That this Congress is dysfunctional is nothing new, but over the last week or so they may have proven themselves to be the most dysfunctional in the history of the country.

That certain groups within Congress would propose energy and environment legislation that many experts in this group would find baffling is hardly new. I really like the comment by Alan Rawsome that there will be an environment deficit to face as well if we don’t get our environmental policies right. That is right on target. I may not agree with him on other things, but this is clear. The subsidiary question is, of course, what is the right set of environmental legislation to develop? Also, even if they are developed will they pass?

There is so much dissent and so little compromise, vision, and real leadership that, frankly, I, and I am sure many others, are wondering how bad this is really going to get. It is appalling to think that this may not be the low point.

Are we are asking too much to have an argument over EPA and other legislation when we are in the midst of one of the most rancorous and dysfunctional debates on one of the most important issues out there: the debt ceiling. Leadership is playing with fire on this and is risking grave damage to the reputation of the United States and to its economy. There are also many more important things within the budget that may be axed, cut, and dulled than the public or even the people on this list realize. I am concerned about the outcomes of all of this at the macro and micro levels.

Even if they do finally get around to passing a debt ceiling increase and that is getting more into doubt every moment there are delays in votes and hammering of one party by another, or hammering within one party against factions within that party one wonders whether the end result, the alleged cure, could be worse than the illness.

It is time for Congress to lead not bicker. It is time for them to see the financial train wreck coming and save the country from it. It is time for leadership to return to The Hill in high order with across the aisle real discussions, real give and take, and real vision for a better future for the country.

It embarrassing for them and it is embarrassing for the country. It is also dangerous. Leadership on The Hill is not necessarily a zero-sum game. If the two sides nastily sniping at each other could see this they both could win. And far more importantly the country could win. Real leaders know how to work with those they disagree with and build teams for the betterment of the whole.

If they don’t learn to play well together now this sort of dysfunctional doddering and dithering will continue on for a long time --- and we still have a budget to deal with for the next fiscal year.

Leadership on The Hill I am writing as a concerned citizen. Please get your collective acts together and think about the country. Don’t think about your party. Think about the country. Don’t think about the next election cycle. Think about the country. The country needs your leadership more than ever before.

During this time of intense debate regarding our growing national debt, I, for one, am glad to see Members of Congress taking a stand against regulations that will do great damage to our economy. The FY2012 EPA/Interior spending bill will rein in numerous overly aggressive environmental regulations, namely Utility MACT and the Cross State Air Pollution rule. Both rules threaten to saddle consumers with higher costs by imposing timelines on the energy industry that are simply impractical and possibly impossible to achieve.

If the EPA implements Utility MACT regulations as drafted, closures of U.S. coal-fired power plants will accelerate sharply during the coming decade and will result in the loss of an estimated one-fifth of our coal-fired capacity. And the Cross State Air Pollution rule – intended to limit the effect of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) across state lines – would force states like Texas to raise power rates and reduce the amount of power available to the state.

Put simply, if these EPA regulations are implemented at once – as they are recommending – the end result will be an economic train wreck. And consumers, as always, pay the price in terms of dollars and reliability.

Opponents assert the spending bill will strip away all controls on pollution from power plants, oil refineries and factories. Representative Henry Waxman went so far to say it would restore the country to the “robber-baron era.” But the truth is America’s energy industry already complies with a slew of regulations that limit the amount of pollution that is released into the air. Such regulations have led to a 71% reduction in SO2 emissions since 1980 and a 66% drop in NOx since 1997. In light of those figures, which come from the EPA itself, Waxman’s depiction of U.S regulatory policy seems woefully out-of-touch.

At a time when EPA should be carefully considering proposals that could cause economic hardship, the agency in some cases is actually accelerating the rate of sweeping regulations. As John Engler recently pointed out, the EPA is jumping the gun on tightening air-quality standards; the EPA isn’t even scheduled to complete its own scientific analysis of ozone emissions until 2013! So instead of allowing for sufficient time to review studies and receive comments from experts, the EPA has once again moved to enforce regulations without sufficient evidence.

Further analysis into federal standards that will cost consumers and communities billions of dollars shouldn’t be too much to ask, particularly since the EPA has admitted they don’t take jobs into account when proposing new regulations. If they did, the EPA would realize heavy-handed regulations with unrealistic timelines for compliance ultimately result in plant closures, job loss, increased energy costs for consumers, and jeopardized grid reliability.

If Congress is serious about reducing America’s debt, it should consider the following: sometimes jump-starting the economy requires hitting the brakes. In this case, stopping the EPA from taking America down the wrong road.

The Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2012, H.R. 2584, is a spending bill that will allow independent oil and natural gas companies to move forward with the exploration and production of domestic energy resources and provide jobs for the American people.

The country is in desperate need of more American energy and the people of the Gulf of Mexico are in desperate need of jobs. The independent oil and gas industry stands ready to tap into the offshore energy of the Gulf to provide jobs to the people and power America’s future. Although the moratorium was lifted in the Gulf, companies are still struggling to put the people of the Gulf back to work. Even after these companies have complied with the administration’s new regulations, they still are not issued the drilling permits promised.

The additional funds allocated to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE) within HR 2584 are designed to enable the agency to carry out regulatory, permitting, and leasing activities in the Gulf of Mexico more effectively. IPAA hopes that these funds will empower the agency to fulfill the executive order of President Obama to make this currently over-burdensome process faster and more efficient.

Additionally, H.R. 2584 addresses the independent oil and natural gas producers’ concerns that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is curtailing job creation, energy security, and economic growth through its unprecedented attempts to regulate the industry under the Clean Water Act. Independent producers have worked with state regulators for decades to ensure the highest air quality for the citizens of each state. The EPA, through its unauthorized actions, tramples on this historic partnership that has been successful in protecting the health of citizens and the environment.

At a time when debates over the debt ceiling and frustrations about our nation’s overall economic state dominate the headlines, policymakers in Washington must not ignore the fact that the health of our economy and the security of our nation are not possible without domestic energy development. IPAA supports the Interior and EPA spending bill because it allows for the responsible development of our abundant energy reserve—which consequently spurs job creation, energy security, and economic growth.

In what can only be described as an act of irony, the very same representatives who try to spin the idea that red tape is blocking development may be doing just that by slowing down government and drilling in the process.

House Appropriations has proposed to cut the BLM’s oil and gas permit processing budget to $7.5 million below FY11 levels. And, they cut a new fee aimed at ensuring that oil and gas drilling operations are properly inspected, slicing nearly $38 million.

As the “Wrecking Crew” squeezes the BLM’s budget, they might actually curtail the administration’s ability to implement oil and gas leasing programs.

In early July, Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes said the House’s funding proposal, "Has the potential to have a direct, negative effect on permitting economic activity that would otherwise move forward."

We also wonder what these cuts would mean to common sense protections of our land, water, and wildlife resources.
We clearly need to ensure oil and gas companies “use it or lose it” when it comes to leases and permits instead of stockpiling our public lands. The Wilderness Society released an analysis last week showing that the oil and gas industry has yet to develop 6,573 permits nationwide. This is not to say that cuts shouldn’t be made to federal spending. A common sense solution would be for politicians to save American families $15 billion per year by ending government handouts to oil and gas companies.
Those same companies reported $32 billion in profits last quarter, and will likely report billions more for the second fiscal quarter this week.

(These comments were submitted by Alan Rowsome, Director of Conservation Funding at The Wilderness Society.)

As Congress and the President make a mad dash to avoid defaulting on our nation’s debt over the next week, they are very likely to miss a key fact: Many proposals that claim to solve that problem would generate a new kind of debt – an environmental debt. This deficit, unlike the national debt, can’t be paid back. Once our public lands, like parks and wildlife refuges, and endangered species are gone, they are gone forever, and so are the recreation and tourism jobs that depend on those places in communities across the country.

The spending bill that Congress finally passed in Fiscal Year 2011 and the one currently being debated for next year continue to erode away bedrock conservation programs and policies, all in the name of balancing the federal budget. This comes at the expense of our wild places and natural resources even though funding for these critical programs represents a measly 1 percent of the federal budget.

As debilitating and disappointing as these yearly cuts are becoming, they pale in comparison to what could be the order of the day following a grand deal to raise our nation’s debt limit. Republicans are pushing for a long term cap on discretionary spending and a balanced-budget amendment, both of which would cripple Congress’ ability to restore natural resource funding in the future while placing the onus on non-defense spending cuts to balance our books rather than revenue increases or other reforms.

These long term decisions are magnified because the Department of Interior and EPA are already facing chronically low spending levels that will be set in stone moving forward. One needs to look no further than the current House Interior Appropriations floor battle to see how we got here. Knowing that the bill has no chance of becoming law, funding levels become a race downward as House Republicans see the package as a pure negotiating tool rather than credible legislation.

Here is some of what’s happening: The House Appropriations Committee already passed the Interior Department funding bill with massive cuts to a slew of environmental programs for the 2012 fiscal year. Now that the bill has come to the floor for additional amendments, the reality of the situation becomes worse. Among other initiatives Congress is cutting off at the knees, the House spending bill would target a host of programs and laws including:

· National Wildlife Refuges: Up to 25 percent of our nation’s Wildlife Refuges would be closed or have very limited visitor services, eliminating access to places where people can hunt, fish, hike and learn about the natural world.

· Endangered Species Act: The Fish and Wildlife Service would lose its ability to list newly threatened species and to upgrade “threatened” animals to “endangered.” It would also be prohibited from designating habitat for the protection of species.

· Land and Water Conservation Fund: The LWCF would essentially be wiped out. This program takes funds from oil and gas royalties and uses those revenues to protect open space, provide access to recreation, and strengthen our parks, forests, and refuges across the nation. These dollars have been used successfully to leverage state and private investments nationwide for nearly 50 years, and killing the program would end a promise to the American public to protect the way of life we all enjoy. Every Congressional district in the country has a park or other protected place today because of the LWCF.

The Wilderness Society’s President, William H. Meadows, said it best: “The federal debt is at a crisis point, and so is our environmental debt. Conservation has already seen deep cuts, and now the Interior Appropriations bill in the House threatens to damage our water, our air and our lands beyond repair. This assault is part of a larger effort by some in Congress to give away our great outdoors to polluters and developers, and it’s creating an environmental debt that we can’t repay.”

Sadly, this could be a consequence of the larger deficit deal unless Americans make their voices heard loudly that investment in our nation’s natural treasures must continue. Clearly we must get our country’s fiscal house in order and can do so with shared sacrifice, but our environmental debt will be here to stay, and default on the debt will be inevitable unless we act now.

The Interior Department appropriations bill currently before the U.S. House of Representatives contains provisions that would spell disaster for our country’s communities, imperiled wildlife and natural resources. Its nearly 40 policy riders that put the environment and our public health at risk have no place in an appropriations bill and would not save the country a penny, but they would cost lives and lead to the significant degradation of our environment.

One of these provisions, an “extinction rider,” would prevent the listing for protection of any more plants or animals under the Endangered Species Act. This would increase the risk of extinction for more than 260 species by blocking crucial life-saving protections for “candidate species” currently awaiting listing decisions, including wolverines, red knots and walruses. Should such a dangerous rider pass, we will feel its effects for decades. Because while we put vital listing activities on hold, the impacted plants and animals will have to fend for themselves. Denying much-needed protection for these imperiled species only means that their situation will be even more dismal down the road when—or if—the moratorium on listing is lifted.

This is exactly the case with the red knot, a shorebird whose numbers have continued to plummet during its five years on the candidate list. With the red knot at dangerously low population levels, the Fish and Wildlife Service finally plans to give the shorebird the Endangered Species Act protections it so badly needs and move forward with the listing process. If this plan is blocked by a moratorium, we can be sure their numbers will continue to fall, until they vanish completely. For other species whose numbers are already shockingly low, such as the wolverine (of which scientists estimate there are fewer than 300 left in the lower 48) they have even less time.

It isn’t just our wildlife under attack– this bill threatens our communities and natural resources as well. An amendment introduced just yesterday by Congressman Austin Scott (R-GA) would prevent the Interior Department, Forest Service and Environmental Protection Agency from preparing for any climate change impacts. That includes the implementation of programs that prepare for future floods, fires and drought. America has already experienced record floods, record droughts and record fires this year, and climate change promises more of these events occurring with greater intensity. But this anti-disaster preparation amendment would tie the hands of those agencies charged with protecting us from such events, from the Forest Service, the nation’s largest first responder to forest fires, to the EPA, which provides $23 billion in storm protection services to communities every year.

This bill may represent the worst assault on public health and the environment ever to come before Congress. And it is likely to get much worse before it leaves the House floor. There is no argument that the American government needs to tighten its belt. But while these difficult economic times will require some fiscal austerity, it should not come at the cost of the safety of our communities, wildlife and natural resources.

This week, the House Republican leadership upped the ante on their already unprecedented assault on our nation’s bedrock environmental laws. It is no exaggeration to call the Interior and Environment spending bill, the single worst attack we have ever seen on our air, land, water and wildlife.

This spending bill contains more than three dozen anti-environment policy measures that have absolutely no place in a budget measure, won’t save the country a penny and are nothing more than giveaways to various special interest polluters.

The egregious policy provisions include measures that -- if enacted into law -- would threaten Americans’ lives and well-being by blocking limits on harmful air pollution, increase pollution in sources of drinking water for 117 million Americans, cause animal and plant species to become extinct by denying them Endangered Species Act protections, and threaten the iconic Grand Canyon with toxic pollution from uranium mining. And these are just a handful of the dirty and dangerous provisions included in this legislation.

While we recognize that some spending cuts are necessary to reduce our federal deficit, the cuts in this particular legislation would have a devastating impact on Americans’ health and environment. Those cuts include budget reductions of 18 percent for the EPA, a staggering 80 percent for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 21 percent for the Fish and Wildlife Service.

As if the underlying bill weren’t harmful enough, we expect members of Congress to offer anti-environmental amendments on the floor that would wreak even greater havoc on Americans’ health and environment and keep us dependent on expensive and dangerous energy sources.

Fortunately, President Obama has threatened to veto this harmful legislation, noting that a number of the measures in the bill are “ideological and political provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.” However, we will not let House Republican leaders push this legislation without a fight. We will continue to work at every turn to expose these extreme anti-environment efforts to the public and constituents back home.

To understand what’s at stake in the battle over the federal budget, it helps to look back a decade and ask ourselves, “How are Americans doing today, and how were they doing on January 1, 2001?”

There are, indeed, a small number of Americans who would say they are doing better today. North Dakota, because of new oil wealth, is booming. And the very top of the income pyramid – perhaps the top 1%, might say they were better off because of the cut in their federal and in many state tax rates since that time.

But almost all Americans today are worse off than they were, and they are worse because of the very approach – slash government, put more of the tax burden on the middle class, reduce both the social and the environmental safety net – being advocated today by the Republicans.

Look at the environmental harvest of the last decade. An entire generation of young American women have been exposed to so much mercury, largely eating fish, that in any pregnancy that mercury poses a health risk to the baby. Over 100,000 Americans are definitely not better off – they have died because from exposure to uncontrolled pollution from coal fired power plants. All over the country children and families have access to fewer parks, and those parks are less well maintained because of budget cuts.

Farmers in Texas are suffering incredible drought, while those next door in the Mississippi Valley face devastating floods and tornadoes – but we continue to ramp up extreme climate with our emissions of greenhouse pollutants.

A decade ago both General Motors and Chrysler could have been rescued from bankruptcy and downsizing, saving the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of families – if the federal government had only acted to make them produce more fuel efficient vehicles on time, instead of waiting for the crisis. The nation could have begun, while the federal government was in surplus, to invest to repairing and restoring our highways, bridges, mass transit systems, sewers and other infrastructure, preparing us for a highly competitive 21st century.
In 2001 we still had time and funding flexibility to have protected New Orleans before Katrina devastated it; America could have kept its lead in renewable energy technologies like wind and solar instead of ceding jobs, innovation and supply chains to Europe and Asia; we could have put proper regulation in place for off-shore oil drilling and avoided the Maconda blow-out; and hundreds of mountains and thousands of miles of Appalachian streams had not yet been blown into smithereens so that we could pump even more pollution from burning coal into our air and waterways.

None of these problems was solved by the private sector; indeed, by their nature they are problems the private sector cannot solve, and largely problems that only the national government can address.
Now the philosophy that led to the most devastating decade in American history since the Great Depression and World War II is back, but on steroids. The Interior Appropriations bill just passed by the House of Representatives is, without a doubt, the worst environmental bill ever seriously considered by either House of Congress. Among other things it would:
Open the Grand Canyon to uranium mining and our coasts to oil drilling.
Put our health at risk by slashing funding for the EPA and blocking safeguards against deadly mercury and other toxic pollution.
Endanger our wild places and wildlife by defunding the Endangered Species Act and land conservation.
Block the EPA from using the Clean Water Act to protect our water from waste dumping, pesticides, sewage, fertilizers, oil spills, and also from safeguarding drinking water sources for 117 million Americans.

This fundamental assault on the health and safety of Americans is being justified in the name of deficit reduction and helping the economy – it will, of course, make the deficit worse as health care costs soar, damage the economy by undermining the natural systems that support communities, and make the next ten years even grimmer for 98% of the American people.

We have tried this pathway once, and it didn’t work. Now we are being asked to double-down on failure.

Energy and environment issues are not being addressed rationally in the current debt ceiling and budget debates in Washington, and the nation’s recent gains in energy security are imperiled.

An article from the Energy Information Administration shows that America’s reliance on imported oil has declined, and the reasons include increased domestic production of both fossil fuels and biofuels. But this decline in reliance on imports still needs to be translated into economic security for the nation.

Back in 2007, CERA analysts warned that if oil prices reached $100 per barrel and stayed there for more than six months, the United States would fall into recession – and that is precisely what happened. High oil prices made it profitable for energy companies to develop new domestic supplies of fossil fuels – but continued high prices for that fuel again threaten to reduce economic activity and demand. The nation needs to plan for affordable future domestic energy supplies, not just more drilling. Government must create a stable policy environment that encourages investment in new technologies for advanced biofuels.

Along with the ethanol tax credit, there are a whole range of policies to encourage investment in biofuels that are on the chopping block. The House Appropriations Committee’s earlier bill on Agriculture appropriations proposed to cut funding for important Farm Bill energy title programs, such as BCAP and REAP. These programs coordinate investment in advanced biofuels production facilities with help for farmers who are planting the energy crops these new biorefineries will rely on.

The Appropriations Committee report on the Interior Department and EPA funding bill notes that “too often a commitment to an issue is measured by the amount of money spent rather than how the money is spent.” Congress should recognize that the corollary is also true – their commitment cannot be measured by how much money is cut. We need to continue to build production of all forms of domestic energy, and we need to ensure that necessary policies remain in place to encourage investment in advanced biofuels.

While Washington remains mired in the depths of a debate over when and how to balance the budget, they continue to ignore the very real revenue and job growth that could come from renewed U.S. energy production.

The new IHS-CERA report (Restarting the Engine – Securing American Jobs, Investment and Energy Security) data makes a clear link between increased domestic energy production and economic growth. According to the report, sponsored by the Gulf Economic Survival Team, issuing drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico alone would create more than 200,000 new jobs throughout the country. And there’s more – the necessary permits to resume full Gulf of Mexico oil and gas exploration would boost the gross domestic product by $44 billion, create nearly $12 billion in revenue to state and local treasuries, increase domestic oil production by more than 400,000 barrels a day and reduce spending on foreign oil by $15 billion.

There really needs to be no debate here. This issue is clear – we cannot grow the economy while continuing to restrict domestic energy development. The Administration’s refusal to issue new Gulf permits is absolutely contributing to our continued high unemployment and the unsustainable debt that has our government leaders locked in a standstill now. At this critical juncture, we need to move our debate to how to drive job and revenue growth and domestic energy production can be a key player in that goal.

With temperatures and tempers flaring in Washington, the end game on the debt ceiling debate is far from certain. And while the negotiations between Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Reid, and President Obama are certain to dominate the headlines, those who follow events in Washington will be closely watching the debate on the floor of the House this week on the FY 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill.

The ideological differences between the House Republicans and the President are far and wide, but nowhere is this more evident than with respect to energy policy. Having failed to enact a cap-and-trade national energy tax when he enjoyed large majorities in both the House and Senate, the president has stayed true to his words when he said there is more than one way to skin the climate change cat. To that end, the President has directed his EPA to impose a similar job-killing regime on the economy through agency regulations. The president, through his regulatory agencies, has also worked aggressively to curtail the domestic production of coal, oil, and natural gas, while at the same time spending billions to prop up wind, solar, and electric vehicles in an attempt to “finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy” (that is, of course, until the subsidies dry up).

The House Republicans, on the other hand, seem to recognize the devastating impacts these policies are sure to have on jobs, the economy, and in the pocketbooks of American families. Staying true to their mandate to cut Washington spending, the Interior mark is seven percent below FY 2011 enacted levels and 12 percent below the President’s budget request.

More importantly, the bill seeks to reign in the EPA’s job-killing regulatory agenda through a series of legislative provisions and funding limitations, most notably a one-year prohibition on regulating greenhouse gasses from stationary sources. The bill also prohibits the administration from trying to impose a regulatory rewrite of the Clean Water Act, and puts the breaks on at least a dozen agency actions, including the attempt to drastically halt the production of Appalachian coal, the Mercury MACT rule, and the Transport rule.

While the final outcome of the Interior and Environment measure is uncertain, one thing is clear -- no other measure more clearly defines the policy differences between the House Republicans and President Obama’s assault on affordable energy and the millions of jobs that the oil, coal, and natural gas industries provide.

All of the conservation and environmental activities of the Federal government amount to just 1.26% of the budget. In real dollars, total funding for the environment and conservation has been almost flat for 30 years. Conservation did not cause the budget deficit and cutting conservation cannot fix the deficit.

Yet the Interior Appropriations Bill now going before the full House contains just the latest in a series of deep cuts to environmental and conservation programs that, along with legislative riders, threaten to reverse this country’s 100 year tradition of conservation and environmental progress.

My organization, The Nature Conservancy, is dedicated to finding constructive and cooperative strategies for the conservation of the natural resources and natural habitat so important to the welfare of people in the U.S. and around the world. We have long provided ideas and input to the Interior and other appropriation bills. We understand the budget crisis facing this country. We believe that all Federal programs, including conservation programs, should share a fair proportion of the spending reductions needed to address the deficit, but the cuts proposed in the Interior Bill (and in other appropriations legislation) are far from proportional.

For example, the Interior Appropriations Bill, as it passed out of the full Appropriations Committee,

would reduce funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the lowest level in the 45 year

history of the program, $66 million--a 78% reduction from the FY 2011. It would reduce the highly successful Forest Legacy Program by 94%, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act by 47%, the Cooperative Endangered Species Program by 95% and the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program by 65% from FY 2011, and it would make deep reductions to the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes restoration programs.

Moreover, the Interior bill contains a long list of riders including those that prohibit EPA from reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and refineries, prohibit EPA from protecting all of the waters of the United States from pollution, and prevent the Department of the Interior from protecting threatened and endangered species.

While the leadership of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee faced daunting challenges in constructing a bill with very limited resources, and we recognize some positive elements of the bill, such as support for forest restoration, for the first time in the 60 year history of the Conservancy, we saw little choice but to oppose the Interior Appropriations Bill as it is currently written.

The disproportionate cuts to the whole range of natural resource and conservation programs and legislative riders are puzzling because they seem to ignore the importance of conservation and natural resources to the country’s economy, the services provided to people by natural systems, and the ongoing support for conservation by the American people:

Natural resources were the foundation upon which American prosperity was built and still have a big impact on our economic health. Farms provide about 24 million jobs in the U.S. Forest industry accounts for approximately 5 percent of the total U.S. manufacturing GDP, produces about $175 billion in products annually, and employs nearly 900,000 people. Commercial fishing supports one million full- and part-time jobs and generates $116 billion in revenue. Hunting, angling and other recreational activities dependent on wildlife contribute $122 billion annually to our national economy.

In the Mississippi floods this spring, the undeveloped floodplain of the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana effectively accommodated flood waters that otherwise might have inundated Baton Rouge and New Orleans. And in an area of investment that is recognized in the proposed Interior budget, forest thinning saved communities from catastrophic damage from the recent fires in Arizona.

A broad range of Americans still believe strongly in the value of conservation. A month ago The Nature Conservancy signed onto letters with 400 other forest, farm, hunting and fishing, and recreation and conservation organizations making the case for reasonable funding for conservation and the environment.

And despite these hard economic times, public opinion polls continue to show support for conservation. A poll last spring sponsored by the Colorado College, State of the Rockies Program and done by a team of Republican and Democratic pollsters, reveals that, among voters in Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico:

Only 11% of voters say environmental laws are too strict while 66% say they should be strengthened or better enforced

87% believe having clean water, clean air, natural areas and wildlife is extremely or very important to the quality of life in their state

84% agree that even with state budget problems, we should still find money to protect land, water and wildlife

70% consider themselves “conservationists” and that figure holds for those who identify themselves as Tea Party members

And 77% feel that we can protect land and water and have a strong economy

There is, finally, a sad irony in all this. In recent years the most significant trend in conservation has been a bi-partisan recognition that diverse interests can work together to conserve the human and ecological benefits of large areas like the Blackfoot Valley in Montana, the Hudson Valley in New York, the Northern Sierra in California and the Great Lakes. Hunters and anglers are working more effectively than ever with private landowners to protect fish and wildlife habitat. The programs of the Conservation Title of the Farm Bill are demonstrating how the right incentives can improve farm practices and take land unsuitable for cultivation out of production. Innovative developers and corporations have seen how cooperative planning can produce more rapid approvals and a cleaner environment. It is just this new generation of hopeful, constructive and cooperative conservation and environmental initiatives that will be damaged most by the deep budget cutting and altered regulatory regimes contained in the bill now before the House—moving us back to an era of un-necessary environmental conflict.

While we don’t want to leave it to our children and grandchildren to deal with the budget deficit, neither do we want to leave them a deficit in the stewardship of the air, land and water upon which all our lives depend. Addressing one problem while creating another would be a tragic mistake

A nearly 500 year-old insight by English author Samuel Johnson’s still proves fitting for America’s current debt ceiling debate: “when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

In accordance with Johnson’s truism, the pressure faced by federal lawmakers as the clock winds down to their August 2nd deadline may enable them to truly prioritize and force a clearer focus on what government should instead of what it can do. Significant budget cuts—such as some of those laid out by the Simpson Bowles Commission, the Ryan Plan, and the Gang of Six—illustrate the refined priorities of some of our elected officials. It should be abundantly clear that we are in an era where we have more government than we can afford.

Others, however, are trending in the opposite direction. That’s the case with a few of the riders attached to in the House’s fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment spending bill. These proposals myopically focus on specific symptoms to the detriment of potential, systemic solutions. They also would deny those who have the most knowledge about particular agencies and programs the opportunity to innovate in meeting budget constraints.

Congressman McGovern from Massachusetts has threatened to retaliate against these riders with an amendment that would selectively penalize America’s oil and gas sector. Yet, research shows that proposals such as McGovern’s would result in a net loss of $54 billion in tax revenues. Responding to poor plans to mitigate the deficit with a measure that would only reduce domestic energy production (and the tax revenue that goes with it) hardly seems like resolution.

Taking a step back from these acute Hill debates, the larger problem comes into focus. While lawmakers frequently start government programs and activities, they very rarely end them. So the public today bears the cumulative bureaucratic build up of the past few centuries. In fact, the last truly comprehensive reform of government, according to the President of the US Chamber of Commerce, took place during the Hoover Administration. President Carter initiated a reform effort, but its results were mixed and limited.

During the nearly 40-year existence of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, air and water quality have improved significantly, hazardous wastes are better managed, and we know more about toxic substances. There are a lot of successes that can be claimed. Instead of focusing on these successes and reinventing itself to better address environmental issues that are mainly local, EPA has just kept ballooning. In the past decade alone, it’s budget has swelled by $3.8 billion or about 50 percent.

That means that as environmental quality has improved, EPA’s budget has grown not shrunk. The agency will not reinvent itself until its mind is “concentrated” by a prospective budget hanging or an imposed restructuring.

The same holds true for the Department of Interior. Since 2000, its budget has increased 50 percent. Since inflation has been very low, this represents a significant increase in real terms. What new, high priority functions justify this kind of increase? Federal officials need to take a hard look at the activities of the Bureaus of Indian Affairs, Insular Affairs, and Fish and Wildlife, among other DOI functions.

Our nation faces a prolonged period of slow economic growth that will result in a growing—not shrinking—deficit unless discretionary expenditures are brought in line with expected tax revenues. That will require a major overhaul of the federal government. The notin that raising tax rates can fill the fiscal gap is an illusion, especially with high unemployment and reduced consumer demand. Tax reform is the right way to go on revenues.

Any successful business faced with a prolonged period of reduced revenues restructures, consolidates, sheds outdated and low priority functions, and innovates. If a cabinet secretary or agency administrator cannot find a way to continue vital functions with a budget that is reduced 15 to 20 percent, he or she should be replaced in the same way a board would replace an ineffective CEO.

President Obama has promised such a major restructuring, rightly observing that “we can’t win the future with a government of the past.” Unfortunately, he has not yet shown the type of mettle necessary to wage the war with Congress or his own bureaucracy in order to accomplish that objective.