Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Barred Owl Management Strategy".
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 111
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Animals
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-07-23: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-03T20:47:40Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 111) aims to block a specific administrative rule issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concerning the management of barred owls. It uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a law that allows Congress to overturn certain federal agency rules, to prevent the rule from taking effect.
Key Provisions
- Disapproval of the Rule: The resolution explicitly disapproves the USFWS rule titled "Barred Owl Management Strategy," issued on September 6, 2024, as a record of decision.
- Reference to GAO Opinion: It cites a May 28, 2025, opinion from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) confirming that the rule qualifies as a "rule" under the CRA, making it subject to congressional review. This opinion was printed in the Congressional Record on July 10, 2025.
- Nullification: Once enacted, the rule would have no legal force or effect, effectively canceling it.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This resolution does not amend broader laws but invokes the CRA to override the specific USFWS rule. The CRA itself remains unchanged, but this action demonstrates its use to reverse an agency's environmental management decision without needing new legislation.
- It halts implementation of the barred owl strategy, which likely involved measures like targeted removal or control of barred owls to protect native species (e.g., northern spotted owls), altering how the USFWS can enforce such wildlife policies moving forward.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The USFWS would be prohibited from enforcing the rule, potentially delaying or altering wildlife conservation efforts in affected areas, such as forests in the Pacific Northwest. This could require the agency to revisit or abandon the strategy, straining resources.
- On Citizens and Environment: Local communities, hunters, and environmentalists may see shifts in owl populations and habitat management. It could benefit species threatened by barred owls (invasive competitors) less directly, while possibly easing restrictions on land use or recreation in owl habitats.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it touches on U.S. biodiversity commitments under treaties like the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which could indirectly affect cross-border wildlife discussions with Canada or Mexico.
Main Stakeholders
- United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): The federal agency directly targeted, responsible for implementing wildlife protections.
- Environmental and Conservation Groups: Organizations focused on endangered species (e.g., those protecting spotted owls) may oppose the disapproval, as it could undermine efforts to control invasive barred owls.
- Landowners, Timber Industry, and Local Communities: In regions like the Northwest, these groups might support the resolution if the rule imposed restrictions on land management or economic activities.
- Bipartisan Lawmakers: Sponsors from both parties (e.g., Republicans like Mr. Nehls and Democrats like Mr. Gottheimer) indicate broad political interest in checking agency actions.
- General Public and Wildlife Enthusiasts: Affected by changes in bird populations and ecosystem balance.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces the CRA's role as a tool for Congress to review and veto agency rules, emphasizing the separation of powers between legislative and executive branches. The GAO's opinion underscores the rule's eligibility for CRA scrutiny, setting a precedent for classifying agency decisions as "rules."
- Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's oversight authority under Article I, but could spark debates on executive discretion in environmental regulation, especially if challenged in court over wildlife management under laws like the Endangered Species Act.
- Political: Bipartisan sponsorship highlights rare cross-party agreement on limiting federal overreach, potentially influencing future environmental policy battles. It may signal congressional pushback against Biden-era (or similar) agency actions, affecting the balance of power in conservation debates.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (41)
Rep. Harder, Josh [D-CA-9], Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10], Rep. Gray, Adam [D-CA-13], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5], Rep. Kamlager-Dove, Sydney [D-CA-37], Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2], Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16], Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2], Rep. Harshbarger, Diana [R-TN-1], Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5], Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1], Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick, Sheila [D-FL-20], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1], Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Cammack, Kat [R-FL-3], Rep. Garbarino, Andrew R. [R-NY-2], Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6], Rep. Veasey, Marc A. [D-TX-33], Rep. Gomez, Jimmy [D-CA-34], Rep. Bishop, Sanford D. [D-GA-2], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Carson, André [D-IN-7], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3], Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22], Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3], Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16], Rep. Yakym, Rudy [R-IN-2], Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8], Rep. Hamadeh, Abraham J. [R-AZ-8], Rep. Langworthy, Nicholas A. [R-NY-23], Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN-4], Rep. Kennedy, Mike [R-UT-3], Rep. Cisneros, Gilbert Ray [D-CA-31], Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]
Recent Actions
- 2025-07-23: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 2025-07-23: Introduced in House
- 2025-07-23: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Barred Owl Management Strategy". — issued 2025-07-23 — PDF (2 pages)