Newhouse Issues Message to Central Washington on Massive Public Lands Bill
Great American Outdoors Act will drastically increase federal land grabs and hurt rural communities
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Newhouse (R-WA) released the following video message to Central Washington in response to the U.S. House of Representatives' consideration of the Great American Outdoors Act:
Rep. Newhouse spoke on the House floor during debate to express his concerns about the legislation. Click here to watch his remarks.
Find the full transcript of Rep. Newhouse's message below:
Hello friends— I wanted to share a few thoughts on a major piece of legislation on the House floor today. The bill before us aims to tackle a very important issue for the United States: that of conserving our treasured public lands.
Addressing the decades of deferred maintenance on public lands and throughout our national parks, forests, and grasslands is long overdue. I don't think a single person in the U.S. House of Representatives would disagree with the notion that Congress plays an important role in the conservation of our public lands.
What that role is, however, is a much more complex question – and while I believe the legislation before the House has its merits – I unfortunately do not believe the Great American Outdoors Act addresses the difficult questions that must be answered in order to provide the holistic solutions necessary to properly aid our nation's public lands and rural communities.
One month ago today, I wrote to Central Washingtonians stating that any bill addressing our nation's public lands must be thoroughly debated, and that amendments offered by the people's elected representatives in Congress must be considered.
This has been the message of many of my colleagues in the Congressional Western Caucus who represent a great number of the rural districts and gateway communities surrounding our national parks, forests, and federal lands – communities who will be most impacted by the legislation that we have before us right now.
Unfortunately, no such consideration was afforded. Not one committee hearing – can you believe that? Not one markup. Not one amendment allowed for consideration.
During the Senate's consideration, my friend from Idaho, Senator Crapo, pointed to his belief that legislation such as this – which drastically increases federal land purchases – should include the permanent reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools and Payment In Lieu of Taxes programs, both of which help meet the federal obligations to rural communities with vast lands under federal control.
Senators Lee and Romney from the great state of Utah offered a measure to require a state's approval before the federal government could acquire land in that state – what a drastic notion! Senate Budget Committee Chairman Enzi from Wyoming offered simple provisions to help responsibly fund the immense $12 billion-dollar maintenance backlog in our national parks. All these ideas were germane to the bill and worthy of consideration. There is simply no reason we could not have debated these ideas.
An amendment I would have offered – if I was given the chance – was to include resources for aging water supply infrastructure across the West. Nearly every infrastructure account under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department is included under this bill: the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife… all except that of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Today, 80% of BOR's facilities are more than 50-years-old and need major upgrades or replacement. Senator McSally of Arizona and I have introduced companion legislation to address this critical problem, and our amendment – which was germane to this bill – would have made great strides in tackling extraordinary maintenance needs at these critical water facilities in rural communities, all while ensuring the federal government is repaid with interest.
But while our legislation, and the greater effort to repair BOR water infrastructure, has received strong bipartisan support – House leadership and special interest groups demanded this rushed, predetermined process, effectively preventing my colleagues from publicly supporting the effort.
I find this truly disheartening. Bad process yields bad policy.
The Great American Outdoors Act sets a $900 million-dollar per-year mandate into perpetuity. One of the primary purposes of this funding will be spent to purchase more federal land. By turning this funding into mandatory spending, the legislation cedes congressional authority by handing it over to unelected bureaucrats, thereby removing critical oversight from Congress and allowing special interest groups and career government employees to determine the scope and scale of future federal land grabs. As an Appropriator, and as a steward of the people's hard-earned taxpayer dollars, this is truly unacceptable.
I should be clear, there are several aspects of the legislation I strongly support. I am a proud cosponsor of the Restore Our Parks and Public Lands Act included in the bill, a provision which will finally address the maintenance backlog at our national parks and forests. I have also long supported much of the mission of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and have voted several times to fund the program through the annual appropriations process – but I believe that process that should continue in order to ensure congressional oversight.
I also find it ironic – if not disingenuous – that many of my Democratic colleagues so strongly advocate for this significant expansion of LWCF spending, all the while openly calling for an end to the industry which funds it: the oil and gas sector. As you may know, revenues from offshore oil and gas leases provide the hundreds of millions of dollars a year spent on LWCF, yet so many Members on the other side of the aisle are vowing for the elimination of these vital energy resources. It's irrational to think you can increase spending of these revenues while doing everything you can to diminish them. You simply can't have your cake and eat it too.
I have long said that farmers and ranchers are the original conservationists. In our largely agricultural district, we care for our lands; we depend upon our lands. Throughout our District and throughout the West, local management of our lands has proven to be an effective tool for conservation. Central Washingtonians understand how burdensome it can be to work through the federal government's bureaucratic red tape of land-use policies. Unfortunately, this bill will exacerbate those burdens and could lead to less effective conservation efforts on the ground.
I will not be supporting this legislation today. I hope my colleagues will join me in working on future solutions for a responsible approach to federal spending while encouraging the conservation efforts of local communities like those in Central Washington.
Background:
On June 22, Rep. Newhouse published his weekly column, "Legislation to Address Public Lands Must Include Debate," writing:
"Throughout my time in Congress – as well as my career as a farmer in Central Washington – I have come to understand how local control of our lands, infrastructure, and conservation projects have benefited local communities. We should encourage increased local management rather than empower the federal government to unilaterally control and acquire more of our land."