Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 19.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a recently issued federal rule by the National Park Service. If enacted, it declares that the named rule has no force or effect and prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation. The joint resolution must pass both chambers of Congress and be sent to the President for signature or veto.
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; Motor Vehicles (90 Fed. Reg. 2621 (January 13, 2025)).
National Park Service (NPS)
Under the Congressional Review Act, disapproval resolutions get expedited consideration in the Senate with limited debate, and if passed by both chambers they are presented to the President for signature or veto. Each chamber needs a simple majority to pass.
This joint resolution, under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808), disapproves and nullifies a National Park Service rule titled “Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; Motor Vehicles” (90 Fed.
Reg. 2621, Jan 13, 2025).
If enacted, the rule would be treated as having no force or effect and the resolution asserts congressional disapproval of that specific NPS action.
Content favors legislative disapproval (narrow, no cost), but lack of compromise features and the high Senate threshold lower overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and properly framed Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the rule to be nullified and invokes the applicable statutory mechanism; its brevity and reliance on the CRA are appropriate for a one-rule disapproval.
Progressives emphasize environmental protection and precedent concerns.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental protection and precedent concerns.
Likely opposes the resolution because it overturns an NPS rule concerning vehicle use in a national recreation area.
Views congressional nullification as a rollback of environmental and resource-protection policy and an unfavorable precedent for undoing conservation rules.
Approaches the resolution with mixed views: supports congressional review but worries about bluntly nullifying an agency rule without a replacement.
Wants evidence-based tradeoffs and clarity on local economic and safety effects before full disapproval.
Likely supports the resolution as a necessary check on federal overreach that restores broader motor-vehicle access in Glen Canyon.
Frames nullification as protecting recreational freedom and local economic interests from restrictive agency rules.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content favors legislative disapproval (narrow, no cost), but lack of compromise features and the high Senate threshold lower overall odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize environmental protection and precedent concerns.
Content favors legislative disapproval (narrow, no cost), but lack of compromise features and the high Senate threshold lower overall odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and properly framed Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that clearly identifies the rule to be nullified and invokes the applicable statutory…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.