Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment No. 41 to H.R. 8998, which prevents the Bureau of Land Management from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing its Western Solar…
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment No. 41 to H.R. 8998, which prevents the Bureau of Land Management from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing its Western Solar Plan.
On January 19, 2024, the BLM published a notice of availability for the newly introduced Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment and corresponding Research Management Plan Amendment. This plan amendment will have serious implications regarding current uses of public lands throughout the West and particularly in my home State of Wyoming.
The plan amendment would implement sweeping changes to resource management plans, or RMPs, in 11 States on 162 million acres and affecting hundreds of counties in the West. In Wyoming alone, it will impact 18 million acres of land.
I have heard from many county officials in Wyoming that this plan amendment simply glosses over the analysis that would otherwise be given in a planning document developed at a local level. This planning amendment is detached from the priorities held by most Western communities when it comes to economic development on their public lands.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I want to push back against the false narrative that solar energy is actually clean energy or would protect our environment. This has actually become a political battle for government subsidies. Many power companies are being subsidized tens of millions of dollars for so-called clean energy, and the American people are paying the price for it.
Just across the State line in Nebraska in July of 2023, the panels of a solar farm in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska, were destroyed in a hailstorm, only to be taken to a landfill because they are not recyclable.
Even when solar panels aren't destroyed by hailstorms or other extreme weather events, they gradually stop producing electricity and reach the end of their lives in less than 20 years.
According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, over 78 million tons of solar panels will come to the point and will be filling a landfill near you. Aren't we all glad about that? Only about 10 percent of solar panels are recyclable, and those that are recyclable, only a small part of a single solar panel contains recoverable minerals.
There are many other examples of solar panel catastrophes related to extreme weather events, including filling rivers with shards of panels and other events that hurt wildlife and fisheries, but above all these concerns are the fact that they replace affordable and reliable energy sources with expensively subsidized, nonreliable power that results in power companies looking to the spot market to mitigate for what they cannot produce when the
Sun doesn't shine, or the wind doesn't blow.
This Western Solar Plan is forcing energy poverty on our communities. It is taking our productive economic activities away and replacing them with nonreliable and unaffordable energy. It is impacting jobs in Wyoming and starving our communities of the essential services that are funded by our more productive industries.
I don't believe in energy poverty, and for that reason I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, one of the things about this plan is that it includes an irrelevant socioeconomic analysis that neglects to consider the most important activities impacted by this proposal. It reviews without explanation the population, employment, income, State sales and income tax revenues, housing, and State and local government expenditures, but fails to address a very significant and important variable, which is the fact that the largest contributor to the funding of local governments in the State is through our energy producers.
The BLM socioeconomic analysis doesn't include anything related to the loss of revenue generated by our most important revenue-generating industries in the State, and that is very telling. This plan should not go forward, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Quite ironically, this plan amendment directly impacts mining of trona, which is developed into soda ash, which is a critical component in many industrial and consumer products, including flat glass and solar energy infrastructure.
The Known Sodium Leasing Area located within the Green River Basin encompasses 1,100 square miles within the BLM's Rock Springs and Kemmerer field offices. Searching where the U.S. produces most of its trona, it is ironically right where the Biden-Harris administration is trying to force these solar panels. The Biden-Harris administration has failed at every energy policy level since day one. The Western Solar Plan is just one more example of such failure.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, amendment No. 42 to H.R. 8998, which prohibits the finalization of the draft resource management plan, or RMP, revision for the Bureau of Land Management's Rock Springs Field Office. This RMP revision severely restricts grazing, mining, energy production, recreation, and other activities on 3.6 million acres of land in Wyoming.
The BLM field districts are required to update their RMPs in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and in 2011, the Rock Springs Field Office started that process.
The draft revision that was released for public comment in 2023 has gained national attention for its unprecedented policy shift to prohibit access, management, and use to literally millions of acres of land.
The RMP contains four alternatives for the planning area, including alternative A, which amounts to no action; BLM's preferred alternative B, which would have tremendous negative consequences for the State and the Nation; alternative C, which severely restricts recreational activities; and alternative D, which was not viewed favorably by the local community.
Unsurprisingly, the BLM chose the plan that Wyoming and the Nation are most opposed to in terms of its preference. In total, under the preferred alternative, about 2.5 million acres would not be available for new rights-of-way. This would be an increase of more than 480 percent in acreage off-limits to important things like power lines, pipelines, and maintaining roads.
The RMP severely restricts vehicle access, including 4,505 miles of routes to all use and then removing an additional 10,000 miles of routes from the transportation network. The plan even calls for limiting vehicles to designated roads across the landscape, but it doesn't clarify which roads will be designated for travel.
The draft RMP designates 1.8 million acres of the planning area as areas of critical and environmental concern, which undermines all opportunities for economic development, particularly as it relates to energy production and mineral extraction. This is an increase of 1.3 million acres when compared to current BLM policies.
The Rock Springs RMP is bad policy from beginning to end.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is not just about mining or energy and mineral extraction. This RMP is one of the largest land grabs we have ever seen, and it impacts everything from grazing to recreation.
Grazing will be severely impacted by the preferred alternative of this RMP, including through a ban on livestock grazing and big game parturition habitat during the birthing season; prohibiting range improvement projects, such as troughs, reservoirs, and fences; and suspending AUMs currently authorized within the planning area. Perhaps what is most disheartening about this RMP is the fact that the BLM chose to move forward with the least studied plan out of all alternatives.
In fact, Sweetwater County's public lands director verified in a hearing a few months ago that the BLM spent about 1 week out of 11 years on the preferred alternative. What is now its preferred alternative is clearly in violation of FLPMA and the obligation to take a hard look at the alternative chosen.
A former BLM employee who worked on this RMP testified in front of State legislators in Wyoming that the preferred alternative was created as a bookend alternative and mentioned that they spent 1 week on alternative B and then the next 6 years on alternative D. It was also said to a reporter that this plan takes the public off of the public lands.
The alternative laid out in this plan, particularly alternative B, will destroy Wyoming's local economy and dramatically decrease the development of energy resources needed to power this country, undermine our national security, and destroy our local livestock industry.
We cannot go on like this. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would nullify the implementation of this monstrosity of a plan.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 43 to H.R. 8998, which prohibits the establishment or operation of an Office of Agriculture and Rural Affairs within the EPA.
I am completely opposed to the creation of this office due to the fact that it is duplicative, lacks congressional authorization, and because of the EPA's poor track record in assisting rural and agricultural communities in America.
I appreciate that the bill report language also expresses concern over the creation of this office, stating that the impact of the agency's actions on agricultural production and rural America can't be overstated.
The EPA suggested this office serve as the primary liaison between stakeholders and the agency. The reality is that this office does not fill any gap in the Federal Government's engagement with agricultural and rural communities and is, therefore, duplicative.
An entire Federal department, the USDA, along with numerous USDA subagencies exist to address ag issues along with countless offices and other departments and agencies. On top of the USDA, the EPA already has a Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee to advise the EPA on environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agricultural and rural communities.
The fact is that there is little necessity for this office. I am concerned that the very creation of this new office is an attempt to use government solely for the benefits of a single Federal employee. As noted in the press release announcing the office, it will be headed by Rob Snyder, who served as Administrator Regan's Senior Advisor for Agriculture since October 2021.
It is incumbent on the EPA to provide further justification for this office and prove that this action isn't just a pet project or reward for a Federal employee.
This is a bad policy that the EPA is pursuing. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the EPA has advertised the creation of this office as an opportunity to better hear and understand the concerns of rural communities. Its website, however, reveals its true purpose, which is to ``advance the U.S. agriculture sector's climate mitigation and adaptation goals.'' The EPA even touts Mr. Snyder as a longtime champion of agricultural solutions to climate change.
Our Nation's food producers are increasingly targeted by the Federal agencies for climate disclosure and mitigation action, likely spurred by a
political agenda developed outside of government. Clearly, this office is being created to further a political agenda rather than to address the issues that are most important to our rural communities.
The Biden-Harris administration has directly said we have to reduce emissions from the food system. That has been their goal, and Director Snyder, whom they have appointed to head this new office, will dutifully carry out their efforts to decrease our food supply.
Again, this agency is not needed, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, an administration that cares about prosperity and abundance should be more concerned about the availability of food and what everyday Americans pay out of their pockets at the grocery store.
Instead, the Biden-Harris administration expresses concern over animal- and food-related emissions and proposes goals and regulations to address this.
I have already highlighted some of the ways that the EPA has gone after rural communities. This office will not be the eyes and ears for our rural communities. Instead, it will continue to support climate- related policies that hurt our farmers and ranchers.
The Biden-Harris administration has a history of adopting rules and policies suggested by international NGOs. The Federal Government, unfortunately, has a tendency to follow the poor examples of other countries by adopting terrible policies after they do, especially if it is related to this nonsense surrounding so-called climate change.
We don't need this office within the EPA. We already have to deal with the USDA.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 44 to H.R. 8998, which would block the Bureau of Land Management's proposed Resource Management Plans in the Buffalo, Wyoming, planning area and the Miles City, Montana, planning area.
I am grateful for the support of Congressman Rosendale as these RMPs impact his district as much as they impact mine.
The Buffalo field office is located in the Powder River Basin, which is the largest coal-producing region in the United States of America. More than 40 percent of the Nation's coal is produced in Wyoming in the Powder River Basin. Without our coal, we can't power this country.
Yet, the BLM has chosen to pursue the no-new-coal leasing alternative, seeking to end coal mining in the region by 2041. The State relies on the basin for revenues used for things like local education, but as importantly, the Nation relies on the basin for power.
While seemingly a local decision only affecting a local area, its going into effect would mean disaster for Wyoming and lights out for America.
Wyoming coal producers produced 244.3 million tons of coal in 2022, the vast majority from federally owned Powder River Basin coal. Even with this high volume of production, it wasn't enough to meet contracted demand, as producers lost an estimated 60 million tons of production because of the inability to move coal to customers due to poor rail service. This demonstrates the high demand for Wyoming coal.
Coal contributed $562.7 million to State and local governments from taxes and royalties. Additionally, according to the Wyoming Mining Association, Wyoming's share of Federal mineral royalties--royalties paid on mining the leased Federal coal--was
over $184 million, with $229.7 million being paid to the Federal Government.
When I asked the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in committee a couple months ago if they had any plans to mitigate for this lost revenue and jobs because of the BLM's decision to move forward with this rule, they had no answer. Despite what Democrats have to say about helping coal communities, they have no plan to mitigate for their reckless damage to these communities and have no legitimate effective or feasible way to replace this valuable energy resource.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
These proposed resource management plans are part of the Biden-Harris administration's national strategy to terminate domestic production of traditional energy resources, and it is just another example of their war on American energy.
Conveniently, shortly after the plan was announced, The Washington Post, a national paper covering this decision, stated that the U.S. taking this step is the biggest step yet to end coal mining. Supporting this amendment means supporting Wyoming jobs and ensuring that America meet its power requirements for years to come.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.