Passed
213 Yea208 Nay9 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-1274-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)
What it does
This resolution would nullify Section 11 of H.Res. 1224, which required the text of H.R. 1346 (the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025) to be incorporated into H.R. 7567 (the 2026 Farm Bill). By eliminating that requirement, the two pieces of legislation would no longer be procedurally linked, and H.R. 1346 would not automatically become part of the farm bill. The underlying rule (H.Res. 1224), which governs floor consideration of both bills, would otherwise remain in effect.
Who benefits
Members of Congress who prefer to consider the farm bill and the fuel retailer bill as separate legislation. Legislators who support the farm bill but oppose H.R. 1346, who would no longer be forced to accept both together. Stakeholders in farm bill programs (farmers, rural communities, food assistance recipients) who may benefit if the farm bill moves forward without the added complexity or controversy of the fuel retailer provisions. Fuel retailer advocates who may prefer a standalone vote on H.R. 1346 rather than having it absorbed into a larger package.
Who is hurt
Supporters of H.R. 1346 who preferred the strategic advantage of attaching it to the must-pass farm bill, as a standalone path may be harder to achieve. Fuel retailers and consumer groups who backed the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act and relied on the farm bill vehicle to advance it. Members who negotiated the original H.Res. 1224 package and may lose legislative leverage as a result of the decoupling.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that combining a fuel retailer regulatory bill with a sweeping agricultural and food security package creates an unwieldy legislative vehicle that could jeopardize the farm bill's passage. They contend that each bill deserves an independent floor debate and vote on its own merits, and that decoupling them allows Congress to address farm policy priorities — including crop insurance, nutrition programs, and rural development — without the added political weight of unrelated fuel retailer provisions.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that H.Res. 1224 was a carefully negotiated procedural agreement that secured the votes needed to advance both bills, and that unilaterally voiding Section 11 breaks that agreement and undermines the legislative process. They contend that removing the linkage effectively kills H.R. 1346's best path to enactment, since standalone fuel retailer legislation may lack sufficient floor support, leaving fuel retailers and consumers without the regulatory framework they were promised.
Constitutional context
This is a purely internal House procedural resolution governing the rules of floor consideration. No enumerated powers, Commerce Clause questions, or other constitutional provisions are directly implicated. The Constitution grants each chamber broad authority to set its own rules under Article I, Section 5, Clause 2.
Checks and balances
The House retains full authority over its own procedural rules; this resolution is self-executing within the chamber and requires no Senate action or presidential signature, leaving the other branches unaffected.
Historical precedent
Congress routinely passes resolutions modifying or superseding previously adopted rules governing floor consideration of specific legislation, though no single landmark precedent governs this common procedural practice.
Passed
Passed