Passed
216 Yea210 Nay7 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-161-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Erin Houchin (R-IN)
What it does
H. Res. 161 is a procedural "rule" resolution that sets the terms under which the House would debate three separate measures: (1) H.J. Res. 20, which would cancel a Department of Energy rule setting energy efficiency standards for gas-fired tankless water heaters; (2) H.J. Res. 35, which would cancel an EPA rule establishing fees on methane emissions from oil and gas operations; and (3) H. Con. Res. 14, the congressional budget resolution for fiscal year 2025 covering spending levels through 2034. For each measure, it waives procedural objections, sets time limits on debate, and restricts amendments.
Who benefits
Members of the House majority who want to bring these three measures to a floor vote quickly and with limited procedural obstacles. Natural gas appliance manufacturers and retailers who sell gas-fired tankless water heaters, which would face fewer regulatory constraints if the DOE rule is overturned. Oil and natural gas producers who would avoid methane fee charges if the EPA rule is overturned. Consumers who prefer gas appliances and may face fewer product restrictions. Budget process advocates who want a formal FY2025 budget framework in place.
Who is hurt
House minority members who lose the ability to raise procedural objections or offer a broader range of amendments to any of the three measures. Environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy groups whose preferred regulations could be nullified. Manufacturers of electric or heat-pump water heaters who may benefit competitively from stricter gas appliance standards. Communities near oil and gas operations who may be affected by methane emissions if the EPA fee rule is eliminated. Taxpayers and budget watchdog groups who oppose the specific spending or revenue levels in the budget resolution.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this resolution is a necessary and routine use of the Rules Committee's authority to manage House floor time efficiently, allowing three significant and time-sensitive measures to move forward without procedural delay. They contend that the two Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions address agency rules that exceed clear statutory authority — a concern reinforced by the Supreme Court's post-Loper Bright requirement that courts independently assess whether agencies acted within their granted powers. They further argue that bringing the FY2025 budget resolution to the floor is a basic congressional responsibility that provides fiscal discipline and a framework for government spending.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that waiving all points of order and restricting amendments to all three measures — particularly the sweeping FY2025 budget resolution — short-circuits deliberative debate and concentrates scheduling power in the majority, limiting minority input on consequential policy. They contend that the DOE and EPA rules being targeted went through notice-and-comment rulemaking and reflect statutory mandates under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the Inflation Reduction Act's methane provisions, and that using the Congressional Review Act to nullify them permanently bars substantially similar future rules. They also argue that bundling a budget resolution with two deregulatory measures under a single procedural rule reduces transparency and accountability.
Constitutional context
The Congressional Review Act mechanism used in H.J. Res. 20 and H.J. Res. 35 is grounded in Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) to oversee and reverse executive agency rulemaking. Post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts independently assess whether agency rules fall within statutory authority, which strengthens the argument that congressional disapproval of potentially unauthorized rules is consistent with the constitutional separation of powers.
Checks and balances
The House majority gains procedural control over the floor schedule and debate terms for all three measures; the President retains veto power over the two CRA disapproval resolutions, and the Senate must independently pass all three measures before any can become law or take effect.
Historical precedent
The Congressional Review Act has been used successfully to overturn agency rules on multiple occasions — most notably in 2017, when Congress and the President used it to nullify 16 rules finalized in the final months of the Obama administration, including an OSHA recordkeeping rule and an Interior Department stream protection rule.
Passed
Passed