Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan".
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 151
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Public Lands and Natural Resources
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-03-04: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-15T08:07:32Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 151) aims to disapprove a specific administrative decision by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency under the U.S. Department of the Interior, regarding the management of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. It uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a law that lets Congress overturn certain federal agency rules, to nullify the decision and prevent its enforcement.
Key Provisions
- Disapproval of the Rule: Congress explicitly disapproves the BLM's "Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan" for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, issued on January 13, 2025.
- Reference to Supporting Opinion: The resolution cites a January 15, 2026, opinion from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent agency that audits federal operations, which classified the BLM's decision as a "rule" under the CRA (printed in the Congressional Record on February 25, 2026).
- Nullification: The disapproved rule "shall have no force or effect," meaning it cannot be implemented or enforced.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This resolution does not amend existing laws but invokes the CRA to override an agency action, effectively reverting management of the monument to prior plans or practices before the 2025 decision.
- It treats the BLM's management plan as a formal "rule" subject to congressional review, based on the GAO's interpretation, which expands the scope of what can be challenged under the CRA beyond typical regulations.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The BLM would be barred from enforcing the new management plan, potentially requiring the agency to pause or revise land-use decisions in the monument, which spans about 1.9 million acres of public land focused on conservation, recreation, and resource protection.
- On Citizens: Local communities, visitors, and businesses in southern Utah could see changes in access for activities like hiking, grazing, or mineral extraction, depending on what the prior management allowed versus the nullified plan.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as this involves domestic public lands, though it could indirectly affect U.S. commitments to environmental conservation if the monument's protections were aligned with global standards.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Primarily the BLM, which manages the monument; also the GAO for its advisory role.
- Local and State Interests: Residents, ranchers, and industries (e.g., mining, energy) in Utah, represented by sponsors like Representatives Maloy, Owens, Moore, and Kennedy from Utah.
- Environmental and Conservation Groups: Organizations advocating for monument protections may oppose the disapproval, as it could reduce safeguards for natural and cultural resources.
- Congressional Members: Sponsors from Utah, Nevada (Amodei), Minnesota (Stauber), and Alaska (Begich), indicating bipartisan regional support for challenging federal land decisions.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces the CRA's role as a check on executive branch actions, potentially setting a precedent for classifying non-regulatory agency decisions (like resource plans) as reviewable "rules." This could lead to court challenges if affected parties dispute the GAO's opinion or the resolution's validity.
- Constitutional: Highlights Congress's oversight authority over federal agencies under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, balancing executive power in land management without altering the monument's original 1996 designation under the Antiquities Act.
- Political: Signals congressional pushback against perceived overreach by the executive branch on public lands, especially in Western states where federal control of land is contentious; it may influence future debates on balancing conservation with economic uses like resource development.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (7)
Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4], Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1], Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3], Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2], Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8], Rep. Begich, Nicholas J. [R-AK-At Large], Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1]
Recent Actions
- 2026-03-04: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 2026-03-04: Introduced in House
- 2026-03-04: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan". — issued 2026-03-04 — PDF (2 pages)