This week in the United States House of Representatives, H.R. 2016 (To establish the National Landscape Conservation System) was passed with strong bipartisan support. The bill essentially codifies a program already in place to protect and preserve landscapes already under the management of the Bureau of Land Management.
From Washington Watch:
From Washington Watch:
National Landscape Conservation System Act - Establishes in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) the National Landscape Conservation System (thus, enacting into law the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) created by BLM in 2000) in order to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes that have outstanding cultural, ecological, and scientific values for the benefit of current and future generations.
Unfortunately, one of those dissenting voices is our very own Michele Bachmann. While this vote is hardly surprising given how Bachmann feels about other portions of our national heritage, I am curious to find out just what it was a about protecting our national landscapes that Bachmann opposed.
Certainly, the first cause that comes to mind is how vehemently opposed she generally is to spending a nickel even if that nickel will be used to benefit the country. The money issue cannot be the cause given that the Congressional Budget Office reported that enacting H.R. 2016 would have no effect on the budget.
Another cause that leaps to mind is Bachmann's myopic vision of state's rights which she ignores in matters of social policy but announces from the rooftops in various other selective matters. Yet, this cannot be her objection either given that the bill expressly prohibits circumventing state powers over such lands.
Certainly, the first cause that comes to mind is how vehemently opposed she generally is to spending a nickel even if that nickel will be used to benefit the country. The money issue cannot be the cause given that the Congressional Budget Office reported that enacting H.R. 2016 would have no effect on the budget.
Another cause that leaps to mind is Bachmann's myopic vision of state's rights which she ignores in matters of social policy but announces from the rooftops in various other selective matters. Yet, this cannot be her objection either given that the bill expressly prohibits circumventing state powers over such lands.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or regulations, including the regulation of hunting, fishing, trapping, and recreational shooting on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting access for hunting, fishing, trapping, or recreational shooting. Specifically, inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System shall not affect current grazing rights or operations.
Included in the above paragraph is also the notion that nothing in the bill will prohibit hunting rights which tends to be another of her talking points. In fact, one could reasonably argue that Bachmann is voting against the interests of hunters and other outdoorsmen as she voted against the preservation of lands that are used for those purposes.
So, if the usual reasons Bachmann doesn't support a bill are all absent, then I have to wonder what possible reason she could have for voting against the preservation of land. I sent an email to Stephen Miller for comment from Bachmann, but given the lack of response from him last time I do not hold my breath while awaiting answer.
So, if the usual reasons Bachmann doesn't support a bill are all absent, then I have to wonder what possible reason she could have for voting against the preservation of land. I sent an email to Stephen Miller for comment from Bachmann, but given the lack of response from him last time I do not hold my breath while awaiting answer.
Cross Posted on Dump Bachmann
