A Different Omnibus

Last week, an Omnibus Budget bill died in the Senate.  It was not the end of efforts by Democrats to put together wide-ranging legislation, as they unveiled a new Omnibus dealing with public lands bills.

This 1,003 page bill was given the nice name of “America’s Great Outdoors Act of 2010,” which certainly doesn’t sound like something that might be opposed in the waning days of a Congressional session.

“These are bipartisan bills,” said Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in a statement issued on Friday. “There is nothing divisive about protecting historic battlefields, improving our most critical water sources, or making sure that our best wildlife habitat remains wild and healthy.”

But to Republicans in the Senate, this bill is a perfect example of what’s wrong on Capitol Hill right now, as it combines over 100 different public lands bills which authorize action on a host of National Parks, Interior Department and Bureau of Land Management actions.

And as you might guess, not all of them are considered bipartisan in nature.

The American Motorcyclist Association was one group demanding that the bill go nowhere, arguing that “the bill contains multiple land designations that threaten to end responsible motorized recreation across the country.”

For example, the bill states “no motorized access shall be allowed” to volcanic domes and other peaks and no mechanized travel on areas adjacent to the Santa Clara Indiana Reservation.

As you can see, these bills are almost all very local in nature.

I won’t even try to list the subjects involved, but I’ll roll off a few here: Valles Caldera National Preserve, Waco Mammoth National Monument, Oregon Caves National Monument Expansion, Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Visitor Center, Petersburg National Battlefield Boundary Modification, Cane River National Historical Park Curatorial Center and many more are in this bill.

You can look at all the details yourself at http://is.gd/iZoyc

The bill includes a number of references to one of my favorite legislative phrases, authorizing “such sums” as may be necessary to pay for certain provision in the bill.

In fact, “such sums” can be found 28 different times in the lands Omnibus, which is basically an open-ended authorization for spending.

But the best search you can do in this bill is for a dollar sign.  Yep, the “$” appears 164 different times.

So, you have 28 “such sums” designations, and 164 other notations of where a certain amount of money is needed to pay for these public lands bills.

“The Secretary may plan, design, construct, and install exhibits in the Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center related to the use and management of the resources at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, at a cost not to exceed $1,500,000,” says the first one.

Other examples include $8 million for the International Coral Reef Consortium, $5 million for the Coastal Hypoxia Research Program, $500,000 for each of the next five years for the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue and Rapid Response Fund, $150 million in grants over five years by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, $180 million over six years to develop animal waste-to-bio-energy programs, and much more.

As always, when I get into lists like these, I add in the clarification that just because a program is listed here does not mean it is being judged as bad or wasteful.  It is just being listed to show the breadth of what is in the legislation.

You, the reader – and the voter – are best equipped to make the judgment as to what is useful spending and what is not.

Finally, the bill would authorize $20 million in Nutria Eradication Financial Assistance Awards.

The rats may be fleeing the sinking ship that is this Omnibus Lands bill in the final days of this Congress.

9 comments Add your comment

Bob Prokop

December 20th, 2010
7:26 am

Reid tried to sneak this one through while our attention was directed elsewhere. This is a long list of losers that had nowhere else to go. Fortunately, the bill stands almost no chance of passage. We have dispatched the DREAM Act and, temporarily, the 2011 Omnibus Spending Bill, but the session is not over quite yet.

Richard L Clark

December 20th, 2010
8:13 am

I am intensley curious about Harry Reids mental ability to read the public

DRScoundrels - New Omnibus Sneak Attack

December 20th, 2010
8:19 am

[...] Thanks to Jamie Dupree : Check out his insider’s blog here! [...]

Don Amador

December 20th, 2010
8:38 am

This bill includes (S. 1571) a “little stinker” that deeds 80 acres of prime recreation land on the Mendocino National Forest to a Solano County Correctional Facility. Recreation groups including the BlueRibbon Coalition are against this.

Dave

December 20th, 2010
11:58 am

Mr. Dupree– if by “a different Omnibus” you mean, “not an Omnibus at all,” you would be on to something here.

This is an *authorization* bill, not an appropriations bill. As in, this bill can say all it want– and be written with nothing BUT dollar signs– and it spends not a single dime of taxpayer money.

Perhaps the policy restrictions contained in the bill are onerous and risible, but that is a different debate than that made over money. When it comes to the actual money, an authorization without an appropriations is meaningless– meaning, the debate over the money will still be had come March (or whenever the GOP eventually gets around to debating the next omnibus, or minibus, or what-have-you to fund the government for FY11).

This is Congress 101-level stuff here.

Jamie Dupree

December 20th, 2010
12:32 pm

Actually, the term “Omnibus” is used for a bill that combines many bills into one piece of legislation. You could look up HR 146, which is titled the “Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009″ by Rep Rush Holt (D-NJ). That is not a spending bill.

I won’t be snarky in response to you, but this is – to quote you – Congress 101-level stuff here.

kw87776

December 20th, 2010
12:57 pm

An Omnibus Appropriations bill is substantially different from an Omnibus Authorization bill. On that I think we can all agree. I don’t think Dave is wrong to be frustrated that you seem to imply dollars are being spent here instead of clarifying to your readers that they are not.

And the “we report, you decide” angle is certainly an appropriate way of doing journalism, though simply listing projects instead of actually reporting on the relative merits of those projects doesn’t seem terribly helpful.

Also, does the opposition of the American Motorcyclist Association prove that any given bill is not bipartisan?

Jamie Dupree

December 20th, 2010
2:15 pm

I don’t think I implied anything about money being spent. Four different times in this blog I write that money has been authorized, whether ’such sums’ or specific dollar amounts. I did not use ‘appropriation’ instead.

I wrote this up because I found it interesting that soon after the Omnibus budget bill failed, an Omnibus lands bill came up.

Last week readers were mad with me when I listed some budget earmarks. I sure wouldn’t want to start making judgments about whether spending on certain programs was legitimate or not. That would earn me even more criticism.

kw87776

December 21st, 2010
9:47 am

Well, perhaps I’m wrong. I just think very few people really understand the difference between an authorization and an appropriation–and that reporters should always make it clear that an authorization does not involve any actual spending of money.

I got that impression from phrases like “But the best search you can do in this bill is for a dollar sign. Yep, the “$” appears 164 different times” and “You, the reader – and the voter – are best equipped to make the judgment as to what is useful spending and what is not.”