Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint Res. 44

Does a BLM Land Use Planning Regulation Need to be Repealed?

Argument in favor

The BLM’s “Planning 2.0” rule is a federal power grab that undermines the ability of state and local governments to manage resources and land use within their districts. It should be repealed to ensure that state and local governments can work with the public to develop land use plans that suit their needs, rather than those of D.C. bureaucrats.

Tafinzer's Opinion
···
03/05/2017
Please repeal this federal power grab of our public lands. They have no constitutional authority. The BLM is a beast that is out of control and needs to be rained in. Our public lands are just that... public. State regulations should have authority that supersedes the federal government in these matters.
Like (71)
Follow
Share
Jake's Opinion
···
02/07/2017
The states should have authority over the land inside their districts. Not the federal government.
Like (67)
Follow
Share
Loraki's Opinion
···
02/07/2017
I VOTE YEA! “Planning 2.0 represents a federal power grab that ignores expert knowledge and undermines the ability of state and local governments to effectively manage resources and land use inside their own districts. Planning 2.0 dilutes the authority of governors, state regulators, local governments and the public to engage in collaborative land use management planning across huge swaths of the American West.” https://cheney.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-cheney-leads-effort-repeal-blm-planning-20 Cosponsors: Rep. Tipton, Scott R. [R-CO-3]* Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2]* Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]* Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4]* Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]* Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND-At Large]* Rep. Radewagen, Aumua Amata Coleman [R-AS-At Large]* Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT-2]* Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1]* Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32]* Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] Rep. Love, Mia B. [R-UT-4] Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4] Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID-1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/44/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hjres44%22%5D%7D&r=1
Like (46)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The BLM’s “Planning 2.0” rule has opened up the land use planning process to the public to a degree that hadn’t existed before, giving people who love public lands an opportunity to have their voice heard in a more meaningful way. The regulation will help the BLM large-scale issues like combating wildfire and conserving wildlife habitat.

Elgincon's Opinion
···
02/08/2017
Funny. My "representative" has voted the opposite of my view in EVERY SINGLE VOTE since he took office. Looks like someone has some explaining to do. Stop voting like a Washington elite politician and vote as we the people desire. Represent us or start packing up your office!
Like (1771)
Follow
Share
Nancy's Opinion
···
02/07/2017
I want our public lands managed in a sustainable way and not exploited for short term profits.
Like (1083)
Follow
Share
Liz's Opinion
···
02/07/2017
This country is so much more than just its citizens and its government. This country is amazing in part due to its preserved natural spaces and that greatness needs to be retained, sustained and enhanced, not torn apart in the name of corporate greed.
Like (636)
Follow
Share

joint resolution Progress


  • EnactedMarch 27th, 2017
    The President signed this bill into law
  • The senate Passed March 7th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 51 Yea / 48 Nay
  • The house Passed February 7th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 234 Yea / 186 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Natural Resources
    IntroducedJanuary 30th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

What is House Bill H. Joint Res. 44?

This resolution would reject a regulation issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) known as “Planning 2.0” which changed the way that land use plans are developed under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). The rule took effect during the final days of the Obama administration on January 11, 2017.

The “Planning 2.0” rule was intended to open up the land use planning process to a variety of stakeholders, including states, local governments, groups with an interest in outdoor recreation or environmental protection, and the public at large. It also directs the BLM to do landscape scale planning, meaning that a land use plan could include areas across state lines or BLM districts. Critics say that these components of the rule undercut the voice of local and state interests in the land use planning process, because decisions in those cases would move decision making away from local BLM offices to the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress is able to overturn regulations finalized within the last 60 legislative days with simple majority votes on a joint resolution of disapproval in both chambers and the president’s signature. CRA resolutions also prevent the federal agency that created the regulation from issuing a similar rule without being directed to do so by Congress.

Impact

The public; state and local governments; and the BLM.

Cost of House Bill H. Joint Res. 44

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) introduced this bill to overturn the BLM’s “Planning 2.0” rule, which she says “undermines local land management.” Cheney explained her opposition to the regulation and why it should be repealed in a press release:

“Planning 2.0 represents a federal power grab that ignores expert knowledge and undermines the ability of state and local governments to effectively manage resources and land use inside their own districts. Planning 2.0 dilutes the authority of governors, state regulators, local governments and the public to engage in collaborative land use management planning across huge swaths of the American West.”

This legislation has the support of 16 cosponsors in the House, all of whom are Republicans and come from states where the BLM controls significant amounts of land.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: BLMOregon / Creative Commons)

Official Title

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

    Please repeal this federal power grab of our public lands. They have no constitutional authority. The BLM is a beast that is out of control and needs to be rained in. Our public lands are just that... public. State regulations should have authority that supersedes the federal government in these matters.
    Like (71)
    Follow
    Share
    Funny. My "representative" has voted the opposite of my view in EVERY SINGLE VOTE since he took office. Looks like someone has some explaining to do. Stop voting like a Washington elite politician and vote as we the people desire. Represent us or start packing up your office!
    Like (1771)
    Follow
    Share
    I want our public lands managed in a sustainable way and not exploited for short term profits.
    Like (1083)
    Follow
    Share
    This country is so much more than just its citizens and its government. This country is amazing in part due to its preserved natural spaces and that greatness needs to be retained, sustained and enhanced, not torn apart in the name of corporate greed.
    Like (636)
    Follow
    Share
    Republicans once again selling off America to the highest bidder, one chunk at a time. And no surprise Dick Cheney's daughter spearheaded this.
    Like (388)
    Follow
    Share
    Our lands belong to the public. The federal government has the resources to take care of these lands properly, not the states. Here in the West this is a huge issue because the states already do not have the resources to properly care for our lands, particularly during fire season. If our lands are to be transferred to the states, they will most likely be sold to the highest bidder and closed off to the public as they already have been in many cases when mining companies and logging companies are given access to our land. This land is my land, this land is your land, this land is our land. Let's keep it that way.
    Like (261)
    Follow
    Share
    Our land, not the land of the greedy politicians!
    Like (227)
    Follow
    Share
    Stop trying to give our land, the United States citizens' land, to your lobbyists and corporate cronies. Vote no on this corporate land grab proposal.
    Like (84)
    Follow
    Share
    We need to preserve our wild-lands as the fragile ecosystem that they are. The choice for drilling cannot be in the hands of those whose interests clearly conflict with that purpose.
    Like (74)
    Follow
    Share
    The states should have authority over the land inside their districts. Not the federal government.
    Like (67)
    Follow
    Share
    BLM lands are one of the most unique things about being an American. When these processes are taken out of the public realm and individuals lose the right to have their voices heard, the lands will absolutely fall beholden to corporate interests. Please think about your constituents who love to encounter the untouched natural world of Gods creation.
    Like (49)
    Follow
    Share
    Congress doesn't have the information to overturn a regulation studied and designed by those who are there to implement the policy. Let BLM do the work they're charged to do.
    Like (48)
    Follow
    Share
    I VOTE YEA! “Planning 2.0 represents a federal power grab that ignores expert knowledge and undermines the ability of state and local governments to effectively manage resources and land use inside their own districts. Planning 2.0 dilutes the authority of governors, state regulators, local governments and the public to engage in collaborative land use management planning across huge swaths of the American West.” https://cheney.house.gov/media/press-releases/congressman-cheney-leads-effort-repeal-blm-planning-20 Cosponsors: Rep. Tipton, Scott R. [R-CO-3]* Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2]* Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]* Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4]* Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]* Rep. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND-At Large]* Rep. Radewagen, Aumua Amata Coleman [R-AS-At Large]* Rep. Stewart, Chris [R-UT-2]* Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1]* Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32]* Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] Rep. Love, Mia B. [R-UT-4] Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4] Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] Rep. Chaffetz, Jason [R-UT-3] Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID-1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/44/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hjres44%22%5D%7D&r=1
    Like (46)
    Follow
    Share
    These regulations aren't being evaluated before they're voted on. They're being rejected out of hand because they're from the Obama administration. Anyone can see that. And they are not frivolous or throwaway regulations. Please do not toss them aside without due consideration. This particular regulation is essential to keeping the public informed and involved.
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    The federal government has no constitutional authority to own lands or to regulate the use of private land. That is not something the government is allowed to manage. Get back in your constitutionally-defined corner.
    Like (31)
    Follow
    Share
    Our public lands should remain clean and safe for public use
    Like (28)
    Follow
    Share
    Planning 2.0” rule was intended to open up the land use planning process to a variety of stakeholders, including states, local governments. But I see the BLM and the progressive left using Environmental control as a subterfuge for the spread of big government control. So let's just end the BLM and it's toxic policies.
    Like (24)
    Follow
    Share
    Federal lands exists as a resource for all Americans like national parks or as areas that need to be protected for national security & other concerns which are often invisible to the local entities. Local & state governments - and by extension monied interests as well as businesses - have more than enough influence on the BLM. This provision is needed because local & state entities often are not aware of or care about overarching national concerns. Until the public has safeguards against the razing of our national treasures & resources, this should be retained.
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    I trust the BLM more than the States and more than mindless GOP representatives. Mid-term elections are only 21 months away. Bye bye Barbara Comstock.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Protecting and Preserving Public Land is part of protecting and preserving America. What one state does to their land has impact on the next - through water, through climate, through public health. As one administration comes, another goes, but the land stays. We must protect it, both Republicans and Democrats, for the future of our people. It should be obvious that one man's "expert" on good spots to drill for oil is another man's "mercenary." I don't trust corporations to provide anything but cooked books and purchased study results.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE