H.J. Res. 151 (119th)Bill Overview

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…

Public Lands and Natural Resources|Public Lands and Natural Resources
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Mar 4, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

This joint resolution, under the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8, title 5, U.S. Code), would disapprove and nullify the Bureau of Land Management rule titled "Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan" (issued January 13, 2025).

The resolution cites a Government Accountability Office letter concluding the document is a rule under the CRA and declares the rule to have no force or effect.

Passage30/100

Content is narrow and administratively simple, aiding House passage, but significant Senate procedural and coalition obstacles lower overall odds.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that cleanly identifies the targeted agency action and invokes the statutory authority for nullification. It uses concise, standard disapproval language without elaboration.

Contention72/100

Progressives emphasize conservation harms and dangerous CRA precedent.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Permitting processTargeted stakeholders
Likely helped
  • Permitting processRemoves new land-use restrictions imposed by the BLM plan, reducing permitting requirements for extractive activities.
  • Targeted stakeholdersPotentially preserves or increases regional jobs in mining, energy, and grazing by easing regulatory constraints.
  • Targeted stakeholdersReasserts Congressional oversight over significant land-management rules under the Congressional Review Act.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersNullifying the RMP could weaken environmental protections for public lands and sensitive ecosystems.
  • Targeted stakeholdersMay increase risk to archaeological and paleontological resources through expanded development access and reduced prote…
  • Targeted stakeholdersCreates regulatory uncertainty that could deter conservation-related tourism and recreation investments in the region.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize conservation harms and dangerous CRA precedent.
Progressive15%

Likely opposed.

They would view nullifying the monument's record of decision and resource management plan as a rollback of conservation and monument protections.

They would see the resolution as enabling increased extractive uses and setting an unfavorable precedent for using the CRA against land-management decisions.

Likely resistant
Centrist50%

Cautiously mixed.

They would acknowledge Congress's authority under the CRA but worry about management instability and local impacts.

Support would depend on whether the ROD improperly restricted economic uses or was legally flawed, and whether a workable replacement process is committed.

Split reaction
Conservative85%

Likely supportive.

They would view the resolution as correcting administrative overreach and restoring multiple-use access for local economies.

They would praise use of the CRA to invalidate what they see as an overly restrictive or regulatory land-management decision.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood30/100

Content is narrow and administratively simple, aiding House passage, but significant Senate procedural and coalition obstacles lower overall odds.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Level of floor support in each chamber
  • Senate cloture/filibuster dynamics and vote math
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize conservation harms and dangerous CRA precedent.

Content is narrow and administratively simple, aiding House passage, but significant Senate procedural and coalition obstacles lower overal…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution that cleanly identifies the targeted agency action and invokes the statutory authority for nulli…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis