Copyright 2001 MSNBC
June 21, 2001
MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS

OAK MOUNTAIN STATE PARK, Ala., June 21 —  Frolicking with children in Alabama’s lush hills, President Bush promoted his conservation budget Thursday and warned Congress not to act on its own big spending ideas. There’s strong bipartisan support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund in Congress, but the Sierra Club accused the president of “robbing” other programs to pay for it.

 HIS BROW GLISTENING in the heat, Bush kept a campaign promise by calling for an unprecedented $900 million this year for the long-established but poorly funded conservation program.

 “For a long time, the federal government has been falling short on its commitment to this fund,” Bush said.

 But Bush also warned lawmakers not to send him alternative conservation bills that would cost even more.

 “If they try to bust the budget, there’s a remedy ... and that’s to put the veto pen on it and send it back to the Congress until we get the budget right,” Bush said.

 Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton have made it a priority to persuade Congress to put the full $450 million for federal land purchases and $450 million in grants for states to buy land.

 But to pay for the grants, Bush’s budget planners decrease funding in an array of federal conservation programs, the most notable of which is a grant program for urban parks and recreation recovery that received $30 million in the current year. It would be eliminated.

 The White House insisted that the states, with the increased grants, would have the flexibility for programs like urban parks if they chose to spend the money in those areas.

 “Funding goes up. You can go down and look at them line item by line item by line item,” said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. “But overall funding goes up, state flexibility goes up, so that those programs will continue to be funded at the discretion of the state.”

 Conservation groups, already locking horns with the Bush White House on an energy plan they say is tilted toward production of more fossil fuels than to saving energy, reacted angrily.

 The Sierra Club claimed that the president’s budget request would pay for the fund at the expense of other programs — particularly one to acquire land for the federal network of parks, refuges and wilderness areas — and would actually decrease the federal part of the fund.

 “It’s just one more budget sleight of hand,” said Debbie Sease, the organization’s legislative director.

 “His budget ends up yielding less money overall for the environment.”

 As for Bush’s Alabama visit, which follows similarly Earth-friendly speeches at Sequoia National Park and the Everglades, Sease said: “Pretty picture, nice backdrop and not much real good news for the environment.”

 Sierra Club Director Carl Pope said in a statement that the president was playing a “shellgame” with programs.

 “Last year, the Interior Department budget gave $100 million to the state wildlife protection program,” it stated. “This year, the Bush budget gives Interior no money for this wildlife protection program. Instead, if states want to fund these wildlife protections, they would have to take the money from their LWCF grant.”

PART OF BIGGER PIE

 The fund is part of a much bigger — $46.5 billion — land conservation proposal that is gaining momentum in Congress.

 After a hearing Wednesday before the House Resources Committee, Chairman James Hansen, R-Utah, predicted that the Conservation and Restoration Act, which now has 222 co-sponsors, would pass the 435-member House by year’s end.

 “This measure is vital to the West,” said Hansen, whose state would get an estimated $53 million annually.

 The bill would create a $3.1 billion-a-year fund for 15 years to pay for everything from restoring coastlines, buying land and protecting wildlife to creating urban parks, historic preservation and Indian lands restoration. The money would come from the $4 billion to $5 billion collected annually from federal offshore oil and gas leases, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska, that is now sent to the Treasury.

 The new fund each year would provide $1 billion for marine conservation among the 35 coastal states and $900 million for LWCF.

MONEY MEANS POPULARITY

 Supporters range from environmental groups and businesses to hunters and backpackers, who all envision huge amounts of federal dollars flowing their way. Critics call it a federal land grab and spending mistake.

Interior Department estimates show coastal states would benefit the most. The yearly allocations include $348 million for California, $319 million for Louisiana, $247 million for Texas, $175 million for Alaska and $141 million for Florida.

 The bill’s architects include such unlikely allies as Reps. Don Young, R-Alaska, and George Miller, D-Calif.

 “One reason the CARA bill is so popular by so many groups is that it does a little bit of something for everybody,” said Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., who worried that the federal government could not properly manage the land it already had and that the rights of private property owners might be infringed upon.

 But, added Cubin, whose state would get an estimated $41 million annually: “I see the flag on the train coming down the track. This is going to happen.”

LANDOWNER CONCERNS

 Rep. C.L. “Butch” Otter, R-Idaho, said he and 20 other House members sent a letter Wednesday to Hansen opposing the bill and saying there should be more hearings and increased protections for private property owners.

 Cattle rancher Renee Daniels-Mantle of Dinosaur, Colo., testified that since “CARA does not prohibit condemnation ... what little protections it does have are just decorative.”

 Hansen said, however, that the bill would protect private landowners by requiring congressional approval for land acquisitions and the consent of property owners in federal purchases. The White House also would have to provide Congress with a list of proposed land acquisitions each year and notify affected parties, he said.

 Last year, the measure passed the House by a 3 to 1 ratio and gained the support of at least 63 senators. But budget-writing lawmakers fought the bill hard because it would designate how the money was spent, rather than leave those decisions up to Congress each year.

 The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report. Error: Unable to read footer file.