September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5873 

provide the support necessary to create 

this industry. 

We also ought to be making it in 

America. One of my bills, H.R. 6217, 

would require that 85 percent of the 

content of these turbines and solar systems be made in America. 

f 

WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED 

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and 

was given permission to address the 

House for 1 minute and to revise and 

extend his remarks.) 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we had an attack in Cairo on our 

Embassy yesterday, and we had an attack in Benghazi, and we lost the Ambassador there. He was killed along 

with three other people. 

I’ve been on the Foreign Affairs Committee now for about 30 years, and I’ve 

never seen anything like what we’ve 

seen in the northern tier of Africa. All 

the way across the northern tier, we’ve 

seen the spring that they’re talking 

about, and how things are changing 

and how democracy is coming. 

The fact of the matter is Iran is taking advantage of what’s going on over 

there by sending intermediaries into 

all those countries to undermine them. 

I was just in the Persian Gulf recently, 

and there is absolutely no question 

that Iran is doing everything they can 

to undermine all those governments 

over there. 

When you look at what happened in 

Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood 

taking over, we in this country ought 

to be very much aware that this is not 

the end of it. It’s not going to go away. 

The administration or the new President, whoever it is that takes office in 

January, they’re going to have to have 

a very strong foreign policy because we 

still get about 35 percent of our energy 

from that region. 

This is not going to end right now. 

It’s going to go on. We have to be prepared. 

f 

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. 

b 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 Stateheld 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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. 

b 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 Stateowned 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 Governmentowned 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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. 

b 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 ThyeBlatnik 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). 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5877 

LAKE COUNTY, MINNESOTA, 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 

Two Harbors, MN, September 10, 2012. 

Ranking Member RAU ́ L 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 ThyeBlatnik 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 acquisitioncompensation 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 ThyeBlatnik 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 ThyeBlatnik funding? 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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 ThyeBlatnik 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 ThyeBlatnik 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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-ThyeBlatnik-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-togovernment 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 lastminute issue that had not been raised. 

b 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5882 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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. 

b 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


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 11⁄2 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 11⁄4 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. 

b 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5884 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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 bigmoney 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. Thirtyfour 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. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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 31⁄2 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 

Luja ́n 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 

b 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 

Luja ́n 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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 

Luja ́n 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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) 

b 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 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maloney 

Markey 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5888 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 

b 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. 

b 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 snowmobiling 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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 12, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 revenuegenerating 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. 

b 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 

Luja ́n 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5890 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 12, 2012 

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. 

b 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 

Luja ́n 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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. 

b 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. 

f 

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT 

REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 

pursuant to House Resolution 773, I 

call up the bill (H.R. 5949) to extend the 

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five 

years, and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

YODER). Pursuant to House Resolution 

773, the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the 

bill is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read. 

The text of the bill, as amended, is as 

follows: 

H.R. 5949 

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 ‘‘FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008. 

(a) EXTENSION.—Section 403(b) of the FISA 

Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 

122 Stat. 2474) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘December 

31, 2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2017’’; 

and 

(2) in paragraph (2) in the material preceding 

subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘December 31, 

2012’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2017’’. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The heading 

of section 404(b)(1) of the FISA Amendments Act 

of 2008 (Public Law 110–261; 122 Stat. 2476) is 

amended by striking ‘‘DECEMBER 31, 2012’’ and 

inserting ‘‘DECEMBER 31, 2017’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill 

shall be debatable for 1 hour, with 40 

minutes equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority 

member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided 

and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent 

Select Committee on Intelligence. 

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 

SMITH) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. CONYERS) each will control 20 

minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. ROGERS) and the gentleman 

from Maryland (Mr. RUPPERSBERGER) 

each will control 10 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise 

and extend their remarks and include 

extraneous materials on H.R. 5949, as 

amended, and currently under consideration. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE