Home / Recent Bills / A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture relating to "Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions".
SENATE · SJRES 17119 CONGRESS
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture relating to "Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions".
A joint resolution goes through the same process as a bill and carries the same legal
force once signed. One exception: a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment is not presented to the President — it needs a two-thirds vote in
both chambers and then ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Bill vs. resolution, explained →
Summary
This joint resolution, S.J. Res. 17 from the 119th Congress, seeks to disapprove a rule issued by the U.S. Forest Service (an agency within the Department of Agriculture) concerning 'Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions.' The rule, published in the Federal Register on November 25, 2024 (Volume 89, page 92808), introduces or modifies regulations regarding criminal prohibitions and law enforcement authorities within National Forests and Grasslands managed by the Forest Service. By invoking the Congressional Review Act (CRA), specifically chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code, the resolution, if enacted (signed by the President or becoming law without signature), would nullify the Forest Service rule, rendering it having 'no force or effect.' The CRA allows Congress to overturn recently finalized federal agency rules by a simple majority vote in both chambers and presidential approval, providing a mechanism for legislative oversight of executive branch rulemaking. The resolution was introduced by Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and co-sponsored by Senators Mike Rounds (R-SD), Mike Lee (R-UT), and John Barrasso (R-WY), and referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Since this is a joint resolution under the CRA and not a constitutional amendment proposal, it follows the standard legislative path: passage by both the House and Senate and presentment to the President for signature or veto. The rule being challenged likely pertains to specific prohibitions, enforcement mechanisms, or penalties related to illegal activities on Forest Service lands, such as marijuana cultivation, timber theft, poaching, vandalism, or other crimes. Supporters of disapproval may argue the rule is overreaching, duplicative of state law, infringes on state jurisdiction, imposes undue burdens on users of public lands, or was issued without sufficient congressional input. Opponents may contend the rule is necessary to protect natural resources, ensure public safety, provide clear enforcement tools for federal officers, and address gaps in state capability or willingness to enforce laws on federal lands. The outcome hinges on balancing federal land management authority, states' rights, public safety, and resource protection priorities.
Ask This Bill
Ask a specific question about this bill’s actual text — answers cite the section they come from.
+Supports the principle that federal agencies should have clear authority to enforce laws protecting natural resources and public safety on federal lands, ensuring consistent protection across state lines.
+Could maintain necessary tools for federal officers to address serious crimes unique to or prevalent on public lands, such as large-scale illegal marijuana operations, timber trafficking, or archaeological resource theft, which may strain local law enforcement capacities.
+Preserves uniformity in prohibited conduct and penalties for visitors to National Forests, preventing a patchwork of state laws that might confuse users or create enforcement gaps.
+Aligns with Democratic values of robust federal stewardship of public lands and strong environmental protection, ensuring that agencies can respond effectively to threats to ecosystems and cultural resources.
+May prevent states with lax enforcement or limited resources from becoming havens for illegal activities that damage federal property and harm surrounding communities.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−Represents congressional interference with executive branch expertise in land management and law enforcement, potentially second-guessing technical judgments made by Forest Service professionals based on field experience.
−May reflect a reluctance to adequately fund federal law enforcement on public lands while simultaneously removing regulatory tools, putting forests and visitors at greater risk.
−Could be influenced by special interests seeking to weaken enforcement against profitable illegal activities on public lands, such as drug cartels or timber theft syndicates.
−Might undermine the federal government's trust responsibility to tribes and others who rely on forest resources, if reduced enforcement leads to increased degradation or illegal extraction.
−Sets a precedent for frequent congressional overturning of agency rules via the CRA, which could disrupt long-term land management planning and create regulatory whiplash that hinders consistent conservation efforts.
Republicans
MIGHT SUPPORT
+Reasserts congressional authority over executive branch rulemaking through the Congressional Review Act, preventing unelected bureaucrats from imposing regulations without sufficient legislative oversight.
+Addresses potential federal overreach by the Forest Service into areas traditionally managed by state and local law enforcement, preserving states' rights and local control over criminal enforcement on public lands.
+Could reduce regulatory burden and legal uncertainty for individuals and businesses using National Forests for recreation, grazing, timber, or other lawful activities if the rule is seen as overly restrictive or duplicative of existing state laws.
+Promotes government accountability by forcing agencies to justify rules with clear congressional input, ensuring that significant regulatory changes affecting public lands undergo democratic scrutiny.
+Aligns with Republican priorities of limiting federal bureaucracy expansion and protecting individual liberties from excessive federal regulation on public lands.
MIGHT OPPOSE
−May undermine the Forest Service's ability to effectively protect federal resources and ensure public safety by removing tools needed to combat illegal activities like drug cultivation, timber theft, poaching, and vandalism on National Forests.
−Could create confusion and inconsistency in law enforcement standards across different National Forests if state laws vary widely and federal prohibitions are withdrawn, complicating cooperation between federal, state, and local officers.
−Might be seen as obstructing necessary federal land management regulations, potentially damaging Republican credibility on issues of environmental stewardship and responsible use of public lands.
−Could lead to increased costs or inefficiencies if state and local agencies must bear the primary enforcement burden for crimes on federal lands without adequate federal support or reimbursement.
−May discourage future proactive rulemaking by federal agencies aimed at addressing emerging threats to public lands if Congress frequently uses the CRA to overturn regulations, creating regulatory instability.
![Sen. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY]](https://www.congress.gov/img/member/l000571_200.jpg)