Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify a federal rule issued by an agency. If both chambers of Congress approve the joint resolution and the President signs it, the specified rule would have no force or effect and the agency would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation. The CRA includes expedited procedures in the Senate that limit debate and allow passage by a simple majority.
The record of decision titled "Barred Owl Management Strategy" issued September 6, 2024.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
As a CRA disapproval joint resolution, it must be passed by both the House and the Senate and presented to the President for signature to take effect. The CRA provides expedited Senate procedures that limit debate and prevent a filibuster, so the resolution can pass the Senate with a simple majority.
This joint resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the United States Fish and Wildlife Service rule titled “Barred Owl Management Strategy,” identified as a record of decision issued September 6, 2024.
The resolution cites a Government Accountability Office letter (May 28, 2025) concluding that that record of decision is a rule under the CRA.
If enacted, the resolution would make the challenged rule have no force or effect.
On substance the measure is low-cost, narrowly focused, and administratively simple—characteristics that make it easier to advance than broad or expensive legislation. However, disapproving an agency rule under the CRA is politically consequential to stakeholders and often splits legislators along policy lines; the lack of compromise features and the practical difficulty of achieving Senate passage (and ultimate executive approval or veto dynamics) reduce the chance it becomes law based purely on content considerations.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped Congressional Review Act disapproval that is procedurally straightforward and clearly identifies the targeted agency action, but it provides minimal detail beyond the disapproval itself.
Role of science vs. congressional oversight: progressives emphasize preserving agency science-based conservation tools; conservatives emphasize congressional check on agency power.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Role of science vs. congressional oversight: progressives emphasize preserving agency science-based conservation tools; conservatives emphasize congressional check on agency power.
From a mainstream progressive environmental perspective, this person would likely oppose congressional disapproval because it removes a tool developed by a federal wildlife agency to manage species interactions and recover at-risk wildlife.
They would emphasize reliance on agency science and the Endangered Species Act processes and worry that Congressional nullification substitutes political judgment for technical conservation decisions.
At the same time, they may express concern about any lethal management components and insist on strict oversight, transparency, and preference for non‑lethal options where feasible.
A pragmatic moderate would focus on process and oversight: they would recognize Congress’s authority under the CRA to disapprove a rule but be concerned about the precedent of overriding an agency’s technical judgment without full information.
They would weigh the need for accountability against potential harms to species protection and possible legal or administrative disruption.
Their position would be conditional and hinge on the factual record about what the rule actually does and why GAO found it to be a rule.
A mainstream conservative would likely support the resolution as an example of Congressional oversight and a check on what they view as executive branch regulatory overreach.
They may see the action as protecting landowners, timber interests, recreational users, or local control from an agency rule that could authorize intrusive management or restrictions.
They would emphasize restoring legislative authority and preventing the agency from implementing a policy that was not properly adopted through transparent rulemaking.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On substance the measure is low-cost, narrowly focused, and administratively simple—characteristics that make it easier to advance than broad or expensive legislation. However, disapproving an agency rule under the CRA is politically consequential to stakeholders and often splits legislators along policy lines; the lack of compromise features and the practical difficulty of achieving Senate passage (and ultimate executive approval or veto dynamics) reduce the chance it becomes law based purely on content considerations.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Role of science vs. congressional oversight: progressives emphasize preserving agency science-based conservation tools; conservatives empha…
On substance the measure is low-cost, narrowly focused, and administratively simple—characteristics that make it easier to advance than bro…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped Congressional Review Act disapproval that is procedurally straightforward and clearly identifies the targeted agency action, but it provides mini…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.