Needed: a Vote for the Earth

Interest groups across an extraordinary breadth--from the Sierra Club to the building industry--have come together to support the most significant environmental preservation legislation before this session of Congress. The measure, by Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska) and George Miller (D-Martinez), has 316 co-sponsors and won approval of the House Resources Committee on a vote of 37 to 12.

Ignoring the overwhelming support, a handful of House leaders is blocking a floor vote on the bill largely because it would intrude on their political turf. But Earth Day is approaching, and politicians high and low are claiming to be friends of the environment. It’s the right moment for House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and his allies to stop playing political games and allow a vote on the Young-Miller bill.

The bill would automatically finance the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, as was intended when the fund was established in 1965. The idea was to use offshore oil revenues to pay for a variety of conservation programs, including the mitigation of coastal disruption caused by the oil activity. California would be a major beneficiary, but all states would be helped.

In the early years of the fund, as much as $900 million annually went for environmental programs, including the acquisition of 7 million acres to preserve as open space and development of 37,000 state and community park and recreation projects. But Congress began diverting the money in the early 1980s to pay for general government programs or to offset the federal deficit.

Today, the offshore oil program brings in about $4 billion a year. If the Young-Miller bill passes, $2.8 billion of that would be divided among federal, state and local governments for environmental and recreation programs. The coalition of backers includes police departments and soccer moms as well as fishing and hunting associations and environmentalists.

The coming together of Young and Miller to co-sponsor this bill was extraordinary in itself. Environmental groups consider Young one of their top foes in Congress and Miller, former House Resources Committee chairman, one of their heroes. Money was the political attractant that brought these opposites together: Young saw the fund as a major assured source of revenue for several Alaskan programs. Likewise, the building industry would gain parks and recreation programs that would enhance property values.

DeLay and others oppose earmarking of more federal revenues, and they want to keep appropriation power to themselves. They claim other programs would have to be cut to free up the environmental funds.

Usually The Times too questions the wisdom of earmarking government revenues for specific programs. In this case, however, the congressional intent was clear from the beginning: The offshore oil funds should be used to benefit the environment. The money was wrongly diverted to other uses in violation of that spirit. DeLay should release this bill and allow a full House vote, which undoubtedly would be successful. Sometime between now and Earth Day, April 22, would be appropriate.