Loopholes in Rep. Zinke’s “Public Lands in Public Hands” Bill

Rep. Ryan Zinke’s new bill, HR 7430, Public Lands in Public Hands Act contains many loopholes that are big enough to drive a fracking truck through. Here are some of them:

The law would not prohibit changing the boundaries of national monuments to allow development. Thus, vastly reducing the size of two national monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, carried out by Ryan Zinke when he was Trump’s Secretary of the Interior to allow oil, gas, and coal extraction would not be prohibited.

Neither does the bill include the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act. Supported by 84% of registered voters in Montana, the bill will protect the four most important tributaries of the Blackfoot River and ensure that grizzly bears, Canada lynx, elk, native trout, and other fish and wildlife can thrive.

The law would prohibit transfer of title  of “publicly assessable tracts” or tracts that are “contiguous” with publicly assessable land.  Furthermore, if any Federal tract was less than 300 acres in size (a little less than a half square mile which is 320 acres in size) or less than five acres in size and assessible via a public waterway, and if the transfer of title was “authorized to be transferred under and subject to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,” the prohibition would not apply. Thus, the law would not prohibit sale or other transfers of larger less-assessible “land-locked” tracts.

The law would only prohibit “transferring title to Federal land to a non-Federal entity.” The law would not prohibit transferring an exclusive easement or a lease or other arrangement to manage such land to a non-Federal entity.

The law would apply only to “Federal land managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Chief of the Forest Service.” Land managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), and other Federal  agencies would not be protected.

The law would not prohibit transfers of title to limited-in-size tracts (described above) that are authorized by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. That act allows Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management to be sold to private parties (Sec. 203 of the Act) or conveyed to States and their political subdivisions (Sec. 211 of the Act) under the conditions set forth in the Act.

The law would not prohibit transfers of title “authorized by—(A) the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998; (B) the Sisk Act (16 U.S.C. 479a); (C) Public Law 85–569, commonly known as the “Townsites Act of 1958”; (D) the Small Tract Act of 1983; (E) the Act of May 17, 1906, commonly known as the “Native Allotment Act of 1906”; (F) Public Law 85–508, commonly known as the “Alaska Statehood Act of 1959”; (G) the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; (H) the Alaska Native Vietnam-era Veterans Land Allotment Program authorized by section 1119 of the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act; (I) the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; or (J) the Weeks Act of 1911; 3) explicitly authorized by Federal law; or (4) completed through a land exchange authorized by Federal law.” So, passage of the bill with all these loopholes would change US law little, if any.

Thus, the bill is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It would not change existing law in ways that would achieve its stated purpose of keeping “public lands in public hands.” Unfortunately, the bill appears to be no more than a disingenuous marketing communication by Rep. Zinke’s 2024 campaign. As noted elsewhere on this website, Rep. Zinke has never gotten a bill passed that he introduced so maybe the bill is just election propaganda.

 

Lawmaking Effectiveness of Members of Montana’s Congressional Delegation

Year after year (in congress after congress) montanans have been blessed to be served by a very effective lawmaker, Senator Jon Tester. Jon has learned how to reach across the aisle to craft bipartisan solutions to the grave and complex problems facing America nationally and Montana in particular.

And don’t just take our word for it. The nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking has crunched the numbers and proven that Jon gets things done (gets bipartisan laws passed) way better than the rest of the members of our congressional delegation (and way better than American lawmakers overall).

How  Good Are Our US Senators and Representatives at Advancing Their Bills through the Legislative Process?

Effective representatives and senators are good at moving the bills they sponsor (research, negotiate, write, and introduce) through the legislative process to become laws.  An analysis of the effectiveness of our current and recent US representatives and US senators is prepared every two years by the non-partisian Center for Effective Lawmaking. A summary of the methodology used by the Center is as follows:

“To calculate the Legislative Effectiveness Score for each member of the U.S. House and Senate, we draw on fifteen indicators that collectively capture the proven ability of a legislator to advance her agenda items through the legislative process and into law. More specifically, to calculate Legislative Effectiveness Scores for the House, we identify the number of bills that each member of the House of Representatives sponsored (BILL); and the number of those bills that received any action in committee (AIC), or action beyond committee (ABC) on the floor of the House. For those bills that received any action beyond committee, we also identify how many of those bills subsequently passed the House (PASS), and how many became law (LAW).”

Below is a table that presents the Center’s findings about Montana’s members serving in both the Senate and House of Representatives for the 114th through 117th congresses. (A lawmaking effectiveness rank of 1 means that all other members of the member’s party are less effective than the member ranked # 1.) For the mid-year results for bills (HR. and S.) for the current (118th) congress, we pulled “to-date” data manually from the government’s Library of Congress website, Congress.gov.



Congress


Number
Sen Tester (D)Sen Daines (R)Rep Rosendale (R)Rep Gianforte (R)Rep ZInke (R)
118th 2023-2024
No. of bills sponsored so far5438407
No. that became law so far3000
117th 2021-2022
Rank within party22522
No. of bills sponsored635026
No. that became law1302
116th 2019-2020
Rank within party41925
No. of bills sponsored 784517
No. that became law210
115th. 2017-2018
Rank within party31582
No.of bills sponsored635317
No. that became law220
Who Is Our Only True “Lawmaking Workhorse” in Congress?

You guessed it. Senator Jon Tester is our most effective member of Congress. In fact, the Center recently ranked Jon second among all of the Democratic senators in lawmaking effectiveness in the 117th Congress. None of our other members of Congress were in the top ten of either party.

The Center also recently identified our Jon Tester as the senator with the longest streak (six congresses) of exceeding expectations in effective lawmaking.

Highlights from the New 117th Congress Legislative Effectiveness Scores

To be fair you will note that the Center’s definition of lawmaking effectiveness only covers being good at conceiving, researching, negotiating, and writing bills and making sure that those bills successfully become laws.  It does not cover being good at preventing Congress from getting things done. For example, our Senator Steve Daines was almost successful at orchestrating a filibuster of Jon’s Honoring Our PACT Act, thereby preventing a vote on the final House version in the Senate. When Montana and other veterans rose up in anger in large numbers, the bill eventually became law.  The law provides healthcare for all generations of toxic-exposed veterans (and monthly compensation for veterans whose injuries prevent them from making a living). The other members of our congressional delegation at the time (Sen. Daines and Rep. Rosendale) cynically bragged that they voted for the PACT Act, but they fought its passage tooth and nail until it was clear the bill would pass.

So, in many ways, the 2024 general election will tell us whether Abraham Lincoln was correct when he said “You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

A new report ranks how effective lawmakers were during the 117th Congress in advancing bills. Here’s the top 10 lawmakers in each party and chamber.

 

 

Ryan Zinke in the News

You can verify what this website discloses about Ryan Zinke by visiting the following other websites:

Problematic BIlls Sponsored by Ryan Zinke

Ryan Zinke, US Representative for Montana’s 1st Congressional District, has sponsored the following bills and amendments that do not reflect Montana values:

H.R. 2611 would  prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary of State, as applicable, from approving any application for or issuing a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa to nationals of Palestine.

H.Amdt.303 would prohibit funding for administering, implementing, or enforcing Executive Order 14057 (Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability). A Democrat member of the House described the executive order is “a whole-of-government approach for addressing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to clean energy and sustainable technologies. It ensures that we set responsible targets for how we invest our Federal dollars to incentivize the private sector to expand on these technologies, and it creates unionized jobs.”

H.R.6528 would amend the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Federal land Policy and Management Act of 1976to prohibit any additional consultation from being required with respect to: (1) the listing of a species as threatened or endangered, or a designation of a critical habitat, if a land management plan has been adopted by the Department of Agriculture as of the designation date; or (2) any provision of such an adopted plan.

H.R.5259 would terminate the moratorium on the issuance of new federal coal leases by the BLM on January 16, 2019.

H.R.2358 would require the Department of the Interior and the USDA to apply their respective categorical exclusion processes under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to any plans developed on existing transmission and distribution rights-of-way located on lands under their respective jurisdictions. (A “categorical exclusion” under NEPA is a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and which have been found to have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency in implementing environmental regulations and for which, therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.)