A joint resolution 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
- S.J.Res. 109
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 2
- Policy Area
- Public Lands and Natural Resources
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-03-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- Last Updated
- 2026-03-24T12:48:03Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (S.J. Res. 109) aims to disapprove a specific administrative rule issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), an agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The rule concerns the management plan for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. By using the Congressional Review Act (CRA)—a law that allows Congress to review and potentially overturn certain federal agency actions—the resolution seeks to nullify the rule, preventing it from taking effect. The CRA is part of the Administrative Procedure Act framework, enabling quick congressional intervention on agency decisions.
Key Provisions
- Disapproval of the Rule: The resolution 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 Documentation: It cites a January 15, 2026, opinion from the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—a nonpartisan agency that audits federal operations—printed in the Congressional Record on February 25, 2026 (pages S675-677). The GAO opinion concludes that the BLM's document qualifies as a "rule" under the CRA, making it eligible for congressional review.
- Effect of Disapproval: If passed, the rule would have no legal force or effect, effectively blocking the new management plan.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This resolution does not amend or create new laws but invokes the existing CRA (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code) to override an agency rule. It would reverse the BLM's 2025 decision, potentially reverting to prior management practices for the monument (established in 1996 by President Bill Clinton and modified in subsequent years).
- No broader changes to statutes are introduced; the focus is narrowly on nullifying this one rule, which could set a precedent for future congressional overrides of land management decisions.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The BLM would be unable to implement the 2025 management plan, potentially disrupting ongoing planning for the monument's 1.9 million acres of public land. This could lead to delays in resource allocation, enforcement, or updates to environmental protections.
- On Citizens: Local communities in southern Utah, including residents, ranchers, and tourists, might see changes in land access, recreation, or economic activities (e.g., grazing or energy development). Environmental protections could weaken if the prior plan allows more development, affecting conservation efforts.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though the monument's cultural and natural resources (including paleontological sites) have global scientific interest, potentially influencing U.S. commitments to international biodiversity or heritage agreements.
- Overall, it could shift the balance toward local economic uses over federal conservation priorities, sparking debates on public land stewardship.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Primarily the BLM, with indirect effects on the Department of the Interior and GAO.
- Congressional Figures: Introduced by Senators Mike Lee and John Curtis (both from Utah), representing Republican interests in states' rights and land use.
- Local and Economic Interests: Utah residents, ranchers, miners, and energy companies that may benefit from reduced restrictions; conversely, environmental groups (e.g., Sierra Club) and scientists opposing development.
- Indigenous and Conservation Communities: Native American tribes with cultural ties to the area (e.g., for sacred sites) and national monument advocates focused on preservation.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces the CRA's role as a check on executive branch actions, ensuring agency rules like resource management plans are subject to congressional oversight if deemed "rules." The GAO's opinion is key, as it clarifies the document's status under the law, avoiding disputes over whether it's reviewable.
- Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's Article I powers over federal lands and appropriations, but highlights tensions between branches—executive land designations (via the Antiquities Act of 1906) versus legislative reversal.
- Political: Reflects ongoing partisan divides on public lands, with conservatives often favoring state control and economic development over federal protections. If enacted, it could energize similar resolutions against Biden-era environmental rules, influencing the 119th Congress's agenda on energy and conservation. No court challenges are directly implied, but it may invite litigation from affected parties.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (1)
Recent Actions
- 2026-03-04: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 2026-03-04: Introduced in Senate
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)