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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, just last month, I stood here on this floor to speak about the dangers of using a congressional resolution of disapproval to change resource management plans for public lands around the country. I described how using congressional resolutions to circumvent public input would upend decades of public land planning practice, how it would put our entire public lands management process at risk.

Since then, Congress has passed three separate congressional resolutions of disapproval to amend resource management plans: one in central and northern Alaska, one in eastern Montana, and one in North Dakota. And now, this week, the Senate will vote on a new resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act--this time for northeastern Wyoming.

While none of those first three have been signed by the President yet, I stand here today, as we prepare to vote on this new congressional resolution of disapproval, to reiterate the message that I shared weeks ago: We cannot and we should not manage our public lands through the Congressional Review Act resolutions.

First, there are very real consequences of reversing decades-old resource management plans, and those consequences could be devastating to communities, to businesses, to jobs, and to our public lands.

Until this year, Congress had never used a congressional resolution of disapproval to change or overturn a land use plan. That is because no administration ever considered land use plans to be ``rules'' under the law.

Let me say that again. No administration, Republican or Democratic, since the Congressional Review Act became law in 1996, has ever treated these land use plans as ``rules.'' Here is what that means: No land use plan has been submitted to Congress, as is required for rules. What does that mean? 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 a land use plan to Congress, ever, then if these plans are rules, every land use plan after 1996 never actually went into effect. If they never went into effect, then all of the leases and the permits and the rights-of-way that were issued under them may not be legally valid, throwing us effectively into chaos on our public lands. We are talking about every grazing permit, every energy right-of-way, recreational permit, timber sale, or, yes, oil and gas lease issued under a plan finalized after 1996. All of them are now open to litigation--every single one.

The actual impacts on real Americans could be devastating. For the country, it means potential chaos and uncertainty about what areas are protected on our public lands. The damage could be irreparable to the landscape, to our American birthright in these public lands, and to the communities that depend on these places to make a living.

Secondly, we know that CRAs cut the public out of land use planning. This vote and all the votes like it sweep away years and years of public input in conversations both about the public lands on a particular landscape and public lands nationally.

To put it bluntly, Senate Republicans found a way to rewrite the rules of the game because they didn't like the outcome, and every vote they take to do it is insulting to the public.

Resource management plans are meant to include communities in the process of deciding how to use our public lands, not exclude them. Does that mean everyone agrees with what is in these plans? No, of course not. I know I don't necessarily agree with every piece of every resource management plan that I have read. But there is a process to address that. It takes work. It takes conversations. It takes advocacy. That process cannot and should not be replaced by one that only involves Senators in Washington, DC, deciding that they know better.

From coming together to decide where to prioritize recreation and where to protect wild game habitat to identifying what lands should be used for grazing or which cultural sites should be protected, resource management plans take time because they incorporate input from the folks who own our public lands--Americans across this country.

When these plans are amended, that takes time too. Resource management plans aren't meant to be one and done; they are meant to evolve over time. Here is how that works when it is done the right way:

First, the public gets a say about what in the plan needs to be updated. Based on those comments, the Bureau of Land Management drafts a plan that includes alternatives. Those alternatives capture the range of public comments, making space for all of the voices that have weighed into the process so far--voices calling for more energy development, voices calling for more conservation, voices identifying important areas for recreation for the benefits of locals and businesses alike.

Once that draft is completed, the public gets another chance to engage. In person and with written comments, the public gets to say what they think the Agency got right and what should be considered moving forward.

Based on that, BLM prepares a final product. When BLM releases the final product, the public has another chance to engage--this time through a formal protest period where individuals can register their objections.

Throughout the entire process, the BLM meets with public land users, with Tribes, with community members, and with the leaders and elected officials in these communities.

The common theme here is clear: When it is done right, the public shapes how public lands are managed. That is not the process being proposed here on the Senate floor. It isn't one that invites the American public in; it is one that shuts them out.

By undoing resource management plans through congressional resolutions of disapproval, Congress is telling Tribal communities that their opinions don't matter about their ancestral lands; they are telling hunters that their opinions don't matter about what lands they just happen to use to fill their families' freezers; they are telling hikers that their opinions don't matter about the routes 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 make up our American birthright.

When we vote for CRAs as a way to manage our public lands, we vote against including communities in the process; we shut them out from the decision-making process when we should be inviting them in.

Third, today's vote does not account for the hundreds of millions of dollars per day that are generated for local economies by public land recreation and recreators. Recreation on public lands is an economic powerhouse. The recreation industry generates $128 billion in economic activity from public land every single year. It drives $6 billion in Federal tax revenue. It creates jobs. From Bureau of Land Management land alone, recreation supports 76,000 jobs and contributes more than $12 billion--billion with a ``b''--in economic output.

These numbers are big, and they matter. They matter to outfitters. They matter to small businesses. They matter to local communities. They tell the story of just how valuable these lands are to Americans-- valuable both as a birthright and in dollars and cents.

That rings true in Wyoming, where the plan we are voting on today is located. For example, in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, outdoor recreation contributed $2.2 billion to Wyoming's economy. That is over 4 percent of Wyoming's GDP--the fifth highest rate in the Nation. The industry supported almost 16,000 jobs that same year. That is over 5 percent of the State's total--total--employment.

Now imagine that all of that is put at risk through congressional actions that leave no room for public comment to voice their concerns. There is no planning process--just unilateral decisions made in Washington, DC. So instead of amending the plan and allowing for more public voices to be heard and more communities to weigh in, as we have done for decades before, they just decide to override the whole process, box the public out. Well, you don't have to imagine it because that is what we are doing right now, and you deserve to know.

No land management plan is perfect. All of them need to be reviewed, updated, and improved. But we have a process for that, and it includes listening to our constituents, letting them drive the decisions. CRAs don't do that. They are a blunt instrument. They do the opposite-- shutting out the public and rigging a process to guarantee an outcome of Senate Republicans' choosing.

So I stand here today, and I urge all of you to vote against this CRA. Public lands belong in public hands. They belong to all of us. That means that every single person deserves a chance to provide input on how they are managed.

I urge my colleagues to cast a ``no'' vote on this resolution of disapproval.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source