Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Land Management Relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''

Floor Speech

As promised, we are back debating another Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. This time, as was referenced, it is in regard to the resource management plan for the central Yukon in the heart of Alaska, governing over 13 million acres of public land in central and northern Alaska, some of the most culturally significant landscapes in the United States.

This region includes the central Yukon River watershed and the Dalton Highway corridor, areas that are vital to both biodiversity and community survival. These lands are also interconnected with the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They are home to caribou, salmon, and sheep species that Alaska Native and rural communities depend on for food and cultural traditions.

The existing RMP sets strong protections in response to declining populations of these important species. It created 3.6 million acres of areas of critical environmental concern.

I will also mention here that the one voice we haven't heard from on the House floor is from the Tribal communities impacted by both the resource management plan and this particular resolution to reverse the resource management plan. These lands promote community health, support sustenance, and sustain the wild food economies that numerous Alaska Native communities rely on.

The current resource management plan is the result of over a decade, 10 years, of work between the Tribes in the central Yukon as well as the Bureau of Land Management and other stakeholders. Six Tribes worked as cooperating agencies in the development of this plan.

I know I have belabored this, Mr. Speaker, but it merits mentioning again. Rather than simply amending the resource management plan, doing the hard work required in the agency to perform the consultations necessary to then change the RMP, if folks have concerns, good faith concerns about the contours of that resource management plan, that is the way to do it.

Instead, my colleagues have chosen to use the Congressional Review Act, a very blunt instrument. Using the CRA, unlike pursuing an administrative update, would lock out--lock out--Tribal engagement in BLM's existing processes.

Using the CRA to overturn an RMP would also ban the agency not from issuing this resource management plan but from issuing any resource management plan like it. That is reckless.

I understand that my colleagues have a disagreement with respect to the contours of this resource management plan. My colleagues should work through the Department of the Interior to change it. That is the way that it should be done.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot on the line with respect to the fate of this particular CRA resolution before us. I mentioned before that we are in uncharted territory because the House has not pursued this type of vehicle to overturn resource management plans in the past. It is unprecedented.

It is important for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize the gravity of taking this step. It is one that I would hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the resolution for those reasons, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman read from a letter there. I will read from a letter that I think the Speaker might find interesting. This is a letter from the Tanana Chiefs Conference in opposition to this resolution.

Who is this conference made up of, you might ask, Mr. Speaker? It is made up of 37 federally recognized Tribes and villages across the Yukon River Basin. These Tribes served as cooperating agencies in the RMP development process working to ensure protection for critical salmon habitat and other interests, and they endorsed the RMP after extensive consultation. They oppose this resolution, among many others.

Mr. Speaker, I do say that it is important to recognize what this resolution, which I think the chairman, if I am not misquoting him, called a hammer, will do.

My view is very simple. This hammer that Republicans have proposed risks precluding these agencies from engaging in any type of rulemaking or resource management planning that is substantially similar to the resource management plan before us. I will give a simple example of what that looks like in practice.

This Central Yukon Resource Management Plan opens up 11 million acres to selection by eligible Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans under the Dingell Act.

For those who are watching, the resource management plan allows and enables Alaska natives who served our country so bravely during the Vietnam war to access upwards of 11 million acres of lands at issue.

Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. By passing this resolution of disapproval, this CRA vehicle, it is not simply eliminating that provision, along with all the other provisions in the resource management plan, it is potentially risking the ability of a future administration, including this one, from issuing any resource management plan that provides a similar benefit.

What happens when a court 2 years from now, 3 years from now, or 5 years from now rules that the Republican resolution that you all are poised to pass today precludes the BLM from giving any access to native Vietnam-era veterans in accessing this land?

When we call this a blunt instrument, that is what we are referencing. I understand that my colleagues disagree with a variety of different components of the resource management plan. They are fortunate that the Secretary of the Interior happens to be a former Republican Governor of North Dakota, and I imagine if they call him that he will pursue a reopening of this resource management plan. However, taking this step, foreclosing the ability of those Alaska natives who are Vietnam-era veterans from being able to access these lands and precluding that kind of benefit into perpetuity by virtue of using the CRA is reckless. There is no other word to describe it.

I would hope my colleagues would, again, reconsider and follow the process of regular order. That is the way to pursue the changes that they seek.

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the predictions business, but I can confidently predict--and it is why one of the reasons this exchange is so important--that this particular exchange will appear in litigation 2 years from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now, or 10 years from now.

This is untested. The Congressional Review Act has never been used before to repeal a resource management plan, so we don't know how a Federal court is going to construe this Congress' decision to en masse disapprove of a resource management plan that did provide for the allotment for Alaska natives who are Vietnam-era veterans to access these lands.

I understand the chairman is making the case here on the floor. He made it during the debate on the Rules Committee. I remember this back in July. He maintains that this congressional resolution of approval is just limited to the energy portions of the resource management plan. That is not what the resolution says.

The resolution of disapproval disapproves of the resource management plan in its entirety. I understand that the statutory provisions that provide Alaska natives with the ability, those who are Vietnam-era veterans to access these lands, remains codified. That is not up for debate.

The problem is that Republicans have decided to disapprove, to use this blunt instrument of this particular allotment, or rather access that the prior administration as was noted, included in this resource management plan. We have no idea how a Federal court is going to construe the actions of the Congress as it relates to the different component pieces in the resource management plan if and when a future administration, including this one, decides to take that step.

It is one of the reasons why a Congressional Review Act or rather, the Congressional Review Act has not been deployed in this way previously because it is risky.

My colleague from Alaska seemed very upset. I don't disagree. I share his frustration. I support, by the way, the legislation that he mentioned. The legislation he was referencing is not the bill that is before this Congress. I don't quite understand the impetus behind extending the time as he noted to 5 years while you are simultaneously passing a resolution disapproving of a resource management plan that provided the very access to these lands that you purport to want, but that is for him to explain.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Again, not to belabor the point here, but I do think that last exchange was instructive and revealing.

I remember very well the debate that this House engaged in a mere 3 months ago, 2\1/2\ months ago, regarding the budget bill and the terrible cuts to Medicaid that this Chamber, Republicans, passed, and that the President signed into law. I remember after that legislation was signed into law, several of my Republican colleagues, including one Republican Senator in particular, bemoaning the Medicaid cuts that he had just voted for.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with Mark Twain's old adage that history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. It does feel a little bit like deja vu because in the case of these CRAs, I have no doubt that several of my colleagues, including several of my colleagues who are championing these resolutions, will find that down the road they will regret being so vociferous in their support for the resolutions of disapproval of these resource management plans when a Federal court decides that the agencies, the BLM, the Department of the Interior writ large can't protect or, rather, enact protections in the way that it had in the past because Republicans decided to use this blunt instrument.

I think we are going on hour number two here. I believe we have another hour of debate on another resolution of disapproval that will be coming up next. For all the reasons I have articulated, I would hope my colleagues will oppose this.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source