Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee have demonstrated a blatant misunderstanding of the purpose behind Wednesday’s hearing on the land administration rule, while also showing they don’t get the point of the representative government.
House Republicans on Wednesday gave key stakeholders a forum to hear the views of those most likely to face serious consequences from a sweeping new proposal from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
In March, BLM announced new rules to establish “conservation leases” within the framework of the Federal Land Policy and Administration Act of 1976. This law, which has been in force for nearly 50 years, stipulates that federal land must be administered under theObligation to use multiple times, making public property available for a wide range of activities, from mining to grazing. But the new rules threaten to unilaterally repeal the multi-use doctrine at the behest of unelected bureaucrats. Wyoming rancher and state senator Brian Bonner told the Federalist that the proposal would be “harmful” to ranchers grazing on BLM land.
[READ: New BLM Rules On ‘Conservation Leases’ Will Fundamentally Transform Public Land Management]
Lawmakers heard the committee’s testimony on Wednesday. four witnesses From the western states where regulation has the greatest impact. Of the 245 million acres managed by BLM, 90 percent Located in 12 western states of the United States. Republicans nominate Prairie County Commissioner Todd Devlin, Montana, Nevada Agriculture Commissioner JJ Goikoechea, and Mojave County Supervisory Commissioner Travis Lingenfelter, Arizona to testify on the agency’s proposal. bottom. Democrats summoned New Mexico Public Lands Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard as a minority witness and denounced the absence of senior leadership in the Department of the Interior.
“To begin this hearing, I would like to point out that this is primarily an oversight hearing on the BLM regulations. I think we should,” New said. Mexican Congressman Melanie Stansbury delivered the opening remarks. “Hearing input from the community is important, but in our oversight role, I believe it is also important to hear input from the agency itself.”
BLM’s absence from Wednesday’s hearings was a major topic of discussion among Democrats on the committee. Arizona’s Natural Resources Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Paul Gossard quickly reminded ranking members that BLM Director Tracy Stonemanning attended the committee last week.
“They were here last week,” Gosar said, adding that if they had returned, the committee “would have held a second panel discussion.”
Nevada Democratic Rep. Susie Lee began her address by declaring that she was “embarrassed” by the absence of senior Home Office officials “if it was so important to hear from them today.”
Montana Republican Rep. Matt Rosendale offered Lee an immediate response.
“It’s important to hear the voices of the community,” Rosendale said. “We already know what the director and secretary are like and what their initiative is. We know what their purpose is.”
As Rosendale prepares to lash out at the BLM hearing schedule for excluding Montana from the calendar, Lee has his time back. Of her five scheduled two-hour meetings, two will be virtual and three will be held in Denver, Reno, and Albuquerque city centers. States with Republican senators or Republican-majority representatives in the House do not hold either. Republicans on the Natural Resources Commission have called on the BLM to extend the public comment period and hold more public meetings among local voters.
Wednesday’s hearings will bring officials to Washington and the Biden administration is prepared to ignore them. BLM headquarters are located at Grand Junction on the western slopes of Colorado, but the agency’s senior leadership was moved back to D.C. by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland.
Senator Bonner of Wyoming told the Federalist that he believed the rule came directly from the state capital.
“This is something that comes out of Washington DC,” Bonner said. If state and local governments are “involved,” Bonner added, “certainly they are not talking to anyone locally.”
Witnesses testifying Wednesday warned that the BLM’s new rules could wreak havoc on the development and conservation of the American West, disrupting the way of life in the West. Dr. Goikoekea warned that allowing mixed-use to non-use land management “could undermine the health of the ecosystem.”
“Agriculture is conservation,” said Goicoechea. “If there is grazing, [removed] From these landscapes, ranches will collapse, landscapes will be overrun and burned by alien species. wild animals suffer, [] Cannot be used multiple times. ”
“Frankly, when I’m not at the table, I can’t help but feel like I’m on the menu,” says Goicoechea.
While Republicans warned of aggressive land grabbing, Democrats praised the president’s use of the Antiquities Act of 1906 during the 90-minute hearing. The law was to act as an emergency measure for the administration to preserve delicate cultural artifacts and relics in the “minimum area compatible” with the subject of protection. But a recent Democratic president abused a century-old law to create a national monument without congressional approval. In 2021, President Joe Biden will restore the Obama-era boundaries of two national monuments in Utah to protect an area larger than the combined boundaries of Zion and Bryce Canyon National Parks.
[READ: Why Joe Biden’s Expansion Of Bears Ears National Monument Is An Aggressive Land Grab]
“These are not only sacred and important, [but] They are part of the iconic landscape that defines our nation,” said Rep. Stansbury. “The Antiquities Act is an important land management tool to ensure that we protect these lands.”
But the abuse of the antiquities law reveals BLM’s true intentions to block the land with the agency’s latest rule upping its “preservation leases.”
