Raúl Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have heard the argument, and we will repeatedly hear the argument that the road connecting King Cove to Cold Bay is needed for health and safety purposes. While it is true that the road will be used for medical emergencies, there is a lot of evidence pointing to another objective. If you look at the decades-long effort to build this road, it becomes clear that there has always been a commercial purpose in mind. King Cove is home to one of the largest fish processing facilities, operated by Peter Pan Seafoods, a subsidiary of a Japanese company that is one of the largest seafood companies in the world. Fishing is the backbone of the King Cove economy, and it has always been one of the reasons for the road. Let's look at the facts. In 1994, the city of King Cove passed a resolution to emphasize the positive socioeconomic impacts of a 20-mile road linking King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. The resolution did not mention any need to use the road for health or safety or for emergency situations of residents. In 2005, the Aleutians East Borough participated in public scoping meetings and presented their vision for a hub airport for Cold Bay. This plan included cold storage capability for fish from King Cove and other communities awaiting air freight. In 2010, as part of a Fish and Wildlife EIS for the land exchange we are debating today, an Aleutians East Borough assemblyman stated that Peter Pan Seafoods would use the road to transport fresh product. And finally, on May 25 of this year, Alaska Governor Bill Walker sent a request to the Trump administration. He asked for: ``Access for isolated King Cove residents to the airport in Cold Bay in all weather conditions, enabling access to health services and the movement of goods and people between King Cove and Cold Bay.'' When you add all this up, the evidence is pretty convincing. Sure, the road will be used for emergency evacuations, but it will also be used to transport fresh product to Cold Bay to be sold throughout Asia and the rest of the world. Despite language in the bill seeking to prohibit commercial use of the road, once it is built, this prohibition will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. This is an incredibly remote area, and the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the resources or staff capacity to police the use of the road. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, one cannot overstate the immediate and extraordinary threat posed by antimicrobial resistance throughout this nation and around the globe. With that in mind, I wish to recognize the exceptional work being done in Southern Arizona to combat this scourge. We know from the Centers for Disease Control that each year in the United States, at least two million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and some 23,000 die as a direct result. Experts suggest that based on current trends, antimicrobial resistance could become the world's single greatest killer, surpassing heart disease and cancer, and posing a serious economic threat as well. In light of this, there is an urgent demand for the development of new antimicrobial compounds and faster diagnostic techniques to address this critical issue. Residents and visitors in Arizona's Third Congressional District and surrounding areas are fortunate to have access to exceptional medical services, including those provided by Tucson Medical Center, Southern Arizona's locally governed nonprofit regional hospital and leading provider for emergency and pediatric care. TMC is among the first facilities in the nation to adopt the newest superbug-fighting technology. Using the Accelerate Pheno system, developed by Tucson's Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., TMC health professionals can rapidly detect and identify bacteria as well as determine which antibiotic is most appropriate, and they can do this up to 40 hours faster than was possible using conventional techniques. I urge all the nation's health facilities to prioritize efforts to combat antibiotic resistance using the best available technology, and recognize TMC and Accelerate Diagnostics for being leaders on this critical issue.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1404, as was stated by my two colleagues, is a culmination of a longstanding land agreement between Tucson Unified School District and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. In the 113th Congress, we finalized part of that agreement with the passage and signing of H.R. 507, which conveyed the two 10-acre parcels. Both of my colleagues have stated the purpose of the legislation, the need for the legislation. The passage of this bill will complete the second part of that agreement, and both parties involved, as well as the surrounding communities, all see mutual benefit in this. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the bill is acted upon positively, that it passes. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Bishop for his cooperation in working with our staff to bring this to the floor today, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just say that this legislation is a solution without a problem. And as I mentioned earlier several times, facts do matter. When we are doing a whole-scale change of how we manage rights-of-way on public lands because of 0.03 percent of the causation by utility lines of fires on public lands, that is a heavyhanded way to approach doing legislation. There have been opportunities and modifications, opportunities of expediting the process, but those were not allowed as part of this legislation. If we, indeed, are going to look at both the wildfire situation, the budget stress on Forest Service to suppress those fires, and this rights-of-way issue, which is miniscule compared to the bigger issues, then I think this legislation has to be rejected, and work on a piece of legislation that has consensus, that is bipartisan, and that addresses the real problems with wildfires in this country, not this utility giveaway that we are doing here today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, this legislation, with a few modifications, could help prevent the 0.03 percent of wildfires that are caused by electricity infrastructure, but the majority refused to work with us on those modifications. Most importantly, the failure to make vegetation management plans for utility rights-of-way mandatory negates any positive impact this bill might have had. As we have heard from Forest Service and industry at a hearing on similar legislation last Congress, voluntary vegetation management is already allowed and is quite common. This includes the ability for rights-of-way holders to access these areas and conduct vegetation management without notifying Federal land managers until after the fact. This is current law. The majority claims we need this bill to address delays caused by the approval of unplanned work and delays associated with removing dead trees on public lands outside of rights- of-way. Without an up-front planning requirement, I can see authorizing limited activity for utility companies to do targeted vegetation management adjacent to rights-of-way. But instead of offering the commonsense trade off, the bill before us today simply cuts Federal agencies out of the process of managing the American people's land by requiring the Forest Service and BLM to approve plans with no option to modify or reject them if the plans are inadequate. So whatever the company turns in--the utility company turns in, that is the plan that will become the management plan for that vegetation, regardless of any opinion by Forest Service or BLM. Further, the bill does not define ``adjacent,'' meaning that companies could cut trees that are well outside the rights-of-way on public lands. This makes public lands vulnerable to a level of abuse that no one who values them would be willing to support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat: We are talking about caution and what is causing fires; and 0.03 percent of fires caused by transmission lines is the data that is available to us. I know facts sometimes don't matter, but they should matter in something as important as this; and 0.03 percent is the cause by transmission lines of fires in the forest on public lands. We are generalizing the huge wildfires that we have seen to make a case for this bill when the case is about transmission lines, rights- of-away; and it is 0.03 percent as the root cause of those fires over 5 years. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Wildfires are a huge problem in our country. They are becoming more frequent and more intense, and they pose a growing threat to public safety and local economies. But, instead of taking steps to reduce wildfire threats, this bill tries to scare us into weakening environmental safeguards and giving away public land management to States and localities. I agree with the bill's sponsor that overgrown vegetation and falling trees can spark forest fires. However, government data shows that this accounts for less than one-third of 1 percent of fires in the past 5 years. Why are we focusing on this minor problem when it is clear that real wildfire solutions require treating these fires like the disasters that they are under the law, and allowing the Forest Service to use its base budget for preventing wildfires, not just fighting them? Given what we have seen from Republicans in the Natural Resources Committee, the answer is simple: to chip away at the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA; shut expert Federal agencies and concerned citizens out of the land management process; and allow Big Business to profit at the expense of taxpayers and our public lands. The bill lets State and local electricity reliability standards trump public land management rules. There is not even any requirement that the standards are based on sound science or principles of risk assessment. If a county says it needs to clear-cut a half mile into a national forest to protect power lines, this bill would allow it, and the Forest Service could only watch. Further, there is no prohibition on selling timber harvested during these operations. The bill also mandates the Forest Service and BLM use its NEPA categorical exclusion authority, even when vegetation management projects could cause environmental damage. This means that people who value public lands would be completely shut out from the management process. So much for transparency and public input. Adding insult to injury, the bill waives liability for companies that start forest fires or cause other damage. This is nonsense and shifts an incredible burden and risk onto American taxpayers. The bill also fails to deal with the root causes of our fire crisis, including the fact that the Forest Service cannot afford mitigation work to prevent wildfires because it spends half of its budget fighting them. I support legislation making wildfire disasters eligible for disaster assistance under the Stafford Act, and I know many of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, do as well. I am disappointed that we are not passing a bill to do that today, and, instead, are here just pretending to do something about a very serious problem. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. An example that supporters of this legislation use is from Oregon. It is from 1984. In the 33 years since then, I am aware of no example of a Federal agency refusing to allow a company to do vegetation management work and then holding the company liable for the damages. In fact, as the committee report for this bill states, the issue of land managers allowing access to rights-of-way was largely resolved by language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, stating: Federal agencies responsible for approving access to electric transmission and distribution facilities located on lands within the United States shall, in accordance with applicable law, expedite any Federal agency approvals that are necessary to allow owners and operators of such facilities to comply with any reliability standard approved by the Commission under section 215 of the Federal Power Act that pertains to vegetation management, service restorations, or any situation that imminently endangers the reliability or safety of the facilities. If the utility companies feel that BLM and the Forest Service are not complying with the law, they should seek resolution in the court. Instead, they are coming after a backdoor opportunity to affect our public lands. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. At a hearing on similar legislation in the Natural Resources Committee last Congress, both the Forest Service and BLM testified in opposition and explained how they work with utility companies to address vegetation management issues. In addition to entering into voluntary vegetation management plans, the Forest Service testified that the agency's 2013 vegetation management guide specifies for field staffs the procedures and practices that should be included in operation and maintenance plans for power lines. This guide states that, where vegetation conditions inside or outside the authorized right-of-way pose an imminent threat to power line facilities, utility companies may remove those threats immediately, without prior approval from the Forest Service. For its part, BLM testified that, under the terms and conditions typically included in a right-of-way grant, a utility company may conduct minor trimming, pruning, and weed management to maintain the right-of-way of a facility after simply notifying BLM. The utility company can often obtain BLM approval for removal of hazardous trees through a streamlined process. For an emergency situation causing an imminent hazard, no BLM preapproval would be necessary. I understand that some of the companies believe they should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, but the land does not belong to them. It belongs to the American people, and Federal agencies have a responsibility to all Americans to ensure that those lands are not abused. Again, facts do matter, and 0.03 percent of fires in public lands were caused by trees falling on transmission lines in the last 5 years--0.03 percent. So we continue to exaggerate the common sense behind the facts that I just laid out. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from California (Mr. Costa) brought up one of the real causes of wildfire, and that was climate change, the lack of mitigation, and the situation within the Forest Service budget in which half of the revenue dedicated to that department is used to suppress wildfires. This administration has denied the existence of climate change, scrubbed it from its vocabulary, from its science, from its study. If we are going to look at the causes of wildfires, if we are going to look at strategies and how we protect the urban and forest interface, if we are going to look at really addressing the subject, then the very salient point that Mr. Costa brought up regarding climate change has to be part and parcel of the discussion. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and celebrate Barbara Grijalva on her retirement from KOLD News 13, Tucson. Barbara has been a fixture of our community from her first time on screen in 1983. Born and raised in Tucson, and a graduate of the University of Arizona, Barbara is a unique, homegrown personality. For 34 years, Barbara worked tirelessly to provide Tucson and Southern Arizona with the most relevant and updated news, both local and national, and is considered a living legend by her coworkers and viewers. During her time on KOLD News 13, Barbara was flexible in her reporting, working as both an anchor and a reporter in the field; in times of need, Barbara could always be counted on by her team to get the job done. Above all, Barbara Grijalva is a trusted professional whose reporting is always defined by the facts. In these times, the loss of a journalist of Barbara's caliber is significant. Her talent, demeanor, and style will be missed coming into our homes and our minds. We thank Barbara for the contributions and impact she has given us, and we wish her well in her next adventure.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor the life of Rudy Castro--a Marine Corps veteran, devoted educator, civic leader, and lifelong baseball player and coach. Rudy was born and raised in Barrio Anita in Tucson, attended Davis Elementary, Roskruge Jr. High and graduated from Tucson High School in 1949. Since his first days playing with friends in Oury Park, Rudy's talent for baseball was clear; even at a young age, Rudy could be found playing with kids five years older than him just to find a challenge, and was so talented that he started playing with the Tucson High School varsity baseball team in 7th grade. Rudy's remarkable athletic abilities were not just restricted to baseball--in high school, Rudy played football, baseball, and basketball, leading his teams to several championships all while serving on his school's student council and maintaining a high GPA. This earned him the attention of the baseball coach of Palo Verde Junior College who promptly offered him a baseball scholarship. Rudy initially turned down the offer so that he could find a job and help support his family. Fortunately, when his mother heard about the scholarship, she immediately packed Rudy's bags for him. After just two years of junior college, Rudy joined the Marine Corps during the Korean War and served in the infamous ``E Company'' for the next four years. In 1951, Rudy and 100 other young servicemen tried out for the Camp Pendleton Baseball team, and Rudy was one of just 20 to make the cut. After touring with his team across the country and winning All-Marine honors as an outstanding shortstop, Rudy went back to school to play baseball at the University of Arizona on another full-ride scholarship. After graduating, Rudy began his career as a teacher, teaching at Safford Junior High, Roskruge K-8, and finally became the baseball coach at Cholla High School. After returning to school for a dual master's degree, Rudy was named Director of the Extended Day School at Tucson High School, where he spent a decade encouraging students to keep working toward obtaining their diplomas. He was a devoted coach and teacher even outside of school, spending his summers and free time coaching baseball and volunteering as a referee and umpire for high school games. In addition, he is remembered by his former players and students as a person who was always willing to listen to their problems and offer them advice as they became older. A prominent member of the Tucson political community as well, Rudy served as a Tucson City Councilman for nine years, as well as serving on the Selective Service Board, Pima County Grievance Committee, and as the first chairman of the Pima County Sports Authority. In retirement, Rudy played baseball well into his 70's, earning him membership in the Senior League Baseball Hall of Fame and the Southern Pima County Sports Hall of Fame. As a political leader, education advocate, friend, and father, Rudy made a huge impact on many lives and on the Tucson community at large--his passion for life and love for the people around him will never be forgotten. He is survived by his wife, Carol; daughter, Linda (Tom) Spencer and son Rudy; daughters, Julie and Celina; sister, Alice Rice; brother, Rick (Helen) Acedo and half-brother, Albert; grandchildren, KC McCall, and Holly and Thomas Bolen as well as many other loving relatives. Rudy Castro's life is part of the unique and special character of Tucson, just as Rudy was a unique and special character himself.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Pima Council on Aging on its 50th anniversary of service to older adults and their families in Congressional District Three. As one of the nation's oldest Area Agencies on Aging, Pima Council on Aging (PCOA) has advocated on behalf of older adults since the days when 30 percent of Americans aged 60 and older lived in poverty. That number has been reduced by nearly two-thirds over the past five decades, but there is much work still to be done. PCOA's efforts are tireless and they continue to be at the forefront of advocacy and services to older adults in Pima County. The work done by PCOA and the aging services network is more critical now than ever before. Each day, up to 10,000 baby boomers are turning 65 and over the next twenty years, 75 million baby boomers will reach retirement age. In Pima County, older adults are the fastest growing portion of the population. Continuing to work towards solutions and support systems to combat pressing concerns like the fear of falling and understanding the Medicare system are paramount to PCOA's success and our communal success. Over the years, I've come to know the organization well. Since the beginning, Marian Lupu was the zealous driving force behind better care and programs for older adults in Pima County, the State of Arizona, nationally, and even internationally. One such initiative for better care was creating one of the first case management service systems for older adults in the United States in the early 1970s. After her retirement, I've watched PCOA thrive in the Tucson community, being a staple in the community for my constituents and many others across the county. They have continued as the leading force behind services that support older adults in living with dignity and independence in Tucson and throughout Pima County. Thank you for continuing to be a voice for change in our community. I look forward to working with PCOA in the future to advocate on behalf of older people in southern Arizona.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for not only managing the time, but her leadership and great work in Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the millions of Americans who will suffer under this oxymoron called TrumpCare. This bill will result in higher costs and less coverage for hardworking Americans, especially the poor and the elderly. The only winners in this bill are the wealthy who are getting their $600 billion tax cut. Earlier this week, an official with the American College of Physicians put it best when he said: In 38 years of advocating for doctors and patients, I have never seen a bill that will do more harm than the AHCA. This is a powerful statement. You know, Mr. Speaker, what I can't figure out is what problem this bill is trying to solve. If the Republicans were looking to cover fewer people, make insurance more expensive, and give tax cuts to the rich, then I guess this Republican bill is the answer. Let's take a quick look at what this bill does or, as my Republican colleagues refer to it, promises kept. First and foremost, 24 million Americans are going to lose coverage. Let me repeat that, 24 million. That is not only unacceptable, it is cruel. And even for those lucky enough not to lose coverage, things are not going to be very good. Under the Republican healthcare scheme, older Americans will be paying five times more. In what world does anyone think that it is a good idea to make health care even more expensive for the elderly? This is one of those crazy but true things about this bill. So this is what the GOP calls promises kept. Well, let's take a moment to remember what promises were actually made. In an interview with ``60 Minutes'' in 2015, President Trump promised: Everybody is going to be covered. I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not, everybody is going to be taken care of much better than they are being taken care of now. Then just 2 days before the election, Trump went to Sioux City, Iowa, and said: I am going to protect and save your Social Security and your Medicare. You made a deal a long, long time ago. So how does this repeal bill stack up with those promises? Premiums will spike 750 percent with far fewer tax credits to help shoulder that burden; 30 million Americans with preexisting conditions would lose the certainty of coverage they have enjoyed under ObamaCare; Medicare will be slashed by $170 billion; Medicaid will be cut 25 percent. That is $880 billion being ripped away from the most vulnerable Americans, resulting in 14 million people losing coverage immediately. So who wins here with TrumpCare? The rich, who will reap $600 billion in tax cuts at the expense of medical treatment for the most vulnerable and working folks in this country; Big Pharma is a winner who can now look forward to more obscene profits and less oversight; and, of course, the private health insurance companies, who, once again, will be in total charge of America's health care. Who loses? Hardworking, regular folks who simply can't afford to underwrite a tax cut for the rich at the expense of their health. Take my constituent, Shawn, for example. He wrote me to share his ACA story. In 2006, Shawn was diagnosed with HIV and a rare heart condition, and his premiums skyrocketed from $123 a month in 2005, all the way up to $1,473 a month in 2012. That is an average increase of between 35 and 40 percent per year. At the same time, his deductible climbed to $2,900, meaning his insurance wouldn't offer him a dime until he coughed up nearly $3,000 first. When ObamaCare kicked in in 2014, Shawn had at least a dozen plans to choose from. He selected a platinum plan which delivered better coverage than he previously had for only half the price that he had previously been paying. Let me repeat: because of ObamaCare, Shawn started paying half the price for a better plan. How was it better? As Shawn put it, he no longer faced lifetime caps; he had free wellness visits included in his coverage; instead of a nearly $3,000 deductible, he now had just a small copay. If the ACA is repealed, Shawn will be uninsured for the first time in his life. For the first time in 54 years, Shawn will be forced to pay out of his own pocket for lifesaving medications. His HIV medications alone cost nearly $30,000 per year--that is three times as much as he pays right now for all of his medical expenses. If he is hospitalized for his heart condition--which has occurred already twice--he will incur tens of thousands of dollars in additional charges. In short, under the Republican's healthcare scheme, Shawn will be financially ruined. Mr. Speaker, this is utterly unacceptable. The American people deserve access to affordable, accessible, and high quality health care. TrumpCare achieves the opposite. It is a bad deal and a threat to the well-being of our Nation and our people. Beyond that, it is shameful and inhumane. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose TrumpCare in its entirety and vote it down tomorrow.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, today House Republicans are taking a short break from their crusade to make our air and water dirtier so they can now take the time to make it easier to kill bear cubs and wolf pups on our national wildlife refuges in Alaska. The rule that this resolution seeks to repeal does not infringe upon the State of Alaska's bizarre campaign to destroy wildlife populations on State lands nor does it prohibit the State from conducting scientifically valid predator control measures on refuge lands. The massive Federal overreach and trampling of states' rights being claimed by the sponsor of this resolution and its supporters is nothing more than the latest statement of alternative facts by Republicans here in Washington. The truth is both the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act authorize--and, in fact, require--the Fish and Wildlife Service to maintain the natural diversity of refuges in Alaska, regardless of State wildlife laws. This includes protecting healthy populations of apex predators like wolves and bears. Instead, the rule prevents the use of methods that hunters in our own country agree violate the ``fair chase'' ethical standard that separates sports hunting from pleasure killing. I don't hunt, but no hunter that I know would ever think of catching a bear in a steel trap or luring it in with bait and then shooting it or blowing away a mother wolf and her pups in their den. These are the types of practices this rule bans, and it only prohibits them on national wildlife refuge areas that are owned and maintained by the American people, not the State of Alaska. These tactics are not part of any science-based wildlife management strategy, and despite what Trump's new Education Secretary might think, these measures are not necessary to protect schoolchildren from grizzlies. This resolution is just another piece of the Republican agenda to hand our public lands over to States and private interests as well as a distraction from the things House Republicans aren't doing. Where is your infrastructure package? Where is your solution to make technical education and college more affordable? Where is your plan to combat climate change? The answer is that they do not exist. So, instead, we are wasting time on yet another Congressional Review Act resolution, standing idly by without putting people to work fixing our roads, bridges, and energy grid; without training Americans to do the job of today's economy, not to mention tomorrow's; and without lifting a finger to protect people, many of whom are our own constituents, from the worst impacts of global warming. The only difference between Trump and the House Republicans is that he distracts the public to try to move his agenda, and they distract the public to hide the fact that they can't move theirs. I urge you to stop the distractions and vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. GRIJALVA

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when you don't look at the whole field, you make mistakes. Without using their vision, quarterbacks throw passes into double coverage and Presidents trigger angry protests of their ill- conceived policies. Seeing the whole field is what BLM 2.0 is all about. Instead of managing lands by looking at isolated units and only soliciting the input of local governments, this new framework takes a landscape view of BLM's multiple use mission. This update is absolutely necessary if we expect BLM to address the problems we all acknowledge the agency has. Climate change, wildfire, drought, and invasive species are just some of the problems that need landscape-level solutions. On the flip side, coordinating planning for outdoor recreation and renewable energy development across multiple BLM units will help increase the growth of these industries. Rejecting landscape-level planning is like rejecting air traffic control; you can do it, but the results won't be pretty. By repealing this rule and locking a broken system in place in perpetuity, Republicans hope to fulfill their own prophecy that BLM does a poor job managing public lands. If enough people believe them, they think, then maybe they will achieve their goal of giving away America's public lands. The problem, though, is that not enough people believe them. Those who do are shrinking every day, and the ones who don't are making their voices heard. People who care about sound management of BLM lands know that the Planning 2.0 rule is an important step forward. They know it isn't an abuse of executive authority or a government land grab, and they are tired of hearing from discredited voices who say it is. These views are backward looking and ignore the fact that these lands belong to a kid from Chicago just as much as they do to an oilman from Wyoming. Landscape-scale planning allows BLM, with the input of all stakeholders, to manage across the lands. Under Planning 2.0, BLM State offices and the scientists and the land management professionals they employ are finally allowed to build a consistent land management policy that doesn't stop at the State line. Planning 2.0 helps our land managers see the whole field and looks to the future. The majority wants to send us back to the past. We shouldn't allow that to happen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, using the Congressional Review Act to nullify a Federal regulation is indeed a radical move. It has only been done once before this year, but now it has become a regular part of the Republican playbook. BLM's Planning 2.0 is not some midnight regulation that was rushed through at the last minute. BLM went through a transparent rulemaking process and responded to thousands of comments. We had two hearings last year about Planning 2.0 in the Natural Resources Committee. BLM was only invited by the majority to one of the hearings, but the agency listened and made significant changes before publishing their final rule. This rule took 2.5 years to develop. It is not anywhere near a midnight rule. It has been over 30 years since BLM updated the regulatory framework governing its planning process. That means we are relying on Reagan-era rules that were put in place before the widespread availability of cellphones and digital mapping techniques to oversee everything from energy permitting to cultural resource management on over 250 million acres. Everyone engaged in the management of our public lands wants to see this process improved. Planning 2.0 is that opportunity. However, if this resolution becomes law, BLM will never be allowed to evaluate and modernize this process, and we return to management planning from the 1980s. That is not a good outcome for anybody. The resolution is irresponsible and needs to be rejected. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), also a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin), who is a new member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Congressional Republicans have a scorched Earth policy when it comes to anything originated under President Obama. It is the same approach with the Affordable Care Act. They want to completely destroy it, regardless of any merits. The majority is not spending all this time and effort simply to repeal this planning rule. This is one of the steps in their massive campaign to convince Americans that Barack Obama wasn't a good President. They simply can't stand to allow the accomplishments of the previous administration to stand, so they reflexively strike out to destroy anything President Obama supported. This is not legislating. It is certainly not public service, and it isn't even smart. To paraphrase a former Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn: anybody can kick down a barn; it takes a carpenter to build one. This isn't how our government is supposed to work. It is especially counterproductive when it comes to something like Planning 2.0, which is specifically designed to make a Federal agency more efficient and more transparent. The BLM rule is about bringing our land use plans into the 21st century. It is about local input. It is about using the best available science. The majority wants to return to 1983 so that polluters and developers are the only ones with a seat at the table. We should support BLM 2.0, reject this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is time to face the facts. Congressional Republicans do not value our Nation's public lands the way everyday Americans do. I know this because they opened the 115th Congress by adopting a rules package that makes it easier to sell our national parks and national forests to the highest bidder without pesky budget rules getting in the way. That was just a start. Last week, they voted to gut clean water and clean air protections in coal country, suspended a rule requiring oil companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments, and pulled a plug on a waste prevention regulation that would have saved money and improved air quality. Today, their assault on the environment and our public land continues with this misguided effort to scrap the Bureau of Land Management's effort to update its planning rule. This resolution targets what is commonly known as Planning 2.0, an initiative to make public land management more transparent and efficient by enhancing opportunities for public input and utilizing actual science. The American public does not support erasing this new planning rule, and they certainly don't support the broad antipublic land agenda being pushed by the Republicans. Our constituents are sick of seeing corporate interests, especially big polluters, come first. They do not want their national parks and cherished natural places turned over to industrial polluters. We have seen this in the massive response to the Dakota Access pipeline, heartbreak over what happened in Flint, Michigan, and the millions of people who marched worldwide on the first full day of this new administration. Just last week, we saw how much Americans truly value their public land. After a prominent Republican introduced a bill to sell off more than 3 million acres of taxpayer-owned land, thousands of people picked up the phone and called their Representatives to express their outrage. Because of that passion and deep concern, the sponsor of that bill has vowed to withdraw it from consideration for the first time in five Congresses. This is an important story because it speaks to our constituents' true priorities. They sent us here to be responsible stewards of their special places. They sent us here to protect their national parks and public lands. They sent us here to make government work for them. This resolution fails on all those tests. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.