US Federal Senate Bill SJR61

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 10/7/25
• Introduced: 7/10/25
• Refer: 7/10/25

Caption

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 "Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment".

Summary

SJR61 is a congressional disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act targeting a Bureau of Land Management rule tied to the Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment. If enacted, it would nullify the BLM action issued on November 20, 2024, and prevent that land-use planning decision from having legal effect. The resolution relies on a June 25, 2025 Government Accountability Office opinion concluding that the BLM record of decision and resource management plan amendment qualifies as a rule for CRA purposes. The measure does not create a new regulatory program; instead, it would overturn an existing federal land management decision affecting BLM-administered lands in the Miles City Field Office area. Its practical effect would be to restore the prior legal status quo for the affected resource management plan and related land-use provisions, and it would constrain the agency from implementing the disapproved rule as written. Because it is a joint resolution of disapproval, its impact is limited to the specific BLM action identified in the text.

Impact

If adopted, SJR61 would invalidate the BLM’s Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment under chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code, meaning the rule would have no force or effect. This would directly affect federal land-use planning and management in the Miles City area, including any grazing, energy development, conservation, recreation, or other land-use decisions embedded in the amended plan. The resolution would not amend state law, but it would alter the governing federal framework for the affected lands and stakeholders.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is procedural and partisan in the typical Congressional Review Act sense, with sponsors seeking to overturn a federal land-management rule they oppose. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no documented floor debate or formal vote history to gauge broader sentiment. The fact that the resolution was discharged by petition and placed on the calendar indicates active interest in moving it forward, but the record here does not show consensus or opposition details.

Contention

The main point of contention is the underlying BLM resource management plan amendment itself: supporters of the resolution likely view the rule as an improper or undesirable land-use decision, while opponents would likely defend the BLM’s planning authority and the substance of the Miles City field office plan. A secondary issue is the threshold legal question addressed by the GAO opinion—whether the BLM record of decision counts as a CRA rule—because that determines whether Congress can use the disapproval mechanism at all. No specific stakeholder testimony is included, but the affected parties would likely include ranchers, energy interests, conservation groups, local land users, and federal land managers.