Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

house Bill H.R. 1214

Selling Off Small Plots of National Forest Land

Argument in favor

These are small, remote, and inaccessible parts of National Forests — they won’t be missed, and the funds could be used to maintain the more recreation-friendly land.

Right-fun-guy's Opinion
···
08/07/2016
The government already owns 75% of the land west of the mississippi let some of it be sold the the public for private
Like (11)
Follow
Share
Libertarianus's Opinion
···
08/07/2016
The federal government shouldn't own as much last as it does.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
BTSundra's Opinion
···
03/03/2016
Completely unused public places should always be able to become private land.
Like (9)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

Not requiring a Congressional vote on these transfers could lead to an unwitting transfer of more valuable land that would be better off in federal hands.

Belfordcricker1487's Opinion
···
08/07/2016
National Forests are SANCTUARIES! By no means should they ever be sold or used for anything. These should stay intact for all time.
Like (47)
Follow
Share
DmanDMS's Opinion
···
08/07/2016
America's National Forrest Lands should Never be sold off nor touched! They belong to the People of America!!!!!!...
Like (21)
Follow
Share
AutumnStarlight's Opinion
···
08/07/2016
We need to quit destroying our ecosystem as if we simply have another home world to live on. There is no Planet B.
Like (13)
Follow
Share

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
  • The house Passed September 16th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 403 Yea / 0 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Agriculture
      Conservation and Forestry
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedMarch 3rd, 2015
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • action
    Introduced in House
  • referral
    Referred to House Natural Resources
  • referral
    Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
  • referral
    Referred to House Agriculture
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
  • referral
    Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • action
    Subcommittee on Federal Lands Discharged.
  • action
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • calendar
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
  • action
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-140, Part I.
  • action
    Committee on Agriculture discharged.
  • calendar
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 100.
  • action
    Mr. McClintock moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
  • action
    Considered under suspension of the rules.
  • action
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1214.
  • action
    At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
  • action
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • vote
    On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 403 - 0 (Roll no. 495).
  • action
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • referral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

bill Progress

  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
  • The house Passed September 16th, 2015
    Roll Call Vote 403 Yea / 0 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Agriculture
      Conservation and Forestry
      National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedMarch 3rd, 2015
Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    Right-fun-guy's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    08/07/2016
    The government already owns 75% of the land west of the mississippi let some of it be sold the the public for private
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Belfordcricker1487's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    National Forests are SANCTUARIES! By no means should they ever be sold or used for anything. These should stay intact for all time.
    Like (47)
    Follow
    Share
    DmanDMS's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    America's National Forrest Lands should Never be sold off nor touched! They belong to the People of America!!!!!!...
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    AutumnStarlight's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    We need to quit destroying our ecosystem as if we simply have another home world to live on. There is no Planet B.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Heather's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    Our public lands need to be protected and preserved for future generations. Developers aren't interested in keeping our lands and environment safe; they're interested in making money.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Jared's Opinion Against
    ···
    09/17/2015
    This reeks of oil/natural gas lobby. It sets a dangerous precedence for selling off land that is considered less "valuable" by some arbitrary standard to the highest special interest bidder. They are protected lands, they are public lands, and they should remain such.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    BTSundra's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    03/03/2016
    Completely unused public places should always be able to become private land.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Libertarianus's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    08/07/2016
    The federal government shouldn't own as much last as it does.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Joshua's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    Absolutely not. These lands are better off controlled by the government for preservation than sold to private citizens who are just a stones through away from the local hardware stores and "No Trespassing" signs. Sorry the fact of the matter is if it's owned by the Feds we have the ability to control what happens with it. As well as recreate in it. If it's bought up it will get logged or shut off from use. Sorry, no!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    operaman's Opinion Against
    ···
    09/16/2015
    Sounds like a plan, but these small plots could be problematic and should be sanctioned by congress. Today we cannot trust the fed gov. The Feds via Executive Order takes state lands and the when they no longer us it, decides to sell it. Maybe they should give it back to the state they stole it from rather than selling it to Warren Buffet for resale lining his liberal pockets like buying a railroad knowing Obama wouldn't allow Keystone. Cronyism!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Marc's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    Just no
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Ryan's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    01/14/2016
    The government owns too much land as it is. It almost owns Nevada as it is.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Loraki's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/30/2016
    Return the land to the states. Quit letting foreigners buy our land!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Jmgnole's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    Hell no. They've exploited enough.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Lily's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    This would be the beginning of an end.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Sergy's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    This property belongs to the American people. The people should always get a say in when property is going to be sold.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    AngryInfidel's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    08/07/2016
    Well let's see. Are those forests in a state? 10th Amendment! Is the federal government a better steward of natural resources than the state in which those resources reside? Is the federal government a better steward of a forest than a private citizen with a vested interest in the long term health of that forest, his investment? So, yeah. The STATES should be able to sell land without asking permission of the fed. In addition the fed owes those states an apology and restitution for industry that was thwarted as a result of the Feds illegal ownership of that land.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Aidan-WC's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/12/2016
    Absolutely Not. This is not the time period of the 1700s In the western regions of the United States where you had the ability to mark a flag and claim your land without any authority. In other words conducting iconic landmarks to be absurdly divided into the hands of multiple share holders devalues the aspects of what the United States constitution had evidently implied. National Historic landmarks are under the behalf of federal ownership due to its conditional matters and its environmental conditions. Think if the Grand Canyon were to be on the market for property possession in individual sections the purchases would boom and multiple urban like structures will be revisited there devaluing the aspect of NATIONAL LANDMARKS TO ABSURB NATURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT. My point being is increasing the amount of federal lands that are urgent to be at a safe status shall be left to that particular designation as implement. Selling off properties to market buyers and entrepreneurs looking to promote residential properties and urbanization would hinder the factor for environmental preservation and damage the habitats/ecosystems of our crucial wild life community as well. Thank you for your time.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Brian's Public Comment
    ···
    08/07/2016
    There's no reason why the federal government needs to own so much land.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    William's Opinion Against
    ···
    08/07/2016
    Absolute NOT! Is this even real?!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE