You are here

Interior Secretary Jewell Calls On Congress To Step Up For Conservation...Or President Obama Will

Share

In an address last week to the National Press Club, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell called on Congress to become more conservation-minded.

Washington politics are infuriating, disappointing, enlightening, and entertaining. They rarely are dull. That is obvious based on what has transpired since October 1, when the federal government ran out of money.

* We saw a 16-day closure of the National Park System initially spurred by House Republicans...who then castigated National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis for how the parks were shuttered.

* We received a 208-page report from U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, that blamed the current state of the park system largely on those in Congress, but also on Park Service management.

* Most recently, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell called on Congress to support President Obama's broad conservation agenda...or the president will use his executive powers to move forward on parts of it.

In a speech last week before the National Press Club, the Interior secretary pointed to the value of public lands when it comes to climate change, clean air and water, and local economies. She talked about preserving these lands for generations yet to be born, of the need to "think about what conservation legacy we will leave for the next 50 years, for the next 100 years."

In short, she urged Congress to put up or shut up.

"The real test of whether you support conservation is not what you say in a press conference when the cameras are rolling, but whether you fight for it in the budget conference," Secretary Jewell told those at the Press Club gathering.

Some figurative fighting began last week almost immediately after Sen. Coburn issued his report, Parked! How Congress' Misplaced Priorities Are Trashing Our National Treasures, sections of which questioned the appropriateness of some units of the park system, such as Isle Royale National Park in Michigan. That immediately spurred bipartisan backlash from that state's congressional delegation, which pointed to the park not only as a breathtaking landscape but a key economic timber for area communities.

Which brings us back to Secretary Jewell's speech, which drew praise from the National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, two groups that were critical of Sen. Coburn's take on the parks.

“With less than three years before the centennial of our National Park System, we agree with Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell that Congress should adopt a rational budget that recognizes the value of national parks, conservation and their economic contribution to communities nationwide," said Theresa Pierno, NPCA's acting president. "We also agree that there is a need to improve the balance between conservation and energy development on our public lands and to continue to protect important new natural and cultural areas as national monuments.

“Secretary Jewell’s strong statements on the value of conservation to our nation and to our future are welcome, and should be heeded. The Secretary was correct that, in the wake of the federal government shutdown, the real test of congressional support for national parks, park visitors, and local park economies will be the outcome of the budget conference now occurring between the House and Senate," Ms. Pierno went on. "The administration’s response to that conference and the president’s budget proposal for FY 2015 will also be tests. The National Parks Conservation Association calls on Congress to end the mindless sequester cuts and restore critically needed investments in our national parks and public lands. We also call on the administration to propose a budget for FY 2015 that takes meaningful, bold steps to restore and renew our national parks and ready them for their second century."

Coalition officials issued a short, but definitive, statement endorsing the secretary's speech: "CNPSR fully endorses the programs she outlined and her eloquent defense of the nation's national parks, public lands and the overall work of the Department of the Interior. Secretary Jewell is thinking big and that is befitting for the Department Head that stewards the vast majority of the nation's public lands."

While leading Republicans in Congress likely will give little merit to the Interior secretary's speech, they might focus on her mention that President Obama "is ready and willing to step up where Congress falls short" when it comes to conserving public lands as wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, units of the National Park System, or in some other protected form.

To buttress that point, Secretary Jewell said that "(I)n the coming weeks and months, I will be meeting with communities and evaluating opportunities where action can ensure that our nation’s stories and landscapes are honored, celebrated and preserved for the generations to come."

Her road trip likely will draw ire from U.S. Reps. Doc Hastings, R-Washington, and Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who in particular have been highly vocal in the past with their opposition to the president wielding his executive power to create, for example, national monuments.

The ongoing partisan rancor, which has led to congressional grandstanding, poses a great danger to the country's conservation movement if it's allowed to overwhelm positive steps that are being made.

Among currently pending legislation that would further conservation across the country are:

* H.R. 139, the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act that would preserve the Arctic coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, as wilderness.

* H.R. 145, the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act that would create more than 333,000 acres of wilderness in Idaho.

* S. 1294, the Tennessee Wilderness Act, which would create more than 19,550 acres of wilderness in Tennessee

Unfortunately, these measures' chances of passage are gauged by govtrack.us as being slim or none.

Here's hoping that Congress shows some rare statesmanship in guiding the affairs of the country.

Comments

ecbuck: I can relate but there are lots of Rick B's out there invested in their deals, financially and emotionally that it is indeed a waste of time to even bother. Kind of like those in the executive, legislative and judicial branches that don't have to live under the same rules as the rest of us (refering to other directives also but Obamacare being the issue of the day). I expect the type of response that you've been getting but, "whatever."


Kurt is correct on both points when he said, "There is plenty of pork in the federal budget that could be trimmed to enable us to live within our means. Unfortunately, it seems politics of all colors is preventing those badly needed substantive discussions."

One of the difficulties is that each piece of pork has its own defenders, and one man's hog is another's sacred cow. Few of today's politicians seem willing to go after a program near and dear to one of his peers, for fear of having the "favor" returned.

That's one of the reasons Congress took the sequester approach, with mindless "across the board" cuts rather than targeted cuts that required some analysis - and a reason they rely on continuing resolutions vs. passing an actual annual appropriations bill for each department. Our "leaders" can all throw up their hands and claim they aren't responsible for any impacts on specific programs.


No, this would have been October 1, and applied only to the national parks, veterans, and health. I was watching C-Span the entire day. Nor would the bill have required a two-thirds vote. Has anyone checked Thomas? Was anyone "there?"


It failed on Oct 1st (262 to 176). It looks like they had some sort of vote on procedure involving this bill on Oct 2nd (230 to194) and passed it the same day (252 to 173). This was a CR, not an appropriation bill.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll508.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll512.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll513.xml


Trailadvocate.

I know I won't convince Rick B. He is too deeply dependent upon the government handouts. But he (and those of similar ilk) can't go unanswered. There are enough people for which there is still hope and we can't let them be mislead.

I think Jim is quite right in his assessment of ones mans pork is another's sacred cow. But in my view, the "tea party" candidates are the ones closest to those willing to reject that approach.


And this from Thomas:

H.J.RES.70
Latest Title: National Park Service Operations, Smithsonian Institution, National Gallery of Art, and United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014
Sponsor: [color=#0000ff]Rep Simpson, Michael K.[/color] [ID-2] (introduced 10/1/2013) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: [color=#800080]H.RES.370[/color]
Latest Major Action: 10/3/2013 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 203 pursuant to the order of Oct. 2, 2013.

ALL ACTIONS:

10/1/2013:

Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.

10/1/20134:44pm:

Mr. Simpson moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution.

10/1/20134:44pm:

Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR [color=#0000ff]H6071-6077[/color]; text of measure as introduced: CR [color=#0000ff]H6071[/color])

10/1/20134:44pm:

DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 70[/color].

10/1/2013 5:11pm:

DEBATE - The House resumed debate on [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 70[/color].

10/1/20135:36pm:

At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.

10/1/20137:56pm:

Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR [color=#0000ff]H6090-6091[/color])

10/1/2013 8:02pm:

On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 252 - 176 ([color=#0000ff]Roll no. 508[/color]).

10/2/20131:40pm:

Rules Committee Resolution [color=#800080]H. Res. 370[/color] Reported to House. The resolution provides for consideration of [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 70[/color], [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 71[/color], [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 72[/color], [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 73[/color], and [color=#0000ff]H.R. 3230[/color]. The resolution provides for 30 minutes of debate on each measure and provides for one motion to recommit each measure. The resolution also provides that it shall be in order at any time through the calendar day of October 6, 2013, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules.

10/2/2013 5:09pm:

Considered under the provisions of rule [color=#800080]H. Res. 370[/color]. (consideration: CR [color=#0000ff]H6146-6155[/color])

10/2/2013 5:09pm:

The resolution provides for consideration of [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 70[/color], [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 71[/color], [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 72[/color], [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 73[/color], and [color=#0000ff]H.R. 3230[/color]. The resolution provides for 30 minutes of debate on each measure and provides for one motion to recommit each measure. The resolution also provides that it shall be in order at any time through the calendar day of October 6, 2013, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules.

10/2/2013 5:10pm:

DEBATE - The House proceeded with 30 minutes of debate on [color=#0000ff]H.J. Res. 70[/color].

10/2/20135:49pm:

The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR [color=#0000ff]H6152[/color])

10/2/20135:50pm:

Mr. Van Hollen moved to recommit with instructions to Appropriations. (consideration: CR [color=#0000ff]H6152[/color]; text: CR [color=#0000ff]H6152[/color])

10/2/20135:50pm:

DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Van Hollen motion to recommit with instructions, pending a reservation of a point of order. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to replace the underlying bill with the Senate Amendment to [color=#0000ff]H.J.Res. 59[/color].

10/2/20135:54pm:

Mr. Simpson raised a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. Simpson stated that the provisions of the proposed amendment are not germane to the Joint Resolution. Sustained by the Chair.

10/2/2013 6:02pm:

Mr. Van Hollen appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the chair.

10/2/2013 6:02pm:

Mr. Simpson moved to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair. (consideration: CR [color=#0000ff]H6154[/color])

10/2/20136:29pm:

On motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 230 - 194 ([color=#0000ff]Roll no. 512[/color]).

10/2/20136:35pm:

On passage Passed by recorded vote: 252 - 173 ([color=#0000ff]Roll no. 513[/color]). (text: CR [color=#0000ff]H6146[/color])

10/2/20136:35pm:

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

10/3/2013:

Received in the Senate, read the first time pursuant to the order of Oct. 2, 2013.

10/3/2013:

Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 203 pursuant to the order of Oct. 2, 2013.


EC, that was an unwarranted attack on Rick, who had a career as a nurse. Sounds like a giving person to me. Let's all try to stick to Traveler's code of conduct pertaining to comments, please.

As for your claim about tea party candidates rejecting pork, how do you explain Ted Cruz promising to make "all available resources" from the federal government following the West Texas fertilizer plant explosion after voting against federal aid for Hurricane Sandy victims?


The Defense Department is the agency that needs some serious looking at. Defense spending is more than 50% of discretionary spending and 18% of total spending. It is also one of the few agencies that has never had a complete external financial audit. DOI has had external audits for more than a decade.

This is from GAO :
"DOD is one of the few federal entities that cannot accurately account for its spending or assets and is one of three major impediments that prevent GAO from rendering an opinion on the annual consolidated financial statements of the federal government."


The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.