GOP Senator vows to kill Bush's public land sell-off

Opposition to Bush's proposed sell-off of hundreds of thousands of acres of National Forest and other public land has already grown to the point where the sale is in serious political trouble. At least two of Bush's own party-mates can't stand behind him on this. And, of course, there are plenty of Democratic politicians willing to stand up to Bush on this.

GOP Senator Conrad Burns of Montana:

I have no interest in including the administration's proposal in my Interior bill. It's dead in the water.

Senator Burns' spokesman Matt Mackowiak:

It would go directly to that subcommittee that he chairs. As far as advancing through the subcommittee, it's just not going to happen.

Dem Senator Max Baucus of Montana:

Montanans, like most Westerners, feel strongly that selling off our public lands to the highest bidder is a very bad idea.

Senator Baucus' spokesman Barrett Kaiser:

[Senator Burns is] still concerned the administration could sneak this through in any number of ways. It's a long process and anything could happen.

GOP Senator John Thune of South Dakota:

Funding our rural schools is very important, but it would be inappropriate to do so by selling parts of the Black Hills. The Senate is already working on an alternative proposal that would reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools law, and I will work to pass this viable option that does not include selling off our nations public lands.

Dem Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota:

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.

Some local officials, too, aren't wasting time voicing their opposition to Bush's new land scheme. From South Carolina:

The Berkeley County Council plans to formally protest the proposed sale of more than 1,000 acres in the county by the U.S. Forest Service.

...

"It's a part of our national heritage," Councilman Dennis Fish said. "There is nobody making any more land. We need to protect it."

...

State Rep. David Umphlett, R-Moncks Corner, urged the County Council at a recent meeting to take action against the sale of the forest land and encouraged residents to write letters to Congress.

"Land is something that is hard to come by," Umphlett said. "Once you open up Pandora's box, you are not going to be able to close it."

Meanwhile, Land Use Watch suggests that the Bush administration has not been truthful in its description of the land it wants to dispose of.

With the increasingly vocal, bipartisan, opposition, Bush's proposed land sale is so far following the same path trod so recently by a similar ploy from GOP Representatives Richard Pombo and Jim Gibbons. If the public pressure keeps up, even the mighty power of the executive branch may not be able to keep this plan alive.

But we all know that Bush does not give up easily and does not play by the normal rules. Senator Burns may drown this idea in his own subcommittee, but keep Senator Baucus' words in mind—the Bushies could find another, more pliant, GOP Senator, heading a different subcommittee. Anything can happen.

Comments

[Mark Harden]

Interesting. In this particular instance, you seem to SUPPORT the outcry of special interests (the Western senators whose constituents live near the forests) who do not care for the greater interests of the country. Yet when industrialists, for example, make similar self-interested statements, you condemn them. That seems either inconsistent or partisan, but I'm sure it's really just "trees good, factories bad".

[Mark Harden]

THE MORRILL ACT OF 1862

The Morrill Act of 1862 was also known as the Land Grant College Act. It was a major boost to higher education in America. The grant was originally set up to establish institutions is each state that would educate people in agriculture, home economics, mechanical arts, and other professions that were practical at the time. The land-grant act was introduced by a congressman from Vermont named Justin Smith Morrill. He envisioned the financing of agricultural and mechanical education. He wanted to assure that education would be available to those in all social classes.

There were several of these grants, but the first passed in 1862. This bill was signed by Abraham Lincoln on July 2. This gave each state 30,000 acres of public land for each Senator and Representative. These numbers were based on the census of 1860. The land was then to be sold and the money from the sale of the land was to be put in an endowment fund which would provide support for the colleges in each of the states.

The Morrill Acts have become a major educational resource for our nation. This program is available to all people who are in search of higher education. Over the years it has proven to be an important part of our educational system. This Act changed the course of higher education. The purpose of education shifted from the classical studies and allowed for more applied studies that would prepare the students for the world that they would face once leaving the classroom. This Act also gave education support directly from the government. The Morrill Act changed the face of education and made room for our growing and ever changing country and ensured that there would always be money to finance educational facilities and that there would be continual government support of these institutions.

[Peter]

The Morrill Act of 1862, while an interesting historical footnote, is completely irrelevant to the current issue.

If you want to fish for something, look up the "Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000."

That is the program whose funding for rural schools Bush is phasing out in order to provide a pseudo-rationale for selling off public lands.

[Mark Harden]

Peter, the applicability of Morrill is to point out that the public lands belong to the public. Not just to hikers. Not just to greens who worship the mythos of the primeval forest. And certainly not at all to the spotted owl, except insofar as the citizens themselves might desire to maintain the owl's environment. Yet you make this out to be a moral issue, when it is a political one. If the People, through their representatives, decide to sell this land to support schools, then that - by definition - is the right thing to do. Not some evil plot. Not an immoral act. But the Will of the sovereign People of this nation.

In any case, if logging had not been overly restricted on behalf of the spotted owl, the economy of these rural areas would still be capable of supporting the schools on their own. And we would have controlled logging, and usage of this community resource for the benefit of all. Instead, overreach by the environmentalists has put the government in a position of needing to sell off the land altogether. Thanks again, Greens!

[Peter]

The notion that whatever comes out of Congress is automatically "the right thing to do" or "the will of the people" does not fly with me.

Up-or-down vote on a coherent issue? That's arguable. But when controversial items are buried amidst a plethora of other issues, as is the case in the budget process--absolutely not.

But since you apparently do believe this (at least in cases that don't involve logging policy or the Endangered Species Act), once Congress kills this plan, as they did with the similar Pombo-Gibbons plan just last December, we'll be in agreement on at least one thing.

[Mike]

Mark, I don't know you or whether you're a paid shill for extractive industries or simply a sympathizer, but why are you so eager to sell public lands to private interests?

We seem to be dealing with a movement in this country to put every aspect of the commons, those resources we hold in public trust, into the hands of corporations. These are people who ignore the irreplaceable economic benefits of natural habitat, who have no concept of ecology or non-economic costs. People who apparently enjoy paying for companies to clean water rather than allowing nature to do it for free and look forward to the day they'll be purchasing air. What I don't get is why. Unless you're running with the logging crowd (execs, not actual workers), why would you want to diminish the rest of us, including every single subsequent generation, for perpetuity just to provide a handful of people with a short-term gain?

[Mark Harden]

The notion that whatever comes out of Congress is automatically "the right thing to do" or "the will of the people" does not fly with me.

You may be a Democrat, Peter, but you're no democrat.

why are you so eager to sell public lands to private interests?

I'm not, as my comments in this thread make clear. I would much prefer the controlled logging done for two hundred years or so until Mr. Clinton came sniffling and biting his lower lip about the widdle spotted owls. It's enviro-extremists whose policies have endangered the forests, not mine.