selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easier

[Rand Man]

Ethics issue was a diversion. Even in the repubs private meeting it passed by only 40 votes, 114 to 75. The real story:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/03/house-gop-rules-change-would-make-it-easier-to-sell-off-federal-land

House GOP rules change will make it easier to sell off federal land

By Juliet Eilperin January 3 at 5:41 PM

House Republicans on Tuesday changed the way Congress calculates the cost of transferring federal lands to the states and other entities, a move that will make it easier for members of the new Congress to cede federal control of public lands.

The provision, included as part as a larger rules package the House approved by a vote of 233 to 190 during its first day in session, highlights the extent to which some congressional Republicans hope to change longstanding rules now that the GOP will control the executive and the legislative branches starting Jan. 20.

Many Republicans, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), have been pushing to hand over large areas of federal land to state and local authorities, on the grounds that they will be more responsive to the concerns of local residents.

House Natural Resources Committee spokeswoman Molly Block said in a statement that “in many cases federal lands create a significant burden for the surrounding communities,” because they cannot be taxed and can be “in disrepair.”

“Allowing communities to actually manage and use these lands will generate not only state and local income tax, but also federal income tax revenues” she added, as well as reduce the need for some federally-supported payments. “Unfortunately, current budget practices do not fully recognize these benefits, making it very difficult for non-controversial land transfers between governmental entities for public use and other reasons to happen.”

But many Democrats argue that these lands should be managed on behalf of all Americans, not just those living nearby, and warn that cash-strapped state and local officials might sell these parcels to developers.

Under current Congressional Budget Office accounting rules, any transfer of federal land that generates revenue for the U.S. Treasury — whether through energy extraction, logging, grazing or other activities — has a cost. If lawmakers wanted to give such land to a state, local government or tribe, they would have to account for that loss in expected cash flow.

Bishop authored language in the new rules package that would overturn that requirment, saying any such transfers “shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.”

Rep. Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter Tuesday to fellow Democrats urging them to oppose the rules package on the basis of that proposal.

“The House Republican plan to give away America’s public lands for free is outrageous and absurd,” Grijalva said in a statement. “This proposed rule change would make it easier to implement this plan by allowing the Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people.”

Environmental groups were quick to criticize the move.

Alan Rowsome, senior government relations director for The Wilderness Society, said in a statement, “Right out of the gate, Congressional Republicans are declaring open season on federal lands… This is not Theodore Roosevelt-style governing, this move paves the way for a wholesale giveaway of our American hunting, fishing and camping lands that belong to us all.”

The immediate impact of the rules change is that lawmakers cannot raise a budgetary point of order if a land transfer bill comes to the floor. Under existing House rules, any measure that costs the U.S. Treasury money must be offset by either budget cuts or a revenue-raising provision.

While the official GOP platform endorses the idea of transferring federal land to the states, neither President-elect Donald Trump nor Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), his pick to head the Interior Department, embrace that approach. Zinke quit his post as a GOP convention delegate this past summer over the issue, and Trump expressed opposition to the concept a year ago in an interview with Field & Stream magazine.

“I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble?” he said at the time. “And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land.”

The overall rules package became ensnared in a controversy over a different provision, which would have eliminated an independent congressional ethics office. But once that part of the package was removed, the measure passed on a largely party-line vote.

[Aimless]

Thank you for the alert. I have passed this on already to many others who would find this idea extremely objectionable, with the suggestion they contact their representatives about it, expressing those objections.

[Rand Man]

https://wilderness.org/press-release/house-republicans-attack-public-lands-opening-day-congress

[Rand Man]

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2017/public-lands-01-04-2017.php

[BigBear]

What do you expect from a Congress that thought the first order of business was to disband the ethics oversight organization? This is the 2nd of a long line of shameful pieces of legislation which we can expect before the next election.

I wish I had enough money to make a difference. Unfortunately, representation is not what motivates this group.

[Rand Man]

Oregon Wild identified the dot-gov voting Roll Call on the Rules Package.
190 dems voted against the Package, even after removal of the abolition of the Ethics Committee. The repubs voted 114/74 on the 3rd Jan to include abolition. Given these numbers, abolition never had a chance of passing, the Ethics issue appears as a diversion to sneak in privatization.

http://www.oregonwild.org/about/press/new-rules-package-passed-house-gop-attacks-public-lands

[Splintercat]

It's going to be a loooooong four years. Curses on those who argued the false equivalency between the choices in the presidential election as a reason for not participating (or writing in a non-vote). If they're like Nader voters, they'll never own up to the repercussions of opting out, either. Let's at least hope a few pragmatists were born out of this...

Tom

[miah66]

This issue was the single issue that I was most concerned about w/ a Trump presidency. I can't understand how anyone that loves the outdoors and the wilderness could vote for him knowing that this was the end game! With a Republican congress who has made it their platform to sell off public lands to the highest bidder/polluter, why on earth would you vote for a guy who will cut deals with them? Even if Trump talks like he isn't for selling public lands, who knows? Can you really hang the future of our natural heritage, and possibly our planet on his hair trigger, tweet happy temperament?

People can talk about how they didn't like Hillary b/c of this or that...it really doesn't matter. If you love the outdoors and want to keep what is yours and mine out of the hands of corporate privateers and criminals, then you should've swallowed hard and done what was better for the people, the climate, the planet. Now, it's a total unknown, and I hardly think that is a better option than the status quo.

I'll fight this every step of the way.

[drm]

It's going to be a loooooong four years. Curses on those who argued the false equivalency between the choices in the presidential election as a reason for not participating (or writing in a non-vote). If they're like Nader voters, they'll never own up to the repercussions of opting out, either. Let's at least hope a few pragmatists were born out of this...

Tom

I think comparing 2000 and 2016 is false equivalency. I was on Nader's 2000 national campaign staff, spent my entire year working on it - sometimes you gotta follow your heart. 2016 seemed quite different to me.

As to selling off lands or anything else similar, my guess is that they will have a fairly short honeymoon to get anything radical done. There are going to be a lot of big-ticket items like health care filling their time, and probably some disasters we can't even predict now.

[retired jerry]

I don't think you can blame 2000 result on Nader. If he hadn't of been in the running, it's not clear what the result would have been.

For example, maybe some people knew that Nader would be taking votes, so they were more likely to actually turn out and vote (for Gore).

It's overly simplistic to just take Nader's votes, allocate them to Gore, and conclude Nader caused W to be elected.