Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a recent agency action. If Congress approves this joint resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the named agency action is void and the agency is blocked from issuing a substantially similar rule without new congressional authorization. The House text cites a Government Accountability Office opinion that the action qualifies as a rule under the CRA. The CRA process provides a faster, special path for Congress to disapprove recently finalized agency rules.
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Under the CRA, disapproval resolutions are considered under expedited procedures in the Senate and are not subject to a filibuster, so they require only a simple majority there. The joint resolution still must pass both chambers and be presented to the President for signature to take effect; a presidential veto could be overridden only with two-thirds votes in both chambers.
This joint resolution, under the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8, title 5, U.S. Code), would disapprove and nullify the Bureau of Land Management rule titled "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan" (issued January 13, 2025).
The resolution cites a Government Accountability Office letter concluding the document is a rule under the CRA and declares the rule to have no force or effect.
Content is narrow and administratively simple, aiding House passage, but significant Senate procedural and coalition obstacles lower overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that cleanly identifies the targeted agency action and invokes the statutory authority for nullification. It uses concise, standard disapproval language without elaboration.
Progressives emphasize conservation harms and dangerous CRA precedent.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize conservation harms and dangerous CRA precedent.
Likely opposed.
They would view nullifying the monument's record of decision and resource management plan as a rollback of conservation and monument protections.
They would see the resolution as enabling increased extractive uses and setting an unfavorable precedent for using the CRA against land-management decisions.
Cautiously mixed.
They would acknowledge Congress's authority under the CRA but worry about management instability and local impacts.
Support would depend on whether the ROD improperly restricted economic uses or was legally flawed, and whether a workable replacement process is committed.
Likely supportive.
They would view the resolution as correcting administrative overreach and restoring multiple-use access for local economies.
They would praise use of the CRA to invalidate what they see as an overly restrictive or regulatory land-management decision.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and administratively simple, aiding House passage, but significant Senate procedural and coalition obstacles lower overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize conservation harms and dangerous CRA precedent.
Content is narrow and administratively simple, aiding House passage, but significant Senate procedural and coalition obstacles lower overal…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that cleanly identifies the targeted agency action and invokes the statutory authority for nulli…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.