The Five Worst Parts of the Budget Bill

Right now the U.S. House of Representatives is debating a budget bill that’s just riddled with bad policy that hamstrings the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency from doing their jobs. If you care about U.S. wild lands policies or how our nation protects wildlife, you’re going to hate this bill.

In no particular order, here are the five worst amendments to this proposed budget bill from my Resilient Habitats perspective:

1.  A rider that would place a moratorium on new Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings and critical habitat designations, as well as prohibit court challenges of ESA delistings. The ESA is regarded as one of the strongest conservation laws the world has ever seen, and it has had an astounding effect bringing species back from the edge of extinction and preserving biodiversity in this country. Its power lies in sound, science-based management, free from political interference.

2.  A rider that would prevent a long-term ban on mining around Grand Canyon. To put it mildly, this is just a bit ridiculous. Why do we want to mine in a national treasure? The Greater Grand Canyon region is a wild and remote landscape that includes two national monuments, two national forests, numerous wilderness areas, and the crown jewel of our national park system: Grand Canyon National Park.

These lands provide important connections for wildlife movement and homes to key animals like the desert tortoise, the endangered California condor, the northern goshawk, and the Kaibab squirrel—an animal found nowhere else.

3.  Conservation funding cuts, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and any funding for climate change adaptation or mitigation. The LWCF is one of the most effective tools the government has to acquire lands critical for conservation and habitat protection. Projects that receive money from LWCF are vital to the continued protection of our national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

4.  A rider that would prevent EPA from implementing or enforcing water quality standards in Florida. Florida has a history of failing to follow the Clean Water Act. For over a decade the state has refused to set numeric limits for nutrient pollution that causes toxic algal blooms. With over 1,900 miles of rivers and streams and 375,000 acres of lakes in Florida currently suffering from nutrient pollution there is no time to lose in cleaning them up.  

5.  A rider that would prevent funding for Wild Lands policy. The Bureau of Land Management has a responsibility and a duty not just to inventory, but to protect our nation’s wild places. The Wild Lands policy provides a straightforward approach to restoring balance and preserving our last wild places for future generations to enjoy. 

Our outdoor heritage, our communities, and many economies, depends on keeping some places wild. The future of some of our most cherished wild places should not be determined by political games.

This bill is an all-out assault on environmental protections, and it has a good chance of passing. 

Thankfully, we’ve had some champions in the House fight back against these cuts, including Rep. Jim Moran, although he remains pessimistic as well: "I think we should be very concerned that many of these could see the light of day," said Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. 

Why are House members ignoring their constituents? Polls show Americans want to protect our nation’s natural heritage. A March poll showed that 84% of Americans support the ESA and believe it is a safety net providing balanced solutions to save wildlife, plants and fish that are at risk of extinction. The same poll showed that the majority of Americans believe decisions about whether to remove the Endangered Species Act’s protections and decisions about wildlife management should be made by scientists, not politicians. 

We must protect, connect, and restore healthy natural systems, not prevent the right people from doing just that. These natural places help clean our air and water. We should be helping our special places survive and thrive in a changing world.  That’s the goal of the Club’s Resilient Habitats Campaign; which recognizes that the natural legacy we leave our children depends on the choices we make today.

But unfortunately, the line has been drawn: the House has it out for anything that would protect critical habitats, endangered species, water quality standards, and policies that keep wild lands free of development.

- Fran Hunt, Resilient Habitats Campaign Director 

Comments

[Red Bottom Heels]

Start beautiful, tiring process, the end is very sad, sober difficult

[Beverly Smith]

We MUST STOP the violence to our natural wildlife and environments. It is a direct method of destruction for the sake of GREED!!! Tell us how we can stop these abhorrent actions.

[R. Lee]

These amendments to the proposed budgets are shameful - pure and simple. How can so many politicians who ran for office to "serve the people" care so little for what most people want and care about? How can they themselves care so little about the environment? God blessed us with this beautiful earth to be responsible stewards, not to strip and destroy for profit or kill for convenience. Shame, shame, shame..........

[Marilyn Snyder]

I strongly urge you to OPPOSE the House Interior Appropriations bill and the Extinction Rider it contains. I thought the world was moving forward in the protection and conservation of wildlife and now our country is attempting to take a giant step backward. How can we expect China to protect its Pandas and Tigers or Japan to stop Whaling if we fail to set an example in the same direction. If we're here shooting endangered Wolves for no reason, we certainly can't expect other countries to behave any differently.

This bill is an all-out attack on our wildlife, especially those suffering from habitat loss global warming, or excessive hunting. So many American species need help recovering from these problems, but instead we're passing a bill to do just the opposite? It's simply unacceptable.

Wyoming and Idaho need someone or something to censure the killing of their wolves. They seem so hyped up and ready to get a wolf in their gun-sights at the drop of a hat and I think there should be some agency watching so the wolves have some kind of protection. After all, this animal was an endangered species just a couple years ago and now we're going to blast them off the earth again before they've even had a chance to gain a solid foothold. It's extremely unfair. We should have just let them go extinct, if the result was just to shoot them anyway. I understand this bill would prevent people from speaking against this "shoot-on-sight* wolf hunting that seems to important to Wyoming and Idaho. Well, other people still have constitutional rights and we should be able to speak our mind regardless. What kind of bill is this that seeks to blatantly kill wildlife and prevent American citizens from speaking out against it. Prevent legal action to challenge Wyoming's shoot-on-sight wolf plan. It sounds like a violation of my constitutional rights!! Hundreds of wolves could be killed and recovery of wolves in the Northern Rockies sabotaged, but the committee voted to deny people who care about wolves their day in court. Since when do people no longer have a right to fight for what they believe is right? I feel like my constitutional rights are been stripped away by this insane bill. And I certainly feel that I should have the right to fight against these crazy people in Wyoming and Idaho who can't seem to wait until they get a wolf in their gun-sights Someone needs to provide some sort of protection for this poor animal that was an Endangered Species until someone decided that all the money spent to bring them back from the brink of extinction was spent just so they could shoot and kill them!! If you ask me, this is an expensive way of providing for someone's hunting hobby.

Congress should be doing more, not less, for our wildlife and environment. This is certainly not the time to be stripping the need for wildlife professionals and taking away grants for the study of the environment. If anything, more grants should be offered during this difficult period.

Sacrificing our wildlife and environment in the name of fiscal austerity is unacceptable and could result in increased costs in the future to clean our air and water and keep us healthy. Please oppose this awful bill.