H.J. Res. 60 (119th)Bill Overview

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to "Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles".

Public Lands and Natural Resources|Administrative law and regulatory proceduresArizona

Sponsor

Celeste MaloyR

Cosponsors

Support

Republican

Introduced

Feb 21, 2025

Discussions

Bill Text

View ↗

Current stageLaw

Became Public Law No: 119-13.

Introduced

Committee

Floor

President

Law

Congressional Activities

01 · The brief

This joint resolution, enacted under the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8, title 5, U.S. Code), disapproves and nullifies the National Park Service rule titled “Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles” (90 Fed.

Reg. 2621).

The resolution states that the submitted rule shall have no force or effect.

Passage35/100

Narrow, low-cost measure improves chances in House but faces meaningful Senate procedural and consensus barriers; final outcome hinges on chamber-level politics.

CredibilityPartial

How solid the drafting looks.

Contention70/100

Progressives emphasize environmental protection and agency expertise.

02 · What it does

Full Analysis

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%

Targeted stakeholdersTargeted stakeholders

Likely helped

Targeted stakeholdersPreserves existing motor vehicle access and recreational patterns for visitors and outfitters.
Targeted stakeholdersAvoids immediate regulatory compliance costs for businesses that depend on motorized access.
Targeted stakeholdersReduces short-term administrative implementation tasks for the National Park Service.

Likely burdened

Targeted stakeholdersRemoves specific protections intended to limit vehicle impacts on soils, vegetation, and wildlife.
Targeted stakeholdersCould increase erosion, noise, and air pollution within the recreation area.
Targeted stakeholdersPotentially weakens long-term resource management and planning tools available to the Park Service.

03 · Why people split

Full Analysis

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize environmental protection and agency expertise.

Progressive15%

Likely opposes the resolution because it overturns an NPS rule governing motor vehicle use in a national recreation area.

They would view repeal as a rollback of agency management tools that protect natural, cultural, and recreational values.

Specific impacts are uncertain because the resolution text does not include the NPS rule language.

Likely resistant

Centrist50%

Approaches the resolution cautiously and wants more information.

They recognize legitimate concerns about federal overreach or burdensome regulations, but worry about the precedent and environmental consequences of a blanket CRA nullification.

Would favor hearings, data, and targeted legislative fixes over an abrupt repeal.

Split reaction

Conservative85%

Likely supports the resolution as a check on perceived federal overreach restricting motorized access.

Views CRA disapproval as an appropriate tool to protect recreational users, local economies, and individual freedoms from an overly restrictive agency rule.

Sees benefit in restoring previous management status.

Leans supportive

04 · Can it pass?

Full Analysis