Posted 31 March 2006:
I read on www.cnn.com (from Associated Press) on March 30, 2006:
Alternative to forest sales proposed
Senators: Schools program doesn't require selling public lands
Two Democratic senators said Thursday (March 30, 2006) they have a way to fund rural schools without selling 300,000
acres of national forests as proposed by the Bush administration.
Senators Max Baucus of Montana and Ron Wyden of Oregon said their plan ($2.6 billion over the next 10 years) would
help pay for rural schools by closing a tax loophole that allows some government contractors to avoid taxes.
Their bill is intended to be an alternative to a Bush administration's plan to sell 300,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service
lands to raise about $800 million for rural schools in 41 states.
Lawmakers from both parties have generally denounced the plan because a permanent loss of public lands is not worth
the short-term gain to schools. The selloff of public lands would not raise the necessary amounts of money to pay for
rural schools and other services.
The proposal by Baucus and Wyden would provide revenue for the rural schools program, known as the county payments law,
by closing the tax loophole in federal contracts. Under current law, the federal government does not withhold taxes owed
by federal contractors. The Democratic plan would withhold 3 percent upfront of federal payments for goods and services
delivered by private contractors.
The money would be applied to taxes owed by the contractor, which in most cases far exceed 3 percent of the total contract.
If the tax obligation is less than 3 percent, the contractor would be reimbursed.
Wyden, who co-sponsored the original rural schools law in 2000, said rural communities throughout the country rely
on the payments.
He said, "We cannot abandon them, and this legislation finds a fiscally responsible way of extending this successful law".
Dave Tenny, deputy undersecretary, Office of the Secretary, USDA, said he had not seen the Democratic plan and could not comment.
In another article on www.cnn.com (from Associated Press) on March 16, 2006:
Ex-Forest chiefs criticize land sale plan
The Bush administration has now formalized its plan to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forest to help pay for rural
schools in 41 states, submitting legislation to Congress on Thursday (16 March 2006) to funnel $800 million to the schools
over the next five years.
The schools would get $320 million next year but this would drop sharply after that to just $40 million in its final
year. This would be a 90 percent decrease from current spending which several Western lawmakers called unacceptable.
The legislation came as four former Forest Service chiefs blasted the land sale plan as contrary to more than a century
of agency practice. They said, "Selling off public lands to fund other programs, no matter how worthwhile those programs,
is a slippery slope", and called the land sale "an unwise precedent."
The letter was signed by Max Peterson, Dale Robertson, Jack Ward Thomas and Michael Dombeck, who headed the Forest Service
from 1979 to 2001 under four presidents (R.W. Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, W.J. Clinton, G.W. Bush).
Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, Office of the Secretary, USDA, while welcoming advice from the former chiefs said
they must be "suffering from selective memory loss."
He claims that contrary to their letter, the U.S. Forest Service has proposed, and Congress enacted, dozens of land
conveyance bills. (my comments is that this is the idea of "swapping private and public lands" that the people of Arizona mistrust
as they have defeated every vote on this (one in 2004 or 2005 I participated on) but developer interests still keep
proposing (of course as it is money to them).
Rey says, "It's not a precedent of any sort, one way or another", noting that the proposed sales total less than half
of 1 percent of the 193 million-acre national forest system. He claims, parcels to be sold are isolated, expensive to manage
(that depends in my view), or no longer meet forest system needs (in his view). John's view: At that rate it will take 1000
years before we have no Forest Service lands left at all. Then we can live in our glass bubbles millennia upon millennia without
all the species and forests in our private insulated domains surrounded by walls (i.e. jails?).
Lawmakers from both parties have challenged the land sale, saying short-term gains would be offset by the permanent loss
of public lands. They also say profits would fall far short of what's needed to help rural governments pay for schools
and other services.
Republican senators were more open to the administration's plan. Senator Larry Craig, an Idaho Republican, who had sharply
opposed the land sale at a hearing last month, has moved toward a neutral position. "At this point he appreciates the administration's continued willingness to fund the program but doesn't have any specific comments on the proposal until he has more time to review it," said spokesman Dan Whiting.
A spokesman for Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican and chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, said Domenici was "keeping an open mind on the proposal and will do a full review." I hope Senator Domenici can appreciate
the beautiful mountains in his State north of Taos such as Mt. Wheeler and Latir Peaks
which have private lands just to the north
that limit enjoyment. I hope he does not want to expand the limitations by supporting the selloff.
Rey, Natural Resources - Office of the Secretary, said the question for lawmakers is not whether they like the land sale plan,
but whether they have a better alternative in a tight budget year. John's view: Well, according to some Senators they do have
a better plan, closing the tax loophole and avoiding the loss of beautiful Forest lands that are the property of American
citizens (and the entire world).
John's view: I am very concerned that the Republican administration, that has been criticized as too friendly to developers
and "Big-Oil", wants to sell off some choice chunks of Forest Service land (our land) to developers (most likely buyers)
for the excuse (I think) of helping rural schools. Everyone knows that once land is sold to private
interests that it is not likely to ever be made public again. Also, most of us know that once land is private it tends to
be fenced off and one can never even walk across it without being scared to death of "NO TRESPASSING" signs and
"VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED (to the full extent of the law)" and "$500 Reward for information leading to the
conviction of anyone trespassing" etc. etc.
Where is the "land of the free"..."where the buffalo roam", where is it? Well it is still in the Forest Service lands
and the Bureau of Land Management areas and we need to preserve these lands and not let this or that administration sell
out our birthright. You may want to contact the above responsible people and let them know what you think, but as I said
above, identify yourself so that you write respectfully and appropriately. It also seems that you must be a citizen of the
state of the particular Senator or Congress person if you want to either send an email or get a response (although some websites appear to
receive/listen to your email if you are out-of-state).
Against the Sell-Off of US Forest Land:
Senator Max Baucus (Montana)
Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon)
Slightly Against or Neutral on the Sell-Off:
Senator Pete V. Domenici (New Mexico)
Senator Larry Craig (Idaho)
It seems all Senators have websites in the form: http://lastname.senate.gov/
all Representatives in the House have websites in the form: http://www.house.gov/lastname/
US Gov Administration for the Sell-Off of land:
Mark Rey (email is first.last@usda.gov)
Dave Tenny (email is first.last@usda.gov):
Commentary and Explanations by U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service position
Other commentary will follow