19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–441 

RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST AND USE CONDITIONS, COOK COUNTY AIRPORT, COOK COUNTY, MINNESOTA 

APRIL 16, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 2947] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2947) to provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the United States in certain land conveyed by the 

United States in 1950 for the establishment of an airport in Cook 

County, Minnesota, having considered the same, report favorably 

thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2947 is to provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the United States in certain land conveyed by the United States in 1950 for the establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 2947 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to release 

the deed restrictions that were placed on a parcel of land conveyed 

to the State of Minnesota under the Federal Airport Act of 1946 

to allow for the construction of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota. The original 1950 conveyance required that the lands be 

used for the specific purposes of expanding the Grand Marais-Cook 

County Airport, yet the entire parcel was never developed and the 

restrictions in the land grant keep it from being used for any other 

purpose. Release of this parcel will allow it to be utilized by the 

Cook County Highway Department for a local highway project. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2947 was introduced on September 15, 2011, by Congressman Chip Cravaack (R–MN). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. On 

December 2, 2011, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On 

February 29, 2012, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to 

consider the bill. The Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests 

and Public Lands was discharged by unanimous consent. No 

amendments were offered and the bill was then ordered favorably 

reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 2947—A bill to provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the United States in certain land conveyed by the 

United States in 1950 for the establishment of an airport in 

Cook County, Minnesota 

H.R. 2947 would remove certain use restrictions from land that 

was conveyed by the federal government to the state of Minnesota 

in 1950. Under current law, if the land is not used for purposes related to the operation of Cook County Airport, it must be returned 

to the United States. 

Based on information provided by managers of the Cook County 

Airport, CBO expects that, under current law, the affected lands 

would be retained by the airport. Therefore, we estimate that implementing the legislation would have no impact on the federal 

budget. Enacting H.R. 2947 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. Based on information provided by managers of 

the Cook County Airport, CBO expects that, under current law, the 

affected lands would be retained by the airport. Therefore, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would have no impact on 

the federal budget. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to provide for the release of the reversionary interest 

held by the United States in certain land conveyed by the United 

States in 1950 for the establishment of an airport in Cook County, 

Minnesota. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates as defined under Public 

Law 104–4. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 

Æ 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with REPORTS