Selling Off Our Natural Heritage
Lawmakers express opposition to President's billion-dollar land sale
U.S. Rep. Charles Taylor, R-NC Western North Carolina Representative Charles Taylor told U.S. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth this morning that the Administration’s proposal to dispose of 300,000 acres of national forest lands was “not going to happen.” The exchange came during Chief Bosworth’s testimony on the Forest Service’s Fiscal Year 2007 budget request before the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which Rep. Taylor chairs. ... . “You cannot put out a plan to sell off this much land, all across the nation, without first sitting down with each of those local communities and talking about their priorities and their goals. They cannot be cut out of the process.” [Rep. Taylor press release, 3/9/06]
U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-VA "This proposal is merely the camel's nose under the tent," Boucher said. "This is just a trial balloon. Philosophically, the administration doesn't really value the national forest.” [Roanoke Times, 2/17/06]
Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said "This Forest Service plan results in a one-time windfall of $800 million but does not address the long-term and structural problems facing localities with large tracts of public lands. Our schools are in desperate need of funding, but this just seems like slapping a Band-Aid on the problem." [Associated Press, 2/21/06]
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. said, "Funding our rural schools is very important, but it would be inappropriate to do so by selling parts of the Black Hills," [Associated Press 2/21/06]
U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo, said “I’m not inclined to support the sale of land in Missouri to help schools in California," [Columbia Daily Tribune, 2/19/06]
U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., says a proposal to sell federal lands to pay for reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act is "dead in the water." [Missoulian, 2/21/06]
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, referring to county payments program cuts: "Governing is about priorities, and this proposal to cut funding to rural counties by 50 percent tells rural Oregon that we're not very high on the administration's priority list . . . . . . The administration found billions to fund subsidies for energy company boondoggles, so I have trouble believing they couldn't find the money in this budget environment to maintain support for rural Oregon counties." Wyden and other critics said the cutbacks were made even worse by a plan to help pay for the program by selling off some Forest Service land that officials consider unnecessary. [Associated Press 2/6/06]
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho. Craig, a co-sponsor of the original law, said he was concerned about the plan to sell up to 170,000 acres of public lands to pay for the rural schools program. "Public lands are an asset that need to be managed and conserved," he said. [Associated Press 2/6/06]
"I don't think the sale of public lands should be considered to fund the rural schools," Craig said in an interview [E&ENews PM, 2/14/06]
Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., sees it as a destructive way to pay for what he considers reckless tax cuts. "It's like selling your homestead to pay your credit cards," he said. [Denver Post, 2/8/06]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., attacked the plan as "crazy," saying: "Here the administration wants to pass more tax cuts for the rich, and to pay the bill, they want to sell off public land - our nation's natural heritage." [Knight Ridder, 2/9/06]
Feinstein said, "I will do everything I can to defeat this effort." [San Francisco Chronicle, 2/11/06]
Sen. Jeff Bingaman D-NM “These land sales would have negative consequences for New Mexico and other Western states. Our hunters, anglers, campers and other recreational users benefit from -- and depend on -- access to public lands. So do foresters, cattlemen, miners and those who develop our energy resources. In my view, selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a short-sighted, ill-advised and irresponsible shift in Federal land management policy. Our public lands are a legacy for future generations. We shouldn’t liquidate that legacy.” [Press Release, Democratic Senate Energy and Natural Resources 2-10-06]
Governor Brian Schweitzer, D-MT The ranchers that fail and have to sell-out, are often the ones driving around the fancy pick-ups and running the newest combine, he said. “What happened to the federal government is exactly what’s happened to some of those ranch families," Schweitzer said. "This is just a government living beyond their means. That’s a damn poor way to run a ranch and a worse way to run a government.”[New West, 2/10/02]
Senator Maria Cantwell, D-WA “The Forest Service’s shortsighted scheme to sell off public forest lands to partially and temporarily fund the County Payments is a non-starter,” said Cantwell, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “This remarkably successful program provides rural Washington counties with critical funding for schools, roads, and emergency response services. Many of Washington’s rural communities depend on this program and I will continue working with my Senate colleagues to ensure this program gets reauthorized.” [Cantwell Press Release, 2/10/06]
U.S. Rep. George Miller Jr., D-Martinez Miller too, was skeptical Friday afternoon. "The suggestion that the only way to fund rural schools is we have to sell off our national forests is just ludicrous in a nation this wealthy." [Oakland Tribune, 2/12/06]
Sen. Max Baucus, D-MT “As Montanans, we value our public lands — they’re an important part of our recreational heritage,” Baucus said. “… We hunt, we fish, we hike, we take our kids camping. I’ve co-sponsored legislation (S.267) along with Sens. Craig and Wyden that would reauthorize and fully fund the Secure Rural Schools program without selling off our public lands.” [Helena IR, 2/11/06
