Copyright 2000 Gannett Company, Inc.
USA TODAY
May 8, 2000, Monday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 6A
LENGTH: 781 words
HEADLINE:
House likely to pass sprawling conservation bill Measure
appeals to many interests, from hunters to soccer moms
BYLINE: Traci Watson
DATELINE:
WASHINGTON
BODY:
WASHINGTON -- With little public
fanfare, the House of Representatives
is soon likely to approve one of the
biggest, most expensive conservation
bills of the past few
decades.
Even critics say the $ 39 billion Conservation and
Reinvestment
Act, which would benefit Americans ranging from soccer
players
to farmers threatened by development, is likely to pass when the
full House votes on it, probably Wednesday.
The bill has 316
co-sponsors, which gives it support from nearly
three-quarters of the House.
The legislation would be a windfall for
conservation and recreation
across the USA. It would direct
that nearly $ 3 billion a year,
from the time the bill passes through fiscal
year 2015, be spent
on environmental programs and other projects, mostly by
state
and local governments.
"This is one of the most
(important) environmental bills in the
last 25 years," said Rep. George
Miller, D-Calif., who, along
with Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, has led the
fight for the bill,
H.R. 701. "People can nitpick this bill . . . (but) the
fact is, this is one of the broadest coalitions we've been able
to put
together in the House."
Passage in the Senate will be difficult
because of opposition
from budget hawks and some Western senators who are
strong supporters
of private-property rights. The White House favors the
legislation's
goals but has some major objections to it.
The
bulk of the money -- $ 1 billion a year -- would go to coastal
programs,
particularly in Alaska and Louisiana, where there are
major offshore
oil-drilling operations. The money could be spent
on anything from coastal
restoration to infrastructure to replacing
sand on eroded beaches.
The next biggest chunk,$ 900 million a year, would go to the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, a program supporting
government land
purchases and other conservation and
outdoor recreation spending.
In the past, the fund has financed federal
acquisitions including
land along the Appalachian Trail, which runs from
Maine to Georgia,
and hundreds of acres of red-rock country near Sedona,
Ariz. The
bill would give half the money to the states and half to the
federal
land program.
Another billion dollars would be divided
among a hodgepodge of
different causes, not all of them harmonious. Money
would go to
protection of endangered species and to hunter education; to
recreational
facilities such as hockey rinks and city parks; and to
restoring
both degraded ecosystems and crumbling historic buildings. The
act also calls for spending on open-space protection and incentives
for
landowners to protect rare species living on their property.
Soccer
moms, governors, county officials, some environmental groups
and many others
are wildly enthusiastic about the bill. Asked
who was generating the bulk of
the letters, calls and e-mails
in favor of the act, Michael Henry, a staffer
for the House Committee
on Resources, joked, "It's about a 100-way tie."
Even so, the bill has also generated serious opposition from
private-property
activists, fiscal conservatives and some environmentalists
--
groups not often found on the same side of the fence.
"We
should be focusing that money on Social Security, the military
and various
other priorities," says Rep. Helen Chenoweth, R-Idaho,
who led the House
fight against the bill. Why buy more land, she
asks, "with the federal
government already owning 30% of (U.S.)
land and not being able to take care
of what they have?"
Some environmental groups don't like the
provision requiring Congress
to approve all federal land purchases. Nor do
they like the bill's
open-ended language, which would allow money for
coastal protection
to be spent on docks and highways. Some environmental
groups have
told the administration they'd prefer to see President Clinton
veto the bill if the provisions they object to aren't changed.
The White House shares some of the environmentalists' concerns,
plus another: "The current bill is not paid for," says George
Frampton,
acting chairman of the White House Council on Environmental
Quality.
The money would come out of royalties from oil drilling off the
U.S. coast. A 1964 law created the Land and Water
Conservation
Fund and mandated that it automatically
receive $ 900 million a
year. Later, Congress directed that oil royalties be
deposited
in the fund. However, legislators have never devoted as much money
to the fund as required. Supporters say the new bill rights that
wrong.
"This is redeeming a promise Congress made to the public,"
Miller says.
A bill identical to the House version has been introduced in the
Senate.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO, B/W, Robert F. Bukaty,
AP; PHOTO, B/W, AP; Nature trek: Earl Shaffer, 79, right, leads David Donaldson,
38, on the Appalachian Trail. A bill would give millions to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, which has paid for federal land purchases
along the trail. Miller: Broad coalition of support.
LOAD-DATE: May 08, 2000 
