PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNS WETLANDS ACT

President George W. Bush recently signed into law the reauthorization of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. It's purpose is to encourage voluntary partnerships among public agencies and the private sector to conserve North American wetland ecosystems. It establishes an infrastructure and provides a source of funding to accomplish that end. The Act funds the protection, restoration, management and enhancement of a wetland ecosystem to benefit wetland-dependent wildlife.

According to President Bush, "Today we take important action to conserve North America's wetlands, which will help keep our water clean and help provide habitat for hundreds of species of wildlife. Through this legislation, the federal government will continue its partnership with landowners, conservation groups and states to save and improve millions of acres of wetlands. The North American Wetlands Conservation Reauthorization Act shows our concern for the environment and our respect for future generations of Americans. "With this signature today, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act will be reauthorized for five years. The law authorizes federal money to match donations from sportsmen, state wildlife agencies, conservationists and landowners. Since 1991, more than $462 million in federal grants have helped to encourage $1.3 billion in contributions from others."

"Together these funds have restored streams and rivers, re-established native plants and trees, acquired land that is home to more than a third of America's threatened and endangered species. Because about 75 percent of the wetlands are held privately, we need to encourage cooperation with our landowners. This legislation shows that when government, landowners and conservationists work together, we can make dramatic progress in preserving the beauty and the quality of our environment." Bush also thanked the Congress for supporting this legislation.

Proposed projects are ranked by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's North American Wetlands Conservation Council. Selected, prioritized proposals are recommended to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission for consideration of funding. Membership consists of the Secretary of the Interior, who serves as Chairman; the Secretaries of Transportation and Agriculture; two Members of the Senate (one is Senator Thad Cochran); and two Members of the House of Representatives. The Commission is authorized to approve, reject or reorder the priority of the proposed projects.

Press Briefing - June 5, 2002
"Q Ari, if I could change subjects for a second. This morning you said that the President quoted a speech, indicating that the President believes that human activity is largely responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases. But I'm wondering if he also agrees with an EPA report which indicated that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me just read from the President's statement of June 11th on global warming, and let me read from the recent report the EPA submitted to the United Nations. And I think you'll hear that on the key issues, they really sound very, very similar. This is the President on June 11th in the Rose Garden, in a speech where he announced his global warming policies.

"Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially C02, have increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity." That's the President himself speaking.

Here is from the report, page 4, that was just submitted to the United States by the EPA: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as the result of human activities, causing global mean surface temperature and subsurface ocean temperature to rise. While the changes observed over the last several decades are due most likely to human activities, we cannot rule out that some significant part is also a reflection of natural variability." And I think what you're hearing is the same thing.

Q I'm glad you make the connection explicitly, since the President addressed greenhouse gases, but not specifically global warming. Does the President agree with the conclusion that human activity is likely the cause of global warming?

MR. FLEISCHER: When the President cites the National Academy of Science as saying that the National Academy of Science indicates that the increase is due in large part to human activity, I don't know how the President could say it more specifically than that.

MR. FLEISCHER: No. Here's -- the bottom line for the President is, number one, he has made a proposal that he believes is a proposal that not only can reduce the problem of greenhouse gases and global warming, but also protects the American economy, so the American economy can lead the world in technological and scientific advances that also have an effect in reducing pollution.

The President has said, citing the National Academy of Sciences, that the increase is due in large part to human activity. The President has also continued, citing both, now this report the EPA has sent to the United Nations, previous evidence from the National Academy of Sciences, that there's uncertainty -- and the recent report notes that there is considerable uncertainty. That's the state of science, and the President agrees with it. I don't think people dispute that.

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, when the President cites a report by the National Academy of Sciences that indicates the increase is due in large part to human activity, I think you have two reports that are very similar.

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the EPA issued a report that says the same thing. And I think the President was also reflecting about some of the way it was covered, that made it sound as if the report was somehow inconsistent with what he had said previously.

Q I don't think he reflected at all, he just said that, I saw it put out by a bureaucracy. What did he reflect on?

Texas Gov. George W. Bush has changed his tune on a key environmental issue, saying he no longer believes there's any question that the globe is warming, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports.

"I believe there is global warming," he said at a news conference last week. Mr. Bush had said just a few weeks ago that the "science is still out" on global warming. The governor, who is leading a crowded field of GOP presidential candidates, said his team of advisers had changed his mind.

"The last time I wasn't certain of the science," he said. "I've had some briefings recently and I'm becoming more convinced that the science proves there's global warming."

Tom "Smitty" Smith, director of the liberal consumer and environmental group Public Citizen, welcomed the new position.

"We are delighted that Gov. Bush is acknowledging that global warming is a problem," he said. "We would ask him to take a leadership role since Texas leads the nation in global warming."

But Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy, a conservative group that doubts global-warming theories, says Mr. Bush should take another look.

"We think there's been a lot of questionable and bad science that's been used," said the group's spokeswoman, Peggy Venable.
[End of Transcript]

"And now, a Republican administration will continue and complete the work of a Democratic administration. This is the way environmental policy should work."
George W. Bush - SOURCE

Remember that wonderful limited government farm bill that Bush shoved down everyone's throat?

The Real Threat from the Farm Bill
"More troubling than the administration’s indifference, however, is its active support for new programs to conserve “environmentally sensitive” farmland. “One important aspect in both (the House and Senate) farm bills is that substantially more money is allocated for conservation,” Veneman said at a Modesto, California event. “The administration will push for more money to address environmental concerns on working farmlands, not just conservation programs that take land out of production.” The administration wants the farm bill to not only set the nation’s food production levels, but dictate how private land is used to reach those quotas as well.

The Senate farm bill devotes $21.3 billion towards new environmental conservation programs and $350 million a year for the “Farmland Protection Program,” which buys development rights to land to prevent citizens and private businesses from using the land as they see fit. The House bill provides $16 billion for conservation and $50 million a year to confiscate property.

Conservation programs are particularly threatening because they undermine property rights and create new dependency on federal aid. While explicit economic intervention to benefit producers of commodities such as corn, wheat, soybeans, and cotton may violate international trade agreements, new environmental conservation programs do not. Thus, tying federal funding to environmental mandates is a way to subsidize farmers while not instigating an international trade war.

In the past, Congress supported price levels by rewarding farmers for not using land to produce food, but new conservation programs would pay farmers to preserve soil, protect wetlands and aquifers, preserve wildlife habitats, and reduce runoff of fertilizers and manure. Farmers do many of these things already and would be happy to do the others if the price is right.

As environmental groups are well aware, farmers are “stewards of half of the country’s surface area.” The farm bill would give extreme environmentalists control of this land and supplant private property rights with federal mandates. The agriculture industry is eager to cede this control if it results in more lavish subsidies, which makes it difficult to confront federalization, since the very property owners whose rights are being trammeled are complicit in the arrangement.

But the threat to private property and agriculture markets is obvious. A new round of commodity subsides will almost certainly draw retaliation from America’s trading partners, whether or not the World Trade Organization endorses such action. The most heavily subsidized commodities are also the ones “dumped” in international markets. The United States exports one-third of its soybeans, 20 percent of its corn, half its wheat, and 60 percent of its cotton. This in the face of a strong dollar that has depressed other American exports.

As the farm bill demonstrates, if explicit subsidies lead to a trade war, an eager coalition of environmentalists and agribusiness is in place to replace that assistance with money for conservation. This would push domestic agricultural production even further from anything that resembles a market economy and empower the government to set commodity prices, production levels, and determine how land is used. The government would make every major decision relating to food procurement and the use of farmland.

Since passage of the Rural Development Program in 1955, the government has dominated the economics of agricultural production through subsidies, crop insurance, and below-market interest rate loans, but the resources used to produce food has remained in private hands. This farm bill would usher in a new era of agricultural policy by ceding control over the factors of production – most importantly, the land itself – to government control and manipulation.

In their search for more resources from the government, many agriculturalists have willingly accepted the changing character of conservation subsidies, but this new revenue will come at price. As the billions of dollars in direct subsidies for “proper” land management add up, it will not be long before environmentalists demand that farmers not only adhere to their mandates, but hand over their land as well."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.