Sponsored by
Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2]
ID: D000634
Follow the money
The bill
HJRES. 104, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 557-559 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Signed by President.
December 10, 2025
📍 Current Status
Next: If the President signs the bill, it becomes law.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
H.J. Res. 104 is a joint resolution that disapproves a rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) related to the "Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment". Wow, what a mouthful. I'm sure the average voter has no idea what this means, but don't worry, I'll break it down for you.
In essence, this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine environmental regulations and appease the fossil fuel industry. The BLM's rule aimed to manage public lands in Montana, ensuring sustainable use and conservation of natural resources. But, of course, that's not what our esteemed lawmakers want. They'd rather sacrifice the environment for the sake of their campaign donors.
Let's follow the money trail: the sponsors of this bill have received significant donations from oil and gas PACs, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA). Ah, what a coincidence! The patient's symptoms of supporting oil subsidies are directly related to their $500K infection from petroleum PACs.
The real disease here is corruption. This bill is a classic case of regulatory capture, where industries use their influence to shape policy and undermine public interest. The BLM's rule was designed to protect the environment, but our lawmakers are more concerned with protecting their campaign war chests.
Compliance requirements? Ha! There aren't any. This bill simply disapproves the existing rule, effectively gutting environmental regulations in Montana. Enforcement mechanisms? Don't make me laugh. The only enforcement mechanism here is the API's grip on Congress.
Economic and operational impacts? Well, let's just say that this bill will have a devastating effect on the environment, public health, and local communities. But hey, who cares about those things when there are campaign donations to be made?
In conclusion, H.J. Res. 104 is a symptom of a deeper disease: corruption, greed, and stupidity. Our lawmakers are more interested in serving their corporate masters than protecting the public interest. And we, the voters, are complicit in this farce by electing these charlatans time and again.
Diagnosis: Terminal Stupidity Syndrome (TSS). Prognosis: Poor. Treatment: None available, as the patient is too busy lining their pockets with campaign cash to care about the consequences.
Rep. Downing, Troy [R-MT-2]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 32 nodes and 21 connections (41 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $156,800
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.
The bill disapproves a rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to a Resource Management Plan Amendment, which could potentially allow for increased oil and gas exploration and production on public lands (Section: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives).
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.
— 524 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking: l Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding: 1. BLM waste prevention; 2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions;41 3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act;42 and 4. CEQ reforms to NEPA.43 l Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development. Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on the enormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who are capable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results. President Trump’s Schedule F proposal44 regarding accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. Consistent with the theme of bringing successful state resource management examples to the forefront of federal policy, DOI should also look for opportunities to broaden state–federal and tribal–federal cooperative agreements. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS BLM Headquarters. BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. After all, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of the nation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska: A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West. Thus, the Trump Administration’s decision to relocate BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C., to the West was the epitome of good governance: That is, it was not only well-informed, but it was also implemented efficiently, effectively, and with an eye toward affected career civil servants. Plus, despite overblown chatter from the inside-the-Beltway media, Congress, with bipartisan support, approved funding the move. Meanwhile, state, tribal, and local officials, the diverse collection of stakehold- ers who use public lands and western neighbors became accustomed to having top BLM decision-makers in Grand Junction, Colorado, rather than up to four
— 524 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Rulemaking. The following policy reversals require rulemaking: l Rescind the Biden rules and reinstate the Trump rules regarding: 1. BLM waste prevention; 2. The Endangered Species Act rules defining Critical Habitat and Critical Habitat Exclusions;41 3. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act;42 and 4. CEQ reforms to NEPA.43 l Reinstate President Trump’s plan for opening most of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska to leasing and development. Personnel Changes. The new Administration should be able to draw on the enormous expertise of state agency personnel throughout the country who are capable and knowledgeable about land management and prove it daily. States are better resource managers than the federal government because they must live with the results. President Trump’s Schedule F proposal44 regarding accountability in hiring must be reinstituted to bring success to these reforms. Consistent with the theme of bringing successful state resource management examples to the forefront of federal policy, DOI should also look for opportunities to broaden state–federal and tribal–federal cooperative agreements. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS BLM Headquarters. BLM headquarters belongs in the American West. After all, the overwhelming majority of the 245 million surface acres (10 percent of the nation’s landmass) managed by the agency lies in the 11 western states and Alaska: A mere 50,000 surface acres lie elsewhere. Moreover, 97 percent of BLM employees are located in the American West. Thus, the Trump Administration’s decision to relocate BLM headquarters from Washington, D.C., to the West was the epitome of good governance: That is, it was not only well-informed, but it was also implemented efficiently, effectively, and with an eye toward affected career civil servants. Plus, despite overblown chatter from the inside-the-Beltway media, Congress, with bipartisan support, approved funding the move. Meanwhile, state, tribal, and local officials, the diverse collection of stakehold- ers who use public lands and western neighbors became accustomed to having top BLM decision-makers in Grand Junction, Colorado, rather than up to four — 525 — Department of the Interior time zones away. All of them also appreciated that the BLM’s top subject matter experts were located not in the District of Columbia, but in the western states that most need their knowledge and expertise. Westerners no longer had to travel cross country to address BLM issues. Neither did officials in the West, closest to the resources and people they manage. On July 16, 2019, Secretary of the Interior David L. Bernhardt delivered to Con- gress the proposal for the relocation of nearly 600 BLM headquarters employees. On August 10, 2020, Secretary Bernhardt formally established the Robert F. Burford headquarters—named after the longest-serving BLM director, a Grand Junction native—with a staff of 41 senior officials and assistants. Another 76 positions were assigned to BLM state offices in western communities such as Billings, Montana; Boise, Idaho; Reno, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Cheyenne, Wyoming, to meet critical needs. Scores of other positions were assigned to the states that required BLM expertise. For example, wild horse and burro professionals were relocated to Nevada, home to nearly 60 percent of these western icons. Sixty-one positions were retained in Washington, D.C., to address public, congressional, and regulatory affairs, Freedom of Information Act compliance, and budget development. Despite the dislocating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the BLM success- fully filled hundreds of long-vacant positions, as well as those that opened because of the move West. The BLM saw notable numbers of applicants for these positions— so numerous that the BLM capped the number of eligible applicants to no more than 50. Obviously, reduced commuting times (often from hours to mere minutes), lower cost of living, and opportunity to access vast public lands for recreation made these jobs attractive to potential employees. Many, if not most, applicants stated they would not have applied had the positions been based in Washington, D.C. At the same time, western positions attracted those with the skills needed to meet the BLM’s multiple-use, sustained-yield mandate, disproving the claim that the BLM was suffering a “brain drain.” The Trump Administration recognized that, despite its attractions, not every- one employed by BLM in Washington, D.C., could move West. The Administration applied a hands-on approach, with all-employee briefing and question-and-answer sessions, regular email communications, and a website devoted to frequently asked questions. Two human resources teams aided employees wishing to remain in federal jobs in the D.C. area: All received new opportunities. The BLM’s move West incurred no legal challenges, no formal Equal Employ- ment Opportunity or U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board complaints, and no adverse union activity. It is hard to please everyone, but the Trump Administra- tion’s BLM did just that, putting the lie to assertions, by some, that the BLM was trying to “fire” federal employees. The total cost of $17.9 million for relocation incentives, permanent change-of- station moves, temporary labor, travel, printing, rent, supplies, equipment, and
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.