U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees national parks and other federal lands, says it is unconstitutional for the federal government to own those tracts.
And while the Utah Republican would like to see most federal lands in the West turned over to the states, he said the federal government can keep national parks "because they’re not moneymakers anyway."
Rep. Bishop made the comments recently in Las Vegas, where he was appearing at a Western Republican Leadership Conference meeting, part of which focused on federal control of public lands in the West.
According to a report from Think Progress, a nonpartisan arm of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the congressman told those attending the conference that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it provide for such federal land ownership.
During a slide presentation to the conference the Republican said, "Federal government owns one out of every three acres in this country. If it’s west of Denver, it’s one out of every two acres. If this kind of federal control is good, then the Soviet Union should have been the Garden of Eden. But what this presents to us – and I defy you to find anywhere in the Constitution where this is allowable - but what it defines to us is – the second slide if you would – everything in red are the states that had the hardest time funding their educations system."
In its report on the meeting Think Progress pointed out that Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution provides that “Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.”
Rep. Bishop also told Think Progress that he fully supports mining near Grand Canyon National Park, and says it would have "no impact on the Grand Canyon water or tourism that happens to be there."
U.S. Bureau of Land Management officials last week announced their preference to extend a moratorium on uranium mining around the Grand Canyon for 20 years. After a 30-day waiting period, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will be able to sign off on the plan.
There has been legislation introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives to block the administration from enforcing the moratorium. In July the House Appropriations Committee amended Interior's budget bill to tie the administration's hands on the matter.
Comments
Lee, Kurt, I don't have the time to respond properly this morning but I will offer the question about Roosevelt's reaction to December 7, 1941 to protect our country and our more recent 911 and it's aftermath. There are the same threats present now and are growing larger by the micro second. An administration that looks at disaster as an opportunity to insert ideologies that in many ways caused the disaster and brings on more while using every class warfare, race and angle buzz words as a distraction from a record (failed) just shows to me just how deceptive and hurtful the present policies are to the the strength, security and individuals well being. The Liberal voice has increased and co-opted the conversation since the '60's but the majority, I believe, are conservative and occasionally wake up and say "Okay, enough is enough." Those conservatives love the Parks also but won't destroy the country for the Chinese or the enemy within. Bigger picture out there from my view. I would like the conversation to avoid the common smear and snarky comments that so dominate the politics today. It's just to serious a situation and the unity that presents itself after the Pearl Harbors and 911s is dishonored.
I'll add this I read this morning:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/01/expert-at-london-internet-secu...
Gotta go:)
Other thoughts on the run-up to the mess the World is in.
Flashback: "Never let a good disaster go to waste"
http://news.investors.com/Article/589858/201110311638/Housing-Crisis-Oba...
Okay, the Parks are calling:)!
Someone is listening to too much talk radio.
You're right Lee! These blogs are a poor substitute for real time in the wilds if joy is the goal:). Quit trying to steal my joy, lol!
Uh, anonymous... wasn't it the PRIOR administration that came out with the color coded paranoia levels, which tended to be escalated every time that the then President needed a PR bump? Pardon me for having to work hard to swallow your obvious agenda.
I agree. Too much radio and too much anonymity.
Could we get back to discussing the parks now?
From my critical view, what you describe Lee is just more attempts to show an effort while out of view doing just the opposite. Transparency, what's that? What of Fast and Furious (and other highly dubious political actions). With 2 US Border Patrol Agents and 200 Mexicans having been murdered with guns that were provided by our Justice Department for unclear and highly suspect motivations it seems like a valid oversight issue. You might ask the family and neighbors of the rancher murdered on his own place or even the Governor (Jan Brewer) who's attempting to do what the wholly political administration refuses to do, well. I am an Arizonan and it doesn't make me feel more secure watching Janet Napolitano horseback with uncomfortable Border patrol Agents along the border. That's my reality.
I wouldn't have guessed that you'd be in with the Occupy bunch. Please say it ain't so, Joe/Lee:).
The disturbing thing about this issue is that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands consists of a majority of representatives that have openly professed their dislike of federal land, including a chairman saying that the very basis for his committee is unconstitutional. Isn't that contrary to the focus of the subcommittee? Maybe not because the HSNPFPL website lists increased recreational opportunities and economic development, not preservation, as its only goals.