HB 19-33: We Don't Need This Land, So Why Keep It? Act (Passed)

[YE]

WE DON’T NEED THIS LAND, SO WHY KEEP IT?

House Bill

To direct the Secretary of the Internal Affairs to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal.

Section 1: Title
This Act may be cited as the We Don't Need This Land, So Why Keep It? Act.

Section 2: Sale of Certain Federal Lands Previously Identified as Suitable for Disposal
(a) Competitive Sale of Lands
The Secretary of Internal Affairs (SoIA) shall offer the identified Federal lands for disposal by competitive sale for not less than fair market value as determined by an independent appraiser.

(b) Existing Rights
The sale of identified Federal lands under this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.

(c) Proceeds of Sale of Lands
All net proceeds from the sale of identified Federal lands under this section shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

(d) Report
Not later than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the SoIA shall submit —
   1. A list of any identified Federal lands that have not been sold under subsection (b) and the reasons such lands were not sold; and
   2. An update of the report submitted on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), including a current inventory of the Federal lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the SoIA that are suitable for disposal.

(f) Definitions
The term "identified Federal lands" means the parcels of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the SoIA that were identified as suitable for disposal in the report submitted on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), except the following:

   A. Lands not identified for disposal in the applicable land use plan.
   B. Lands subject to a Recreation and Public Purpose conveyance application.
   C. Lands identified for Regional selection.
   D. Lands identified for Indian tribe allotments.
   E. Lands identified for local government use.


Section 3: Clarification Regarding Regional Laws
Nothing in this Act shall affect the implementation of Regional laws, including Regional enabling Acts.

Sponsor: fhtagn
72 hours to debate.

[YE]

I probably have a bit to say but I want the SOIA to chip in first.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I need to see the relevant "disposable lands" to see if this matches with present administration policy.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'll be keeping an eye on this as this bill specifically pertains to public lands in Frémont and I am completely against auctioning off protected areas and parks for profit.  What "disposable lands" would be affected?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Heavily concerned about this bill.

[Adam Griffin]

Nop Nop Nop

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I'll be keeping an eye on this as this bill specifically pertains to public lands in Frémont and I am completely against auctioning off protected areas and parks for profit.  What "disposable lands" would be affected?

I second the first minister's concerns.

[Devout Centrist]

Not only no, but hell no

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Move to table due to administration concerns and the Sponsor's failure to advocate for this.

[fhtagn]

Move to table due to administration concerns and the Sponsor's failure to advocate for this.

I posted a valid LOA due to being out of the country. Not a single person bothered to PM me and let me know this was on the floor, despite openly posting said LOA (so there's no excuse for someone to say they didn't know). I'll advocate for this later, but for now I'm objecting to the motion.

[YE]

Not supporting a table motion, especially with the new rules.

[lfromnj]

Not a fan of selling public land which should really belong to everyone in an ideal world, #commielfromnj, but anyway I think we could amend this bill for leases of like 25 years? This way we can still get the land back after a while or even a lease till death of the original renter who may not transfer the lease?

[Dr. MB]

Introducing an amendment:

WE DON’T NEED THIS LAND, SO WHY KEEP IT?

House Bill

To direct the Secretary of the Internal Affairs to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal.

Section 1: Title
This Act may be cited as the We Don't Need This Land, So Why Keep It? Act.

Section 2: Sale of Certain Federal Lands Previously Identified as Suitable for Disposal
(a) Competitive Sale of Lands
The Secretary of Internal Affairs (SoIA) shall offer the identified Federal lands for disposal by competitive sale for not less than fair market value as determined by an independent appraiser.

(b) Existing Rights
The sale of identified Federal lands under this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.

(c) Proceeds of Sale of Lands
All net proceeds from the sale of identified Federal lands under this section shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

(d) Report
Not later than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the SoIA shall submit —
   1. A list of any identified Federal lands that have not been sold under subsection (b) and the reasons such lands were not sold; and
   2. An update of the report submitted on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), including a current inventory of the Federal lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the SoIA that are suitable for disposal.

(f) Definitions
The term "identified Federal lands" means the parcels of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the SoIA that were identified as suitable for disposal in the report submitted on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), except the following:

   A. Lands not identified for disposal in the applicable land use plan.
   B. Lands subject to a Recreation and Public Purpose conveyance application.
   C. Lands identified for Regional selection.
   D. Lands identified for Indian tribe allotments.
   E. Lands identified for local government use.


Section 3: Clarification Regarding Regional Laws
Nothing in this Act shall affect the implementation of Regional laws, including Regional enabling Acts.

Section 2. Home on the Range
1. The Small Tract Act of 1938 is hereby reinstated.
2. The Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916 is hereby reinstated.
3. The Homestead Act of 1862, including succeeding amendments to this Act, is hereby reinstated.
4. The Timber Culture Act of 1873 is hereby reinstated.

[fhtagn]

I'm not sure what stage we are at with this because of Wulfric'a motion.

Which is why I was waiting on my supporting statement and response to MB's amendment.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm not sure what stage we are at with this because of Wulfric'a motion.

Which is why I was waiting on my supporting statement and response to MB's amendment.

A motion to table is irrelevant unless seconded. It has not been seconded, so debate can continue.

[YE]

Wulfric is correct.

Debate may continue.

[Dr. MB]

Also, my amendment was up for 24 hours so it should have been adopted.

[fhtagn]

In any case MB's amendment is a fair compromise, so it's friendly.

Sorry, jet lag hasn't been kind to me since I returned home.

[YE]

Oh yeah that too I suppose.

What does MB’s amendment do BTW?

[lfromnj]

Oh yeah that too I suppose.

What does MB’s amendment do BTW?

I think it forces people to move to the area rather than buying it from afar and just investing?

[Dr. MB]

Oh yeah that too I suppose.

What does MB’s amendment do BTW?

I think it forces people to move to the area rather than buying it from afar and just investing?

Pretty much.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Oh yeah that too I suppose.

What does MB’s amendment do BTW?

I think it forces people to move to the area rather than buying it from afar and just investing?

Pretty much.

So what land is being privatized?

[Dr. MB]

Oh yeah that too I suppose.

What does MB’s amendment do BTW?

I think it forces people to move to the area rather than buying it from afar and just investing?

Pretty much.

So what land is being privatized?

None, unless someone wants to build a homestead.

[Dr. MB]

Anything else to say?

[YE]

Motioning for a final vote.

24 hours to object.