Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009
Floor Speech
OMNIBUS PUBLIC LAND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 2009 -- (House of Representatives - March 25, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, Abraham Lincoln once told of a farmer who said, ``I ain't greedy for land. All I want is what is next to mine.'' I think our Federal Government is starting to resemble that farmer.
H.R. 146 is a massive land grab that would literally put more land in the United States into wilderness designation than we currently have actually developed from coast to coast. That pretty much means no human activities other than walking through it--as long as you don't touch anything. So I have to ask a question, when is enough enough?
The Federal Government already owns nearly 650 million acres of land. That is 30 percent of the entire land area of the United States. It owns 45 percent of my home State of California. Now, compare that to the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., the Federal Capital, the home to every agency in our vast Federal bureaucracy. The Federal Government owns only 25 percent of the District of Columbia.
The bill is estimated to cost about $10 billion, not only to pay for this land grab but for all of the other bells and whistles that are attached to it. That includes congressional earmarks like $3.5 million to celebrate the birthday of St. Augustine, Florida, and $250,000 to decide--to decide--what we are going to do with Alexander Hamilton's boyhood home in the Virgin Islands.
Now, $1 billion of the $10 billion of this bill is for salmon population restoration on the San Joaquin River in California, with the stated objective of establishing a population of at least 500 salmon.
Five hundred salmon. One billion dollars.
Mr. Speaker, that comes to $2 million per fish. And that is without accounting for all of the costs that will be incurred by central valley farmers as water that is already in critically short supply is diverted to this project.
Overall, this bill spends $10 billion of people's earnings. In real world numbers, that means about $130 from an average family of four through their taxes. I'm afraid that the mega-spending by this administration has begun to desensitize us to figures that are under $1 trillion. But let's try to put this $10 billion in perspective. The National Park Service reports a maintenance backlog of $9 billion on the land we already own. So, we can't take care of the land we already have, but we are going to spend $10 billion on acquiring additional land that we can't take care of.
This bill withdraws 3 million acres of land from energy leasing. Just from reserves that we know about, that is going to cost the American economy 330 million barrels of oil and 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Wyoming alone.
I was particularly struck by a provision that allows the Federal Government to condemn private property where fossils are found. So if you find a fossil in your backyard, Mother and Father America, be very careful. You will be well advised to keep it a secret. Under this bill, such a discovery could cost you your property.
This bill also means new restrictions on BLM lands. Now these public lands currently contribute to our Nation's economy by providing multiple uses such as farming, ranching, timber harvesting and offroad vehicle recreation, all for the broader public good. I have an awful lot of land in my district that is under Federal jurisdiction and under BLM management, and the constant complaints that I get from the public are not that there is too much access to public lands, but that there is too little access and too many restrictions to those lands. This bill codifies the National Landscape Conservation System, which means less public access and more restrictions on the public's use of the public's land.
So I ask again, when is enough enough? The preservation of public land is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end, that end being the public good. And the public good is not served by the mindless and endless acquisition of property at the expense of the sustainable use of our natural resources, the responsible stewardship of our public lands and the freedom and property rights of our citizens.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source