H.Res. 773

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

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.

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.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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).

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.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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. 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. 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. Chairman, I'd advise my friend that I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I'll just advise my friend that I am prepared to close if he will yield back.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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.

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. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).

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.

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. Chair, I only have one other speaker and we have the right to close, if the gentleman wants to use his time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield the balance of my time to the author of this legislation, Mr. Cravaack of Minnesota.

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.

Will the gentlelady yield?

Do I understand the time on the other side has expired?

Does the gentleman from Arizona still have time?

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).

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee in this vigorous debate on the Constitution. I am also delighted that the ranking member has indicated, by his reference to the previous speaker, that this is a bipartisan challenge and question about the reauthorization. This does not have a partisan place. It does have a place in the Constitution.

As I do this, might I take just a moment, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, just to acknowledge the loss of our Americans who fell in Libya--Ambassador Stevens and those who were securing him. It is a recognition that we live in a difficult world; but one of the distinctive aspects of America is that we live in a free country, that we are willing to accept the distinctions and differences of all people and that we respect the privacy and the Fourth Amendment.

So I might refresh my fellow colleagues as to what FISA does from the very beginning. It is electronic surveillance, physical searches, the installation and use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, and demands for the production of physical items. Although FISA is designed for intelligence gathering and not for the collection of criminal evidence, the law applies to activity to which a Fourth Amendment warrant requirement would apply if they were conducted in a criminal investigation. Members need to understand there are questions of the Fourth Amendment right here. So what those of us who have a concern on this reauthorization are asking for has simple premise:

We want to join with Congressman Conyers and his simple amendment that allows for greater congressional oversight and the protection of the Fourth Amendment as it relates to Americans by shortening the reauthorization to 2015 from 2017. It intrudes the Congress properly in oversight. In addition, there should be more transparency in the surveillance program, such as requiring the creation of unclassified versions of the intelligence assessments of the surveillance program, requiring the creation of unclassified summaries.

I introduced a simple amendment. We all have respect for the Inspector General's office. That is one independent force of our agencies that most Members of Congress will not challenge. My amendment would require a report by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the Inspector General of the intelligence community on the implementation of the surveillance program under the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Now, let me try to find out what the horrifically liberal groups are that are concerned about this. What about the American Library Association? the Association of Research Libraries? the very well- respected Brennan Center for Justice? the Center for Democracy & Technology? the OpenTheGovernment .org?

What we are simply saying today--and we hope our colleagues will listen on both sides of the aisle--is that, yes, we can reauthorize this legislation but that, no, we cannot abdicate the questions of congressional oversight. Today, we had a hearing on the abuse of power. The only issue in abuse of power is whether or not we respect the three branches of government. That is the argument we are making today. Do you respect the three branches of government--the people's House, who represent the people, who by themselves cannot defend themselves against this extensive reauthorization?

In the course of this particular legislation, we had to contend with such things as warrantless wiretapping. Again, as I indicated, the need for the intruding of the Congress is a respect of the liberties which we want to protect.

So I would ask my colleagues to yield to transparency, to yield to a shorter extension. Make this bill stand on its own two feet juxtaposed to the Constitution. While we mourn those who have fallen, we respect that this is a free country. Today, we are not acting on that freedom by giving up the congressional oversight that is necessary. I ask my colleagues to reject the present form of this bill. I beg the Senate to look more readily at a shorter extension and more transparency.

I rise in opposition to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I believe that although we had a chance to discuss this reauthorization in the Judiciary Committee, the full import of this bill is too broad and more debate and consideration is necessary. The fact is not lost on me that this is the 11th year following the attacks of 9-11.

I open my statement with a quote from one of my heroines, and a trailblazer on so many levels, Barbara Jordan, who said: ``What the people want is very simple--they want an America as good as its promise.''

Over the past year, Senate and House Democrats have worked with their Republican counterparts, the Administration, the intelligence community, and privacy advocates to

develop proposals for amendments to FISA that would give the intelligence community the flexibility it needs to safeguard our nation, while also providing strong protections for civil liberties. A proper balancing is America--as good as its promise.

And in-keeping with the notion of balance, I offered an amendment during the Judiciary Committee Markup of this legislation which simply asked for a report on the implementation of the amendments made by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. My amendment simply requested that the report include an assessment of the impact of Section 702 of the FISA on the privacy of persons inside the United States. Even with court- approved targeting and minimization procedures in place, the government can and does intercept the communications of U.S. citizens.

It does so without a particularized warrant or a showing of probable cause. This approach to electronic surveillance raises concerns under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, warrantless eavesdropping, and the use of ``general warrants.''

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a right ``of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Many of the government activities discussed in this report have the potential to constitute a search as that term is defined in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Namely, government action constitutes a search when it intrudes upon a person's ``reasonable expectation of privacy,'' which requires both that an ``individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the searched object'' and that ``society is willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.''

The Fourth Amendment and its protections go back to our founding--the ability of the American Patriots to resist unwarranted searches and seizures by the British is inculcated in the American psyche.

Thus, the Fourth Amendment ultimately limits the government's ability to conduct a range of activities, such as physical searches of homes or offices and listening to phone conversations. As a general rule, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to demonstrate ``probable cause'' and obtain a warrant (unless a recognized warrant exception applies) before conducting a search.

This rule applies most clearly in criminal investigations. For example, an officer conducting a criminal investigation typically may not search a person's belongings without first obtaining a warrant that describes the property for which sufficient evidence justifies a search.

The extent to which the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applies to the government's collection of information for intelligence gathering and other purposes unrelated to criminal investigations is unclear. Although the surveillance of wire or oral communications for criminal law enforcement purposes was held to be subject to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment in 1967, neither the Supreme Court nor Congress sought to regulate the use of such surveillance for national security purposes at that time.

Several years later, the Supreme Court invalidated warrantless electronic surveillance of domestic organizations for national security purposes, but indicated that its conclusion might differ if the electronic surveillance targeted foreign powers or their agents. A lower court has since upheld the statutory scheme governing the gathering of foreign intelligence information against a Fourth Amendment challenge, despite an assumption that orders issued pursuant to the statute might not constitute ``warrants'' for Fourth Amendment purposes.

The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the issue. However, even if the warrant requirement was found not to apply to searches for foreign intelligence or national security purposes, such searches would presumably be subject to the general Fourth Amendment ``reasonableness'' test.

In the context of national security, the contours of the Fourth Amendment are necessarily narrowed but not abandoned altogether. The march toward a Big Brother State begins when the people's rights to privacy and to be free from surveillance are surrendered in toto. All we have to do is look at the recent Jones decision which concerned a purely domestic case in which law enforcement took advantage of high- tech tools to follow a suspected drug dealer. A conservative Roberts Court voted 9-0 to invalidate this search.

It is rare for liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans to agree on much of anything these days, but I am sure that many of my colleagues on the other side would find untargeted procedures under FISA unlawful and thereby unconstitutional. Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of us need to be secure in our homes, secure in our thoughts, and secure in our communications.

It is widely known that the Obama Administration would like a clean, five year reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, consistent with the approach taken by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence this spring. I would also note that there were two voices of dissent in the Senate committee's proceedings, Senators Wyden and Udall who have been champions of national security, privacy, and civil liberties--which are not mutually exclusive.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was designed to provide critically important authority for the U.S. Intelligence Community to acquire foreign intelligence information by targeting foreign persons reasonably believed to be outside of the United States. However, our experts now tell us that there are serious issues with targeting procedures, disclosure of basic information and there is a lack of strong rules on how the information gathered can be used.

``Reverse targeting,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons.

One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, had with the ill-conceived and now expired Protect America Act of 2007, was that the understandable temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting is difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent such unauthorized and blanket snooping.

Although Section 1881 of the FISA Amendments Act statutorily forbids such reverse targeting, it is a lingering concern of many civil libertarians which I share.

No doubt there are instances where it may be necessary to target persons within and outside the United States in order to address threats but Congress has made it clear that these exigencies must be subject to review at some point and time.

On the issue of targeting procedures, they were designed to ensure that only people reasonably believed to be outside of the U.S. would be targeted. However, in reality quite the contrary has taken place. There has been bulk collection of information without any targets whatsoever. Ensure transparency by conducting as much public oversight as possible, including releasing basic information about the program, such as the type of information collected and how many Americans and people in the U.S. it has affected.

It is also critical that Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions and administration interpretations of its authority to collect and use information under the FISA Amendment Act (FAA) become part of the public record and congressional debate.

On the issue of disclosure, there has been a lack of transparency on what type of information is being gathered, who is being picked up and what rights of Americans have been violated.

We must strike a balance between what constitutes ``classified'' information, and other compelling facts, disclosure of which do not threaten national security.

On the issue of rules, there has been a lack of rules that clearly define how the information is being used. The key is to amend the FISA Amendment Act to ensure that information collected under those programs can be used only in the narrowest of circumstances. The FAA's minimization procedures should be amended to ensure that this foreign intelligence warrantless surveillance program doesn't allow information to be repurposed for other government uses.

I understand that there must be a way for the intelligence community to gather vast amounts of information in a manner that makes sense. However, after carefully reviewing these proposals but suffice to say, I am still disturbed about certain aspects of the FISA Amendments of 2008. This Act was not designed for an overreach of power. It was designed to for the intelligence community to conduct meaningful information overseas.

Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis DeTocqueville, who remains the most astute student of American democracy, observed that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation, resourcefulness, and courage.

Thus, the way forward to victory in the War on Terror is for this country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave, and the country we love. It is not easy for me or any Member of this House to go against the President's wishes on a matter of national security but I am convinced that more debate is necessary, and more consideration of what the FISA Amendments mean to national security and civil liberties.

We are in the throes of a national election for which the candidates have labored for over two years and the American people have seen, for better or worse, what they are about. Why so long: because that is Democracy. And civil liberties, Mr. Speaker, are the essence of the stew of our American Democracy.

I hope that Congress can maintain our oversight function to ensure that law enforcement is well aware of their limitations of surveillance balanced by a strong commitment to protecting this great nation from future harm, and limiting the reauthorization to 2015.

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

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?

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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. 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.

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.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

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.

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.

Reclaiming my time.

He is out of order, Mr. Chairman.

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.

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.

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.

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.