House Disapproves BLM 2.0 Planning Regulation

Press Release

Congressman Kevin Cramer supported a joint resolution passed by U.S. House of Representatives today disapproving a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regulation he believes overreaches its authority and undercuts the voice of county and local governments in managing federal land and resources. The resolution, which Cramer co-sponsored, passed by a vote of 234 to 186.
H.J. Res. 44 disapproves the BLM Planning 2.0 regulation finalized on Dec. 12, which broadens the areas considered under a resource management plan, potentially stretching across BLM districts and state lines.
"The significant size of these areas dilutes the voices of counties and states and gives them less control over management decisions that affect their communities. It also shifts important decision-making authority from local BLM officials to those in Washington," said Cramer. "This makes coordination more complicated and the BLM much less accessible and accountable to local communities. Our resolution overturns this crazy regulation, fundamentally changing the way the agency manages federal lands. This crazy idea of management going from cooperating with state and local governments to conveying management decisions from Washington, D.C., is the wrong direction. We are putting the ship back in the right direction."
This is the sixth federal regulation the House has disapproved in the past two weeks using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This law provides an expedited legislative process for Congress to disapprove of administrative rules through joint disapproval resolutions. Regulations issued by executive branch departments and agencies, independent agencies and commissions are subject to CRA disapproval resolutions. Under this law, there is a 60-day period in which to pass a resolution of disapproval from when the rule is reported to Congress. When both the Senate and House pass a disapproval resolution that is signed by the President, the rule either does not go into effect or is considered as not having gone into effect.

Source