HJRES-49-118
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 73.
Sponsored by Pete Stauber (R-MN)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act to nullify a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rule published on November 30, 2022. That rule upgraded the northern long-eared bat's status from "threatened" to "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If this resolution passes, the bat would revert to its prior "threatened" status, and the species-specific rule that governed activities affecting the bat under that lower listing would be restored.
Who benefits
Landowners, timber companies, and agricultural operators in the 37 states where the bat lives who would face fewer restrictions on land use, logging, and development activities. Wind energy developers whose projects may be subject to reduced "take" prohibitions. State governments that would retain more authority over land management decisions. Industries whose operations near bat habitat — such as mining, road construction, and real estate development — would face less stringent federal oversight.
Who is hurt
The northern long-eared bat itself, which would lose the stronger legal protections that come with "endangered" status. Wildlife conservation organizations and researchers who argue the higher listing is necessary given the bat's population decline, largely due to white-nose syndrome. Landowners and businesses that have already adjusted operations to comply with the endangered listing. Ecosystems that depend on the bat for insect control, including agricultural areas where the bat suppresses pest populations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the FWS exceeded its scientific and legal authority by upgrading the bat's status without sufficient evidence that the change was warranted under the ESA's strict criteria. They contend that the "threatened" listing, combined with the species-specific rule already in place, provided adequate protection while allowing landowners, farmers, and businesses to continue productive use of their property. They argue the "endangered" designation imposes sweeping new land-use restrictions across 37 states, harming rural economies and property rights without a proportionate conservation benefit. Supporters also argue that Congress, not a federal agency, should make decisions of this magnitude — particularly in light of recent Supreme Court rulings requiring clear congressional authorization for major regulatory actions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the FWS followed the ESA's established scientific process and that the data — showing a population collapse of more than 97% in some areas due to white-nose syndrome — clearly meets the legal threshold for an "endangered" listing. They contend that reverting to "threatened" status would strip the bat of critical legal protections at the moment it needs them most, potentially accelerating its decline toward extinction. Opponents also argue that using the Congressional Review Act to override a science-based agency determination sets a damaging precedent for how wildlife protections are made and enforced. They further note that the bat's role in controlling insect populations provides significant economic value to agriculture, meaning its decline could ultimately harm the same industries that support this resolution.
Constitutional context
The ESA rests on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, Sec. 8). The FWS rule is an agency action subject to scrutiny under the post-Chevron framework established in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), which requires courts to independently assess whether agency interpretations of statutes are correct, rather than deferring to the agency. West Virginia v. EPA (2022) introduced the "major questions doctrine," under which agencies must point to clear congressional authorization for rules with vast economic and political significance. Sackett v. EPA (2023) signals the Court's willingness to narrow agency jurisdiction under environmental statutes. The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 8) provides the procedural mechanism here, giving Congress explicit authority to nullify agency rules by joint resolution.
Checks and balances
This resolution would shift authority from the Executive Branch (specifically the FWS within the Department of the Interior) back to Congress. By invoking the Congressional Review Act, the legislative branch would directly override an executive agency's scientific and regulatory determination. If enacted, the CRA also prohibits the agency from issuing a "substantially similar" rule in the future without new congressional authorization, representing a lasting constraint on executive agency power in this specific area.
Historical precedent
Congress has used the Congressional Review Act to nullify agency rules on multiple occasions, most notably in 2017 when it overturned 14 rules from the Obama administration. The CRA has also been used to disapprove ESA-related rules, including a 2018 resolution disapproving a FWS rule on hunting practices in Alaska national preserves.