[Pages H3791-H3796]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ``NORTH DAKOTA FIELD OFFICE
RECORD OF DECISION AND APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN''

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 672, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota
Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management
Plan'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

H.J. Res. 105

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of
Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'' (issued
January 14, 2025, as a record of decision and approved
resource management plan, and a letter of opinion from the
Government Accountability Office dated June 25, 2025, printed
in the Congressional Record on June 26, 2025, on pages S3556-
S3558, concluding that such record of decision and approved
resource management plan is a rule under the Congressional
Review Act), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Neguse) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

General Leave

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 105.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 105, led by
Representative Fedorchak of North Dakota.
This Congressional Review Act resolution reverses a resource
management plan, or an RMP, finalized in the waning days of the last
administration that locked up more than 4 million acres of land in
North Dakota.
Astonishingly, this RMP blocked coal leasing on 99 percent of coal
deposits in North Dakota and prohibited oil and gas leasing on an
additional 44 percent of Federal land.
North Dakota is a top 10 coal-producing State and the number 3 oil
and gas producer in the Nation. According to State estimates, North
Dakota produces 400 million barrels of oil, 1.1 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas, and 27.5 million tons of lignite coal annually.
To put this in perspective, North Dakota produces enough natural gas
to heat 15 million homes for an entire year, equivalent to 100 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity.

[[Page H3792]]

U.S. electricity consumption is projected to hit an all-time high
this year, and electricity demand will grow by as much as 128 gigawatts
through 2029. Fueled by new data centers and AI, these estimates of
electricity demand are five times higher than earlier forecasts.
The United States should be the world leader in energy and mineral
production. We are blessed with abundant resources. We have the
brightest minds, and we maintain the most rigorous and clean production
standards in the world. Yet, the anti-American energy policies pursued
by radical environmentalists in the previous administration crippled
communities reliant on energy jobs, weakened us on the global stage,
and enriched adversarial nations that were able to cash in as we took a
back seat in the global energy market.
The road to energy dominance and meeting this growing demand runs
through North Dakota. Advancing this CRA is the first step in helping
to unleash American energy and reinvigorate America's beautiful coal
industry, as President Trump has called for in his recent executive
orders.
This CRA is important not just to the people of North Dakota but also
our collective American energy and mineral security. If you have ever
worried about your electricity bill or wondered if prices at the pump
might cancel a family vacation, then you should care about reversing
ill-advised lockups of our energy and mineral resources.
Energy production is critically important to the Western way of life,
sustaining small rural communities and generating much-needed economic
activity. Passing this CRA will save an estimated 12,000 jobs in North
Dakota just in the coal industry alone.
This CRA is also crucial to prevent an estimated loss of $34 million
annually in State revenues from oil and gas production. These funds are
used to finance K-12 public education in the State.
What does this mean for children in North Dakota? Failing to pass
this CRA could result in a $441 reduction in the amount of funds spent
on each child's education annually. This means fewer after-school
programs, outdated textbooks, and more teachers having to reach into
their own pockets to fund basic schoolroom supplies.
It should come as no surprise that the previous administration
finalized this RMP over the strong objections of the State of North
Dakota. The State's concerns were ignored. Instead, the BLM plowed
ahead with this harmful RMP.
Good land management requires local buy-in and support. This RMP is
not supported by North Dakotans. The only people who support this plan
are the radical environmentalists who called the shots under the
previous administration.
I commend our current Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, who is
spearheading the administration's efforts to restore energy dominance
and listen to rural America. Secretary Burgum was the Governor when
this RMP was finalized, and he led the charge in opposing this Biden-
era preservationist plan.
I have full confidence that under the leadership of President Trump
and Secretary Burgum, the BLM will emerge as an agency that works for
North Dakotans and all those rural Western Americans who live closest
to the lands.
I applaud Representative Fedorchak for her leadership on this effort
on behalf of her constituents to right this wrong. I also recognize
Senators Cramer and Hoeven, as well as my former House colleague and
good friend, Governor Kelly Armstrong, for their work in supporting the
CRA.
This CRA allows us to turn the page on a disgraceful chapter of
radical environmentalism pursued at the expense of the American people.
H.J. Res. 105 removes the bureaucratic barriers designed to prevent the
use of our abundant natural resources. It is an important step
necessary to unshackle American energy and minerals and unleash the
full potential of our great natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution,
and I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1550

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, more coal, more coal. That is their answer again, for
the third time. Their answer, apparently, to every question is more
coal. Frustrated with energy costs going up across the board, State to
State, community to community, more coal is their answer. Health
insurance costs going up, grocery prices going up, and the economy in
free fall? More coal.
I don't know what piece of legislation we are going to be debating
tomorrow, but I suspect it will involve coal production.
It is bordering on obsession for the House Republican Conference, and
it would be comical if not for the real-world consequences for my
constituents and your constituents, Mr. Speaker, and for Americans
across the country who are dealing with the real cost-of-living crisis
and who expect more from this Congress than yet another disapproval
resolution 10 months into the Trump Presidency, laser focused on
passing resolutions of disapproval of agency actions by the Biden
administration--real sense of priorities. It is disappointing, Mr.
Speaker, deeply disappointing.
If one digs into this particular resource management plan, I think
you will find that using this blunt instrument, as I have called it
during our prior debate, in this instance is probably the most
insidious of all.
There are a couple of reasons why. One, the resource management plan
that was adopted replaced a plan that was nearly 40 years old. This
resource management plan provided a modern framework that balances
responsible energy and mineral development with the protection of
wildlife habitat, water resources, cultural sites, and recreational
opportunities. It provides a stable and predictable framework to guide
and balance the multiple uses of our public lands and resources based
on the needs of today and into the future.
It is important to recognize that even if one disagrees with the way
in which this resource management plan balances public land uses--and I
understand there are good faith disagreements with the resource
management plan. The chairman mentioned our mutual good friend, my dear
friend, Kelly Armstrong, now the Governor of North Dakota. I recognize
we may disagree with the nuances of the resource management plan, but,
again, the broader point here is that the CRA is not the proper vehicle
for registering one's objection to a resource management plan.
Why is that? It is because using the CRA does not return the resource
management plan to the status quo.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act outlines the proper
process for updating a resource management plan. That is a process that
centers on the voices and needs of local land users, while preserving
regulatory certainty.
By contrast, the CRA strips the public out of the process, and it
throws public lands into chaos. What do I mean by that, Mr. Speaker?
Here is what I mean. If Congress passes this resolution, if the
President signs this resolution into law, it will call into question
all the leases, all the permits, and any other related authorizations
that stem from the resource management plan. Grazing permits, resource
development projects, transmission rights-of-way, all of those leases
and permits, and so on, will be tied up in litigation if this
resolution is passed.
It makes no sense to me why my colleagues have chosen to take this
approach and endanger grazing permits in North Dakota when there is a
much easier way to do this.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Interior is
the former Governor of North Dakota. It is true that he could simply
change this. He could, through administrative fiat, modify the resource
management plan for the State for which he served as the chief
executive. He could do that now, and it would not call into question
any of the permits or leases.
Instead, House Republicans have taken this approach, and I don't
think it is going to achieve the stated objective of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle--far from it.
Again, I hope my colleagues might reconsider. I don't have the
Secretary of the Interior's phone number, but I suspect my colleagues
do. They can call him. I am sure they can get this worked out, and we
can save you, Mr.

[[Page H3793]]

Speaker, and the few Americans watching on C-SPAN from this stale
debate over yet another resolution of disapproval.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, what is ironic is the fact that Secretary Burgum, when
he was the Governor of North Dakota, vehemently opposed this resource
management plan, but the prior administration just brushed him off.
They didn't care what he thought or what the people of North Dakota
thought, just like they didn't care what the Governor of Montana
thought, what the Governor of Alaska thought, and what the people who
lived in Montana and Alaska thought.
All they cared about was what their NGO and environmentalist friends
in Washington, D.C., New York, and Los Angeles thought about lands in
faraway rural places and how they wanted to impose their will on what
happens in these rural areas where our resources abound.
Isn't it ironic that the resource management plans for the three
States that we are talking about are Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota,
States with very large landmasses, with abundant resources, and not a
lot of people? That is the definition of rural America.
The previous administration was attacking rural America, and they
used these misguided resource management plans as their tool to do
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Dakota
(Mrs. Fedorchak), the lead sponsor of this legislation and the only
Representative from North Dakota.
Mrs. FEDORCHAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Westerman, the chairman, for
his leadership on this issue and all energy-related issues. He is
providing a great service to our Conference and to the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my resolution to
repeal the Biden administration's Bureau of Land Management Resource
Management Plan for North Dakota.
First, let me respond briefly to my colleague from Colorado's
comments about energy costs. His constituents, the dear people of
Colorado, and many other constituents in blue States, like New York and
California, probably are paying record prices for electricity and other
energy products. That is because of their very own States' unrealistic
and radical energy policies.
I promise, in North Dakota, citizens are not paying record prices. In
fact, they are paying the lowest prices of any other State for
electricity. I know this because, for the last 12 years, I helped set
those policies. Changing these policies so that the rest of America
could also pay lower energy prices was one of the driving forces of my
running for this office.
In my State, energy production isn't a political debate. It is our
way of life. It provides paychecks that feed our families, revenue that
funds our schools, and power that keeps America moving forward.
Unfortunately, President Biden, in his very last week of office,
chose to put special interests above all of that.

{time} 1600

Mr. Speaker, North Dakotans saw the Biden administration's plan for
exactly what it was. It was a backdoor attempt to shut down fossil
fuels in our State. That is why our State immediately filed a lawsuit
against the previous administration.
As our filing made clear: ``The amended RMP is not only unlawful and
unwise but it is also emblematic of everything that was wrong with the
prior administration's approach to cooperative federalism.''
Amen. That is exactly why we are here.
The truth is because of the checkerboard nature of Federal land and
minerals across our State, this plan would close vast amounts of North
Dakota to oil, gas, and coal leases for future development.
In fact, it would lock up nearly 99 percent of North Dakota's Federal
coal acreage. That is more than 4 million acres. It would also block
nearly half of our federally owned oil and gas acreage. That is nearly
213,000 acres.
This is absolutely the wrong direction. As demand for energy reaches
record highs and Americans want to pay less for everything, we should
unleash American energy, not shut it down.
North Dakota does have a very clear vision for energy development. We
have proven that responsible energy development and environmental
stewardship actually go hand in hand. We have invested billions in
clean and emissions-controlled technology. We have reclaimed our lands
and maintained some of the strongest air quality records in the Nation.
We can grow the economy, power the country, and steward the
environment all at once. That is the American Way, and that is
certainly the North Dakota way.
The Biden administration failed to recognize that and completely
ignored all of my State's concerns with the plan. If we want to talk
about intellectual dishonesty, that is the definition of it. So is so
much of the Democrat's energy policy that ignores current technical
realities at the peril of our American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, that is why my resolution is so important. It reverses
the Biden administration's plan that ignored my State's serious
concerns, restores true cooperation between the State and Federal
Government, and gets North Dakota energy back on track.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fine). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from North Dakota.
Mrs. FEDORCHAK. At its core, this is about more than North Dakota. If
Washington can override State expertise here, it sets a dangerous
precedent for every energy-producing State in the U.S. Congress must
reassert its role to prevent unelected bureaucrats from locking up
resources, raising costs, and undermining our energy security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Stand
with innovation. Stand with American workers. Stand with the families
who power this Nation. This resolution puts States like North Dakota
back in the driver's seat where they belong.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague from North Dakota
disagrees with the resource management plan. As I said, there are good
faith reasons my colleagues have in opposition to the resource
management plan.
There is a way to register that opposition. Change the plan. Modify
it. Amend it. Edit it. Call the former Governor of North Dakota.
Chairman Westerman noted he objected to this plan when he was Governor.
Give him a call. He is now the Secretary of the Interior. Ask him to
modify this plan. That would be the way for one to register their
objections.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen a very
different approach. Again, I am just leveling with my colleagues. They
are putting at great risk grazing permits and leases that have been
issued pursuant to that resource management plan.
This story is not going to end with the President's signature on the
CRA. Litigation will immediately follow. It is unclear to me why House
Republicans would prefer that outcome, unless, of course, they are
bereft of substantive ideas and an affirmative vision for solving the
cost-of-living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing that
they have made the decision that it is better to spend their time on
disapproval of Biden administration-era rules.
That is the only conclusion I am left with. Perhaps my colleague from
Oregon will expound on that
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).
Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his
advocacy against this Congressional Review Act resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to these dangerous and
unprecedented resolutions. A resource management plan is not some
obscure rule. It is the playbook for how we manage America's public
lands: balancing energy, grazing, and recreation with protecting clean
water, wildlife, and the long-term health of the land.
The three plans under attack today took years to develop. They
reflect extensive Tribal consultation, public input, and the expertise
of career scientists.

[[Page H3794]]

As the gentleman just said, these resolutions don't just undo those
protections. Under the Congressional Review Act, once a plan is
overturned, the Bureau of Land Management is banned from writing a new
one that is even remotely similar. In other words, the agency's hands
are tied and not just today but for years to come. That is
unprecedented.
If we go down this road, we will politicize the very foundation of
how we steward America's public lands. We will silence communities,
ignore science, and block future administrations from protecting our
climate and our health.
Mr. Speaker, public lands belong to all of us. They are a shared
inheritance and our shared responsibility. I urge my colleagues to
stand up for our public lands and vote ``no.''

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, unless I can convince the chairman to have a final
colloquy, I suppose I will conclude as well.
Mr. Speaker, using the CRA to overturn land use plans, as I have said
previously, does take us into uncharted territory. It is not, as some
have suggested, a way to return us to the way that we used to manage
public lands in North Dakota or elsewhere.
The resolution pulls the rug out from under all public land users. It
calls into question the validity of grazing rights, permits,
transmission rights-of-way, and other permits and authorizations that
are premised on the land use plan being nullified.
It disregards the Tribes, local land users, communities, and
businesses who provided input over years to craft a modern plan to
guide land and resource management for these respective States.
Instead, it puts the courts in charge of deciding the day-to-day
management of lands and minerals in North Dakota and beyond. Mr.
Speaker, even if one disagrees with the resource management plan for
North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska, the way to change it is through an
administrative review and a public process and not through a blunt and
inflexible tool like the CRA.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to keep local voices and land
managers in the driver's seat by voting ``no'' on this CRA resolution,
and I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1610

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up today on this final RMP, I
include in the Record this GAO report that found that the RMP is
subject to the CRA.
U.S. Government

Accountability Office,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2025.
Matter of U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management--Applicability of the Congressional Review Act
to North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and
Approved Resource Management Plan
File B-337175

DIGEST

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) issued the North Dakota Field Office Record
of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (North
Dakota RMP). The North Dakota RMP replaced the 1988 North
Dakota Resource Management Plan and provides directives and
guidance for the management of BLM-administered lands across
North Dakota.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires that before a
rule can take effect, an agency must submit the rule to both
the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the
Comptroller General. CRA adopts the definition of ``rule''
under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) but excludes
certain categories of rules from coverage. We conclude that
the North Dakota RMP meets the APA definition of a rule, and
no CRA exception applies. Therefore, the North Dakota RMP is
a rule subject to CRA's submission requirements.

DECISION

On January 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior
(Interior), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), issued the North
Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource
Management Plan (North Dakota RMP). We received a request for
a decision as to whether the North Dakota RMP is a rule for
purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). As discussed
below, we conclude that the North Dakota RMP is a rule for
purposes of CRA.
Our practice when issuing decisions is to obtain the legal
views of the relevant agency on the subject of the request.
Accordingly, we reached out to Interior to obtain the
agency's views. We received Interior's response on April 18,
2025.

BACKGROUND

BLM Public Land Management
Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
as amended (FLPMA), BLM is responsible for developing,
maintaining, and, when appropriate, revising ``land use plans
which provide by tracts or areas for the use of the public
lands.'' BLM land use plans, referred to as ``resource
management plans'' (RMPs), establish goals and objectives to
guide future land and resource management actions implemented
by BLM. Pursuant to FLPMA, BLM established procedures for the
development, revision, and amendment of RMPs.
The objective of resource management planning is to
maximize resource values for the public through a rational,
consistently applied set of regulations and procedures which
promote the concept of multiple use management. An RMP
generally establishes land use designations; allowable
resource uses, resource conditions, goals, and objectives;
program constraints and general management practices; areas
to be covered by more specific plans; and other related
information.
North Dakota Resource Management Plan
BLM determined that its 1988 North Dakota RMP needed
revision to address significant changes in resource
conditions, evolving demands for land use, advances in
technology, updated policies and program guidance, and the
availability of new scientific data since the original RMP
was developed in 1988. On July 28, 2020, BLM issued a notice
in the Federal Register initiating the process to revise the
1988 North Dakota RMP.
On January 8, 2025, following a comprehensive planning
process, including public scoping and comment, data analysis,
alternative development, environmental review, stakeholder
engagement, and selection of a preferred management approach,
BLM approved the North Dakota RMP through a Record of
Decision (ROD) incorporated into the document. The ROD states
that it represents the agency's final decision, issued after
completing procedures required by FLPMA, environmental
reviews in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), and considering public comments.
The North Dakota RMP provides directives and guidance on
how 58,500 acres of BLM-administered surface land and 4.1
million acres of BLM-administered mineral estate, mostly
split estate, across North Dakota will be used and managed
over the next 20 years. More specifically, it establishes
various land uses for recreation, motorized vehicles, oil and
gas leasing, renewable energy projects, grazing, wildlife
habitat protection, and cultural preservation.
Congressional Review Act
CRA, enacted in 1996 to strengthen congressional oversight
of agency rulemaking, requires federal agencies to submit a
report on each new rule to both houses of Congress and to the
Comptroller General for review before a rule can take effect.
The report must contain a copy of the rule, ``a concise
general statement relating to the rule,'' and the rule's
proposed effective date. CRA allows Congress to review and
disapprove rules issued by federal agencies for a period of
60 days using special procedures. If a resolution of
disapproval is enacted, then the new rule has no force or
effect.
CRA adopts the definition of ``rule'' under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which states that a rule
is ``the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or
particular applicability and future effect designed to
implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or
describing the organization, procedure, or practice
requirements of an agency.'' However, CRA excludes three
categories of rules from coverage: (1) rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or
personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
Interior did not submit a CRA report to Congress or the
Comptroller General on the North Dakota RMP. In its response
to us, Interior provided additional information about the
North Dakota RMP but did not state a position as to whether
it is a rule under CRA.

DISCUSSION

To determine whether the North Dakota RMP is a rule subject
to review under CRA, we first address whether it meets the
APA definition of a rule. As explained below, we conclude
that it does. We then consider whether the North Dakota RMP
falls within any CRA exceptions. We conclude that it does
not. As such, the North Dakota RMP is subject to review under
CRA.
The North Dakota RMP is a Rule under APA
Applying APA's definition of rule, the North Dakota RMP
meets all of the required elements. First, the North Dakota
RMP is an agency statement as it was issued by BLM, a federal
agency.
Second, the rule is of future effect as it is to be used to
guide the use of the public land

[[Page H3795]]

for the next 20 years. Decisions made in the North Dakota RMP
became effective on January 8, 2025, when the Record of
Decision was signed. As of that date, according to BLM, the
North Dakota RMP will guide management of BLM-managed public
lands in the planning area for the next 15 to 20 years for
the benefit of current and future generations. Therefore, the
North Dakota RMP has future effect.
Finally, the North Dakota RMP implements, interprets, or
prescribes law or policy, because it designates areas of BLM-
administered land for certain purposes in accordance with
BLM's responsibilities for land use management under FLPMA.
The North Dakota RMP establishes a broad framework for land
use management, governing approximately 58,500 acres of BLM-
administered surface land and 4.1 million subsurface acres of
BLM-managed land and minerals across North Dakota.
Specifically, it designates various land uses for the public,
including recreation, motorized vehicle access, oil and gas
leasing, renewable energy development, grazing, wildlife
habitat conservation, and cultural preservation.
Our conclusion here is consistent with our previous
decisions finding that similar land use plans and RMPs
implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. For
instance, in B-238859, Oct. 23, 2017, we found that an
amendment to the Forest Service's Tongass Land and Resource
Management Plan (Tongass Amendment) implemented law by
establishing new criteria for the sale of timber to non-
agency parties. We explained that with the Tongass Amendment,
the Forest Service set forth its policy for timber sales and
thus implemented its statutory responsibility under the
National Forest Management Act.
Similarly in B-329065, Nov. 15, 2017, we concluded that
four RMPs issued by BLM prescribed policy by establishing
available uses for the areas that each RMP covered. We noted
that each RMP implemented provisions of FLPMA and other
applicable statutory and regulatory provisions. The same can
be said for the North Dakota RMP as issue here. The North
Dakota RMP implements FLPMA and prescribes policy by
designating or foreclosing specific activities or land use on
BLM-administer land. As such, the North Dakota RMP meets the
third element of APA's definition of a rule. Having satisfied
all the required elements, the North Dakota RMP meets the APA
definition of rule.
CRA Exceptions
We must next determine whether any of CRA's three
exceptions apply. CRA provides for three types of rules that
are not subject to its requirements: (1) rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or
personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties.
(1) Rule of Particular Applicability
Consistent with our previous decisions, the North Dakota
RMP is a rule of general applicability, rather than
particular applicability. In B-238859, Oct. 23, 2017, the
Forest Service proffered that its Tongass Amendment was a
rule of particular applicability because it applied to a
single national forest. We disagreed, noting that the Tongass
Amendment governed all natural resource management
activities, all projects approved to take place, and all
persons or entities using the forest. As such, it was a rule
of general applicability. Likewise, the North Dakota RMP
establishes land use designations that govern all activities
conducted by any person or entity on BLM-administered land
and subsurface estate managed by the North Dakota Field
Office, making it a rule of general applicability.
(2) Rule of Agency Management or Personnel
The North Dakota RMP is not a rule of agency management or
personnel. We have previously held that rules that fall into
this category relate to purely internal agency matters.
Because the North Dakota RMP is concerned with public use of
the areas it governs rather than management of BLM itself or
its personnel, it does not meet CRA's second exception.
(3) Rule of Agency Organization, Procedure, or Practice
that does not Substantially Affect Non-Agency Parties
Lastly, the North Dakota RMP is not a rule of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that does not
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties.
We have previously explained that this exception was
modeled on the APA exception to notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements for ``rules of agency organization, procedure,
or practice[.]'' The purpose of the APA exception is to
ensure ``that agencies retain latitude in organizing their
internal operations,'' so long as such rules do not have a
substantial impact on non-agency parties.
Following this interpretation in the CRA context, we have
only applied CRA's third exception to rules that primarily
focus on the internal operations of an agency. For instance,
in B-329926, Sept. 10, 2018, we found that updates to a
Social Security Administration (SSA) hearing manual governing
SSA adjudicators' use of information from the internet
qualified as a rule of agency organization, procedure, or
practice. There, the manual outlined procedures for SSA
employees to follow in processing and adjudicating benefits
claims. Because the manual was directed to and binding only
on SSA officials without imposing new burdens on claimants,
we concluded that the manual met CRA's third exception.
In contrast, rules that are directed at and primarily
concerned with the behavior of non-agency parties do not fall
within this category. Thus, in B-274505, Sept. 16, 1996, we
declined to apply CRA's third exception to a Forest Service
memorandum on the Emergency Salvage Timber Sale Program,
because it was not limited to the Forest Service's methods of
operations. Instead, the memorandum established the standards
by which program determinations would be made, thus directly
affecting the area for and number of timber sales that would
result in contracts. In essence the memorandum went beyond
how the Forest Service organized its internal operations.
Similarly, in B-238859, Oct. 23, 2017, we declined to apply
CRA's third exception to the Tongass Amendment, because it
was directed at land and resource use by non-agency parties.
Here, the North Dakota RMP does entail some changes to
agency procedure as it introduces new internal directives,
practices, and procedures necessary to carry out these
policies. However, like the Forest Service memorandum in B-
274505 and the Tongass Amendment in B-238859, the North
Dakota RMP is not limited to changes in internal agency
operations. Instead, the North Dakota RMP is directed at, and
concerns itself primarily with, the behavior of non-agency
parties. Therefore, the North Dakota RMP does not qualify as
a rule of agency organization, procedure or practice.
We must also consider whether the North Dakota RMP
substantially affects the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties. When analyzing this aspect of CRA's third exception,
``the critical question is whether the agency action alters
the rights or interests of the regulated entities.'' Along
similar lines, courts have determined that ``[a]n agency rule
that modifies substantive rights and interests can only be
nominally procedural, and the exemption for such rules of
agency procedure cannot apply.''
In previous decisions, we have consistently concluded that
where an RMP designates use by non-agency parties in the
areas it governs, it has a substantial effect. For instance,
in B-275178, July 3, 1997, we reached this conclusion by
noting that the Forest Service's RMP provided a ``management
prescription'' giving general direction on what may occur
within an area allocated to a particular land use
designation. Similarly, in B-329065, Nov. 15, 2017, we
concluded that four BLM RMPs had a substantial effect on non-
agency parties where the plans limited the use of public land
and prohibited mining and operation of off-highway vehicles
in the areas they governed.
Consistent with our caselaw on other RMPs, the North Dakota
RMP has a substantial effect on non-agency parties.
Specifically, it governs when and where the public may engage
in activities such as recreation, motorized vehicle use, oil
and gas leasing, renewable energy development, and grazing,
thereby altering their substantive rights and obligations.
Accordingly, the North Dakota RMP fails to meet CRA's third
exception.

CONCLUSION

The North Dakota RMP is a rule for purposes of CRA because
it meets the definition of a rule under APA and no CRA
exception applies. Therefore, the North Dakota RMP is subject
to CRA's requirement that it be submitted to Congress and the
Comptroller General before it can take effect.
Edda Emmanuelli Perez,
General Counsel.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about lawsuits, there are
already lawsuits that are being created because of this bad resource
management plan that the former administration put in place.
After we do the CRA and we prevent this administration or future
administrations from putting a similar resource management plan in
place without it coming back to Congress, then maybe the current
administration and Secretary Burgum can write a new resource management
plan that actually makes sense, that actually takes into account
America's need for energy, and that actually listens to the people in
these States where these resources reside. While they are doing that,
the previous resource management plan would be in existence.
Again, it is just fear-mongering to say that there will basically be
no rules if this resource management plan gets removed under the
Congressional Review Act.
Again, I thank the gentlewoman from North Dakota for her leadership
on this important issue. The North Dakota RMP will have devastating
ramifications not just in North Dakota but beyond. This CRA which
rejects the failed energy policies of the previous administration is in
alignment with the current administration's executive orders on
unleashing American energy and reinvigorating America's coal industry.
In combination with the provisions that Republicans enacted through
the reconciliation bill, this CRA will ensure that American energy
remains affordable, reliable, and abundant.

[[Page H3796]]

America's future is bright as we unleash responsible natural
resources development to meet our energy and mineral leads, to create
jobs, and to drive economic growth across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________