In an effort to keep the federal landscape from growing appreciably, a Republican from Virginia has introduced to Congress a measure that would, in many cases, require land-management agencies to offset every acre added to their oversight by selling an acre.
The measure, introduced by Rep. H. Morgan Griffith, was referred to the House Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry. As drafted, it would have any profits realized from land sales deposited into the federal Treasury for use in reducing the public debt.
NO NET INCREASE IN CERTAIN FEDERAL LANDS.
(a) In General.--For acquisition of land by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture that would result in a net increase of total land acreage under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Forest Service, the Secretary concerned shall offer for sale an equal number of acres of Federal land that is under the same jurisdictional status.
(b) Exemptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to easements acquired--
(1) by the Secretary of the Interior to facilitate management of Federal lands; or
(2) by the Secretary of Agriculture to facilitate management of Federal lands.
(c) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--Land sold pursuant to subsection (a) shall be offered for sale--
(A) at fair market value (based on local comparable sales); and
(B) at a price that is reduced by 10 percent each month if the land is not sold or under contract to be sold by the date that is 6 months after the land was first offered for sale.
(2) Exception.--Time periods during which land is under contract for sale or withdrawn from the market shall not be counted for the purposes of price reduction under paragraph (1)(B).
(d) Existing Rights.--The sale of Federal lands pursuant to this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.
(e) Proceeds of Sale of Lands.--All net proceeds from the sale of Federal lands pursuant to this section shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.
Interestingly, another measure, introduced in both the House and the Senate, calls for 44 acres to be added to John Muir National Historic Site.
Comments
Isn't it a common practice for lawmakers pushing agendas to deliberately make their bills vague so they can then use legislation by amendment to make it easier in the future to add little twists and turns to the law?
Legislation by amendment is such a common practice that it's downright ludicrous. Add an amendment supporting some lobbyist's or hack's ideologic cause to a totally unrelated U.S. Navy appropriations bill (or some other such bill) so whatever Federal agency administers that particular aspect of government is suddenly bound to enforce a Congressionally mandated regulation.
We see this kind of nonsense with health care, HUD home loans, administration of our parks, forests, and other public lands, and countless other things that affect all of us.
It's legislation by deceit and without much accountability because it's so hard to trace the regulation back to it original source. Then everyone can simply blame the "bureaucrats" and all is well. The Congresscritter who hatched the plot is hidden behind the curtain of Oz.
As is typically the case
This whole thing is typical tea party hokum, looking over their paranoid shoulders for the black helicopters.
Rick, can you explain what is paranoid about federalism?
ec – If it's typical for legislation to be silent on "practical matters," i.e. how to implement the provisions of a bill – or even what it means – how would you suggest such nuts and bolts details be developed?
Options seem to be: (1) let agencies make up the rules as they go along; (2) let agencies develop the procedures through steps such as the "rule making process in the Federal Register, or (3) let the courts step in and impose their own interpretation when disputes develop about what the bill really meant.
#2 seems the best of those options, but as Lee points out above, that can lead to vilification of agency personnel as "unelected bureaucrats" who are "overreaching" their authority. Ironically, those cries often seem to come from the elected legislators who passed the vague bill in the first place.
No question that bills can be so long and complicated that few bother to read them (including the politicians who vote on them), but the bill in question could use a little more detail. Perhaps the best solution is for Congress to pass a lot fewer bills, under the theory that new laws from our elected bureaucrats often tend to do more harm than good :-)
Two other essential protections for the entire nation would be limiting Congressional terms to no more than 12 years and a complete overhaul of campaign finance and rules for campaigning. We have allowed the inmates to take over the asylum.
Jt. It is hard enough to get the legislators to agree the basics of a bill. To ask them to define the detailed implementation would lead to no legislation at all ( perhaps a good thing). #2 is how it is and should be implemented. As long as the beaurocrats stay within the scope and intent of the legislation there should be no complaint. Its when they exceed these or become petty that they get push back.
But if there is no scope or intent of the legislation clearly stated in the legislation, then what?
And what about all those amendments that are tacked on later by Congress without any hearings or even a real vote in most cases?
One that I'm familiar with is a set of amendments that tie the hands of HUD and FHA with requirements that directly contradict one another -- but because they are the LAW, these agencies must enforce them. They deal with homeowner associations ability to restrict rentals. The first one says that an HOA will lose FHA loan approval if rentals exceed 50%. The second is one that was added at the last minute two years ago to a military appropriations bill (one of nearly 1200, by the way) by a representative from Connecticut that strips an HOA of FHA approval if they have any restrictions on the number of rentals.
Catch 22, yeah? And who gets the blame? Certainly not the nearly anonymous Congresscreep, but those nasty bureaucrats at HUD and FHA.
How many of the woes of NPS have come from the same kinds of nonsense?