Public Lands for Sale
“resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to initiatives to sell or transfer to, or exchange with, a State or local government any Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.”
– Senate Amendment No. 838 to Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 – An original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025, 114th Congress. Sponsor: Senator Lisa Murkowski [R-AK}. Resolution passed 52-46.
Ah, Obfubureaucratispeak, a language all its own, seemingly composed of words from the English language yet unfamiliar to most who deem themselves literate. As most Americans know, it is the native tongue of Congress, and its precise meaning is meant to be interpreted only by senators, congressional representatives, and lobbyists who often act as authors of amendments and entire bills passed into law. To all others it is meant to be as understandable as ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics or Sanskrit.
To those who study this language which has evolved as a transactional necessity from the buying and selling of representatives in Congress by multinational corporations and well-funded special interest groups, this seemingly meaningless amendment put forth by Senator Murkowski of Alaska, establishes a foundation for future Republican sponsored legislation that, no doubt, relates directly to those who own the representatives and direct their votes.
The statement of purpose for the amendment helps decipher the meaning latent among the gibberish: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the disposal of certain Federal land. Yes, you read that correctly, “disposal of certain Federal land.”
According to Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, “As most sportsmen know, transferring lands to the state or selling them off is a bad deal for sportsmen. If Congress were to follow these instructions, all BLM lands, National Forests and even National Wildlife Refuges could go on the chopping block. Heck, even national battlefields and historic sites could be transferred or sold.”
The Republican-controlled Congress is setting the stage to begin selling off or transferring our public lands. Congress has forgotten something in their lust for power: public lands belong to us, not them, and sportsmen like Fosburgh and the members of the TRCP are passionate about their public lands, just like environmental groups and folks like me, who think selling off our lands held in trust for all Americans—present, and future—is a very shortsighted idea.
Fosburgh notes, “Make no mistake about it, the public lands vote on the budget resolution was a finger in the eye to sportsmen everywhere. But the real action is still to come, the question is whether sportsmen and women will pay attention and make their elected representatives know what they think about selling off or giving away our public lands.”
Perhaps the idea of having your state administer previously federal lands appeals to you? That’s understandable. It sounds fine on the surface. But states frequently lack the funding to manage public lands on the scale the federal government handles. In the long run, this leaves state lands more vulnerable to being sold or leased to special interests. In addition, state legislators can be purchased far less expensively than federal legislators, making it easier to facilitate the sale of the once-federal, now-state public lands.
“This amendment doesn’t sell, transfer, or exchange any piece of property,” Murkowski said when those who can translate Obfubureaucratispeak began interpreting her amendment for the public. “It provides a general budgetary mechanism that would apply to future legislation. Any actual transfers or exchanges of land would still need to go through the regular order legislative process and be signed into law. Also, this amendment specifies that lands within a national park, national preserve, or national monument do not qualify.
“This simple one-paragraph amendment enables, with proper safeguards, the types of exchanges, sales or transfers with states or local governments that are often used to craft balanced, comprehensive land policies that facilitate economic development, empower states and local governments, and improve conservation efforts,” the senator added, making me wonder if these types of exchanges, sales or transfers with states or local governments are already happening for these reasons, why the senator’s language was needed.
The Republican Party take on the amendment is clear. Their clarification on the amendment notes it ensures a “smart, well-balanced public lands policy,” and noted that the 51 all-Republican senators who voted for the amendment were “recognizing that such transactions are a tried-and-true approach for improving land management and providing communities with vital economic opportunities.”
Democratic senators were not enthusiastic about the Republican’s agenda to auction off our nation’s public lands and tried their own amendment to protect them.
“Selling off America’s treasured lands to the highest bidder would result in a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs in places that have been open to the public and used for generations. This would devastate outdoor traditions like hunting, camping and fishing that are among the pillars of Western culture and a thriving outdoor recreation economy,” said Senator Martin Heinrich [D-NM]. “Our natural heritage is not for sale. America’s forests, wildlife refuges and conservation lands are part of the fabric of our democracy. Let’s keep them that way.”
“New Mexicans have treasured our public lands for hunting, hiking, and camping for generations. This is our shared heritage—selling off our public lands would be devastating for businesses and communities that depend on tourism and our thriving outdoor economy,” said Senator Tom Udall [D-NM]. “This amendment protects our heritage, and I’m proud to vote to support our outdoor economy and Western way of life.”
You can join with the Sportsmen’s Access coalition to sign their petition against the selling off or transferring of our public lands at sportsmensaccess.org. – SB