Congress kills BLM land plan — but what was in it?
H.J.Res. 130 — 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". · Filed by Harriet Hageman (R-WY) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Oct 8, 2025 · Signed
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This is a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution that kills a Bureau of Land Management resource management plan for the Buffalo Field Office issued in November 2024. Congress is using its CRA power to reject the BLM's land-use and management decisions for that office, rendering the plan void.
Why we flagged it
This is a procedural CRA resolution that invokes statutory disapproval authority to nullify a specific BLM resource management plan. It does exactly one thing: reject a rule under the mechanism Congress established in the CRA.
What the text implies
- Disapproving the plan does not automatically restore prior management rules — it creates a regulatory vacuum that may require BLM to revert to older guidance or issue new rules, potentially delaying land-use decisions.
- The resolution references a GAO opinion (dated September 18, 2025) concluding the BLM plan is a 'rule' under the CRA — this legal characterization is outcome-determinative but not explained in the resolution text itself.
- Without access to the actual Buffalo Field Office plan, the civic impact cannot be assessed: disapproval may protect public lands from extraction, or it may block conservation measures, depending on the plan's content.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The civic effect depends entirely on what the Buffalo Field Office plan contained — whether it protected public lands and resources or opened them to extraction. The resolution itself is procedurally transparent but substantively opaque without knowing the plan's actual provisions.
Named in the bill
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Buffalo Field Office, Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congressional Review Act (CRA)
Where it stands
1 cosponsor: 1 Republicans.
- Oct 8, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Oct 8, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Natural Resources · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources”
- Nov 18, 2025 — Passed the House · Congress.gov: “On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 212 (Roll no. 294). (text: CR H4746)”
- Nov 20, 2025 — Passed both chambers · Congress.gov: “Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 43. Record Vote Number: 623.”
- Dec 3, 2025 — Sent to president · Congress.gov: “Presented to President”
- Dec 11, 2025 — Signed into law · Congress.gov: “Became Public Law No: 119-51”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (1,436 characters) on Jul 10, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Congress kills BLM land plan — but what was in it?” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hjres130 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.