Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Land Management Relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN.

I oppose S.J. Res. 80, which would overturn the BLM's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision for the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, more commonly referred to as ``NPR-A.''

Now the name National Petroleum Reserve is more than a little misleading. This is not some industrial sacrifice zone. It is not some untapped oil field just waiting to be developed. On the contrary, the NPR-A is the largest contiguous unit of public lands in the United States. It spans 23 million acres, and this area of the western Arctic is home to a diverse ecosystem, where iconic species like wolves, polar bears, and caribou roam. Beluga and bowhead whales shelter in its coastal waters. Millions of migratory birds rely on this intact landscape and the critical waters and wetlands that are the NPR-A.

The legislation before us today would withdraw a smart and well- thought-out plan to balance conservation and development in the NPR-A. The 2022 NPR-A plan was developed over more than a decade of engagement with a variety of stakeholders: scientists, experts, indigenous communities, NGOs, and industry.

It aimed to limit the disruption and ecological harm from existing oil and gas development while also designating special areas to protect habitat for the many species that call this amazing place home.

I respect that there are a variety of views on how to manage our Nation's public lands, but it won't be possible for future administrations to incorporate feedback and comments on proposed actions in the NPR-A if Congress approves the resolution before us today.

The CRA, as we have said several times in the course of this debate, is a blunt instrument. It would prevent BLM from ever issuing a substantially similar replacement, and so this path would strip local land managers of the ability to respond to on-the-ground changes and needs for the future of the NPR-A.

My friends across the aisle don't need to do this. There are already processes in place for administrations to propose new management decisions if they don't like this plan. The Trump administration is doing just that already: pursuing updates to the land management plans that we have been debating here using the standard, inclusive mechanisms that allow for public input.

Interior Secretary Burgum withdrew conservation protections for the NPR-A in July. Just last week, the Interior Department finalized a new rule that overturned the previous plan.

The Congressional Review Act is simply the wrong tool to address any changes to management of these lands, and it is not even necessary.

Why do my Republican colleagues need to take up our valuable floor time here debating a rule that their friends in the administration have already rescinded? They just returned from a 53-day, taxpayer-funded vacation, canceled 5 weeks of votes, and still have a long to-do list before the end of the year. That list, I hope, includes figuring out how to avoid another government shutdown in January.

You may wonder if my colleagues are spending time on polluter giveaways to maybe distract from something; maybe something like the fact that President Trump has been mentioned more than 1,000 times in the Epstein emails.

President Trump and House Republicans continue to push their drill, baby, drill agenda even though it makes no sense for people, for the planet, or for our pocketbooks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this distraction, this S.J. Res.

Mr. Speaker, again, the plan that this resolution targets for disapproval is not in place. It has been rescinded by the Trump administration. If ever there is a case for a misapplication of the CRA, it would be this right here.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is an important time for us to step back and consider why using a CRA for any, frankly, public land management plan, but certainly for one that has already been rescinded, is just a recipe for uncertainty and conflict and litigation.

Nearly a third of our Nation's land mass, 640 million acres, is managed by the Federal Government. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres. BLM manages 244 million in addition to 713 million acres of Federal minerals.

For nearly 50 years, BLM and the Forest Service have managed these lands under management plans required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act. These plans, known as resource management plans, or RMPs, establish safeguards for watersheds and recreation areas. They facilitate energy development and grazing and logging and other commercial activities and provide a mechanism for harmonizing the needs of local communities with our national goals and perspectives.

Now, just a few months ago, we debated some other CRA resolutions targeting management plans, and we explained at that time how unprecedented that was. We still don't know the extent of chaos that is going to result from these actions that have already been taken, but we do know this: Under the CRA rules and ``rules'' is a technical term of art here, normally cannot go into effect unless they are submitted for congressional review.

Here is the problem, BLM and the Forest Service have never considered RMPs to be rules that they would submit to Congress. They have just never done that, and that has long been the case under both Democratic and Republican Presidents with precedence being set by those Presidents.

Now that Congress has decided apparently to disapprove of individual RMPs, what does that mean for every other plan that is in place that wasn't submitted to Congress? What does that mean for the small businesses, the local communities, and other public land stakeholders who depend on a stable and predictable land use planning process? If the validity of these land use plans is challenged, then leases, permits, and other authorizations that depend on those plans could be called into question.

This is already creating uncertainty and delays, making it nearly impossible for new projects to proceed on time.

Here are a couple of examples for consideration. What would happen to the White River oil and gas resource management plan in Colorado, which authorizes 15,000 oil and gas wells? What about the Rosemont Copper plan amendment for Forest Service lands in Arizona, approving a 5,000- acre open pit mine in the Coronado National Forest? What about the TransWest Express and Gateway South RMP amendments for three transmission lines through Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah?

Does Interior now need to go back and submit all of those RMP amendments to Congress for approval under this new Republican interpretation of the CRA? Is Congress prepared to take on day-to-day management of public lands and minerals, thousands of miles from Washington, D.C.?

I don't think so, but I am not the only one who has concerns about this treadmill of litigation and conflict and uncertainty that is being created here.

Let me read a quote from Kathleen Sgamma, President Trump's first nominee for director of BLM. She said: ``There are some additional legal risks that can arise from the CRA. It's uncharted ground, and if not used wisely, there could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent.''

Just a few months ago, the House passed several other CRA resolutions, overturning land management plans. As we said at the time, that was unprecedented. These resolutions before us continue to chart unprecedented ground, and I don't think anyone, including my colleagues across the aisle, have thought a heck of a lot about where it leads.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that we have heard a number of times now that more drilling is necessary in the name of energy independence. I want to remind my colleagues that the United States is already the number one producer of oil in the world and the number one producer and exporter of gas in the world, but you would sure never know it when you look at the energy bills that are facing families all over this country.

It is abundantly clear that the drill, baby, drill agenda is not working for everyday Americans. As long as we are dependent on the fossil fuel roller coaster, American consumers will be at the whim of the global oil and gas market, but if we want energy independence and if we want lower utility bills, we need to get back on track with the transition to clean energy.

It is cheaper. It is safer. It is generated entirely here at home instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas just inherently are. Instead, this legislation would make us more reliant on fossil fuels and more entangled with the price effects of this fossil fuel roller coaster. Plus, oil from America's Arctic will not come online for many, many years.

The Willow project, for example, won't start until 2029. Meanwhile, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. Even at the Willow project, developer ConocoPhillips will use artificial chillers to freeze melting permafrost before drilling for oil. That is the kind of complexity and additional cost that is inherent in drilling in these remote pristine parts of the Arctic.

The project itself will release nearly 300 million metric tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere over its lifetime, the equivalent of at least 66 coal-fired power plants.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if we want true energy independence and security, we need to combat the climate crisis and transition to clean, renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly oppose this resolution.

The three Congressional Review Act resolutions that we have been considering here today are going to strip local land managers of the ability to respond to future challenges, changes, and needs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the NPR-A, and the Powder River Basin. If these reckless resolutions pass, these places will be locked into outdated plans that fail to account for changes in community needs, industry needs, and, yes, climate-driven impacts.

These CRA resolutions are completely unnecessary because the Trump administration has already acted on their own to replace these plans.

Even oil and gas industry experts across the political spectrum agree that the use of the CRA on land use plans creates regulatory and legal ambiguity. In fact, Kathleen Sgamma, as I just told you, President Trump's former nominee to lead the BLM, recently said--and it is a quote worth repeating--``There could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent'' when using CRAs in this manner. Yet, apparently, my friends across the aisle are just going to do it anyway.

Sgamma led the Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry trade association. She has testified for the House Committee on Natural Resources majority many times.

This misuse of the CRA will create regulatory chaos for everyone, including the industry, so I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why pursue it?

House Republicans are continuing to lock the American people into higher energy costs by pushing their fossil fuel playbook and sabotaging clean, renewable energy.

Our constituents deserve better. They deserve a future with clean and affordable energy, where utility bills aren't skyrocketing and where we know our lands and waters won't suffer as a result.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source