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.
Summary
This joint resolution aims to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) concerning the "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan." The resolution utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify the BLM's rule. The rule was issued on January 14, 2025, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined it to be a rule under the CRA.
The resolution was introduced in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subsequently, the committee was discharged by petition, and the resolution was placed on the calendar. The disapproval is based on the authority granted to Congress under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code.
If passed, the resolution would prevent the BLM's rule from having any force or effect, effectively blocking the implementation of the North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this resolution, if enacted, would be to invalidate the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan." This would prevent the BLM from implementing the specific resource management strategies outlined in the disapproved plan.
This action could lead to a reassessment of land management practices in the North Dakota Field Office area. It could also prompt the BLM to revise its plan and resubmit it for congressional review, or potentially lead to alternative approaches to resource management in the region.
Potential Benefits
- Could allow for a reassessment of the BLM's resource management plan, potentially leading to a more balanced approach.
- May address concerns raised by stakeholders regarding the initial plan's impact on local communities or industries.
- Provides an opportunity for Congress to exercise its oversight role in federal agency rulemaking.
- Could lead to a more transparent and inclusive process for developing resource management plans in the future.
- Potentially allows for the consideration of alternative approaches that may be more economically or environmentally sound.
Potential Disadvantages
- Could create uncertainty regarding land management practices in the North Dakota Field Office area.
- May delay or prevent the implementation of measures intended to protect natural resources or promote sustainable development.
- Could lead to legal challenges or disputes over land use and resource allocation.
- May be perceived as undermining the authority of the BLM and its expertise in resource management.
- Potentially disrupts ongoing projects or initiatives that were based on the approved resource management plan.
Constitutional Alignment
This resolution aligns with the principles of legislative oversight and the separation of powers as outlined in the US Constitution. Article I, Section 1 vests all legislative powers in Congress, including the power to review and disapprove agency rules. The Congressional Review Act (CRA), under which this resolution is being considered, is a mechanism established by Congress to exercise this oversight function.
The resolution also implicates the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. By disapproving the BLM's rule, Congress is potentially asserting its authority over matters that could be argued to fall within the purview of state or local control.
However, the extent of constitutional alignment depends on the specific details of the BLM rule and its impact on states' rights and individual liberties. Without a deeper analysis of the rule itself, it is difficult to definitively assess the constitutional implications.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).