Senate poised to move quickly on Omnibus

Procedural maneuver designed to nullify House vote

By Noelle Straub and Eric Bontrager
Environment & Energy Daily

The Senate today will vote on six amendments to the public lands, water and natural resources omnibus bill and may vote on the final version as soon as tonight.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday reached an agreement to allow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) votes on the amendments in return for dropping his objections to the bill. The deal allows for 60 minutes of debate on each of Coburn's amendments and requires 60 votes for final passage. The Senate first passed the omnibus bill in January, 74-21, and a cloture vote Monday was approved, 73-21.

During floor debate yesterday, Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) described Coburn's amendments as largely minor, noncontroversial measures intended as assurances against unintended consequences of the omnibus. He encouraged Republicans to vote for them, saying they "simply improve the bill."

"Why would we want to preserve the right to use eminent domain if we don't have any intention to use it?" - Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

He noted one of the Coburn amendments would prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire any of the millions of acres that would be protected under the omnibus. Supporters of the package have repeatedly refuted Coburn's claims that eminent domain would be used for any of the lands in the omnibus. "If it is true ... that none of this land needs to be acquired by eminent domain, there is no harm in including the language" of the amendment, Kyl said. "Why would we want to preserve the right to use eminent domain if we don't have any intention to use it?"

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), who has a measure in the omnibus that would designate more than 517,000 acres as wilderness in the Owyhee-Bruneau Canyonlands of southwestern Idaho, said he understood the concerns of Coburn and some other members have but does not share their fears that the package represent "a haphazard attempt to extend the reach of the federal government."

"This is a well thought through management approach," Crapo said. "I don't believe there is a single piece of legislation in this bill that does not have the support of the senator of the state those lands are in."

Crapo said he hopes the Senate will move "expeditiously" on the amendments so that it can pass the omnibus and send it over the House.

Two of Coburn's amendments would strike all provisions that could restrict renewable energy development on public lands and sections that Coburn deems frivolous, such as the $3.5 million to celebrate the 450th Anniversary of St. Augustine, Fla., in 2015. Noting the National Park Service's $9 billion maintenance backlog, one amendment would bar new construction until all current park sites are certified as fully operational, ensuring full access by the public, and posing no health or safety threat.

Other amendments would require an annual report detailing the total size and cost of federal property, prohibit the use of eminent domain for any provision authorized in the bill, and clarify the bill to protect park visitors and scientists from criminal penalties for taking stones that may contain fossils.

Last week, the House fell two votes shy of passing the bill under suspension of the rules, a maneuver that shields legislation from amendment or a motion to recommit but requires a two-thirds majority for passage. Senate leaders then devised a strategy to use a bill that had already passed the House -- H.R. 146, a proposal to protect Revolutionary War battlefields -- and strip its contents, replacing it with the omnibus lands bill. Because H.R. 146 has already passed the House, the House Rules Committee can approve a closed rule that would block a motion to recommit, eliminating the GOP's best procedural chance to stymie the bill.

House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) yesterday said he had not seen Coburn's amendments but doubted that any would jeopardize the omnibus's final passage in the House. He noted that because the House already passed H.R. 146, all it would need is a simple majority vote to concur with the Senate amendment.

Even if the Senate passes the omnibus this week, Rahall said the House would likely not take it up until next week.

Because the omnibus may only require a simple majority, Natural Resources Committee ranking member Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) admitted that the bill is all but assured to pass. While pleased that the Reid-Coburn agreement will allow some amendments on the Senate side, he reiterated that House Republicans have never had the same opportunity.

The omnibus would designate more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states and would establish three new national park units, a new national monument, three new national conservation areas, more than 1,000 miles of national wild and scenic rivers and four new national trails. It would enlarge the boundaries of more than a dozen existing national park units and establish 10 new national heritage areas.

It would also authorize numerous land exchanges and conveyances to help local Western communities address water resource and supply issues and includes provisions to improve land management.

The revised omnibus bill will also include language from Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) meant to ensure that the omnibus would not close off lands that are already open to hunting and fishing.

Public Lands Bill Defeated in House

By Kate Phillips
New York Times

For now, the mega-public lands bill that would have greatly expanded public wilderness areas, parks and miles and miles of public trails, is stalled. House Republicans managed to maintain enough opposition to the omnibus measure to defeat it earlier today in a vote requiring two-thirds of the House members, by 282-144.

House Democratic leaders had brought the bill to the floor under suspension of the rules, as a way to keep the opposition from altering the legislation through amendments. But getting two-thirds remained dicey. Democrats tried to persuade Republicans (and conservative Democrats) that the bills were gun-friendly by the insertion of an amendment that would have prohibited any effort to close lands in the omnibus to hunting and fishing, but many Republicans still believed the legislation did not include enough gun rights protections.

Three Democrats voted no; 34 Republicans voted with Democrats; and six did not vote. It fell two votes short of passage.

Beyond guns, the House Republican leadership had complained all along that the total size of the bill was extraordinary, and would cost billions of dollars. It also opposed the legislation on the grounds that many pieces of the omnibus, totaling more than 150 bills that would have created new national parks, expanded the boundaries of existing ones, created monuments or “heritage areas” and nationalized trails, had never been thoroughly examined in the House.

The Senate had already passed the bill, S. 22, after Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, scheduled votes on a Sunday in early January for consideration of the omnibus bill.

Republicans also objected to the Democrats’ decision to pursue the vote through a suspension of the rules, contending that the procedure should be used mainly for renaming post offices or ceremonial items as opposed to something as massive as this bill. In addition, private land rights came into play as well as concerns that closing off so much land would affect energy resources.

Representative John Boehner, the minority leader in the House, said today: “The legislation Democrats attempted to force through the House today would have made matters even worse by blocking environmentally safe energy production, increasing gasoline and other energy costs, and costing American jobs we cannot afford to lose.”

A senior Democratic aide in the House said the best option under consideration would be to have the Senate shoehorn it onto another bill and ship it back. House Democratic leaders have not definitively ruled out a floor vote using a simpler rule, needing only a majority for passage, but that move would leave the measure wide open for amendments.

As for the ever-present gun lobby, an amendment by Democrat Jason Altmire, Democrat of Pennsylvania, was meant to assuage those concerned about hunting and fishing rights. And Democrats’ pointed to the N.R.A.’s satisfaction with that amendment. But Gun Owners of America sent out a letter this week objecting to the overall omnibus on many grounds, and urged House members to vote against it.

Senate passes sweeping public lands package

Sally Schuff
Feedstuffs

In one of its first votes of the new Congress, the Senate passed a major public land omnibus bill 73-21 on Jan. 15. The bill, which included delineated new wilderness areas and scenic rivers in several states, passed with bipartisan approval despite a filibuster attempt by Oklahoma's Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican.

The bill was applauded by environmental groups and coalitions within states that had worked out compromises on some of the controversial land issues. However, in December it was opposed as a "land grab" by the unlikely combination of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute and by R-CALF USA.

The bill will now go to the House for action. Eventually it must be signed by the President, however the Bush Administration did not issue a Statement of Administration Policy, presumably since the final legislation would go to the desk of President Obama.

The Senate bill includes a sweeping package of more than 150 previous bills. Congressional sources report the new bill authorizes programs and activities in both the Interior and Agriculture departments. Interestingly, the Obama nominee to be the new Interior Secretary, Sen. Ken Salazar (D., Colo.), voted for the bill; while former Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, who is now the junior U.S. Senator from Nebraska, voted against it.

Congressional sources reported the bill authorizes a host of actions, including: national wilderness preservation, boundary adjustments, national rivers, the national landscape conservation system, national conservation areas, land conveyances and exchanges, watershed management, watershed restoration and enhancement, wildland firefighter safety, forest landscape restoration, national trails, paleontological resources preservation, wolf livestock loss, national parks, studies, infrastructure, advisory commissions, national heritage areas, national heritage corridors, water projects, tribal water rights, ocean exploration, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) undersea research, ocean and coastal mapping integration, the integrated coastal and ocean observation system, federal ocean acidification research and monitoring, and coastal and estuarine land conservation.

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008

Senator Reid calls peers into lame duck session to debate controversial bill

Environmental Analysis

Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)

One would think with all the talk of bailouts and a faltering economy, the subject of preserving "wilderness" areas would not be high on the Congressional agenda. But alas, it appears this is not the case as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently announced he is calling back his peers in a lame duck session to try and pass the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008.

This initiative is being decried by property rights advocates as a massive land grab by Uncle Sam, and rightly so. The over 1,000 page bill not only contains some $4 billion in pork barrel spending, but also creates a number of new (and unnecessary) "conservation" programs which will put bureaucrats in charge of millions of new acres of our nation's lands. The Act is certain to gum up the works of those individuals trying to make use of their property with a new layer of red tape, and most tragically, it may ultimately force the American taxpayer to fund the buyout of new tracts that are currently owned by private individuals. This, at a time when the Federal government already owns an astonishing 650 million acres and self-admittedly claims it is struggling with maintenance issues.

Not surprisingly, many Americans in rural areas oppose the creation of new National Heritage Areas. But perhaps a bit more odd to many, it appears even constituencies who voted for Barak Obama in large numbers are also showing their distaste for this bill.

According to a recent poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research, 52 percent of African-Americans oppose legislation to create new National Heritage Areas while only 37 percent support it. This opposition probably reflects the fact that many minorities are particularly vulnerable to home price increases, and prices would likely rise following National Heritage Area designation. It will be interesting to see if findings like this give pause to the legislation's supporters.

Majority of African-Americans Oppose Public Lands Bill

Will African-Americans Continue to be Taken for Granted Even After Historic Election? Vote on Harry Reid's Omnibus Public Lands Bill Will be Key Test

Press Release
The National Center for Public Policy Research

Washington, DC - Senator Harry Reid's effort to pass the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act this week will be a key test of whether congressional liberals continue to take African-American support for granted, says the Washington, DC-based National Center for Public Policy Research.

The Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, an amalgamation of more than 100 bills that would place new restrictions on energy exploration, home construction, and business activity, has been scheduled by Harry Reid (D-NV) for a vote during this week's special lame duck session of the Senate.

The bill would restrict use of millions of additional acres of land, both public and private, through the creation of new National Heritage Areas (a program creating de facto federal zoning), new wilderness area designations, and management practices that would clear the way for special protections for so-called "view scapes," "sound scapes," and even "smell scapes."

But according to a new poll just released this morning by The National Center for Public Policy Research's Public Opinion and Policy Center, 52% of African-Americans oppose the legislation while only 37% support it.

"This is a key test of whether liberal politicians listen to African-Americans who cast 95% of their votes for Barack Obama and accounted for nearly one-quarter of all of President-elect Obama's votes," said David A. Ridenour, vice president of The National Center. "Black Americans don't want more land locked up if it means restricting energy development and home construction, driving up the price of both. And that's precisely what this bill would do."

Minorities are particularly vulnerable to home price increases and prices would likely rise following National Heritage Area designation.

An econometric study previously commissioned by The National Center noted, "The weight of increased home prices falls most heavily on minorities, the disadvantaged and the young, fewer of whom already own homes. The 'haves' who already own homes ride the price bubble created by restricted growth policies while the dream of ownership moves further away from the 'have-nots.'"

The poll surveyed 800 African-American adults and has a margin of error of +-3.46%.

The National Center for Public Policy Research is a non-partisan, non-profit educational foundation based in Washington, DC. It has joined Americans for Tax Reform and over 100 other organizations in raising concerns about the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act.

Omnibus Lands Bill Restricts Energy Exploration

by Nicolas Loris
Heritage Foundation

In one of the first moves in the lame duck session, Senator Harry Reid (D–NV) is calling for a vote on an omnibus lands package that would create 10 new "heritage" areas and restrict millions of acres as federal wilderness land. As a result, the bill would eliminate major recreation and restrict new oil and gas leasing, logging, mining, and all other business activity in these areas. In total, 3 million acres would be withdrawn from energy leasing. The Congressional Budget Office places an $8 billion price tag on the omnibus lands bill: $7.1 billion in discretionary spending and over $915 million in mandatory spending.[1]

The lands bill removes public land that would be available for recreational, commercial, and private ownership use by designating such land as wilderness areas, heritage areas, conservation areas and wild and scenic rivers. Furthermore, the bill places restrictions on existing federal property.

The bill also grants the government the authority to take over more privately owned land. Despite numerous pledges that it will not take away private land, the Congressional Research Service asserts that the National Park Service (NPS) "could exert federal control over nonfederal lands by influencing zoning and land-use planning. Heritage area management plans are overly prescriptive in regulating private property use, private property protections in legislation might not be adhered to, and NHA lands may be targeted for federal purchase and management."[2]

Forming National Heritage Areas

The process for forming a National Heritage Area (NHA) begins when an individual or group identifies a perceived historically significant property. "Historically significant property" is defined by the NPS as "a place designated by the U.S. Congress where natural, cultural, historic and recreational resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape … [to] tell nationally important stories about our nation," so just about any parcel of land or long-standing structure could be touted as an intricate part of someone's history and become eligible for federal subsidies, as the proposed NHAs for Mississippi alone reveal. Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS) introduced legislation that designates 30 counties in northeast Mississippi as NHAs, claiming, "The hills of Mississippi are rich in unique historical, natural, and cultural characteristics."[3]

There are three key reasons why existing NHAs should become financially independent of the federal government, as their enabling legislation requires, and no additional NHAs should be established.[4]

First, NHAs divert limited NPS resources away from core responsibilities. NPS advocates and staff have long complained about the lack of resources that Congress provides in comparison to its extensive responsibilities. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service estimate that the cost of NPS's maintenance backlog exceeds several billion dollars and is rising despite increased annual appropriations. Park attendance has been in decline in recent years, and camping in the parks has decreased, perhaps in part because of the functional obsolescence of campground facilities.[5] Some of this decrease in recreational usage can be attributed to silly provisions such as bans on snowmobiles, which significantly reduce tourism and hurt local economies.[6]

Second, federal budget costs for NHAs are expanding at a rapid pace. If enacted, the legislation would cost taxpayers an additional $110 million to create 10 new NHAs and study the feasibility of adding two more.[7] But not a single NHA has become financially independent within the timeframe allotted, and all have had their federal funding extended.

Third, private property rights are put at risk. On the surface, most of the legislation designating an NHA, and the subsequent management plans that guide them, explicitly prohibit the NPS or the management entity from using eminent domain to acquire property. They also prohibit the use of federal funds to acquire private property by way of a voluntary transaction with a willing seller. But NHAs pose a threat to private property rights through the exercise of restrictive zoning that may severely limit the extent to which property owners can develop or use their property. Termed "regulatory takings," such zoning abuses are the most common form of property rights abuse today. They are also the most pernicious because they do not require any compensation to owners whose property values are reduced by the new zoning.[8]

Federal Land Ownership and Restrictions

The omnibus lands package would allow the federal government to take ownership of specific areas by designating them as wilderness areas, heritage areas, conservation areas, or wild and scenic rivers. Furthermore, millions of acres of existing federal property would restrict the development of natural resources, particularly mineral resources. The federal government already owns and controls 650 million acres of land in the United States, including a large portion of land in the western U.S. For instance, the federal government owns approximately 85 percent of the land in Nevada, 69 percent of Alaska, 57 percent of Utah, and 53 percent of Oregon.[9]

Under the lands package, for example, the federal government would add 794,000 acres to the 45.4 million acres they already have in California, along with 83 miles of river. And it does not stop there. In total, the federal government would increase its stake in 15 states, reducing private property rights and placing valuable resources off limits.

Energy Off Limits

Moving additional land to government control frequently places energy supplies off limits and the omnibus lands package is no exception:. Over 3 million in total acreage would be withdrawn from energy leasing, including areas with enormous potential to extract new oil and natural gas. For example, 331 million barrels of recoverable oil and 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas would be taken out of exploration in Wyoming. The total amount of energy that would be restricted is equivalent to the amount of natural gas the entire U.S. produces in 15 years.[10]

The bill could not only restrict conventional energy resources, but it could also restrict access to oil shale in parts of Colorado and Wyoming. An estimated 1.2–1.8 trillion barrels of oil is available in the Green River Formation.[11] A moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of oil that would be recoverable from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.[12]

Although not all this potential energy would be off limits under Reid's proposal, recoverable oil refined from oil shale would provide another resource for domestic fuel production, and restricting parts of this land will only make extraction more difficult. Though the price of oil has been in steady decline as the current recession unfolds, the U.S. would still benefit from an increase in supply, and when the economy recovers, prices may likely rise again.[13] The omnibus lands package would take these valuable and strategic energy resources permanently off the table.

Furthermore, the omnibus package would restrict a number of other activities. Commercial timber harvesting, mining claims, and mineral leases are generally prohibited in wilderness areas designated by Congress.[14] Concerns also exist that animal grazing and motorized recreational activities would also be off limits.[15] Restricting these uses would undoubtedly hurt local economies by hampering commercial activities and reducing tourism and could lead to even more government rules and regulations.

Not the Time to Restrict Land

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008 would result in a huge expansion in government ownership of land in the United States. This increase would restrict access to energy and limit economic opportunity at a time when the nation should be increasing domestic supply. Moreover, this bill would restrict other commercial activities such as mining, timber harvesting, and recreational activities, and it would continue the federal assault on private property rights.

Nicolas D. Loris is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Congressional Budget Office, "Cost Estimate: S.1193," November 12, 2008, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/do
c9915/s1193OmniLand.pdf (November 14, 2008).

[2] Congressional Research Service, "The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008: Senate Amendment 5662 as Submitted on September 26, 2008," CRS Report for Congress, October 31, 2008.

[3] Press release, "Cochran Moves to Establish Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area," November 1, 2007, at http://www.mshills.org/documents/Cochranpressrelease.pdf (November 14, 2008).

[4] See Ronald D. Utt, "Another Federal Assault on Property Rights: The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2025, April 18, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/bg2025.cfm.

[5] Press release, "Cochran Moves to Establish Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area."

[6] Erin Hymel, "Banning the Better Alternative," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 547, August 2, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm547.cfm.

[7] Press release, "Dr. Coburn Says Upcoming Special Session of Congress Should Focus on Economic Crisis, Not Trivial Lands Bill," October 20, 2008 at http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
FuseAction=LatestNews.PressReleases&C
ontentRecord_id=1c14dd8f-802a-23ad-4dac-c03600ce287e (November 13, 2008).

[8] The U.S. General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office) reported in 2003 that of the 44 regulatory takings lawsuits against the agencies of the federal government (including Interior) that were settled between 2000 and 2002, 14 resulted in cash awards totaling $36.5 million to property owners. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Regulatory Takings: Agency Compliance with Executive Order on Government Actions Affecting Private Property Use (Abstract), GAO-04-120T, October 16, 2003.

[9] GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy, "Overview of the United States Government's Owned and Leased Real Property," September 30, 2004, at http://www.gsa.gov/gsa/cm_attachment
s/GSA_DOCUMENT/Annual%20Report%2
0%20FY2004%20Final_R2M-n11_0Z5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf (October 30, 2008).

[10] Press release, "Dr. Coburn Says Upcoming Special Session of Congress Should Focus on Economic Crisis."

[11] Nicolas Loris, "Omnibus Prohibits Oil Shale Development," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1754, December 18, 2007, at www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1754.cfm.

[12] Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS Information Center, "About Oil Shale," at http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/index.cfm (November 13, 2008).

[13] Although the Energy Information Administration has dramatically reduced its 2009 gasoline forecasts, the 2009 projections remain higher than the national average for the date November 10, 2008. For more information, see EIA, "Short-Term Energy Outlook," November 12, 2008, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo (November 13, 2008).

[14] Congressional Research Service, "The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008: Senate Amendment 5662 as Submitted on September 26, 2008" CRS Report for Congress, October 31, 2008.

[15] Ibid.