As Colorado Public Radio’s Caitlyn Kim reports, the march to passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, which passed the U.S. Senate with wide bipartisan support and Sen. Cory Gardner’s earnest election-year blessing, went a little sideways yesterday after all of Colorado’s Republican members of Congress voted against the bill:
Republican Reps. Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton all voted against the bill, which represents one of their Republican Senate colleague’s biggest wins in office.
Buck praised his friend Gardner’s work on the measure but said he couldn’t vote for it. While “laudable” in its goal, Buck said, “this bill will convert the LWCF’s funding stream to mandatory funding, much like Medicare and Social Security spending, which will allow this program to continue expanding in perpetuity.”
And that’s not all, Cliven Bundy!
Buck added he has concerns that LWCF will be used to purchase more land and prevent other uses on it, from recreation to mineral development.
“The federal government already owns 35.9 percent of Colorado, and controls 28 percent of the total landmass of the United States — this bill gives the federal government even more power to control land and set federal standards,” he said. [Pols emphasis]
Kind of curious, isn’t it? The exact thing the Great American Outdoors Act principally does, provide a permanent funding stream for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, is the heart of the problem for Colorado’s Republican congressional delegation! The 105 Republicans who voted against the bill were not enough to stop it, of course, and the next stop is President Donald Trump–who after allegedly being sweet-talked with outlandish comparisons to Theodore Roosevelt by Gardner intends to sign it.
The opposition of all of Gardner’s GOP colleagues in the House naturally gives rise to questions on the right about Gardner’s conservative bonafides, which is already a problem for Gardner evidenced in tepid support from Gardner’s own Republican base. As for the positives for Gardner in taking credit for this bipartisan legislation, sure–it gives him something to talk about with swing voters. But any goodwill Gardner manages from this bill is offset and then some by the much greater dissatisfaction with Republicans on the part of voters motivated by environmental issues.
For good or ill, Reps. Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn, and Scott Tipton kept it real.
And “keeping it real” makes Cory Gardner look bad every time.
It looks like Tipton is mailing it in.
Which would be consistent with his entire congressional career.
Ken Buck: "the federal government……..controls 28 percent of the total land mass of the United States……"
Gee, is Ken Buck OK with the millions of acres owned by the Pentagon for military bases and training ranges?
CHB, and other public lands experts, please weigh in on this.
I was looking at Lauren Boebert’s website, when I came across this really bewildering press release (downloadable pdf) decrying Negeuse and Degette’s “land grab”.
The bill in question HR6395, appears to be standard D o D appropriations. There are two amendments; Negeuse’s ( https://www.congress.gov/amendment/116th-congress/house-amendment/838?s=a&r=10) makes permanent the mining prohibitions on land around the Grand Canyon. Degette’s amendment designates some Colorado land as Wilderness areas, but specifies that the military can do fly-overs. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2546
So JohninDenver, I guess we do know where Boebert stands on public lands; she’s agin them.
Perhaps she is one of these people.
@kwtree: “Bubbles” Boebert is way out of touch. The lands in both bills have been thoroughly vetted with locals for many years, and vetted for potential for other uses like O & G development, hard rock mining, etc. The statewide conservation community began looking at wilderness potential for BLM lands as far back as 1982 when the first trip guide was published. A more detailed guide to BLM lands was published in 1993. I have a friend in the statewide community who was testifying on BLM wilderness potential in the 1970s, before I arrived in CO in early 1981.
And there is no “land grab” as mentioned by Ms. Bubbles. The lands in question are already federal, with perhaps a very small amount of state land.
Check out Duke’s Wikipedia link to learn about those far right wingers who are part of the “Wise Abuse” movement.
The overflights are for high altitude military training.
Thanks for the info, CHB.
So I wonder which donor(s) prompted this sudden close reading of the Defense Appropriations Act by Boebert?
Heretofore, all her press briefings have been either “Guns4all.!” “Masks R Tyranny!” Or “Yay Me!”
You’re welcome. Maybe Pete K. can weigh in more on the public lands issues. Pete has been a staff person with a conservation group and actually working on public lands whereas I’m just been an unpaid activist.
Has someone asked Ms. Boebert which side she’d be on?
maybe someone can improve the rhyme … V?”
The campaign website of Lauren Opal Boebert (nee Roberts) is kinda light on specifics.
Here's her "platform":
PRO-FREEDOM, PRO-GUNS, PRO-CONSTITUTION, PRO-ENERGY, PRO-LIFE, PRO-COLORADO, PRO-AMERICA. HEADING TO CONGRESS TO DRAIN THE SWAMP, STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS, AND TELL ALL THE LEFT-WING LUNATICS WE DON’T WANT MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL, WE WANT OUR FREEDOM!
Her definition of Freedom, apparently:
There's a great anagram in that name. Let me work on it when it's not 12:30 am.
I cheated and went to Internet Anagram Server … input Lauren Opal Roberts Boebert … and got the first 500 to look over. My favorite:
A Babble Opener Terrors Lout
… which could be Opener: A Lout Babbles Terror
the more common name Lauren Boebert can become:
Real True Nobbe
Bro Lure Beaten
A Lout Babbles Terror…..nice, J i D.
Thanks JiD . I forgot about this, and just saw that you did it for me. Those are great.