[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2193-2203]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 2194]]

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:
  ``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.

[[Page 2195]]

  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. 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

[[Page 2196]]

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 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.

[[Page 2197]]

  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 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

[[Page 2198]]

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 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.

[[Page 2199]]

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 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

[[Page 2200]]

     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.J. 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 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

[[Page 2201]]

     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.
                                  ____

     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

[[Page 2202]]

     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 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

[[Page 2203]]

     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.

                          ____________________