the early 1990s, the U.S. government began negotiating bilateral Air Transport, or Open Skies agreements that were intended to open aviation markets, promote competition and tourism, create jobs and increase consumer choice for international travel. These Open Skies agreements are qualitatively different from other trade agreements which deal with services in that they are almost exclusively bilateral. As such, they reflect a balance of benefits for the U.S. and our trade partner, often with in-country and beyond operating rights, and they are overseen by the Departments of State, Transportation, and Justice, rather than the United States Trade Representative. Given the complexity and size of the U.S. aviation market-- which accounts for over half of the world's aviation marketplace--retention of this model is necessary to ensure that the exchange in air traffic rights is done in a way that promotes strong safety, labor and working condition standards, while also ensuring an equitable competitive environment for U.S. airlines. Critical to achieving this goal has long been the continued enforcement of U.S. foreign ownership and control and cabotage laws, along with strong U.S. DOT and DOJ regulatory oversight. The negotiation of the U.S.-EU Open Skies agreement, which began in the middle of the last decade, presented many unique challenges. While the European Union is an economic and political union of 28 member states, each of these states has retained its respective governmental aviation regulatory authority. Therefore, rather than dealing with a single aviation regulatory body and one set of labor and social laws as we had with previous agreements, we were dealing with multiple aviation regulatory authorities and sets of labor and social laws. While there are base standards for safety and labor laws, the individual nation-state laws still differ widely. Given the unique nature of negotiating with the EU, many of my colleagues and I were concerned about proposed changes in regulatory structure that would allow any EU airline to operate from any point in the EU to any point in the U.S. and to establish subsidiaries in other EU states. Despite this ``European status'' for operating and corporate rights, there was no EU-wide law that governed key labor-management relations aspects of these airlines. Instead, these aspects-- such as selection of bargaining representatives and contract negotiations--were, and continue to be, subject to the national labor laws of the respective European countries. During the negotiations, EU representatives expressed concern that such an arrangement could lead to ``forum shopping'' where European airlines would seek to operate out of countries with less robust labor and social laws. This could allow airlines to seek the lowest common denominator in terms of labor and regulatory standards thereby lowering their own operating costs but driving down standards throughout the EU. In other words, the EU was concerned that new airlines could be launched using a NAI-like business model. This concern led negotiators to include in the agreement Article 17 bis (``Social Dimension''), which states that ``the opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labour standards or the labour-related rights and principles contained in the Parties' respective laws.'' It further states that ``the principles in paragraph 1 shall guide the Parties as they implement the Agreement.'' The fact that there was no equivalent to Article 17 bis in any of the previous Open Skies agreements with EU member states is a direct acknowledgement of the challenges posed by the regulatory and legal arrangement within the EU. Article 17 bis was a critical factor in the ``Agreement''. I applauded its inclusion as an important and necessary step in protecting against the use of market-opening aviation trade agreements to lower labor standards throughout the transatlantic aviation market: the largest aviation trade market in the world. Today, in light of NAI's application for a foreign air operator's certificate, as well as the plethora of public comments that the DOT has received on this application, I believe that the inclusion of Article 17 bis and the concerns that led to its inclusion were particularly prescient. Mr. Secretary, you and the DOT International policy staff are familiar with the details of NAI's application and business model, but key facts are worth repeating: NAI is a subsidiary of Norwegian Air Shuttle (NAS), a low-cost European carrier based out of Norway. When Norway became a signatory of the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement in 2011, NAS was afforded the same access to air traffic rights under that agreement as other EU carriers. Rather than expand its operations with its existing corporate structure, its workforce and collective bargaining agreements, NAS created NAI and proceeded to register its long-haul aircraft in Ireland and obtain an Irish Air Operator's Certificate-- effectively becoming an Irish airline despite the fact that it has no announced plans to operate in Ireland. This move allowed NAS to expand its long-haul operations through NAI, but also to escape Norway's social laws and to evade existing collective bargaining agreements with its Norwegian pilots and flight attendants. For example, NAI's pilots are based in Thailand and employed under individual employment contracts that are covered by the laws of Singapore. These pilots are then contracted to NAI. The individual employment contracts prevent collective bargaining, and allow NAI to drastically reduce labor costs and gain an unfair competitive advantage over U.S. and European carriers who currently operate in the transatlantic market. The workforce arrangement for flight attendants is still evolving, but what I have learned is that NAI is hiring and basing its cabin crewmembers outside of its home country in what is clearly a plan to secure substandard wages and working conditions and to blatantly evade its collective bargaining obligations in Norway. NAI is pursuing, quite simply, what in maritime law is called a ``Flag of Convenience'' strategy. NAI has not denied that it registered in Ireland to avoid the application of Norwegian labor laws to its crews. Other economic justifications presented for selecting Ireland over other possible places to incorporate, the validity of which also have been effectively rebutted by several opponents, appear to be intended to distract from this central and undisputed motivation. The company is thus taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement in order to lower its own labor costs and undercut the competition, the very scenario that EU negotiators feared when Article 17 bis was included in the U.S.-EU agreement. I believe that the evidence and arguments submitted in the public docket provide the Department with ample justification to deny the application. During my years of service on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, conducting vigorous oversight of international aviation trade, I learned that liberalization and market expansion could provide numerous benefits to consumers, open business opportunities for U.S. carriers and create jobs. But I also observed that effective market expansion required the thoughtful and careful approach of balancing reduced trade barriers with the assurance of fair competition and the public interest. We understand the strategic and economic significance of the U.S. airline industry to our nation's well-being, and further understand the unique challenges inherent in implementing the expansive and complicated U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement in a productive and responsible manner. With this background, I believe that this is an important inflection point for how we as a nation project and secure America's role in the global aviation marketplace. The negotiators for both sides in the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement negotiations understood the risks and adverse consequences that irresponsible liberalization could pose to the airline industries and workforces on both sides of the Atlantic. They resisted deliberate efforts to dismantle the U.S. ownership and control and cabotage laws, and they included, for the first time ever, a labor article in the final agreement. In doing so, they made an unmistakable statement that the terms of competition must not be set by those who would seek to gain an unfair advantage at the expense of quality jobs and high labor standards. The Department should implement the Agreement in the spirit of Article 17 bis and concern for both fair competition and balanced trade benefits. Were NAI to be allowed to operate as proposed, the dynamic of transatlantic aviation competition will be changed for the worse, creating a situation where Flags of Convenience become the norm, not the exception. I urge you to reject the NAT application, and thereby uphold the spirit and intent of the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement and Article 17 bis. Thank you for your consideration of my views on this vital international aviation policy issue. Sincerely, Jim Oberstar, M.C.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present and voting on rollcall vote No. 184 (Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4486) I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word. Where I come from, we believe that for those who we send into harm's way to protect and serve us in defense of our freedoms, we have a profound obligation to protect and serve them upon their return. Last year's Military Construction and Veterans Administration bill did not do enough to fulfill this promise. Therefore I'm glad that this bill is an improvement. This year's bill: increases funding for vital veterans programs here at home by $1.5 billion; significantly decreases unnecessary new military construction projects in places all around the world--new projects that the Pentagon itself says are not wanted and not needed; this bill comes closer to fully funding veterans mental health programs; as well as vital health care programs for the more than 3 million veterans living in rural communities; increases funding for technology to reduce the notorious backlog at the VA. Mr. Chair, I rise specifically today to bring to light my grave concerns with the Regional Command-Southwest Command and Control facility in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. This facility offers 64,000 square feet of space for more than 1,000 military personnel, including accommodations for a three-star general. Standing two stories tall, this windowless facility is larger than a football field, and was completed in 2013 at a cost of approximately $34 million. According to Special Inspector General to Afghanistan John Sopko, this building is the ``Taj Mahal'' of command centers. The unconscionable fact about this building, however--is that the military has no plans to use it. Area commanders insisted three years ago that they did not need this building. They were in the middle of troop withdrawal, and they saw no reason to move in. In Mr. Sopko's words, ``this is an example of what is wrong with military construction in general--once a project is started, it is very difficult to stop.'' Mr. Chair, we simply cannot allow any projects like this--projects that the Pentagon itself says are unnecessary--to receive funding from this Congress. It's shameful, it's wasteful, and it needs to stop. American veterans of foreign wars like Afghanistan are sleeping under bridges--going without the life-saving health care and mental health services they deserve and so desperately need--and waiting for sometimes years for the VA to finally process their benefits claims. Yet, during last year's debate on this bill, Republicans in the House rejected my amendment that would have doubled funding for veterans hospitals--and would have provided for extra personnel to address this atrocious backlog. It is simply unconscionable that we allow this to go on while literally throwing billions of dollars away on buildings standing empty overseas. Where is the outcry in this House? Where is the shock--where is the shame? It is time we end these unsustainable wars of choice. It is time we cut back on our military footprint in unnecessary outposts around the world. It is time we prioritize those brave men and women whom we send into harm's way to protect us. When it comes to these brave men and women, we must do everything in our power--we must leave no stone unturned to assure our nation's veterans have the very best medical care--counseling--housing--job training--and all the educational opportunities a grateful nation can provide. Only the very best is good enough. That is how we keep our promise to our nation's veterans. In closing, Mr. Chair, once again I commend those of us in the House who have fought for increases to veterans programs here at home, and for those of us in the House who are dedicated to ending these costly and terrible wars abroad. And I strongly urge you and all my colleagues in the House of Representatives to continue to give veterans the benefits they so rightfully deserve now and in the future.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Levin, for this Special Order and for bringing to the attention of our colleagues and the country the importance of providing unemployment insurance for the millions of people who are struggling and who are in danger of losing their homes and the ability to feed their families. As a businessman over the last 32 years, I would like to point out to these people who somehow like to characterize these people as scofflaws who don't want to work and remind them that you don't qualify for unemployment insurance unless you are a worker and have found yourself unemployed by virtue of circumstances you had no control over. You are so right that this is the right thing to do. It is bipartisan, and there is a pay-for here. We should have the good judgment and the decency to extend the unemployment insurance for these people. So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address another issue, and it is the fact that most of us here in the Congress grew up at a time when our leaders weren't afraid to invest in our country, to invest in human development, and because of them, education was affordable. Guess what? That is no longer true. Now we are faced with a Ryan budget that cuts Pell grants for poor and needy kids who would like to get a postgraduate education. Medicare. Nothing has ever done more to extend the lives of more people than Medicare. In a little over a generation, we went from a nation with a life expectancy of about 47 to over 77. What does the Ryan budget do with Medicare? It eliminates it as we know it. It turns the elderly back over to the insurance industry. Our leaders in the past invested in transportation, in health, in education. They created the strongest economy and the strongest and largest middle class in the history of the world, and now our bridges are falling down. What does the Ryan budget do? It cuts funding for transportation. Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. The simple truth is that the Ryan budget guts funding for all of the investments that created and were responsible for the incredible national and individual success that our generation has enjoyed. It cuts everything from Head Start to health to essential air service, funding for basic research for health and technology--so many of the things that made us a great Nation. Now, after being the beneficiaries of what our generation before us did, we don't want to invest in the future of our children and their children. It is time for a budget that acknowledges the real foundations of our prosperity, of our opportunities, and of our freedom here in this country. Let's put forth a budget that shows our gratitude for the next generation. Let's pay it forward. Let's be mindful of how many important things that leaders in the past did for us in laying this foundation. Where I come from there is a wonderful, old Biblical saying that says, ``For those to whom much is given, much is expected''--not less but more. Let's do for the next generation what the past generation did for us. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Resolution 494, a bill to reaffirm the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979. I am proud to say I have long supported the Taiwan-American relationship, perhaps longer than most Members of Congress serving today. In fact, I cosponsored H. Res. 494 on March 13 of this year, exactly 35 years to the day after I voted in this chamber to support the original Taiwan Relations Act in 1979. At that time, during the height of the Cold War, the United States was an essential ally and friend of Taiwan. Even as our nation sought to normalize relations with Mainland China, we were not about to abandon friends and allies, going back to the darkest days of World War II. It was our hope then, and it remains our hope today, that Taiwan and Mainland China will peacefully resolve their differences. Thanks in part to the Taiwan Relations Act, Taiwan has enjoyed decades of peace and freedom as a successful representative Democracy. Today, Taiwan's rightfully boasts of clean air and water, the rule of law in commerce and government, and enjoys a prosperous industry. More than a political ally, Taiwan is also a vitally important American trade partner. In 2012, exports to Taiwan from my own State of Minnesota were valued at $489 million a year. This makes Taiwan the 5th largest Asian export market and the 10th largest export market for Minnesota worldwide. As Taiwan and Mainland China have gradually strengthened their economic ties, Taiwan has become a vital front door to the massive Mainland Chinese market of 1.3 billion people and to additional markets throughout East Asia. Minnesota and the United States benefit from this relationship. Business, Industry, and Labor welcome Taiwanese investment and trade in Minnesota, as well as the opportunity to expand our export markets worldwide. By passing House Resolution 494, it is my hope that we can build upon these past successes, and reaffirm our continued political and economic support in this Congress for Taiwan.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague Dan Kildee's efforts to reinstate the health care tax credit. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the House Republicans under yet another closed rule. Having served in this Congress at an earlier time in my life, I am astonished how undemocratic this institution has become. Back in the day, if you had an amendment, you got an opportunity to offer it. You had an opportunity to debate it until all the debate was exhausted and then you had an opportunity to vote on it. What a tragedy that the people's House seems to hardly be a democratic institution any longer. When this program that I am talking about here, the health care tax credit, expired in January, thousands of retired workers on the Iron Range in my district of Minnesota saw their pensions cut in half. These are former employees of companies like LTV and National Steel--giants in American manufacturing. Some of these hardworking men and women are responsible for pulling America out of the Great Depression, helping us win World War II, supplying the world with superior products made in America. Mr. Speaker, let us have a vote. Let's start opening up the rules in this Chamber.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chair, had I been present for rollcall vote No. 82, (on agreeing to the DeSantis amendment), I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Moore

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I want to associate myself with your remarks and those of the gentleman from California regarding what has happened at Volkswagen and the importance of the union movement in this country. If anyone wants to know where the economic success of the middle class in this country has come from, you just need to follow the union movement. As the union movement grew and strengthened, so did the middle class and jobs and opportunities, and as we have seen the decline in recent years, we have seen a similar decline in income and jobs and opportunities. If anyone thinks for one moment that elections don't have consequences, they need to take a look at their history. I come from the Iron Range. We have got a lot of mining and steelworkers up there. Back in 1948, if you will allow me to just do a little history here, and leading up to that, the steelworkers union proposed contracts that would allow them to negotiate pensions and health care benefits, and wouldn't you know, the NLRB, in 1947, said, no, you can't do that. That is not okay. That is off the table. That is not a subject for negotiation. Guess what? Not many people had pension benefits and health care at the time. Well, it became a big issue in the 1948 election, and Harry Truman, as we all know, won the election. Well, guess what? He had the opportunity to appoint a number of people to the NLRB, and that issue was brought before the NLRB again. And guess what? This time, the NLRB ruled that, no, it is appropriate for unions to negotiate for pensions, to negotiate for health care benefits; and that is a result of an election contest and the union movement, coming together, was a genesis of a generation that had prosperity and opportunities--perhaps unparalleled--anywhere in the history of this country. I have submitted, back when my generation entered into the employment market, if you were going to be a failure, you had to have a plan. There was just such an abundance of opportunities, and I am sometimes ashamed and embarrassed that my generation doesn't want to step up and do for this generation and the next generation what was done for us. So I commend you for what you are doing here today, and I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. We could go on, and we could add more to the litany of the things that are causing the rest of us to subsidize the businesses in this country. And I know about business. I spent the last 32 years of my life in business. I am a business guy. It breaks my heart to see working men and women having to go to the food shelves to get food to feed their family. So I rise here tonight to talk about the minimum wage just briefly. You know, we hear about all these millions of new jobs that have been created in recent years. One of my constituents said to me the other day: You know, it is a darn good thing we have created millions of new jobs because a guy needs two or three of them to make a living. Well, that is, in fact, what is happening; and it is of small comfort to someone who is working these minimum wage jobs to know that, if they can put two or three of them together, they can provide for their family, make the rent payment, the mortgage payment, buy the groceries and clothing for the kids; but you put in two or three jobs, there is no time left for the family. A minimum wage increase is pro-family. It is pro-American. It is the foundation of what made this country the great country that it is. Mr. Speaker, I hear all the time in my district, as I travel and stop at the cafes and the filling stations and the convenience stores, about these people that are working two and three jobs just to make ends meet, all because our minimum wage is simply not enough to take care of our families. The lack of a decent and fair minimum wage is unfair to families. It is unfair to children. It is unfair to the elderly. It is unfair to the hardworking mothers and fathers, men and women in this country who go to work every day, providing the goods and services that we need so that we can continue on the path of the great Nation that we have been. Mr. Speaker, it is time that we raise this minimum wage. Where I come from, morality and ethics dictated. If someone is willing to go to work every day and every week and every month to provide essential goods and services for the rest of us and this Nation, they are entitled to a wage that would allow them to live with a modicum of comfort and dignity. That is what this is all about. So, Mr. Speaker, let us vote on this issue. You know what the outcome will be. We will increase the minimum wage if we are given an opportunity to vote on it here in this House. I know there are plenty of Republicans and Democrats who will vote to do that. Let's restore democracy to this institution. Let's allow this matter to be brought before the House. Let's have a vote on it. Let's give America a pay raise now. It is desperately needed. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) and Members of the House.

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, I rise in support of the President, the Republicans, and the Democrats in this institution and across this country who want an end to the war in Afghanistan. It has cost us trillions of dollars that we can ill-afford. There has been $100 billion spent on infrastructure, yet the inspector general cannot find where the money has gone nor where the projects have been completed. There is $30 billion in the pipeline now. We need to end that. We need to bring all the troops home. Bring them home now. Save that money. Put it toward deficit reduction and investing in America--our roads, our bridges, our schools, our health care system. Our priorities demand it and require it. Afghanistan is now the most corrupt nation in the world. Afghanistan supplies more illegal drugs to the rest of the world than all of the rest of the nations combined. It is time to end our involvement and stop this shameful waste of America's taxpayer treasure and our patriots' blood.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Pocan. I want to commend you for the tremendous service that you have been providing, bringing to the attention the important issues that relate to the working men and women in this country. In particular, I want to address the failure to renew emergency unemployment benefits. Clearly, it is unconscionable. It is unforgivable. As you and our other colleagues have pointed out, it is bad economics, and the characterization of these people as somehow being scofflaws that don't want to work is the cruelest and most unfair part of all of this. We need to remind ourselves that, in order to be eligible for unemployment compensation, you have to have been a worker. You have to have gone to work every day, and you could not have left your job voluntarily. You could not have been removed from your job for fault. You were a good worker who, by virtue of facts that you had no control over, lost your job, but you were someone who was willing to go to work every day. In the 32 years in my little hiatus between when I served and when I came back, I engaged all that in business, and I employed anywhere from 25 to 50 people at all times. We paid unemployment insurance because we know, in business, the cycles that flow, and from time to time, layoffs are necessary, and I was always happy to pay that unemployment insurance, knowing that these good people who showed up for work for me every day had some protection in the event of circumstances that were beyond my control and their control. To deny these benefits is so unconscionable. It is such bad public policy. It is so unforgivable. We are leaving 4.9 million people out there, and I remind everyone again, workers, that they are going to lose the benefits that they earned, that they insured themselves against, together with their fellow workers and employers. Here they are. Maybe they are going to lose their home because maybe they can't make their mortgage payments. They may be thrown into a diabetic coma because they can't buy their medicine, have to watch their children go hungry because they can't afford to buy food. That is not us. That is not America. We know better than that. So I implore my fellow colleagues and our Speaker to bring this unemployment benefit extension before the House so that we can have a vote on it. Because I have no doubt that with the heart and the goodwill that is in this House, we will extend them. We will extend those benefits because we know for a fact that the simple truth is, there is only one job for every three people that are out there, and until we put together the pro-growth, pro-jobs economy that we need to put everybody back to work, we need to provide those who are in need and who have earned the benefits and are workers in our society the benefits so that they can take care of their families and their needs. If the Speaker will allow this to come up for a vote, I predict there is enough goodwill here among both Democrats and Republicans that we will pass this. So, Mr. Pocan, thank you for bringing this to the attention of the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I hope you are watching. Let us have a vote on this. We will pass it. We will do the right thing.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, we are in the closing hours of the first year of the 113th Congress, and the pundits who examine Congresses past and present have concluded that this is the most unaccomplished Congress in the history of the country. We have passed a total of 56 bills here in this Congress. The fact is, we have taken 239 days off, and we have worked 133 days. And let's be honest with ourselves here: those 133 days often included a Monday or a Tuesday where we came in at 6:30 in the evening and took a handful of votes on some noncontroversial issues. Where most of us come from, that is not a day's work. And by the same token, more often than not, we left on a Thursday or a Friday, somewhere after taking a few votes that morning, and then heading back to wherever we were headed. Back in 1948, Harry Truman got elected President of the United States by campaigning against the do-nothing 80th Congress in 1948. Well, guess what, that Congress passed over 900 bills. And we are looking at 56 here at the halfway mark? I cannot begin to imagine how history is going to evaluate this Congress. The Wall Street Journal said: This Congress is long on partisanship, indecision, and brinksmanship. Others have constantly referred to the fact that most of what is done here and considered here in the past year has been political posturing in preparation for the next election. To be fair, we have accomplished some things here: the middle-class tax cut, Hurricane Sandy relief, the Violence Against Women Act. We passed a couple of appropriations bills, and we may be on the brink here of actually passing a budget bill, which would be most important and quite an accomplishment. Not to mention, we formally recognized Soap Box Derby Day, and we have made it possible for hunters to buy their duck stamps online. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we are not getting the job done. And the fact also remains that, in this country, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class in this country is getting crushed. We are looking at large deficits and broken priorities and a broken government, and we are not addressing those issues of our time. I did a little research. I have the unique perspective of having served some 32 years ago, and at that time we had between 7,000 and 8,000 subcommittee, full committee, conference committee hearings, markups, and meetings. This Congress, by contrast, has had 500, and most of those were procedural and Rules Committee meetings. The Speaker himself said that we need to return to regular order in this country if we are going to get things done. ``Regular order,'' for those who don't know, means going to work 5 days a week, like everybody else in America. It means working full days. It means fully engaging the subcommittees and full committees and all the Members of the Congress, because when we do that, that is when we get things done. When we sit down and we have open, bipartisan discussions, everybody gets their amendment, everybody gets an opportunity to exhaust all the arguments, everybody gets a vote. That is how people come together. That is how you get things done. That is how you fix things, and that is the way the Congress operated for several hundred years. That is not the way it is operating today. Mr. Speaker, my fellow colleagues, if we are going to get things done and reverse the terrible reputation of this Congress, I implore the Speaker and the leadership and all of the Members to demand that, starting in January of next year, we restore regular order, we go to work 5 days a week, and we employ the subcommittee and the full committee process that has worked so well for so many hundreds of years in this country, because that is how we get things done. That is how we fix things here in this country. That is how we get our economy back on a pro-growth trajectory, and that is how we restore the people's confidence in what is now a broken government and a broken Congress.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 72nd anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, I rise to pay tribute to one of the true American heroes of that day, and of the long World War that followed--former Boatswain's Mate First Class Arleigh Birk, United States Navy. Today, as Arleigh approaches his 94th birthday, he and Marion, his lovely wife of 67 years, still live in their family home in the northern Minnesota community of Hoyt Lakes, where they retired after Arleigh's 25 years of employment at Erie Mining Company from 1957 to 1982. Seventy-two years ago, on Sunday, December 7, 1942, Arleigh was 4,028 miles west of Hoyt Lakes, stationed on the USS Honolulu, watching as Japanese warplanes filled the skies and the USS Arizona exploded in fire. The Honolulu itself sustained damage in the attack, and Arleigh was transferred to the USS Denver where he remained in the Pacific Theatre until the war's end. During those years in the Pacific, Arleigh and his mates on the USS Denver were part of the force that engaged and sank the Japanese destroyers Minegumo and Murasame in the 1943 Battle of Blackett Strait. In October 1943, they earned the Navy Unit Commendation for outstanding performance in the battle of Empress Augusta Bay for helping sink one enemy light cruiser and a destroyer, and heavily damaging two heavy cruisers and two destroyers. On July 4, 1944, Arleigh and the crew of the USS Denver bombarded Iwo Jima, fought numerous battles throughout the Pacific, and fought off a Kamikaze attack on November 27th during action in the Leyte Gulf. In September 1945, Arleigh and the Denver sailed from Okinawa to cover the evacuation of Allied forces imprisoned in the Wakayama area before heading home to Norfolk, Virginia, where they arrived on November 21st. Arleigh was honorably discharged from the Navy on January 12, 1946-- and honorably married to Marion a little over a year later. On behalf of a grateful Congress and a grateful nation, we honor and thank Arleigh Birk for his service in the preservation of American freedom.

Mr. NOLAN

Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Congressman Grijalva, for his leadership on this committee and his management of this bill here, in particular. And thanks to all those who have worked together in a bipartisan manner to bring this important legislation to the floor of the House here today. In particular, I want to thank Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings; former ranking member and now United States Senator Ed Markey; current Ranking Member Peter DeFazio; as well as my old friend Chairman Don Young, the chairman of the Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs; Ranking Member Colleen Hanabusa; and, of course, a thank you to Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, who shepherded the companion bill in the Senate. I also want to thank Karen Diver, the chairwoman of the Fond Du Lac Band, her colleagues on the Reservation Business Committee, as well as their natural resources management team of Reggie DeFoe, Steve Olson, and Jack Bassett. And, finally, a thank you to Gregory Bernu, the Carlton County land commissioner, and the entire Carlton County Board of Commissioners and their staff for their diligence and good faith in negotiating the agreement we are prepared to ratify today. And, of course, last, but not least, I thank my legislative staff assistant Will Mitchell. Mr. Speaker, this bill, H.R. 2650, provides the legally required approval by the Congress for an exchange of land between the Fond Du Lac Band and Carlton County in the Eighth Congressional District of Minnesota. By way of a brief background, Federal land allotment policies in the early 20th century played havoc with an 1854 treaty that set aside 101,000 acres of reservation land exclusively for the Fond Du Lac Band. I would like to point out to my colleagues that as they enter the Chamber over here from the west front, there is a bust of Chief Buffalo, the great Chippewa chief from the Minnesota Territory who negotiated this treaty in 1854. He and fellow Band members got in a canoe; and they canoed, starting in Lake Superior, all the way through the Great Lakes out to New York City, and then took a train from there down to Washington to negotiate this treaty. And then, of course, they took the train back to New York and canoed all the way back through the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Great Lakes, and then back to the Chippewa Nation in the Minnesota Territory. As I enter this Chamber myself each day, I am reminded sometimes of the long, hard travel that is required to do the right thing representing our people, as I know all the Members of this Congress are committed to doing. So each day when I enter this Chamber, I say ``hi'' to Buffalo, and I recommend that each of my colleagues do the same. And I am not sure, but when I walked by Chief Buffalo today, I thought I saw a pleasant look of approval, if not a little nod, that the Congress was going to work here today to take care of this legislation, because, unfortunately, after that treaty was negotiated, homesteaders and others were wrongly permitted to settle on this tribal land, much of which was later forfeited to the county for nonpayment of taxes. The result today is a checkerboard of ownership that significantly limits both the Fond Du Lac Band and the county's ability to effectively use these lands that they control. Under this agreement, which meets all requirements of Minnesota law, the Fond Du Lac Band will transfer 1,451 acres of land they own outside the Fond du Lac reservation to Carlton County. In return, Carlton County will transfer approximately 3,200 acres of land of equal value, I must point out, that they now administer within the boundaries of the Fond du Lac reservation back to the Fond Du Lac Band. It is a sensible agreement that provides space for the Band to construct much-needed housing for its 6,700 members, as well as provide more area for hunting, gathering, and native activities. Additionally, the agreement provides Carlton County with valuable new timber and forestry resources. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that H.R. 2650 is modeled on statutes that were passed in this body in 2000 and 2004, allowing the Lower Sioux Indian community in Minnesota and the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux community in Minnesota to accomplish similar transactions. It is also my understanding that passage of this bill will greatly help facilitate possible similar transactions between the Fond Du Lac Band and Carlton County in the future. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask my colleagues to approve this legislation; and, again, I thank all those who have worked to pass this legislation in a bipartisan effort.