GOMESA allocations delayed/reduced and LWCF re-authorization held up ? 11-14-18

/in /by
  • Contents of a letter from  Joel Lynch related to a directive from OMB related to the delay and reduction of GOMESA funds.  ( Ed. comment.. it appears mandatory funds are not mandatory, unless other mandatory funds are reduced..  go figure..)
I wanted to give you all a heads up that OMB has informed agencies with mandatory funds that are sequestered that there may be an additional sequestration on top of what has been taken out already for FY19. GOMESA funding is subject to sequestration. The decision of the additional assessment, if any, will not be made until after January 1, 2019. Thus we will not be able to start the GOMESA apportionment until sometime in January 2019. If Congress passes an FY19 appropriation by the time this decision is made we will plan on a combined (GOMESA + LWCF Appropriations) apportionment for this year. 
Perhaps this is too esoteric, but the gist of the explanation from OMB, which I don’t quite follow despite a 20 min education by our Comptroller– is tied to the PAYGO Act which basically requires increases in mandatory funds be covered by tax increases or cuts in mandatory spending. Apparently estimates are made on 5-year and a 10-year basis and OMB is required by law to publish an annual report after the end of the Congressional session (usually in January). If the annual report shows a debit (shortfall) on either the 5- or 10-year estimate the President issues, I believe by law, an additional sequester order. Apparently it is looking like there will be a shortfall. 
The bottom line is the impact any further sequestration/reduction on the FY19 GOMESA amount should not be minor. In other words, we will still see a great GOMESA amount over what we got in FY18, which was $61.5 million. For FY19 we’ looking at around $70M in GOMESA for grants. 
On a more positive note, we are working with the NPS Comptroller, DOI Budget Office, and Secretary’s Office to come up with a shorter or more efficient Apportionment process. Stay tune for updates on that effort. 
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Here is an issue related on off budget funds which is the reason for the GOMESA delay… but referencing LWCF permanent ( dedicated, off budget ) funding.. which might hold up re-authorization.. it relates to the same issue described above about GOMESA..This email chain was in reference to a question by Kaleen Cottingham WA SLO about what ” Pay as you Go  ” meant in the report from Murkowski.

As you know this is referencing the debate over whether to permanently fund LWCF at $900 annually, without it being subject to further appropriations, or to keep the status quo, where Congress must approve spending from the funds set aside from OCS revenues in LWCF.  On average Congress has approved half this amount, something we are all too well aware of.

The Congressional Budget Office must write a formal cost estimate (IE “score”) for all major bills before final passage. That describes the budgetary impact of the legislation—what does it do to revenues coming in and spending going out.  The Budget Act of 1974 said that if you’re going to consider language that contains a congressional authorization, there should be a CBO score that accompanies it—so that’s the basis for which this process was set up.

Permanently funding LWCF would effectively take it “off budget” which is an exceptionally high bar to clear.  PAYGO, which stands for “pay-as-you-go,” is a budget rule requiring that tax cuts as well as increases in entitlement and other mandatory spending must be covered by tax increases or cuts in mandatory spending. It does not apply to discretionary spending (spending that is controlled through the appropriations process).  So Paygo could apply if LWCF is permanently funded (IE mandatory spending), unless Congress chooses to explicitly wave this provision.And although as Sharlett noted these funds are from a dedicated source, ie offshore oil and gas leasing sales, from a budget perspective they are just treated as revenue, and must be accounted for.

Way more than you want to know, but there is a good CRS report on Paygo:  Keith, Robert. 2010. “The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010: Summary and Legislative History.” Report R41157, Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.  So essentially Murkowski, and her counterpart in the House Rep. Rob Bishop, are saying they are willing to permanently authorize LWCF, but not permanently fund it.  The Cantwell bill, approved by a wide bipartisan majority in Senate Energy, would do both,  The Bishop bill in  a House committee would only authorize.  Hence, the debate. 

Many conservation groups are weighing in for the Cantwell bill.  Murkowski’s comment is disheartening and signals this could very well go over into next year.

Bishop and Girhalva  have not given up, however. Read on.. 11-15-18

The top Republican and Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee remain optimistic they’ll be able to pass a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund this year.

“The House Democrats still want to get something done. There’s no reason the senators shouldn’t want to get something done, too,” Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) told POLITICO. “The overall package may have to be pared down a bit, but I still think we’re on track.”

Bishop said he’s made clear in talks that mandatory spending included in a Senate bill S. 569 (115) that passed committee must be removed for a compromise — but that provision “doesn’t seem to be a big sticking point for most people.” A House bill H.R. 502 (115) that cleared committee did not have the mandatory spending component.

The optimism in the House, where Ranking Member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) also said an LWCF agreement could still be included in a year-end lands package, stands in stark contrast to the Senate. Energy Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) cast doubt Tuesday on the prospects of getting a deal on LWCF and a national parks maintenance bill before the end of the year.

Share this entry