US Federal House Bill HJR36

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/14/25

Caption

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".

Summary

HJR 36 is a joint resolution under the Congressional Review Act that would disapprove a Forest Service rule issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture titled “Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions” (89 Fed. Reg. 92808, Nov. 25, 2024). If enacted, the resolution would nullify that rule and prevent it from taking effect, making the rule legally void and without force or effect. The bill itself does not amend the underlying statute directly; instead, it uses Congress’s disapproval authority to overturn a specific agency regulation. Because the resolution targets a Forest Service rule, its practical effect would be on federal land management and enforcement policy, including how criminal prohibitions are defined or enforced on National Forest System lands. The measure would affect the Forest Service and any individuals, businesses, or land users subject to the challenged rule, such as recreation users, permit holders, timber or grazing interests, and others operating on federal forest lands. Its impact would be limited to the rule identified in the resolution, but it would also signal congressional disapproval of the agency’s regulatory approach in this area.

Impact

The resolution would not change the U.S. Code directly, but would invalidate the Forest Service’s “Law Enforcement; Criminal Prohibitions” rule under chapter 8 of title 5. If adopted, the rule would have no legal effect, and the agency would be barred from enforcing that specific regulation unless Congress later authorized a similar policy through new legislation. The bill therefore affects federal administrative law and Forest Service enforcement authority rather than creating new statutory requirements.

Sentiment

The available record suggests the bill is being advanced in a generally supportive or at least procedurally routine manner by its sponsors, who are seeking to overturn a Forest Service regulation they oppose. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no documented floor debate or formal vote history in the materials supplied. The bill’s referral to the Subcommittee on Forestry and Horticulture indicates it is still in the early committee stage.

Contention

The central point of contention is the underlying Forest Service rule itself: supporters of HJR 36 appear to view the rule as an overreach or an undesirable expansion of criminal prohibitions on federal forest lands, while opponents of the resolution would likely defend the agency’s authority to set enforcement standards and protect public lands. Because no hearing transcript or vote record is included, the specific arguments on either side are not documented here, but the dispute is clearly between congressional sponsors seeking disapproval and the agency policy they are targeting.