[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 169 (Tuesday, October 14, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7114-S7115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MORNING BUSINESS
______
H.J. RES. 104, H.J. RES. 105, AND H.J. RES. 106
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, last week, the Senate passed three
resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, CRA,
H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106. Each resolution
responds to actions by the Biden administration to eliminate multiple
uses on Federal lands, defying the multiple-use and sustained-yield
mandate of existing law. Following their enactment, the Bureau of Land
Management, BLM, will have the opportunity to promulgate Resource
Management Plans, RMPs, that properly reflect the multiple-use and
sustained yield mandate while addressing the concerns raised by
Congress and the impacted States. While Congress has long known that it
can use the CRA to disapprove of a resource management plan, it has yet
to. But the Biden BLM's attacks on American energy producers through
these RMPs were so offensive, Congress needed to act.
On November 20, 2024, BLM issued a Record of Decision and Approved
RMP Amendment for the Miles City Field Office in Montana. Within the
planning area, this amendment prohibited coal leasing on an additional
1.2 million acres and curtailed multiple use by creating an additional
22,000 acres of special recreation management areas. It is these
policies that Congress disapproves of through the Congressional Review
Act. Governor Greg Gianforte, eastern Montana coal communities, and
other impacted parties also opposed the ARMP. Governor Gianforte warned
that the plan would result in a loss of $4.32 billion in future revenue
for the State and would have devastating impacts on Montana schools and
rural communities. With the enactment of H.J. Res. 104, were BLM to
promulgates a new RMP or an amendment to the current RMP, it must not
limit coal leasing or limit multiple use in a way similar to the 2024
Miles City Plan. Instead, BLM, should issue a plan that emphasizes
access and multiple use in coordination with the State and local
governments, as mandated by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act,
FLPMA.
Prior to finalizing the North Dakota Field Office RMP in 2025, the
North Dakota legislature and congressional delegation wrote letters to
the Biden administration opposing the BLM's draft proposal due to the
negative impact it would have on energy production in the State.
Ignoring these objections, on January 8, 2025, BLM issued the Record of
Decision and RMP for the North Dakota Field Office. The RMP prohibited
coal leasing on 4 million acres within the planning area and restricted
energy production by restricting an additional 213,000 acres from
future mineral development. Congress disapproves of these policies
through the Congressional Review Act. H.J. Res. 105 would nullify the
Record of Decision and Approved RMP for the North Dakota Field Office
and revert land use plans to the 1988 RMP that North Dakota has relied
on for decades. With the enactment of H.J. Res. 105, were BLM to
promulgate a new RMP or an amendment to the 1988 RMP, it must not limit
coal leasing or limit mineral development in a way similar to the 2025
North Dakota Plan. Instead, BLM should issue a plan that emphasizes
access, multiple use, and coordination by the Secretary of the Interior
with State and local governments, as mandated by the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act, FLPMA.
H.J. Res. 106 would nullify the Record of the Decision and Approved
RMP for Alaska's Central Yukon planning area that was issued on
November 12, 2024. H.J. Res. 106 requires BLM to revert to plans that
the State has relied on to manage Federal lands since 1991, 1986, and
1981. The 2024 Central Yukon Resource Management Plan, RMP,
significantly restricted future energy and mineral development in
northern Alaska by designating approximately 3.6 million acres as Areas
of Critical Environmental Concern, ACECs, and by withdrawing large
tracts of land adjacent to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS,
corridor and Dalton Highway from new mineral entry and leasing. These
withdrawals and designations directly contradict congressional intent
under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA,
which recognized the need to maintain access for transportation and
resource development in this region. Congress disapproves of these
policies through the Congressional Review Act. With the enactment of
H.J. Res. 106, were BLM to promulgate a new RMP or an amendment to the
1991, 1986, or 1981 plans, it must not withdraw land that is critical
for energy development or limit access to natural resources in a way
similar to the 2024 Central Yukon RMP. Instead, BLM should issue a plan
that emphasizes access, multiple use, and coordination by the Secretary
of the Interior with State and local governments, as mandated by the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA.
On September 3, 2025, the Office of Management and Budget issued a
Statement of Administration Policy saying, in part, that the RMPs are
``out of touch rules that collectively raise costs for Americans by
artificially restricting energy and mineral production. These rules
further undermine energy security by furthering our dependence on
foreign countries and limiting America's preeminence in powering
innovation across our great economy. These RMPs are rules of general
applicability and prospective effect because they directly threaten our
nation's energy security, increase American dependence on foreign
nations for coal and mineral production, and damage the economy while
devastating communities. This administration will continue to unleash
America's affordable and reliable energy and always put the American
people and their paycheck first.'' This statement and the
administration's intention to promulgate new land management plans that
emphasize the multiple-use and sustained yield mandate were key
considerations in the Senate's deliberation on these resolutions. I ask
unanimous consent that this statement, as well as a letter from Deputy
Secretary MacGregor to Majority Leader Thune be printed in the Record.
Last week, the Senate took action to clear the way for the Department
of the Interior to promulgate new RMPs properly based on the productive
use of Federal lands. In my view, this will not require a wholly new
environmental analysis, as we are not disapproving the underlying
analyses. Rather, we are disapproving the administrative decisions: the
final RMPs and RMP amendments issued by BLM. BLM will soon have the
opportunity to address this disapproval, and I look forward to working
with them and my colleagues as the Trump administration continues to
expand access to and use of Federal lands.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Deputy Secretary
of the Interior,
Washington, DC, October 6, 2025.
Hon. John Thune,
Senate Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thune: On September 3, 2025, a majority of the
members in the House of Representatives voted affirmatively
on three resolutions of disapproval for three resource
management plan (RMP) decisions finalized by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) under the Biden administration (H.J.
Res. 104, Roll no. 224; H.J. Res. 105, Roll no. 226; and H.J.
Res. 106, Roll no. 225). By this action, the House of
Representatives made a conclusive determination under the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) that these RMP decisions
approved pursuant to section 202 of the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1712, are
considered ``rules'' under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 804(3).
As we await Senate consideration of the resolutions, I
wanted to respond to several questions we have received
regarding the Department of the Interior's prospective
management of these public lands upon passage and final
enactment. For ease, I have included tables of the defining
or ``key'' management features of the RMP decisions currently
subject to Congressional disapproval.
Should a joint resolution of disapproval be enacted, the
RMP decision and associated Record of Decision (ROD) would be
immediately invalidated and the immediately preceding RMP
would go into effect. BLM would be prohibited from re-issuing
a RMP that is ``substantially the same'' as the disapproved
RMP decision; that is, it would be prohibited
[[Page S7115]]
from re-issuing the defining features and decisions contained
in those documents which differentiate it from the
immediately preceding RMP. As you will see, in all cases the
preceding land use plans provide greater access for multiple-
use and sustained yield than the Biden-era land use plans.
The management decisions finalized in the Biden-era plans
significantly curtail multiple uses on many of the underlying
parcels in question. Impacts range from eliminating access to
much needed coal, oil and gas, and mineral resources, and in
some cases, even reduced access to livestock grazing and off-
highway vehicle use, to name a few of the key restrictions.
In reviewing the Congressional Record, it is clear that the
House of Representatives has directly responded with
specificity to these resource-limiting actions of the Biden-
era RMPs. Passage of these corrective CRA resolutions would
not limit BLM from continuing to manage public lands in
accordance with all applicable laws, including FLPMA, the
Mineral Leasing Act, and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Instead, it would only limit BLM from promulgating RMP
decisions that are ``substantially the same as'' the Biden-
era RMPs which significantly restricted the multiple use and
sustained yield of the underlying parcels.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Katharine Sinclair MacGregor.
____________________