A joint resolution 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 "Record of Decision for the Barred Owl Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California".
- Bill Number
- S.J.Res. 69
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Environmental Protection
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-10-29: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 25 - 72. Record Vote Number: 597.
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-03T20:47:41Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (S.J. Res. 69) aims to block a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on managing barred owls in Washington, Oregon, and California. It uses the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a law that lets Congress review and overturn certain federal agency actions, to declare the decision invalid and prevent its enforcement.
Key Provisions
- Disapproval of Specific Agency Action: The resolution targets the USFWS's "Record of Decision" (ROD) issued on September 6, 2024, titled "Barred Owl Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California." An ROD is a final administrative document that approves a plan after environmental reviews.
- Reference to Legal Opinion: It cites a May 28, 2025, opinion from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent agency that audits federal operations, which classified the ROD as a "rule" under the CRA, making it eligible for congressional override.
- Effect of Disapproval: If enacted, the ROD would have "no force or effect," stopping the USFWS from implementing the barred owl management plan.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This resolution does not amend laws directly but invokes the CRA to nullify an executive branch decision without changing the underlying statutes (e.g., those protecting endangered species under the Endangered Species Act).
- It bypasses standard agency rulemaking processes by treating the ROD as a reviewable "rule," potentially setting a precedent for challenging similar environmental decisions through Congress rather than courts.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The USFWS would be unable to proceed with the barred owl strategy, which likely involves controlling invasive barred owls to protect native species like the northern spotted owl. This could delay or halt related conservation efforts and require the agency to redirect resources.
- On Citizens: Residents and communities in Washington, Oregon, and California might see unchanged barred owl populations, affecting local ecosystems, timber industries (which rely on owl habitat protections), and outdoor recreation. No direct international effects are noted, as the plan is domestic.
- Broader Environmental Effects: Without the strategy, threats to endangered owls could persist, potentially impacting biodiversity in Pacific Northwest forests.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: Primarily the USFWS, which loses authority to implement the plan; secondarily, the GAO for its advisory role.
- Congressional Sponsors: Introduced by Senators John Kennedy (R-LA), Rand Paul (R-KY), Katie Britt (R-AL), Rick Scott (R-FL), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and James Lankford (R-OK), indicating support from conservative lawmakers focused on limiting federal regulations.
- State and Local Interests: Governments and residents of Washington, Oregon, and California, including environmental groups advocating for native species protection and industries (e.g., logging) that may benefit from reduced restrictions.
- Wildlife and Conservation Groups: Organizations concerned with invasive species control or endangered owl recovery, who could face setbacks in habitat management.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Reinforces the CRA's role as a check on agency power, especially for environmental decisions under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The GAO's classification of an ROD as a "rule" could expand CRA's scope to non-traditional regulations, inviting future legal challenges.
- Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's oversight authority over the executive branch but raises questions about separation of powers if used to override science-based agency actions without debate.
- Political: Highlights partisan divides on federal environmental regulation; the petition to discharge the resolution from committee (bypassing standard review) suggests urgency and potential for quick Senate action if supported, though it requires presidential signature or veto override to become law.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (5)
Sen. Paul, Rand [R-KY], Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL], Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL], Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN], Sen. Lankford, James [R-OK]
Recent Actions
- 2025-10-29: Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 25 - 72. Record Vote Number: 597. (Roll call 597)
- 2025-10-15: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 190.
- 2025-10-15: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- 2025-10-15: Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- 2025-07-24: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 2025-07-24: Introduced in Senate
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 Record of Decision for the Barred Owl Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California. — issued 2025-07-24 — PDF (2 pages)
- 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 Record of Decision for the Barred Owl Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California. — issued 2025-10-15 — PDF (4 pages)