'I'm Scratching My Head': Jared Huffman Slams Claim That Government Is Being Forced To Buy Land

4 months ago

During a House Natural Resources Committee markup meeting before the Congressional recess, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) spoke about a proposed bill that would allegedly prevent the federal government from being forced to buy land.

Transcript

00:00on the ANS. If there's no further discussion on the amendment, it is now in order to consider

00:05amendments to the ANS to H.R. 839. I recognize Ranking Member Huffman for the purpose of offering

00:11an amendment designated Huffman No. 1. Without objection, the amendment is considered red.

00:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say I'm scratching my head with this rationale that

00:24somehow this bill is preventing the government from being forced to buy from willing sellers.

00:30There's nothing in this plan that forces the government to do anything. Congress is always

00:34there to provide oversight to make sure that we're not overextending the federal estate beyond what we

00:41can afford to maintain and operate. But this is an important conservation plan. Everybody who knows

00:50anything about this habitat and this refuge in this area will tell you that. And this bill is

00:56arbitrarily constraining it in ways that create this weird episode of role reversal, trading places,

01:04where I'm talking to you about private property rights. But that's sort of where we are on this

01:08really wrongheaded bill. It infringes on the property rights of folks in Texas who wish to collaborate

01:15with the Fish and Wildlife Service and utilize their land for conservation purposes. And it could

01:20include easements. Maybe not fee transfers. So the federal estate might not even expand. Just

01:26conservation easements to achieve some objectives with market-based mechanisms. And you're trying to

01:32shut all of that down. The science is clear. With the sandhill crane, lesser prairie chicken, many other

01:39grassland bird species, they need additional habitat in one of the most threatened ecosystems on the planet,

01:45the southern high plains. As we heard from Mr. Rowley during the testimony he gave,

01:50on this bill, there are landowners in that area who would like to use their land for conservation

01:55purposes. And we shouldn't stand in their way. The Mule Shoe Land Protection Plan offers them the

02:01opportunity to do that in collaboration with the Fish and Wildlife Service. And there are a variety of

02:07voluntary pathways to establish long-term protections for habitats that benefit these birds and other wildlife.

02:14The Land Protection Plan does not require anyone to put their land into conservation if they don't want

02:19to. And it's not shutting down oil and gas development. It is simply offering another option

02:25for landowners to consider. So my amendment would restore some integrity to private property rights in

02:33this situation. It would ensure that Congress isn't shutting the door on these landowners and their

02:39options to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service. It would require the Secretary of Interior

02:43to verify at least that the bill doesn't jeopardize private property rights before it can take effect.

02:50If you value property rights, which you used to say that you did,

02:54you should be voting in favor of this amendment. I yield back.

02:59Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

03:04Ms. Ledger Fernandez, you're recognized.

03:06Mr. Chair, I really do appreciate this amendment because I think that,

03:10you know, once again, we're confronted with the issue of Republicans often

03:14saying one thing but then doing another with their vote and their bills. And the idea that what you're

03:22doing is when they talk about the amount of land, we need to remember that this is an area within which

03:29private landers may or may not choose to put their land in conservation easements or to even say,

03:37I want to outright sell it. But that is their decision. And it can happen in ways where

03:44it may be a small portion of the area that has been identified. This is an area that has been

03:50identified as potential for being able to provide these habitats. And then the individual landowners,

03:59they have the choice as to how to participate or not. And so what you're doing is you're saying,

04:08we think this is an important goal. You're right, Mr. Chair, I agree with you.

04:13Congress can do this. What we are arguing is that Congress should not do this,

04:21because the science and the input on the ground has identified the area.

04:27And we should let the normal process of these planning of this plan to go into place so that those private

04:37property rights can be exercised as each landowner chooses. As each landowner chooses. So thank you for

04:49you for bringing this amendment that focuses on the private property rights of the landowners to be

04:56able to participate in that. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.

05:03I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm actually delighted that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are

05:14talking about private property rights. That's wonderful. And I yield back.

05:18The amendment. For further discussion, I recognize myself. You know, it dawned on me during this

05:25discussion that we're talking about taking private property and putting it in the federal estate where

05:31there are no private property rights. You, like, lose all private property rights when you put property

05:38into the federal estate. And we're not talking about a little bit of property. We're talking about

05:43700,000 acres. We're talking about making this refuge 100 times the size it is right now.

05:50And, you know, we believe in being good stewards of federal land, but we also believe in being good

05:56stewards of federal money. And it takes a lot of money to take care of a wildlife refuge that is almost

06:03the size of the state of Rhode Island. That's what we're talking about here. And, you know, we've already

06:10got billions of dollars of deferred maintenance backlogs and we should be focused on taking care

06:16of what we've got instead of adding more to the federal estate. It's, you know, probably only in

06:24Washington, D.C. where it's considered a good idea to devote additional resources to extravagant land

06:30acquisition when the focus should be on managing wildlife habitat and providing recreational opportunities

06:36on existing refuge system lands. And again, maintaining the lands that the federal government

06:42already owns. And the federal estate is already about a third of the landmass of the country.

06:53We've got to do a better job of taking care of what we've got instead of adding more

06:57to it. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment?

'I'm Scratching My Head': Jared Huffman Slams Claim That Government Is Being Forced To Buy Land

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended