Amendment Text: H.Amdt.1478 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (09/12/2012)

This Amendment appears on page H5882-5883 in the following article from the Congressional Record.


[Pages H5873-H5890]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           MINNESOTA EDUCATION INVESTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 5544.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Pursuant to House Resolution 773 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 5544.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1230


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5544) to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving 
National Forest System land in the Laurentian District of the Superior 
National Forest and certain other National Forest System land in the 
State of Minnesota that has limited recreational and conservation 
resources and lands owned by the State of Minnesota in trust for the 
public school system that are largely scattered in checkerboard fashion 
within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and have important 
recreational, scenic, and conservation resources, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education Investment 
and Employment Act.
  This bill will rectify a decades-old injustice that was imposed by 
Congress during the Carter administration to ensure that funding for 
schools and education in Minnesota is carried on.
  When Minnesota became a State, it received certain parcels of land 
from the Federal Government set aside to help fund education. These 
lands, known as school trust lands, were specifically established to 
provide funding for Minnesota public schools. Responsible timber 
management, mineral development, and other economic uses of these lands 
would generate the revenue that would benefit every child in the State.
  However, in 1978, Congress designated the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
Wilderness and a portion of these trust lands became trapped inside the 
wilderness area and inaccessible, therefore, for economic development. 
This caused a decline in funding, then, for local schools.
  H.R. 5544 would implement a bipartisan plan that was passed by the 
Minnesota State Legislature and signed by Democrat Governor Dayton to 
authorize a no-cost land exchange. It would allow Minnesota school 
trust lands, locked away within the Federal wilderness area, to be 
exchanged for Federal land from the multiple-use Superior National 
Forest. State forest lands would be fairly exchanged for Federal forest 
lands.
  But typical of the attitude held by many Democrats that spending more 
of taxpayers' money will solve the problem, the critics of this bill 
have suggested that the Federal Government should simply buy these 
inaccessible trust lands at a potential cost of tens of millions of 
dollars. This is at the same time when the Federal Government has had 
more than a $1 trillion budget deficit for the last 4 years under this 
President.
  However, the much-needed solution in this bill would consolidate 
State-held lands within the wilderness area and allow the State of 
Minnesota to access and develop new trust lands from the Superior 
National Forest. This will benefit State schools at no cost to the 
Federal taxpayers, with the additional benefit of job creation and 
economic development.
  Let me elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman. It has been shown time and 
again that States are far more effective managing lands for sustainable 
use and revenue generation than the Federal Government. For example, in 
my home State of Washington, they have been able to produce more than a 
thousand times the revenue for education on 2.2 million acres of State 
trust land, as opposed to the U.S. Forest Service, which is able to 
generate only four times that amount, 9 million acres. In other words, 
regenerate a thousand-percent revenue on one-fourth of the land because 
it's administered by the State. I think the same principle can apply to 
Minnesota.
  Putting these State lands back to productive use for education will 
increase funding for schools across the State, while at the same time 
creating new opportunities for job creation and economic growth.
  This bill is more than a land exchange. It's about keeping a promise 
when Minnesota became a State. It's about correcting the 34-year 
consequences of Federal action that restricted access to this vital 
asset. It's about ensuring that children and schools have the funding 
that they deserve and were promised. So I urge support of this bill.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal land grants to States for education have 
resulted in the transfer of more than 77 million acres of land to over 
30 States. These well-meaning acts, taken over 200 years ago, have left 
communities across the country with a fragmented pattern of land 
ownership.
  Through the Northwest Ordinance enacted in 1787, Minnesota was 
granted 8.3 million acres of school trust lands. Today, the State has 
only 2.5 million acres left, with 93,000 located in the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness. Proponents of this legislation claim this will 
right inequities caused by the designation of the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Area Wilderness. For most of us, it would seem like common sense to do 
a land trade, but I think most of us would also want a land trade that 
is fair to both sides.
  The State of Minnesota recently enacted State legislation that would 
allow an exchange of State and Federal

[[Page H5874]]

lands. While controversial, it garnered bipartisan support and didn't 
include language suggesting that we need to waive Federal laws.
  As my colleague, Congresswoman McCollum, will tell us, the State did 
their job. It is now time for Congress to do our job. Our job is to 
protect taxpayer assets and the democratic process. Congressman 
Cravaack's bill fails on both of these accounts. We just need to look 
at the facts.
  By failing to require the standard public process that allows all 
Americans the ability to participate and comment on the exchange of 
assets, H.R. 5544 robs the citizens of this Nation of their right to 
participate in the democratic process.
  Unlike every other land trade bill brought before this Congress, we 
have no map showing what Federal lands will go into State ownership for 
development. Neither the people of Minnesota nor the people of the 
United States have any idea that we will lose lands critical to 
protecting drinking water or vital to hunting or motorized recreation. 
There is no map. The Federal lands to be traded are not identified.
  Three Native American tribes have tribal treaties guaranteeing tribal 
members the right to hunt, fish and gather in the Superior National 
Forest. This bill potentially deprives these tribes of their access 
rights.
  Second, by failing to ensure that our assets are appropriately valued 
as part of the exchange, Congressman Cravaack's bill shortchanges the 
American taxpayer. H.R. 5544 defers to the State of Minnesota to decide 
the value of Federal lands. When Congress authorizes the sale or 
exchange of Federal assets, it is our job to make sure the Federal 
Government is getting a good deal.
  Again, for every land exchange this Congress has considered, we have 
relied on standard appraisal processes that are well understood by real 
estate professionals and land managers. Overriding this practice is 
like buying a house based on an appraisal provided by the owner, with 
the owner admitting they really don't have an updated assessment.
  Such a scheme fails to protect the interests of the American 
taxpayers who own this land. We are not talking about a couple million 
dollars of taxpayer assets here. Estimates nearly a decade old placed 
the value of these lands at nearly $100 million.
  Third, it is not clear this legislation is going to accomplish its 
stated goal: education investment. During committee consideration of 
this legislation, Minnesota school officials testified that of the 
$9,000 per year spent on an average Minnesota student, $26, less than 1 
percent, comes from school trust lands receipts. This entire bill is 
geared to making up the $650,000 the State believes it has lost, a mere 
drop in the bucket for the overall necessary education investment.

                              {time}  1240

  An amendment offered by Congressman Hastings that is self-executed in 
the rule shortchanges three counties in Minnesota. Since 1948, Congress 
has and continues to provide St. Louis, Cook, and Lake Counties 
mandatory annual payments to compensate them for lost revenues related 
to the designation of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Since 
the passage of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, these 
counties have received nearly $60 million in compensation from Thye-
Blatnik payments alone. Last year, these payments amounted to $6 
million. Chairman Hastings' amendment stops increases in these 
payments, which CBO estimates would be approximately $1 million. This 
is ironic, considering the entire bill is justified on the State 
estimating the exchange will increase their school trust revenues by 
$650,000 a year. Wouldn't it make more sense to go back and see if we 
can make better use of the existing money going to the State and to the 
counties?
  Finally, this bill fails to garner broad and bipartisan support. Not 
one Democrat from the Minnesota delegation has cosponsored the 
legislation. Nearly 25 organizations in the State have written Congress 
in opposition to the legislation. Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and 
Anglers, representing over 2 million hunters and anglers, oppose the 
bill. The Star Tribune's editorial board says the bill ``fails the 
credibility test'' and ``is about converting forest land to mining.''
  Many of us, including myself, have had bills to accelerate the land 
exchange process. However, those bills have safeguards like ensuring 
that the public can participate in the process; safeguards like 
ensuring Uncle Sam won't become Uncle Sucker, leaving taxpayers with a 
raw deal; safeguards like ensuring treaties guaranteeing access to 
tribes are not impacted. This bill has none of those safeguards. There 
are ways to do land exchanges that earn public support, garner 
bipartisan endorsements, and protect taxpayers. This bill fails on all 
counts and should be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
8 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, somebody who has worked 
extremely hard on behalf of his constituents to correct the injustice 
that was imposed in 1978, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 5544, the Minnesota Education 
Investment and Employment Act. This bill supports all schools in the 
State of Minnesota, creates good-paying jobs in northern Minnesota, and 
makes the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness whole for the first 
time since its creation.
  First, a little bit of history. When Minnesota became a State in 
1858, sections 16 and 36 of every township were set aside in trust for 
the benefit of schools. The State could use, lease, or sell the land to 
raise money for education. In the beginning, the State leaders decided 
to sell some of the more valuable parcels of school trust lands. But 
around the turn of the century they realized they needed more 
sustainable plans and began putting the school trust lands to 
productive use: timber and mining in my district. As Democrat State 
Representative Denise Dittrich has so ably educated me, these lands are 
not so much owned by the State as held in trust by the State and owned 
by the schoolchildren of Minnesota. It is the responsibility of school 
trust fund trustees to maximize the return of these lands for the 
benefit of this fund for our children. This is written in the Minnesota 
constitution.
  But in the 1970s, the Federal Government created the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness. The lands within the Boundary Waters cannot be 
logged, leased, sold, or mined in order to preserve the unique 
wilderness character of this pristine land. But as a result of its 
creation, Minnesota and its students have been faced with an 86,000-
acre problem for over 30 years. Eighty-six thousand acres of State-
owned school trust lands have been landlocked within the borders of the 
Boundary Waters and have been unable to produce critical funding for 
Minnesota public education. It is imperative that we resolve this 
longstanding problem. Our goal is to preserve and protect the Boundary 
Waters and allow State-owned school trust lands to raise revenue for 
Minnesota education. It's a win-win. Unfortunately, Minnesota 
schoolkids and their teachers have been cheated out of public education 
funding now for over 34 years.

  Finally, after years of inaction, stalling, and dilatory tactics by 
special interest groups, Republicans and Democrats have come together 
in Minnesota and said: Enough is enough. On March 22 of this year an 
overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans in the State passed 
senate file 1750 by a vote of 53-11 to pass the bill. On April 3, the 
house followed suit, passing their bipartisan bill by 90-41. On April 
27, Democrat Governor Mark Dayton signed the bill into law.
  H.R. 5544 executes the bipartisan State plan. This bill would 
exchange State-owned school trust lands trapped in the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness to the Federal Government in exchange for Federal 
Government-owned land outside the Boundary Waters. Additionally, this 
bill includes important provisions that would ensure Minnesotans can 
maintain their hunting and fishing rights within the Boundary Waters. 
To be clear, this bill does exempt only the land exchange portion from 
NEPA. The land exchange itself would have no environmental impact, and 
any future development

[[Page H5875]]

would still be subject to strict State and Federal regulations. Again, 
a land swap is merely a redrawing of maps and has no environmental 
impact in and of itself.
  I want to be very transparent here, though. One of my goals is to 
have this bill create good-paying jobs in northern Minnesota. The lands 
listed in senate file 1750 are rich in natural resources. Many of them 
lie within portions of the Superior National Forest that are already 
being successfully mined for timber. It's a working forest and creates 
thousands of good-paying jobs in the region. Northern Minnesotans need 
these opportunities, and every American benefits from the steel and the 
lumber that goes into our cars and our homes.
  I generally support the aims of NEPA, but obstructionist and special 
interest groups have a track record of abusing the NEPA process. The 
State of Minnesota cannot afford to be sued by environmental groups for 
years into the future just for the sake of blocking this land exchange. 
I will not allow special interest groups, acting in bad faith, to abuse 
the NEPA process and use frivolous lawsuits to block and derail this 
land exchange at the taxpayers' expense. Schoolkids and teachers in 
Minnesota can't wait years, possibly decades, for this funding. In the 
school district where I live, North Branch, Minnesota, some classes 
have 40 kids and the school has been reduced to a 4-day school week. 
You call this progress?
  This legislation will generate a lot of funding for our schools and 
create good-paying jobs. Importantly, the Minnesota Education 
Investment and Employment Act would not eliminate a single acre of 
Boundary Waters land and cost nothing to the American taxpayer. In 
fact, it would add acreage within the existing wilderness area 
boundaries while giving Minnesota schoolchildren the land that 
rightfully belongs to them.
  I urge my colleague to support this bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady 
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. The House should not be spending its limited floor time 
on this bill. The House should be debating the American Jobs Act, the 
President's plan to put nearly 2 million Americans back to work without 
adding a dime to the deficit. Instead, today, the Republican majority 
has a land exchange bill on the floor that is completely unnecessary. I 
want to stress that. It is unnecessary. The State of Minnesota and the 
U.S. Forestry Service have all the authority they need to finalize this 
land exchange--and finalization is what they are working on.
  There's a stakeholder process underway in Minnesota to determine this 
proposed land sale and exchange. And it's underway. And they're going 
to do it. And they're working on it, with everyone at the table. So why 
are we debating this bill at all?
  I was a State representative for many years, and I worked on a lot of 
land exchanges. And I have never worked on a land exchange that has 
been so unnecessary as what I'm being asked to vote on today. This is a 
reckless bill, and it also sets a terrible precedent.

                              {time}  1250

  This legislation does not specify what lands are to be exchanged. 
Yes, we know about the school's trust fund land, and that's specified, 
we know where that is, but we don't know what lands are to be 
exchanged. We don't know what the finished product is.
  Members of Congress are being asked to endorse a land exchange 
without knowing what lands will be exchanged. This legislation does 
refer to a bill in the Minnesota State legislature, and the Minnesota 
State legislation does not include a map of the Federal lands to be 
exchanged. It does not include a map.
  This is the first time in the history of this Congress--of Congress--
to bring a bill, a land exchange, to the floor without maps specifying 
what lands are to be exchanged. The first time in history. Every Member 
of this House should be asking themselves one simple question: where 
are the maps?
  Now, as I said, I've done many land exchange bills in my service in 
the Minnesota legislature, and the first rule of all of those land 
exchange bills is don't forget what you are exchanging out. We always 
had maps. We had the cost, we had the value, and the public input, and 
I believe the Minnesota State legislators should be able to finish that 
process themselves working with the U.S. Forestry, working in a 
transparent fashion to know exactly what we're voting on.
  Why are maps important? Because without a map it's impossible to 
determine how many Minnesotans could possibly see their property rights 
threatened by this bill. Can anyone here today tell me how many 
Minnesota cabin owners could open up their front doors and find a lack 
of public access to water that they have used and recreated in for 
years? There's no map. No one can answer that question.
  Can anyone tell me how many millions of dollars Minnesota will lose 
in property value because of issues like this, because of H.R. 5544? No 
one can answer that question because there are no maps.
  This bill could, and I believe will, greatly reduce public access to 
hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling in areas where the public currently 
has access. Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a sportsmen's 
conservation group. They represent over 2 million hunters in Minnesota 
and anglers as well. The group sent a letter to the U.S. Members of the 
House this month opposing this bill, and I'd like to quote from it. 
``It provides no protective measures for how the land may be used, and 
no assurances that existing activities like hunting and angling would 
continue.'' Why? Because there is no map.
  There are also 700 miles of snowmobile trails in Superior National 
Forest that could be at risk because of this bill, trails where public 
and private trails intermingle and where public and private entities 
have worked for years raising money and revenues to be able to 
recreate. But no one can tell me, not Mr. Cravaack, not Mr. Hastings, 
no one here, no one can tell me how many trails, lakes, and hunting 
areas could be closed by this bill because there is no map.
  In addition, this bill eliminates the public's ability to participate 
in any decisionmaking process because it waives the National 
Environmental Policy Act process.
  This is just not the way we do things in Minnesota. We bring people 
together at the table. We make sure everyone is at the table: the 
State, the Federal Government, the local governments, the property 
owners, the hunters, the anglers, the tribal nations, the 
conservationists, the taxpayers, and yes, the job generators. We make 
sure that decisions are transparent, and transparency means you have to 
include a map.
  We make sure to get fair market value for land that is sold in 
exchange so that it's in the best interest of the taxpayers.
  As a Member of Congress representing Minnesota, and as a Member of 
the House Interior Subcommittee, I want to stress I am committed to 
supporting land exchange so that it is a good deal for Minnesota, a 
good deal for the American taxpayers, and I'm committed that the 
process that's in place in Minnesota moves forward.
  I serve with those northern legislators. They have fought for years 
to get something on the table. They deserve to have the process finish 
and finish correctly. They need good legislation, not bad legislation. 
Minnesota will produce good legislation.
  There is a stakeholders group in Minnesota that is working to 
determine if the land proposal is fair and transparent. They're not at 
the table, folks. It does not require a congressional action to 
finalize their proposal. It does not take congressional action to move 
forward the legislation that has passed and been signed into law by the 
Governor.
  This bill is unnecessary, it is reckless, and it sets a dangerous 
precedent for this House for the first time ever to vote on a land 
exchange without a full, complete map.
  The House should defeat H.R. 5544, and it should allow Minnesota to 
move forward without this interference and this recklessness.

[[Page H5876]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the chairman of the subcommittee that dealt with this 
legislation, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, you know, we do processes here in 
government, and hopefully we do them for a reason. But when the process 
we have harms kids, we should ask ourselves why do we have this slavish 
devotion to the process.
  The problem before the State of Minnesota today is simply Federal 
action that took place 34 years ago that took lands guaranteed and 
devoted to the kids of Minnesota and took them away by Federal action.
  I live in a State that does have a State trust lands policy where the 
use of that school makes a significant contribution to the education of 
our kids. It wasn't always that way. We took it seriously.
  The State of Minnesota now wants to take this process seriously and 
develop resources that would be beneficial for their kids in a 
significant way and equalize the process, as we do in my home State, to 
benefit all the kids that are in public education.
  This is one of those situations in which we have had plenty of time 
to solve this problem but obviously the Federal Government has not 
moved forward to give to the State of Minnesota what will benefit their 
kids.
  In the hearing we had on this particular bill, the Forest Service 
said, Yeah, we can do this process. Give us about 4 years to evaluate 
all of these lands. Our Constitution gives us a right to a speedy 
trial. I wish it gave us a right to speedy decisions by bureaucrats. In 
4 years an entire class of kids can start and finish high school 
without having any benefit from these lands that were theirs in the 
first place.
  I do not know why those who constantly breathe the air of the Potomac 
River are the ones who are always wringing their hands and dragging 
their feet, but it seems to be the same way.
  Mr. Chairman, you and I worked in the State legislature, where we had 
time limits. I had 45 days to get something accomplished or you didn't 
do it.
  I taught school on trimesters. I had 90 days to cover the material, 
or I didn't get to do it. Can you imagine what would happen if the 
principal came to me and said, We're going to do our final test on 
Tuesday. And I said, I'm sorry. I couldn't possibly cover all of that 
material by Tuesday. Maybe in 4 years from Tuesday I might be able, if 
you're lucky, to get through the material and actually be ready for 
that particular test.
  One of the issues in this campaign is indeed dealing with permits. 
What takes my State 45 days on average or less to permit takes the 
Federal government 307 days on average to do it. That's the process 
we're talking about here.
  The State of Minnesota has a State process in place. It covers tribal 
issues. It covers all of the issues that are there, and this would take 
precedence. The State of Minnesota is just as smart as the Federal 
Forest Service in solving these problems, except the State of Minnesota 
wants to do it quickly and the Federal Forest Service is not.
  This will also eliminate potential delaying litigation using Federal 
laws to actually do that.
  Look. It is simply time for us to realize that if this bill passes, 
it helps the Forest Service because it takes away inholding problems. 
It also helps kids of Minnesota because it guarantees a funding source 
for their education in the future. We should be doing our job and 
moving us forward and taking this process away from an agency that 
moves at glacial speed to help kids.

                              {time}  1300

  It is time. It's time we do something to help kids instead of harming 
kids. This bill helps kids, and I am proud to vote for it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, part of the argument is that the Forest 
Service is dragging its feet and will not allow this process to 
continue. I would suggest that the Minnesota Legislature came to the 
realization it was something they needed to do. That process was 
initiated, legislation was passed, and that process continues. The role 
of the Federal Government in hindering that does not exist. This was a 
volition and a decision that Minnesota and its representatives had to 
take.
  On June 22, 1948, President Truman signed legislation into law to 
authorize the acquisition of private lands within what is now known as 
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. The legislation was promoted 
as a way to protect important natural resource values from 
commercialization and to compensate Cook, Lake, and St. Louis Counties 
for the loss of private tax revenue.
  During the legislative process, Congressman Blatnik argued that 
counties should receive 12 cents per acre of Federal land for 
compensation of lost property tax revenues. The Truman administration, 
arguing that the 12 cents per acre figure was excessive, negotiated 
compensation to three-quarters of 1 percent of fair market value, which 
is the way the law was enacted and stands today.
  Each year since, these counties have received mandatory payments, 
adjusted periodically to reflect increased property values. Last year, 
these payments totaled over $6 million. Under the funding formula, more 
Federal lands mean more Federal money. Absent the Hastings amendment, 
Lake, Cook, and St. Louis Counties, all within the sponsor of this 
legislation's district, stood to receive another $1 million annually.
  We raised questions regarding this payment from the time the bill was 
heard in subcommittee until the bill was reported from full committee. 
In fact, I sent letters to each county commissioner in these counties 
trying to learn more about how these funds were used. I received two 
responses. Both indicated they support the current Thye-Blatnik formula 
and relied on these payments to compensate for lost property tax 
revenue. Surprisingly, no one wants to talk about these payments 
because they would be considered earmarks--earmarks which the sponsor 
voted against supporting, along with many other members of his caucus.
  I represent a district with a lot of Federal lands. My counties get 
payments through PILT and through Secure Rural Schools. We have to 
fight like crazy to extend payments every time these bills come for 
reauthorization. Yet today, we have a bill that purports to be about 
education funding for Minnesota kids. What kind of role models are we 
if we can't even have an educated conversation about what Federal money 
is currently going to Minnesota?
  Let's just look at the arithmetic. Minnesota State Representative 
Denise Dittrich testified before the committee that the State was 
losing $650,000 annually from foregone revenues because the State trust 
lands were within the wilderness area. She supports the enactment of 
this legislation to make up for the revenue. Yet, because of the 
Hastings amendment, this legislation actually takes $1 million in 
revenue away from the Counties of Lake, Cook, and St. Louis.
  Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul? That's the question.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                                                September 6, 2012.
     To: Amelia Jenkins.
     Subject: Request from Ranking Member Grijalva related to Thye 
         Blatnik.
       Dear Amelia, As a county commissioner in Cook County 
     Minnesota I am opposed to any change in the long standing, 
     reasonably established (with the Boundary Waters legislation 
     many years ago) legislation that has, in effect, the Federal 
     Government making payments to Cook, Lake, and St. Louis 
     counties that makes up for property taxes that were lost by 
     locking this land into the federal wilderness system.
       There was much local opposition and controversy surrounding 
     the establishment of this wilderness, which was for the 
     benefit of the whole country, and these payments were 
     established to offset taxes lost and create a more positive 
     relationship between these 3 counties and the federal 
     government.
       This is one case where the history of the legislation needs 
     to be revisited and reasons for it need to be properly 
     understood.
           Thanks,
     Jim Johnson,
       Cook County Commissioner (District 4, which includes Cook 
     Counties portion of the boundary waters).

[[Page H5877]]

     
                                  ____
                                           Lake County, Minnesota,


                                       Board of Commissioners,

                              Two Harbors, MN, September 10, 2012.
     Ranking Member Raul Grijalva,
     Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, 
         Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Ranking Member Grijalva: This letter is in response to 
     your recent inquiry regarding the 1948 Thye-Blatnik (T-B) Act 
     payments to the Tr-Counties of Northeastern Minnesota. Given 
     the tight timeline of your request and the limited amount of 
     legislative days remaining in the 112th Congress, I 
     understand the urgency of your request and have tried my best 
     to provide you with the answers to the questions that we 
     received from your staff.
       I must begin, by first explaining that there are a couple 
     limitations which I face in attempting to answer your 
     questions. First, Lake County only has a population of 11,000 
     people and our tax base is very, very, low because over 80% 
     of our large land mass is now government-owned. Thus, we do 
     not have the kinds of resources or readily available 
     personnel to rapidly respond to each of your questions at a 
     deep level of detail. I will try my best, however, to at 
     least cover the basics.
       An additional hindrance is this county and several others 
     here in the Arrowhead Region of Northeastern Minnesota were 
     victims of a flood earlier this summer. The President 
     declared us a Federal Disaster Area and we have been just 
     ``swamped'' with FEMA personnel and state officials helping 
     us to cope with what has been described as a ``once in every 
     500 year flood.'' Understandably, public safety and getting 
     our roads and bridges repaired along with getting hundreds of 
     homeowners back into their homes, has been and continues to 
     be our number one priority.
       BACKGROUND/HISTORY: The following is a brief background and 
     history of the Thye-Blatnik Act, which will hopefully give 
     you some insight into just how this 1 million acre 
     Wilderness, now known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
     Wilderness, came into being. If you research the original 
     title of the bill, HR. 2642, it reads, ``A bill to safeguard 
     and consolidate certain areas of exceptional public value . . 
     . within Minnesota''. The bill title truly helps to get at 
     the heart of what ultimately lead to the passage of this 
     legislation. The ``exceptional value'' of the lands located 
     within the Boundary Waters were so deemed because, quite 
     frankly, that's exactly what they were. And, the value of 
     these lands, especially what they meant to the local economy, 
     became the focal point of the deliberations on the bill.
       In the following paragraphs and in addition to some 
     historical points, I quote to you some of the direct 
     testimony, written history, and rationale that best describes 
     why Congress concluded that in order to create this eventual 
     million acre wilderness, some sort of adequate compensation 
     had to be given to the affected counties who would be giving 
     up their current and future ``priceless'' tax base, forever.
       Before the bill could be introduced, the commissioners of 
     St. Louis, Lake, and Cook counties objected to further 
     federal acquisition. Their opposition stemmed from the 
     continuing financial distress of these counties. An 
     understanding of their fiscal problems is necessary to 
     comprehend the deep well of opposition in the northern area. 
     In the twenty years following 1925 the taxable property in 
     these counties had been drastically reduced; revenues had 
     declined, expansion seemed unlikely, and hopes for prosperity 
     withered. In Lake County, for example, the assessed value of 
     real property shrank from $4,000,000 in 1924-25 to $1,500,000 
     in 1944-45. Property tax revenue dropped from $343,000 in 
     1931 to $251,000 in 1941.
       The obvious way to break the cycle of dependence on outside 
     aid was to expand the local economy in every way possible by 
     using all available natural resources. One such resource was 
     private real estate. However, federal acquisition of land 
     within and outside the roadless areas had eliminated many 
     opportunities for real estate developments. The Ely 
     Commercial Club asked that the roadless areas be reduced in 
     size to allow tourist development ``on a scale comparable 
     with other sections of the state.'' With smaller roadless 
     areas it would be possible to develop what they called ``now 
     inaccessible resort sites'' on lakes supposedly off the track 
     for even occasional canoe trips.
       The commercial club objected to the government's purchase 
     of the remaining private lands on the theory that developing 
     them would do ``the most good for the most people in the long 
     run. We have no particular ax to grind with dyed-in-the-wool 
     conservationists so long as their plans don't take the bread 
     out of our mouths.''
       Paul W. Nelson, Lake County's auditor, had foreseen the 
     impact of federal purchases on local taxes as early as 1938. 
     At the time he had justified higher levies on Hubachek's 
     property because the Forest Service had already ``removed 
     from our tax rolls'' 290,000 acres of land. . . . ``You and 
     the other taxpayers will have to absorb the loss,'' he wrote.
       The issue of federal aid in lieu of taxes had been before 
     the Congress since 1938. A joint committee on forestry had 
     hearings and filed a report in March, 1941, recommending 
     (among other things) legislation authorizing ``an equitable 
     system of financial contribution to local government in lieu 
     of taxes on forest land removed from the tax rolls through 
     Federal acquisition.''
       In 1943 the Federal Real Estate Board filed a report on 
     each class of federal real estate, its contribution, if any, 
     to state and local governments, with recommendations for 
     greater equity in lieu of tax contributions. The report noted 
     that the proceeds from national forest timber sales ``have 
     not been wholly adequate to protect local taxpayers from 
     undue burdens'' when the national forest lands were purchased 
     from private owners. . . . To meet this problem, the real 
     estate board recommended guaranteeing to the counties ``a 
     minimum payment equal to a specified percentage of the 
     purchase price.'' This would give the local governments a 
     dependable source of income with which to plan annual budgets 
     and enable them to use their share of timber revenues to the 
     best advantage. As an acceptable rate of compensation, the 
     board suggested \3/4\ of 1 per cent of the taxable value of 
     federal lands.
       The best known were the Cordon, Colmer, and McNary bills 
     which differed only in the amount of compensation they 
     proposed. All bills based payments on the fair market value 
     of the national forest lands. The county officials in 
     northeastern Minnesota thought compensation in lieu of taxes 
     would be a great improvement over the intermittent revenues 
     they had received from timber sales, and considered the 
     Colmer and Cordon proposals as models for special legislation 
     affecting their counties.
       ``The nation ought to pay in considerable part for the 
     preservation of assets in Lake County which benefit the 
     nation, ``Commissioner M. H. Bickley said the history of 
     federal acquisition proved that ``something has always been 
     taken away from us and nothing given back in the way of 
     reimbursement.''
       We are dealing with human beings and hard dollars.'' The 
     counties were economically run, and Hubachek had open 
     sympathy ``for what will ultimately be their plight'' when 
     more than 80 per cent of their lands would be removed from 
     the tax rolls.
       The Quetico-Superior program was based on the value of the 
     entire roadless areas to the nation. ``If that is true, then 
     the contribution of the country as a whole should he greater 
     and less of the burden shall fall on the local interests.''
       The combined Thye-Blatnik acquisition-compensation bill 
     floated into the congressional stream with dozens of other 
     postwar resources and conservation measures. The modest Thye-
     Blatnik bill was a compromise proposal that harnessed 
     downstate Minnesota conservationists, northern businessmen, 
     and county officials in a common effort.
       Hearings on the Blatnik bill began on April 28, 1947--
     exactly nineteen years after the introduction of the 
     Shipstead-Nolan bill. Blatnik emphasized compensation for the 
     three counties as ``an indispensable part of the bill.'' 
     Twelve cents per acre was ``an irreducible minimum 
     compensation.'' Paul Nelson represented the counties. He was 
     proud, he said, that the Superior forest was called the 
     ``playground for the Nation'' because the area was more 
     valuable for recreation than timber. But, he asked, ``Should 
     the local taxpayers furnish such a playground or should our 
     country as a whole share in the expense of maintaining it?'' 
     Unless the nation paid the bill, the measure should he 
     defeated.
       Wilson followed Hopkins, describing the rapidity with which 
     the roadless areas were being exploited. The program ``to 
     preserve and render accessible for posterity . . . a 
     wilderness that is within reach of all the people of this 
     country'' was imperiled. If the bill did not pass, the 
     ``whole program of protecting this wilderness will be sunk.''
       Discussion of the Blatnik bill centered on the compensation 
     clause. . . . One astute conservationist speculated that 
     unless the counties received 12 cents per acre, they ``would 
     undoubtedly like to gamble their potential tax rates from 
     private development in the Roadless Area against the federal 
     reimbursement rate over future years.'' On that basis they 
     would try to kill the bill, ``demand protection of private 
     property throughout the federal forest, and fight the whole 
     thing as federal interference and bureaucratic control.''
       At the end of 1947 Blatnik's bill was stalled in the House, 
     while Senators Ball and Thye refused to move their measure 
     until the Forest Service and the counties agreed on a rate of 
     compensation. But they also knew that Blatnik and the county 
     commissioners would withdraw their support for the measure if 
     the compensation were reduced or removed.
       By reaffirming this statute and by directing the Forest 
     Service to purchase and remove resorts and private 
     properties, Congress gave further definition and weight to 
     the idea of wilderness preservation--an idea that would 
     receive complete expression sixteen years later in the 
     Wilderness Act of 1964.
       For the first time in its history, the Forest Service had 
     authority to purchase lands for some purpose other than 
     timber production and watershed protection. In this respect, 
     the Thye-Blatnik Act set one of the most significant 
     precedents in forest policy in forty years. Congress 
     broadened and reaffirmed the principles implicit in the Thye-
     Blatnik Act in 1964 by passing the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act, a measure providing widespread federal 
     authority for purchasing and developing land for public 
     recreation.
       With regards to your individual questions which you asked 
     in your letter to my county here are the answers to your 
     questions:
       Level of funding my county has received for the most recent 
     fiscal year in Thye-Blatnik funding?

[[Page H5878]]

       Answer: Not exactly sure, except that between all three 
     counties we now split approximately $6 million per year in 
     total T-B funding. Since each county has approximately one-
     third of the land mass of the BWCA in each county, rounding-
     off, that means Lake County received nearly $2 million in T-B 
     funding. Regardless, as explained in more detail later in 
     this document, this T-B funding is required to be offset 
     against our regular federal PILT payment and that coupled 
     with other variables in the overall national PI LT formula, 
     Secure Schools provisions, etc., means that T-B payments 
     simply cannot be looked at in isolation. Ultimately, I was 
     able to document that our latest NET PILT PAYMENT was only 
     $246,972. With 727,111 acres of federal lands in our county, 
     this certainly doesn't seem fair.
       How is T-B funding used?
       Answer: All of the uses you mentioned, but, because of the 
     preponderance of government owned land in our county, we have 
     a very limited tax base. Thus, most T-B dollars are used as 
     part of our general revenue stream.
       Has T-B funding decreased in last 10 years?
       Answer: No, reappraisals are done once every 10 years, so 
     it would only be in the 11th year that we would know what our 
     next decade's level of funding will be. The last T-B 
     reappraisal appears to have been done in either 2008 or 2009. 
     Because of the national real estate bubble that occurred 
     during the first decade of this century, I believe we did 
     receive a sizeable increase in our T-B payments, but again, 
     with the offsets that this had against us, I believe not all 
     of that money truly materializes. Also, we won't know if 
     these higher T-B payments will last when the next appraisal 
     is completed. This is because of the hyper-inflated real 
     estate bubble that occurred throughout much of the last 
     decade.
       In conclusion, I believe the deliberations that occurred in 
     Washington during 1947-48 make it abundantly clear there was 
     a consensus that some sort of compensation needed to be given 
     to the local governments of Northeastern Minnesota. That 
     consensus came with the full realization that in order to get 
     this legislation passed into law, Congress would have to help 
     at least partially offset the permanent loss of future tax 
     base and economic activity that this Region would obviously 
     suffer into perpetuity.
       There was a clear recognition that the traditional sources 
     of economic activity of this natural resource rich region--
     mining, logging, summer cottages, and motorized recreation 
     opportunities would now be effectively cut by at least 50%, 
     forever. In the years following Thye-Blatnik we've also 
     witnessed passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act along with the 
     Vento-Burton Act of 1978 which added additional economic 
     restrictions and acreage to the BWCA. Counter-arguments have 
     been made that the existence of a very appealing million acre 
     wilderness featuring non-motorized wilderness travel for 
     tourists to enjoy should help offset much of the alternative 
     economic loss. On the surface, such an argument may look 
     appealing. On closer examination, however, what has instead 
     resulted is what economists call a ``closed market.''
       Such a closed market for the BWCA is best exemplified in 
     the permit system for campers wishing to visit the BWCA. This 
     system effectively ``caps'' the number of visitors that are 
     annually allowed into the park. In other words, while other 
     regions of America with national parks and federal wilderness 
     areas can at least count on some annual growth in visitors, 
     for the BWCA, the number of visitors is in effect permanently 
     capped at a little over 200,000 visitors. Unfortunately, with 
     an aging population the number of U.S. citizens physically 
     capable of portaging canoes and enduring the elements, this 
     has meant that the annual visitors to the BWCA in recent 
     years has actually been falling. How much? Between 2004-2010, 
     visitor use in the BWCA fell by 12%.
       Meanwhile, the 1,000 plus lakes in the BWCA with their tens 
     of thousands of miles of extremely valuable shoreline, goes 
     mostly underutilized and significantly underused. Other lakes 
     in our region outside of the BWCA, currently have lakeshore 
     selling at anywhere from between $1,000 to $2,000 a running 
     foot. If one were to apply those kinds of numbers, to the 
     tens of thousands of miles of shoreline in the BWCA that are 
     forever off the tax rolls, one then realizes the incredible 
     economic sacrifice that the people of our three counties have 
     truly made for the greater good of the entire nation.
       Finally, it appears that many are not cognizant of the fact 
     of the interplay between the Thye-Blatnik lands and the later 
     (1976) Federal PILT Program formula which all states with 
     federal lands benefit. Although there are many variables that 
     come into play, in essence, our three counties are required 
     to ``deduct'' from our PILT payments the dollars which we 
     receive from our Thye-Blatnik payments (as are other Section 
     6903 lands). As a result, this offset means that our Tri 
     counties of Northeastern Minnesota are now receiving only 
     pennies on the PILT dollar than we normally would.
       Congressman Grijalva, I assume that this same unintended 
     consequence with the Federal PILT law may also be occurring 
     in your District? I noticed that of the dozen Special Acts of 
     Congress contained in Section 6903 of the Federal PILT Law, 
     both the Thye-Blatnik lands and the 1910 enabling Acts of 
     Arizona and New Mexico are both included. Again, although the 
     intermingling of these various laws gets extremely 
     complicated, I hope that in the near future, we can refocus 
     and begin to work together to help remove some of the real 
     inequities and unintended consequences that are beginning to 
     develop with the interplay of the existing national PILT Law.
       Thank you for your interest in this overall issue and hope 
     I have given you sufficient rationale as to why the Thye-
     Blatnik law found it an absolute necessity to partially 
     compensate our counties for the permanent loss of tax base 
     and our lost future economic viability. Indeed it was a steep 
     price to pay, but something which was a sacrifice which 
     ultimately was made for the greatest good of our entire 
     nation.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Rich Sve,
                        Chair, Lake County Board of Commissioners.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'd advise my friend that I 
am prepared to close.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, among the many flaws in the legislation 
is a provision waiving compliance with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, NEPA. NEPA has been under attack by the Republicans 
for years. Most famously, former Chairman Pombo led a yearlong effort 
to undermine the law before leaving Congress.
  NEPA stands for two very simple principles: The first is that the 
Federal Government should think before it acts, and the second is that 
the Federal Government should listen to the American people before it 
acts.
  NEPA does not dictate outcome. It requires Federal agencies to gather 
information, consider alternatives, and seek public input before taking 
action that would significantly impact the environment.
  Waiving NEPA means waiving educated decisionmaking, waiving NEPA 
means waiving transparency, and waiving NEPA means waiving the 
possibility that the American people should play a role in managing the 
natural resources which they own.
  In the case of H.R. 5544, waiving NEPA means waiving any process for 
determining which Federal lands will be given to the State, what lands 
will be traded away, and how will they be chosen. Apparently, that 
information is to remain secret.
  Will lands currently used for recreation or to protect water quality 
or to preserve critical habitat be traded to the State for logging and 
mining? We have no way to know.
  Waiving NEPA shrouds this land deal in secrecy and insulates it from 
any public input. Why should any Member in this House oppose allowing 
his or her constituents to have input in the management of Federal 
natural resources? Cutting out public input is undemocratic, unwise, 
and unfair.
  Now we have heard claims that NEPA should be waived because it leads 
to so-called ``frivolous'' legislation. Of course, ``frivolous'' is 
often in the eye of the beholder.
  The facts are that NEPA is more than 40 years old, its regulations 
are flexible and well-settled, and NEPA litigation is fairly rare. 
What's more, timber companies, cattlemen, mining companies, and other 
industry plaintiffs file NEPA litigation just as often, if not more, 
than environmental groups.
  We are also told that NEPA causes too much delay. This accusation is 
also unfounded. NEPA regulations allow for agreed-upon timeframes and 
page limits to move the process along. Instances when the NEPA process 
appears to drag on are often the result of an applicant who fails to 
provide necessary information in a timely fashion or changes the 
parameters of their project midstream. These anti-NEPA claims are not 
based on fact and they are a smokescreen, a smokescreen designed to 
hide the fact that the real goal of exempting this land deal from NEPA 
is to shield this exchange from public scrutiny.
  Later today, Mr. Holt will have an amendment to restore NEPA 
compliance for this land deal, and that amendment should be approved. A 
vote for NEPA is a vote for the idea that average Americans might have 
something valuable to say about the management of their natural 
resources. A vote for the bill without NEPA is a vote to shroud this 
deal in darkness so that its potential impacts on habitat or water 
quality or recreation remain hidden from public view.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'll just advise my friend 
that I am prepared to close if he will yield back.

[[Page H5879]]

  Mr. GRIJALVA. I will close at this point.
  This debate, quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, makes me feel like I'm 
living in an alternative reality--a reality where the protections of 
God's bounty on this Earth are nothing more than an opportunity cost 
for local governments, a reality where we think it's perfectly 
acceptable to fund our children's education by stealing from the 
natural resource legacy our forefathers sought to protect, a reality 
where $650,000 for St. Paul is more important than $1 million going to 
counties most impacted by this exchange, a reality where the basic 
ability for people to be informed about government actions and to voice 
their views is blocked by a party that prides itself on the idea of 
liberty. I don't know about you, but this is not the reality that I 
want to live in.
  We could have brought this bill to the floor today with strong 
bipartisan support and resolved the real issue of isolated State lands 
within the Boundary Waters, just like the Minnesota Legislation did. 
Instead, it is Groundhog Day where antiwilderness and antigovernment 
philosophies are masked as a concern for education funding when the 
arithmetic doesn't actually support the argument.
  This is a disappointment. This bill is bad for forests, bad for 
wildlife, bad for the American people, and should be rejected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am sitting here absolutely amazed by the debate on 
this issue. This is really very, very simple.
  In 1978, there was no Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, so there 
were trust lands in that part of Minnesota that were generating revenue 
for public schools in Minnesota. So in 1978, Congress passed the 
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and they took that land out of 
trust. So that means there is a deficiency in trust lands for Minnesota 
schools. This legislation simply seeks to correct that, nothing more 
than that. Nothing more than that.

                              {time}  1310

  So, in fact, here's another way to put it, Mr. Chairman. If the 
Boundary Water Canoe Area Wilderness had not been passed, we wouldn't 
be here today because you would have those trust lands generating 
revenue. But because it included that area, we are here today.
  Now, I heard my good friend from St. Paul talking about the 
transparency and everybody should be involved in decisionmaking. What 
happened in 1978 when this 86,000 acres was taken out of trust?
  Where was the transparency?
  Where was the goodwill that was coming from the Federal Government to 
the citizens of Minnesota at that time? It apparently wasn't there.
  Now, I know the Forest Service can make those adjustments. They don't 
need an act of Congress to do it; but, Mr. Chairman, it's been 34 
years. Don't you think, after 34 years, if the ability were there that 
it would be done if there was a will on both sides to do so?
  Apparently, there might have been a will on both sides, but there are 
others that were involved that said, no, let's slow the process down. 
So the Minnesota Legislature said, let's get this thing going, and they 
passed the legislation, and this simply carries out the act of the 
legislature that was signed by the Governor. And it's really nothing 
more than that.
  I'm absolutely amazed by the detail that goes on because what comes 
out of all of this debate, from my point of view which, ironically, 
comes from Members that represent Minnesota, is they don't trust 
Minnesotans to make the right decisions as to what part of that 
national forest would be used for trust lands. I find that mind-
boggling.
  I think the gentleman from northern Minnesota is doing right by his 
constituents with this legislation to correct what has happened 34 
years ago.
  So this is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman. I urge it's 
adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5544, the 
Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act, which will set in 
motion a long overdue exchange of federal lands in Northeast Minnesota 
that will create jobs and unlock millions of dollars each year for our 
state's schools.
  When Minnesota became a state in 1858, the federal government granted 
each township two plots of land to be developed, leased, or sold 
exclusively for the benefit of Minnesota schools. Under the Minnesota 
Constitution and Minnesota Law, these lands must generate revenue for 
schools. However, when the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness was 
created in 1978, 86,000 acres of school trust lands were locked within 
the boundaries, where logging, mining, and other lucrative activities 
are prohibited. For over 30 years, these lands have been stripped of 
their revenue-raising potential and Minnesota students have been 
missing out on a vital revenue source for needed school improvement 
projects.
  Thankfully, this year, a bipartisan coalition at the Minnesota State 
Capital, including Democratic Governor Mark Dayton, stood up to special 
interests and apathy to recoup the important school funding source that 
was sealed off with the creation of the Boundary Waters. They enacted 
legislation at the state level to allow an exchange of the school trust 
lands contained within the Boundary Waters for federal lands outside 
the Boundary Waters. Such an exchange would not eliminate a single acre 
of BWCAW land, but it would enable the creation of well-paying jobs for 
Minnesotans on the newly acquired lands.
  H.R. 5544 will finalize the federal side of this broadly supported 
exchange, which will greatly benefit Minnesota students, job seekers, 
and families across the state. I applaud Congressman Cravaack for 
introducing this necessary legislation and I urge my colleagues to join 
me in supporting it.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
the Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee 
Print 112-30, modified by the amendment printed in part A of House 
Report 112-660, is adopted.
  The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for 
the purpose of further amendment under the 5-minute rule and is 
considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 5544

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Minnesota Education 
     Investment and Employment Act''.

     SEC. 2. LAND EXCHANGE, BOUNDARY WATERS CANOE AREA WILDERNESS 
                   AND SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST, MINNESOTA.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The State of Minnesota owns multiple parcels of land in 
     the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior 
     National Forest that were granted to the State through 
     sections 16 and 36 of the Enabling Act of 1857 to be held in 
     trust for the benefit of the public school system in the 
     State (in this section referred to as ``State trust lands'').
       (2) The State trust lands were acquired by the State long 
     before the establishment of either the National Forest System 
     or the wilderness area and are scattered in a largely 
     checkerboard fashion amid the Superior National Forest and 
     the wilderness area.
       (3) The presence of State trust lands in the wilderness 
     area makes land and resource management in the wilderness 
     area more difficult, costly, and controversial for the United 
     States and the State.
       (4) Although the State trust lands were granted to the 
     State to generate financial support for the public school 
     system through the sale or development of natural resources, 
     development of those resources in the wilderness area may be 
     incompatible with managing the wilderness area for 
     recreational, natural, and conservation purposes.
       (5) The United States owns land and interests in land in 
     other parts of the State that can be transferred to the State 
     in exchange for the State trust lands without jeopardizing 
     Federal management objectives or needs.
       (6) It is in the public interest to exchange, on terms that 
     are fair to the United States and the State, National Forest 
     System land in the State that has limited recreational and 
     conservation resources for State trust lands located in the 
     wilderness area with important recreational, scenic, and 
     conservation resources for permanent public management and 
     use.
       (7) The Legislature of the State of Minnesota, meeting in 
     its 87th Legislative Session, passed (and on April 27, 2012, 
     the Governor of Minnesota approved) S.F No. 1750 (Chapter 
     236), section 4 of which adds section 92.80 to the Minnesota 
     Statutes to expedite the exchange of a portion of the State 
     trust lands located within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
     Wilderness.
       (b) Land Exchange Required.--The Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall consummate a land exchange with the State of Minnesota 
     pursuant to section 4 of S.F No. 1750 (Chapter 236) of the 
     Legislature of the State of Minnesota (section 92.80 of the 
     Minnesota Statutes) to acquire all

[[Page H5880]]

     right, title, and interest of the State in and to certain 
     State trust lands identified as provided in such section in 
     exchange for all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to National Forest System land in the State for 
     inclusion in the State trust lands.
       (c) Valuation of Lands for Exchange.--Subdivision 4 of 
     section 4 of S.F No. 1750 (Chapter 236) of the Legislature of 
     the State of Minnesota (section 92.80 of the Minnesota 
     Statutes) shall control for purposes of the examination and 
     value determination of the lands to be exchanged.
       (d) Survey and Administrative Costs.--The exact acreage and 
     legal description of the land to be exchanged under 
     subsection (b) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary. The State of Minnesota shall be responsible 
     for the costs of the survey and all other administrative 
     costs related to the land exchange.
       (e) Boundaries and Management of Acquired Land.--
       (1) Land acquired by secretary.--
       (A) In general.--The land acquired by the Secretary under 
     subsection (b) shall be added to and administered as part of 
     the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness established 
     pursuant to section 3 of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1132(a)), and the Secretary shall modify the boundaries of 
     the wilderness area to reflect inclusion of the acquired 
     lands. Subject to subparagraph (B), the land acquired by the 
     Secretary shall be managed in accordance with the Wilderness 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) and other laws and regulations 
     applicable to the National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (B) No effect on existing fishing and hunting rights.--The 
     acquisition of land by the United States under subsection (b) 
     and inclusion of the land in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
     Wilderness shall not alter or otherwise affect--
       (i) any fishing and hunting rights in existence with 
     respect to the land immediately before the conveyance of the 
     land to the United States; or
       (ii) the use of such rights after conveyance.
       (2) Land acquired by state.--The land acquired by the State 
     of Minnesota under subsection (b) shall be deemed to be State 
     trust lands and shall be held in trust for the benefit of the 
     public school system in the State. It is the sense of 
     Congress that, whenever the land acquired by the State of 
     Minnesota under subsection (b) is not being used for revenue-
     generating activities, the State should make the land 
     available for other compatible uses, including hunting, 
     fishing, hiking, biking, snowmobiling, and trail riding.
       (3) Boundaries of superior national forest.--The Secretary 
     shall modify the boundaries of the Superior National Forest 
     to reflect the land exchange conducted under this section.
       (f) Relation to Other Laws.--
       (1) Land and water conservation fund act.--For purposes of 
     section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 
     (16 U.S.C. 460l-9), the boundaries of the Superior National 
     Forest, as modified by subsection (e)(3), shall be considered 
     to be boundaries of the Superior National Forest as of 
     January 1, 1965.
       (2) Not a major federal action.--The land exchange 
     conducted under this section shall not be considered to be a 
     major Federal action.
       (3) Thye-blatnik act.--The Secretary shall not take into 
     consideration the lands acquired by the United States under 
     this Act in determining the appraised value of National 
     Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota used for 
     purposes of making payments to the State of Minnesota under 
     the Act of June 22, 1948, and the Act of June 22, 1956 
     (commonly known as the Thye-Blatnik Act and Humphrey-Thye-
     Blatnik-Andresen Act; 16 U.S.C. 577c through 577h).
       (g) No Impact on Other Land Exchanges.--The land exchange 
     described in subsection (b) does not affect any land exchange 
     involving National Forest System land in the State of 
     Minnesota underway as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (h) Report.--If the Secretary fails to complete the land 
     exchange described in subsection (b) before the end of the 
     18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress, not later 
     than 30 days after the end of such period, a report--
       (1) specifying the reasons why the exchange has not been 
     completed; and
       (2) stating the date by which the Secretary anticipates the 
     conveyance will be completed.

  The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in 
order except those printed in part B of House Report 112-660. Each such 
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. McCollum

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-660.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 2(a) (page 3, after line 2), insert the 
     following new paragraph (and redesignate the subsequent 
     paragraph accordingly):
       (7) The proposed land exchanged would include land ceded or 
     sold in the Treaty with the Chippewa of 1854, in which the 
     signatory tribes reserved hunting, fishing, and gathering 
     rights on the land ceded. Federal courts have affirmed the 
     continuing existence of those rights. The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall consult on a government-to-government basis 
     with potentially affected Indian tribes and ensure that the 
     land exchange does not impinge upon treaty rights.
       In section 2(e)(1)(B)(i) (page 5, line 7), strike ``fishing 
     and hunting rights'' and insert ``fishing, hunting, and 
     gathering rights''.
       In section 2(e)(2) (page 5, line 22), insert ``gathering,'' 
     after ``fishing,''.
       In section 2(f) (page 6, after line 13), add the following 
     new paragraph:
       (3) No impact on treaty rights.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     limit, alter, restrict, or abrogate, or be construed to have 
     such effect, on rights to hunt, fish, and gather as reserved 
     in Article 11 of the Treaty of September 30, 1854 (10 Stat. 
     1109).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, as you've already heard here today, H.R. 
5544 is missing an awful lot of important details and taxpayer 
protections. One major omission in this bill is its failure to 
acknowledge the treaty rights of Minnesota's tribal nations.
  Treaty rights are a predominant concern in this land exchange because 
unspecified lands are under consideration in H.R. 5544 because we don't 
have a map. They're all within the Superior National Forest, which is 
governed by the 1854 treaty between the Chippewa nations and the United 
States Government.
  The terms of the treaty guarantee that tribal nations can continue to 
fish, hunt and gather, and otherwise use the land to support their way 
of life. However, in its current form, this bill completely ignores the 
treaty rights of tribal nations.
  The Minnesota process that's moving forward in the State of Minnesota 
includes the tribal nations. We need to make sure that the Fond du Lac 
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, the Bois Forte Band of Chippewa, the 
Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa have their treaty 
obligations protected and met by the United States Government.
  The tribal council of Grand Portage of Chippewa has contacted my 
office to express their great opposition to this bill. Chairwoman Diver 
of the Fond du Lac Band of Chippewa has sent letters in opposition to 
Governor Dayton, Secretary Vilsack of Agriculture, Senators Franken, 
Klobuchar, and to Representative Cravaack.
  Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I have a copy of that letter to 
submit to the Record.
  Minnesota's tribes foresee a negative impact of this bill on their 
guaranteed treaty rights for use of their land because they are not 
being considered as part of the process under the Cravaack bill.
  The quote from Chairwoman Diver's letter, in fact, is:

       We oppose the Minnesota Education Investment and Employment 
     Act until suitable tribal consultation has occurred.

  The chairwoman also disagrees with the conclusion that the exchange 
of more than 86,000 acres without government-to-government consultation 
``shall not be considered to be major Federal action.''
  It's hard to see how anyone could consider the exchange of land that 
is being governed by a Federal treaty with sovereign tribal nations to 
be anything less than a major Federal action. Yet this bill denies the 
level of consideration for the exchange.
  The amendment that I'm introducing would recognize the reserved 
fishing, hunting and gathering rights of the tribes and other lands 
under consideration. The language for this amendment was drafted in 
consultation with legal representation from the three impacted tribes 
and from input from the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife 
Commission.
  This amendment will not solve the fundamental problems of this bill, 
but it is an effort to respond to the threat against tribal interests 
and tribal sovereignty that this bill contains. This bill does not 
change the fact that Minnesota now sees the Federal Government in a 
jump-start effort to establish a process for Minnesota on how to handle 
the finishing touches to the land transfer.

[[Page H5881]]

  Well, I believe at least the tribal voices should be at the table to 
be heard.
  So, Mr. Chair, I do not believe that H.R. 5544 should be moved 
forward. I will be voting against the bill. I want to be clear about 
that.
  However, if this unnecessary, unclear bill is to proceed, at least at 
a minimum, we should protect our U.S. government-to-government treaty 
rights and any land exchange.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

         Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation 
           Business Committee,
                                        Cloquet, MN, May 30, 2012.
     Re The Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act.
     Hon. Mark Dayton,
     Governor of Minnesota, State Capitol, St. Paul, MN.
       Dear Governor Dayton: We oppose the passage of the 
     Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act until 
     suitable tribal consultation has occurred. The Fond du Lac 
     Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Reservation Business Committee 
     is opposed to the Minnesota Education Investment and 
     Employment Act's exchange of over 86,000 acres of land within 
     the 1854 Ceded Territory without any tribal participation in 
     task force meetings or consultation.
       The Fond du Lac Band and the other signatories of the 1854 
     Treaty of LaPointe, 10 Stat. 1109, retain hunting, fishing, 
     and other usufructuary rights that extend throughout the 
     entire northeast portion of the state of Minnesota (the 
     ``Ceded Territory''). In the Ceded Territory, all the Bands 
     have a legal interest in protecting natural resources and all 
     federal agencies share in the federal government's trust 
     responsibility to the Bands to maintain those treaty 
     resources. State agencies also have executive orders 
     affirming the government-to-government relationship between 
     the State of Minnesota and Indian tribal governments located 
     within the State.
       The Minnesota Education Investment and Employment Act 
     concludes that it will not affect usufructuary rights and 
     concludes that the exchange of more than 86,000 acres without 
     government-to-government consultation ``[s]hall not be 
     considered to be a major Federal action.'' We disagree with 
     those conclusions and therefore request consultation 
     regarding the proposed land exchange within the Ceded 
     Territory.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen R. Diver,
                                                       Chairwoman.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentlelady's concern for Native 
Americans. As a matter of fact, I will simply say that's one of the 
reasons when I became chairman of Natural Resources Committee that we 
had a subcommittee dealing with their issues because I think they were 
being neglected in the past, and so I share that concern.
  But this amendment, honestly, is really not necessary. And I have to 
say this, Mr. Chairman. At this very last minute here, as we're 
debating this on the floor, it raises an issue that has not previously 
been raised.
  Let me just go back to the history of this legislation. This issue 
was not raised at any point during the subcommittee hearing or the full 
committee markup of this legislation, nor was this issue mentioned in 
the dissenting views that were filed by the minority in their bill 
report, nor was this issue raised by the gentlelady from Minnesota's 
detailed letter opposing this bill that was dated on July 24. So I 
don't know why it's coming up now when it was not previously raised in 
the legislative process.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I can state very clearly that the Federal 
Government has a duty to uphold treaty obligations and trust 
responsibilities to Indian tribes. These will be upheld, and they are 
not changed by this bill.
  There are inherent obligations that the Federal Government has to 
Indian tribes, and they need to be respected.
  This amendment is not necessary and, as written, may potentially 
raise complex questions about whether the amendment itself would alter 
the treaty obligations of the Chippewa. The original treaty with the 
Chippewa of 1854 referred specifically to fishing and hunting rights. 
This amendment would add the phrase ``gathering'' to those rights, 
without any definition of scope of what that means.
  Lastly, I will credit the Members, the gentlelady who's sponsoring 
this legislation, she said last night in the Rules Committee and here 
just a moment ago that, notwithstanding whether this amendment would 
pass or not, she would be opposing the bill. I take her at her word on 
that. But this is a last-minute issue that had not been raised.

                              {time}  1320

  It's not necessary for us to respect and uphold the rights of tribes, 
and I think it's being offered by somebody, as was stated, who is just 
simply opposed to the bill.
  So for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I 
understand the gentlelady has yielded back. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-660.
  Mr. HOLT. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 2(b) (page 3, line 12), strike ``shall'' and 
     insert ``may''.
       In section 2(f) (page 6, beginning line 3), strike 
     ``Relation to Other Laws.--'', ``(1)'', and paragraph (2) 
     relating to an exception from NEPA requirements.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today we have before us a bill that tells the 
American taxpayers to take a hike--not to take a walk in the woods, but 
to give up their place in any decisionmaking, to get lost, a hike from 
democracy and engagement in our government--because H.R. 5544 has a 
provision that would bar all Americans, including Native Americans, 
from being provided the information about the land exchange to take 
place and that would bar them from participating in the democratic 
process of being able to voice their views about the disposition of 
their property.
  My amendment would restore public participation in the development of 
this proposed land exchange by striking language that would subvert 
proper environmental review under the National Environmental Policy 
Act, NEPA. H.R. 5544 continues what we have seen elsewhere on this 
floor and on the Resources Committee that can only be called an attack 
on NEPA.
  I wonder what my colleagues have in mind, why they have such a strong 
knee-jerk reaction to this bipartisan initiative that was signed into 
law by President Nixon, you may recall. Whatever any of my colleagues 
may think about the advisability of the underlying bill and the 
exchange that is proposed here, whatever that exchange may be, I would 
think my colleagues would at least want this to be done with 
transparency, full knowledge and public participation.
  Public participation should always be of the utmost concern when 
planning public land projects, but it is particularly critical for the 
exchange that is proposed here. We aren't talking about a small land 
exchange. We are talking about tens of thousands of Federal acres that 
will be going out of Federal ownership and into State ownership for the 
purposes of mining and logging.
  The bill doesn't tell us which parcels will be exchanged. We have no 
map. We really have no idea. We do know that there are 700 miles of 
snowmobile trails within the Superior National Forest and that there 
are thousands of lakes, 77 points of lake access, and 13 fishing piers. 
We know that hunting is allowed on all of these lands, including lands 
included within the boundary waters.
  We also know that no fewer than 25 groups have written in opposition 
to

[[Page H5882]]

this exchange, expressing concerns about their ability to participate 
in what should be a public process. We also know that 2 million hunters 
and anglers, represented by the Minnesota Backcountry Hunters and 
Anglers Association, oppose this bill because, in their words:

       Hunters have a vested interest because we now have access 
     to these properties--something that's never guaranteed when 
     management begins switching hands.

  Finally, we know why the State of Minnesota wants these Federal 
lands. They want the lands to generate receipts for their school trust 
through mining and logging.
  So we know some things, but there is much we don't know. There is 
much that should be brought out to the public. This entire exchange is 
justified on the State's belief that it is losing $650,000 a year 
because it can't mine and log lands within the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Area Wilderness.
  The public deserves to know more about this exchange and to have a 
voice in the future of these lands. I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment, which would ensure that the public can play a role in this 
exchange if the exchange is to go forward.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would undermine the purposes of the bill 
by allowing a Cabinet Secretary or even a low-level Federal bureaucrat 
the authority to override an act of Congress and delay this land 
exchange.
  Let's be specific. This bill directs a land exchange of State lands 
for Federal forest lands. The simple result of the exchange will be 
that the boundaries would be State rather than Federal. The management 
of the lands exchanged in Minnesota will continue to be responsibly 
managed under State law.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, under the U.S. Constitution, it is the legislative 
branch of government that writes our Nation's laws. It is the 
responsibility of the executive branch to execute the laws written by 
Congress. This amendment would result in giving the executive branch 
the ability to undermine or ignore written law. This land exchange 
would be subjected to years of costly red tape and bureaucratic foot-
dragging. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, that has been going on for 
34 years. That's why we are here today.
  The priority of the gentleman from Minnesota's bill is the 
schoolchildren of Minnesota, but it seems the priority of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey is more Federal red tape to 
protect Federal bureaucracy and more lawsuits. So I urge the defeat of 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. The chairman must think that it is so inconvenient to deal 
with a pesky public. Whether this is congressionally mandated or comes 
about in any way, something of this scale, that of involving the 
public's land, should involve the public in a very open way in 
understanding what it will be and in carrying it out. That's all this 
says. That's all this amendment would do. It would allow the NEPA 
process, the environmental process that applies to so many things 
around this country, to apply to this important transaction.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 
3 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Secretary already has the authority that the amendment is 
supposed to possess. That's what got us here in the first place. This 
amendment would undermine the purposes of the bill by giving the 
Secretary the option to continue the delaying and obstructing of a land 
exchange with the State of Minnesota. This is an issue that Minnesota 
and the Federal Government have been working on for over three decades 
under existing authorities. This amendment would only continue the 
status quo, so I must oppose it. Stalling the process further helps no 
one, least of all the schoolchildren and teachers of Minnesota.
  Mr. Chairman, we've had public input for over 30 years, and that has 
culminated in the bipartisan State Senate File 1750 that was passed 
earlier this year by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the State 
legislature and signed by Democrat Governor Mark Dayton. The public has 
spoken. The bill has the support of the people of the Eighth District 
of Minnesota, and it would execute a bipartisan plan passed by the 
Minnesota Legislature and signed by the Governor. The only groups that 
oppose this bill are fringe groups, many of those being from out of 
State.
  This amendment would give the environmentalists free rein to sue the 
Federal Government and have attorneys' fees paid for by the taxpayers 
of the United States. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  In addition, we have heard a couple of times today, Where is the map? 
Well, here it is. Here is the map. H.R. 5544 no longer contains a 
direct reference to the Forest Service map because H.R. 5544 is 
executing a State bill, State File 1750, which does specify lands to be 
exchanged in section 4 of the bill.

                              {time}  1330

       Subsection 3. Priority.
       An exchange of the State land under this section shall give 
     priority to the exchanges that provide the most opportunity 
     for revenue generation for the permanent school fund, and 
     priority shall be given to lands within the Superior National 
     Forest in the Mesabi Purchase Unit in St. Louis County and in 
     the following townships of St. Louis County:
       Township 59 North, Range 14 West;
       Township 59 North, Range 13 West;
       Township 60 North, Range 13 West;
       Township 60 North, Range 12 West.

  The Minnesota DNR has maps of these lands. The Forest Service has 
maps of these lands. Actually, they're available online.
  Last year, the Forest Service prepared maps for an earlier draft of 
H.R. 5544, but when the State passed Senate File 1750, we changed the 
references in the bill from the Forest Service maps to the State-passed 
plan.
  The reason why H.R. 5544 doesn't specify lands is because it executes 
the State plan, which does specify the lands. Again, the maps are 
available from either the Forest Service or the Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Sir, you said that there is designated land on the 
other half of the exchange, and very well--the school trust lands. Can 
you show me a map? I know that the State talks about areas.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired, and the gentleman from 
Washington has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear the crocodile tears for no NEPA in this process. 
I just remind my colleagues that when this area was designated 
wilderness, NEPA was not involved.
  Once the land trade is made, it is subject to the Minnesota 
Environmental Policy Act. There is a process in which this will be 
carried out.
  I don't support the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-660.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 2, insert after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (and redesignate subsequent subsections 
     accordingly):
       (c) Protecting Private Property and Small Businesses Within 
     and Adjacent to

[[Page H5883]]

     Superior National Forest.--In determining which National 
     Forest System land to exchange under subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall not include a parcel of National Forest 
     System land in the exchange if the Secretary determines that 
     the inclusion of the parcel or subsequent use of the parcel 
     is likely to have a negative impact on private property, 
     private property values, or small businesses.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I rise to present an amendment that would 
require that as these exchanges go forward, that they would have to be 
done in a manner that does not hurt private property interests.
  There's no doubt that when the exchanges are effected, the people in 
the forest areas who will acquire them will be looking to mine them, 
log them, and things like that. But the fact remains that there are 
other legitimate private property interests there, and these private 
property interests should be protected.
  The bill introduced by my colleague from Minnesota, Representative 
Cravaack, has no protections for areas of high ecological and 
recreational value, risks the livelihood of small businesses that rely 
on the recreational tourists to survive and thrive, and risks the 
values of private property within the Superior National Forest.
  In a region that depends upon $1.6 billion of revenue from outdoor 
recreation, we cannot risk our natural lands for the short-term gain of 
the mining industry. My amendment would simply ensure that no land 
would be exchanged if it would likely have a negative impact on private 
or small business interests.
  In this House, we often hear it said we should not pick winners and 
losers. I agree with that. We shouldn't. Therefore, this amendment, if 
adopted, would protect and ensure that no land would be exchanged if it 
would likely have a negative impact on private property interests.
  Mr. Chair, I would like you to know that the white areas here are 
private property. As you can see, they're interspersed in the green. As 
land is transferred down and exchanged, there's a lot of private land 
next to the forestland, and the private property interests are at risk, 
and the amendment, if passed, would protect them.
  Many studies have found that private property and housing values 
decrease the closer they are to mines. Just take it from the standpoint 
of a small business. Many small businesses depend upon protecting the 
natural resources in the area. Sulfide mining, being considered in this 
region, can leach sulfuric acid into lakes and rivers, killing aquatic 
life and ruining someone's small business or fishing resort. Sulfide 
mining is generating significant public concern and deserves an open, 
transparent process of evaluation.
  Mining has a role in the economy in its right place and with the 
right protections. But no one denies that it can harm the environment 
and small businesses if it is done in the wrong place and in the wrong 
manner.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just talk about Jane Koschak. Jane is the owner 
of the River Point Resort and Outfitting Company located in the 
Superior National Forest, and she's very concerned about the impact of 
this bill on her small business. She says the bill will be absolutely 
devastating to the tourism economy. She says her own town exists on 
tourism, which is dependent upon clean water and clean air. She also 
says private property values in the area are already going down from 
existing drilling. Mining hurts small businesses like Jane's that cater 
to the anglers, the paddlers, the hikers, and the vacationers in the 
region.
  We need greater transparency. Minnesota landowners and small 
businesses deserve an open and transparent process, but that's not what 
we're getting. The State of Minnesota has already created an open 
process to transfer State lands within the boundary waters. No Federal 
legislation is required for this land exchange to take place. We should 
not be waiving environmental and public comment. At the very least, if 
we go forward with this misguided bill, we should ensure that private 
property and small business is protected.
  I ask you to support the Ellison amendment and oppose the bill from 
my colleague in Minnesota.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is unnecessary, and it would allow the 
Federal bureaucracy an automatic excuse to stop implementation of this 
bill when it becomes law. It would provide the Forest Service with 
vague authorities to simply delay or outright block an act of Congress.
  Does that sound familiar?
  While presented as property rights protection, the plain fact is that 
this bill only involves the exchange of lands between State lands and 
State forestlands. So I want to be very clear that not one square inch 
of private property is included in this exchange. Again, this is only 
State and Federal lands.
  I have to say, Mr. Chairman, on my committee, a lot of our discussion 
on a variety of issues talks about private property rights. When we 
have debate on that and when we have votes on amendments on those 
issues, I find it rather ironic that the party of the gentleman that is 
offering this amendment always tends to vote against those amendments 
that protect private property rights.
  Once again, the net result of this amendment would be to give the 
Federal bureaucracy the ability to slow down carrying out this act.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I only have one other speaker 
and we have the right to close, if the gentleman wants to use his time.
  Mr. ELLISON. I appreciate the gentleman's reflection that the 
exchange is between State land and State land, but it's next to private 
property land. That's exactly the point of my amendment. If I have a 
business--better yet, not me, but Jane, who does, in fact, have a 
business--that is next to a mine that is leaching hazardous material, 
it will negatively impact her business.
  This is not a dispute between public and private. It's a dispute 
between big private interests and smaller ones.
  We're here in Congress to stand up for people who need a voice. I 
doubt these multinational mining interests need Congress to stand up 
for them, but the Janes who are running resorts in this forest do. 
We're simply asking you to adopt an amendment that will stand up for 
the private property rights of regular citizens who had a dream and 
fulfilled it of opening a resort, opening a tackle shop, doing things 
that are deeply rooted in Minnesota's heritage.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield the 
balance of my time to the author of this legislation, Mr. Cravaack of 
Minnesota.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, because of the way this amendment is 
worded, I have some concerns about how it's going to affect mining and 
timber jobs in the new school district lands.
  I yield to the gentleman to explain how he thinks the amendment would 
affect jobs in the Eighth District of Minnesota concerning mining and 
lumber.
  Mr. ELLISON. If I understand the gentleman's question correctly, I 
think that it will negatively impact jobs.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my 
colleague if he knows how much mining taxes contribute to the State of 
Minnesota.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ELLISON. The point of my amendment is that this bill, your bill, 
is going to hurt small business.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Look. I'm not going to yield to you if you won't let me 
answer the question.

[[Page H5884]]

  Mr. CRAVAACK. He is out of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota controls the time.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, as you can see from the most recent 
``Mining Tax Guide'' from the State of Minnesota, the Eighth District 
of State of Minnesota contributes $79.1 million to the State of 
Minnesota. That is just not inclusive of the income related to taxes 
from jobs from the mining that will go on in the State of Minnesota.
  Is the gentleman opposed to mining in Minnesota? Can he give me an 
example of how he has supported mining?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ELLISON. If the gentleman is going to let me answer, I will be 
happy to answer you.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. I appreciate that. Look, the fact is what 
you're doing is trying to say that you're going to stand up for the 
big-money people, as opposed to the cumulative small business people. I 
think if you put the number of small business people together, your big 
multinational mining interests that are going to pollute their 
business----
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to tell my 
colleague how much mining and timber contributes to the school trust 
fund.
  Mr. Chairman, in the most recent school trust fund report, it shows 
that mining and timber contributed $23.17 million in 2011. Now, maybe 
that doesn't sound like much here inside the Beltway; but I tell you 
what, that's a lot of money where I come from.
  Does the gentleman think that schools in Minneapolis are adequately 
funded? I'll answer that for you, probably not. Because in North 
Branch, Minnesota, where I live, public schools just went to 4 days, 
and then we've got 40 kids in a classroom. I think our teachers and 
kids could use the extra funding.
  Also I'm very interested right now that now the gentleman is very 
concerned about small business interests in the rural communities. I 
find that very enlightening.
  I yield to the gentleman if he could tell me how a small business 
would be affected by this land exchange and job creation.
  Mr. ELLISON. I will tell you this, about less than 1 percent of money 
for schools comes from trust lands. It's a very tiny percentage. I 
mean, so we're going to sacrifice our heritage for a multinational 
mining company----
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Reclaiming my time, obviously the gentleman from 
Minnesota does not think any money going into the school trust fund is 
beneficial. Decisions such as these should not be made by Washington 
bureaucrats in D.C. They should be made by Minnesotans, and that is how 
we got into this mess in the first place.
  The bill merely executes a bipartisan State plan signed by the 
Governor, State senate file 1750. We cannot trust Washington political 
appointees with the power to derail this land exchange at the expense 
of Minnesota schoolchildren and their teachers.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part B of House Report 112-660.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       In section 2, strike subsection (c) (page 3, beginning line 
     21) and insert the following new subsection:
       (c) Valuation of Lands for Exchange.--
       (1) Equal value exchange required.--The fair market value 
     of the land to be exchanged under subsection (b) shall be 
     equal.
       (2) Appraisal to determine fair market value of federal 
     land.--The Secretary shall determine the fair market value of 
     the National Forest System land to be conveyed under 
     subsection (b)--
       (A) in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and 
     Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (B) based on an appraisal that is conducted in accordance 
     with nationally recognized appraisal standards, including the 
     Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and 
     the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 773, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. The amendment I am offering does one simple thing and 
one thing only. It ensures that this land trade is fair and protects 
the American taxpayers.
  For every land exchange undertaken by the Forest Service, the Bureau 
of Land Management, Park Service, or Fish and Wildlife Service, land 
managers must ensure taxpayer assets are protected by requiring land 
appraisals based on accepted Federal standards. This House has 
considered six different land exchange bills in this Congress. Each and 
every one of them required standard appraisals for those lands, and 
they all passed.
  But today we have a bill that defers to legislation passed by the 
State of Minnesota to control the examination and the value 
determination of Federal lands. This is not how we treat Federal 
assets. Whether a land exchange is undertaken through an administrative 
process or through legislation, we require a standard appraisal and 
equalization payments if the value of the lands considered for exchange 
are not equal.
  Surely we can provide better protections to the taxpayers of this 
country.
  The last estimate, and I will stress estimate of the value of the 
land in question, was nearly $100 million. Do we really want to abandon 
our responsibilities as stewards to Federal taxpayers and waive fair 
appraisal standards?
  Surely we can hold Congressman Cravaack's legislation to the same bar 
and standard we required for Congressman Herger, Congressman Gosar, 
Congresswoman Tsongas, Congressman McKeon, Congressman Amodei's bill 
and, yes, my own bill.
  I understand a lot of Members on the other side of the aisle would 
happily turn over Federal lands to the States. In fact, that position 
is reflected in their party's platform. But this isn't what we're 
voting on today. Today we're voting on a land deal that shouldn't turn 
the taxpayer interests upside down.
  I would urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to ensure a fair exchange 
of lands on States in Federal areas, and there are protections that 
were put specifically in the bill. Of course, the big protection is 
that the Secretary of Agriculture, who is a Federal representative in 
this process, has to agree. So, I mean, you have got one party, two 
parties that have to agree, and one of them is Federal. Now what could 
be more protection than that.
  Now, let me go back just a minute. We seem to have to talk about the 
history of this.
  The valuation of the land in 1978, when this wilderness area was 
developed--I wasn't here, nobody here on the floor that's debating this 
was here at that time; but I doubt if there was a valuation given to 
Minnesota at that time, and now they want to come back and say, okay, 
we have to have a precise valuation on the Federal level.
  Come on. This corrects something that was not done in 1978. This 
amendment simply slows down the process, which I might add, Mr. 
Chairman, that seems to be what the process is with all four amendments 
that were taken up to date, slow down the process. Thirty-four years, 
isn't that long enough?
  This is not a good amendment. I urge rejection of it, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.

[[Page H5885]]

  Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM. I thank Mr. Grijalva.
  This is not about slowing down the process, and I know it's not the 
intention of the Members on the other side to assume my motivations. I 
know it's not their intention.
  This and the amendments that I offered are because there is a process 
in place in Minnesota that allows for people to be at the table, for 
tribes to be at the table to follow the regular order to have a regular 
appraisal like everyone else has had, and to have a map on the floor 
and not start creating a wave of Federal legislation that, to my 
knowledge, to my knowledge, no one has asked for this legislation to 
have a vote on the floor today.
  There is no Senate companion. There is no urgency; there is no 
emergency. The State of Minnesota has a process in place; and I will 
say, as a State legislator, there were times, yes, I didn't think we 
needed to move forward with the land exchange.
  But the northern legislators are convinced, overwhelmingly with the 
Governor of Minnesota, that this land exchange needs to take place, and 
it should take place, and I'm not trying to slow it down. I am trying 
to take this bad legislation and put it aside and let the good 
legislation and let the regular order that the State of Minnesota has 
established in order to have these land exchanges move forward. That is 
my motivation, good legislation, not for the first time in the history 
of the floor of this House passing a land exchange without a map and 
for the first time that I've heard not use the regular Federal standard 
appraisal process.
  It sets a bad precedent. I don't think anybody is out to do wrong by 
the schoolchildren of Minnesota.

                              {time}  1350

  My children attended K through higher ed in Minnesota, and I know how 
strapped we are for cash. And I do believe that there will be very 
slight amounts of dollars that will go back into school trusts, but 
that's going to happen whether or not we take this bad vote on this bad 
bill today or not.
  The schoolchildren in Minnesota will be served. This land will be 
exchanged. The question for this Congress is: Do we do it the right 
way; do we do it the wrong way; do we set a bad precedent for future 
land exchange bills; or do we make sure that we allow a fair, open, 
transparent process that started in Minnesota, finishes in Minnesota?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. McCOLLUM. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Do I understand the time on the other 
side has expired?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has yielded back the balance of her time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Does the gentleman from Arizona still 
have time?
  The CHAIR. No, the gentleman from Arizona yielded the remaining time 
to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, and she yielded back the balance of 
her time.
  The time is expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That is what I was trying to get to.
  I am very pleased to yield the balance of my time, again, to the 
author of this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Cravaack).
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment 
is unnecessary and would only further serve to delay implementation of 
the overall bill. The valuation of the lands to be exchanged as 
required by Minnesota senate file 1750 requires that the lands not only 
be substantially equal in value, but that the valuation is done ``in a 
manner as agreed to between the State commissioner and the authorized 
representative of the United States.'' In addition, subsection (d) of 
H.R. 5544, on page 4, requires the survey to be satisfactory to the 
Secretary of Agriculture.
  We have had 30 years of delay, 30 years of appraisals, 30 years of 
mapmaking. We don't need any more. These are the lands of the children 
of Minnesota, and they're entitled to them.
  Mr. Chair, the State knows what the land is worth just as well as the 
Federal Government. We can do it for lower cost since so much of the 
work has already been done. The lands have been identified. Here's the 
map. This section right here and this section right through there.
  This amendment is a stall tactic, quite frankly, to increase the 
administrative burden and increase costs to the State.
  Subsection (d) also requires for the State to cover all costs. It is 
grossly unfair to ask the State to pay for an appraisal and then be 
made to comply with bureaucratic Federal rules in the process of 
valuation. The legislation leaves the Secretary ample authority to 
properly protect taxpayers and does not waive any applicable appraisal 
standards. Both H.R. 5544 and Minnesota Senate File 1750 require 
negotiations to be mutually agreed upon, and the lands conveyed to the 
State would be subject to all applicable State and local laws.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 112-660 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. McCollum

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. 
McCollum) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 213, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 563]

                               AYES--201

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern

[[Page H5886]]


     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--213

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Culberson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Herger
     Hirono
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Ryan (WI)
     Towns
     Welch

                              {time}  1418

  Messrs. MANZULLO and BISHOP of Utah changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. PERLMUTTER, NEAL, JONES, DOLD, HANNA, DANIEL E. LUNGREN of 
California and RUSH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


Moment of Silence in Honor of Ambassador Stevens and American Personnel 
                            Killed in Libya

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Boehner). Last night, Americans received a 
jolting reminder that freedom remains under siege by forces around the 
globe who relish violence over free expression and terror over 
democracy.
  The Chair asks that all present rise and observe a moment of silence 
in honor of Ambassador Stevens and the American personnel killed in 
Libya.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Womack). Without objection, 2-minute voting 
will continue.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 236, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 564]

                               AYES--177

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--236

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble

[[Page H5887]]


     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Akin
     Baldwin
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Culberson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Herger
     Hirono
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     LaTourette
     McCarthy (CA)
     Ryan (WI)
     Schock


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1427

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 225, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 565]

                               AYES--190

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--225

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Akin
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Culberson
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Herger
     Hirono
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     McCarthy (CA)
     Myrick
     Ryan (WI)

                              {time}  1431

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, 
noes 223, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 566]

                               AYES--191

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre

[[Page H5888]]


     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--223

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Culberson
     Fortenberry
     Gingrey (GA)
     Herger
     Hirono
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Landry
     McCarthy (CA)
     Ryan (WI)
     West

                              {time}  1435

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Womack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5544) to 
authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System 
land in the Laurentian District of the Superior National Forest and 
certain other National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota 
that has limited recreational and conservation resources and lands 
owned by the State of Minnesota in trust for the public school system 
that are largely scattered in checkerboard fashion within the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and have important recreational, scenic, 
and conservation resources, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 773, he reported the bill, as amended by that 
resolution, back to the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.

                              {time}  1440


                           motion to recommit

  Mr. ELLISON. I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. ELLISON. I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Ellison moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5544 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of section 2(b) (page 3, line 20, of the Rules 
     Committee print), insert the following new sentence: ``The 
     Secretary may not include in the exchange under this section 
     any National Forest System land in the State that, as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, is used for hunting, 
     fishing, or motorized recreation, including snow-mobiling in 
     season.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, this final amendment to the bill, if 
adopted, will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. This bill 
will immediately be voted upon on final passage as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill that we're arguing about right now actually is 
not necessary. The Minnesota State legislature has already decided that 
in one of the most beautiful wildernesses in our country, the Boundary 
Waters, that there will be about 86,000 acres transferred out of there 
into the Superior National Forest. The land will be moved from this 
wilderness area into the Superior National Forest, and the proceeds 
will be used to benefit Minnesota schoolchildren.
  What this bill actually does is it doesn't actually facilitate the 
transfer. The Minnesota State legislature has handled that. What it 
does is it allows the circumvention of the regular process so that 
Minnesotans who are part of the business community, the school 
community, the local community, who are part of the recreational 
community, who have a stake in this thing, that they will be cut out of 
the deal. They won't be able to have the transparency that is 
necessary.
  Without a doubt, the land that will be transferred will be 
transferred for the purpose of commercial exploitation, most likely 
mining. And mining, as you know, may have commercial importance and 
commercial benefit, but it is a dirty business. It does affect the 
businesses that are around it.
  This bill is designed to help and will help the mining and the timber 
industry in northern Minnesota. But as we go about this process, we can 
at least do what we can to make sure that as the transfer takes place, 
that the outdoor recreational businesses, which are about $1.6 billion 
in northeastern Minnesota, do not get sacrificed in the process.
  The Superior National Forest and Chippewa National Forest and the 
Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness make up Minnesota's premiere 
outdoor recreation area. They're just beautiful. I can tell you, Mr. 
Speaker, there's been many a time when I've led young people up to the 
Boundary Waters so they can get out of the urban environment, into the 
natural wilderness, and experience what I believe is God's country.
  As we effect this change and these land swaps are taking place, and 
there's no real process--we're bypassing it through this bill--to have 
real transparency, the interests of the recreational industry, the 
people who fish, the people who paddle, the people who hunt, and the 
businesses that supply them are at stake.
  My amendment would simply protect the land in these forests currently 
used for hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, bird watching, and all sorts 
of other activities, and the commercial interests associated with 
allowing them to do that.
  The land that we're talking about has very high recreational value. 
The

[[Page H5889]]

Chippewa and Superior National Forest provide habitat for hunting and 
game like grouse, deer, or waterfowl. They contain some of the Nation's 
best fishing lakes, filled with trout, walleye, bass, and pike. I 
encourage all of you to come and visit. They attract 250,000 visitors 
every year, Americans of all kinds, but even international visitors, 
but mostly Minnesotans right from the area and from the Twin Cities.
  The fact is the Superior National Forest is the eighth-most visited 
in the entire National Forest system. They drive, as I mentioned 
already, Mr. Speaker, $1.6 billion in tourism and recreation industry 
in northeastern Minnesota. Thousands of small businesses rely on the 
National Forest, including everything from resorts, to hunting 
outfitters, to local restaurants and shops.
  I might add, there are almost--in fact, I would say there are no--
restaurants or outfitters who name their business after the sulfide 
mines. No. They call themselves the Boundary Waters Cafe. They name 
themselves after the beauty and the natural wonder in the area.
  This bill puts recreation at risk and the industry that supports it. 
This bill provides no protection for lands with high recreational 
value. In fact, it explicitly says that land acquired by the State 
should be used first for revenue-generating activities, such as mining 
and logging. This is why hunting and angling groups in Minnesota oppose 
the bill, including the Minnesota Conservation Foundation, Minnesota 
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the Minnesota division of the 
Izaac Walton League.
  What's more, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not even identify which lands 
will be exchanged. We don't even know in this map which private 
property interests will be affected.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, apparently the author of the 
motion to recommit did not read the underlying bill because what he 
seeks to do is say you can't exchange land that is open to essentially 
multiple use, recreational activities. On section 2 of page 5, very 
specifically in the bill, it says that these activities shall be 
allowed.
  I don't know exactly what point the gentleman is trying to make by 
offering this motion to recommit, unless it is a political statement of 
some sort. Even if it's a political statement, I have to say, Mr. 
Speaker, it falls short in that regard.
  Why do I say that? Because last spring, specifically on April 17, we 
had a bill that this body considered on the floor, H.R. 4089, authored 
by our colleague from Michigan, Mr. Benishek, called the Sportsmen's 
Heritage Act of 2012. The essence of that bill was to allow hunting and 
recreation on Federal lands, and yet the author of the motion to 
recommit is coming down here saying we should have multiple use on this 
forest, but he voted against the bill, H.R. 4089, this spring.

                              {time}  1450

  I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the crocodile tears I hear or see 
from the other side is overwhelming to me. This motion to recommit 
ought to be defeated. The land exchange that is authored by our 
colleague from Minnesota rights a wrong that was wrongly made 34 years 
ago.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and 
``yes'' on passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 233, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 567]

                               AYES--183

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--233

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman

[[Page H5890]]


     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Akin
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Culberson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Herger
     Hirono
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Moran
     Ryan (WI)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1505

  Mr. YARMUTH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 189, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 568]

                               AYES--225

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--189

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Akin
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Chandler
     Culberson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Herger
     Hirono
     Holden
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Moran
     Ryan (WI)
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1512

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________