Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title United States Code, of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Land Management Relating to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, there is a national monument in New Mexico that is extremely important to me and our community. It is called the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. It has rocky spires that jut into the sky and preside over bustling communities in southern New Mexico.

It is also home to nearly 250 archaeological sites, including some of the earliest Native American heritage sites in North America, and places like Shelter Cave, Conkling Cavern, and Aden Lava Flow Wilderness.

This January, the Bureau of Land Management issued its most recent monument management plan for Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks. It sets out in this plan how the land will be used over the coming decades, and it came after years--years--of engagement with public land users. From comment periods to public meetings to feedback sessions, input from public land users is the heart of how we administer our public lands across the country. In the end, land use plans like this one take time and are the result of hundreds, even thousands, of people's work--work that deserves respect.

And that is why I am here. Beginning this week, the Senate is voting on three resolutions of disapproval on resource management plans prepared by the Bureau of Land Management.

Now, resource management plans are a pretty simple idea. Every decade or two, public land managers look at a region as a whole and figure out how to balance all the competing different uses of public land across that landscape. They figure out where recreation should be prioritized and where prime game habitats should be protected. They figure out what lands should be available for uses like grazing or oil and gas production. They identify important cultural sites and historic resources that deserve our protection. They also determine which land use requirements can be eased for things like pipelines or transmission lines. They do all of this with the input of local communities, recreation businesses, public land users, Tribal governments, energy developers, and more.

But I am here now because Republicans want to rescind these land use plans through the Congressional Review Act. By doing that, they brush away all of the local voices and community input that went into making these plans.

Imagine telling Tribal communities that their opinion no longer matters on their ancestral lands, telling hunters that their opinion no longer matters on the lands they use to fill their families' freezers, telling hikers that their opinion no longer matters on the routes that they know like the back of their hand, telling local communities that the way their land is used is no longer of importance--telling all of us that our voices do not matter when it comes to the very lands that are our American birthright.

And here is the thing: They are doing it across the board--on every resource management plan since 1996--without even admitting it. So let me walk you through what they are hoping that you won't notice.

First, it is important to understand that resource management plans affect nearly every use on public land, from bird watching to coal mining. These plans get a whole rewrite every few decades, but, in between, smaller amendments are made to address specific places and specific uses that need to be updated. These amendments have been the normal way for new administrations to change plans that they have disagreed with, until today.

Now, instead of using the usual amendment process, which involves all of those same stakeholders, Congress is voting to outright overturn and repeal these plans. Until today, Congress had never ever used a congressional resolution of disapproval to change or overturn a land use plan. That is because no administration has ever considered these land use plans to be ``rules'' under Federal statute. Let me say that again. No administration--none--since the Congressional Review Act was passed in 1996 has ever treated land use plans as rules.

So here is what that means legally: No land use plan has been submitted to Congress, a legal requirement for rules. It has never happened. Because the Congressional Review Act prohibits rules from going into effect until 60 days after they are submitted to Congress-- and no administration has ever submitted one--then every land use plan after 1996 never legally went into effect. And if they never went into effect, then all of the leases and permits and rights-of-way that flow from those plans may not be legally valid. That means that every grazing permit, every energy right-of-way, recreation permit, outfitter guide permit, timber sale, and even oil and gas leases issued under a plan finalized after 1996 could be litigated--every single one.

That is bad and not just because it is unprecedented but because the actual impacts on real Americans could be devastating.

For the country, it means potential chaos and uncertainty about what areas are protected on public lands. One of the resolutions under consideration this week is for a land use plan in Alaska. A vote for that resolution would mean that the Ambler industrial corridor will be built. This is a 211-mile, private access road that would destroy some of Alaska's wildest habitat and waterways to produce minerals--all for a foreign company.

As someone from American Hunters and Anglers said, in using slightly more colorful language that I will leave out, this move obliterates ``years of public input from hunters and anglers,'' and uses taxpayer dollars to prop up--I will say it again--a foreign-owned mining company.

The headline describing this road in ``Outdoor Life'' magazine reads:

The Ambler Road Project Would Jeopardize One of the Last Great Wilderness Hunts in America.

Now, I have been fortunate enough to hunt caribou in Alaska, and I have to say I doubt that my grandchildren will ever have that opportunity.

What is even more concerning to me is the impact the Ambler industrial corridor will have on subsistence hunting and fishing. This private industrial mining corridor will carve its way, in addition, through Gates of the Arctic National Park. You heard me right. We are sacrificing one of our most spectacular national parks to enrich a foreign mining company.

I have to think that Teddy Roosevelt is rolling over in his grave.

The damage will be irreparable to the landscape, to our American birthright in these public lands, and to one of the largest caribou herds in Alaska and the communities that depend on that herd.

Imagine sweeping away years and years of input and conversations not just about the public lands on one landscape but about public lands across this country, all because you--what?--found a quicker, easier way, one where you didn't have to listen to anyone? one where some Senators in Washington, DC, get to override and replace the opinions of every single American who contributed to those plans? That is nuts.

Even if you don't care about how land is used by hunters or hikers or Tribes or cattle growers or energy producers--if all you care about is how our lands are used to produce fossil fuels--then look no further than my State. Look at the Bureau of Land Management leases that have been issued in the Permian Basin. Know that, when you vote for these resolutions, when you turn these resource management plans into so- called rules, you call into question those leases--all of them. Know that what you are choosing may be easier, but it is wrong, and it is destabilizing.

I would urge my colleagues to vote no on all of these resolutions of disapproval.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source