Senate Deadlocked on Spending Bill Amid Fierce Partisan Battles Over Judges, Regulations

WASHINGTON, Oct 29, 2025 – A deeply divided U.S. Senate failed again on Tuesday to advance a temporary government funding bill, pushing the nation closer to a shutdown as lawmakers remained locked in a bitter stalemate. The legislative paralysis on the chamber's most basic duty stood in stark contrast to a day of intense partisan activity that saw the confirmation of a controversial federal judge, the advancement of another, and procedural clashes over the president’s authority on trade and environmental regulation.

The day's proceedings on October 28, 2025, painted a vivid portrait of a Congress consumed by profound ideological battles over the future of the judiciary and the scope of federal power, even as it struggled to perform the fundamental task of keeping the government’s lights on. While senators found rare bipartisan consensus to roll back tariffs on Brazil, the chamber's primary focus remained on the high-stakes confrontations that have come to define the current political landscape, leaving the path forward on a government funding resolution dangerously uncertain.

Brinkmanship Over Government Funding

The central drama of the day unfolded as the Senate once again rejected a motion to end debate on a House-passed bill to temporarily fund the government. The 54-45 vote on H.R. 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, fell short of the 60-vote supermajority required to overcome a filibuster and proceed to a final vote.1 The failure marked the latest in a series of unsuccessful attempts to pass the short-term spending measure, which has been stalled in the Senate for weeks, intensifying the risk of a federal shutdown when the current fiscal year ends.2

The bill at the heart of the standoff is a stopgap measure known as a Continuing Resolution (CR), designed to keep federal agencies operating at their current funding levels through November 21, 2025.4 It passed the House of Representatives by a narrow 217-212 margin on September 19, 2025, and was sent to the Senate, where it has been mired in partisan gridlock ever since.2

The Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress have championed the bill as a "clean" funding extension, arguing it is a responsible, straightforward measure to prevent the chaos of a shutdown while negotiations on full-year appropriations bills continue.6 In a statement following the bill's House passage, Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) asserted, "Keeping the lights on is not a partisan issue — and this clean, short-term funding extension reflects that".6 He accused Democrats of attempting to "hijack a simple extension with a partisan grab bag of unrelated provisions".6

This position was strongly echoed by the White House, which issued a formal Statement of Administration Policy urging all members of Congress to support the bill. The administration warned that failure to pass the CR would result in a "senseless Government shutdown that would be disastrous for the American people," disrupting key services and eventually halting paychecks for military families.7 The statement cast any opposition to the bill as "an endorsement of a senseless Government shutdown that the American people will not stand for".7

Despite these warnings, Senate Democrats have remained unified in their opposition, repeatedly blocking the bill from advancing. While Democratic leaders have not issued public statements detailing their specific demands, their consistent blockade and comments from Republican colleagues suggest they are using the must-pass legislation as leverage to force negotiations on other policy priorities. Senator John Thune (R-SD) recently accused Democrats of inventing a "Republican healthcare crisis" related to expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits as a pretext for their opposition, a sign that the funding debate has become entangled with broader disputes over social programs.8

The protracted conflict reveals a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes essential government business. For Republicans, the term "clean CR" signifies a simple extension of the current budget, a neutral act to maintain stability.6 For Democrats, however, voting for such a bill would mean tacitly accepting a status quo they find untenable, particularly regarding the expiration of programs they support. This semantic battle over the word "clean" has become a proxy war for the larger struggle over which party's priorities are deemed critical enough to be included in essential legislation.

Furthermore, the ongoing impasse over a temporary funding measure calls into question the stated goal of restoring "regular order" to the budget process. House Republican leadership presented the CR as a necessary bridge to allow for the responsible completion of the twelve individual, full-year appropriations bills.6 Yet the very need for a CR arises from the failure of that "regular order" in the first place. The inability of Congress to agree even on a short-term stopgap after weeks of debate suggests a level of institutional dysfunction that runs deeper than a single budget cycle.2 The CR is not functioning as a tool to facilitate a healthy process, but rather as another symptom of its breakdown.

Funding Bill Stalls in Senate: Cloture Vote on H.R. 5371 (Oct. 28, 2025)
!(https://i.imgur.com/k6lP12M.png)

The Battle to Shape the Federal Judiciary

While the funding fight dominated headlines, the Senate dedicated significant floor time to another deeply polarizing issue: President Trump’s nominations for lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary. The chamber held two key votes that proceeded almost entirely along party lines, underscoring the role of the courts as a central battleground in the nation's ideological conflicts.

Confirmation of Jordan Emery Pratt

By a narrow vote of 52-47, the Senate confirmed Jordan Emery Pratt to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida.1 Pratt, born in 1987, currently serves as a judge on Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal. His career includes senior roles at the conservative First Liberty Institute, the U.S. Department of Justice, and as Deputy Solicitor General for Florida.11

His confirmation was met with fierce resistance from a coalition of civil liberties, women's rights, and progressive advocacy organizations. The National Women's Law Center (NWLC) issued a statement condemning the vote, asserting that Pratt's legal record "includes an alarming pattern of undermining the rights of pregnant people, women, and trans people, proves that he is not committed to serving as a fair and impartial federal judge".12

Opponents pointed to specific elements of his record as evidence of a "deeply ideological agenda" that would compromise his ability to be an impartial jurist.13 This included his legal work and writings that opposed abortion access, argued for the expansion of gun rights into sensitive places like university campuses, and challenged LGBTQ+ protections in healthcare and education.13 The group Demand Justice also highlighted his refusal during his confirmation process to answer questions about the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election and the nature of the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol.15

Advancement of Edmund G. LaCour, Jr.

In another sharply contested vote, the Senate voted 53-46 to invoke cloture on the nomination of Edmund G. LaCour, Jr., to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.1 The procedural vote, which cuts off further debate, clears the way for a final confirmation vote expected later in the week.

LaCour currently serves as the Solicitor General of Alabama, a position in which he has represented the state in some of its most high-profile legal battles, including arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark voting rights case Allen v. Milligan.17 His nomination has drawn strong praise from Alabama's Republican leadership. Senators Katie Britt and Tommy Tuberville, along with Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, lauded his "unparalleled" legal acumen and "deep respect for the Constitution and the rule of law".19 The American Bar Association, which evaluates the professional qualifications of nominees, rated him "well qualified".17

However, progressive legal groups have mounted a strenuous opposition campaign. The Alliance for Justice (AFJ) described LaCour not as a neutral advocate but as a leader of a "far-right ideological crusade".20 The AFJ's opposition centers on his work as Solicitor General, where he defended Alabama's highly restrictive abortion laws, its gerrymandered congressional maps that federal courts ultimately found likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters, and state policies targeting gender-affirming care for transgender youth.21 In written responses to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee, LaCour declined to denounce the January 6th insurrection, stating that its characterization is a "matter of political debate" and that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on an issue that could come before him as a judge.23

The near party-line votes on both Pratt and LaCour reveal how the judicial confirmation process has transformed into a primary arena for the nation's broader culture wars. The arguments against the nominees focused less on traditional metrics of judicial qualification, such as legal experience or temperament, and more on their perceived ideological stances on hot-button issues like abortion, voting rights, and LGBTQ+ equality. This indicates that both political parties increasingly view lifetime judicial appointments as a critical, long-lasting means of advancing their policy agendas, making each confirmation a high-stakes battle over the future direction of American law.

In this intensely politicized environment, the distinction between a nominee's past work as a legal advocate and their future role as an impartial judge has all but vanished. Opposition groups explicitly argue that a nominee's advocacy record is a direct preview of their judicial philosophy. The AFJ, for instance, wrote in its letter opposing LaCour that "there is every reason to believe he would be the same kind of judge" as he was a lawyer.21 Conversely, his supporters point to that same record as definitive proof of his fitness for the bench. This shift has turned the confirmation process from an evaluation of judicial temperament into a political referendum on the policies and causes a nominee has previously defended.

Nominee	Position	Senate Action	Final Vote
Jordan Emery Pratt	U.S. District Judge, M.D. Florida	Confirmed	52-47
Edmund G. LaCour, Jr.	U.S. District Judge, N.D. Alabama	Debate Advanced (Cloture Invoked)	53-46

A Rare Bipartisan Consensus on Brazil Tariffs

In a striking break from the day's pervasive partisan rancor, the Senate came together to pass S.J. Res. 81, a measure to terminate tariffs on goods imported from Brazil. The resolution passed by a 52-48 vote, with a coalition of Democrats and Republicans joining forces to rebuke a significant trade action taken by the executive branch.1

The tariffs were imposed on July 30, 2025, when President Trump issued Executive Order 14323.25 The order declared a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law granting the president broad authority to regulate commerce in response to foreign threats. It levied an additional 40% tariff on a wide range of Brazilian products, which, when combined with a pre-existing 10% tariff, brought the total rate to 50% on many goods.27

The administration justified this aggressive move by citing what it called an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States".27 The executive order detailed a list of grievances against the Brazilian government, including the alleged political persecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and accusations that Brazilian officials were pressuring U.S.-based social media companies to censor content and turn over user data.26

However, a diverse and bipartisan coalition in the U.S. argued that the tariffs were causing more harm at home than good abroad. The resolution to terminate them, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), drew support from business groups, local governments, and free-market advocates.24 The U.S. Conference of Mayors, a bipartisan organization, warned of the tariffs' "devastating economic impact," pointing to rising construction costs and persistent supply chain disruptions felt in cities across the country.31 The National Taxpayers Union, a conservative advocacy group, argued that the tariffs were "harming Americans on an ongoing basis" through lost exports and higher consumer prices, and cautioned that the policy could inadvertently push Brazil, a key trading partner, into a closer economic alliance with China.30

The passage of the resolution represents a significant congressional effort to reclaim authority over international trade policy. By using a provision of the National Emergencies Act to terminate the president's declaration, the Senate sent a clear signal of its institutional opposition to the executive branch's expansive use of emergency powers to unilaterally implement major economic policies.25 The bipartisan nature of the vote suggests the action was driven not by simple partisan opposition, but by a more fundamental, constitutional concern about the separation of powers.

Moreover, the debate and vote demonstrated a clear instance where tangible, domestic economic concerns took precedence over the administration's more abstract foreign policy justifications. While the White House framed the tariffs as a necessary response to geopolitical and human rights issues in Brazil, the arguments that ultimately proved persuasive in the Senate were grounded in the immediate economic pain being felt by American businesses and consumers. The vote indicates that a majority of senators found the measurable costs to their constituents to be a more compelling factor than the administration's stated foreign policy objectives.

Congress Moves to Undo Federal Regulations

The Senate also took procedural steps on two separate resolutions aimed at nullifying major federal regulations through the Congressional Review Act (CRA). This legislative tool allows Congress to overturn rules issued by executive branch agencies with a simple majority vote in both chambers, placing contentious environmental and conservation policies squarely in the political crosshairs.

The Fight Over Alaska's Oil Fields (S.J. Res. 80)

Lawmakers scheduled a future vote on S.J. Res. 80, a resolution that seeks to disapprove a 2022 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule that expanded protections and limited oil and gas development in the vast National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A).1 A motion to proceed with debate on the resolution later passed 54-46, with Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) joining Republicans in support.34

The resolution, sponsored by Alaska's Republican Senators Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski, is backed by industry and business groups who argue the BLM rule stifles economic growth and undermines American energy security.33 The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) contended that the Biden-era rule "explicitly disregarded" the congressional mandate for energy production in the reserve by closing 52% of its 23 million acres to leasing.37 Supporters argue that overturning the rule is vital for lowering energy costs nationwide and providing essential jobs and tax revenue for Alaska Native communities on the North Slope.35

Opponents of the resolution, however, defend the BLM rule as a critical safeguard for one of the world's most fragile and ecologically important regions. A coalition of state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, described the effort to rescind the protections as a "reckless rollback" that would open pristine Arctic landscapes to the dangers of industrial development.39 They warn that expanded drilling would increase the risk of devastating oil spills, accelerate climate change through new greenhouse gas emissions, and threaten the subsistence lifestyles and cultural traditions of Native communities that depend on the region's wildlife.39

The Contentious Case of the Barred Owl (S.J. Res. 69)

In one of the day's more unusual and ethically complex debates, the Senate also scheduled action on S.J. Res. 69, a CRA resolution to block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) "Barred Owl Management Strategy".1 This federal plan calls for the lethal removal, or culling, of up to 500,000 barred owls across Washington, Oregon, and California in a desperate attempt to save the native Northern Spotted Owl, which is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and is being driven toward extinction by its more aggressive cousin.

Supporters of the resolution, a coalition that includes animal welfare groups and the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, have condemned the FWS plan as a "moral atrocity" and an inhumane "billion-dollar scheme to kill roughly half a million North American owls".42 They argue that the mass killing of one species to save another is ethically wrong, scientifically unproven on a large scale, and a violation of the conservation mission of national parks where some of the culling would occur. Some critics also suggest the plan is a "pretext" to allow logging companies to avoid liability for accidentally killing spotted owls by offering the culling program as a form of "mitigation".43

On the other side, supporters of the FWS strategy, including the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) and many conservation scientists, argue that the lethal removal of the invasive barred owl is a painful but scientifically necessary last resort to prevent the complete extinction of the Northern Spotted Owl.45 They point to decades of research from the FWS and the U.S. Geological Survey indicating that competition from the larger, more adaptable barred owl is the primary factor behind the spotted owl's catastrophic population decline.46 Small-scale experimental removal programs have already shown that reducing the barred owl population has a "strong, positive effect on survival of northern spotted owls".46 Supporters also dispute the cost estimates, stating the program is projected to cost between $4.5 and $12 million annually, not billions.45

The use of the CRA in these cases transforms what were complex, science-based regulatory decisions into binary, up-or-down political votes. Both the BLM's Alaska rule and the FWS's owl management strategy were the culmination of years of scientific study, environmental reviews, and public comment periods. The CRA allows Congress to erase these multi-year efforts with a simple majority vote, sidelining scientific expertise in favor of a political determination.

The barred owl debate, in particular, exposes a profound and growing conflict within the conservation movement itself. This is not a traditional fight between industry and environmentalists. Instead, it pits two competing conservation ethics against each other: a pragmatic, interventionist approach that advocates for ecological triage—sacrificing individuals of one species to save another from extinction—and a preservationist, non-lethal philosophy that recoils at the idea of such a large-scale killing program. The fact that Congress is being asked to legislate a final answer to this deeply philosophical and scientific dilemma is a testament to the increasingly polarized nature of environmental policy.

Other Legislative and Committee Activity

While major partisan confrontations defined the day, the Senate also conducted other routine legislative business. In moments of non-controversial agreement, the chamber passed resolutions by unanimous consent to designate the last week of October as "Bat Week" and to recognize October 2025 as "National Dyslexia Awareness Month".1

Meanwhile, Senate committees held a series of hearings on a wide range of pressing national issues. The Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee examined ways to revive the U.S. commercial shipbuilding industry, a topic with significant implications for national security and the economy.1 The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on competition issues in the seed and fertilizer industries, where farmers testified about the impact of market consolidation on their input costs and viability.1 A Judiciary subcommittee also convened a hearing on politically violent attacks, which featured testimony from a police officer who defended the Capitol on January 6th and experts on domestic extremism.1

A Day of Division, An Uncertain Path Forward

Tuesday's session in the Senate served as a microcosm of a deeply polarized government. While lawmakers managed to confirm a judge, advance another, and engage in substantive debates over trade and regulation, the chamber’s inability to overcome the impasse on its most fundamental responsibility—funding the government—cast a long shadow over all other proceedings. The repeated failure to advance a simple stopgap spending bill has left the country on an uncertain path, with the threat of a disruptive and costly government shutdown looming ever larger. The day's events demonstrated that even as Congress grapples with the long-term direction of the nation's courts and regulatory landscape, it remains profoundly stuck on the immediate task of paying its bills.

Works cited

1. CREC-2025-10-28-dailydigest.pdf
2. H.R.5371 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371
3. All Info - H.R.5371 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371/all-info
4. US HR5371 - BillTrack50, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1906242
5. H. R. 5371 - GovInfo, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-119hr5371ih/pdf/BILLS-119hr5371ih.pdf
6. House Passes H.R. 5371, The Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, accessed October 29, 2025, https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-passes-hr-5371-continuing-appropriations-and-extensions-act-2026
7. HR 5371 — Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026 | The White House, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/H.R.-5371-%E2%80%94-Continuing-Appropriations-and-Extensions-Act-2026.pdf
8. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 173 (Monday, October 20, 2025) - GovInfo, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2025-10-20/html/CREC-2025-10-20-pt1-PgS7162.htm
9. Actions - H.R.5371 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371/all-actions
10. Roll Call Vote 119 th Congress - 1 st Session - Senate.gov, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00592.htm
11. Jordan Pratt - Wikipedia, accessed October 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Pratt
12. NWLC Reacts to Confirmation of Jordan Pratt to U.S. District Court, accessed October 29, 2025, https://nwlc.org/press-release/nwlc-reacts-to-confirmation-of-jordan-pratt-to-u-s-district-court/
13. Judge Jordan Pratt | CourtsMatter, accessed October 29, 2025, https://courtsmatter.org/nominees/judge-jordan-pratt/
14. Jordan E. Pratt - Alliance for Justice, accessed October 29, 2025, https://afj.org/nominee/jordan-e-pratt/
15. Jordan E. Pratt - Demand Justice, accessed October 29, 2025, https://demandjustice.org/nominees/jordan-e-pratt/
16. PN466-2 - Nomination of Edmund G. LaCour Jr. for The Judiciary, 119th Congress (2025-2026), accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/nomination/119th-congress/466/2
17. Edmund LaCour - Ballotpedia, accessed October 29, 2025, https://ballotpedia.org/Edmund_LaCour
18. Edmund LaCour - Wikipedia, accessed October 29, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_LaCour
19. U.S. Senate confirms Eddie LaCour to federal bench – Alabama caps 3-for-3 push for confirmations - Yellowhammer News, accessed October 29, 2025, https://yellowhammernews.com/u-s-senate-confirms-eddie-lacour-to-federal-bench-alabama-caps-3-for-3-push-for-confirmations/
20. Nomination of Edmund LaCour - Alliance for Justice, accessed October 29, 2025, https://afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/LaCour-Report.pdf
21. Edmund LaCour Letter of Opposition - Alliance for Justice, accessed October 29, 2025, https://afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Edmund-LaCour-Letter-of-Opposition.pdf
22. As Alabama's Solicitor General, Federal Judicial Nominee Edmund LaCour Defended The State's Abortion Ban And - Accountable US, accessed October 29, 2025, https://accountable.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Edmund-LaCour-Backgrounder.pdf
23. 1 Senator Dick Durbin Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee Written Questions for Edmund G. LaCour, Jr. Nominee to be U.S., accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2025-09-03_-qfr-responses_-lacourpdf?download=1
24. S.J.Res.81 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): A joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared to impose duties on articles imported from Brazil., accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/81
25. Text - S.J.Res.81 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): A joint resolution terminating the national emergency declared to impose duties on articles imported from Brazil., accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/81/text
26. EXECUTIVE ORDER 14323 ... - Federal Register, accessed October 29, 2025, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-14896.pdf?1754320507
27. Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Addresses Threats to the United States from the Government of Brazil - The White House, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-addresses-threats-to-the-united-states-from-the-government-of-brazil/
28. President Trump Imposed 50% Tariff on Brazil | International Trade Insights, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.internationaltradeinsights.com/2025/07/president-trump-imposed-50-tariff-on-brazil/
29. Executive Order 14323—Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Brazil | The American Presidency Project, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14323-addressing-threats-the-united-states-the-government-brazil
30. Ending "National Emergency" Tariffs on Goods from Canada and Brazil Will Strengthen the U.S. Economy - Publications, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.ntu.org/publications/detail/ending-national-emergency-tariffs-on-goods-from-canada-and-brazil-will-strengthen-the-us-economy
31. U.S. Mayors Praise Bipartisan Senate Resolutions to Stop New Tariffs on Canadian, Brazilian, and Global Goods, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.usmayors.org/2025/10/27/u-s-mayors-praise-bipartisan-senate-resolutions-to-stop-new-tariffs-on-canadian-brazilian-and-global-goods/amp/
32. S.J.Res.80 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision"., accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/80/titles
33. S. J. RES. 80 - LegiScan, accessed October 29, 2025, https://legiscan.com/US/text/SJR80/id/3270510/US_Congress-2025-SJR80-Introduced.pdf
34. Roll Call Vote 119 th Congress - 1 st Session - Senate.gov, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00595.htm
35. Senate advances resolution against Biden Alaska drilling limits - POLITICO Pro, accessed October 29, 2025, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/10/29/senate-advances-resolution-against-biden-alaska-drilling-limits-00627296
36. S.J.Res. 80 - 119th Congress (2025-2026) - A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision". - Bill Sponsor, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.billsponsor.com/bills/776762/senate-joint-resolution-80-congress-119
37. NFIB Letter to Sen. Dan Sullivan in Support of S.J. Res. 80, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.nfib.com/news/news/nfib-letter-to-sen-dan-sullivan-in-support-of-s-j-res-80/
38. Biden-era limits on Alaska drilling up for Senate debate - POLITICO Pro, accessed October 29, 2025, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/10/29/biden-era-limits-on-alaska-drilling-up-for-senate-debate-00626751
39. Attorney General Bonta Strongly Opposes Federal Government's Proposed Rule to Rescind the ''National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska'' | State of California - Department of Justice - CA.gov, accessed October 29, 2025, https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-strongly-opposes-federal-government%E2%80%99s-proposed-rule
40. S.J.Res.69 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to "Record of Decision for the Barred Owl Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California". | Congress.gov, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/69
41. S.J. Res. 69 (PCS) - Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to Record of Decision for the Barred Owl Management Strategy; Washington, Oregon, and California. - Content Details - - GovInfo, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119sjres69pcs
42. Unprecedented, Unworkable Kill Plan of North American owls - Animal Wellness Action, accessed October 29, 2025, https://animalwellnessaction.org/senate-resolution-to-disapprove-billion-dollar-kill-plan-of-north-american-owls/
43. Coalition to Protect America's National Parks Urges Senate Support for S.J.Res. 69 to Halt Barred Owl Killings in National Parks, accessed October 29, 2025, https://protectnps.org/2025/10/29/48593/
44. Killing barred owls to save spotted owls is a moral atrocity - The Ecological Citizen, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.ecologicalcitizen.net/pdfs/epub-136.pdf
45. Tribal Leaders Applaud Senate Rejection of Barred Owl Resolution ..., accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tribal-leaders-applaud-senate-rejection-of-barred-owl-resolution-threatening-forest-and-wildlife-health-302598903.html
46. Barred Owl Management | U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.fws.gov/project/barred-owl-management
47. Barred Owl Management Strategy Position - Birds Connect Seattle, accessed October 29, 2025, https://birdsconnectsea.org/2024/01/23/barred-owl-management/
48. Effects of Experimental Removal of Barred Owls on Population Demography of Northern Spotted Owls in the Pacific Northwest | U.S. Geological Survey - USGS.gov, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.usgs.gov/centers/forest-and-rangeland-ecosystem-science-center/science/effects-experimental-removal-barred
49. AMPP Submits Witness Testimony in Support of Senate Hearing on ..., accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.ampp.org/blogs/webmasternaceorg/2025/10/28/ampp-submits-testimony-in-support-of-ships-act
50. Senators appear receptive to SHIPS Act, express concern for state of domestic shipbuilding, accessed October 29, 2025, https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/senators-appear-receptive-ships-act-express-concern-state-domestic-shipbuilding
51. As Senate Committee Examines U.S. Shipbuilding Efforts, Maritime Labor Groups Reiterate Strong Support for SHIPS Act - Transportation Trades Department, accessed October 29, 2025, https://ttd.org/policy/letters-to-congress/as-senate-committee-examines-u-s-shipbuilding-efforts-maritime-labor-groups-reiterate-strong-support-for-ships-act/
52. PPI's Moss Tells Senate Judiciary Committee That High Concentration in Agricultural Input Markets Harms Farmers and Consumers - Progressive Policy Institute, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.progressivepolicy.org/ppis-moss-tells-senate-judiciary-committee-that-high-concentration-in-agricultural-input-markets-harms-farmers-and-consumers/
53. Senate committee hears concerns over rising costs tied to ag industry consolidation, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.brownfieldagnews.com/news/senate-committee-hears-concerns-over-rising-costs-tied-to-ag-industry-consolidation/
54. Welch Calls Police Officer Who Defended Capitol on January 6th and Expert on Extremism and Terrorism as Witnesses for Hearing on Politically Motivated Violence, accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.welch.senate.gov/welch-calls-police-officer-who-defended-capitol-on-january-6th-and-expert-on-extremism-and-terrorism-as-witnesses-for-hearing-on-politically-motivated-violence/
55. Ranking Member Welch Pushes Back Against Far-Right Claims of ..., accessed October 29, 2025, https://www.welch.senate.gov/ranking-member-welch-pushes-back-against-far-right-claims-of-one-sided-politically-motivated-violence/