[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 122 (Wednesday, September 12, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5873-H5890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MINNESOTA EDUCATION INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT ACT
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 5544.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution 773
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 5544.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1230
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5544) to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving
National Forest System land in the Laurentian District of the Superior
National Forest and certain other National Forest System land in the
State of Minnesota that has limited recreational and conservation
resources and lands owned by the State of Minnesota in trust for the
public school system that are largely scattered in checkerboard fashion
within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and have important
recreational, scenic, and conservation resources, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment
and Employment Act.
This bill will rectify a decades-old injustice that was imposed by
Congress during the Carter administration to ensure that funding for
schools and education in Minnesota is carried on.
When Minnesota became a State, it received certain parcels of land
from the Federal Government set aside to help fund education. These
lands, known as school trust lands, were specifically established to
provide funding for Minnesota public schools. Responsible timber
management, mineral development, and other economic uses of these lands
would generate the revenue that would benefit every child in the State.
However, in 1978, Congress designated the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness and a portion of these trust lands became trapped inside the
wilderness area and inaccessible, therefore, for economic development.
This caused a decline in funding, then, for local schools.
H.R. 5544 would implement a bipartisan plan that was passed by the
Minnesota State Legislature and signed by Democrat Governor Dayton to
authorize a no-cost land exchange. It would allow Minnesota school
trust lands, locked away within the Federal wilderness area, to be
exchanged for Federal land from the multiple-use Superior National
Forest. State forest lands would be fairly exchanged for Federal forest
lands.
But typical of the attitude held by many Democrats that spending more
of taxpayers' money will solve the problem, the critics of this bill
have suggested that the Federal Government should simply buy these
inaccessible trust lands at a potential cost of tens of millions of
dollars. This is at the same time when the Federal Government has had
more than a $1 trillion budget deficit for the last 4 years under this
President.
However, the much-needed solution in this bill would consolidate
State-held lands within the wilderness area and allow the State of
Minnesota to access and develop new trust lands from the Superior
National Forest. This will benefit State schools at no cost to the
Federal taxpayers, with the additional benefit of job creation and
economic development.
Let me elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman. It has been shown time and
again that States are far more effective managing lands for sustainable
use and revenue generation than the Federal Government. For example, in
my home State of Washington, they have been able to produce more than a
thousand times the revenue for education on 2.2 million acres of State
trust land, as opposed to the U.S. Forest Service, which is able to
generate only four times that amount, 9 million acres. In other words,
regenerate a thousand-percent revenue on one-fourth of the land because
it's administered by the State. I think the same principle can apply to
Minnesota.
Putting these State lands back to productive use for education will
increase funding for schools across the State, while at the same time
creating new opportunities for job creation and economic growth.
This bill is more than a land exchange. It's about keeping a promise
when Minnesota became a State. It's about correcting the 34-year
consequences of Federal action that restricted access to this vital
asset. It's about ensuring that children and schools have the funding
that they deserve and were promised. So I urge support of this bill.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, Federal land grants to States for education have
resulted in the transfer of more than 77 million acres of land to over
30 States. These well-meaning acts, taken over 200 years ago, have left
communities across the country with a fragmented pattern of land
ownership.
Through the Northwest Ordinance enacted in 1787, Minnesota was
granted 8.3 million acres of school trust lands. Today, the State has
only 2.5 million acres left, with 93,000 located in the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness. Proponents of this legislation claim this will
right inequities caused by the designation of the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness. For most of us, it would seem like common sense to do
a land trade, but I think most of us would also want a land trade that
is fair to both sides.
The State of Minnesota recently enacted State legislation that would
allow an exchange of State and Federal
[[Page H5874]]
lands. While controversial, it garnered bipartisan support and didn't
include language suggesting that we need to waive Federal laws.
As my colleague, Congresswoman McCollum, will tell us, the State did
their job. It is now time for Congress to do our job. Our job is to
protect taxpayer assets and the democratic process. Congressman
Cravaack's bill fails on both of these accounts. We just need to look
at the facts.
By failing to require the standard public process that allows all
Americans the ability to participate and comment on the exchange of
assets, H.R. 5544 robs the citizens of this Nation of their right to
participate in the democratic process.
Unlike every other land trade bill brought before this Congress, we
have no map showing what Federal lands will go into State ownership for
development. Neither the people of Minnesota nor the people of the
United States have any idea that we will lose lands critical to
protecting drinking water or vital to hunting or motorized recreation.
There is no map. The Federal lands to be traded are not identified.
Three Native American tribes have tribal treaties guaranteeing tribal
members the right to hunt, fish and gather in the Superior National
Forest. This bill potentially deprives these tribes of their access
rights.
Second, by failing to ensure that our assets are appropriately valued
as part of the exchange, Congressman Cravaack's bill shortchanges the
American taxpayer. H.R. 5544 defers to the State of Minnesota to decide
the value of Federal lands. When Congress authorizes the sale or
exchange of Federal assets, it is our job to make sure the Federal
Government is getting a good deal.
Again, for every land exchange this Congress has considered, we have
relied on standard appraisal processes that are well understood by real
estate professionals and land managers. Overriding this practice is
like buying a house based on an appraisal provided by the owner, with
the owner admitting they really don't have an updated assessment.
Such a scheme fails to protect the interests of the American
taxpayers who own this land. We are not talking about a couple million
dollars of taxpayer assets here. Estimates nearly a decade old placed
the value of these lands at nearly $100 million.
Third, it is not clear this legislation is going to accomplish its
stated goal: education investment. During committee consideration of
this legislation, Minnesota school officials testified that of the
$9,000 per year spent on an average Minnesota student, $26, less than 1
percent, comes from school trust lands receipts. This entire bill is
geared to making up the $650,000 the State believes it has lost, a mere
drop in the bucket for the overall necessary education investment.
{time} 1240
An amendment offered by Congressman Hastings that is self-executed in
the rule shortchanges three counties in Minnesota. Since 1948, Congress
has and continues to provide St. Louis, Cook, and Lake Counties
mandatory annual payments to compensate them for lost revenues related
to the designation of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Since
the passage of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, these
counties have received nearly $60 million in compensation from Thye-
Blatnik payments alone. Last year, these payments amounted to $6
million. Chairman Hastings' amendment stops increases in these
payments, which CBO estimates would be approximately $1 million. This
is ironic, considering the entire bill is justified on the State
estimating the exchange will increase their school trust revenues by
$650,000 a year. Wouldn't it make more sense to go back and see if we
can make better use of the existing money going to the State and to the
counties?
Finally, this bill fails to garner broad and bipartisan support. Not
one Democrat from the Minnesota delegation has cosponsored the
legislation. Nearly 25 organizations in the State have written Congress
in opposition to the legislation. Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and
Anglers, representing over 2 million hunters and anglers, oppose the
bill. The Star Tribune's editorial board says the bill ``fails the
credibility test'' and ``is about converting forest land to mining.''
Many of us, including myself, have had bills to accelerate the land
exchange process. However, those bills have safeguards like ensuring
that the public can participate in the process; safeguards like
ensuring Uncle Sam won't become Uncle Sucker, leaving taxpayers with a
raw deal; safeguards like ensuring treaties guaranteeing access to
tribes are not impacted. This bill has none of those safeguards. There
are ways to do land exchanges that earn public support, garner
bipartisan endorsements, and protect taxpayers. This bill fails on all
counts and should be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
8 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, somebody who has worked
extremely hard on behalf of his constituents to correct the injustice
that was imposed in 1978, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
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
[[Page H5875]]
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. GRIJALVA. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. The House should not be spending its limited floor time
on this bill. The House should be debating the American Jobs Act, the
President's plan to put nearly 2 million Americans back to work without
adding a dime to the deficit. Instead, today, the Republican majority
has a land exchange bill on the floor that is completely unnecessary. I
want to stress that. It is unnecessary. The State of Minnesota and the
U.S. Forestry Service have all the authority they need to finalize this
land exchange--and finalization is what they are working on.
There's a stakeholder process underway in Minnesota to determine this
proposed land sale and exchange. And it's underway. And they're going
to do it. And they're working on it, with everyone at the table. So why
are we debating this bill at all?
I was a State representative for many years, and I worked on a lot of
land exchanges. And I have never worked on a land exchange that has
been so unnecessary as what I'm being asked to vote on today. This is a
reckless bill, and it also sets a terrible precedent.
{time} 1250
This legislation does not specify what lands are to be exchanged.
Yes, we know about the school's trust fund land, and that's specified,
we know where that is, but we don't know what lands are to be
exchanged. We don't know what the finished product is.
Members of Congress are being asked to endorse a land exchange
without knowing what lands will be exchanged. This legislation does
refer to a bill in the Minnesota State legislature, and the Minnesota
State legislation does not include a map of the Federal lands to be
exchanged. It does not include a map.
This is the first time in the history of this Congress--of Congress--
to bring a bill, a land exchange, to the floor without maps specifying
what lands are to be exchanged. The first time in history. Every Member
of this House should be asking themselves one simple question: where
are the maps?
Now, as I said, I've done many land exchange bills in my service in
the Minnesota legislature, and the first rule of all of those land
exchange bills is don't forget what you are exchanging out. We always
had maps. We had the cost, we had the value, and the public input, and
I believe the Minnesota State legislators should be able to finish that
process themselves working with the U.S. Forestry, working in a
transparent fashion to know exactly what we're voting on.
Why are maps important? Because without a map it's impossible to
determine how many Minnesotans could possibly see their property rights
threatened by this bill. Can anyone here today tell me how many
Minnesota cabin owners could open up their front doors and find a lack
of public access to water that they have used and recreated in for
years? There's no map. No one can answer that question.
Can anyone tell me how many millions of dollars Minnesota will lose
in property value because of issues like this, because of H.R. 5544? No
one can answer that question because there are no maps.
This bill could, and I believe will, greatly reduce public access to
hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling in areas where the public currently
has access. Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a sportsmen's
conservation group. They represent over 2 million hunters in Minnesota
and anglers as well. The group sent a letter to the U.S. Members of the
House this month opposing this bill, and I'd like to quote from it.
``It provides no protective measures for how the land may be used, and
no assurances that existing activities like hunting and angling would
continue.'' Why? Because there is no map.
There are also 700 miles of snowmobile trails in Superior National
Forest that could be at risk because of this bill, trails where public
and private trails intermingle and where public and private entities
have worked for years raising money and revenues to be able to
recreate. But no one can tell me, not Mr. Cravaack, not Mr. Hastings,
no one here, no one can tell me how many trails, lakes, and hunting
areas could be closed by this bill because there is no map.
In addition, this bill eliminates the public's ability to participate
in any decisionmaking process because it waives the National
Environmental Policy Act process.
This is just not the way we do things in Minnesota. We bring people
together at the table. We make sure everyone is at the table: the
State, the Federal Government, the local governments, the property
owners, the hunters, the anglers, the tribal nations, the
conservationists, the taxpayers, and yes, the job generators. We make
sure that decisions are transparent, and transparency means you have to
include a map.
We make sure to get fair market value for land that is sold in
exchange so that it's in the best interest of the taxpayers.
As a Member of Congress representing Minnesota, and as a Member of
the House Interior Subcommittee, I want to stress I am committed to
supporting land exchange so that it is a good deal for Minnesota, a
good deal for the American taxpayers, and I'm committed that the
process that's in place in Minnesota moves forward.
I serve with those northern legislators. They have fought for years
to get something on the table. They deserve to have the process finish
and finish correctly. They need good legislation, not bad legislation.
Minnesota will produce good legislation.
There is a stakeholders group in Minnesota that is working to
determine if the land proposal is fair and transparent. They're not at
the table, folks. It does not require a congressional action to
finalize their proposal. It does not take congressional action to move
forward the legislation that has passed and been signed into law by the
Governor.
This bill is unnecessary, it is reckless, and it sets a dangerous
precedent for this House for the first time ever to vote on a land
exchange without a full, complete map.
The House should defeat H.R. 5544, and it should allow Minnesota to
move forward without this interference and this recklessness.
[[Page H5876]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this
legislation, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, you know, we do processes here in
government, and hopefully we do them for a reason. But when the process
we have harms kids, we should ask ourselves why do we have this slavish
devotion to the process.
The problem before the State of Minnesota today is simply Federal
action that took place 34 years ago that took lands guaranteed and
devoted to the kids of Minnesota and took them away by Federal action.
I live in a State that does have a State trust lands policy where the
use of that school makes a significant contribution to the education of
our kids. It wasn't always that way. We took it seriously.
The State of Minnesota now wants to take this process seriously and
develop resources that would be beneficial for their kids in a
significant way and equalize the process, as we do in my home State, to
benefit all the kids that are in public education.
This is one of those situations in which we have had plenty of time
to solve this problem but obviously the Federal Government has not
moved forward to give to the State of Minnesota what will benefit their
kids.
In the hearing we had on this particular bill, the Forest Service
said, Yeah, we can do this process. Give us about 4 years to evaluate
all of these lands. Our Constitution gives us a right to a speedy
trial. I wish it gave us a right to speedy decisions by bureaucrats. In
4 years an entire class of kids can start and finish high school
without having any benefit from these lands that were theirs in the
first place.
I do not know why those who constantly breathe the air of the Potomac
River are the ones who are always wringing their hands and dragging
their feet, but it seems to be the same way.
Mr. Chairman, you and I worked in the State legislature, where we had
time limits. I had 45 days to get something accomplished or you didn't
do it.
I taught school on trimesters. I had 90 days to cover the material,
or I didn't get to do it. Can you imagine what would happen if the
principal came to me and said, We're going to do our final test on
Tuesday. And I said, I'm sorry. I couldn't possibly cover all of that
material by Tuesday. Maybe in 4 years from Tuesday I might be able, if
you're lucky, to get through the material and actually be ready for
that particular test.
One of the issues in this campaign is indeed dealing with permits.
What takes my State 45 days on average or less to permit takes the
Federal government 307 days on average to do it. That's the process
we're talking about here.
The State of Minnesota has a State process in place. It covers tribal
issues. It covers all of the issues that are there, and this would take
precedence. The State of Minnesota is just as smart as the Federal
Forest Service in solving these problems, except the State of Minnesota
wants to do it quickly and the Federal Forest Service is not.
This will also eliminate potential delaying litigation using Federal
laws to actually do that.
Look. It is simply time for us to realize that if this bill passes,
it helps the Forest Service because it takes away inholding problems.
It also helps kids of Minnesota because it guarantees a funding source
for their education in the future. We should be doing our job and
moving us forward and taking this process away from an agency that
moves at glacial speed to help kids.
{time} 1300
It is time. It's time we do something to help kids instead of harming
kids. This bill helps kids, and I am proud to vote for it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, part of the argument is that the Forest
Service is dragging its feet and will not allow this process to
continue. I would suggest that the Minnesota Legislature came to the
realization it was something they needed to do. That process was
initiated, legislation was passed, and that process continues. The role
of the Federal Government in hindering that does not exist. This was a
volition and a decision that Minnesota and its representatives had to
take.
On June 22, 1948, President Truman signed legislation into law to
authorize the acquisition of private lands within what is now known as
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The legislation was promoted
as a way to protect important natural resource values from
commercialization and to compensate Cook, Lake, and St. Louis Counties
for the loss of private tax revenue.
During the legislative process, Congressman Blatnik argued that
counties should receive 12 cents per acre of Federal land for
compensation of lost property tax revenues. The Truman administration,
arguing that the 12 cents per acre figure was excessive, negotiated
compensation to three-quarters of 1 percent of fair market value, which
is the way the law was enacted and stands today.
Each year since, these counties have received mandatory payments,
adjusted periodically to reflect increased property values. Last year,
these payments totaled over $6 million. Under the funding formula, more
Federal lands mean more Federal money. Absent the Hastings amendment,
Lake, Cook, and St. Louis Counties, all within the sponsor of this
legislation's district, stood to receive another $1 million annually.
We raised questions regarding this payment from the time the bill was
heard in subcommittee until the bill was reported from full committee.
In fact, I sent letters to each county commissioner in these counties
trying to learn more about how these funds were used. I received two
responses. Both indicated they support the current Thye-Blatnik formula
and relied on these payments to compensate for lost property tax
revenue. Surprisingly, no one wants to talk about these payments
because they would be considered earmarks--earmarks which the sponsor
voted against supporting, along with many other members of his caucus.
I represent a district with a lot of Federal lands. My counties get
payments through PILT and through Secure Rural Schools. We have to
fight like crazy to extend payments every time these bills come for
reauthorization. Yet today, we have a bill that purports to be about
education funding for Minnesota kids. What kind of role models are we
if we can't even have an educated conversation about what Federal money
is currently going to Minnesota?
Let's just look at the arithmetic. Minnesota State Representative
Denise Dittrich testified before the committee that the State was
losing $650,000 annually from foregone revenues because the State trust
lands were within the wilderness area. She supports the enactment of
this legislation to make up for the revenue. Yet, because of the
Hastings amendment, this legislation actually takes $1 million in
revenue away from the Counties of Lake, Cook, and St. Louis.
Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul? That's the question.
I reserve the balance of my time.
September 6, 2012.
To: Amelia Jenkins.
Subject: Request from Ranking Member Grijalva related to Thye
Blatnik.
Dear Amelia, As a county commissioner in Cook County
Minnesota I am opposed to any change in the long standing,
reasonably established (with the Boundary Waters legislation
many years ago) legislation that has, in effect, the Federal
Government making payments to Cook, Lake, and St. Louis
counties that makes up for property taxes that were lost by
locking this land into the federal wilderness system.
There was much local opposition and controversy surrounding
the establishment of this wilderness, which was for the
benefit of the whole country, and these payments were
established to offset taxes lost and create a more positive
relationship between these 3 counties and the federal
government.
This is one case where the history of the legislation needs
to be revisited and reasons for it need to be properly
understood.
Thanks,
Jim Johnson,
Cook County Commissioner (District 4, which includes Cook
Counties portion of the boundary waters).
[[Page H5877]]
____
Lake County, Minnesota,
Board of Commissioners,
Two Harbors, MN, September 10, 2012.
Ranking Member Raul Grijalva,
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands,
Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Ranking Member Grijalva: This letter is in response to
your recent inquiry regarding the 1948 Thye-Blatnik (T-B) Act
payments to the Tr-Counties of Northeastern Minnesota. Given
the tight timeline of your request and the limited amount of
legislative days remaining in the 112th Congress, I
understand the urgency of your request and have tried my best
to provide you with the answers to the questions that we
received from your staff.
I must begin, by first explaining that there are a couple
limitations which I face in attempting to answer your
questions. First, Lake County only has a population of 11,000
people and our tax base is very, very, low because over 80%
of our large land mass is now government-owned. Thus, we do
not have the kinds of resources or readily available
personnel to rapidly respond to each of your questions at a
deep level of detail. I will try my best, however, to at
least cover the basics.
An additional hindrance is this county and several others
here in the Arrowhead Region of Northeastern Minnesota were
victims of a flood earlier this summer. The President
declared us a Federal Disaster Area and we have been just
``swamped'' with FEMA personnel and state officials helping
us to cope with what has been described as a ``once in every
500 year flood.'' Understandably, public safety and getting
our roads and bridges repaired along with getting hundreds of
homeowners back into their homes, has been and continues to
be our number one priority.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The following is a brief background and
history of the Thye-Blatnik Act, which will hopefully give
you some insight into just how this 1 million acre
Wilderness, now known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness, came into being. If you research the original
title of the bill, HR. 2642, it reads, ``A bill to safeguard
and consolidate certain areas of exceptional public value . .
. within Minnesota''. The bill title truly helps to get at
the heart of what ultimately lead to the passage of this
legislation. The ``exceptional value'' of the lands located
within the Boundary Waters were so deemed because, quite
frankly, that's exactly what they were. And, the value of
these lands, especially what they meant to the local economy,
became the focal point of the deliberations on the bill.
In the following paragraphs and in addition to some
historical points, I quote to you some of the direct
testimony, written history, and rationale that best describes
why Congress concluded that in order to create this eventual
million acre wilderness, some sort of adequate compensation
had to be given to the affected counties who would be giving
up their current and future ``priceless'' tax base, forever.
Before the bill could be introduced, the commissioners of
St. Louis, Lake, and Cook counties objected to further
federal acquisition. Their opposition stemmed from the
continuing financial distress of these counties. An
understanding of their fiscal problems is necessary to
comprehend the deep well of opposition in the northern area.
In the twenty years following 1925 the taxable property in
these counties had been drastically reduced; revenues had
declined, expansion seemed unlikely, and hopes for prosperity
withered. In Lake County, for example, the assessed value of
real property shrank from $4,000,000 in 1924-25 to $1,500,000
in 1944-45. Property tax revenue dropped from $343,000 in
1931 to $251,000 in 1941.
The obvious way to break the cycle of dependence on outside
aid was to expand the local economy in every way possible by
using all available natural resources. One such resource was
private real estate. However, federal acquisition of land
within and outside the roadless areas had eliminated many
opportunities for real estate developments. The Ely
Commercial Club asked that the roadless areas be reduced in
size to allow tourist development ``on a scale comparable
with other sections of the state.'' With smaller roadless
areas it would be possible to develop what they called ``now
inaccessible resort sites'' on lakes supposedly off the track
for even occasional canoe trips.
The commercial club objected to the government's purchase
of the remaining private lands on the theory that developing
them would do ``the most good for the most people in the long
run. We have no particular ax to grind with dyed-in-the-wool
conservationists so long as their plans don't take the bread
out of our mouths.''
Paul W. Nelson, Lake County's auditor, had foreseen the
impact of federal purchases on local taxes as early as 1938.
At the time he had justified higher levies on Hubachek's
property because the Forest Service had already ``removed
from our tax rolls'' 290,000 acres of land. . . . ``You and
the other taxpayers will have to absorb the loss,'' he wrote.
The issue of federal aid in lieu of taxes had been before
the Congress since 1938. A joint committee on forestry had
hearings and filed a report in March, 1941, recommending
(among other things) legislation authorizing ``an equitable
system of financial contribution to local government in lieu
of taxes on forest land removed from the tax rolls through
Federal acquisition.''
In 1943 the Federal Real Estate Board filed a report on
each class of federal real estate, its contribution, if any,
to state and local governments, with recommendations for
greater equity in lieu of tax contributions. The report noted
that the proceeds from national forest timber sales ``have
not been wholly adequate to protect local taxpayers from
undue burdens'' when the national forest lands were purchased
from private owners. . . . To meet this problem, the real
estate board recommended guaranteeing to the counties ``a
minimum payment equal to a specified percentage of the
purchase price.'' This would give the local governments a
dependable source of income with which to plan annual budgets
and enable them to use their share of timber revenues to the
best advantage. As an acceptable rate of compensation, the
board suggested \3/4\ of 1 per cent of the taxable value of
federal lands.
The best known were the Cordon, Colmer, and McNary bills
which differed only in the amount of compensation they
proposed. All bills based payments on the fair market value
of the national forest lands. The county officials in
northeastern Minnesota thought compensation in lieu of taxes
would be a great improvement over the intermittent revenues
they had received from timber sales, and considered the
Colmer and Cordon proposals as models for special legislation
affecting their counties.
``The nation ought to pay in considerable part for the
preservation of assets in Lake County which benefit the
nation, ``Commissioner M. H. Bickley said the history of
federal acquisition proved that ``something has always been
taken away from us and nothing given back in the way of
reimbursement.''
We are dealing with human beings and hard dollars.'' The
counties were economically run, and Hubachek had open
sympathy ``for what will ultimately be their plight'' when
more than 80 per cent of their lands would be removed from
the tax rolls.
The Quetico-Superior program was based on the value of the
entire roadless areas to the nation. ``If that is true, then
the contribution of the country as a whole should he greater
and less of the burden shall fall on the local interests.''
The combined Thye-Blatnik acquisition-compensation bill
floated into the congressional stream with dozens of other
postwar resources and conservation measures. The modest Thye-
Blatnik bill was a compromise proposal that harnessed
downstate Minnesota conservationists, northern businessmen,
and county officials in a common effort.
Hearings on the Blatnik bill began on April 28, 1947--
exactly nineteen years after the introduction of the
Shipstead-Nolan bill. Blatnik emphasized compensation for the
three counties as ``an indispensable part of the bill.''
Twelve cents per acre was ``an irreducible minimum
compensation.'' Paul Nelson represented the counties. He was
proud, he said, that the Superior forest was called the
``playground for the Nation'' because the area was more
valuable for recreation than timber. But, he asked, ``Should
the local taxpayers furnish such a playground or should our
country as a whole share in the expense of maintaining it?''
Unless the nation paid the bill, the measure should he
defeated.
Wilson followed Hopkins, describing the rapidity with which
the roadless areas were being exploited. The program ``to
preserve and render accessible for posterity . . . a
wilderness that is within reach of all the people of this
country'' was imperiled. If the bill did not pass, the
``whole program of protecting this wilderness will be sunk.''
Discussion of the Blatnik bill centered on the compensation
clause. . . . One astute conservationist speculated that
unless the counties received 12 cents per acre, they ``would
undoubtedly like to gamble their potential tax rates from
private development in the Roadless Area against the federal
reimbursement rate over future years.'' On that basis they
would try to kill the bill, ``demand protection of private
property throughout the federal forest, and fight the whole
thing as federal interference and bureaucratic control.''
At the end of 1947 Blatnik's bill was stalled in the House,
while Senators Ball and Thye refused to move their measure
until the Forest Service and the counties agreed on a rate of
compensation. But they also knew that Blatnik and the county
commissioners would withdraw their support for the measure if
the compensation were reduced or removed.
By reaffirming this statute and by directing the Forest
Service to purchase and remove resorts and private
properties, Congress gave further definition and weight to
the idea of wilderness preservation--an idea that would
receive complete expression sixteen years later in the
Wilderness Act of 1964.
For the first time in its history, the Forest Service had
authority to purchase lands for some purpose other than
timber production and watershed protection. In this respect,
the Thye-Blatnik Act set one of the most significant
precedents in forest policy in forty years. Congress
broadened and reaffirmed the principles implicit in the Thye-
Blatnik Act in 1964 by passing the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act, a measure providing widespread federal
authority for purchasing and developing land for public
recreation.
With regards to your individual questions which you asked
in your letter to my county here are the answers to your
questions:
Level of funding my county has received for the most recent
fiscal year in Thye-Blatnik funding?
[[Page H5878]]
Answer: Not exactly sure, except that between all three
counties we now split approximately $6 million per year in
total T-B funding. Since each county has approximately one-
third of the land mass of the BWCA in each county, rounding-
off, that means Lake County received nearly $2 million in T-B
funding. Regardless, as explained in more detail later in
this document, this T-B funding is required to be offset
against our regular federal PILT payment and that coupled
with other variables in the overall national PI LT formula,
Secure Schools provisions, etc., means that T-B payments
simply cannot be looked at in isolation. Ultimately, I was
able to document that our latest NET PILT PAYMENT was only
$246,972. With 727,111 acres of federal lands in our county,
this certainly doesn't seem fair.
How is T-B funding used?
Answer: All of the uses you mentioned, but, because of the
preponderance of government owned land in our county, we have
a very limited tax base. Thus, most T-B dollars are used as
part of our general revenue stream.
Has T-B funding decreased in last 10 years?
Answer: No, reappraisals are done once every 10 years, so
it would only be in the 11th year that we would know what our
next decade's level of funding will be. The last T-B
reappraisal appears to have been done in either 2008 or 2009.
Because of the national real estate bubble that occurred
during the first decade of this century, I believe we did
receive a sizeable increase in our T-B payments, but again,
with the offsets that this had against us, I believe not all
of that money truly materializes. Also, we won't know if
these higher T-B payments will last when the next appraisal
is completed. This is because of the hyper-inflated real
estate bubble that occurred throughout much of the last
decade.
In conclusion, I believe the deliberations that occurred in
Washington during 1947-48 make it abundantly clear there was
a consensus that some sort of compensation needed to be given
to the local governments of Northeastern Minnesota. That
consensus came with the full realization that in order to get
this legislation passed into law, Congress would have to help
at least partially offset the permanent loss of future tax
base and economic activity that this Region would obviously
suffer into perpetuity.
There was a clear recognition that the traditional sources
of economic activity of this natural resource rich region--
mining, logging, summer cottages, and motorized recreation
opportunities would now be effectively cut by at least 50%,
forever. In the years following Thye-Blatnik we've also
witnessed passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act along with the
Vento-Burton Act of 1978 which added additional economic
restrictions and acreage to the BWCA. Counter-arguments have
been made that the existence of a very appealing million acre
wilderness featuring non-motorized wilderness travel for
tourists to enjoy should help offset much of the alternative
economic loss. On the surface, such an argument may look
appealing. On closer examination, however, what has instead
resulted is what economists call a ``closed market.''
Such a closed market for the BWCA is best exemplified in
the permit system for campers wishing to visit the BWCA. This
system effectively ``caps'' the number of visitors that are
annually allowed into the park. In other words, while other
regions of America with national parks and federal wilderness
areas can at least count on some annual growth in visitors,
for the BWCA, the number of visitors is in effect permanently
capped at a little over 200,000 visitors. Unfortunately, with
an aging population the number of U.S. citizens physically
capable of portaging canoes and enduring the elements, this
has meant that the annual visitors to the BWCA in recent
years has actually been falling. How much? Between 2004-2010,
visitor use in the BWCA fell by 12%.
Meanwhile, the 1,000 plus lakes in the BWCA with their tens
of thousands of miles of extremely valuable shoreline, goes
mostly underutilized and significantly underused. Other lakes
in our region outside of the BWCA, currently have lakeshore
selling at anywhere from between $1,000 to $2,000 a running
foot. If one were to apply those kinds of numbers, to the
tens of thousands of miles of shoreline in the BWCA that are
forever off the tax rolls, one then realizes the incredible
economic sacrifice that the people of our three counties have
truly made for the greater good of the entire nation.
Finally, it appears that many are not cognizant of the fact
of the interplay between the Thye-Blatnik lands and the later
(1976) Federal PILT Program formula which all states with
federal lands benefit. Although there are many variables that
come into play, in essence, our three counties are required
to ``deduct'' from our PILT payments the dollars which we
receive from our Thye-Blatnik payments (as are other Section
6903 lands). As a result, this offset means that our Tri
counties of Northeastern Minnesota are now receiving only
pennies on the PILT dollar than we normally would.
Congressman Grijalva, I assume that this same unintended
consequence with the Federal PILT law may also be occurring
in your District? I noticed that of the dozen Special Acts of
Congress contained in Section 6903 of the Federal PILT Law,
both the Thye-Blatnik lands and the 1910 enabling Acts of
Arizona and New Mexico are both included. Again, although the
intermingling of these various laws gets extremely
complicated, I hope that in the near future, we can refocus
and begin to work together to help remove some of the real
inequities and unintended consequences that are beginning to
develop with the interplay of the existing national PILT Law.
Thank you for your interest in this overall issue and hope
I have given you sufficient rationale as to why the Thye-
Blatnik law found it an absolute necessity to partially
compensate our counties for the permanent loss of tax base
and our lost future economic viability. Indeed it was a steep
price to pay, but something which was a sacrifice which
ultimately was made for the greatest good of our entire
nation.
Sincerely,
Rich Sve,
Chair, Lake County Board of Commissioners.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'd advise my friend that I
am prepared to close.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, among the many flaws in the legislation
is a provision waiving compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, NEPA. NEPA has been under attack by the Republicans
for years. Most famously, former Chairman Pombo led a yearlong effort
to undermine the law before leaving Congress.
NEPA stands for two very simple principles: The first is that the
Federal Government should think before it acts, and the second is that
the Federal Government should listen to the American people before it
acts.
NEPA does not dictate outcome. It requires Federal agencies to gather
information, consider alternatives, and seek public input before taking
action that would significantly impact the environment.
Waiving NEPA means waiving educated decisionmaking, waiving NEPA
means waiving transparency, and waiving NEPA means waiving the
possibility that the American people should play a role in managing the
natural resources which they own.
In the case of H.R. 5544, waiving NEPA means waiving any process for
determining which Federal lands will be given to the State, what lands
will be traded away, and how will they be chosen. Apparently, that
information is to remain secret.
Will lands currently used for recreation or to protect water quality
or to preserve critical habitat be traded to the State for logging and
mining? We have no way to know.
Waiving NEPA shrouds this land deal in secrecy and insulates it from
any public input. Why should any Member in this House oppose allowing
his or her constituents to have input in the management of Federal
natural resources? Cutting out public input is undemocratic, unwise,
and unfair.
Now we have heard claims that NEPA should be waived because it leads
to so-called ``frivolous'' legislation. Of course, ``frivolous'' is
often in the eye of the beholder.
The facts are that NEPA is more than 40 years old, its regulations
are flexible and well-settled, and NEPA litigation is fairly rare.
What's more, timber companies, cattlemen, mining companies, and other
industry plaintiffs file NEPA litigation just as often, if not more,
than environmental groups.
We are also told that NEPA causes too much delay. This accusation is
also unfounded. NEPA regulations allow for agreed-upon timeframes and
page limits to move the process along. Instances when the NEPA process
appears to drag on are often the result of an applicant who fails to
provide necessary information in a timely fashion or changes the
parameters of their project midstream. These anti-NEPA claims are not
based on fact and they are a smokescreen, a smokescreen designed to
hide the fact that the real goal of exempting this land deal from NEPA
is to shield this exchange from public scrutiny.
Later today, Mr. Holt will have an amendment to restore NEPA
compliance for this land deal, and that amendment should be approved. A
vote for NEPA is a vote for the idea that average Americans might have
something valuable to say about the management of their natural
resources. A vote for the bill without NEPA is a vote to shroud this
deal in darkness so that its potential impacts on habitat or water
quality or recreation remain hidden from public view.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'll just advise my friend
that I am prepared to close if he will yield back.
[[Page H5879]]
Mr. GRIJALVA. I will close at this point.
This debate, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, makes me feel like I'm
living in an alternative reality--a reality where the protections of
God's bounty on this Earth are nothing more than an opportunity cost
for local governments, a reality where we think it's perfectly
acceptable to fund our children's education by stealing from the
natural resource legacy our forefathers sought to protect, a reality
where $650,000 for St. Paul is more important than $1 million going to
counties most impacted by this exchange, a reality where the basic
ability for people to be informed about government actions and to voice
their views is blocked by a party that prides itself on the idea of
liberty. I don't know about you, but this is not the reality that I
want to live in.
We could have brought this bill to the floor today with strong
bipartisan support and resolved the real issue of isolated State lands
within the Boundary Waters, just like the Minnesota Legislation did.
Instead, it is Groundhog Day where antiwilderness and antigovernment
philosophies are masked as a concern for education funding when the
arithmetic doesn't actually support the argument.
This is a disappointment. This bill is bad for forests, bad for
wildlife, bad for the American people, and should be rejected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am sitting here absolutely amazed by the debate on
this issue. This is really very, very simple.
In 1978, there was no Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, so there
were trust lands in that part of Minnesota that were generating revenue
for public schools in Minnesota. So in 1978, Congress passed the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and they took that land out of
trust. So that means there is a deficiency in trust lands for Minnesota
schools. This legislation simply seeks to correct that, nothing more
than that. Nothing more than that.
{time} 1310
So, in fact, here's another way to put it, Mr. Chairman. If the
Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness had not been passed, we wouldn't
be here today because you would have those trust lands generating
revenue. But because it included that area, we are here today.
Now, I heard my good friend from St. Paul talking about the
transparency and everybody should be involved in decisionmaking. What
happened in 1978 when this 86,000 acres was taken out of trust?
Where was the transparency?
Where was the goodwill that was coming from the Federal Government to
the citizens of Minnesota at that time? It apparently wasn't there.
Now, I know the Forest Service can make those adjustments. They don't
need an act of Congress to do it; but, Mr. Chairman, it's been 34
years. Don't you think, after 34 years, if the ability were there that
it would be done if there was a will on both sides to do so?
Apparently, there might have been a will on both sides, but there are
others that were involved that said, no, let's slow the process down.
So the Minnesota Legislature said, let's get this thing going, and they
passed the legislation, and this simply carries out the act of the
legislature that was signed by the Governor. And it's really nothing
more than that.
I'm absolutely amazed by the detail that goes on because what comes
out of all of this debate, from my point of view which, ironically,
comes from Members that represent Minnesota, is they don't trust
Minnesotans to make the right decisions as to what part of that
national forest would be used for trust lands. I find that mind-
boggling.
I think the gentleman from northern Minnesota is doing right by his
constituents with this legislation to correct what has happened 34
years ago.
So this is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman. I urge it's
adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5544, the
Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act, which will set in
motion a long overdue exchange of federal lands in Northeast Minnesota
that will create jobs and unlock millions of dollars each year for our
state's schools.
When Minnesota became a state in 1858, the federal government granted
each township two plots of land to be developed, leased, or sold
exclusively for the benefit of Minnesota schools. Under the Minnesota
Constitution and Minnesota Law, these lands must generate revenue for
schools. However, when the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness was
created in 1978, 86,000 acres of school trust lands were locked within
the boundaries, where logging, mining, and other lucrative activities
are prohibited. For over 30 years, these lands have been stripped of
their revenue-raising potential and Minnesota students have been
missing out on a vital revenue source for needed school improvement
projects.
Thankfully, this year, a bipartisan coalition at the Minnesota State
Capital, including Democratic Governor Mark Dayton, stood up to special
interests and apathy to recoup the important school funding source that
was sealed off with the creation of the Boundary Waters. They enacted
legislation at the state level to allow an exchange of the school trust
lands contained within the Boundary Waters for federal lands outside
the Boundary Waters. Such an exchange would not eliminate a single acre
of BWCAW land, but it would enable the creation of well-paying jobs for
Minnesotans on the newly acquired lands.
H.R. 5544 will finalize the federal side of this broadly supported
exchange, which will greatly benefit Minnesota students, job seekers,
and families across the state. I applaud Congressman Cravaack for
introducing this necessary legislation and I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting it.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, an amendment
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 112-30, modified by the amendment printed in part A of House
Report 112-660, is adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 5544
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Minnesota Education
Investment and Employment Act''.
SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE, BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA WILDERNESS
AND SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST, MINNESOTA.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The State of Minnesota owns multiple parcels of land in
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior
National Forest that were granted to the State through
sections 16 and 36 of the Enabling Act of 1857 to be held in
trust for the benefit of the public school system in the
State (in this section referred to as ``State trust lands'').
(2) The State trust lands were acquired by the State long
before the establishment of either the National Forest System
or the wilderness area and are scattered in a largely
checkerboard fashion amid the Superior National Forest and
the wilderness area.
(3) The presence of State trust lands in the wilderness
area makes land and resource management in the wilderness
area more difficult, costly, and controversial for the United
States and the State.
(4) Although the State trust lands were granted to the
State to generate financial support for the public school
system through the sale or development of natural resources,
development of those resources in the wilderness area may be
incompatible with managing the wilderness area for
recreational, natural, and conservation purposes.
(5) The United States owns land and interests in land in
other parts of the State that can be transferred to the State
in exchange for the State trust lands without jeopardizing
Federal management objectives or needs.
(6) It is in the public interest to exchange, on terms that
are fair to the United States and the State, National Forest
System land in the State that has limited recreational and
conservation resources for State trust lands located in the
wilderness area with important recreational, scenic, and
conservation resources for permanent public management and
use.
(7) The Legislature of the State of Minnesota, meeting in
its 87th Legislative Session, passed (and on April 27, 2012,
the Governor of Minnesota approved) S.F No. 1750 (Chapter
236), section 4 of which adds section 92.80 to the Minnesota
Statutes to expedite the exchange of a portion of the State
trust lands located within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness.
(b) Land Exchange Required.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall consummate a land exchange with the State of Minnesota
pursuant to section 4 of S.F No. 1750 (Chapter 236) of the
Legislature of the State of Minnesota (section 92.80 of the
Minnesota Statutes) to acquire all
[[Page H5880]]
right, title, and interest of the State in and to certain
State trust lands identified as provided in such section in
exchange for all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to National Forest System land in the State for
inclusion in the State trust lands.
(c) Valuation of Lands for Exchange.--Subdivision 4 of
section 4 of S.F No. 1750 (Chapter 236) of the Legislature of
the State of Minnesota (section 92.80 of the Minnesota
Statutes) shall control for purposes of the examination and
value determination of the lands to be exchanged.
(d) Survey and Administrative Costs.--The exact acreage and
legal description of the land to be exchanged under
subsection (b) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary. The State of Minnesota shall be responsible
for the costs of the survey and all other administrative
costs related to the land exchange.
(e) Boundaries and Management of Acquired Land.--
(1) Land acquired by secretary.--
(A) In general.--The land acquired by the Secretary under
subsection (b) shall be added to and administered as part of
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness established
pursuant to section 3 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1132(a)), and the Secretary shall modify the boundaries of
the wilderness area to reflect inclusion of the acquired
lands. Subject to subparagraph (B), the land acquired by the
Secretary shall be managed in accordance with the Wilderness
Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and other laws and regulations
applicable to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
(B) No effect on existing fishing and hunting rights.--The
acquisition of land by the United States under subsection (b)
and inclusion of the land in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
Wilderness shall not alter or otherwise affect--
(i) any fishing and hunting rights in existence with
respect to the land immediately before the conveyance of the
land to the United States; or
(ii) the use of such rights after conveyance.
(2) Land acquired by state.--The land acquired by the State
of Minnesota under subsection (b) shall be deemed to be State
trust lands and shall be held in trust for the benefit of the
public school system in the State. It is the sense of
Congress that, whenever the land acquired by the State of
Minnesota under subsection (b) is not being used for revenue-
generating activities, the State should make the land
available for other compatible uses, including hunting,
fishing, hiking, biking, snowmobiling, and trail riding.
(3) Boundaries of superior national forest.--The Secretary
shall modify the boundaries of the Superior National Forest
to reflect the land exchange conducted under this section.
(f) Relation to Other Laws.--
(1) Land and water conservation fund act.--For purposes of
section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965
(16 U.S.C. 460l-9), the boundaries of the Superior National
Forest, as modified by subsection (e)(3), shall be considered
to be boundaries of the Superior National Forest as of
January 1, 1965.
(2) Not a major federal action.--The land exchange
conducted under this section shall not be considered to be a
major Federal action.
(3) Thye-blatnik act.--The Secretary shall not take into
consideration the lands acquired by the United States under
this Act in determining the appraised value of National
Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota used for
purposes of making payments to the State of Minnesota under
the Act of June 22, 1948, and the Act of June 22, 1956
(commonly known as the Thye-Blatnik Act and Humphrey-Thye-
Blatnik-Andresen Act; 16 U.S.C. 577c through 577h).
(g) No Impact on Other Land Exchanges.--The land exchange
described in subsection (b) does not affect any land exchange
involving National Forest System land in the State of
Minnesota underway as of the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(h) Report.--If the Secretary fails to complete the land
exchange described in subsection (b) before the end of the
18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress, not later
than 30 days after the end of such period, a report--
(1) specifying the reasons why the exchange has not been
completed; and
(2) stating the date by which the Secretary anticipates the
conveyance will be completed.
The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in
order except those printed in part B of House Report 112-660. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. McCollum
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part B of House Report 112-660.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 2(a) (page 3, after line 2), insert the
following new paragraph (and redesignate the subsequent
paragraph accordingly):
(7) The proposed land exchanged would include land ceded or
sold in the Treaty with the Chippewa of 1854, in which the
signatory tribes reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering
rights on the land ceded. Federal courts have affirmed the
continuing existence of those rights. The Secretary of
Agriculture shall consult on a government-to-government basis
with potentially affected Indian tribes and ensure that the
land exchange does not impinge upon treaty rights.
In section 2(e)(1)(B)(i) (page 5, line 7), strike ``fishing
and hunting rights'' and insert ``fishing, hunting, and
gathering rights''.
In section 2(e)(2) (page 5, line 22), insert ``gathering,''
after ``fishing,''.
In section 2(f) (page 6, after line 13), add the following
new paragraph:
(3) No impact on treaty rights.--Nothing in this Act shall
limit, alter, restrict, or abrogate, or be construed to have
such effect, on rights to hunt, fish, and gather as reserved
in Article 11 of the Treaty of September 30, 1854 (10 Stat.
1109).
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as you've already heard here today, H.R.
5544 is missing an awful lot of important details and taxpayer
protections. One major omission in this bill is its failure to
acknowledge the treaty rights of Minnesota's tribal nations.
Treaty rights are a predominant concern in this land exchange because
unspecified lands are under consideration in H.R. 5544 because we don't
have a map. They're all within the Superior National Forest, which is
governed by the 1854 treaty between the Chippewa nations and the United
States Government.
The terms of the treaty guarantee that tribal nations can continue to
fish, hunt and gather, and otherwise use the land to support their way
of life. However, in its current form, this bill completely ignores the
treaty rights of tribal nations.
The Minnesota process that's moving forward in the State of Minnesota
includes the tribal nations. We need to make sure that the Fond du Lac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, the
Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa have their treaty
obligations protected and met by the United States Government.
The tribal council of Grand Portage of Chippewa has contacted my
office to express their great opposition to this bill. Chairwoman Diver
of the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa has sent letters in opposition to
Governor Dayton, Secretary Vilsack of Agriculture, Senators Franken,
Klobuchar, and to Representative Cravaack.
Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I have a copy of that letter to
submit to the Record.
Minnesota's tribes foresee a negative impact of this bill on their
guaranteed treaty rights for use of their land because they are not
being considered as part of the process under the Cravaack bill.
The quote from Chairwoman Diver's letter, in fact, is:
We oppose the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment
Act until suitable tribal consultation has occurred.
The chairwoman also disagrees with the conclusion that the exchange
of more than 86,000 acres without government-to-government consultation
``shall not be considered to be major Federal action.''
It's hard to see how anyone could consider the exchange of land that
is being governed by a Federal treaty with sovereign tribal nations to
be anything less than a major Federal action. Yet this bill denies the
level of consideration for the exchange.
The amendment that I'm introducing would recognize the reserved
fishing, hunting and gathering rights of the tribes and other lands
under consideration. The language for this amendment was drafted in
consultation with legal representation from the three impacted tribes
and from input from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission.
This amendment will not solve the fundamental problems of this bill,
but it is an effort to respond to the threat against tribal interests
and tribal sovereignty that this bill contains. This bill does not
change the fact that Minnesota now sees the Federal Government in a
jump-start effort to establish a process for Minnesota on how to handle
the finishing touches to the land transfer.
[[Page H5881]]
Well, I believe at least the tribal voices should be at the table to
be heard.
So, Mr. Chair, I do not believe that H.R. 5544 should be moved
forward. I will be voting against the bill. I want to be clear about
that.
However, if this unnecessary, unclear bill is to proceed, at least at
a minimum, we should protect our U.S. government-to-government treaty
rights and any land exchange.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation
Business Committee,
Cloquet, MN, May 30, 2012.
Re The Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act.
Hon. Mark Dayton,
Governor of Minnesota, State Capitol, St. Paul, MN.
Dear Governor Dayton: We oppose the passage of the
Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act until
suitable tribal consultation has occurred. The Fond du Lac
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation Business Committee
is opposed to the Minnesota Education Investment and
Employment Act's exchange of over 86,000 acres of land within
the 1854 Ceded Territory without any tribal participation in
task force meetings or consultation.
The Fond du Lac Band and the other signatories of the 1854
Treaty of LaPointe, 10 Stat. 1109, retain hunting, fishing,
and other usufructuary rights that extend throughout the
entire northeast portion of the state of Minnesota (the
``Ceded Territory''). In the Ceded Territory, all the Bands
have a legal interest in protecting natural resources and all
federal agencies share in the federal government's trust
responsibility to the Bands to maintain those treaty
resources. State agencies also have executive orders
affirming the government-to-government relationship between
the State of Minnesota and Indian tribal governments located
within the State.
The Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act
concludes that it will not affect usufructuary rights and
concludes that the exchange of more than 86,000 acres without
government-to-government consultation ``[s]hall not be
considered to be a major Federal action.'' We disagree with
those conclusions and therefore request consultation
regarding the proposed land exchange within the Ceded
Territory.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Karen R. Diver,
Chairwoman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlelady's concern for Native
Americans. As a matter of fact, I will simply say that's one of the
reasons when I became chairman of Natural Resources Committee that we
had a subcommittee dealing with their issues because I think they were
being neglected in the past, and so I share that concern.
But this amendment, honestly, is really not necessary. And I have to
say this, Mr. Chairman. At this very last minute here, as we're
debating this on the floor, it raises an issue that has not previously
been raised.
Let me just go back to the history of this legislation. This issue
was not raised at any point during the subcommittee hearing or the full
committee markup of this legislation, nor was this issue mentioned in
the dissenting views that were filed by the minority in their bill
report, nor was this issue raised by the gentlelady from Minnesota's
detailed letter opposing this bill that was dated on July 24. So I
don't know why it's coming up now when it was not previously raised in
the legislative process.
But, Mr. Chairman, I can state very clearly that the Federal
Government has a duty to uphold treaty obligations and trust
responsibilities to Indian tribes. These will be upheld, and they are
not changed by this bill.
There are inherent obligations that the Federal Government has to
Indian tribes, and they need to be respected.
This amendment is not necessary and, as written, may potentially
raise complex questions about whether the amendment itself would alter
the treaty obligations of the Chippewa. The original treaty with the
Chippewa of 1854 referred specifically to fishing and hunting rights.
This amendment would add the phrase ``gathering'' to those rights,
without any definition of scope of what that means.
Lastly, I will credit the Members, the gentlelady who's sponsoring
this legislation, she said last night in the Rules Committee and here
just a moment ago that, notwithstanding whether this amendment would
pass or not, she would be opposing the bill. I take her at her word on
that. But this is a last-minute issue that had not been raised.
{time} 1320
It's not necessary for us to respect and uphold the rights of tribes,
and I think it's being offered by somebody, as was stated, who is just
simply opposed to the bill.
So for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I
understand the gentlelady has yielded back. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part B of House Report 112-660.
Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 2(b) (page 3, line 12), strike ``shall'' and
insert ``may''.
In section 2(f) (page 6, beginning line 3), strike
``Relation to Other Laws.--'', ``(1)'', and paragraph (2)
relating to an exception from NEPA requirements.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today we have before us a bill that tells the
American taxpayers to take a hike--not to take a walk in the woods, but
to give up their place in any decisionmaking, to get lost, a hike from
democracy and engagement in our government--because H.R. 5544 has a
provision that would bar all Americans, including Native Americans,
from being provided the information about the land exchange to take
place and that would bar them from participating in the democratic
process of being able to voice their views about the disposition of
their property.
My amendment would restore public participation in the development of
this proposed land exchange by striking language that would subvert
proper environmental review under the National Environmental Policy
Act, NEPA. H.R. 5544 continues what we have seen elsewhere on this
floor and on the Resources Committee that can only be called an attack
on NEPA.
I wonder what my colleagues have in mind, why they have such a strong
knee-jerk reaction to this bipartisan initiative that was signed into
law by President Nixon, you may recall. Whatever any of my colleagues
may think about the advisability of the underlying bill and the
exchange that is proposed here, whatever that exchange may be, I would
think my colleagues would at least want this to be done with
transparency, full knowledge and public participation.
Public participation should always be of the utmost concern when
planning public land projects, but it is particularly critical for the
exchange that is proposed here. We aren't talking about a small land
exchange. We are talking about tens of thousands of Federal acres that
will be going out of Federal ownership and into State ownership for the
purposes of mining and logging.
The bill doesn't tell us which parcels will be exchanged. We have no
map. We really have no idea. We do know that there are 700 miles of
snowmobile trails within the Superior National Forest and that there
are thousands of lakes, 77 points of lake access, and 13 fishing piers.
We know that hunting is allowed on all of these lands, including lands
included within the boundary waters.
We also know that no fewer than 25 groups have written in opposition
to
[[Page H5882]]
this exchange, expressing concerns about their ability to participate
in what should be a public process. We also know that 2 million hunters
and anglers, represented by the Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and
Anglers Association, oppose this bill because, in their words:
Hunters have a vested interest because we now have access
to these properties--something that's never guaranteed when
management begins switching hands.
Finally, we know why the State of Minnesota wants these Federal
lands. They want the lands to generate receipts for their school trust
through mining and logging.
So we know some things, but there is much we don't know. There is
much that should be brought out to the public. This entire exchange is
justified on the State's belief that it is losing $650,000 a year
because it can't mine and log lands within the Boundary Waters Canoe
Area Wilderness.
The public deserves to know more about this exchange and to have a
voice in the future of these lands. I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment, which would ensure that the public can play a role in this
exchange if the exchange is to go forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would undermine the purposes of the bill
by allowing a Cabinet Secretary or even a low-level Federal bureaucrat
the authority to override an act of Congress and delay this land
exchange.
Let's be specific. This bill directs a land exchange of State lands
for Federal forest lands. The simple result of the exchange will be
that the boundaries would be State rather than Federal. The management
of the lands exchanged in Minnesota will continue to be responsibly
managed under State law.
Now, Mr. Chairman, under the U.S. Constitution, it is the legislative
branch of government that writes our Nation's laws. It is the
responsibility of the executive branch to execute the laws written by
Congress. This amendment would result in giving the executive branch
the ability to undermine or ignore written law. This land exchange
would be subjected to years of costly red tape and bureaucratic foot-
dragging. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, that has been going on for
34 years. That's why we are here today.
The priority of the gentleman from Minnesota's bill is the
schoolchildren of Minnesota, but it seems the priority of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is more Federal red tape to
protect Federal bureaucracy and more lawsuits. So I urge the defeat of
this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. The chairman must think that it is so inconvenient to deal
with a pesky public. Whether this is congressionally mandated or comes
about in any way, something of this scale, that of involving the
public's land, should involve the public in a very open way in
understanding what it will be and in carrying it out. That's all this
says. That's all this amendment would do. It would allow the NEPA
process, the environmental process that applies to so many things
around this country, to apply to this important transaction.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield
3 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
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.
{time} 1330
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.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Sir, you said that there is designated land on the
other half of the exchange, and very well--the school trust lands. Can
you show me a map? I know that the State talks about areas.
The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired, and the gentleman from
Washington has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I hear the crocodile tears for no NEPA in this process.
I just remind my colleagues that when this area was designated
wilderness, NEPA was not involved.
Once the land trade is made, it is subject to the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act. There is a process in which this will be
carried out.
I don't support the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part B of House Report 112-660.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 2, insert after subsection (b) the following new
subsection (and redesignate subsequent subsections
accordingly):
(c) Protecting Private Property and Small Businesses Within
and Adjacent to
[[Page H5883]]
Superior National Forest.--In determining which National
Forest System land to exchange under subsection (b), the
Secretary shall not include a parcel of National Forest
System land in the exchange if the Secretary determines that
the inclusion of the parcel or subsequent use of the parcel
is likely to have a negative impact on private property,
private property values, or small businesses.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise to present an amendment that would
require that as these exchanges go forward, that they would have to be
done in a manner that does not hurt private property interests.
There's no doubt that when the exchanges are effected, the people in
the forest areas who will acquire them will be looking to mine them,
log them, and things like that. But the fact remains that there are
other legitimate private property interests there, and these private
property interests should be protected.
The bill introduced by my colleague from Minnesota, Representative
Cravaack, has no protections for areas of high ecological and
recreational value, risks the livelihood of small businesses that rely
on the recreational tourists to survive and thrive, and risks the
values of private property within the Superior National Forest.
In a region that depends upon $1.6 billion of revenue from outdoor
recreation, we cannot risk our natural lands for the short-term gain of
the mining industry. My amendment would simply ensure that no land
would be exchanged if it would likely have a negative impact on private
or small business interests.
In this House, we often hear it said we should not pick winners and
losers. I agree with that. We shouldn't. Therefore, this amendment, if
adopted, would protect and ensure that no land would be exchanged if it
would likely have a negative impact on private property interests.
Mr. Chair, I would like you to know that the white areas here are
private property. As you can see, they're interspersed in the green. As
land is transferred down and exchanged, there's a lot of private land
next to the forestland, and the private property interests are at risk,
and the amendment, if passed, would protect them.
Many studies have found that private property and housing values
decrease the closer they are to mines. Just take it from the standpoint
of a small business. Many small businesses depend upon protecting the
natural resources in the area. Sulfide mining, being considered in this
region, can leach sulfuric acid into lakes and rivers, killing aquatic
life and ruining someone's small business or fishing resort. Sulfide
mining is generating significant public concern and deserves an open,
transparent process of evaluation.
Mining has a role in the economy in its right place and with the
right protections. But no one denies that it can harm the environment
and small businesses if it is done in the wrong place and in the wrong
manner.
Mr. Chairman, let me just talk about Jane Koschak. Jane is the owner
of the River Point Resort and Outfitting Company located in the
Superior National Forest, and she's very concerned about the impact of
this bill on her small business. She says the bill will be absolutely
devastating to the tourism economy. She says her own town exists on
tourism, which is dependent upon clean water and clean air. She also
says private property values in the area are already going down from
existing drilling. Mining hurts small businesses like Jane's that cater
to the anglers, the paddlers, the hikers, and the vacationers in the
region.
We need greater transparency. Minnesota landowners and small
businesses deserve an open and transparent process, but that's not what
we're getting. The State of Minnesota has already created an open
process to transfer State lands within the boundary waters. No Federal
legislation is required for this land exchange to take place. We should
not be waiving environmental and public comment. At the very least, if
we go forward with this misguided bill, we should ensure that private
property and small business is protected.
I ask you to support the Ellison amendment and oppose the bill from
my colleague in Minnesota.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary, and it would allow the
Federal bureaucracy an automatic excuse to stop implementation of this
bill when it becomes law. It would provide the Forest Service with
vague authorities to simply delay or outright block an act of Congress.
Does that sound familiar?
While presented as property rights protection, the plain fact is that
this bill only involves the exchange of lands between State lands and
State forestlands. So I want to be very clear that not one square inch
of private property is included in this exchange. Again, this is only
State and Federal lands.
I have to say, Mr. Chairman, on my committee, a lot of our discussion
on a variety of issues talks about private property rights. When we
have debate on that and when we have votes on amendments on those
issues, I find it rather ironic that the party of the gentleman that is
offering this amendment always tends to vote against those amendments
that protect private property rights.
Once again, the net result of this amendment would be to give the
Federal bureaucracy the ability to slow down carrying out this act.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I only have one other speaker
and we have the right to close, if the gentleman wants to use his time.
Mr. ELLISON. I appreciate the gentleman's reflection that the
exchange is between State land and State land, but it's next to private
property land. That's exactly the point of my amendment. If I have a
business--better yet, not me, but Jane, who does, in fact, have a
business--that is next to a mine that is leaching hazardous material,
it will negatively impact her business.
This is not a dispute between public and private. It's a dispute
between big private interests and smaller ones.
We're here in Congress to stand up for people who need a voice. I
doubt these multinational mining interests need Congress to stand up
for them, but the Janes who are running resorts in this forest do.
We're simply asking you to adopt an amendment that will stand up for
the private property rights of regular citizens who had a dream and
fulfilled it of opening a resort, opening a tackle shop, doing things
that are deeply rooted in Minnesota's heritage.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield the
balance of my time to the author of this legislation, Mr. Cravaack of
Minnesota.
{time} 1340
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. ELLISON. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, I
think that it will negatively impact jobs.
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. ELLISON. The point of my amendment is that this bill, your bill,
is going to hurt small business.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Look. I'm not going to yield to you if you won't let me
answer the question.
[[Page H5884]]
Mr. CRAVAACK. He is out of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota controls the time.
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. ELLISON. If the gentleman is going to let me answer, I will be
happy to answer you.
Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. I appreciate that. Look, the fact is what
you're doing is trying to say that you're going to stand up for the
big-money people, as opposed to the cumulative small business people. I
think if you put the number of small business people together, your big
multinational mining interests that are going to pollute their
business----
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. ELLISON. I will tell you this, about less than 1 percent of money
for schools comes from trust lands. It's a very tiny percentage. I
mean, so we're going to sacrifice our heritage for a multinational
mining company----
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. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part B of House Report 112-660.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
In section 2, strike subsection (c) (page 3, beginning line
21) and insert the following new subsection:
(c) Valuation of Lands for Exchange.--
(1) Equal value exchange required.--The fair market value
of the land to be exchanged under subsection (b) shall be
equal.
(2) Appraisal to determine fair market value of federal
land.--The Secretary shall determine the fair market value of
the National Forest System land to be conveyed under
subsection (b)--
(A) in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
(B) based on an appraisal that is conducted in accordance
with nationally recognized appraisal standards, including the
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GRIJALVA. The amendment I am offering does one simple thing and
one thing only. It ensures that this land trade is fair and protects
the American taxpayers.
For every land exchange undertaken by the Forest Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, Park Service, or Fish and Wildlife Service, land
managers must ensure taxpayer assets are protected by requiring land
appraisals based on accepted Federal standards. This House has
considered six different land exchange bills in this Congress. Each and
every one of them required standard appraisals for those lands, and
they all passed.
But today we have a bill that defers to legislation passed by the
State of Minnesota to control the examination and the value
determination of Federal lands. This is not how we treat Federal
assets. Whether a land exchange is undertaken through an administrative
process or through legislation, we require a standard appraisal and
equalization payments if the value of the lands considered for exchange
are not equal.
Surely we can provide better protections to the taxpayers of this
country.
The last estimate, and I will stress estimate of the value of the
land in question, was nearly $100 million. Do we really want to abandon
our responsibilities as stewards to Federal taxpayers and waive fair
appraisal standards?
Surely we can hold Congressman Cravaack's legislation to the same bar
and standard we required for Congressman Herger, Congressman Gosar,
Congresswoman Tsongas, Congressman McKeon, Congressman Amodei's bill
and, yes, my own bill.
I understand a lot of Members on the other side of the aisle would
happily turn over Federal lands to the States. In fact, that position
is reflected in their party's platform. But this isn't what we're
voting on today. Today we're voting on a land deal that shouldn't turn
the taxpayer interests upside down.
I would urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to ensure a fair exchange
of lands on States in Federal areas, and there are protections that
were put specifically in the bill. Of course, the big protection is
that the Secretary of Agriculture, who is a Federal representative in
this process, has to agree. So, I mean, you have got one party, two
parties that have to agree, and one of them is Federal. Now what could
be more protection than that.
Now, let me go back just a minute. We seem to have to talk about the
history of this.
The valuation of the land in 1978, when this wilderness area was
developed--I wasn't here, nobody here on the floor that's debating this
was here at that time; but I doubt if there was a valuation given to
Minnesota at that time, and now they want to come back and say, okay,
we have to have a precise valuation on the Federal level.
Come on. This corrects something that was not done in 1978. This
amendment simply slows down the process, which I might add, Mr.
Chairman, that seems to be what the process is with all four amendments
that were taken up to date, slow down the process. Thirty-four years,
isn't that long enough?
This is not a good amendment. I urge rejection of it, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
[[Page H5885]]
Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank Mr. Grijalva.
This is not about slowing down the process, and I know it's not the
intention of the Members on the other side to assume my motivations. I
know it's not their intention.
This and the amendments that I offered are because there is a process
in place in Minnesota that allows for people to be at the table, for
tribes to be at the table to follow the regular order to have a regular
appraisal like everyone else has had, and to have a map on the floor
and not start creating a wave of Federal legislation that, to my
knowledge, to my knowledge, no one has asked for this legislation to
have a vote on the floor today.
There is no Senate companion. There is no urgency; there is no
emergency. The State of Minnesota has a process in place; and I will
say, as a State legislator, there were times, yes, I didn't think we
needed to move forward with the land exchange.
But the northern legislators are convinced, overwhelmingly with the
Governor of Minnesota, that this land exchange needs to take place, and
it should take place, and I'm not trying to slow it down. I am trying
to take this bad legislation and put it aside and let the good
legislation and let the regular order that the State of Minnesota has
established in order to have these land exchanges move forward. That is
my motivation, good legislation, not for the first time in the history
of the floor of this House passing a land exchange without a map and
for the first time that I've heard not use the regular Federal standard
appraisal process.
It sets a bad precedent. I don't think anybody is out to do wrong by
the schoolchildren of Minnesota.
{time} 1350
My children attended K through higher ed in Minnesota, and I know how
strapped we are for cash. And I do believe that there will be very
slight amounts of dollars that will go back into school trusts, but
that's going to happen whether or not we take this bad vote on this bad
bill today or not.
The schoolchildren in Minnesota will be served. This land will be
exchanged. The question for this Congress is: Do we do it the right
way; do we do it the wrong way; do we set a bad precedent for future
land exchange bills; or do we make sure that we allow a fair, open,
transparent process that started in Minnesota, finishes in Minnesota?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. McCOLLUM. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Do I understand the time on the other
side has expired?
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has yielded back the balance of her time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Does the gentleman from Arizona still
have time?
The CHAIR. No, the gentleman from Arizona yielded the remaining time
to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, and she yielded back the balance of
her time.
The time is expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is what I was trying to get to.
I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time, again, to the
author of this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Cravaack).
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
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. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 112-660 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. McCollum
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 213, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 563]
AYES--201
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
[[Page H5886]]
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--213
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Baldwin
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Culberson
Gingrey (GA)
Herger
Hirono
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Ryan (WI)
Towns
Welch
{time} 1418
Messrs. MANZULLO and BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. PERLMUTTER, NEAL, JONES, DOLD, HANNA, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of
California and RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Moment of Silence in Honor of Ambassador Stevens and American Personnel
Killed in Libya
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Boehner). Last night, Americans received a
jolting reminder that freedom remains under siege by forces around the
globe who relish violence over free expression and terror over
democracy.
The Chair asks that all present rise and observe a moment of silence
in honor of Ambassador Stevens and the American personnel killed in
Libya.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). Without objection, 2-minute voting
will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 236, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 564]
AYES--177
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
[[Page H5887]]
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--16
Akin
Baldwin
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Culberson
Gingrey (GA)
Herger
Hirono
Holden
Jackson (IL)
LaTourette
McCarthy (CA)
Ryan (WI)
Schock
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1427
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Ellison) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 225, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 565]
AYES--190
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--225
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--14
Akin
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Culberson
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey (GA)
Herger
Hirono
Holden
Jackson (IL)
McCarthy (CA)
Myrick
Ryan (WI)
{time} 1431
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Grijalva
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 223, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 566]
AYES--191
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
[[Page H5888]]
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--223
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Culberson
Fortenberry
Gingrey (GA)
Herger
Hirono
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Landry
McCarthy (CA)
Ryan (WI)
West
{time} 1435
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5544) to
authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System
land in the Laurentian District of the Superior National Forest and
certain other National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota
that has limited recreational and conservation resources and lands
owned by the State of Minnesota in trust for the public school system
that are largely scattered in checkerboard fashion within the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and have important recreational, scenic,
and conservation resources, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to
House Resolution 773, he reported the bill, as amended by that
resolution, back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
{time} 1440
motion to recommit
Mr. ELLISON. I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ELLISON. I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Ellison moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5544 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of section 2(b) (page 3, line 20, of the Rules
Committee print), insert the following new sentence: ``The
Secretary may not include in the exchange under this section
any National Forest System land in the State that, as of the
date of the enactment of this Act, is used for hunting,
fishing, or motorized recreation, including snow-mobiling in
season.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment to the bill, if
adopted, will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. This bill
will immediately be voted upon on final passage as amended.
Mr. Speaker, this bill that we're arguing about right now actually is
not necessary. The Minnesota State legislature has already decided that
in one of the most beautiful wildernesses in our country, the Boundary
Waters, that there will be about 86,000 acres transferred out of there
into the Superior National Forest. The land will be moved from this
wilderness area into the Superior National Forest, and the proceeds
will be used to benefit Minnesota schoolchildren.
What this bill actually does is it doesn't actually facilitate the
transfer. The Minnesota State legislature has handled that. What it
does is it allows the circumvention of the regular process so that
Minnesotans who are part of the business community, the school
community, the local community, who are part of the recreational
community, who have a stake in this thing, that they will be cut out of
the deal. They won't be able to have the transparency that is
necessary.
Without a doubt, the land that will be transferred will be
transferred for the purpose of commercial exploitation, most likely
mining. And mining, as you know, may have commercial importance and
commercial benefit, but it is a dirty business. It does affect the
businesses that are around it.
This bill is designed to help and will help the mining and the timber
industry in northern Minnesota. But as we go about this process, we can
at least do what we can to make sure that as the transfer takes place,
that the outdoor recreational businesses, which are about $1.6 billion
in northeastern Minnesota, do not get sacrificed in the process.
The Superior National Forest and Chippewa National Forest and the
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness make up Minnesota's premiere
outdoor recreation area. They're just beautiful. I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, there's been many a time when I've led young people up to the
Boundary Waters so they can get out of the urban environment, into the
natural wilderness, and experience what I believe is God's country.
As we effect this change and these land swaps are taking place, and
there's no real process--we're bypassing it through this bill--to have
real transparency, the interests of the recreational industry, the
people who fish, the people who paddle, the people who hunt, and the
businesses that supply them are at stake.
My amendment would simply protect the land in these forests currently
used for hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, bird watching, and all sorts
of other activities, and the commercial interests associated with
allowing them to do that.
The land that we're talking about has very high recreational value.
The
[[Page H5889]]
Chippewa and Superior National Forest provide habitat for hunting and
game like grouse, deer, or waterfowl. They contain some of the Nation's
best fishing lakes, filled with trout, walleye, bass, and pike. I
encourage all of you to come and visit. They attract 250,000 visitors
every year, Americans of all kinds, but even international visitors,
but mostly Minnesotans right from the area and from the Twin Cities.
The fact is the Superior National Forest is the eighth-most visited
in the entire National Forest system. They drive, as I mentioned
already, Mr. Speaker, $1.6 billion in tourism and recreation industry
in northeastern Minnesota. Thousands of small businesses rely on the
National Forest, including everything from resorts, to hunting
outfitters, to local restaurants and shops.
I might add, there are almost--in fact, I would say there are no--
restaurants or outfitters who name their business after the sulfide
mines. No. They call themselves the Boundary Waters Cafe. They name
themselves after the beauty and the natural wonder in the area.
This bill puts recreation at risk and the industry that supports it.
This bill provides no protection for lands with high recreational
value. In fact, it explicitly says that land acquired by the State
should be used first for revenue-generating activities, such as mining
and logging. This is why hunting and angling groups in Minnesota oppose
the bill, including the Minnesota Conservation Foundation, Minnesota
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the Minnesota division of the
Izaac Walton League.
What's more, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not even identify which lands
will be exchanged. We don't even know in this map which private
property interests will be affected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, apparently the author of the
motion to recommit did not read the underlying bill because what he
seeks to do is say you can't exchange land that is open to essentially
multiple use, recreational activities. On section 2 of page 5, very
specifically in the bill, it says that these activities shall be
allowed.
I don't know exactly what point the gentleman is trying to make by
offering this motion to recommit, unless it is a political statement of
some sort. Even if it's a political statement, I have to say, Mr.
Speaker, it falls short in that regard.
Why do I say that? Because last spring, specifically on April 17, we
had a bill that this body considered on the floor, H.R. 4089, authored
by our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Benishek, called the Sportsmen's
Heritage Act of 2012. The essence of that bill was to allow hunting and
recreation on Federal lands, and yet the author of the motion to
recommit is coming down here saying we should have multiple use on this
forest, but he voted against the bill, H.R. 4089, this spring.
{time} 1450
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the crocodile tears I hear or see
from the other side is overwhelming to me. This motion to recommit
ought to be defeated. The land exchange that is authored by our
colleague from Minnesota rights a wrong that was wrongly made 34 years
ago.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and
``yes'' on passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183,
noes 233, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 567]
AYES--183
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
NOES--233
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
[[Page H5890]]
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--13
Akin
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Culberson
Gingrey (GA)
Herger
Hirono
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Moran
Ryan (WI)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1505
Mr. YARMUTH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 189, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 568]
AYES--225
Adams
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--189
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barber
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Akin
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Chandler
Culberson
Gingrey (GA)
Herger
Hirono
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Moran
Ryan (WI)
Whitfield
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1512
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________