HCONRES-44-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
What it does
This concurrent resolution would express the views of the House and Senate; it would create no legal duty and would not change any law. It would state that leadership needs to recognize a health and safety emergency for children, oppose President Trump's executive orders on fossil fuels and climate science, and demand that the administration reverse them, restore the EPA's mission, and restore climate data on federal websites. It would also state that Congress and the federal government have a duty to limit actions harming young people's rights to those strictly necessary for a compelling interest, and that energy and climate laws and executive actions should be consistent with protecting children's rights and reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide to under 350 parts per million by 2100.
Who benefits
Supporters of stronger federal climate policy and of restoring climate science webpages and datasets would gain a formal statement of congressional support if adopted. Children's health advocates and youth climate litigants could cite it as a statement of legislative views. Researchers and students who use federal climate data could see attention drawn to access to it. Clean energy developers might gain from the stated policy direction, though the resolution would not change any rule or funding.
Who is hurt
No group would be directly burdened, because the resolution would not bind anyone or change any law. Fossil fuel producers and workers, and the administration's energy agenda, would be the targets of the stated opposition and could face reputational or political pressure. Members of Congress who disagree would be placed on record against the stated positions. Taxpayers would bear only the minor cost of floor time and processing.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the resolution puts Congress on record about a documented risk to children, who cannot vote and are more vulnerable to heat, wildfire smoke, and air pollution. They contend that it defends Congress's statutory role by calling on the executive branch to follow the Clean Air Act and to restore public access to federal climate data, and that the 350 parts per million goal gives a clear benchmark for evaluating future laws.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the resolution is non-binding messaging that would change no policy, while treating contested claims about an energy emergency, constitutional violations, and future deaths as settled fact. They contend that it would discourage domestic energy production that supports affordable power and jobs, and that a 350 parts per million target for 2100 and a strict-scrutiny test for government actions would be impractical standards to apply to energy policy.
Constitutional context
A concurrent resolution is not presented to the President and has no force of law, so it rests on each chamber's Article I authority to express its views and does not itself trigger judicial review. Its statements about children's fundamental rights to a stable climate go beyond current doctrine; federal courts rejected a similar theory in Juliana v. United States (9th Cir. 2020) on standing grounds, and the executive-power questions it raises about the administration's actions would turn on statutes like the Clean Air Act and on West Virginia v. EPA (2022).
Checks and balances
The resolution would not shift legal power among branches; it would let Congress express disapproval of executive actions, while the President remains free to ignore it and Congress's binding checks remain legislation, appropriations, and oversight.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously adopted non-binding resolutions on climate policy, such as the 2019 Green New Deal resolution (H. Res. 109), which was introduced but not adopted by either chamber.