Anyone Else Seen This Land Grab

[Nemont]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h3855:

HR 3855 IH


109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3855
To raise funds necessary to respond to Hurricane Katrina and future disasters by selling a portion of the lands administered by the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 21, 2005
Mr. TANCREDO (for himself, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mrs. CUBIN, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. POE, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, and Mr. OTTER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



A BILL
To raise funds necessary to respond to Hurricane Katrina and future disasters by selling a portion of the lands administered by the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SALE OF NATIONAL FOREST AND DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR LANDS TO RAISE FUNDS FOR DISASTER RELIEF.

(a) Sale of National Forest Lands- The Secretary of Agriculture shall select 15 percent of the lands included in the National Forest System (as defined in section 11(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a))) and convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the selected lands by public sale.

(b) Sale of Department of the Interior Lands- The Secretary of the Interior shall identify 15 percent of the lands managed by agencies of the Department of the Interior (excluding lands in units of the National Park System established by Act of Congress and lands held for the benefit of an Indian tribe) and convey all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the identified lands by public sale.

(c) Priority Locations- The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall place an emphasis on identifying lands for sale under this section in those States where the United States owns more than 15 percent of the total land area. (AKA the Western U.S.-Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Etc

(d) Commencement of Sales- The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall complete the identification of Federal lands under this section and commence the sale of such lands not later than October 1, 2006. The land sales shall proceed without regard to any other provision of law. |oo |oo

(e) Treatment of Proceeds- All proceeds from the sale of Federal lands under this section (other than amounts retained to cover the administrative costs incurred solely to conduct the sales) shall be deposited in the special account established under subsection (f).

(f) Disaster Response and Relief Fund-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established in the Treasury a special account to be known as the `Disaster Response and Relief Fund'.

(2) INVESTMENT- Pending the need to use the special account for the purposes specified in subsection (g), the Secretary of the Treasury shall manage amounts in the special account to maximize the return to the United States. Interest on investments shall also be deposited in the special account.

(g) Use of Fund for Disaster Relief- Amounts in the special account shall be available only for appropriation to cover or defray the costs of responding to a natural disaster or terrorist attack in an area covered by a disaster declaration made by the President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

And as an added feature to kick the public lands users in the teeth. :BLEEP:

(h) Moratorium on Federal Land Acquisition- Until the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior comply with the duties imposed on the Secretaries by this section, an interest in land may not be acquired by the Forest Service or an agency of the Department of the Interior unless the acquisition of that land is specifically authorized by an Act of Congress enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Look at who sponsored this piece of crap.

Sponsor: Rep. Thomas Tancredo [R-CO]
Cosponsors:
Rep. W. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD]
Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT]
Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY]
Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL]
Rep. Jeff Flake [R-AZ]
Rep. Walter Herger [R-CA]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. C.L. Otter [R-ID]
Rep. Joseph Pitts [R-PA]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA]
Rep. David Weldon [R-FL]

I could understand this from Representatives from FL,CA, MD I can even undertand the guy from Texas because they got rid of their public land 140 years ago, but look there are Representatives from CO, ID, WY, AZ, UT consponsoring this kind of B.S.

It didn't make it out of committee prior to recess but how can anyone even dream up something like this?

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nemont,

The stupidity of Republicans in Congress never ceases to raise to new levels... Hopefully this dies a permanent death.

Yeah, I have seen this. CL "Butch" Otter is sponsoring this, and is running for Governor.

This is just further proof that the GOP doesn't care about hunters and fishermen. We have failed federal policies for disaster relief, so, instead, we sell off places that people hunt and fish to the highest bidder to put up No Trespassing signs.

Keep us posted if you see updates....

 

[jmcd]

Wow! Good post Nemont.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Nemont, here's more info:

http://www.hunttalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25089

I'm keeping a file on this issue to show hunters, fishermen and anyone else who enjoys public land. I'll copy what I have and put it here. We have an election coming up and anyone who votes for these Reps. is an idiot.

**********************************************************

Otter supports flawed giveaway of public land

Federal land is a legacy and a treasure belonging to us all — not inventory to palm off when times get tough.

It's reckless for U.S. Rep. C.L. "Butch" Otter to attach his name to a bill to put 15 percent of U.S. Forest Service and Interior Department lands on the auction block. It's even more frightening since Otter, a Republican gubernatorial candidate, wants the job of setting Idaho's budget, helping to manage 2.5 million acres of state endowment land, and preserving public access to hunting and fishing.

Otter is among a dozen co-sponsors of a giveaway under the guise of paying for rebuilding needed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and subsequent disasters.

The bill is reminiscent of a loosely worded proposal that could have allowed companies to stake a mining claim, purchase the land, then set up vacation homes or ski resorts on federal land. That ill-advised proposal died earlier this month amidst vehement criticism from environmentalists and recreation groups, former federal lands managers and Western politicians from both parties. The hurricane bill is even worse — because it opens up much more land to the highest bidder.

The mining rider might have covered "only" 360,000 acres nationwide. The hurricane bill could affect a staggering 5 million acres in Idaho, a land mass as large as the Boise and Payette national forests combined.

Otter has mishandled the Katrina issue from the start. He was one of only 11 House Republicans to vote against a $51.8 billion relief bill in September. At least then, Otter had legitimate qualms: He worried that Congress didn't specify where the money would go and hadn't built in adequate safeguards. His argument for the hurricane land sale fails to stand up to scrutiny.

"I find it interesting that, at a time when many local governments are struggling to make ends meet, some would oppose an effort to restore to local property tax rolls and Idaho-based stewardship some carefully selected parcels of the nearly two-thirds of Idaho that is controlled — and too often locked up from multiple use — by the federal government," he said Monday.

Otter has it backwards. Putting public lands in private hands is more likely to limit multiple use than to preserve it. Federal land managers must strive to balance economics and recreation, resource use and resource protection. Developers are under no such obligation.

"This is not Democrats versus Republicans," said Jerry Brady, Otter's Democratic opponent for governor. "This is too important for politics. It goes to the heart of why we live in Idaho."

Brady's right, yet there's even more to it. Access is a matter of state public policy. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game is paying private landowners through Access Yes!, a forward-thinking program that has opened up 240,000 acres of private land and 250,000 acres of adjacent public land. How would this program play with a governor who wants to privatize the people's land? Otter didn't say Tuesday. In a prepared statement, he said, "Reaching the conclusion that the sale of federal lands to local landowners here in Idaho would necessarily mean a loss of access to sportsmen does a disservice to the value that Idahoans place on stewardship."

As long as we're asking questions, is Otter the kind of governor who'd be willing, under the constitutional constraints of a balanced state budget, to consign state lands or other valuable public assets to the clearance rack? Another fair question.

A gubernatorial candidate aspires to be the CEO of state government. Otter's support of this bill raises serious concerns about his business strategy.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/.../512210314/1053



HR 3855 would sell 15 percent of national forest lands and 15 percent of the lands managed by the Department of the Interior, with a priority placed on states like Idaho, where the federal government owns more than 15 percent of all the land in the state.
The proceeds would be directed to a disaster relief fund.
Sponsors: Idaho Rep. Butch Otter, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, and 11 others.


Brady bashes Otter on lands bill
Measure would allow federal lands to be sold


Gregory Hahn
The Idaho Statesman | Edition Date: 12-20-2005
Email This ArticlePrinter Friendly Page
The first volley of the 2006 race for Idaho governor was lobbed by the Democrats Monday.

Eastern Idaho newspaper publisher Jerry Brady attacked Congressman Butch Otter for co-sponsoring a bill that would sell 15 percent of both federal forest lands and land managed by the Department of the Interior to raise money for disaster relief.

With support from some Idaho sportsmen, Brady said the bill would be a blow to hunters and anglers in Idaho, as well as those who just enjoy the outdoors.
When the federal government unloads its lands, "no trespassing signs go up and you are locked out," Brady said.

Otter countered that the bill could help Idaho collect money in property taxes.
"I find it interesting that, at a time when many local governments are struggling to make ends meet, some would oppose an effort to restore to local property tax rolls and Idaho-based stewardship some carefully selected parcels of the nearly two-thirds of Idaho that is controlled — and too often locked up from multiple use — by the federal government," Otter said, in a prepared statement e-mailed to The Idaho Statesman.

The bill would direct the secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to decide which lands to sell. It's in front of the House's Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry but has not been scheduled for a hearing.

Idaho has some 33 million acres of public lands — about 62 percent of the state's entire mass. If 15 percent of Idaho’s public lands were sold, it would amount to almost 5 million acres.

The election is almost a year away, but when Lt. Gov. Jim Risch ended speculation that he would challenge Otter in the primary, it left this race — so far — a two-man battle.

Brady, a Democrat who lost to Gov. Dirk Kempthorne in 2002, was quick to take advantage of the opening.

On Monday, he stood with former Idaho Fish and Game Director Jerry Conley and longtime Fish and Game workers Jack Trueblood and Bill Goodnight.

Trueblood pointed to a story his father, famed outdoor writer Ted Trueblood, wrote a couple of decades ago called “They’re Fixin’ to Steal Your Land.”

That was about the Sagebrush Rebellion, he said.
“Let me tell you, these guys are back,” he said.

Conley, who ran the Fish and Game Department for 16 years, said he was “horrified” when he saw the bill.

“That’s land that I hope my kids and my grandkids can continue to use,” he said.

If it’s sold, only big corporations and the wealthiest individuals will be able to afford it, he predicted.

Otter is one of 13 co-sponsors of the bill pitched by Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo.

“It also might be worth asking where the criticism was when the federal government sold large portions of the Boise Foothills to the city of Boise,” Otter said in the statement. “Are such transfers only valid when they are proposed by self-appointed conservationists, and not by those who espouse the broader concept of multiple-use stewardship?”

*********************************************************

Cecil D. Andrus: Selling public lands to cover Katrina's costs is not the answer
Edition Date: 12-24-2005
Email This ArticlePrinter Friendly Page
Selling off our public federal lands to pay for the damage of Hurricane Katrina is like selling your backyard to cover the costs of a fire in your garage. It doesn't make sense.

Yet there are some in Washington, D.C., who are pushing a plan to sell off 15 percent of all the lands held by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other Interior Department agencies. States like Idaho with a lot of federal acres would be first on the chopping block.

Idaho has about 33 million acres of federal public lands. Selling off 15 percent of those would equal more than 5 million acres. That's more than the entire Boise and Sawtooth national forests combined. And the 15 percent limit doesn't necessarily apply to a state-by-state approach — there's no limit in the proposed legislation to how much could be sold in any one state.
Here in Idaho, our public land is our working capital. We use our natural resources, such as timber and grazing, and we enjoy the recreation that comes with them, such as hunting, fishing, camping and hiking.

Yet our public lands are more than the sum of its parts. Over the years of my life, as I have driven and flown around this beautiful state, I've seen the prettiest blue waterfalls, the most stunning high desert cliffs, the most breathtaking forests. But just as much as the scenery, I love the fact that it belongs to all of us. None of us owns it, yet we all share it. That's one of the most central concepts of being an Idahoan — it's what makes us who we are.
I can't imagine why anyone from Idaho would want to auction off this irreplaceable treasure. I know that Jerry Brady, Democratic candidate for governor, has stepped up to defend Idaho's public lands, and I commend him for it.

Once we sell off this land, it's gone. The old Will Rogers adage is true: "They ain't makin' it no more."

Sure, you can horse-trade for a few acres here and there. We did some of that when I was secretary of the Interior under President Carter. But in all my years managing the Interior Department, our goal was always to make public land more open and accessible to the people; not sell it to the highest bidder so private landowners can put up fences, like they've done in Texas.
I'm sure some people will say that Idaho has plenty of public land, so we can afford to sell off some of it and still have plenty. But selling land isn't the same as selling potatoes, microchips or some other commodity. Rural land can be bought strategically, so that purchasing 100 acres can effectively close off 1,000 acres or more, depending on road access. This kind of buying allows one private citizen to make a minimal investment but still lock out huge tracts to everyone who doesn't own a helicopter.

Also, in the current political atmosphere, there's a strong potential for dishonesty. It seems like every day, more headlines are coming out of Washington, D.C., about politicians corrupted by greed.
What do you think would happen if the entire West were opened up to land speculators? Who do you think would be the winners and who will be the losers?

I'll tell you who. It will be the high-dollar campaign contributors and the big-time power brokers who will own the best and most valuable lands.

The hunters, fishermen, campers and other recreationists will be left out, but they won't be the only losers. It will also be the family rancher, the small-town outfitter, the restaurant owners and hotel operators and all their employees.
Idaho and the West are not for sale to the highest bidder. Our heritage, our culture and our future depend on keeping this irreplaceable resource open for all.

 

[TheTone]

Good to see this issue is staying in the papers down south. I've only seen the one original article up here about it.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Here's a little more info. Otter says: "“It also might be worth asking where the criticism was when the federal government sold large portions of the Boise Foothills to the city of Boise,” Otter said in the statement. “Are such transfers only valid when they are proposed by self-appointed conservationists, and not by those who espouse the broader concept of multiple-use stewardship?”

He's completely wrong. The Fed. Government never sold large portions of Boise Foothill lands to the city of Boise. The Forest Service has traded small tracts of Boise Foothills land for much larger tracts of land adjacent to the Boise National Forest, thus increasing the total amount of Boise National Forest land. The National Forests actually came out ahead on that deal.

Either Otter is lying or he's too stupid to do some research and find out the facts. I suspect he's lying.

 

[enrut]

"Either Otter is lying or he's too stupid to do some research and find out the facts. I suspect he's lying." I would like to think he is lying but the truth is the truth. Stupid is as stupid does... This coming from a man who built his home right on the boise river and distroyed acres of waterfowl wetland for HIS drive way, Was warned but went ahead and did it without repurcussions? Money talks and bull$hi!! walks. The man is a bone head...Republican or DEM... He is a bonehead
Lets sell his new ON the River home and send the 1/2 mil to help rebuild.. We do not need anymore of our land sold and locked up.

 

[cjcj]

Anyone have an answer on how to pay for it? Should we rebuild?

I don`t hear of any other plans to pay for it...Oh lets just "print" more money.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Sure, how about using the money that the U.S. normally gives away to other countries every year? |oo

Should be more than enough.

 

[cjcj]

Thats a great idea. hump

We would have leftover cash hump

You "nailed" that one W.H.

 

[Nemont]

Anyone have an answer on how to pay for it? Should we rebuild?

I don`t hear of any other plans to pay for it...Oh lets just "print" more money.

cjcj,

The current plan is to rebuild the levee's to withstand a Cat 4 storm so if another Katrina comes along NOLA would still be flooded. Why rebuild the areas that are under sea level at taxpayer expense.

Selling public land to finance diasaster aid is like killing the milk cow to get meat. When you need milk again the cow is dead. Public lands are not just an asset of the Government that is to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. They were placed in Trust to the government to be managed, in most cases, for multiple use. Do you want to sell off Yellowstone or Glacier or Grand Teton the next time?

How about cut out the Medicare Rx program, the pork in the highway bill or farm progragms etc. There are Billions of dollars that could be "offset" to pay for this. Selling public land to do is pure stupidity.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

"How about cut out the Medicare Rx program, the pork in the highway bill or farm progragms etc. There are Billions of dollars that could be "offset" to pay for this. Selling public land to do is pure stupidity. "

Amen brother Nemont!

 

[Washington Hunter]

Farm programs...would that include the CRP? If so I wouldn't support that. Cut everything else, but not that. Wildlife needs somewhere to live. Without CRP, farmers sure aren't going to leave any habitat for wildlife.

 

[mtmiller]

CRP is temporary, Federal public land should be permament.

I think Nemont and the earlier WH post were right on.

 

[noharleyyet]

We have plenty of money...just take a look at our politicians' retirement plans.

 

[Nemont]

ooops didn't mean to post

 

[jmcd]

Wash. Hunter. STOP you're making way too much sense!

 

[Wapiti Slayer]

I really hope Idaho people being as republican as they are can see how bad Otter would be for our state and the values we hold. He only wants to profit off the sale of our land & hunting and fishing. Anyone who really cares will get out and vote against the prick!

 

[TheTone]

I think people are starting to see through him, I know I certainly have in the past year. He has no prayer of getting my vote.

 

[Wapiti Slayer]

I really hope this gets a lot more media attention so people can see what a worthless prick he is. He has pulled many a scam here and got away with it because of his money and friends. Hopefully the public will see what he's really about!!!!!!!