[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3474-3481]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    DISAPPROVING A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.J. Res. 44, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A 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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 8 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is at the point 
we are this morning. Last night, we agreed to proceed to consideration 
of H.J. Res. 44, which will overturn the Bureau of Land Management's 
Planning 2.0 Rule. The House has considered this already. They passed 
this resolution on a strong bipartisan basis. It was a 48-vote margin. 
They did this just before the February recess, and so it is now in 
front of the Senate.
  As the sponsor of the Senate version, I have come to the floor now to 
explain to colleagues why this BLM Planning 2.0 Rule is such a bad rule 
and to urge its nullification.
  There are probably a lot of folks that are asking the question: BLM 
Planning 2.0, what is it? It is not just folks that are listening, it 
is colleagues here. What exactly is Planning 2.0 and what exactly does 
Planning 2.0 do? A lot of people are saying: I never heard of this one. 
Where did it come from? Based on that, I think a lot of context is in 
order as we begin this debate.
  The Bureau of Land Management is a Federal agency that manages 245 
million acres of land in 12 Western States, along with 700 million 
acres of Federal and non-Federal subsurface estate.
  Congress has directed the BLM to manage those lands according to the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act. That is too long to say. So we 
just refer to it as FLPMA. It serves as the agency's organic act. It 
mandates a multiple-use mission for BLM lands. I think it is important 
to always remember that. BLM is required to manage under the concept of 
multiple use. It lays out a planning process for its mission. It 
establishes a special status relationship between the Federal 
Government and the States and the local governments that are affected 
by the agency's resource management plans.
  I think it is important, as we are focusing on the BLM right now, 
that we remember that BLM lands are not national parks or wildlife 
refuges. They are not wild and scenic rivers or wilderness. BLM lands 
are working lands. They are valuable--not because they might contain a 
Mount Denali, like up north, or the Grand Canyon--but rather because 
these lands contain energy and minerals and they can be used. Again, 
this is the multiple-use concept. They can be used for grazing. They 
can be used for recreation and many other purposes.
  They are valuable in this way and as such are a leading source of 
good jobs for families and communities all across the West. BLM's 
management of western lands has never been without controversy. That is 
part of the reason that the last administration decided to overhaul the 
regulations that guide the planning process. The stated goals from the 
administration were to create a better process that would increase 
transparency, increase public involvement, and reduce the amount of 
time it takes to develop a resource management plan.
  So those clearly all sound like good ideas, good goals. 
Unfortunately, the reason we are here today seeking to overturn this 
planning 2.0 rule is that the BLM absolutely failed to achieve any of 
those three goals. Instead of greater transparency, BLM delivered a new 
process that ensures less transparency. Instead of expanding public 
participation, Western States are looking at fewer and weaker 
opportunities to influence the management of local lands.
  Planning 2.0 also turns the relationship between federal, state, and 
the local governments on its head. It just really turns it upside down. 
What actually happens then is that it has effectively subverted FLPMA, 
shattering the special status arrangement that the West is supposed to 
have under the Federal law.
  As a Senator for the State of Alaska when this rule came out, I 
looked critically at it and I have problems with many aspects of the 
rule. I know I am joined by nearly all of my western colleagues and 
many who are not from the West but who have taken the time to 
understand how our land management laws are supposed to work and who 
have looked critically at this rule.
  The more my staff and I have unpacked the Planning 2.0 Rule, the less 
we like it and the greater is our conviction that this rule should be 
overturned through the Congressional Review Act. That is why we are 
here. I

[[Page 3475]]

could go on for quite some time, but for purposes of this statement, I 
will list this morning my four main criticisms, all of which compound 
each other and show why this rule must be repealed.
  First of all, Planning 2.0 seeks to transition to a landscape-level 
approach for land management planning. It is not a bad concept on its 
own, really. I don't have any problem with BLM determining, for 
instance, where our solar resources are located, but to make that a 
defining measure and to make that a defining feature of a resource 
management plan is a bad idea.
  It all but assures that new and revised plans will not have the level 
of detail or specificity that is needed to properly manage our local 
resources. It allows for planning areas to cross State lines without 
regard to the competing priorities of neighboring Governors. It does 
not ensure that existing State and local plans will be consistent. It 
is very obvious that BLM will deploy it as a mechanism to reduce or 
perhaps to eliminate many reasonable uses of Federal land that provide 
jobs and support communities all across the West.
  The second criticism I have is that Planning 2.0 allows BLM officials 
to remove the decisionmaking authority from our field offices and our 
State directors, and it tends to centralize that power at BLM 
headquarters. So for those of us in the West, we are looking at a 
situation where effectively the management decisions of our land are 
being taken from those who are on the ground, people who really 
understand the conditions and are those who are most impacted by it. It 
shifts it back East to be decided by those who don't have that same 
local understanding, who might not really have any understanding as to 
the areas and why this is so important.
  So centralizing power at BLM headquarters, in my view, is never the 
right direction. I am not suggesting that this is going to happen every 
time with every decision. However it could happen at any time, whenever 
a future administration decides that a decision needs to be made at the 
headquarters level rather than locally. So now, at a moment's notice--
perhaps without even any notice at all--decisionmaking authority can be 
taken away from a Western State with expertise and effectively siloed 
here in Washington, DC. That is not the direction to be taken.
  The third area of concern I have is that Planning 2.0 reduces the 
ability of western stakeholders to provide input into the land 
management process, as well as their stature within it. So, again, it 
compounds the fact that you are shifting decisionmaking authority back 
here to the East. By further limiting stakeholders' input, that is very 
problematic.
  Now, the agency has talked a good game about public participation. 
But if you read the rule, what it effectively does is just kind of 
front-load public input while cutting later opportunities for feedback. 
If left in place, Planning 2.0 would ensure BLM would be able to 
maximize its decisionmaking power while at the same time effectively 
sidelining input from Western States.
  We previously were in a situation where western stakeholders had a 
seat on the stage before this rule, but under it they are really 
demoted. They are effectively demoted to a middle row in the mezzanine 
as part of a bigger crowd, but with no special status. I think it is 
important to keep that in context.
  The fourth area of concern is that BLM 2.0 weakens and eliminates the 
requirements in FLPMA that require BLM to coordinate planning and 
resource uses with our States and local governments. Under this rule, 
BLM shifts the burden for making sure that resource management plans 
are consistent with State and local governments plans away from itself 
and onto the States and onto the local governments. That is not right.
  The agency is also limiting the opportunities that those government 
have to identify and remedy deficiencies within and across plans 
wherever they may be found.
  So here are a couple of examples this morning for the Senate, just to 
illustrate why so many of us are concerned about this and are opposed 
to Planning 2.0. You have to ask yourself: Is it fair and is it really 
what Congress intended, for a western stakeholder to have the same 
voice and influence over the management of their local lands as any 
other member of the general public from anywhere else, with no 
connection, no relationship to these areas?
  To be more specific, should a small placer miner in Chicken, Alaska, 
or a cattle grazer in Nevada be relegated to the same status as a 
lawyer in, say, Vermont who has never visited either Chicken, Alaska, 
or rural Nevada? My answer to this is pretty easy. It is a simple no. 
But that is what awaits us under Planning 2.0.
  So here is a real world example of what Planning 2.0 will mean on the 
ground. Last year, the BLM finalized a resource management plan for 6.5 
million acres of eastern Interior Alaska. Much of that plan was 
developed in accordance with the principles of Planning 2.0. So what 
does it actually look like for us up there in Alaska, in the eastern 
Interior area?
  The plan closes nearly three-quarters of the 40-mile district, where 
the only economic activity, really, is placer mining--small placer 
mining. They closed it to mineral entry. More than 1 million acres are 
withdrawn into what they call ``areas of critical environmental 
concern''. This is a land management tool that BLM has used more and 
more in recent years to sidestep Congress's sole authority to designate 
Federal wilderness.
  So the agency sought public comment, but it was limited public 
comment. Then it effectively ignored the comments that it did receive. 
Ultimately, very few Alaskans were able to participate in the 
development of the plan, and even fewer Alaskans are happy with the 
final outcome of the plan. As we expected and as we feared, the 
Planning 2.0 process was used to shut down a reasonable use of Federal 
land that the last administration just did not like. This was done even 
though it enjoys overwhelming support among local residents who really 
depend on it for their livelihood.
  The Planning 2.0 process was also used to close off Federal lands to 
the public in violation of the ``no more'' clauses within ANILCA, or 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, even though there 
was no imminent threat or reason to do so. So, as colleagues are 
considering how they will cast their vote on this resolution of 
disapproval, I am sure, again, that many had not really focused on this 
Planning 2.0 before. Most of them would never be able to find Chicken, 
Alaska, on a map, and they are thinking: This is not going to impact 
me. I am not from the West.
  But for those of us in the West, if you live in one of the 12 Western 
States that have BLM land, believe me, you are impacted. I would 
suggest that what we are seeing, starting in Alaska, is something that 
simply won't stay up there. If this rule is allowed to remain in place, 
you will see that move through all of our Western States.
  BLM maintains and periodically revises dozens of resource management 
plans in its 12 Western states. So if Planning 2.0 stays on the books, 
I think what it will do is it will harm our Nation's energy producers. 
I think it will harm our mineral developers. I think it will harm those 
who rely on Federal lands for grazing. It will most certainly cost us 
jobs. It will cost us economic opportunity, and it will hurt the 
communities and the people of our Western States.
  I would ask that you don't just take my word for this. Six counties 
from six different States have challenged this rule as impairing the 
informational and coordination rights of local governments. They 
believe that it violates FLPMA and that BLM has failed to properly 
evaluate the impact that it will have. I think they have a very strong 
case. This is a fatally flawed rule. Our best option is to overturn it 
while we have the ability to do so under the Congressional Review Act 
and to hold BLM accountable to the underlying statute and its multiple-
use mission. If we can agree to do that today, we can then work with 
our new Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, to make genuine 
improvements to the

[[Page 3476]]

BLM land management planning process. I know that Secretary Zinke cares 
about our public lands. He understands these issues, and I think he is 
dedicated to ensuring that we get this right.
  I would like to close by thanking the roughly 80 stakeholder groups 
that are supporting our disapproval resolution. I also thank the 17 
Senators who are cosponsoring the Senate version of it. I thank the new 
administration, which has released a statement of policy in support of 
it. I also acknowledge and thank Representative Cheney and Chairman 
Bishop in the House, who led the resolution through the House with good 
bipartisan support a couple of weeks back.
  It is now the Senate's turn to act on this. It is our turn to 
recognize why this rule deserves to be overturned. For the good of our 
Western States, let's send this disapproval resolution to the 
President's desk.
  With that, I again urge the Senate to support House Joint Resolution 
44.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in 
opposition to this resolution. Many of my colleagues know that we have 
had discussions in the Senate on several Congressional Review Act 
resolutions. In principle, Congressional Review Act resolutions--
besides repealing these existing Executive regulations--also have the 
unfortunate aspect to them that they negate an agency's ability to make 
new rules anytime soon in the same area. For example, if you like some 
of this rule but not all of it, by using the CRA, you are literally 
preventing the agency from moving forward on any improvements to the 
rule.
  I always believe in the legislative process. Working with my 
colleague from Alaska or working with my colleagues from other areas, I 
think we have proved that we can resolve key issues. But passing this 
Congressional Review Act resolution on an issue so important as our 
public lands and negating the hard work that the executive branch did 
over a long period of time is something that my colleagues and I just 
have to say no to.
  When it comes to public lands, we want transparency; we want 
sunshine. We want a bottom-up approach when it comes to land 
management, and we certainly want collaboration.
  As was said earlier, the Bureau of Land Management manages about 245 
million acres of public land. That is about 10 percent of the Nation 
and 30 percent of our Nation's minerals. So when it comes to this 
management, it is very important that they continue to follow a very 
good bottom-up process for land management.
  I will read now from the actual requirements from the law that 
oversees them, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. They have to 
use and observe the principles of multiple use and sustained yield; 
consider present and potential uses of the public lands; weigh long-
term benefits to the public against short-term benefits; consider the 
relative scarcity of the values; give priority to areas of critical 
environmental concern; provide for compliance with applicable pollution 
control laws, including State and Federal air, water, noise, or other 
pollution standards or implementation plans; and coordinate with 
Federal Departments and Agencies, State and local governments, and 
Indian Tribes.
  So all of these things are part of what is already in existing law. 
The concept here is to make sure that we continue to have a transparent 
and open process that is bottom-up. And I certainly believe in a 
bottom-up process because our public lands must not be territories 
owned and operated, for example, for the sole benefit of the oil, gas, 
and mining industries, and we can't have polluters polluting in these 
areas and not have input from the various communities about their 
concerns on those issues.
  For example, in 2001, the Bush administration proposed revisions to 
six land use plans in eastern Utah, and these plans were finalized in 
2008 at the end of the Bush administration, with only limited 
opportunity for public involvement. All six plans were challenged in 
Federal court by several motorized recreation and conservation 
organizations.
  It is now 2017, and these plans still remain tied up in litigation. 
That is why those in the off-road vehicle industry did not feel as 
though they had input at the very beginning stages of the process. In 
January the Obama administration negotiated a settlement, which is 
still pending in court, but this shows how, if there isn't meaningful 
public involvement, we are just going to hit a logjam. This is why I 
think it is so important for us to update this rule.
  It has been a long time since the agency updated this rule; I think 
since 1983. That was the last time--over 30 years ago. I guarantee you, 
in those 30 years, we can come up with a better process for input from 
our constituents on important land use issues.
  I know the new Interior Secretary likes to talk about Teddy 
Roosevelt, who once said: ``The Nation behaves well if it treats the 
natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next 
generation increased, and not impaired, in value.''
  Ensuring we are preserving and increasing the value of our public 
lands is exactly what is meant by this planning rule that the Bureau of 
Land Management put out. This rule wants to make sure that we have 
input from the local community.
  I think it is important to note that this is not a rule that 
regulates any specific use on public lands. It does not restrict any 
particular activity. It simply updates the current law in saying that 
it is better to have input from local officials and to use that input 
from local officials to update the process in an earlier way.
  I said to my staff: It is like us huddling and saying that we should 
write legislation and then me not coming back for 7 years and then 
letting them know I am on my way to the Senate floor to drop a bill. We 
would never do that, and the land plans in these communities shouldn't 
be done that way either.
  Once a local Bureau of Land Management official starts to discuss a 
plan, there should be transparency. The local community should know 
exactly what that plan looks like before it is going to be finalized. 
It needs to encourage collaboration of the stakeholders or else--as the 
example I just gave in Utah--you are going to end up in litigation or 
an elongated process before such management plans can take place.
  It seems to me that these are pretty reasonable goals: Have a bottom-
up process that encourages discussion throughout the plan so that local 
communities are not caught off guard, and continue to emphasize the 
roles of State, local, and Tribal governments and cooperating agencies 
so that they can have input in the process as well.
  Finally, I know that there are some who would like to claim that the 
BLM State director oversees the planning process in their specific 
State and that somehow that might change, but that is not the case.
  Many organizations understand that there will continue to be a 
bottom-up process under the new rule. That is why so many sportsmen and 
outdoors groups--like the Outdoor Industry Association, the National 
Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Theodore Roosevelt 
Conservation Partnership, the Nature Conservancy, the Wilderness 
Society, and the National Parks Conservation Association--all say: Do 
not overturn the rule that was implemented. These groups know that 30 
years is too long of a period of time to have to wait to encourage 
public involvement and collaboration, that these issues are too 
important to try to turn back the clock and to try to exclude sportsmen 
and various interests of public access from the planning and use of our 
public lands.
  I hope my colleagues will turn down this override of a very important 
project that has guaranteed public access, transparency, and sunshine 
in planning for our public lands.


                                Medicaid

  Madam President, I would like to come to the floor to discuss the 
proposed Medicaid changes that are part of what the House is proposing 
to the

[[Page 3477]]

Affordable Care Act. This is so important because, as many people know, 
Medicaid has been a bedrock of how individuals get access to healthcare 
in our country. And in many parts of our States--at least the State of 
Washington--Medicaid has been a lifeline in both rural communities and 
in urban areas and we have heard much from various people that it is 
actually helping to stabilize healthcare costs, so costs are not rising 
as fast and giving people access to care in the most serious situations 
where we are trying to fight opioids or are trying to find more 
efficiency in our healthcare system.
  First of all, I think the House bill is literally a war on Medicaid. 
I say that because it is a capitation of healthcare costs.
  The federal government, according to one budget analyst at the Center 
on Budget and Policy Priorities, would shift the cost to the States by 
more than $500 billion over the next 10 years. That would mean that 
millions of people would lose coverage and be affected by this kind of 
repeal.
  Now, many people have talked about how they might block-grant 
Medicaid. I also thought that was a horrible idea because, really, it 
just becomes nothing but a budget mechanism to reduce the Federal 
partnership that exists between the Federal Government and the States 
on Medicaid. But the House chose not to do exactly block-granting. They 
said, instead, that we are just going to have a budget cap at the 
Federal level on how much money they are going to spend on Medicaid and 
then work toward the repeal of Medicaid expansion. This is a very bad 
idea.
  The actual per capita cut--I know my colleagues like to come out here 
and talk about a patient-centered relationship, which is exactly what 
getting off fee-for-service and going to managed care does. But a per 
capita cost is nothing but a budget mechanism to cap the Federal 
responsibility to Medicaid and cut costs and basically shift the pain 
onto the States.
  I have been on various meeting tours in the State of Washington, 
talking to my constituents about this. In Seattle, Spokane, and 
Olympia. I met with hospitals, community clinics, women's health 
groups, local and State government officials, civic leaders, civil 
rights organizations, and I heard many things.
  I basically heard hospitals say there is evidence that Medicaid is 
actually lowering the commercial insurance premiums because of less 
uncompensated care. And I heard a safety net hospital in Spokane tell 
me that the population is already 70 percent Medicaid and Medicare and 
that there is no way they can absorb this kind of a cut to the Medicaid 
program and it would just mean healthcare costs would rise in the 
future. I heard a hospital in Seattle tell me that this kind of attempt 
is nothing but a budget trigger. It is not a reform of the system. It 
is simply a way to cut the budget.
  What we believe is that Medicaid is a key part of our healthcare 
delivery system. The expansion has worked well and we should continue 
to move to ways to innovate Medicaid as a way to save costs.
  Unfortunately, right now, many people misunderstand how important 
Medicaid is in the mental health and addiction area. Basically, when 
you take what we have tried to do to address the opioid epidemic, those 
individuals who are working through the bills that we just recently 
passed to try to help patients in the emergency room or who are in 
psychiatric care or who are trying to deal with this grave problem we 
have in the United States, getting rid of Medicaid for those 
individuals, you might as well roll back all the assistance we just 
provided as part of the CURES and other legislation. Why? Because these 
individuals will not be able to access the type of care they need 
without the support.
  I do believe that what we need to do is innovate instead. There are 
many examples of innovation in our healthcare delivery system. One 
example, as I have mentioned on the floor several times, is going from 
nursing home care to community-based care.
  Medicaid is going to equal long-term care. So many Americans are not 
going to be ready to deal with their long-term healthcare issues, and 
when they are not, they are going to use Medicaid for their long-term 
care.
  We showed in the State of Washington over more than a decade's period 
of time that we could save $2.7 billion by shifting our Medicaid 
population to community-based care instead of nursing home care. If we 
would do that same kind of innovation at the Federal level, we could 
achieve substantial savings instead of saving money by cutting.
  The issue here is that innovation in our delivery system--innovation, 
not a budget cap--is what is going to help us with our healthcare needs 
for the future when it comes to the Medicaid population.
  So I urge my colleagues to speak loudly against this proposal to try 
to cap Medicaid, to try to shift the burden to States and local 
providers, to county governments, to jails, to all of those individuals 
who are going to see that population when and if they don't have 
Medicaid coverage and instead work together on expanding the innovation 
in Medicaid and coming up with savings we need to take care of and to 
provide health insurance coverage to so many Americans.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


            Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about bipartisan 
legislation designed to strengthen our Nation's nuclear energy 
capacity. It is called the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 
Act. I am a strong supporter of American nuclear energy. It is a vital 
component of our ``all of the above'' American energy plan. My home 
State of Wyoming plays a key role in American nuclear energy supply. In 
Wyoming, we produce more uranium than any other State.
  Nuclear energy is clean, safe, reliable, and affordable. It also 
provides a major boost to the economy. American nuclear plants provide 
thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in benefits to local 
communities. U.S. nuclear powerplants have run safely for decades, and 
many of them will serve our country for years and decades to come. But 
after decades of reliable power from our traditional nuclear 
powerplants, these nuclear powerplants are experiencing innovation with 
opportunities that are now taking shape in the nuclear industry. 
Increased private investment is occurring in nuclear energy, and it has 
led to improvements in safety, security, and in cost.
  This is no longer a traditional nuclear industry. There are nuclear 
startups which are being backed by American entrepreneurs. Research and 
work are being done by Bill Gates, of all people. These folks envision 
fundamentally transforming nuclear energy technology. I believe the 
advances are exciting. The biggest challenges these innovators face, 
however, are the costs and delays from regulatory redtape. Many of 
these delays come from trying to navigate a regulatory system that was 
developed around one specific technology, which is water-cooled 
reactors. The traditional water-cooled reactors have powered our Navy 
and our electricity grid and have done it successfully for decades, but 
today's entrepreneurs are pursuing very different designs. They are 
using high-temperature gases, molten salts, and other high-tech 
materials to advance the safety, efficiency, and reliability of nuclear 
energy.
  The nuclear regulatory system needs to be updated to enable this 
innovation. That is why I join with my colleagues in introducing the 
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. Cosponsors include 
Senators Whitehouse, Inhofe, Booker, Fischer, Capito, and Manchin. We 
come together having introduced S. 512. Our bipartisan bill seeks to 
modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by

[[Page 3478]]

providing a flexible regulatory framework for licensing advanced 
nuclear reactors. The NRC needs a modern regulatory framework that is 
predictable and efficient. Reactor operators for both traditional and 
advanced reactors need timely decisionmaking from the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. At the same time, the Commission needs to 
maintain its ability to assess a variety of technologies and meet its 
mission of administering safety and security to the American people. 
Additionally, our legislation will update the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's fee recovery rules.
  This measure is going to bring increased transparency and 
accountability to the NRC, while also improving the Commission's 
efficiency and timeliness.
  This bill will also help to preserve the uranium producers who are 
essential to powering the technology. The Energy Information 
Administration reports that uranium production in 2016 was at its 
lowest level since way back in 2005. It is crucial that we restore our 
American uranium sector and preserve these important jobs.
  Our bipartisan legislation is going to enable the development of 
innovative reactors with bold, new technologies. As a nation, we can 
either lead this technology revolution or we can defer to our 
competitors. China and Russia are already developing advanced 
technologies regardless of what we do here in the United States. 
America needs to be a leader of nuclear development. We need to create 
an environment where entrepreneurs can flourish. This is the way to 
create jobs here at home and revitalize our nuclear energy sector at 
the same time.
  One way to enable innovation for advanced reactors is to provide a 
regulatory framework that is predictable and cost-effective and that 
maintains the NRC's safety and security mission. The bill we haved 
introduced, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, does 
all of this.
  This broadly bipartisan bill will strengthen American energy 
independence and foster innovation and job creation. I thank Senators 
Whitehouse, Inhofe, Booker, Crapo, Fischer, Capito, and Manchin for 
cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its support.
  I yield the floor.
  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. BARRASSO. 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 Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer is a fellow 
westerner, from a State that is impacted by decisions made by our 
public lands management agencies, whether that is the Bureau of Land 
Management or the Forest Service. Both Colorado and Arizona, as well as 
Wyoming and Utah--all of our Western States--are greatly affected by 
decisions that are made in Washington, DC. In a conversation I had with 
the Presiding Officer from Arizona, we discussed the fact that 85 
percent of the State of Arizona is managed by the Federal Government. 
Whether it is the State or a Tribal entity or the Federal Government, 
about 47 percent is being federally managed. In the State of Colorado, 
about half of our State is managed by a public entity. Whether that is 
the State or a Tribal entity or the Forest Service, BLM land, the 
Department of the Interior, roughly half of the State is managed by the 
Federal Government, the State government or others. In other words, it 
is not in private landownership. So that means that the decisions made 
by these public land management agencies have a significantly outsized 
impact on our States than it does on States say east of the 
Mississippi.
  So today I come to the floor to talk about one of those decisions 
made by the Bureau of Land Management's planning 2.0 rule. The 
discussion we are having today is about whether we should approve a 
resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to stop 
the BLM 2.0 rule from going forward.
  The Bureau of Land Management has over 245 million acres of public 
land. Almost all of those acres are west of the Mississippi River, 
predominantly in 12 States. The final BLM 2.0 rule is an example of how 
little Washington bureaucrats understand about the West and how little 
they understand about how the Federal Government and how Federal 
policymaking doesn't work when you try to take something they think of 
in Washington and put it on the people of the West.
  It is the promulgation of this rule that actually led to my call for 
relocating the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management out of 
Washington, DC, and to put it in a place like Grand Junction, CO, 
because I believe it is important that we have public land managers and 
decisions about our public lands being made by those who are directly 
affected by that public land being in their backyard. If you live in 
the State of Colorado or if you are a county commissioner on the 
Western Slope, some of those counties have over 90 percent of their 
county managed by the Federal Government. A decision made by that 
public land agency directly impacts them, not in a couple of weeks or 
months or next year but that very same day. To have somebody from 
Washington, DC, deciding a one-size-fits-all approach that is going to 
apply to a Western Slope county commissioner is just absurd. So moving 
the BLM headquarters to a place like Colorado or Arizona would 
absolutely result in better policies that work on the ground for our 
Governors, landowners, county commissioners, farmers, ranchers, 
cattlemen, energy producers, sportsmen, and recreationalists because 
they would be nearest to the lands that the decisions being made are 
affecting.
  I hope we can move this country away from this ``Washington knows 
best'' mentality. That is why this resolution of disapproval is so 
important, because that is exactly what it would do, which is to remove 
``Washington knows best'' by stopping the BLM planning 2.0 rule.
  As it stands, I don't believe this rule should move forward. I have 
committed to Coloradans, to county commissioners, and to the people of 
my State that I will always have the goal to put more Colorado in 
Washington and less Washington in Colorado. A county commissioner in 
western Colorado, from Dolores, Garfield, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, 
Jackson, Mesa, Moffat, Montezuma, Montrose, or Rio Blanco County should 
have more say in decisions that are impacting their backyard on BLM 
lands than someone sitting behind a desk in New York City. They tell me 
that their ability to have an impact on their backyard lessens as a 
result of the BLM planning 2.0 rule. They believe they actually have 
less say under the new rule than somebody who doesn't live anywhere 
near their land or their State or their county or those BLM lands.
  I believe that Colorado State and local leaders and local users 
should have a strong voice on local land management decisions. It is 
their backyard. Yes, it is public land, but the fact is they are the 
ones trying to make a living, trying to govern, trying to make 
decisions that are best for their constituents, and they should have a 
voice in those decisions.
  I also firmly believe in managing our public lands under the 
multiple-use philosophy, which promotes recreation, grazing, and energy 
development with a balanced approach.
  If the Congressional Review Act's resolution of disapproval on the 
BLM planning 2.0 rule is approved and signed into law, there will still 
be an opportunity to improve management and update policies at the 
Bureau of Land Management.
  I think that is one of the areas of misinformation that we see about 
resolutions of disapproval. There are some who support the BLM planning 
2.0 rule, and there are some who have supported other rules that this 
Chamber has voted to disapprove through the Congressional Review Act. 
Those people who support it sometimes get their facts wrong when they 
say things like: Well, if you repeal this rule, if you approve the 
resolution of disapproval,

[[Page 3479]]

then there is no way that you can actually rule in this area again or 
make a regulation that impacts this area of law again. That is simply 
not true. The truth is, when you use a resolution of disapproval, it 
simply says that we think this is the wrong rule that went forward 
through the executive branch agencies and we ought to use Congress--
those people who understand the needs of their States better than a 
rulemaker in Washington, DC--to go forward with a new piece of 
legislation, a new authorization for a different rule. If we do that, 
then, we are going to have better policies because we have been able to 
account for every voice in the process, instead of leaving voices like 
those county commissioners, whom I talked about, out to dry.
  I have told many recreationalists and sportsmen in Colorado that I am 
working with our Democratic colleagues and Secretary Zinke at the 
Department of the Interior on how we can move forward with the land 
management decisions and land use plans that take into account some of 
their concerns with this resolution of disapproval. There are updates 
and modifications that can be achieved, but they should all have 
stakeholder input. I don't believe that this planning rule 2.0 actually 
took into account all of the different stakeholders' views.
  Working with some landowners cannot be at the expense of others. 
Right now, our cattlemen, farmers, ranchers, and county commissioners 
have severe concerns with BLM planning 2.0, and they feel as though 
they did not have a voice in the development of this rule.
  I believe we can do better as elected officials and that we can give 
these local users' and landowners' interests a stronger voice in moving 
forward and that we can move forward together. So let's approve this 
resolution of disapproval that would claw back the BLM 2.0 rule. Let's 
make sure that local voices are given a place at the table. Let's make 
sure that county commissioners have influence over their area that is 
greater than somebody in New York City who doesn't live there. Let's 
make sure that we can protect the multiple-use philosophy of our public 
lands. Whether it is energy, recreation, or renewable energy, we have 
incredible opportunities on our public lands. But we can do better by 
working with Congress and taking into account every voice and making 
sure that we have a rule that is broadly supported instead of narrowly 
supported.
  That is why I intend to support the Congressional Review Act 
resolution of disapproval today, and I hope that my colleagues will do 
the same, as we truly find a bipartisan solution to give the people of 
our States a greater say over policies that affect their own backyard.
  Mr. President, thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cruz). The Senator from Washington.


                               TrumpCare

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to take a few minutes 
to address the deeply harmful bill House Republicans announced 
yesterday to be put in place, TrumpCare. Since the election, I have had 
constituent after constituent come up to me with tears in their eyes 
wondering what the future holds for their healthcare. They are worried 
about losing coverage, wondering how they are going to make ends meet 
if their premiums spike, and they are worried that without protections 
laid out in the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies will once 
again have more power to decide what kinds of care are and are not 
covered.
  My constituents and people across the country were listening when 
President Trump said he would provide ``insurance for everybody'' that 
would be higher quality and lower cost. They heard Senate Republicans 
say it is important any new healthcare plan ``do no harm.'' They even 
saw House Republicans reassure them that they wouldn't ``pull the rug 
out'' from under anyone on ObamaCare.
  This legislation that has now been rolled out represents a broken 
promise to patients and families. It will leave them sicker, more 
vulnerable to the chaos Republicans are creating within our healthcare 
system, and less financially secure. Millions of people who only just 
gained Medicaid coverage will lose it. Premiums could increase as much 
as 30 percent for people who lose coverage because they are too sick to 
work or become unemployed. People struggling with mental illness and 
substance abuse disorders, including opioid addiction, which is 
ravaging States nationwide, may find their insurance no longer has to 
cover the treatment they need. Key public health programs that families 
across the country rely on would be slashed.
  TrumpCare would be a disaster for our workers and our families, but 
let's be clear about whom it does work for: those at the top. TrumpCare 
not only harms the same workers and families Republicans promised to 
help, it does so in order to reduce the tax burden for the wealthiest 
and for the insurance companies. In fact, this bill even includes a 
payout for insurance company executives. This is the definition of 
taking our healthcare system backward.
  I also want to make it clear what TrumpCare will mean specifically 
for women. As someone who has fought time after time to protect women's 
ability to make their own healthcare decisions, I can tell you, this 
bill is a wish list by and for the extreme politicians who insist on 
telling women what to do with their own bodies. It will defund Planned 
Parenthood. It will undermine key protections for women's healthcare 
that were included in the Affordable Care Act. By slashing Medicaid, 
this bill will take coverage away from low-income women and women of 
color who disproportionately rely on Medicaid to get the care they 
need.
  I cannot oppose this bill more strongly, and I am going to be doing 
everything I can to fight back against it. I know Senate Democrats are 
ready to do so as well, and I urge any Republican who is truly 
concerned about their constituent's health, their well-being, and their 
financial security, rather than just partisan politics, to do the right 
thing and join us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                   Repealing and Replacing ObamaCare

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the House of Representatives 
released a way forward to dismantle and replace ObamaCare, which will 
be to deliver on one of our biggest campaign promises made to the 
American people, not just in 2016 but in essentially every election 
since 2010.
  We know ObamaCare has been an unmitigated disaster. Premiums on the 
ObamaCare exchanges are up by 25 percent. Millions of Americans have 
been kicked off their healthcare plans, and the economy has been 
saddled with billions of dollars in new regulations.
  The fact is, ObamaCare has been one broken promise after another. 
President Obama and advocates of this law said if you wanted to keep 
your plan, you could keep it, but that didn't pan out. They said if you 
liked your doctor, you didn't have to find another one. That didn't 
turn out to be true either. They promised people across the country 
would have more coverage, more options, and better healthcare, all at a 
more affordable price. Well, that ended up not being true either.
  The truth is, ObamaCare hasn't made healthcare more affordable for a 
lot of Americans. In fact, in Texas, if you have a gross income of 
$24,000, you can end up spending up to 30 percent of your gross income 
just on healthcare costs. That is not affordable healthcare. That is 
unaffordable healthcare.
  Clearly, ObamaCare is no gold standard. It is a failed piece of 
legislation, one that is full of empty promises and one we have to 
scrap and start over again. Now we have an opportunity to do better for 
the people we represent, who are counting on us to deliver, to repeal 
ObamaCare and replace it with options that work.
  I believe the plan released last night is a major step in the right 
direction. Patients need better tools like health savings accounts. 
That way they have more control over their healthcare decisions, and we 
can keep the bureaucracy out of it. We need to break down the barriers 
that restrict choice and keep Americans choosing an insurance

[[Page 3480]]

plan that works for them and their families, and we need to empower 
employers, particularly small business owners, to provide their 
employees with the kind of affordable coverage that meets their needs.
  To sum it up, we need to move healthcare decisions out of Washington 
and send them back to the States and back to patients and families and 
their doctors. That will only happen once we repeal ObamaCare and 
replace it with options that work for more affordable healthcare 
coverage that patients choose, not that the government mandates and 
punishes you if you don't buy it but freedom of choice at a better cost 
and meeting the needs of individual patients.
  I am glad our colleagues in the House and our friends in the White 
House fully understand why this is such a priority and why we need to 
keep the promise we made. As soon as we can do that and deliver on that 
major promise to the American people--the sooner we do that, a whole 
lot of American families across the country will feel relief.


                              Nominations

  Mr. President, this morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee 
considered the nominations of Rod Rosenstein and Rachel Brand as Deputy 
Attorney General and Associate Attorney General, respectively. Both of 
them are longtime, well-respected public servants. Mr. Rosenstein has 
spent his career serving the Justice Department and Presidents of both 
political parties. In fact, Mr. Rosenstein started in the George H.W. 
Bush Justice Department back in 1990, and he served every President 
since that time. He is a career public servant who has served in a 
bipartisan manner and has also been confirmed by the Senate. President 
Bush appointed him to be U.S. attorney and so did President Obama.
  When the Obama administration needed a prosecutor of the utmost 
integrity to investigate national security leaks that looked highly 
political, they turned--you guessed it--to Rod Rosenstein. Put another 
way, if Rod Rosenstein is not an acceptable nominee, who is?
  This morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee, I heard some of our 
colleagues suggest that Mr. Rosenstein needed to make a pledge to 
appoint a special counsel if he was confirmed as Deputy Attorney 
General. We had two of our Maryland colleagues extoll his credentials, 
and rightly so, and call him a person of the utmost integrity and 
professionalism. Yet they, in essence, wanted him to fire himself once 
he became Deputy Attorney General and appoint a special counsel to do 
the job he would be confirmed and nominated to do. He wisely declined 
to make that judgment, certainly before he has had access to the facts 
and the information needed.
  I believe he will make a formidable Deputy Attorney General, but 
instead of actually vetting the candidates on the merits of their 
impressive backgrounds and strong credentials, some used the hearing as 
an opportunity to air their various grievances on the current Attorney 
General, our former colleague Jeff Sessions. Over the weekend, some 
went so far as to threaten to block Mr. Rosenstein's nomination if he 
wouldn't agree to appoint a special counsel.
  I hope my colleagues in this Chamber don't stonewall his nomination 
or use it as a platform to disparage Attorney General Sessions. The 
Attorney General made a decision to recuse himself from a further 
official role in looking into the allegations of Russian involvement in 
our election in 2016. I respect his decision. The fact is, we don't 
need another commission to study Russian involvement in the last 
election because we have a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, 
chaired by Senator Richard Burr and the Vice Chair is Mark Warner--a 
bipartisan Senate Select Committee that is doing a deep dive into the 
allegations, including gaining access to classified information which 
would be important to consider in reaching a conclusion.
  Yesterday I was out at CIA Headquarters and saw four large binders' 
worth of classified material, which obviously I am not going to 
discuss, but it demonstrates that this investigation is already well 
underway. Members of the committee and our staff are already working 
with the intelligence community to get the information we need in order 
to reach an impartial and bipartisan conclusion.
  The fact is, our Democratic friends have a short memory when it comes 
to the Obama Justice Department, one of the most politicalized Justice 
Departments in American history. Loretta Lynch, who privately met with 
President Bill Clinton while her Department was investigating his 
wife's email scandal, never recused herself from the matter.
  Then there was Attorney General Holder. To my knowledge, he was the 
first Attorney General ever held in contempt of Congress because he 
refused to cooperate with our legitimate oversight responsibilities 
when it came to Operation Fast and Furious. Well, he never recused 
himself and never appointed a special counsel, even though I believe he 
should have. Compare Attorney General Sessions, who did what he 
believed was the right thing to do. He recused himself when there was 
even a suggestion he might not be able to be impartial. He made that 
commitment from the beginning, well before he was confirmed. He stood 
by that promise last week. Attorney General Sessions' integrity is 
intact, and he did the right thing, but Loretta Lynch didn't. Eric 
Holder didn't.
  For our colleagues now to suggest that Attorney General Sessions not 
only should recuse himself but he should resign is beyond outrageous. 
To suggest that the incoming Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, 
should somehow abdicate the role he has been nominated for, and to 
which he will be confirmed, is to ask him to prejudge the case before 
he has even had a chance to look at the evidence.
  All I am asking for is our colleagues to have a little perspective. 
These nominees are the right caliber of people with the exact expertise 
we need to make sure our Justice Department runs effectively and 
impartially follows the law of the land. These are the types of leaders 
you want to handle the big issues facing the Department of Justice.
  I hope soon our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will turn 
their attention to doing what the American people sent them to do; that 
is, to consider legislation rather than dragging their feet and 
blocking the Trump administration from getting the team he has chosen 
to work with in various Cabinet positions and sub-Cabinet positions.
  Hopefully, soon they will decide not to obstruct progress and grind 
this Chamber's business to a halt but rather will be partners with us, 
working together to try to build consensus where we can and move the 
country forward.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. 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 Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, the Bureau of Land Management has a 
mission set by Congress; that is, to manage the Nation's public lands 
under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield, which means 
that public land should be open to everything, from hunting and grazing 
to energy development and other reasonable uses.
  The BLM currently manages more than 246 million acres of land and 700 
million acres of Federal and non-Federal subsurface estate. Much of 
these lands are in the West, where Federal acres coexist with private 
and State-owned land. In order to manage its resources effectively, BLM 
is required to provide resource management plans. This planning has 
typically been led by BLM's field offices, in coordination with State, 
local, and Tribal governments that provide local input on how best to 
manage the land and its unique

[[Page 3481]]

resources. However, in the final months of the last administration, the 
BLM sought to apply a top-down approach, essentially a one-size-fits-
all, top-down approach to this resource management process. They termed 
it the planning 2.0 final rule.
  The rule which was finalized in December changed how this planning is 
done and undermined the well-established process by limiting the 
ability of local input, public comment, and meaningful State 
consultation.
  The final rule also pulled decision-making away from the regional BLM 
field offices and centralized it at BLM's headquarters in Washington, 
under the concept of ``landscape-level planning,'' which lets 
Washington define new areas covering multiple States. The rule takes 
important decision-making away from local officials who know the land 
and understand the needs of their communities.
  The BLM rule sought to ignore the multiple-use requirements 
established by Congress and diminishes the importance of energy 
development. The rule tilts the balance in favor of conservation and 
non-development and away from responsible energy development, as well 
as other uses, like grazing.
  In a State like North Dakota, with a distinctive patchwork of 
underground Federal minerals and private or State surface ownership, 
this creates more uncertainty for energy producers and more difficulty 
for our ranchers. By repealing this rule, we are preserving our 
longstanding tradition of allowing multiple uses on Federal lands, 
while protecting the livelihoods of our ranchers, energy producers, and 
many others. That is why this resolution is supported by the North 
Dakota Stockmen's Association, along with the National Association of 
Counties, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 
the Farm Bureau, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Public 
Lands Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, just to name a few.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the CRA on the BLM planning 
2.0 rule. I thank Chairman Murkowski, the chairman of our Energy 
Committee, for her leadership on this important issue.
  The House passed this CRA on February 7 in a bipartisan manner. I am 
hopeful the Senate will do so as well and send this bill to the 
President's desk this week.
  Today's CRA ensures that State, local, and Tribal input and expertise 
should guide the management of our public lands. Let's stop the BLM's 
planning 2.0 rule and give the people who live and work in these 
communities a say on what happens in their hometowns. We can do that by 
voting for this CRA. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, the people spoke loudly last fall. For too 
long, the Obama administration ignored the common sense of those who 
managed the lands and our natural resources. Now is the time for that 
power to be put back into the hands of the folks who know it best; that 
is, the people of Montana, not Washington, DC. And the Bureau of Land 
Management's Planning 2.0 rule is no different.
  The resolution we are debating today, H.J. Res. 44, would block the 
implementation of a rule that would fundamentally change the land 
planning process at the BLM. It would be for the worst.
  During the Obama administration's final days in office, they put 
through many midnight rules costing a total of $157 billion, including 
this rule shift which was issued on December 12, 2016, which 
fundamentally changes the land planning process. The rule shifts the 
planning and decisionmaking away from those who know the land best, 
away from BLM regional field offices, and back to BLM Headquarters in 
Washington, DC. That is the exact opposite direction that land 
management should be going, and that is why this rule must go also.
  This rule limits the voice of our local and State governments, and it 
strengthens the voice of folks who are living far away from the lands 
that are impacted.
  Montana farmers, Montana ranchers, Montana miners, the Montana 
electric co-ops, Montana conservation districts, and Montana county 
commissioners have all expressed a concern for this rule and have urged 
congressional action. And there can't be a more commonsense list of 
Montanans than that list I just mentioned. In fact, even the western 
Governors are concerned. As recently as February 10, 2017, our own 
Governor of Montana, Steve Bullock, and Governor Daugaard from South 
Dakota urged Congress to direct BLM to reexamine the rule. ``Governors 
are concerned that BLM's emphasis on landscape-scale planning may lead 
to a resulting emphasis on national objectives over state and local 
objectives.'' ``Collectively, these changes severely limit the 
deference Governors were previously afforded with respect to RMP 
development.'' That is what our Governors are saying. I am quoting our 
Governors from the West.
  There needs to be more balance in Federal land management. For the 
last 8 years, we have been out of balance. Oil and natural gas 
development on Federal lands dropped significantly under President 
Obama. In fact, for natural gas, we have seen an 18-percent decrease, 
while oil production on private and State lands doubled, versus the 
same on Federal land.
  Montana has nearly 2 million acres of public land that are 
inaccessible to the public. Our farmers and ranchers in Montana need a 
more balanced partnership with the Federal land managers. They deserve 
more input in the development of land management policies, not less. By 
the way, our Federal forests in Montana are in dire need of more active 
management.
  So where do we go next? There is no disagreement that revisions need 
to be made. Let's take this rule back to the drawing board and do it 
right. Let's work with our new Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior, Ryan Zinke, a Montanan, and President Trump to restore more 
western commonsense to land management.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 44.

                          ____________________