A review of legislative action taken by the 117th Congress demonstrates the National Park System increasingly is a priority for many lawmakers.
“Every one of our more than 420 national parks are experiencing the effects of budget cuts, staffing shortages, record visitation and crumbling infrastructure,” said Theresa Pierno, president and CEO of the National Parks Conservation Assocoation and board chair of the National Parks Action Fund. “And this summer, climate disasters wreaked havoc on national parks and surrounding communities with the devastating floods at Yellowstone, historic droughts at Lake Mead and Grand Canyon, and raging wildfires at Yosemite. Fortunately, the majority of the 117th Congress took major steps forward to repair our national parks infrastructure and support the largest investment our country has ever made to combat climate change, including at our national parks.”
Since the Action Fund launched its first Congressional Scorecard in 2016, lawmakers have increasingly voted in support of America’s favorite places, according to the group. And this year’s scorecard shows that fixing and safeguarding our national parks and public lands remain a critical issue for many, as over half of Congress received an A rating for their pro-park votes.
The Action Fund, affiliated with the National Parks Conservation Association, evaluated park-related votes taken by the House and Senate during the 117th Congress. The scored votes include a variety of issues affecting parks, including key votes concerning park infrastructure, climate change impacts, cabinet nominations, and protections for water and wildlife.
According to the Action Fund’s 2022 Congressional Scorecard:
- Senators receiving an A went up 6 percent from 2020
- 86 percent of House members voted to expand and diversify the National Park System
- 51 percent of Congress voted for parks and got an A
- Percentage of all members of Congress receiving an A went up 2 percent from 2020
“In order for our national parks to grow stronger in their second century, it is vital that everyone see themselves reflected in these beautiful places,” added Pierno. “The Action Fund has long urged Congress to expand our National Park System to tell the full American story. And while this Congress made progress, many important stories of American history and our past successes, struggles and injustices remain untold. It’s vital that Congress ensures that everyone, no matter where they live, has access to parks, and these places tell a more complete story of the nation’s rich and diverse history.”
Despite the wins national parks received during the 117th Congress, there remains much work to be done. National parks still face challenges like chronic underfunding, a growing backlog of repairs needs, and threats from fossil fuel extraction.
“We must hold our federal elected officials accountable for the decisions they make that impact our most iconic places,” said Rick Healy, a board member on the Action Fund and former staff member of the House Natural Resources Committee. “We will continue to call on Congress to better staff parks, carry on its work to repair parks and address climate change, and support solutions to overcrowding.”
You can review the Action Fund's grading of individual members of Congress and see how your representatives did on this page.
Comments
I can't tell whether this is a publication from NPCA or the DNC? Of course, hard to tell the difference.
To give some of the advocates of parks like Senator Daines and Senator Collins the grades they got says it all. The basis of the grades is a little suspect - for example does every member have to vote yes to expand the system? Perhaps folks might not vote for a new park to be included for various reasons, including the need to take care of what is in the system right now. Parks used to be bipartisan and so did NPCA.
I think the key is votes on Climate, Wildlife Protection and other Environmental Issues. Several of the Senators with (R) who are rated F are actually strong supporters of the NPS, but consistantly vote against any Climate related legislation and most other Environmental Protections. The article does a lousy job of explaining exactly what is graded.
I tried to point out NPT's bias when there was an NPT article about NP improvements funded by one of Biden's bill, but no such mention of Trump just a week or two earlier in regards to a GAOA funding.
Go figure.
AJ, the GAOA was not proposed by Trump, he merely signed the legislation after it was passed by a bipartisan Congress. The bill actually had its origins in legislation proposed by the late Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat, back in 2019. The next year, Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, reintroduced the bill as the Great American Outdoors Act.
Before GAOA, Trump was against the LWCF.
The Infrastructure Reduction Act stemmed from Biden's request for $1.7 trillion in new spending on the nation's infrastructure.
Hey Kurt- by that reasoning you can credit Mitt Romney for the ACA not Obama...
Actually, Chris, I believe the legislative history in Congress for the Affordable Care Act dates to 2009, when Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats in the House revealed their plan for overhauling the health-care system. H.R. 3962 was called the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
Romney wasn't in the Congress until 2019.
And Obama didn't attached his name to the bill; headline writers and Republicans (included Romney, derisively) termed it that.
[GAOA] not proposed by Trump, he merely signed the legislation after it was passed by a bipartisan Congress.
Geesch.
#1. It's a fact that in our federal system that no president can "propose" a bill in Congress. Only Congreessmen or senators can do so.
#2. Trump did more than just sign the bill. He supported it for months as it would through the Senate.
#3. And yes, signing the bill is an essential element to the support of and implementation of every law, right?
This is basic civics. And notice that I stated the facts in a non-partisan manner. I don't get the horror of giving a president--ANY PRESIDENT-- his due when & where it's deserved. Period.
Come on, man.
John Lewis was quite clearly an election denier for at least two election cycles, spanning decades.
So, should we discount or ignore his contributions to the passage of GAOA?
I just don't get the blatant bias. We ALL love the outdoors nad NPs and NFs. Why can't we get beyond the political baises and just support the support for the outdoors regardless of who gets the job done?