In the spring of 1996, a seemingly innocuous rider was inserted into a bill aimed at easing regulations for small businesses. This addition, known as the Congressional Review Act (CRA), granted Congress the power to overturn new federal regulations with a simple majority vote. Fast forward thirty years, and Republican lawmakers are now leveraging this act to dramatically alter the management of public lands across the United States.
Originally championed by Ted Stevens, a notorious Republican Senator from Alaska, the CRA was designed as a tool to reclaim legislative authority from an overreaching executive branch. Stevens, known for his fiery temperament and memorable “Incredible Hulk” tie, became embroiled in scandal, coining the term “Corrupt Bastards Club” after a federal investigation revealed the corrupting influence of oil companies on political decisions. This legacy of oil industry influence has resurfaced as lawmakers seek to dismantle federal land-use plans nationwide using Stevens’ own legislative creation.
The CRA empowers Congress to overturn regulations finalized within the previous 60 legislative days, precluding federal agencies from establishing similar regulations in the future. Historically, this law was rarely utilized, with only one successful invocation in its first two decades. However, during Donald Trump’s presidency, it was wielded frequently, resulting in the repeal of 16 regulations from the Obama administration that spanned environmental, labor, and financial protections. Congress has continued to use the CRA under President Biden’s term, albeit sparingly.
Now, conservatives are eager to exploit the CRA to advance a pro-extraction agenda reminiscent of Trump’s policies. In July, Alaska Representative Nick Begich proposed legislation to overturn the federal management plan for 13 million acres of land in Alaska—an area four times the size of New York. This region encompasses land near the proposed Ambler road, which threatens to disrupt critical salmon spawning grounds and caribou habitats.
This push comes amid a broader campaign by the Trump administration to reshape federal resource management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has signaled intentions to rescind a Biden-era rule that prioritized conservation on equal footing with other land uses. This comes on the heels of widespread criticism over attempts to privatize public lands, with former Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke voting in favor of the Central Yukon resource management plan while simultaneously opposing the transfer of Western lands.
Begich argues that federal restrictions are preventing Alaskans from accessing the state’s natural resources. He stated on the House floor, “It is federal overreach that is ensuring that Alaska’s wealth stays in the ground, unavailable to the people of one of America’s most impoverished regions.”
The BLM’s Central Yukon resource management plan was finalized last year after extensive public engagement with tribes, local communities, and various government agencies. The plan designated over 3 million acres as areas of critical environmental concern, a decision that garnered significant support from Alaskans. Ignoring this carefully crafted plan, local residents like Mollie Busby express concern that without its protections, their essential natural resources could vanish. “This plan should not be overturned on a whim by Congress,” she stated.
As the House passed Begich’s bill, which is now awaiting Senate approval, the implications of such legislation extend beyond Alaska. Should this bill become law, resource management plans across the country could face similar threats. Republican lawmakers have already introduced proposals to dismantle plans regulating fossil fuel and mining operations in Montana and North Dakota. As Representative Sarah Elfreth, a Maryland Democrat, remarked, “We are in uncharted territory here. Congress has never used the CRA to overturn a resource management plan, or any other similar land use plan in our history.”
The CRA’s application to overturn management plans raises questions about the future of land policy nationwide. Justin Meuse, a government relations director for The Wilderness Society, warned that this could jeopardize everything built upon existing resource management plans, including oil and gas leases, drilling permits, and timber allotments. This potential for uncertainty is unsettling for industries that Republicans typically champion.
The summer of 2023 also saw the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conclude that the Biden administration’s decision to close 11 million acres of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to oil leases was susceptible to repeal under the CRA. This escalation of the CRA’s scope threatens to dismantle long-standing environmental protections and could have ramifications across various federal agencies, prompting legal challenges against regulations that have never before been considered “rules.”
Longtime Wiseman resident Jack Reakoff expressed disbelief as he watched the House pass the bill. He fears that repealing the management plan will open the door for the state to seize control of federal land, which is not merely empty wilderness but a crucial network of rivers and migration corridors vital for residents’ sustenance. The lands are managed under federal rules that prioritize food security and provide local communities with a voice through the Federal Subsistence Board.
The current push to utilize the CRA is part of a larger strategy by state officials to gain control over millions of acres of federal land for the benefit of extractive industries. Bruce Westerman, chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, explicitly cited the contentious Ambler Industrial Access road as justification for overturning the management plan. Critics fear that this road, which was previously halted by the Biden administration, would not only threaten North America’s largest protected region but also disrupt caribou migration and contaminate waterways.
Reakoff noted that the CRA’s application “throws the baby out with the bathwater,” as he worries that the state lacks the resources to manage the lands it already controls. He is concerned about the potential for increased industrial traffic, the destruction of fragile tundra, and the state’s ability to maintain infrastructure.
Moreover, utilizing the CRA disregards the input of small businesses that currently hold federal permits for access to national parks and surrounding BLM land, leaving their operations in a precarious position.
As the Senate prepares to vote on the bill, the future remains uncertain. Experts warn that if passed, the legislation could lead to a reversion to outdated resource management plans from the late 1980s, disregarding the input of six tribal councils. The implications of the CRA’s restriction on issuing a “substantially similar” plan leave the crafting of a modern replacement in jeopardy.
This legal ambiguity poses serious risks for communities throughout Alaska. Karma Ulvi, chief of the Native Village of Eagle, highlighted the potential impact on tribal voices in land management, stating, “It’s going to have an impact on our culture, our food sovereignty.” The ongoing decline of central Yukon salmon populations raises alarms about the potential detrimental effects of mining or additional infrastructure on their recovery. “Our Congressmen need to consult with the tribes, and ask how this could impact us,” Ulvi urged. “I’m really afraid that the priorities now are just extraction and money.”
