| For Immediate Release | |
| May 19, 1999 | |
| Contact: | Joan Moody 202-682-9400 x220 (Media) |
|
|  |
TR
IV Report to Congress Shows Need for Funds: Conservationists Decry Devastating Congressional Cuts in Public Lands & Wildlife Programs Conservationists warn that natural resource programs
will be facing draconian budget cuts under FY 2000 funding allocation
levels passed by the House Appropriations Committee today. Yesterday the
leadership of the Senate Appropriations Committee released their
proposal for funding reductions. Both committees were compelled to
reduce funding in order to comply with overall budget targets
recommended by the congressional budget committees.
Under the funding scenario approved by the House committee today,
national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, and other programs to protect
land, fish and wildlife could face as much as a 20 percent cut in
funding below FY 1999 levels and a 25 percent reduction below the
President’s FY 2000 request.
"It is appalling that the congressional budget leadership is
proposing to gouge our nation’s land and wildlife legacy at a time when
House and Senate natural resources committee leaders agree on a
bipartisan basis that we need to increase our commitment to land and
wildlife conservation," says Rodger Schlickeisen, President of Defenders
of Wildlife and a spokesperson for a coalition of "green" groups working
on conservation appropriations. Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President of
Friends of the Earth, adds that, "The House and Senate budget
allocations highlight the hypocrisy of this Congress. On Tuesday, the
House passes a $15 billion emergency spending bill loaded with pork. On
Wednesday, they cut environmental programs by 25 percent. It's an
outrage."
The news on the funding cuts came as Congress prepares to move
forward with its FY 2000 spending bills. In setting spending levels for
next year, the congressional committees claimed they were bound by the
FY 1998 Balanced Budget Agreement (BBA), which severely restricts
discretionary spending amounts until 2002. These spending caps were put
in place to control deficit spending, but are now questionable given the
large budget surplus the federal government is experiencing. Unless
these caps are revised or ignored (as is being done to pass the current
"emergency" supplemental appropriations), natural resource protection
programs will be devastated.
"Cuts of this magnitude would cripple national parks around the
country," says Thomas Kiernan, President of the National Parks &
Conservation Association. "The allocation for Interior is an outrage,"
declares Bill Meadows, President of The Wilderness Society. "The
proposed cut is equal to the budgets of the National Park Service and
the Fish & Wildlife Service combined. It’s unreasonable to believe
the agencies can sustain this kind of budgetary blow–even in an
across-the-board cut."
In conclusion, according to Gene Karpinski, Executive Director,
U.S. Public Interest Research Group. the conservationists believe that
"For too long, programs benefitting our public lands and wildlife have
been underfunded and overlooked. It's time to start investing in our
natural heritage."
Congressional appropriations leaders are proposing to slash programs
that conserve our public lands and wildlife despite strong evidence that
these programs already are chronically underfunded, according to the
Public Lands Funding Initiative (PLFI), a broad coalition of more than
100 environmental, conservation, and recreation groups representing
millions of Americans.
The PLFI funding position is endorsed by Theodore Roosevelt IV, an
investment banker and great-grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt.
Just last month, Roosevelt and the coalition sent a report to every
Member of Congress entitled Public Lands Funding Initiative --
Leaving a Legacy for Generations to Come. The report describes the
funding crisis threatening our public lands and other natural resource
stewardship programs and advocates a $3 billion increase over the next
five years, including a $1 billion increase for FY 2000.
The report notes that the PLFI’s recommended increases are only the
bare-bones minimum needed to support some currently unmet conservation
and resource management requirements of the natural resource agencies --
and that with a healthy economy continuing to produce budget surpluses,
additional funds should be invested in maintaining the value of these
publicly held natural assets.
In his letter accompanying the PLFI report to Capitol Hill, Mr.
Roosevelt described the funding crisis threatening our public lands:
"For years we have neglected one of our most valuable national assets –
our public lands and wildlife. The infrastructure of our natural
heritage is deteriorating. If we do not act soon, the damage to our
national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands will
be irreparable."
The House committee funding allocation, set at $11.3 billion, would
result in approximately a 20 percent cut compared to FY 1999 and a 25
percent cut below levels requested by the President for FY2000 and
recommended by the Public Lands Funding Initiative. The resulting
funding level would be the lowest in recent years - the next lowest was
$12.7 billion in FY97. The Senate allocation would not cut as deep, but
would still result in a destructive 10 percent cut below the President’s
request and PLFI recommendations.
In March, as Congress was developing an overall budget resolution,
the Clinton Administration estimated that even less severe budget
reductions would have devastating impacts on Interior Department
programs. At that time, the Administration said that impacts could
include:
|
