A package of bills that would toss aside environmental laws and regulations protecting a number of national parks passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday, though its prospects in the Senate were unclear.
The package, if it managed to become law, would give the U.S. Border Patrol wide-ranging access to lands managed by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and other federal lands that lie within 100 miles of an international border.
Parks that fall within that 100-mile swath include Big Bend, Isle Royale, Everglades, Biscayne, Dry Tortugas, Glacier, North Cascades, Voyageurs, Virgin Islands, Olympic, Redwoods, Channel Islands, and all the national seashores.
Environmental laws and regulations set aside by one piece of the package, H.R. 1505, include The Wilderness Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Antiquities Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, and the National Parks and Recreation Act, among others.
"This is just one more example of the House attempting to push something through the Congress that is extreme and an overreach," David Moulton, senior legislative director for The Wilderness Society, told the Traveler on Tuesday evening. "I think we can beat it in the Senate, but we have to keep up the pressure.”
The House vote was 232-188. Sixteen Democrats voted for the bill, while 19 Republicans opposed it. Whether the Senate takes up the measure is unclear. Currently, there is no companion bill in the Senate, where rules could make it difficult to move a stand-alone bill. However, said Mr. Moulton, a senator could try to amend the package to a "must-pass bill," such as an appropriations measure or transportation bill.
The Wilderness Society official said if the measure somehow became law, it "would allow road building, construction and development on lands that are loved for hunting, fishing, hiking and other recreational activities. This vote was not in the best interest of the people who enjoy the land for its natural beauty.”
The main architect of H.R. 1505 was U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who long has sought to free the U.S. Border Patrol from observing environmental laws in its bid to secure the country's borders.
"This legislation is the right thing for this country," the Republican said earlier Tuesday in a release. "At the end of the day, this matter is far too important to go unaddressed and shoring up these trafficking corridors will help close the gaps that are preventing us from having a truly secure border."
General Accounting Office reports, however, have struck down Rep. Bishop's contention that environmental regulations are hamstringing the Border Patrol.
Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee have launched a website called DRONEZONE that allows Americans to look at national, state, and even Congressional district maps to see if they live or could potentially visit this expanded DHS patrol area.
“This is theater of the absurd,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, the Ranking Member of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee. “Republicans have wanted to gut these laws for decades, and each excuse seems to get a little flimsier. They’re not afraid to invent new reasons to get their way, and when those run out they just use the old ones again. The days of scaring everyone by shouting ‘national security’ are long over, and Republicans would do everyone a favor by admitting it.”
Comments
But what if people were honest and would disclose and conflicts of interest? That would help. But it's probably too much to realistically expect.
Heck, even our legislators won't do that. If they didn't have the ability to hide their motives and sources of funding, people might even stop electing them.
Lee, if people would look past the horrid PC soundbite and get real, well, more are. Reality IS sinking in. That's what eventually drives the politicos. What they can get away with:)!
I personally don't have any conflicts of interest, including any financial ones, as regards any of my posts. I am merely a mountain biker with a job that has nothing to do with the outdoors in any respect. Because the mountain biking "industry" is so small and so lacking in influence, it's hard to imagine anyone else having a conflict of interest either. We're not talking about Big Pharma or Big Oil here.
Frankly, if someone employed by the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, PEER, etc., posts on here, I wouldn't view that as a conflict of interest. It's not as though such a person would stand to gain financially (except maybe in a nominal sense) from expressing his/her point of view even if it dovetails with the organization he/she works for. I would think that would be true of someone who works for a bicycle company too: any financial gain from increased trail access within national parks or Wilderness areas would be, I would think, fairly tangential or incidental.
I don't want to see Kurt change things. There are indeed folks who need to protect their employment, although I think that there are more who flatter themselves with the aura of martyrdom of that stance. I reserve the right to judge harshly and discount the opinions of those who, in my personal opinionated opinion, sound like undeclared lobbyists, PR spokeswhores, or similar. A picadore or a troll is, after all, a picadore or a troll. They certainly aren't fooling anybody.
Rick, picadores and trolls may not fool everyone, but they might from time to time, fool the more gullible.
Unfortunately, the picadores and trolls who inhabit the halls of Congress and too many state legislatures seem to find some very effective ways of fooling people into voting for them over and over again.
I too, agree with you Rick in supporting Kurt's policy on here. I do ask the question to you and Lee as to what you are a troll for (your description). Would you have brought up issues like the Indian Trader Scandal that destroyed real living history or the case of the much honored ranger that had his career destroyed for doing what was right. The often religous ferver that is apparent at times in defending these wild places sometimes hides some particularly troubling personal traits and when combined with a chain of command that are willingly or against their will, participate for their careers sake.
I am not a "troll" for any industry or government agency but I try to encourage the opportunity for individuals to experience the freedoms that both contribute to breakthroughs in the personal realm. When you put the worst of either's contributions (industry and governemnt) it would be difficult to tell which is worse for individuals, I believe.
There is a third rail out there of public sensibilities that, I believe, will be apparent and present to pick up the pieces of acrimony. Even the "trolls" will understand that something good is afoot, I hope.
Hey Lee, with all your inflamatory, trollish descriptions of Utah Residents do you include Orin Hatch in your diatribes. I'm the one that mentioned the third rail of honorable people that are waiting to pick up the pieces while you and Bishop are mud wrestling. Majority of Utah Residents support Senator Hatch, a great American and I believe a friend of the National Parks in a way that strengthens the Republic.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54364398-90/hatch-spent-senate-cam...
Gee, anon, Orrin has you fooled, too?
Orrin's victory in the primary was bought by huge amounts of special interest and SuperPAC dollars. His TV commercials ran every three minutes on Utah TV stations. Robocalls jammed our telephones. Voter turnout at the primary was the usual pathetically small percentage of eligible voters -- and most were probably right-wing fanatics. The choice was between two equally poor choices. We'll see what happens in November when Hatch must face off with a highly respected former Utah state senator. But even then, it will be an almost impossible task for Scott Howell to avoid being buried completely by Hatch's enormous financial backing from people like the Koch Brothers and others whose primary interest is profit and dominion over the rest of us. Unfortunately, Rob Bishop enjoys the same kind of advantage over his opposition.
If that is inflammatory, then so be it.