[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 195 (Wednesday, November 19, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8217-S8218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ``BUFFALO FIELD OFFICE RECORD OF DECISION AND
APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT''
(Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 89) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to ``Buffalo Field Office Record of
Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, just last month, I stood here on this
floor to speak about the dangers of using a congressional resolution of
disapproval to change resource management plans for public lands around
the country. I described how using congressional resolutions to
circumvent public input would upend decades of public land planning
practice, how it would put our entire public lands management process
at risk.
Since then, Congress has passed three separate congressional
resolutions of disapproval to amend resource management plans: one in
central and northern Alaska, one in eastern Montana, and one in North
Dakota. And now, this week, the Senate will vote on a new resolution of
disapproval under the Congressional Review Act--this time for
northeastern Wyoming.
While none of those first three have been signed by the President
yet, I stand here today, as we prepare to vote on this new
congressional resolution of disapproval, to reiterate the message that
I shared weeks ago: We cannot and we should not manage our public lands
through the Congressional Review Act resolutions.
First, there are very real consequences of reversing decades-old
resource management plans, and those consequences could be devastating
to communities, to businesses, to jobs, and to our public lands.
Until this year, Congress had never used a congressional resolution
of disapproval to change or overturn a land use plan. That is because
no administration ever considered land use plans to be ``rules'' under
the law.
Let me say that again. No administration, Republican or Democratic,
since the Congressional Review Act became law in 1996, has ever treated
these land use plans as ``rules.'' Here is what that means: No land use
plan has been submitted to Congress, as is required for rules. What
does that mean? Because the Congressional Review Act prohibits rules
from going into effect until 60 days after they are submitted to
Congress and no administration has ever submitted a land use plan to
Congress, ever, then if these plans are rules, every land use plan
after 1996 never actually went into effect. If they never went into
effect, then all of the leases and the permits and the rights-of-way
that were issued under them may not be legally valid, throwing us
effectively into chaos on our public lands. We are talking about every
grazing permit, every energy right-of-way, recreational permit, timber
sale, or, yes, oil and gas lease issued under a plan finalized after
1996. All of them are now open to litigation--every single one.
The actual impacts on real Americans could be devastating. For the
country, it means potential chaos and uncertainty about what areas are
protected on our public lands. The damage could be irreparable to the
landscape, to our American birthright in these public lands, and to the
communities that depend on these places to make a living.
Secondly, we know that CRAs cut the public out of land use planning.
This vote and all the votes like it sweep away years and years of
public input in conversations both about the public lands on a
particular landscape and public lands nationally.
To put it bluntly, Senate Republicans found a way to rewrite the
rules of the game because they didn't like the outcome, and every vote
they take to do it is insulting to the public.
Resource management plans are meant to include communities in the
process of deciding how to use our public lands, not exclude them. Does
that mean everyone agrees with what is in
[[Page S8218]]
these plans? No, of course not. I know I don't necessarily agree with
every piece of every resource management plan that I have read. But
there is a process to address that. It takes work. It takes
conversations. It takes advocacy. That process cannot and should not be
replaced by one that only involves Senators in Washington, DC, deciding
that they know better.
From coming together to decide where to prioritize recreation and
where to protect wild game habitat to identifying what lands should be
used for grazing or which cultural sites should be protected, resource
management plans take time because they incorporate input from the
folks who own our public lands--Americans across this country.
When these plans are amended, that takes time too. Resource
management plans aren't meant to be one and done; they are meant to
evolve over time. Here is how that works when it is done the right way:
First, the public gets a say about what in the plan needs to be
updated. Based on those comments, the Bureau of Land Management drafts
a plan that includes alternatives. Those alternatives capture the range
of public comments, making space for all of the voices that have
weighed into the process so far--voices calling for more energy
development, voices calling for more conservation, voices identifying
important areas for recreation for the benefits of locals and
businesses alike.
Once that draft is completed, the public gets another chance to
engage. In person and with written comments, the public gets to say
what they think the Agency got right and what should be considered
moving forward.
Based on that, BLM prepares a final product. When BLM releases the
final product, the public has another chance to engage--this time
through a formal protest period where individuals can register their
objections.
Throughout the entire process, the BLM meets with public land users,
with Tribes, with community members, and with the leaders and elected
officials in these communities.
The common theme here is clear: When it is done right, the public
shapes how public lands are managed. That is not the process being
proposed here on the Senate floor. It isn't one that invites the
American public in; it is one that shuts them out.
By undoing resource management plans through congressional
resolutions of disapproval, Congress is telling Tribal communities that
their opinions don't matter about their ancestral lands; they are
telling hunters that their opinions don't matter about what lands they
just happen to use to fill their families' freezers; they are telling
hikers that their opinions don't matter about the routes they know like
the back of their hand; telling local communities that the way their
land is used is no longer of importance; telling all of us that our
voices do not matter when it comes to the very lands that make up our
American birthright.
When we vote for CRAs as a way to manage our public lands, we vote
against including communities in the process; we shut them out from the
decision-making process when we should be inviting them in.
Third, today's vote does not account for the hundreds of millions of
dollars per day that are generated for local economies by public land
recreation and recreators. Recreation on public lands is an economic
powerhouse. The recreation industry generates $128 billion in economic
activity from public land every single year. It drives $6 billion in
Federal tax revenue. It creates jobs. From Bureau of Land Management
land alone, recreation supports 76,000 jobs and contributes more than
$12 billion--billion with a ``b''--in economic output.
These numbers are big, and they matter. They matter to outfitters.
They matter to small businesses. They matter to local communities. They
tell the story of just how valuable these lands are to Americans--
valuable both as a birthright and in dollars and cents.
That rings true in Wyoming, where the plan we are voting on today is
located. For example, in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, outdoor recreation contributed $2.2 billion to Wyoming's
economy. That is over 4 percent of Wyoming's GDP--the fifth highest
rate in the Nation. The industry supported almost 16,000 jobs that same
year. That is over 5 percent of the State's total--total--employment.
Now imagine that all of that is put at risk through congressional
actions that leave no room for public comment to voice their concerns.
There is no planning process--just unilateral decisions made in
Washington, DC. So instead of amending the plan and allowing for more
public voices to be heard and more communities to weigh in, as we have
done for decades before, they just decide to override the whole
process, box the public out. Well, you don't have to imagine it because
that is what we are doing right now, and you deserve to know.
No land management plan is perfect. All of them need to be reviewed,
updated, and improved. But we have a process for that, and it includes
listening to our constituents, letting them drive the decisions. CRAs
don't do that. They are a blunt instrument. They do the opposite--
shutting out the public and rigging a process to guarantee an outcome
of Senate Republicans' choosing.
So I stand here today, and I urge all of you to vote against this
CRA. Public lands belong in public hands. They belong to all of us.
That means that every single person deserves a chance to provide input
on how they are managed.
I urge my colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote on this resolution of
disapproval.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
Order of Procedure
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on
S.J. Res. 89 be expired, the joint resolution be read a third time, and
at 1:45 p.m. tomorrow, the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.J.
Res. 130, the joint resolution be considered read a third time, and
that the Senate vote on passage of H.J. Res. 130.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading
and was read the third time.
____________________