Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Land Management Relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, more coal, more coal. That is their answer again, for the third time. Their answer, apparently, to every question is more coal. Frustrated with energy costs going up across the board, State to State, community to community, more coal is their answer. Health insurance costs going up, grocery prices going up, and the economy in free fall? More coal.

I don't know what piece of legislation we are going to be debating tomorrow, but I suspect it will involve coal production.

It is bordering on obsession for the House Republican Conference, and it would be comical if not for the real-world consequences for my constituents and your constituents, Mr. Speaker, and for Americans across the country who are dealing with the real cost-of-living crisis and who expect more from this Congress than yet another disapproval resolution 10 months into the Trump Presidency, laser focused on passing resolutions of disapproval of agency actions by the Biden administration--real sense of priorities. It is disappointing, Mr. Speaker, deeply disappointing.

If one digs into this particular resource management plan, I think you will find that using this blunt instrument, as I have called it during our prior debate, in this instance is probably the most insidious of all.

There are a couple of reasons why. One, the resource management plan that was adopted replaced a plan that was nearly 40 years old. This resource management plan provided a modern framework that balances responsible energy and mineral development with the protection of wildlife habitat, water resources, cultural sites, and recreational opportunities. It provides a stable and predictable framework to guide and balance the multiple uses of our public lands and resources based on the needs of today and into the future.

It is important to recognize that even if one disagrees with the way in which this resource management plan balances public land uses--and I understand there are good faith disagreements with the resource management plan. The chairman mentioned our mutual good friend, my dear friend, Kelly Armstrong, now the Governor of North Dakota. I recognize we may disagree with the nuances of the resource management plan, but, again, the broader point here is that the CRA is not the proper vehicle for registering one's objection to a resource management plan.

Why is that? It is because using the CRA does not return the resource management plan to the status quo.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act outlines the proper process for updating a resource management plan. That is a process that centers on the voices and needs of local land users, while preserving regulatory certainty.

By contrast, the CRA strips the public out of the process, and it throws public lands into chaos. What do I mean by that, Mr. Speaker? Here is what I mean. If Congress passes this resolution, if the President signs this resolution into law, it will call into question all the leases, all the permits, and any other related authorizations that stem from the resource management plan. Grazing permits, resource development projects, transmission rights-of-way, all of those leases and permits, and so on, will be tied up in litigation if this resolution is passed.

It makes no sense to me why my colleagues have chosen to take this approach and endanger grazing permits in North Dakota when there is a much easier way to do this.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Interior is the former Governor of North Dakota. It is true that he could simply change this. He could, through administrative fiat, modify the resource management plan for the State for which he served as the chief executive. He could do that now, and it would not call into question any of the permits or leases.

Instead, House Republicans have taken this approach, and I don't think it is going to achieve the stated objective of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--far from it.

Again, I hope my colleagues might reconsider. I don't have the Secretary of the Interior's phone number, but I suspect my colleagues do. They can call him. I am sure they can get this worked out, and we can save you, Mr. Speaker, and the few Americans watching on C-SPAN from this stale debate over yet another resolution of disapproval.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague from North Dakota disagrees with the resource management plan. As I said, there are good faith reasons my colleagues have in opposition to the resource management plan.

There is a way to register that opposition. Change the plan. Modify it. Amend it. Edit it. Call the former Governor of North Dakota. Chairman Westerman noted he objected to this plan when he was Governor. Give him a call. He is now the Secretary of the Interior. Ask him to modify this plan. That would be the way for one to register their objections.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen a very different approach. Again, I am just leveling with my colleagues. They are putting at great risk grazing permits and leases that have been issued pursuant to that resource management plan.

This story is not going to end with the President's signature on the CRA. Litigation will immediately follow. It is unclear to me why House Republicans would prefer that outcome, unless, of course, they are bereft of substantive ideas and an affirmative vision for solving the cost-of-living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing that they have made the decision that it is better to spend their time on disapproval of Biden administration-era rules.

That is the only conclusion I am left with. Dexter).

Mr. Speaker, unless I can convince the chairman to have a final colloquy, I suppose I will conclude as well.

Mr. Speaker, using the CRA to overturn land use plans, as I have said previously, does take us into uncharted territory. It is not, as some have suggested, a way to return us to the way that we used to manage public lands in North Dakota or elsewhere.

The resolution pulls the rug out from under all public land users. It calls into question the validity of grazing rights, permits, transmission rights-of-way, and other permits and authorizations that are premised on the land use plan being nullified.

It disregards the Tribes, local land users, communities, and businesses who provided input over years to craft a modern plan to guide land and resource management for these respective States.

Instead, it puts the courts in charge of deciding the day-to-day management of lands and minerals in North Dakota and beyond. Mr. Speaker, even if one disagrees with the resource management plan for North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska, the way to change it is through an administrative review and a public process and not through a blunt and inflexible tool like the CRA.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to keep local voices and land managers in the driver's seat by voting ``no'' on this CRA resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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