[House Report 112-634]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-634
======================================================================
MILLE LACS LAKE FREEDOM TO FISH ACT OF 2012
_______
July 31, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Mica, from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 5797]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom
was referred the bill (H.R. 5797) to amend title 46, United
States Code, with respect to Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota, and
for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with amendment and recommend that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose of the Legislation and Summary........................... 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Legislative History.............................................. 3
Committee Votes.................................................. 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 3
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 5
Advisory of Earmarks............................................. 5
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 5
Preemption Clarification......................................... 5
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 5
Applicability to the Legislative Branch.......................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 5
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Mille Lacs Lake Freedom To Fish Act of
2012''.
SEC. 2. MILLE LACS LAKE, MINNESOTA.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the owner or operator of
a vessel operating on Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota, shall not, with
respect to such vessel, be subject to any Federal requirement under
subtitle II of title 46, United States Code, relating to licensing or
vessel inspection.
Amend the title so as to read:
A bill to exempt the owners and operators of vessels
operating on Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota, from certain Federal
requirements.
PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION AND SUMMARY
H.R. 5797, the Mille Lacs Lake Freedom to Fish Act of 2012
exempts the owners or operators of vessels operating on Mille
Lacs Lake, Minnesota from compliance with federal law and
regulations governing the licensing of vessel operators and the
inspection of vessels.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Mille Lacs Lake is located approximately 100 miles north of
the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. It is Minnesota's
second-largest lake, spanning 132,000 surface acres or slightly
more than 200 square miles. The area surrounding the lake is
home to several dozen charter boat fishing and tour operators.
These operators take passengers on the lake in groups in sizes
from less than six on small motorized vessels, to as large a 50
on vessels as long as 70 feet. In addition, several canoe
guides operate on the lake carrying as few as one passenger per
canoe. Finally, many companies also rent canoes and motorized
boats to individuals for daily excursions on the lake.
The State of Minnesota regulates vessels operating on its
inland lakes including Mille Lacs Lake. The state requires
motorized or sailing vessels greater than 21 feet in length and
carrying more than six passengers for hire to undergo an annual
safety inspection and a drydock inspection once every three
years (annually for wooden hulled vessels). Vessels that
maintain a certificate of inspection with the Coast Guard
pursuant to Chapter 33 of title 46, United States Code, are
exempt from Minnesota requirements.
The state also requires operators of motorized or sailing
vessels, regardless of size, carrying more than six passengers
to obtain a Boat Master license. To obtain a Boat Master
license, the state requires individuals to be at least 18 years
of age, have 18 hours of supervised training on the vessel, pay
a series of fees, and pass a license examination with a score
of at least 70 percent. Individuals carrying a current Coast
Guard issued license to operate an uninspected or small
passenger vessel pursuant to chapter 89 of title 46, United
States Code, are exempt from Minnesota licensing requirements.
On March 3, 2010, the Coast Guard determined the lake was a
``navigable waterway of the United States'' pursuant to the
criteria set forth in 33 CFR 2.36. The Coast Guard made the
determination based on the fact that the lake ``has been used
in the past as a highway for interstate commerce''. In the 18th
Century, the lake supported the international fur trade, and
from 1848 to 1904, it was used in the transportation of logs to
mills outside the state. The determination that the lake is a
navigable waterway enables the Coast Guard to enforce
applicable federal laws and regulations on the lake.
H.R. 5797, as reported, would exempt the owners and
operators of vessels operating on the Lake from compliance with
the licensing and vessel inspection requirements of subtitle II
of title 46, United States Code. H.R. 5797 would not affect the
authority of the Coast Guard to conduct search and rescue and
other missions on the lake, or change the state's regulatory
program.
HEARINGS
On May 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation held a hearing on ``Creating U.S.
Maritime Industry Jobs by Reducing Regulatory Burdens''.
Questions regarding the Coast Guard's navigability
determination of Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota were raised by Mr.
Cravaack at the hearing.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
On May 17, 2012, Representative Cravaack introduced H.R.
5797, the Mille Lacs Lake Freedom to Fish Act of 2012. On July
27, 2012, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
met in open session to consider H.R. 5797, and ordered the
bill, as amended, reported favorably to the House of
Representatives by voice vote with a quorum present. Mr.
Cravaack offered a substitute amendment to exempt owners and
operators of vessels operating on Mille Lacs Lake from
compliance with federal laws and regulations requiring the
licensing of individuals to operate vessels and the inspection
of certain vessels to ensure they meet federal safety
standards. The Cravaack substitute amendment passed by voice
vote.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives
requires each committee report to include the total number of
votes cast for and against on each recorded vote on a motion to
report and on any amendment offered to the measure or matter,
and the names of those members voting for and against. During
consideration of H.R. 5797, no recorded votes were taken. The
bill, as amended, was reported favorably to the House of
Representatives by voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES
In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its
own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement
authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the
cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, included below.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the following cost estimate for H.R. 5797 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 27, 2012.
Hon. John L. Mica,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5797, the Mille
Lacs Freedom to Fish Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sarah Pura.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 5797--Mille Lacs Freedom to Fish Act
H.R. 5797 would eliminate a requirement that certain vessel
owners who operate boats on a lake in the state of Minnesota
purchase federal licenses and pay a fee to have their boats
inspected annually. Because most of those amounts are deposited
in the general fund of the Treasury, enacting H.R. 5797 would
decrease revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
However, CBO estimates that the effects would be insignificant
for each year. Enacting H.R. 5797 would not affect direct
spending.
In 2010, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) determined
that Mille Lacs Lake in Minnesota is a navigable waterway. As a
result, USCG is developing regulations that will require all
vessel owners who wish to use their boats on that lake to
obtain federal captains' licenses and to submit their boats to
annual USCG inspections. Most of those revenues will be
deposited into the general fund of the Treasury. Licenses will
cost $240 per person, and annual inspections will cost between
$300 and $600 each. By enacting H.R. 5797, the government would
not collect those revenues. Based on information from the USCG,
CBO estimates that there are fewer than 50 owner-operators who
will have to comply with the licensing and inspection
regulations. Assuming regulations are finalized by 2013, CBO
estimates that enacting the bill would result in an
insignificant loss of annual revenue beginning that year.
H.R. 5797 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Sarah Puro. The
estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
performance goals and objectives of this legislation are to
address navigation safety on Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota.
ADVISORY OF EARMARKS
In compliance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 5797 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (Public Law 104-4).
PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
requires the report of any Committee on a bill or joint
resolution to include a statement on the extent to which the
bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local,
or tribal law. The Committee states that H.R. 5797 does not
preempt any state, local, or tribal law.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committee within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act was created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law
104-1).
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
Section 1. Short title
``Mille Lacs Lake Freedom to Fish Act of 2012''.
Sec. 2. Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota
Section 2 exempts the owners and operators of vessels
operating on Mille Lacs Lake, Minnesota from compliance with
federal laws and regulations requiring the licensing of
individuals to operate vessels and the inspection of certain
vessels to ensure they meet federal safety standards.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
H.R. 5797 makes no changes in existing law.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
The manner in which this bill was taken up by the
Committee, and the absence of a clear understanding of the
implications of the amendment that was adopted by voice vote,
gives me pause.
No one disputes the validity of the Coast Guard's 2010
determination that Mille Lacs Lake is a navigable water of the
United States. In fact, the Coast Guard's determination is
simply the latest affirmation in a line of navigability
determinations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
legislation completely sidesteps that fundamental question, and
accordingly, the Coast Guard's 2010 determination stands.
Rather than vacate the Coast Guard's determination,
however, the legislation, as ordered reported, exempts the
owners and operators of uninspected passenger vessels operating
on Mille Lacs Lake from Coast Guard license and inspection
requirements under subtitle II of title 46, United States Code.
Although this approach provides the regulatory relief desired
by the bill's sponsor, all other applicable aspects of Coast
Guard authority remain in effect on Mille Lacs Lake.
As a result, in the interest of solving one problem, this
legislation may very well be creating additional unintended
problems. Unfortunately, there was no practical way that the
Committee could have known in advance what the unintended
consequences of this legislation might be because the bill was
never heard and considered by the Subcommittee on Coast Guard
and Maritime Transportation.
We do know that the Coast Guard objects to the type of
``partial navigability'' determination embodied in this
legislation. It could lead to uncertainty and confusion among
the boating public concerning the Coast Guard's management
responsibilities. Suffice to say, it would have been far better
to have known in advance the implications of this legislation
prior to the Committee passing and reporting the bill to the
House of Representatives.
In the absence of that knowledge, I urge that we sit down
with the Coast Guard prior to consideration of this bill by the
House. We should thoroughly discuss the bill's implications,
and, if need be, shape whatever modifications may be necessary
to achieve the sponsor's objectives while also eliminating the
likelihood of unintended consequences falling on the Coast
Guard.
Rick Larsen.