39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 113–412 

DISPOSAL OF EXCESS FEDERAL LANDS ACT OF 2013 

APRIL 10, 2014.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2657] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2657) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain 

Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 

recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2657 is to direct the Secretary of the Interior 

to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 2657 would authorize the disposal of the nearly 3.3 million 

acres of land the federal government identified in a 1997 Clinton 

Administration report. In the report, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) identified approximately 3.36 million acres of land in 

10 western states deemed suitable for sale to non-federal entities. 

The 1996 Agriculture Reform Act (Public Law 104–127) required 

the Secretary of the Interior to report to Congress any unreserved 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

and unappropriated lands or mineral interests in lands that were 

suitable for sale or exchange to benefit the Everglades Restoration 

effort. The inventory was made on a county basis (totaled by state) 

and used the following four criteria to determine eligibility: (1) only 

lands that were identified for disposal in a land use plan were to 

be considered; (2) lands withdrawn for other purposes were not to 

be considered; (3) lands in Recreation and Public Purpose applications, identified for state selection, Native American allotments, or 

local government purposes were excluded; and (4) lands segregated 

for other exchange or under existing agreements for exchange were 

excluded. Below are the identified acreage totals by state: 

Arizona ................................................................................ 453,950 

Colorado .............................................................................. 93,741 

Idaho ................................................................................... 110,022 

Montana .............................................................................. 94,520 

Nebraska ............................................................................. 6,615 

Nevada ................................................................................ 898,460 

New Mexico ........................................................................ 813,531 

Oregon ................................................................................. 70,308 

Utah .................................................................................... 132,931 

Wyoming ............................................................................. 694,200 

Total Acres .................................................................. 3,368,278 

H.R. 2657 will require the competitive sale of the lands, subject 

to valid existing rights, identified in the 1997 DOI report to Congress. The disposal would equate to just over 1% of BLM land and 

less than one half of 1% of all federal lands. The proceeds of the 

land sales will be used to reduce the public debt. Four years after 

enactment, the Secretary of the Interior will be required to provide 

Congress with an updated version of the 1997 report to identify the 

lands that have not been sold with an explanation of why the sale 

had not occurred. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2657 was introduced on July 11, 2013, by Congressman 

Jason Chaffetz (R–UT). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee 

on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation. On October 3, 

2013, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On January 28, 

2014, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 

The Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation 

was discharged by unanimous consent. The bill was then adopted 

and ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 

a roll call vote of 23 yeas and 19 nays, as follows: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 4 HR412.001

Date: January 28, 2014 

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

113 th Congress 

Recorded Vote #: 3 

Meeting on I Amendment on: H.R. 2657- TO REPORT, Adopted and favorably reported to the House of 

Representatives by a vote of 23 yeas and 19 nays. 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS Yes No 

Mr. Hastings, W A, Chairman X Mr. Duncan of SC X 

Mr. Defazio, OR. Ranking X Mr. Cardenas, CA X 

Mr. Young,AK X Mr. Tipton, CO 

Mr. Faleomavaega, AS Mr. Horsford, NV X 

Mr. Gohmert, TX X Mr. Gosar, AZ X 

Mr. Pallone. NJ X Mr. Huffman, CA X 

Mr. Bishop, UT X Mr. Labrador, ID X 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA X Mr. Ruiz, CA X 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr. Southerland, FL X 

Mr. Holt,NJ X Ms. Shea-Porter, NH X 

Mr. Wittman, V A X Mr. Flores, TX X 

Mr. Grijalva, AZ X Mr. Lowenthal, CA X 

Mr. Brouu, GA X Mr. Runyan, NJ 

Ms. Bordallo, GU X Mr. Garcia, FL X 

Mr. Fleming, LA X Mr. Mulliu, OK X 

Mr. Costa, CA X Mr. Cartwright, PA X 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Daines, MT X 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI Ms. Clark, MA X 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Mr. Cramer, ND X 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Ms, Lummis, WY X Mr. Smith, MO X 

Mr. Pier/uisi, PR Mr. McAllister, LA X 

Mr. Benishek, MI X Mr. Byrne, AL X 

Ms. Hanabusa, HI X 

TOTALS 23 19 

Pres 
4 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 2657—Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2013 

H.R. 2657 would direct the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

to offer certain federal lands for sale. The bill would require the 

agency to sell the affected lands for fair market value as determined by an independent appraiser. Any proceeds from the sale of 

those lands would be deposited in the U.S. Treasury. The bill also 

would require BLM to complete a report to the Congress identifying federal lands that are suitable for disposal. 

Based on information provided by BLM, CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost $6 million over the 2015– 

2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill could increase offsetting receipts, which are treated 

as reductions in direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any effect on offsetting 

receipts would be negligible. 

H.R. 2657 would direct BLM to sell federal lands identified as 

suitable for disposal in a 1997 report to the Congress. That report 

identified roughly 3.4 million acres of land as suitable for disposal; 

however, many of the affected lands were subject to impediments 

that could prevent their sale, including high disposal costs, the 

presence of critical natural or cultural resources and habitat, mineral claims and leases, and hazardous conditions. Over the 2000– 

2011 period, when the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

(FLTFA) was in effect, CBO estimates that BLM sold roughly 

30,000 acres of the affected lands generating more than $100 million in offsetting receipts (a significant portion of which were spent 

to acquire other lands under FLTFA). 

Under current law, BLM has the authority to sell the affected 

lands identified in the 1997 report, and CBO expects that the agency will offer some of those lands for sale over the 2014–2023 period. 

H.R. 2657 would not require the agency to offer the affected lands 

for sale within a specified period of time, and CBO expects that enacting the bill would have little effect on the timing or quantity of 

future land sales under current law; therefore, we estimate that 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

enacting the bill would have no significant effect on offsetting receipts. 

H.R. 2657 would require BLM to prepare a report for the Congress within four years of the bill’s enactment that includes an updated list of BLM lands identified as suitable for disposal. That report also would explain why lands identified as suitable for disposal in 1997 have not been sold. The costs of preparing that report 

would depend on the level of detail and accuracy included in the 

report. CBO expects that BLM would produce a report similar to 

the 1997 report, which contained limited details and lacked formal 

appraisals for individual parcels, and we estimate that producing 

that report would cost $6 million over the 2015–2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Preparing a more 

detailed report with formal appraisals of property values would significantly increase the cost of implementing this legislation. 

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. CBO estimates that implementing the legislation 

would cost $6 million over the 2015–2018 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting the bill could increase 

offsetting receipts, which are treated as reductions in direct spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any effect on offsetting receipts would be negligible. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain 

Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that this 

bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any specific 

rule-making proceedings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local, or tribal 

law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(7) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 2657 would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

to sell off ‘‘excess’’ federal lands identified in a 1997 report, unless 

those lands have since been identified in a land use plan as not 

suitable for disposal, have been identified for State selection, Indian tribe allotments, or for use by local governments. 

In 1997, Congress ordered the BLM to inventory all unreserved 

and unappropriated lands which might be suitable for sale or exchange to fund Everglades Ecosystem Restoration. The 1997 law 

only required BLM to report on lands available for disposal, not to 

assess whether selling the identified lands would be in the Nation’s 

interest or to prepare surveys or appraisals of land available for 

disposal. Therefore, the report did not identify individual parcels. 

BLM identified a total of 3.37 million acres of ‘‘excess’’ land. However, the 1997 report is vague, outdated and was never intended 

for the purposes outlined in H.R. 2657. 

This bill would create more bureaucracy and more spending by 

requiring the BLM to divert already strained resources to conduct 

extensive reviews, including cultural resource reviews, threatened 

and endangered species reviews, surveys and appraisals, of every 

parcel identified in the report. 

Many of the lands identified for disposal include grazing allotments. In the past, grazing permittees have declined to acquire federal lands when offered for sale for financial and other reasons. As 

a result, H.R. 2657 could have disastrous effects on ranching communities throughout the west by selling the land out from under 

ranchers. 

Finally, forcing BLM to sell land regardless of market conditions 

could result in a significant decline in the value of both the federal 

and non-federal land in areas with ‘‘excess’’ federal ownership. 

H.R. 2657 is not well thought out and is simply another attempt 

to raid our federal lands; we oppose H.R. 2657. 

PETER A. DEFAZIO. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING