Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 180.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a federal agency action. If both chambers of Congress pass this joint resolution and the President signs it, the named Bureau of Land Management document would be void and have no force. The act also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same unless Congress enacts new legislation. The Government Accountability Office treated the Record of Decision as a rule, which is why the CRA process is being used.
North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (issued January 14, 2025).
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
CRA disapproval resolutions are considered under expedited procedures in the Senate with limited debate and are not subject to a filibuster; they require a simple majority in each chamber and the President's signature to take effect.
This joint resolution, filed under the Congressional Review Act, would disapprove and nullify the Bureau of Land Management’s North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (issued January 14, 2025).
The resolution cites a Government Accountability Office letter concluding that the record of decision and approved resource management plan qualify as a rule under the Congressional Review Act.
If enacted, the BLM rule referred to in the resolution "shall have no force and effect." The resolution does not itself describe the substance of the underlying resource management plan; it only seeks congressional disapproval of that plan as a rule.
On content alone this is a narrow, administratively focused CRA disapproval—features that make legislation easier to advance than large, costly overhauls. But the subject (public lands/resource management) can mobilize opposing stakeholders, there are no compromise mechanisms in the text, and successful use of the CRA historically depends on sizable congressional consensus and the likely position of the executive branch (including potential veto). Those factors reduce the standalone likelihood that this disapproval becomes law.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this joint resolution is a straightforward Congressional Review Act disapproval: it clearly identifies the specific agency action and uses the standard statutory mechanism to declare the rule void. It relies on the CRA statutory framework for legal effect and contains minimal additional implementation detail.
Environmental protection vs. resource development: liberals assume disapproval removes protections; conservatives assume it frees development.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental protection vs. resource development: liberals assume disapproval removes protections; conservatives assume it frees development.
A mainstream liberal would likely oppose this joint resolution.
They would view congressional disapproval as removing or delaying a BLM plan that may include conservation measures, public-engagement outcomes, or restrictions on fossil-fuel development in North Dakota.
They would be especially concerned if the underlying RMP contained climate, habitat, water-quality, or community-protection provisions.
A centrist/ moderate would weigh procedural and practical considerations.
They would note GAO’s determination that the action is a "rule" under the CRA and accept congressional review as legitimate, but would also be concerned about operational impacts of striking an RMP that governs land use.
They would look for pragmatic fixes: ensuring predictable management for stakeholders (ranchers, industry, conservationists, tribes) and minimizing litigation or regulatory gaps.
A mainstream conservative would likely support the joint resolution.
They would view congressional disapproval as a corrective to federal overreach by the BLM and an opportunity to remove restrictions that impede energy development, grazing, or other economic uses in North Dakota.
Conservatives would emphasize property-rights, local control, and the economic benefits of reducing regulatory constraints on land use.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone this is a narrow, administratively focused CRA disapproval—features that make legislation easier to advance than large, costly overhauls. But the subject (public lands/resource management) can mobilize opposing stakeholders, there are no compromise mechanisms in the text, and successful use of the CRA historically depends on sizable congressional consensus and the likely position of the executive branch (including potential veto). Those factors reduce the standalone likelihood that this disapproval becomes law.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental protection vs. resource development: liberals assume disapproval removes protections; conservatives assume it frees developme…
On content alone this is a narrow, administratively focused CRA disapproval—features that make legislation easier to advance than large, co…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this joint resolution is a straightforward Congressional Review Act disapproval: it clearly identifies the specific agency action and uses the standard statutory mechanism to d…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.