Rules Committee weighs Congressional Review Acts to rescind BLM resource-management plans covering millions of acres

The House Committee on Rules on July 14 heard testimony on three Congressional Review Act measures—HJ Res 104, HJ Res 105 and HJ Res 106—intended to overturn Bureau of Land Management resource management plans (RMPs) that supporters say restrict energy and mineral development on millions of acres in Montana, North Dakota and Alaska.

The measures were introduced for committee consideration by the majority; Chairman Westerman and Representative Elfreth of the Natural Resources Committee testified in favor, and multiple members questioned the use of the Congressional Review Act for land‑use plans.

Representative Westerman, testifying for the majority, said the RMPs at issue “would lock up 29,000,000 acres of land and mineral estates in Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska,” and argued the rules halted “leasing, exploration, and energy production” and threatened grid reliability. He described HJ Res 104 as targeting “the Biden administration's sweeping coal leasing ban across Montana's entire Powder River Basin,” and said HJ Res 106 would reverse restrictions on “13,300,000 acres in Alaska, unlocking development of the Ambler Access Project and the Alaska LNG pipeline.”

Representative Elfreth, who said she was filling in for the Natural Resources chair, focused on process and public input and urged caution about using the CRA. She said RMPs “are developed through an open, transparent process that incorporates science, law, and, crucially, rigorous public and local input,” and that the three RMPs were finalized “following years, and in 1 case at least a decade, of diligent work.” Elfreth warned that applying the CRA to RMPs would “handcuff not just this Congress, but every future Congress from addressing and stewarding these natural resources.”

Members pressed witnesses on local support and consultation. Westerman told the committee that local elected officials—including state governors and the congressional delegations from the affected states—oppose the new RMPs and support the CRA efforts. Elfreth and other Democrats said those RMPs resulted from extensive stakeholder engagement including tribal consultation; she noted the Alaska plan reflected “a decade of extensive engagement with local governments, residents and business owners, and native populations.” Representative Lehi Fernandez cited a letter from the Bering Interior Tribal Commission listing 40 federally recognized tribes opposing the resolution and asked whether formal tribal consultation had occurred since the resolution’s July 14 introduction; witnesses said it had not.

Participants flagged several quantitative details raised at the hearing: Westerman said the Powder River Basin contains nearly 30% of the nation’s recoverable coal reserves; he said coal from that basin “generates enough electricity each year to power over 16,000,000 American homes.” Elfreth said the Miles City, Montana RMP covers about 1,700,000 acres and noted that the Miles City update included “167 public comments”; she said the North Dakota RMP addressed 58,000 acres of surface land and 4,100,000 acres of mineral estate and that the Alaska RMP consolidated and modernized plans for roughly 55,700,000 acres.

Democrats argued that use of the CRA to rescind RMPs would be unprecedented and would nullify years of local public engagement. Representative McGovern said the CRA approach “prohibits the Department of Interior from implementing any rule that is substantially similar,” and colleagues warned that such a prohibition could prevent future agencies from using similar management approaches for affected landscapes. Representative Scanlon and others urged preserving the public‑input process and called the CRA a “Pandora’s box.”

No formal committee vote on the measures was reported at the hearing. Committee members said the Rules Committee would consider how and when to report the measures and noted that scheduling remained uncertain.

Why it matters: committee members and witnesses framed the dispute as a choice between restoring access to energy and mineral development and preserving planning conducted with local and tribal input. The practical effects, if the measures were enacted, would be to remove the Biden‑era RMPs and to bar the Interior Department from issuing “substantially similar” rules without congressional approval—an outcome witnesses called unprecedented.

For now the items remain under consideration; the committee did not adopt final motions or report the resolutions during the session.