June 29, 2018
"to elevate the condition of men--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance, in the race of life." --Abraham Lincoln
Chairman's Note: Honoring the Founders Promise on Federal Lands
How did it come to pass that the federal government owns nearly half of the land in the West, compared to just 5 percent of the land in the East?
Throughout the 19th century Lawmakers sought to facilitate expansion of the nation by acquiring land—and then transferring it to the people, so they could live out their lives as responsible citizens of the republic.
The cornerstone of this policy was the Homestead Acts, which transferred 270 million acres of land out of federal control and into the hands of ordinary Americans.
The Homestead Acts were an engine for middle class opportunity and growth, and set the American standard for the disposition of public resources.
But by the time Utah and other states entered the Union, Congress had turned its attention elsewhere. Manifest destiny left us behind.
While Easterners and Midwesterners had almost-total control of the land within their boundaries, Western states like Utah entered the Union on inferior terms – as tenants to negligent landlords.
When Utah came into the Union in 1896, Section 9 of its statehood enabling legislation declared that public land located within the state “shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said state into the union.”
The promise to sell federal lands in Utah is right there, enshrined in federal law. But, unlike states farther East, the commitment to us was never honored.
Take Illinois for example. At one point, the federal government controlled more than 90 percent of their land. Today they own just 1 percent.
At first westerners were optimistic about federal control of western lands. Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot advocated for active management of the land, in cooperation with local interests.
But in the 1960s and 1970s environmental activists began exploiting public fears about overpopulation and pollution.
Between the mid-1960s and 1980, the amount of wilderness rose from 11.5 million acres to 82.7 million acres—an increase of 716% in less than two decades.
The amount of grazing on federal land went into steep decline, causing an exodus from the range that was never reversed.
And in 1976, Congress formalized federal control over federal lands by passing the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. This repealed the Homestead Acts and completely upended federal government’s public land policy.
No longer would it be the official policy of the United States government to sell back the land and entrust it to the people. Instead, the policy would be to keep the land for itself.
Things have only gotten worse since. An even more extreme environmental movement - an alliance of privilege between celebrities, activists, and corporate elites - now want to save the Earth at the expense of our rural communities.
They delight in seeing vast swathes of untouched lands, fulfilling their idyllic notions of the West where they can jet in, spend a few days at the cabin, take pictures of animals, and then retreat to their enclaves on the coasts.
Locals aren’t as lucky. While tourism has contributed much to Western state economies, communities can’t survive on tourism alone. It is a complement to – not a substitute – for broader economic development.
Our immediate task is to rein in government, and reclaim a space for ordinary Americans to live in freedom. I am working on three specific bills to do just that.
The first, the Protecting Utah’s Rural Communities Act, would protect Utah from future Antiquities Act abuses by giving Utah the same protections currently enjoyed by Wyoming and Alaska.
Specifically, my bill would prohibit the president from designating or expanding a national monument in the state unless both Congress and the state legislature pass resolutions approving the designation.
The second bill I plan to introduce is a new Homestead Act – one to help ordinary Americans in the 21st century.
This “new” Homestead Act would allow states, local governments, and individuals to petition the government to use federal land for affordable housing, and possibly for education, healthcare, or a variety of other purposes.
Finally, our long-term goal must be the transfer of federal lands to the states. And that is the aim of the third bill that I intend to introduce.
Small reforms here and there are important. But we have to start pushing for what we actually want. We must fight to return these lands.
We have the opportunity to honor the promise the federal government made to Utah and Western states when they joined the Union.
When ordinary Americans control their communities and land, it is good for both. When the federal government wields exclusive control, it is good for neither.
Let’s insist on a reassertion of the American people’s control over their government and of their land.
A longer version of this speech was given at The Sutherland Institute on June 29, 2018.
Issue in Focus: Time to Check Out of Checkoffs
Most people are familiar with the slogans: “Got milk?”, “Pork, the other white meat,” and “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner.”
But what they might not be aware of is the cronyist underbelly of these slogans.
The US Department of Agriculture checkoff programs behind these slogans collect compulsory fees from producers of milk, eggs, beef, and other agricultural products. The funds are then used to promote and do research on those particular commodities.
Unfortunately, these programs have been rife with abuse.
The USDA has been lax in exercising oversight of checkoff boards. Many of these programs have crept beyond the scope of their statutory mandate by engaging in illegal lobbying and anti-competitive activities, such as the case of Just Mayo in California.
The original intent of these programs was not to prevent any new products from having a fair chance in the marketplace. What were supposed to be promotional boards have instead become protectionist boards.
Checkoff programs force farmers to pay into a system that sometimes actively works against their interests. On top of that, the boards for these programs have come under fire for a lack of transparency and for misuse of their funds. Some have gone so far as failing to submit congressionally mandated spending reports, refusing and delaying FOIA requests, and even engaging in protracted legal battles to prevent public audits from being disclosed.
In short, these programs are in desperate need of reform.
That is why I have worked with my colleagues, Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Rand Paul (R-TN), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to draft the Opportunities for Fairness in Farming amendment.
This bipartisan amendment began as a standalone bill and would address some of the most grievous abuses of the commodity checkoff programs.
First, it would prohibit them from contracting with any organization that lobbies on agricultural policy, with an exemption for research at institutions of higher education.
It would also prohibit employees and agents of the checkoff boards from engaging in activities that may pose a conflict of interest.
Furthermore, it would establish uniform standards for checkoff programs that prohibit anticompetitive activity and any unfair or deceptive practices, and it would implement much-needed transparency measures.
While the amendment was not adopted in the most recent Farm Bill, it continues to gain more and more support – from both sides of the aisle – and we will keep pushing for its passage.
These common-sense reforms will not be convenient to the giants in the agriculture industry – at least not the ones using checkoff dollars to rig the system in their favor. But they will help farmers – and particularly the little guys – to see exactly where the fees they pay are going and ensure that their hard-earned money is not being used against them.
