Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill bars the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) for the Bureau of Land Management’s Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office. It specifically references the RMPA announced at 89 Fed.
Whether congressional nullification undermines environmental protections
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly and specifically prohibits the Department of the Interior from implementing a particular Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.
This bill bars the Secretary of the Interior from implementing, administering, or enforcing the Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (RMPA) for the Bureau of Land Management’s Buffalo, Wyoming Field Office.
It specifically references the RMPA announced at 89 Fed.
Reg. 93650 (Nov. 27, 2024).
Very narrow statutory prohibition could pass if bundled or locally supported, but lacks compromise features and faces Senate procedural hurdles.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly and specifically prohibits the Department of the Interior from implementing a particular Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.
Whether congressional nullification undermines environmental protections
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether congressional nullification undermines environmental protections
Likely views the bill skeptically because it overrides an agency-approved land management plan.
If the RMPA provided conservation protections, liberals would see this bill as undermining environmental safeguards; if it favored extraction, reactions may be mixed.
The text lacks detail on the RMPA’s substance, so critiques focus on precedent of congressional nullification of agency decisions.
Approaches the bill pragmatically: recognizes Congress can limit agency actions but worries about process and consequences.
Wants clarity on why implementation is blocked, timing, and effects on land users.
Support depends on whether the RMPA was procedurally flawed or substantively harmful to stakeholders.
Likely supportive because it prevents implementation of a federal land plan that may impose restrictions on use.
Views the bill as limiting federal overreach and protecting local economic and resource interests.
Also sees congressional action as appropriate oversight of the BLM decision.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow statutory prohibition could pass if bundled or locally supported, but lacks compromise features and faces Senate procedural hurdles.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether congressional nullification undermines environmental protections
Very narrow statutory prohibition could pass if bundled or locally supported, but lacks compromise features and faces Senate procedural hur…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive policy change that clearly and specifically prohibits the Department of the Interior from implementing a particular Approved Resourc…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.