Discussion · Senate
John Hoeven Republican
“I want the Senate to pass this land exchange bill for North Dakota, along with a land bill for Arizona. It trades state land inside reservations for federal land outside them. All five tribes in my state support it. It does not reduce public land, and it will actually give hunters more access.”
“Mr. President, I would like to ask the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who--we have worked together on many different issues and I appreciate that and I hope we can work on this one. But there are some questions that I have to ask because I sincerely would like to get to a solution on a bill that, first off, does not affect other States. It solely affects land within my State of North Dakota, and it is supported by all of the reservations. We have five reservations in my State, and the Native Americans on all of the reservations across the board have asked us to do this for them. There is no net loss of lands. This is simply exchanging State land within the boundaries of reservations for Federal land, which is outside the reservations, which then would be Federal lands within the reservations, which would be to the benefit of the Native American Tribes. The only objection that I have heard from anybody at any time is in regard to hunting and public access. I am a hunter. I truly enjoy hunting, but I must admit I am probably not a hunter on the scale of my colleague from New Mexico. He is an accomplished hunter. We talk about it all the time. He knows how important that is, obviously, to him and his citizens in New Mexico. It is very important to me and to my citizens in North Dakota. But here is a situation where there is no net loss of land, and, in fact, if anything, there will be more land open and available to hunters. I was Governor of North Dakota for 10 years, and those State lands we opened up to public hunting and tourism. So there will be a gain for hunters and fishermen. And on the reservation, there is no net loss of public land whatsoever. It is a simple exchange of State land for Federal land. These Federal lands will go from outside the borders of the reservation to within the borders of the reservation, and be managed for the benefit of those respective Tribes within the reservations. And it is something that every single Tribe within my State has been asking for and we have been waiting for a long time to get done. And here is how it worked out in the House: It passed unanimously. So, yes, I am willing to work on it, but I have been working on it for a long time. And I am simply asking that the House bill be passed and, along with it, a Democrat bill from the House also that would be of real benefit in the State of Arizona, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is paired with this bill. So by objecting, my good colleague from New Mexico is also holding up the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is important to Native Americans in the State of Arizona. And so, again, I would ask for consent on this bill or at least some commitment as to how this is going to get done.”
-
Speech in the House
Reasoning 100 of 100
This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.
See full analysis
Mr. President, I would like to ask the ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who--we have worked together on many different issues and I appreciate that and I hope we can work on this one. But there are some questions that I have to ask because I sincerely would like to get to a solution on a bill that, first off, does not affect other States. It solely affects land within my State of North Dakota, and it is supported by all of the reservations. We have five reservations in my State, and the Native Americans on all of the reservations across the board have asked us to do this for them. There is no net loss of lands. This is simply exchanging State land within the boundaries of reservations for Federal land, which is outside the reservations, which then would be Federal lands within the reservations, which would be to the benefit of the Native American Tribes. The only objection that I have heard from anybody at any time is in regard to hunting and public access. I am a hunter. I truly enjoy hunting, but I must admit I am probably not a hunter on the scale of my colleague from New Mexico. He is an accomplished hunter. We talk about it all the time. He knows how important that is, obviously, to him and his citizens in New Mexico. It is very important to me and to my citizens in North Dakota. But here is a situation where there is no net loss of land, and, in fact, if anything, there will be more land open and available to hunters. I was Governor of North Dakota for 10 years, and those State lands we opened up to public hunting and tourism. So there will be a gain for hunters and fishermen. And on the reservation, there is no net loss of public land whatsoever. It is a simple exchange of State land for Federal land. These Federal lands will go from outside the borders of the reservation to within the borders of the reservation, and be managed for the benefit of those respective Tribes within the reservations. And it is something that every single Tribe within my State has been asking for and we have been waiting for a long time to get done. And here is how it worked out in the House: It passed unanimously. So, yes, I am willing to work on it, but I have been working on it for a long time. And I am simply asking that the House bill be passed and, along with it, a Democrat bill from the House also that would be of real benefit in the State of Arizona, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is paired with this bill. So by objecting, my good colleague from New Mexico is also holding up the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act, which is important to Native Americans in the State of Arizona. And so, again, I would ask for consent on this bill or at least some commitment as to how this is going to get done.