[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1032-H1041]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISAPPROVING RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR RELATING TO
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 91, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 44) disapproving the rule submitted by
the Department of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management
regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or
amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 44
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management of the Department of the Interior relating to
``Resource Management Planning'' (published at 81 Fed. Reg.
89580 (December 12, 2016)), and such rule shall have no force
or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney)
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
General Leave
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous material on H.J. Res. 44.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, BLM Planning 2.0 is yet one more example of Obama-era
Federal Government overreach. It takes authority away from people in
local communities, in my home State of Wyoming, and all across the
West. It takes authority away from our elected representatives at a
local level, and it puts Washington bureaucrats in charge of decisions
that influence and impact our lives.
It significantly dilutes cooperating agency status, and it discounts
input from those who are closest to our land and our resources. BLM 2.0
is an example of the midnight rulemaking that we saw that was so
rampant in the Obama administration. In fact, it is an abuse of that
rulemaking process.
By statute, Mr. Speaker, the BLM is supposed to manage our public
lands for multiple use and for sustained yield, but instead we have
seen consistently throughout the last 8 years the Obama administration
doing everything possible to deny all human use of our public lands.
This rulemaking isn't based on the language of the statute that
underlies it. It is based, rather, on policy preferences that have been
expressed in memos and in various studies. The rulemaking takes another
step in imposing a brand new mitigation formula that essentially is a
land grab by a Federal agency that would put even more land under the
control of Washington bureaucrats.
Despite the fact that these agencies are required to consider costs
as they impose regulations, BLM 2.0 was imposed not only using cost
estimates that are clearly wrong, but, in fact, it removed all
reference to looking at the devastating impact that this rule has on
our local economies across the West.
This rule takes away authority and power from those who know best how
to manage our lands and how to manage our resources. In fact, it opens
up our planning process to such an extent that we could have foreign,
nongovernmental organizations having just as much say in how we manage
our land and resources as the very stakeholders--the ranchers, the
farmers across Wyoming and the West, and the people that they have
elected to speak for them.
In short, Mr. Speaker, this rule takes authority away from those who
know best what we need to do to manage and sustain our resources, and
it puts it in the hands of the Federal Government and bureaucrats here
in Washington, D.C.
Repealing 2.0 using the Congressional Review Act will help to restore
the voices and input. It will help to restore democracy and help to
restore authority to our local communities.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to face the facts. Congressional Republicans
do not value our Nation's public lands the way everyday Americans do. I
know this because they opened the 115th Congress by adopting a rules
package that makes it easier to sell our national parks and national
forests to the highest bidder without pesky budget rules getting in the
way. That was just a start.
Last week, they voted to gut clean water and clean air protections in
coal country, suspended a rule requiring oil companies to disclose
payments made to foreign governments, and pulled a plug on a waste
prevention regulation that would have saved money and improved air
quality.
Today, their assault on the environment and our public land continues
with this misguided effort to scrap the Bureau of Land Management's
effort to update its planning rule. This resolution targets what is
commonly known as Planning 2.0, an initiative to make public land
management more transparent and efficient by enhancing opportunities
for public input and utilizing actual science.
The American public does not support erasing this new planning rule,
and they certainly don't support the broad antipublic land agenda being
pushed by the Republicans.
Our constituents are sick of seeing corporate interests, especially
big polluters, come first. They do not want their national parks and
cherished natural places turned over to industrial polluters. We have
seen this in the massive response to the Dakota Access pipeline,
heartbreak over what happened in Flint, Michigan, and the millions of
people who marched worldwide on the first full day of this new
administration.
Just last week, we saw how much Americans truly value their public
land. After a prominent Republican introduced a bill to sell off more
than 3 million acres of taxpayer-owned land, thousands of people picked
up the phone and called their Representatives to express their outrage.
Because of that passion and deep concern, the sponsor of that bill has
vowed to withdraw it from consideration for the first time in five
Congresses.
This is an important story because it speaks to our constituents'
true priorities. They sent us here to be responsible stewards of their
special places. They sent us here to protect their national parks and
public lands. They sent us here to make government work for them.
This resolution fails on all those tests.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this
different kind of rule. It is basically a rule defining a rule that
defines future activity. So it is somewhat convoluted.
But this is a regulation--one more of those broad, midnight
regulations--that affects 250 million acres of land, almost all of
which is found in the West. Even in my own district, it will affect 3
million acres of land; that means something that is bigger than the
State of Delaware and Rhode Island combined. It affects us with
disastrous consequences. As has been said, this dilutes local and State
voices and centralizes power here in Washington, D.C.
By law already, the agencies have got to meet with local and State
leaders and coordinate, which they are not doing well. This undermines
that specifically, and it stacks the deck from the very beginning
against counties and State voices and against multiple use.
This puts special interest groups above elected local officials,
which is not the way it was ever intended to be. There are 60 different
organizations that are begging us to repeal this bad rule.
In my district, the Duchesne County Commissioners wrote us to say:
[[Page H1033]]
``Our constituents are good stewards of the land, dedicated to
meeting environmental requirements, while developing and supplying
affordable energy to consumers. We believe Planning 2.0 presents
multiple challenges that will prejudice multiple use interests with a
bias. . . . ''
That bias is clearly there. That bias is shown in the mitigation
factor within this. Within the bowels of the Department of the
Interior, they have shown us how they are going to implement this rule,
which means if there is any kind of economic or recreational
opportunity and you want to develop, say, like 50 acres to do that,
they will insist that you go out and buy either State or private land
as a mitigation for those 50 acres. And if you can't find additional
private or State lands, you hold up the entire process.
Either way, you expand the amount of acreage the Federal Government
will do, and that is part of this Planning 2.0 process. That is why it
is so ludicrous.
Duchesne County participated in the rulemaking process for Planning
2.0, but like all the other counties, States, and local governments,
their concerns were ignored and their opinions were excluded in the
final rule. We had two separate hearings on this issue, but all the
testimony that was heard was also ignored and no input was given to
them at that time.
Look, counties like Duchesne are in dire situations, especially in
the West. They need to be consulted. That is their role and
responsibility. That is what a democracy in the republican form of
government does.
This rule bypasses them. It cuts out their voice, and it puts in
programs like that mitigation, which is definitely scary and has
absolutely negative connotations for the future.
This is a perfect rule that needs to be rolled back because it goes
too far, it was done at the last minute, and it undermines the kind of
input we need to make proper decisions.
I compliment the gentlewoman from Wyoming for presenting this rule.
This is one that has got to go. I urge Members' support of her
resolution.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), a member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Republican majority pushed
through legislation attacking clean air, clean water, and blocking
public transparency into payments made to foreign governments by oil
and mining companies.
Today we are considering legislation that will roll back
opportunities for the American people to have a say in how our Nation's
public lands are managed. The idea that there should be national public
lands that belong to and are managed on behalf of the American people
is a value that dates back to the founding of our country and is
embedded in our Constitution.
Generation after generation of Americans has endorsed the idea that
our public lands should be managed to balance many competing uses:
recreation, responsible economic development, sustainable resource
extraction, renewable energy, military purposes, and conservation of
historic American landscapes, just to name a few.
We all want to see this important aspect of our national heritage
managed in an effective and efficient manner, balancing conservation
for future generations with sustainable productivity for local
communities.
The Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0, as it is known, will
help us better achieve this balance on the approximately 245 million
acres of land managed by the BLM. As American citizens, we all have a
right to provide input on how we would like to see these public lands
managed; but the current process for doing so is slow, lacks
transparency, and fails to incorporate over 30 years of updated science
and understanding of our changing climate. In fact, this process hasn't
been substantially updated since the Reagan administration. States,
local governments, and other stakeholders all agreed that the process
was in need of updates.
BLM agreed with this consensus and began a 2-year review, receiving
over 3,000 public comments on what changes needed to be made. Two
years, 3,000 public comments, this was no midnight regulation. Their
final product, which the resolution before us today would permanently
overturn, increases transparency, enhances the role of science and
decisionmaking, and strengthens the role of the public's voice earlier
in this planning process.
{time} 1400
Planning 2.0 also upholds the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act's commitment to States, local government, and tribes in land
management decisions.
The Bureau of Land Management made several changes in between the
draft rule and the final rule to clarify coordination requirements and
promote consistency with local land use plans, all in response to
concerns raised through the public input process.
According to a BLM fact sheet on the final rule, ``The new rule does
not change the special relationship and opportunities provided by
statute for cooperating agencies,'' and, ``The final rule establishes
several new opportunities for coordination between the BLM and our
government partners.''
We should be working together on proposals that strengthen management
of our public lands, balance conservation with economic development,
and provide sustainable benefits to the people who rely on them for
their economic livelihoods. The resolution before us today flies in the
face of these goals.
I urge my colleagues to reject this Congressional Review Act
resolution and vote ``no.''
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, of all of the stifling, bureaucratic,
pettifogging regulations that Congress is now repealing from the
previous administration, none is more deserving of repeal than the
BLM's Planning 2.0 rule.
This rule governs the process for creating resource management plans.
If they are done wrong, they can devastate the economies of the
communities that are impacted by those lands. A new RMP can crush an
industry, and it can destroy a community, which is why States and
counties across the West have been anxiously watching this process
unfold.
Despite serious concerns being raised by State and local
governments--by farming, livestock, and energy production groups, and
even by Congress during the rulemaking process--the Bureau of Land
Management charged full steam ahead and finalized this rule. The BLM
assured stakeholders that the final rule governing this process would
not undercut State and local voices. But, when the BLM realized that
the election of President Trump endangered the environmental left's
stranglehold on this agency, the Planning 2.0 rule was hastily
finalized in contradiction of almost all of the promises that the BLM
made.
The Planning 2.0 rule is a gross expansion of BLM's power, and the
power of well-funded political groups that use the veneer of
environmentalism at the expense of local communities. Under BLM's
current RMP procedures, our Western counties already complain of having
their voices ignored and their interests disregarded.
Last year, the Federal Lands Subcommittee held a field hearing in St.
George, Utah. We heard how the city of St. George was experiencing
economic growth, pushing the limits of its infrastructure, and how the
city had tried over and over to engage the BLM in the development of a
new RMP to address the needs of the local community. The city was
desperate for the new RMP to include a transportation corridor for a
new road to meet the needs of their growing economy. In their testimony
before the subcommittee, the city relayed that they were unable to
secure regular meetings with their local BLM office, despite the BLM
office holding frequent meetings with local environmental groups.
In the end, the RMP was released and there was nothing to account for
the transportation needs of the people of St. George. In a State that
is two-thirds owned by the Federal Government, I find it hard to
believe that the BLM could not have worked with the city of St. George
to accommodate a simple road.
With these kind of results under BLM's current planning regime, it is
no wonder that counties across the West are weary of a new planning
rule.
[[Page H1034]]
BLM should be focused on improving their collaboration and coordination
with counties and local governments. Instead, this rule enshrines that
disregard into formal Federal regulation.
I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I think the real question for the majority
is: What do you have against Secretary-elect Ryan Zinke? He is being
given a brand-new rule and the keys to the castle. He has a clean slate
to develop the playbook for a hugely impactful planning process and
free rein to make it what he wants.
Yet, one of the first moves the majority is making, before Mr. Zinke
has even been confirmed, is to undo Planning 2.0 and leave the agency
with a planning process that was written before my staff was born. In
other words, the majority is tying Mr. Zinke's hands.
Quite simply, the majority is laboring under the false impression
that Planning 2.0 makes the BLM's planning process worse when, in fact,
it makes it better. Under the current regulatory framework for resource
management plans, it takes BLM an average of 8 years to update and
revise a plan, and this matters because, by the time the plan is
completed, it is almost already out of date. Significant public
involvement doesn't happen until the end of the process. There is often
litigation which stalls the process even more. This is a huge waste of
government resources and taxpayer money.
Mr. Speaker, as Ranking Member Grijalva said earlier, the use of the
Congressional Review Act to revoke BLM Planning 2.0, or any other
Federal regulation, is a radical step. That is the reason why the
Congressional Review Act has only been used once before this year.
Once Congress approves the Congressional Review Act resolution, the
agency can never issue a similar rule. So this is an extreme overreach
in general, but especially for something like BLM's Planning 2.0, which
is designed to enhance efficiency and make BLM more responsive to
public input.
Isn't our goal to improve how government works and make it more
efficient? This resolution will permanently lock us into an old rule
that didn't work for anybody.
I know House Republicans and President Trump are eager to roll back
regulations, but we should pump the brakes on this particular
resolution. A lot has changed since 1983.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Virginia may not be
completely aware of the implementation and the effect of this rule in
Western States like Wyoming where, for example, the process that has
been described as an open process is, in fact, one where, in my State,
our Department of Environmental Quality on another BLM rule was in a
position where they agreed to be a cooperating agency and then did not
hear from the BLM for 4 years.
When you are talking about our very livelihood, you are in a
situation where we simply can't run that risk. We cannot adopt a rule
or let a rule stand that expands that kind of authority in Washington,
no matter who is in charge in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tipton).
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Land Management manages 245
million acres, or nearly 10 percent of the total area of the United
States, and a whopping 700 million acres of mineral estate. Nearly all
of this acreage is in our Western States, which makes it imperative
that the agency extensively cooperate with the State and local
governments during the planning process.
It is true that the BLM's new planning rule, Planning 2.0, included
revisions to several aspects of the planning process, some of which
seemed to make some good sense.
Unfortunately, the new rule also introduced a significant measure of
confusion regarding how planning areas would be determined, and, most
distressingly, diminished the historic and valued role that State and
local governments play throughout the process.
In many of the counties in my district, it is not uncommon for the
public lands to make up well over half of the total area. For these
communities, having an equal seat at the planning table isn't merely a
luxury. It is an essential ingredient to ensuring that our way of life
is proudly maintained over many generations and is not extinguished.
Because of this, the BLM is required by law to consult and to
coordinate with State and local governments and maintain consistency
across their management plans and policies. Yet, the agency's new
planning rule envisioned weakening that partnership in several regards.
For one, the agency intends to dismiss consistency requirements with
anything other than the officially approved and adopted plans. This not
only places an undue burden on rural communities who likely do not have
the resources available to draft and maintain comprehensive plans, but
significantly lessens the importance of an array of other policies and
agreements that are germane to the planning process.
The importance of a State Governor's review of a Federal management
plan is also reduced, as it appears to limit input only to the
identification of inconsistencies with State and local plans, but
precludes formal input and observations regarding other aspects of the
plan.
Americans the Nation over treasure our public lands and thoroughly
enjoy our ability to be able to access them. But it cannot be denied
that, in many of our communities, decisions made by Federal Land
Management agencies like the BLM have amplified the impact. No planning
process revision should weaken the voices of our communities as
Planning 2.0 would do.
For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I
applaud the efforts of my colleague out of Wyoming for her efforts on
this and urge passage of this resolution.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Torres), also a member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution
which would do away with the new procedures established under BLM
Planning 2.0.
Planning 2.0 encourages, at its foundation, early and frequent public
input. By rolling back this planning effort, public input--in
particular, tribal input--will be removed.
Federally recognized tribes have the right to engage in government-
to-government consultation, and, under Planning 2.0, tribal rights to
participate in the planning process are clearly enumerated and
protected.
By introducing the resolution we are considering today, the majority
is making clear it doesn't value tribal input in the development of
BLM's resource management plans. In this updated planning process, the
BLM worked hard to ensure government-to-government consultation was
accomplished. Tribes were encouraged to submit comments through the
formal comment period and through government-to-government
consultation. But BLM recognizes the hard work of tribes and has been
inclusive of tribal concerns.
In fact, BLM has recognized the quality and value that tribes'
traditional ecological knowledge brings to planning efforts. It is
important to incorporate this information to avoid resource conflicts
and to protect hunting and fishing grounds.
In many areas, the BLM and tribes actually have to manage resources
together. How can they do this when tribes are not invited to be a part
of the consultation process? By including government-to-government
consultation early in the planning process, all taxpayers benefit in
the long run because we can develop a stronger plan that doesn't end up
in court being litigated.
We want BLM to be an agency that actively embraces the people who
live on and use the land they manage. By formalizing the tribal
consultation role and recognizing the value tribes bring to the
planning process as Planning 2.0 does, the BLM is taking important
steps to fully engage with all their constituents.
Land management is about looking at the bigger picture, and tribes
understand that more than anyone. They deserve to be recognized in the
planning process, and Planning 2.0 does that.
Repealing this rule through the CRA is shortsighted and wrongheaded.
BLM
[[Page H1035]]
Planning 2.0 allows for the very kind of oversight and public input my
Republican colleagues claim to want, and helps avoid the costly court
battles they complain about.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure and keep Planning
2.0 in place.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, thank you to my colleague from Wyoming for
the time and ability to weigh in on this.
Today, I rise in support of the measure for congressional disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act for disapproving of the BLM's 2.0
rule.
It is another midnight regulation passed in the final days of the
previous administration which undercuts the resource management
planning process on public lands by stripping local community input and
centralizing, again, in Washington, D.C., the decisionmaking.
California holds some of the largest amounts of public land in the
U.S. The Federal Government has approximately 46 percent of the total
land in California, amounting to about 46 million acres. BLM oversees
about 15 million acres of those public lands, or about 15 percent of
the State's total land mass.
The abundance of natural resources and diversity of landscapes within
California creates unique challenges for BLM to even fulfill its
multiple-use mandate. It is essential that development of these
resource management plans include close coordination with local, State,
and tribal governments--the people who actually grew up and know those
lands the best for all of the potential these lands could bring,
whether it is for development of potential energy or timber management.
Whatever those ideas are that they would have, let the locals have the
input on it. These decisions need to be made with that local input so
that everyone's voice is heard.
{time} 1415
In strong rural areas like my own, the First District of California,
close coordination between the Federal Government and local groups is
vital to have good decisions be made regarding public land management.
Unfortunately, what we have is nonmanagement, and we suffer for that
each summer and fall with a forestry that is not managed and the
inability to have an economic opportunity for those people in those
areas.
The 2.0 rule does just the opposite with that collaboration. It
strengthens BLM's power once again in Washington, marginalizing Western
counties and districts, eliminating their ability to coordinate or
challenge BLM's proposed plans in an open setting.
Under the pretext of climate change and landscape scale management,
the agency's rule undermines federalism and allows for the
implementation of a previous era environmental agenda. No wonder Modoc
County, in my own district, as well as other counties from Western
States have sued BLM for its failure to properly engage and coordinate
with the public and fulfill what the law requires for the BLM in
managing these lands.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Webster of Florida). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. LaMALFA. It is time to put an end to the previous
administration's legacy to shut out local input by forcing through a
rule abrogating for public lands decisions based on unelected
bureaucrats in D.C.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague for yielding me time, and I
ask for support of this measure.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. McEachin), who is a new member of the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. McEACHIN. Mr. Speaker, the BLM's Planning 2.0 initiative has made
important, overdue updates to our process for drafting resource
management plans.
These plans govern our use of more than 175 million acres of public
lands. The way in which we use those lands deeply affects the
environmental quality, public health, and all Americans' quality of
life. It is vitally important that we get our planning right.
This rule promotes transparency and consensus, creating more and
earlier opportunities for public involvement in the planning process.
It encourages greater use of high-quality scientific information, and
it provides for a big-picture, landscape-level response to challenges
like wildfire management and invasive species. The effect is to
strengthen, streamline, and democratize a process that had previously
bred litigation and delay.
Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder: Which of these changes does my friend
across the aisle oppose?
Mr. Speaker, in the last week, the House voted to disapprove three
other rules that protect public health and environmental quality. I am
disturbed by that pattern, and I am disturbed by the haste with which
we have moved, especially since all of these rules took years to create
and craft.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the majority to think of their
children, their grandchildren, and all the generations to come. They
deserve to inherit a rich, healthy, and sustainable world. If we
continue down this reckless path, I fear they will not.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), who is the majority leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her
hard work on this bill and bringing it here today. Most people don't
realize just how much land the Federal Government controls, and it is
just a fact that someone thousands of miles away in an office in D.C.
won't understand those land issues as much as the people who live on
the land do.
Now, the sponsor of this bill, Ms. Cheney, knows that in her great
State of Wyoming, they constantly struggle with the Federal Government
over land policies, just as California and many Western States do.
Federal regulators restrict how we can build, what our farmers can
grow, where our ranchers can graze, and how our people can enjoy the
beauty of our land.
The Bureau of Land Management's new rule, the innocently named
Planning 2.0 rule, imposes Washington's vision on land management over
vast areas of the West. This was devised by people who don't live on
our land and who don't know our land, and they just try to dictate how
to use our land. They are undermining the very idea of multiple use of
Federal lands by making the lands entirely off limits for any type of
economic purposes.
Under this rule, the Bureau will cut out local and county officials
even more. They will consolidate control over 175 million acres of land
in 11 States out West, and that is not a small amount of land. Just to
put that in perspective, that is over 261 times the size of Rhode
Island.
Using the Congressional Review Act today, we will be able to overturn
this last-minute power grab from the Obama administration and bring
some power back to the people. The American people should have the
power back again to write their own future.
I want to thank Congresswoman Cheney for keeping her word and for
standing with Wyoming and all those out west who care for their land
and want those locals to be able to control and to understand where it
is best to graze, to care, and to build, not somebody in Washington to
dictate what to do with it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, using the Congressional Review Act to nullify a Federal
regulation is indeed a radical move. It has only been done once before
this year, but now it has become a regular part of the Republican
playbook.
BLM's Planning 2.0 is not some midnight regulation that was rushed
through at the last minute. BLM went through a transparent rulemaking
process and responded to thousands of comments. We had two hearings
last year about Planning 2.0 in the Natural Resources Committee. BLM
was only invited by the majority to one of the hearings, but the agency
listened and made significant changes before publishing their final
rule. This rule took 2.5 years to develop. It is not anywhere near a
midnight rule.
It has been over 30 years since BLM updated the regulatory framework
governing its planning process. That
[[Page H1036]]
means we are relying on Reagan-era rules that were put in place before
the widespread availability of cellphones and digital mapping
techniques to oversee everything from energy permitting to cultural
resource management on over 250 million acres.
Everyone engaged in the management of our public lands wants to see
this process improved. Planning 2.0 is that opportunity. However, if
this resolution becomes law, BLM will never be allowed to evaluate and
modernize this process, and we return to management planning from the
1980s. That is not a good outcome for anybody. The resolution is
irresponsible and needs to be rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, on December 12, 2016, the Obama
administration published another overreaching midnight regulation in
the form of the BLM's new resource management rule, commonly referred
to as BLM 2.0. That same day, six Western States filed a lawsuit
alleging the new rules will severely impair their ability to work with
the BLM on future planning and management issues.
More than 3,350 comments were submitted on BLM's Planning 2.0 rule.
Rather than reviewing and incorporating those suggestions, the Obama
administration hastily rolled out another midnight regulation that
failed to address the technical flaws raised during the public comment
period.
Let me be clear: Planning 2.0 takes planning decisions away from
local communities and centralizes those decisions with bureaucrats in
Washington, D.C. BLM's Planning 2.0 rule is a significant departure
from the planning process that has existed more than three decades and
allowed significant local government involvement.
Planning 2.0 directs the BLM to perform large, landscape-scale
planning efforts that stretch across county lines and State lines. This
new regulation allows radical, special interest groups from other
States to have the same influence as county and local officials in the
planning process.
In many counties in the West, less than 20 percent of the land is
privately owned. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research
Service, the Bureau of Land Management manages more than 247 million
acres of public land and administers about 700 million acres of Federal
subsurface mineral estates throughout the Nation.
Rural counties and Western States depend on their ability to use BLM
and public lands in order to support their livelihoods. Critical
activities like grazing, forest thinning, mining, recreation,
responsible energy development--including wind and solar--all take
place on these lands and are the lifeblood of many communities.
Unfortunately, Planning 2.0 will prevent many of these uses on BLM
lands and cause significant harm to local communities.
The American Farm Bureau Federation supports Representative Cheney's
bill and opposes Planning 2.0, stating: ``We . . . are concerned that
the Planning 2.0 rule will diminish the statutory requirements multiple
use and dismantle the cooperative ideals of Federalism. . . . BLM did
not fully evaluate the impacts on consumers, public lands-dependent
ranching families, energy, mining, recreation, and rural communities
across the American West.''
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who is key voting in support of the
bill, stated: ``This Obama administration `midnight regulation'
undercuts States from fulfilling their role as managers of resources
and land use decisions. The shift in authority away from local planning
and land management will inherently jeopardize jobs throughout the West
in industries ranging from timber, energy, mineral development,
grazing, and recreation.''
Western Energy Alliance has also raised serious concerns about BLM
2.0 and has urged adoption of Representative Cheney's bill, stating:
``Besides delaying oil and natural gas development indefinitely,
Planning 2.0 would prevent ranching, mining, timber harvesting, and
other productive uses of the West's working landscapes that sustain
rural communities and livelihoods.''
Americans for Prosperity, who is key voting in support of the bill,
stated: ``The process outlined by the Planning 2.0 rule is highly
problematic--it limits public involvement in decisionmaking,
centralizes planning in Washington rather than in State and field
offices, redefines BLM's interpretation of the `multiple use'
requirement, prioritizes conservation over sustained yield, i.e.
mineral leasing, and could further lengthen an already long permitting
process.''
The National Association of Conservation Districts supports the bill,
stating: ``The CRA allows for the BLM to go back to the drawing board
and write a planning rule that truly increases local government
involvement as opposed to centralizing the planning process.''
Again, the BLM Planning 2.0 rule takes planning decisions away from
local governments and, instead, allows those important decisions to be
made by bureaucrats in Washington who aren't familiar with our land,
water, or communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of Representative Cheney's commonsense
bill.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when you don't look at the whole field, you make
mistakes. Without using their vision, quarterbacks throw passes into
double coverage and Presidents trigger angry protests of their ill-
conceived policies. Seeing the whole field is what BLM 2.0 is all
about.
Instead of managing lands by looking at isolated units and only
soliciting the input of local governments, this new framework takes a
landscape view of BLM's multiple use mission. This update is absolutely
necessary if we expect BLM to address the problems we all acknowledge
the agency has. Climate change, wildfire, drought, and invasive species
are just some of the problems that need landscape-level solutions. On
the flip side, coordinating planning for outdoor recreation and
renewable energy development across multiple BLM units will help
increase the growth of these industries.
Rejecting landscape-level planning is like rejecting air traffic
control; you can do it, but the results won't be pretty. By repealing
this rule and locking a broken system in place in perpetuity,
Republicans hope to fulfill their own prophecy that BLM does a poor job
managing public lands. If enough people believe them, they think, then
maybe they will achieve their goal of giving away America's public
lands. The problem, though, is that not enough people believe them.
Those who do are shrinking every day, and the ones who don't are making
their voices heard.
People who care about sound management of BLM lands know that the
Planning 2.0 rule is an important step forward. They know it isn't an
abuse of executive authority or a government land grab, and they are
tired of hearing from discredited voices who say it is. These views are
backward looking and ignore the fact that these lands belong to a kid
from Chicago just as much as they do to an oilman from Wyoming.
Landscape-scale planning allows BLM, with the input of all
stakeholders, to manage across the lands. Under Planning 2.0, BLM State
offices and the scientists and the land management professionals they
employ are finally allowed to build a consistent land management policy
that doesn't stop at the State line.
Planning 2.0 helps our land managers see the whole field and looks to
the future. The majority wants to send us back to the past. We
shouldn't allow that to happen.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1430
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, after serving on a school board, in my State
legislature, and now in Congress, I have witnessed firsthand that
government works better when it is closest to the people. That is why I
rise today in support of H.J. Res. 44, which disapproves the Bureau of
Land Management's 2.0 Planning rule.
I commend the gentlewoman from Wyoming for introducing this
legislation on behalf of her constituents as
[[Page H1037]]
well as Americans all across the country that desire more effective
government.
The Planning 2.0 rule will fundamentally change the way land
management decisions are made, and I believe it will fundamentally
change them for the worse. Planning 2.0 puts faith in a faraway,
Washington-based one-size-fits-all approach to land management
decisions.
BLM has a light footprint in my home State of Arkansas, but last year
I had the opportunity to attend a field hearing in St. George, Utah. I
saw firsthand the mismanagement by the BLM and how it impacts real
people.
Individuals from Washington County, Utah, told our field hearing of
the heavy-handed approach BLM takes toward local landowners in
management decisions. Local officials talked about how BLM has also
ignored the will of Congress by ensuring updated resource management
plans decrease grazing permits or effectively stop the construction of
roads that are authorized in Federal legislation. Land management
changes should be made in a collaborative way, with ample State and
local input.
Despite what some people may think, Congress and Congress' will still
matters. Planning 2.0 marginalizes State and local officials in favor
of unelected bureaucrats and special interests. By passing H.J. Res.
44, we will remind Federal agencies that they work for the people.
Mr. Speaker, we are not a people of the government, by the
government, and for the government. We have a government that is
supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. The
people's voice should be heard in major land management decisions. H.J.
Res. 44 will make the BLM listen to their voice.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 13\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, using the CRA to repeal this rule would freeze Federal
land managers and the places they manage in 1983. That is the year the
previous rule was written, and that is the rule we would be stuck with
if this resolution passes.
Voting for this resolution means voting for outdated science; it
means voting for a return to managing individual parcels with blinders
on to the larger landscape; and it means continuing to ignore our
changing climate.
Overturning BLM 2.0 means you are okay with ignoring the overwhelming
scientific and public support for the planning updates implemented in
the rule.
Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. There were plenty of great things
from the early 1980s: movies like ``Return of the Jedi'' and those
early cell phones that were the size of bricks. And don't forget the
fashions of the 1980s. I am sure people thought they looked great in
parachute pants, but eventually we all updated our wardrobes.
We might have had early cell phones back in the 1980s, but we didn't
have modern computing, current technologies for mapping, or even GPS.
There is no doubt that it is time to update our land use planning to
take advantage of these technologies and respond to new challenges and
to current times.
So why are congressional Republicans so interested in blasting us
back to the past? Why are they so eager to throw away 2\1/2\ years of
public input into a modern, transparent, science-driven planning
process?
They allege some local counties aren't happy, but we have got letters
from counties saying that they support the rule, and thousands of pages
of comments from the agency demonstrating that they responded to any
concerns. This can't be the real motivation, Mr. Speaker.
No, the true purpose of this resolution is to tie the hands of
Federal land managers so they can't manage special places in ways that
might hinder pollution or cut down on private profiteering. Apparently,
congressional Republicans have decided to give Representative Zinke a
parting gift as he leaves to be Secretary of the Interior. That gift is
a pair of handcuffs.
If you have updated your wardrobe or your cell phone since 1983, or
if you enjoy the luxury of Google Maps or GPS, I urge you to oppose
this resolution because it fails to update our ability to protect our
precious public lands.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the BLM 2.0 rule represents the turning back of a clock
of ignoring science, ignoring the need for public participation.
Although Republicans claim they want to take power away from
government and give it to the people, why do they oppose every attempt
to actually do that?
They don't want the people to use citizen suits to hold polluters
accountable. They don't want the people to use the NEPA process to
ensure government actions aren't harming their communities. Today, they
don't want the people to have increased participation in managing our
public lands.
The reason, of course, is that Republicans don't want all people to
have a seat at the table. They only want certain people to be there.
In this case, the old BLM planning process gave local governments in
the West--many of which are cozy with mining, drilling, and grazing
interests--a privileged position in influencing land management
planning. Given that these public lands belong to all Americans and not
just those who happen to live close to them, that approach was wrong.
BLM's Planning 2.0 rule changes that, leveling the playing field and
allowing more stakeholders and interested parties to get involved
earlier.
Under BLM's new rule, tribes, local governments, and stakeholders
across the spectrum who care about these places where they work,
recreate, hunt, fish, and live are all now encouraged to provide input
at the outset instead of waiting until the bitter end. This will save
time and money, reduce litigation, and generally make government work
better.
So why would Republicans oppose it?
Hunters, anglers, and others who value the outdoors are asking the
same question and are lining up in opposition to this misguided
resolution and other bills that would reduce their access to public
land.
The people have grown wise to the Republican crusade to give away
ownership of and authority over their lands to States, localities, and
private interests. They have grown very weary of that. They understand
that this resolution is part of that crusade.
So Republicans have a choice. They can continue doing favors for the
dirty development interests of the past or they can embrace policies
like BLM 2.0 and use it to give a boost to the ongoing jobs boom in
sectors like solar, wind, and outdoor recreation. For the sake of
Western economies and landscapes, I hope they choose the latter.
Planning 2.0 finally recognizes the value of the public's voice in
the planning process. Let's not silence them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Stewart).
Mr. STEWART. Mr. Speaker, at its heart, this rule is about one thing.
It is about taking power away from local officials, including local BLM
officials, and moving that power to Washington, D.C., to faceless
bureaucrats who sit in cubicles here in this city and make decisions
that have enormous impacts upon families and upon individuals. In many
cases, these bureaucrats have never been to the States, and may never
be.
There is a county in my district that is 97 percent controlled by the
Federal Government. I have two counties that are 90 percent controlled
by the Federal Government. So many of the decisions that are made that
impact these counties and these families are made in Washington rather
than at the local level. That is what we are here today to talk about:
this egregious consolidation and power by D.C. bureaucrats.
The Bureau of Land Management's final rule is exactly that--a
snapshot of everything that is wrong with the previous administration.
The rule is so flawed that a couple of administrative
[[Page H1038]]
fixes simply won't fix it. It has to be repealed.
The previous rule was on the book for decades. This rule was
introduced and finalized in less than a year. Thousands of comments
were intended to fix flawed reasoning in the rule. State and county
commissioners' comments were largely ignored. Let's remember, those
State and county commissioners represent the people. They understand
the needs of the people.
Once again, 2.0 moves all of that decisionmaking out of the local
office and back here to Washington, D.C. These D.C. bureaucrats don't
have the on-the-ground knowledge of the situation; they don't know the
land, they don't know the needs of the county, and they don't know the
people.
That is not the only instance of diluting local voices. Planning 2.0
also undercuts the involvement of counties and other local government
agencies by inviting distant voices to the planning table who would
steer resource management plans away from multiple use early on in the
planning process. This is a 180-degree turn from previous planning
regulations.
Not only did 2.0 dilute local control, it also dilutes real local
impacts. Let me explain what that means. When you look at local impacts
instead of looking at the actual communities around where these
decisions are being made, they can look out very broadly.
In my case, you look at a national park in Utah. They can look at the
impacts of that and say, well, this has had a positive benefit, but
that is because they may be looking at a community that is 100 miles
away. They may be looking at St. George.
Why not look at Las Vegas? Why not look at Los Angeles and say, Oh,
those communities are doing fine; the local economic impacts have been
positive?
It is not a fair reflection of what is happening to the local
communities. Once again, the local people, the local families.
While many lauded the BLM for giving this planning process an
update--and I am glad that it did; it was necessary--they fell short of
delivering a final rule that helps people. That is why I join in this
effort to repeal it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in opposition to this
resolution. These letters come from a broad array of stakeholders,
including sportsmen, county commissioners, county supervisors, and
conservationists, highlighting the breadth and depth of support for
Planning 2.0.
February 6, 2017.
Dear Representative: As organizations committed to
preserving our nation's historic and cultural resources, we
urge you to OPPOSE the Congressional Review Act resolution
(H.J. Res. 44) to nullify the Bureau of Land Management's
final planning rule, commonly referred to as BLM Planning
2.0.
The Congressional Review Act is the wrong tool to address
resource management planning. While no regulation is perfect,
using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Planning
2.0 rule would have far-reaching implications for cultural
resources and management of our public lands. This resolution
of disapproval would prohibit the BLM from developing any
``substantially similar'' regulation in the future. The
result would be to replace the new regulation with BLM's
prior planning rule, which is more than 30 years old and does
not incorporate current technology and streamlining practices
to maximize efficient and effective decision-making. Locking
in inefficient and outdated regulations does not serve any
users of our public lands.
The BLM's Planning 2.0 rule is designed to bring much
needed efficiency, predictability, and transparency to BLM's
management of multiple uses on public lands. The rule is
carefully crafted to collect state and local government,
tribal, and public input early in the planning process. In
addition to making BLM's planning more efficient, improving
available information allows project developers to consider
potential impacts to environmental, cultural, and historic
resources at the outset rather than being surprised by
stakeholder concerns and information identified late in the
process. The rule also improves the planning process by
reducing the need for costly and time-consuming supplements
that can delay decision-making and inhibit private sector
investment.
The BLM's Planning 2.0 rule updates procedures for
developing individual resource management plans that guide
actions and decisions on the nearly 250 million surface acres
and more than 700 million acres of subsurface mineral
resources that the agency manages. These lands contain the
largest, most diverse, and scientifically most important body
of cultural resources of any federal land management agency,
including well over a million historic, archaeological, and
other cultural sites. Our organizations remain committed to
promoting a responsible land management planning process that
enhances public involvement, improves transparency, and
promotes sound, efficient decision-making based on full
information, including better data on cultural resources on
our public lands.
If the resolution passes, it will make management of our
public lands less efficient and less effective. Again, we
urge you to OPPOSE the Congressional Review Act resolution to
overturn the BLM Planning 2.0 rule.
Sincerely,
National Trust for Historic Preservation; American
Anthropological Association; American Cultural Resources
Association; Archaeology Southwest; Arizona Preservation
Foundation; Cienega Watershed Partnership; City of Kingman,
AZ; Coalition for American Heritage; Colorado Plateau
Archaeological Alliance; Conservation Lands Foundation;
Friends of Cedar Mesa.
Friends of Organ Mountains Desert Peaks; Friends of the
Agua Fria National Monument; Friends of the Cliffs; Modern
Phoenix; Montana Preservation Alliance; National Association
of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers; Nevada Preservation
Foundation; Site Steward Foundation; Society for American
Archaeology; Washington Trust for Historic Preservation.
____
February 6, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members
and supporters, we urge you to Vote NO on H.J. Res. 44, the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to rescind the
Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Planning 2.0 regulation.
This resolution is an extreme and unnecessary response to a
sensible and overdue rule.
H.R. Res. 44 would invalidate a new, collaborative,
science-based approach to land use planning that boosts
public engagement, improves administrative efficiency, and
increases responsiveness in planning on our largest public
land system. It allows managers to move beyond an outdated 30
year-old process to better address pressing challenges posed
by critical issues, such as wildfire, invasive species and
increased demand for domestic energy. More specifically, this
new guidance:
Increases efficiency and public participation in planning.
The BLM rule will save taxpayer dollars, shorten planning
times, and avoid disputes by investing time upfront to
collaborate with locals and stakeholders on prospective
management strategies. Public voices will help develop plans
with improved opportunities for participation, new electronic
options for submitting input, and updated processes for
filing plan protests--improving the likelihood that the plans
meet Americans' broad array of conservation and resource
needs.
Preserves priority status for local government in planning.
The new rule carefully preserves a priority role for local
government and other cooperators in BLM planning processes as
directed by Congress, ensuring that final plans consider
local and regional perspectives and priorities.
Increases transparency in planning. The rule will prevent
closed door decision making between the BLM and special
interests by updating guidance that provides the American
people the ability to participate in the planning process at
all stages.
Improves science-based decision making in planning. High
quality data will be a foundation for BLM planning and
management. Planning 2.0 will incorporate current science,
geospatial data and technology to evaluate landscapes at the
regional level. These changes will enable faster response to
today's environmental, economic and social realities with new
evaluation markers and agency flexibility to plan across
traditional administrative boundaries, keeping our lands
great places to hike, hunt, and fish.
Supports sporting pursuits on BLM lands. Hunters and
anglers support Planning 2.0 because the rule takes steps to
ensure that important habitats, such as migration corridors
and other intact habitats, are identified early in the
planning process so these important areas can be managed and
conserved as the agency makes decisions about other public
land uses.
Overturning this common sense rule will relegate hundreds
of millions of acres of public lands to planning under an
out-of-date rule that has not been substantially changed
since 1983. The public will lose opportunities to participate
in how these public lands--owned by all Americans--should be
managed. Without the new rule, public land management will
continue to be contentious, inefficient and costly.
Finally, if the rule is struck down by the CRA, the BLM
could be prohibited from issuing a similar rule in the
future, preventing the agency from modernizing its land use
planning regulation to adequately address contemporary issues
like energy development, grazing, wildlife, mining,
conservation, recreation, cultural resources protection or
any of the many multiple uses that occur on our public lands.
Planning 2.0 is a sensible and much needed rule that
updates an antiquated process that limited management
decisions to outdated concepts of resource planning, and
instead creates a framework to support more inclusive,
comprehensive planning and management on our public lands. We
urge you to stand up to protect the new planning rule and to
Vote NO on H.J. Res. 44.
Sincerely,
Alaska Wilderness League; American Bird Conservancy; Center
for Biological Diversity; Defenders of Wildlife; Friends of
the
[[Page H1039]]
Sonoran Desert; Grand Canyon Trust; GreenLatinos; League of
Conservation Voters; Los Padres ForestWatch. National Parks
Conservation Association; National Trust for Historic
Preservation; Natural Resources Defense Council; Partnership
for the National Trails System; Sierra Club; The Nature
Conservancy; The Wilderness Society; Wilderness Workshop.
____
Board of Supervisors,
County of Humboldt,
Eureka, California, June 22, 2016.
Neil Kornze,
Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC.
Subject: BLM's Proposed Resource Management Planning Rules
(``Planning 2.0'').
Dear Director Kornze: Humboldt County includes over 86,000
acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) parcels, including
such special places as the King Range National Conservation
Area and Headwaters Forest Reserve. The stewardship of these
lands is very important to my constituents, other local
residents, and countless visitors to this region. It is a
matter of great concern to many of us when the BLM begins to
develop individual management plans for these parcels.
The BLM's Proposed Resource Management Planning Rule
described at 81 Federal Register 8674 (February 25, 2016),
commonly known as Planning 2.0, requires the agency to
involve the public, other federal agencies, state and local
governments and tribes as key partners early in the process
of developing local plans. Encouraging public involvement
early and often in the development of these plans is a very
positive step indeed. This is especially important given that
the BLM's Arcata Field Office will be using this new and more
inclusive approach to public involvement as it revises its
existing 1995 Resource Management Plan, I am therefore
pleased to offer my support for Planning 2.0.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ryan Sundberg,
5th District Supervisor.
____
Lewis & Clark County,
Board of County Commissioners,
Helena, Montana.
Re the Bureau of Land Management's Proposed Resource
Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 (February
25, 2016).
Neil Kornze,
Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC.
Dear Director Kornze: The Lewis and Clark County Board of
County Commissioners offer this letter of support for
provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's)
Proposed Resource Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg.
8674 (Feb. 25, 2016) (the Proposed Rules). We appreciate the
effort to improve opportunities for public involvement
earlier in the planning processes, including the chance to
review preliminary resource management alternatives and
preliminary rationales for those alternatives.
We value our relationship with our federal partners, and
our constituents are impacted greatly by actions taken by
your agency. Increasing access to the planning process and
targeting your efforts towards greater public involvement
enhances the relationship between the people and their
government, and we support your initiative.
Additionally, we note that the Proposed Rules also expand
opportunities for states and local governments to have
meaningful involvement in the development of BLM's land use
decisions. The Proposed Rules continue to provide for
coordination with state and local representatives in order to
ensure, to the extent available under federal law, that RMPs
are consistent with state and local land use plans, as
provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976.
Sincerely.
Michael Murray, Chairman.
Susan Goad Geise,
Vice Chair.
Andy Hunthausen, Member.
____
Board of County Commissioners,
Missoula, MT, May 23, 2016.
Re Proposed Resource Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg.
8674.
Director Neil Kornze,
Bureau of Land Management,
Washington, DC.
Dear Director Kornze: We are writing you to commend you and
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for your efforts to
improve BLM's planning process (Planning 2.0) and better
address the diverse interests found in Missoula County and
other communities across the western United States.
Missoula County is approximately 2,600 square miles in
size, and federal management in the county accounts for 52
percent of the land ownership. The BLM manages roughly 23,000
acres for the public in Missoula County and the sustainable
management of these public lands is vitally important to the
residents we represent. Our citizens and local economies
depend on state and federal lands for water quality and
quantity, as well as for multiple sustainable uses ranging
from outdoor recreation to livestock grazing to mineral
exploration and development. Consequently, we wish to thank
the BLM for proposing to address their land management
options from a landscape perspective. This approach
recognizes that the management of federal lands has a direct
impact on other properties well beyond those close to or
adjacent to BLM managed land.
We support the provisions of the BLM's Proposed Resource
Management Planning Rules, 81 Fed. Reg. 8674 (Feb. 25, 2016).
These rules provide additional opportunities for public
involvement earlier in the planning process, including the
chance to review preliminary resource management alternatives
and preliminary rationales for those alternatives. This early
public involvement will help resolve conflicts and produce a
Resource Management Plan that better reflect the needs of our
citizens as well as others who use the public lands and have
a stake in their future. Equally important is the improved
openness and transparency the rules bring to the process,
allowing any local government to actively participate and
share information on issues critical to local residents and
their elected representatives.
The proposed rules continue to provide for coordination
with state and local representatives in order to ensure, to
the extent allowable under federal law, that Resource
Management Plans are consistent with state and local land use
plans, as provided in the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976.
Thank you for considering our comments. If you or your
staff have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Board of County Commissioners,
Nicole Rowley,
Chair.
Jean Curtiss,
Commissioner.
Stacy Rye,
Commissioner.
____
The Pew
Charitable Trusts,
Washington, DC, February 2, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: Next week the House of
Representatives will consider H.J. Res 44, a resolution to
overturn the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) 2016 land-use
planning rule. The Pew Charitable Trusts opposes this effort
to reduce agency transparency and limit the public's ability
to have a say in how their public lands are managed, and we
urge you to vote against it.
BLM's rule, often called ``Planning 2.0,'' establishes
procedures for preparing, revising, or amending land use
plans, and provides new opportunities for stakeholders to
participate in the early stages of developing plans. This
means that states and counties, scientists, ranchers, hunters
and anglers, miners, hikers, boaters, the energy industry and
other users of the public lands will have more information on
what a plan will cover and will be able to express their
hopes and concerns about the plan.
Increased public participation will ensure that the BLM has
the best available information at the start of the planning
process, before issuing draft management plans. The broad
consideration of issues at this earlier stage is expected to
reduce controversy later in the planning process, and reduce
litigation after the plan is issued.
Planning 2.0 also includes steps to ensure that important
fish and wildlife habitats, such as migration corridors and
intact habitats, are identified early in the planning process
so these important areas can be managed and conserved as the
agency makes decisions about development, recreation and
other public land uses.
The rule also includes good government provisions such as
improved potential for better interagency communication, and
steps that increase efficiency and ease burdens on public.
Many concerns that were raised about an earlier draft of
the rule were addressed and corrected in the final rule. For
example, the public comment period once a draft plan is
released is now 100 days--more than the previous 1983
regulations or the original 2015 proposal allowed. The final
rule also takes meaningful steps to accommodate requests from
local governments and the public to improve the process,
preserving the special role of state, local and tribal
cooperating agencies, as specifically required by the Federal
Lands Policy and Management Act.
Passage of H.J. Res 44 would force BLM to return to its
previous, long-outdated planning rule, which was published in
1983. Of additional concern is that the Congressional Review
Act prohibits the agency from writing a new rule that is
``substantially the same'' without additional legislative
action. As a result, many good aspects of Planning 2.0 would
be precluded from being enacted indefinitely, thereby
stripping incoming Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke of
his authority to reformulate the rule.
We strongly urge Members to work with the new
administration to make refinements to a planning process that
many stakeholders championed. If H.J. Res 44 is enacted, the
BLM would be forced to continue using outdated guidelines for
land-use planning, which keep the public and development
interests alike in the dark until very late in the planning
process.
If you would like further information regarding Pew's
position on this resolution, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ken Rait,
Director U.S. Public Lands.
[[Page H1040]]
____
Chairman Rob Bishop,
Natural Resources Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Raul Grijalva,
Natural Resources Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva: The
undersigned hunting, fishing, conservation, natural resource
professional and outdoor-industry organizations represent
millions of American sportsmen and women, and we are writing
to express our support for the Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) recently revised land-use planning rule, also known as
Planning 2.0. The revised planning rule increases federal
agency transparency and incorporates best practices in land-
use planning, while maintaining the important cooperating
agency role of state and local governments.
Stakeholders from across the multiple-use spectrum agreed
that the previous BLM planning process could be improved.
Under the outdated process, opportunities for public
involvement were too few, and the public didn't learn about
agency plans until they were already proposed.
With the new rule, the BLM provides three additional
opportunities for cooperating agency and public involvement.
These extra steps enable the BLM to gather public opinion and
the best available information at the start of the planning
process, then vet preliminary alternatives before issuing the
draft resource management plan.
Further, the revised planning rule will identify important
areas for fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation well in
advance of plan development so that avoidance and
minimization of impacts to these vital areas can be achieved
as the agency plans for a range of uses of the land through
individual plans. Given advancements in wildlife science and
data collection since the previous planning rule was created
more than 30 years ago, these updates were sorely needed, and
the sporting and wildlife communities support this revision.
Finally, local, state, and tribal governments, including
county commissioners, will retain their preexisting
cooperating agency status and an elevated level of
involvement in BLM land-use planning as specifically required
by the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act. In fact,
significant changes were made to the final planning rule in
response to requests from cooperating agencies.
The new rule is the product of two and a half years of
collaboration and is a productive step towards improving BLM
planning. If additional improvements are necessary, the
undersigned organizations are committed to working with the
new Secretary of Interior, interested lawmakers and
stakeholders to make such adjustments. However, Congressional
actions to delay or dismiss the new BLM planning rule are
unnecessary and counterproductive.
Sincerely,
American Fly Fishing Trade Association; Archery Trade
Association; Backcountry Hunters & Anglers; Hispanic Access
Foundation; Izaak Walton League of America; Muley Fanatic
Foundation; National Wildlife Federation; Northwest
Steelheaders; Oregon Hunters Association.
Outdoor Industry Association; Pheasants Forever; Public
Lands Foundation; Quail Forever; Snook and Gamefish
Foundation; The Nature Conservancy; Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation Partnership; The Wildlife Society; Trout
Unlimited; Wildlife Management Institute.
____
Wild Connections,
Colorado Springs, CO, February 6, 2017.
Dear Member of Congress: Tomorrow, the House of
Representatives will vote on H.J. Res 44, to overturn Bureau
of Land Management's (BLM) new land use planning rule,
``Planning 2.0'', established in 2016. Wild Connections
opposes this resolution and we urge you to vote against an
effort that will reduce agency transparency, limit the amount
of input that the public has on their public lands, and lose
strong management designations for wildlife and ecological
biodiversity. Wild Connections is an organization that has
been promoting landscape connectivity on a watershed and
ecoregion-wide basis for over 20 years and which has been
actively involved in the management plan revision for the
BLM's Royal Gorge Field Office, which is currently under way.
As a locally based conservation organization, we believe that
it is important for citizens to have opportunities to work
with the BLM to decide future management for these millions
of acres of public land. Planning 2.0 is a step in the right
direction.
BLM's Planning 2.0 makes BLM land use management planning
more collaborative and transparent. It offers more and new
opportunities for stakeholders to get involved, including
local governments, Indian tribes, and the general public.
Planning 2.0 engages the public earlier in the land
management planning process leading to more input into the
process, enabling the BLM with the best available information
at the onset of the planning process. More and earlier public
involvement will not only broaden the scope of the plan, but
will likely reduce litigation after the plan is enacted.
This new planning rule is also important for fish and
wildlife habitat. Migration corridors and intact habitats are
identified early in the planning process so that these
important areas can be managed and conserved as the agency
makes decisions about development, recreation and other
public land uses. Hunters and anglers support Planning 2.0 as
the rule offers wildlife corridors as a management
designation, for a key type of wildlife habitat or an area of
ecological importance.
As you know, the BLM's ongoing Eastern Colorado Resource
Management Plan Revision has incorporated parts of the
Planning 2.0 planning rule. Wild Connections and our members
have benefited from the ``envisioning meetings'' in 6 towns
and cities within the planning area, offering the public
opportunities to voice their concerns and comments in
preparation for the full planning effort. The BLM has
received positive comments from a diverse voice of users,
including outfitters, horse-packers, grazing lessees,
environmental organizations, wildlife groups, hunters,
anglers, snowmobilers, off-highway vehicle users, and mining
claimants.
If H.J. Res 44 is passed, the BLM would return to its long-
outdated planning rule, which was established in 1983. Of
additional concern is that the Congressional Review Act
prohibits the agency from writing a new rule that is
``substantially the same'' without additional legislative
action. Thus many important aspects of Planning 2.0 would be
precluded from being enacted indefinitely in the
reformulation of the rule.
We strongly urge Members to work with the new
administration to make refinements to this planning process
that many stakeholders have championed. Please vote against
H.J. Res 44 so--that we do not lose these important BLM
planning aspects that were just carefully constructed under
Planning 2.0.
Sincerely,
James E. Lockhart,
President.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Congressional Republicans have a scorched Earth policy
when it comes to anything originated under President Obama. It is the
same approach with the Affordable Care Act. They want to completely
destroy it, regardless of any merits.
The majority is not spending all this time and effort simply to
repeal this planning rule. This is one of the steps in their massive
campaign to convince Americans that Barack Obama wasn't a good
President. They simply can't stand to allow the accomplishments of the
previous administration to stand, so they reflexively strike out to
destroy anything President Obama supported.
This is not legislating. It is certainly not public service, and it
isn't even smart. To paraphrase a former Speaker of the House, Sam
Rayburn: anybody can kick down a barn; it takes a carpenter to build
one.
This isn't how our government is supposed to work. It is especially
counterproductive when it comes to something like Planning 2.0, which
is specifically designed to make a Federal agency more efficient and
more transparent.
The BLM rule is about bringing our land use plans into the 21st
century. It is about local input. It is about using the best available
science. The majority wants to return to 1983 so that polluters and
developers are the only ones with a seat at the table.
We should support BLM 2.0, reject this resolution, and I urge my
colleagues to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have nearly 100 State and local groups supporting
repeal of BLM 2.0. These are groups like the National Association of
Counties, National Association of Conservation Districts, National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, Western Energy
Alliance, National Mining Association, Petroleum Association of
Wyoming, as well as a number of Governors and local officials,
including my home State Governor, Matt Mead.
Mr. Speaker, I include a letter from Governor Mead in support of this
joint resolution and a joint letter from numerous other governmental
and association groups in support of this joint resolution.
The State of Wyoming,
Office of the Governor,
Wyoming, January 20, 2017.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Steve Scalise,
House Majority Whip, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan, Majority Leader McCarthy, and Majority
Whip Scalise: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently
published a final rule amending regulations that establish
procedures for Resource Management Planning (RMP) (43 CFR
Part 1600). The final rule decreases the BLM's accountability
for cooperating with state and local
[[Page H1041]]
governments. Specifically, it minimizes state and local
government plans, programs and policies and the important
role these entities should play in final RMP decisions.
This rule is a prime candidate for Congressional analysis
under the Congressional Review Act (CRA). I ask that you
bring this rule to the full House for consideration under the
CRA for a floor debate. The BLM can and must involve state
and local governments in RMP decisions and it must respect
the role of state and local governments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Matthew H. Mead,
Governor.
____
January 26, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer,
Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: As representatives
of state and local governments and public lands stakeholders
from across the United States, we encourage Congress to use
its legislative authority to review the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) Planning 2.0 rule. As partners with the
federal government, we continue to encourage the BLM to
engage in meaningful collaboration with local stakeholders
during the development of policies and guidelines. And
despite representations by the BLM to do just that, we remain
unconvinced that Planning 2.0 in its final form does much to
satisfy the objective of meaningful collaboration and
consultation with non-federal governmental entities.
Robust coordination and cooperation between states and
local governments and the BLM allows federal decision-makers
to be responsive to the concerns of state and local
government officials during policy development and sets the
stage for more effective and efficient implementation of
federal policies by involving multi-jurisdictional resources
and expertise. Simply put, gathering meaningful, on the
ground, input from the states and localities that will be
most impacted by BLM's planning regulations is critical to
ensuring a practical federal policy that works at the local
level.
For years to come, the proposed Planning 2.0 rule will have
a substantial impact on how the BLM engages with state and
local government and manages its 245 million acres of public
lands and 700 million acres of subsurface minerals. We
encourage Congress to act to ensure BLM's Planning 2.0 rule
does not go into effect and instruct the agency to work with
intergovernmental partners to ensure the policy has benefited
from meaningful, on the ground, collaboration with state and
local governments.
Sincerely,
Alaska Municipal League; American Sheep Industry
Association; Arizona Association of Counties; Arizona
County Supervisors Association; Association of Oregon
Counties; Eureka County, Nevada; National Association
of Conservation Districts; National Association of
Counties; National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture; National Cattlemen's Beef Association;
Nevada Association of Conservation Districts.
Nevada Association of Counties; Oregon Association of
Conservation Districts; Public Lands Council; Rural
County Representatives of California; Utah Association
of Conservation Districts; Utah Association of
Counties; Western Interstate Region of NACo; Wyoming
Association of Conservation Districts; Wyoming County
Commissioners Association; Wyoming Stock Growers
Association; Wyoming Wool Growers Association.
{time} 1445
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, we know that government that is closest to
the people is best. What we have seen over the last 8 years,
unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., has been a massive expansion of the
authority and the overreach of the Federal Government under the Obama
administration. We have seen a number of instances where agencies have
acted outside of the law, in some instances outside of the
Constitution.
BLM 2.0 is an example of where this agency is acting completely
outside of the law. There is absolutely no legal authority, no
statutory language on which they can base this rulemaking, on which
they can base the fundamental changes that they are making and the
fundamental power grab that they are making.
It is hugely important for us, as we go forward here, to make sure
that we have done everything we can to roll back regulations that are
really killing our jobs, that are preventing people in our local
communities from being able to make a living, from being able to
consistently graze, for example, on these public lands. It is
absolutely outside of the law to have a situation, as 2.0 would create,
where people who have never been to these lands, people who, frankly,
may not even be in the United States, have just as much a say in how we
manage our lands as a rancher who has got to graze on those lands or as
the county commissioners who are charged with making decisions about
those lands.
A number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
mentioned today the thousands of comments that the BLM sought as they
were going through this rulemaking process. The problem is that there
is very little evidence that any of those comments were taken into
account in the final rulemaking. As I mentioned earlier, the track
record with respect to the BLM listening to and being willing to take
into account local concerns is a very bad one in which you have got
State agencies that are led to believe they will have an impact and
then find themselves having radio silence, essentially, from the BLM.
Mr. Speaker, Planning 2.0 is a dangerous and damaging rule.
Overturning it today, through the Congressional Review Act, through
this joint resolution, will enable us to begin to restore authority
where it belongs: with our local communities, with our local elected
officials. Those who are closest to the land, those who have to work on
the land, those who make a living on the land are the absolute best
stewards of our land and of our resources.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this measure to repeal BLM
Planning 2.0.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 91, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________