The combination of a divided Congress, historic levels of partisanship, and a highly anticipated 2020 election on the horizon could be one of the more challenging legislative landscapes in recent history. Congressional approval ratings are hovering around 20% (ironically higher than the 10-year average), highlighting the low expectations the American people have for legislative success in Congress. However, the recent public lands bill signed into law is an important reminder that in any policy landscape, compromise and bipartisanship is possible. It’s a model that should be studied closely and repeated often.
A lands package of this scale
hasn’t moved through Congress in twenty-five years and, in fact, it’s been a
decade since a package of lands bills were sent to the President. This public
lands package is worth analyzing not only because of what is in it, but also
because of how it came to pass both chambers with overwhelmingly bipartisan
support.
Public lands policy shares the
same recent history of partisan divide that tax, healthcare, budget and many
other policy sectors have experienced. Not only have Republicans and Democrats
had opposing views on a wide spectrum of public lands policy issues over the
last decade, but even stakeholder groups within the public lands space have
increasingly had different views on key issues – all leading to an impasse on
major policy reforms.
It’s a trend that, to say the
least, has moved far away from the vision Teddy Roosevelt had for public
lands policy over 100 years ago when he helped create 230 million acres of
public land with the support of Congress. From the creation of national parks
and monuments to funding maintenance backlog (and everything in between), policymakers
and stakeholders have had little common ground and even less to point to in
terms of legislative success in this space recently.
It’s this history, in part, that
makes passage of a public lands package so impressive. It’s even more
impressive when understanding all the issues that were unthinkable just a year
or two ago by both parties that were part of this recent legislation, including
the permanent authorization of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund (a program that had expired last year and was
in a state of constant policy risk prior to that), and the protection of over
1.5 million acres of land.
The formula for making this
happen wasn’t overly complicated and it certainly wasn’t a new approach irregular
from decades past. This was essentially the product of basic legislating;
Republicans, Democrats, and stakeholders working towards a common legislative
goal that included issues – big and small – that helped to bring everyone to
the table. There was a firm understanding from all sides throughout the process
that everyone would have concerns or even opposition to some provisions
included in the bill and that everyone would have strong support for some
provisions in the bill, yet the product delivered a legislative goal that all
sides believed in.
At the end of the day, the
legislation passed the House by a vote of 363-62 and passed the Senate 92-8. It’s
almost unbelievable to see that level of bipartisan support when thinking about
how similar provisions had consistently failed to move for years.
This sudden shift in the policy
landscape around public lands shouldn’t be unique to this bill or this set of
issues. The same formula and commitment to bipartisanship and an “everyone
wins” approach can, and hopefully will, support other legislative
priorities
in the coming year.
Policymakers must be willing to
appreciate the reality that both parties can have policy and political wins in
the same legislation if they are also willing to appreciate the reality that everyone
will have to accept some policies they may not traditionally support on their
own. It’s the foundation of legislating and hopefully we will see more of it in
the coming months. The lands package was a big win for everyone interested in
public lands and outdoor recreation, but an even bigger win for the policymaking
process.
