4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in PUBLIC LAWcompared with ENROLLED BILL

Technical corrections only. v4 reflects the bill's enactment into Public Law 119-51, adding the official approval date and legislative history. No substantive policy changes were made to the resolution itself between v3 and v4.

H.J.Res. 130119th CongressIntroduced Oct 8, 2025

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 Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.

Became Public LawPublic Lands and Natural ResourcesMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large]
Committees: Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action: Dec 11, 2025

Bottom line

Congress has successfully used its authority under the Congressional Review Act to nullify a Bureau of Land Management rule concerning a resource management plan for the Buffalo Field Office.

What it actually does

This Joint Resolution utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to formally disapprove a specific rule issued by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The rule in question is the "Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment," which was finalized on November 20, 2024. By disapproving this rule, the resolution prevents it from taking effect and ensures it has no legal force, effectively nullifying the BLM's action.

Proponents argue

Proponents of this resolution would argue that the BLM's rule either exceeded its statutory authority, imposed undue burdens on local economies, or failed to adequately consider the interests of specific stakeholders such as ranchers or energy producers. They would assert that congressional disapproval is a necessary and appropriate check on executive agency overreach, ensuring that significant regulatory actions align with legislative intent and public accountability.

Opponents contend

Opponents of this resolution would contend that the BLM's rule was the product of a thorough, expert-driven planning process, based on sound scientific principles, and designed to balance multiple uses of public lands, including conservation and recreation. They would argue that congressional disapproval undermines the expertise of federal agencies, creates regulatory uncertainty, and could lead to less effective or less sustainable management of vital public resources.

The bill is exceptionally short and clear, allowing for immediate understanding of its singular purpose.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule...

Disapproval of BLM Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) titled "Buffalo Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment." It further declares that this BLM rule, which was issued on November 20, 2024, shall have no force or effect, effectively nullifying it. The resolution cites the Government Accountability Office's opinion that this BLM action constitutes a "rule" under the Congressional Review Act, thereby making it subject to congressional disapproval.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupBureau of Land Management (BLM)ImpactLoss of regulatory authority over the specific disapproved plan; requirement to cease implementation of the rule and revert to previous management frameworks.MechanismCongressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act.ScaleSpecific to the Buffalo Field Office's resource management plan.

GroupStakeholders (e.g., ranchers, energy companies, environmental groups, local communities) operating or interested in the Buffalo Field Office areaImpactContinuation of the regulatory status quo or previous management plans; potential for new regulatory uncertainty regarding future land use decisions.MechanismNullification of the new rule, preventing its provisions from taking effect.ScaleRegional, impacting activities and environmental protections on public lands managed by the Buffalo Field Office.

Supporters argue

Supporters of this disapproval argue that the BLM's rule was either flawed, overreaching, or did not adequately serve the interests of local communities or specific industries reliant on public lands. They contend that Congress is exercising its constitutional oversight to prevent an executive agency from implementing policies that are detrimental or inconsistent with legislative intent, thereby protecting economic activity and local control.

Critics contend

Opponents of the disapproval would argue that the BLM's rule was the result of a comprehensive planning process, based on expert analysis, and designed to balance multiple uses of public lands, including conservation and sustainable development. They would assert that congressional intervention undermines sound resource management, creates instability for long-term planning, and potentially disregards environmental protections.

Tradeoffs

This resolution highlights the inherent tension between executive agency expertise in land management and congressional oversight. It trades the BLM's administrative discretion and potentially updated resource management strategies for a return to previous regulatory frameworks, reflecting a legislative preference over an agency's policy decision, which can lead to regulatory instability versus perceived accountability.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.