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(2) Exception.--Time periods during which land is under contract for sale or withdrawn from the market shall not be counted for the purposes of price reduction under paragraph (1)(B).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
EC, I must admit getting some chuckles from your defense of the congressman. It brought to mind Sen. Orrin Hatch's outrage that two Eastern congressmen, in introducing the Red Rock Wilderness Act back in 2011, would dare to presume to suggest how Western lands should be managed.
“I always find it highly ironic that two Members of Congress from the East coast get such great pleasure in telling us in Utah how we should manage our lands, and what should be considered wilderness,” stated Hatch.
And, he went on:
“This is an extremist environmentalist bill by few who represent states or districts west of the Mississippi. In addition, no members of the Utah delegation are on this bill."
Futhermore:
"The bill introduced today is a gross intrusion on the land rights of Utahns, done by people from the east coast who have no idea what it takes to balance the need to preserve truly pristine, beautiful wild areas, with the need for economic stability for local, rural communities."
I suppose one could say Mr. Griffith's bill, "is an extremist conservative's bill by one who does not represent states or districts west of the Mississippi. In addition, no other members of Congress are cosponsoring this bill."
As to crediting sale of federal lands through existing programs against additions to public lands....
The bill would not allow that, since it requires that "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." The program I referenced above uses net proceeds for other conservation-related purposes. Follow the link in my 9:52 a.m. post above for details. Incidentially, that process was set up by Congress.
Either the congressman didn't do his homework to see what programs are already in use, or perhaps (supposition again) he wants to make a political statement about selling off public land to help reduce the debt. I'd suggest using sale of public lands deemed excess by an agency to fund other public land purchases and related projects makes more sense than token reductions in the debt, since that avoids tapping other revenue sources for those projects.
Thank you Kurt and Jim for your articulate and factual posts on this issue. It is interesting to note that it was a progressive Republican President who set aside more land for citizens then and for generations to come, President T. Roosevelt.
At the risk of making everyone angry I rather like this idea. I think it has some merit and should not be discarded immediately. It needs to be investigated and refined.
On another note, we do need to limit Congressional terms to no more than 12 years and do a complete overhaul of our campaign finance rules. The inmates may have taken over the institutuion but in a democracy we are the inmates.
One of the quick ways - both cynical and generally accurate - to judge the sincerity of a congressperson is to see if their lips are moving. If their lips are moving, odds are that a goodly bit of what they're saying is other-purposed fertilizer.
Sorry Kurt, I don't see how returning lands to the jurisdiction of Utah would be against the interest of the folks in Utah. You are comparing apples and oranges. In one case (Hatch's) comments the government was imposing burdons on the citizens in the other they are returning power to them.
For Jim, perhaps the program you cited would not be eligible and that could be a reasonable tweak as Harry proposed. At the same time, I believe you substantially underestimate the contribution that land sales could make to debt reduction. Speaking of which, we hit our debt limit again today.
Opps....I hope Congress knows about the debt limit problem. I suppose someone on the staff over there has a memo on it.