S.J.Res. 92119th CongressIntroduced Oct 28, 2025

A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway Administration relating to "Rescinding Regulations Regarding Management Systems Pertaining to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge Roads Program"".

IntroducedPublic Lands and Natural ResourcesMajor

Sponsor: Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Committees: Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
Last action: Oct 28, 2025

Bottom line

This resolution seeks to block the Federal Highway Administration from removing regulations that govern management systems for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge Roads Program, effectively preserving existing environmental and infrastructure oversight.

What it actually does

This joint resolution utilizes the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to disapprove a final rule issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The rule, published on September 19, 2025, aimed to rescind existing regulations concerning management systems related to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Refuge Roads Program. If enacted, S.J. Res. 92 would nullify the FHWA's rescission, thereby maintaining the original regulations that the FHWA rule sought to remove.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that the FHWA's rescission rule would undermine critical environmental protections and responsible management of federal lands, particularly those under the Fish and Wildlife Service. They contend that maintaining the existing regulations is essential for ensuring proper oversight of infrastructure projects within national wildlife refuges, protecting sensitive ecosystems, and upholding environmental standards. Disapproving the rule would prevent a rollback of these important safeguards.

Opponents contend

Opponents of this resolution (i.e., proponents of the FHWA's rescission rule) would likely argue that the original regulations are overly burdensome, create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, and impede efficient management or development of infrastructure within refuge lands. They might contend that rescinding these regulations would streamline processes, reduce administrative costs, and allow for greater flexibility in managing the Refuge Roads Program, without significantly compromising environmental goals.

The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its direct action.

Section 1

Congressional Disapproval of FHWA Rule

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the Federal Highway Administration's rule titled 'Rescinding Regulations Regarding Management Systems Pertaining to the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Refuge Roads Program,' which was published in the Federal Register on September 19, 2025. It further declares that this FHWA rule 'shall have no force or effect,' meaning it would be nullified if this joint resolution is enacted, thereby preserving the existing regulations.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupFederal Highway Administration (FHWA)ImpactRegulatory authority curtailedMechanismDisapproval of a final rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA)ScaleSpecific to one rule, but impacts regulatory flexibility

GroupFish and Wildlife Service (FWS)ImpactExisting management systems maintainedMechanismPrevention of regulatory rescissionScaleAffects oversight of refuge roads

GroupEnvironmental advocacy groupsImpactPositive, as existing protections are preservedMechanismMaintenance of environmental regulationsScaleSupports conservation efforts

GroupDevelopers and contractors working on refuge roadsImpactContinued adherence to existing regulationsMechanismNo change to the regulatory environment they operate underScalePotentially higher compliance costs than if the rule was rescinded

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this disapproval is crucial to prevent the weakening of environmental safeguards and responsible management practices within national wildlife refuges. They believe the FHWA rule would have removed necessary oversight, potentially leading to adverse impacts on sensitive ecosystems and wildlife.

Critics contend

Opponents of this resolution (i.e., those who supported the FHWA rule) would contend that the existing regulations are overly prescriptive and hinder efficient infrastructure development and maintenance within refuge lands. They would argue that rescinding these regulations, as the FHWA proposed, would reduce administrative burdens without compromising essential environmental outcomes.

Tradeoffs

The resolution highlights a tension between regulatory streamlining and environmental protection. While rescinding regulations might reduce administrative burdens for infrastructure projects, it could also diminish oversight of environmental impacts within sensitive refuge areas.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.