A television ad campaign has been launched in a bid to prevent an overhaul of the Land and Water Conservation Fund
An ad campaign has been launched in a bid to convince Congress not to overhaul the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which for decades has been sending millions of dollars out across the country for state, local, and federal recreation and conservation projects.
The television ads were produced for the Western Values Project. They criticize opposition to the popular program from U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican from Utah who used his position as chair of the House Natural Resources Committee to block its reauthorization and is now proposing “reform” legislation that would, in effect, gut the LWCF, the group said.
The ads are part of a six-figure ad campaign that includes a national television spot that was to air during Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate and separate ads targeting three members of the House Committee on Natural Resources: Dan Benishek (R-Michigan), Tom MacArthur (R-New Jersey), and Dan Newhouse (R-Washington). The local ads will run in the member’s districts leading up to a committee hearing on proposed changes to the LWCF from Rep. Bishop on November 18.
Since its inception in 1965, the fund has made possible local hiking trails, water trails and ballparks, as well has gone to purchase inholdings in national parks, and helped support a multi-billion-dollar outdoor economy. Overall, it has provided roughly $17 billion for conservation projects in every state, including for iconic national parks like Rocky Mountain National Park and Grand Canyon National Park; important historic sites such as Gettysburg National Military Park and Mount Vernon; and other areas like forests, wildlife refuges, wetlands, and local parks and playgrounds.
“Our country’s parks and recreation areas are national treasures that should not be subject to hijacking by a single, rogue Member of Congress,” said Chris Saeger, director of Western Values Project. “The Land and Water Conservation Fund deserves full funding and permanent reauthorization – not gamesmanship that will jeopardize future generations’ access to some of our country’s most beloved natural resources.”
Comments
"PS, what is a contradiction is your constant ranting about Congress but wanting to give them more power at the same time."
Huh???
And when even Paul Ryan cites backroom deals and amendments unrelated to bills to which they are attached as one cause of American lack of confidence in Congress, it would seem I'm on pretty firm ground with that.
But this entire thread has devolved into just another circular game of dodge'em. Time to move on.
You are a big Fed government guy - that is giving Congress more power.
I agree with you 100% on that and have called for single subject legislation on this site before. However, that issue has nothing to do with the bill under discussion. Neither it or its predicessor was influenced by backroom deals and unrelated amendments. Backroom deals and unrelated amendments are no basis for your attack on Bishop's proposal.
EC, while we have yet to see amendments, any thoughts on how the PILT program found a home in LWCF? Someone might "infer" it was a backroom deal.
But here's the larger problem: This revision chips away at the original intention/mission of the LWCF, just as Congress chips away at the Social Security program by diverting funds elsewhere. No doubt, there are other examples.
Why is anyone in the least surprised that Congress is all about backroom deals? Take Obamacare; take green energy. All began as backroom deals, as well. To visit Congress is not to find them debating the merits of ideas on the floor. That C-Span speech is just for the constituents. If the camera panned the room, the seats would be empty.
Rob Bishop wants to gut the Land and Water Conservation Fund because no one is standing in his way. Why not? Because they all want to gut the public lands for this and that special "project." The greens want more wind and solar; how can they stand firm for parks? So they attack fossil fuels again, but that is not the problem. Their inconsistency is the problem. It should be Hands Off the public lands for anything that threatens their basic health.
Do we have enough of that baseline data? We don't. And yet we plunge ahead. And when we don't get our way, we start pointing fingers, reminding our tribe that the problem is "them." No, the problem is that we have lost our national idealism in the pursuit of tribal politics. Once upon a time, the backroom deals were bipartisan. Now we don't even invite the other tribe to lunch.
Add 30,000 full-time lobbyists to the mix and you have what? A country in trouble, let alone a park system in trouble. No wonder the public rates Congress next to zero, and that goes for your representatives as well as mine.
You want a Land and Water Conservation Fund that means something? Then tell your tribe to work with their tribe, or you are voting both tribes out the door.
I don't see that at all. Land acquisition, as a percentage of the available funds, does drop modestly but the provision for offshore drilling education and innovation could actually make the available funds substantially larger and thus the actual monies to the LWCF larger. As to PILT, I am a full believer in PILT but will concede I am not sure how it fits into this particular legislation other than increasing the local revenues could help (though not obligate) local governments obtain or preserve lands.
Alfred, I generally agree with you other than I don't think Bishop is gutting the LWCF. However, dispite some conservative credentials, you are a Federal lands guy at heart so I can see how you would feel that way.
So what you are saying is that you cn't prove there were no backroom deals in this.
Nope. And never claimed that was the case. All I have claimed is that this bill doesn't do what the ad (and many on this blog) claim.