Why would Idaho’s congressional delegation split on the Great American Outdoors Act?

“Laws are like sausages. It’s best not to see them being made.” This quote, often attributed to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, was a staple in my American government and politics courses over the years, even though he may have never uttered it. The quote was the perfect introduction to the legislative process as I helped students understand how messy the long journey of a piece of legislation can be.

Like sausage making, all kinds of ingredients, aka amendments in the legislative process, can be added in committee or on the floor of the legislative chamber. The bill will pick up co-sponsors along the way, sometimes from both sides of the aisle, and lobbyists will weigh in, as they apply pressure on lawmakers to move the bill forward or kill it, depending on which side of the debate pays their fees.

In the increasingly hostile and partisan divide that separates us today, our legislative arenas have fallen victim to hyperpartisanship, as well. So when there is that moment when Republicans and Democrats can come together united in a legislative cause, it’s a moment for celebration, a moment to harken back to the glory days of bipartisanship when legislators understood that “perfect is the enemy of the good,” when they understood that for good to emerge, there must be compromise. It’s a moment of hope for a resurrected bipartisan consensus, too often lacking in today’s legislative process.

A case in point is the Great American Outdoors Act, which recently passed the U.S. Senate with bipartisan support and is likely to pass the House on its way to the desk of the president, who has indicated he will sign it. It provides $900 million per year in annual funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and authorizes $1.9 billion per year for five years, totaling $9.5 billion, for much-needed deferred maintenance projects at the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Education.

U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, who signed on a co-sponsor of a similar House bill, hailed the passage of the bill, declaring that “Idaho needs this bill for our forests…” Simpson also penned an article in support of the act for The Hill, a news website covering the Congress, titled, “During a time of uncertainty, Great American Outdoors Act deserves our support.”

Supporters as far away as North Carolina touted the bill’s passage, claiming it will stop the annual diversion of conservation dollars from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which has lost over $22 billion spent on non-conservation purposes.

The Conservation Voters of Idaho and the Idaho Conservation League were among more than 850 conservation groups supporting the bill. From the comments of Simpson and conservation interests of Idaho, it sure looks like a win for Idaho and the American West in particular, given its large tracts of federal land.

But not so fast, say Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, who both voted with a minority of 25 Republican senators against the bill, including some Republican senators from Idaho’s neighboring states. In public statements provided to the media, they expressed concern of the industry groups opposed to the bill that the act authorized the purchase of more federal land. They also claimed it gave too much discretion to federal agencies and did not allow for congressional oversight. Others argued that the legislation did not include higher park fees to help pay for the bill’s costs, nor was there additional funding for schools in surrounding areas of federal lands.

Cattlemen, wool growers, oil and gas interests and others united in opposition to the legislation, fearful of what they consider a blank check in the hands of federal agencies to spend without sufficient congressional oversight and approval. No shock that oil and gas interests opposed it, considering that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is fueled by oil and gas revenues.

Other Republican senators from the West, Sen. Cory Gardner, of Colorado, its chief sponsor, and Sen. Steve Daines, of Montana, who represent the same interests as Idaho’s two senators, co-sponsored this legislation and voted for its passage. So how does an Idahoan make sense of Congressman Simpson’s strong and outspoken support of the bill, especially how it benefits Idaho’s public lands, and the votes of our two senators, who argue just as strongly against the legislation.

Suddenly, Bismarck’s quote comes to life in the history of just one piece of legislation, but in this case one that dramatically affects the federal lands of Idaho. Considering the array of issues and arguments for and against the bill, this is one that deserves to be vetted in full public view. Idahoans deserve to hear first-hand from our elected officials why they can look so differently at legislation that has tangible benefits for Idaho’s federal lands.

The City Club of Boise is a great venue for a public airing of this legislation. Idahoans deserve to hear from both sides in debate style why they voted for or against the Great American Outdoors Act. Let’s see who wins the argument — those who think perfect is the enemy of the good and are willing to compromise or those who are still waiting for that perfect solution.

Idahoans will be the winners for at least getting both sides of the story, something they never get in the self-promotional press releases public officials send to the media.