A ‘No’ vote on U.S. House public lands bill was the right vote | Guest Opinion

President Trump this week signed the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA), legislation that passed Congress comfortably and, in the tradition of beltway policymaking, is named as if it has the noblest of intentions.

However, the Great American Outdoors Act contains a number of harmful provisions — including instituting new mandatory spending — and the members of Congress who voted against it made the right call.

Sunnyside's own Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse’s “no” vote on the GAOA should be commended.

America is more than $26 trillion in debt, and the current fiscal year will likely end in September with a deficit totaling more than $3 trillion. The share of debt burden from 7.6 million Washingtonians alone is $612 billion.

Congress is currently debating another COVID-19 relief package that may total more than $1 trillion. While it may seem trivial to talk about the deficit impacts of GAOA, when it would “only” spend $17 billion, the bill is part of a larger problem in Congress that threatens current and future generations of taxpayers.

What's worse, Congress rejected amendments to the legislation that would have vastly improved it, including one that would have made sure that the national park fee increases are paid for by visitors, not out of the general fund.

GAOA primarily does two things: 1) it diverts energy development revenues currently devoted to the Treasury Department’s General Fund to a new, specific fund for deferred maintenance at national parks, and 2) it transitions the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) from a discretionary program funded annually by Congress to mandatory, automatic spending.

Both components of the bill are bad for Washington taxpayers.

Diverting General Fund revenues to a new, specific maintenance fund is the wrong policy choice at a time of record deficits and debt, even if the deferred maintenance backlog is a pressing issue for national park visitors.

Given the predictable budget and revenue uncertainty facing the federal government in the coming months, lawmakers should not be further siphoning off General Fund revenues to specific projects. This makes the government less prepared to tackle unexpected pandemic and recession shocks, not more.

GAOA backers may critique this line of thinking as anti-parks, but Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., has pointed to a better way forward for the maintenance backlog. The Senator proposed an amendment to the bill that would have eliminated the maintenance backlog with very modest fee increases instead of a diversion in General Fund revenues. While a fee increase may not be the perfect solution from a taxpayer’s perspective, Enzi’s effort would ensure that fee increases are paid by actual visitors to federal lands — those who create the need for regular park and land maintenance.

The LWCF transition from discretionary to permanent spending, meanwhile, is an even more troubling trend.

This provision of GAOA would add $900 million per year to the federal government’s mandatory obligations, putting the fund on autopilot from year to year.

A recent op-ed in the Tri-City Herald by the American Conservation Coalition noted that, “Congress is responsible for appropriating the funds (for the LWCF), but in the program’s history, lawmakers have only appropriated full funding once.” This assertion is absolutely correct, but the solution is not to put the program on autopilot — the solution is for Congress to do its job and appropriate funds from year to year.

Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, a member of the Congressional Western Caucus, introduced an amendment to GAOA that would have removed this LWCF provision from the bill. It’s regrettable that House leadership never gave Bishop the opportunity to have his amendment debated and voted on in the House.

Taxpayers have a role to play in preserving and maintaining America’s national parks, including beautiful areas such as Olympic National Park, Mount Rainier, and the Cascades. Doing it the right way matters, though, especially for future generations of Washingtonians.

The Great American Outdoors Act continues decades-long bad spending trends from Congress, and enables lawmakers to shirk their duty to consistently evaluate federal programs. The few lawmakers who voted ‘no’ on the bill were right to do so.

This story was originally published August 6, 2020 at 2:08 PM with the headline "A ‘No’ vote on U.S. House public lands bill was the right vote | Guest Opinion."