Overview
Title
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Marine Fisheries Service relating to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Endangered and Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat.
ELI5 AI
S. J. RES. 85 is about Congress wanting to stop a rule that helps protect certain plants and animals by saying where they live is important and should be safe. They want to make sure this rule doesn't count anymore.
Summary AI
S. J. RES. 85 is a joint resolution proposed in the Senate that seeks to nullify a specific rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This rule pertains to the listing and designation of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, along with their critical habitats. By disapproving the rule, Congress intends that this regulation will not have any legal effect. The joint resolution was introduced by Mr. Ricketts and several co-sponsors and has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation for further consideration.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The joint resolution S. J. RES. 85, introduced during the 118th Congress, seeks to disapprove of a rule submitted by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This rule involves the listing of endangered and threatened wildlife and the designation of critical habitats for these species. Under chapter 8 of title 5 in the United States Code, Congress has the authority to nullify this rule, thereby rendering it without force or effect. The bill was introduced on May 15, 2024, and subsequently referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in the Senate.
Significant Issues Identified
Several key issues arise from this legislative action. First, the resolution does not specify the reasons for disapproval of the National Marine Fisheries Service's rule. This absence of a clear rationale can foster confusion among the public regarding the intent and implications of Congress's decision. Transparency about legislative motivations is vital for maintaining public trust.
Second, the resolution lacks information on the consequences of disapproving the rule. This omission creates uncertainty about its effects on endangered and threatened species, as well as on the conservation of their critical habitats. Such clarity is particularly crucial for stakeholders like environmental organizations and industries impacted by habitat designations.
Lastly, the language used in the bill is complex, potentially making it difficult for individuals without specialized knowledge to fully understand the legislative text. Ensuring that legislative documents are accessible and understandable is important for promoting informed public engagement and discourse.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The disapproval of this rule by Congress could have various impacts on the general public. For those concerned with environmental conservation, this move might be seen as a setback in efforts to protect endangered and threatened species, as the rule aimed to formalize the identification and protection of critical habitats. The rollback could lead to concerns about the potential threats to biodiversity and ecosystem sustainability.
On the other hand, industries or developers who may be restricted by such designations could view the disapproval as a positive outcome, allowing them more flexibility in land use and development activities without the constraints of additional environmental regulations.
For environmental groups and conservationists, the resolution represents a potential challenge to efforts aimed at protecting wildlife. They might need to reassess their strategies and advocacy efforts to ensure continued protection for habitats critical to the survival of vulnerable species.
In conclusion, S. J. RES. 85 brings to the forefront the delicate balance between conservation efforts and developmental interests. While the resolution offers certain stakeholders relief from stringent regulations, it simultaneously raises concerns about the commitment to preserving biodiversity and the complexity surrounding legislative processes.
Issues
The language is unclear about the specific reasons for disapproval of the rule by Congress, which might lead to confusion about the motivations and implications of this legislative action. This is the most critical issue as transparency in legislative intentions is essential for public understanding and trust. [Section: '']
There is no information provided about the implications or consequences of disapproving the rule, which can create uncertainty about the effects this resolution might have on endangered and threatened species and their habitats. Understanding these implications is crucial for stakeholders, including environmental groups and industries affected by habitat designations. [Section: '']
The text is complex and may be difficult for the general public to understand without additional context, potentially limiting informed public discourse and engagement on the matter. This complexity highlights the need for clearer communication in legislative documents to ensure accessibility and comprehension by all citizens. [Section: '']
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Congress disapproves of the rule made by the National Marine Fisheries Service about listing certain wildlife as endangered or threatened and designating their critical habitats, and declares that the rule will not be enforced.