Passed
196 Yea187 Nay49 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-177-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Nicholas Langworthy (R-NY)
What it does
This resolution sets the procedural rules for the House of Representatives to consider three separate Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolutions. The three underlying measures would overturn: (1) a Department of Energy rule on appliance certification, labeling, and enforcement requirements; (2) an EPA rule on hazardous air pollutant emissions from rubber tire manufacturing; and (3) a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management rule on protecting marine archaeological resources. The resolution waives procedural objections (points of order) against each measure, limits floor debate to one hour per measure, and allows one motion to recommit each.
Who benefits
Appliance manufacturers and retailers who would face fewer federal certification and labeling compliance requirements. Rubber tire manufacturers who would be relieved of EPA hazardous air pollutant emission standards. Offshore energy companies and others operating in federal waters who would face fewer restrictions related to marine archaeological sites. Members of Congress who support greater legislative oversight of agency rulemaking. Businesses broadly that view the underlying rules as adding regulatory costs.
Who is hurt
Consumers who rely on appliance energy labels to make purchasing decisions. Workers and communities near rubber tire manufacturing facilities who may be exposed to hazardous air pollutants if the EPA rule is overturned. Marine archaeologists, historians, and Indigenous communities with cultural ties to submerged heritage sites. Environmental and public health advocacy organizations. Federal agency staff whose rulemaking work would be nullified. Under the CRA, if disapproval resolutions pass, agencies are also barred from issuing substantially similar rules in the future without new congressional authorization.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that all three underlying rules represent regulatory overreach by executive agencies that impose compliance costs on businesses without sufficient congressional authorization. They contend that the Congressional Review Act exists precisely to give Congress a check on agency rulemaking, and that post-Loper Bright (2024), courts and Congress alike are expected to scrutinize whether agencies have clear statutory authority for their rules. They argue this resolution is a straightforward exercise of Congress's constitutional oversight role, allowing elected representatives — rather than unelected agency officials — to decide whether these specific rules are warranted.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that overturning these rules would eliminate public health, consumer, and cultural heritage protections that went through years of notice-and-comment rulemaking with expert input. They contend that the CRA's permanent bar on "substantially similar" future rules is a blunt instrument that strips agencies of flexibility to address the same problems differently, effectively locking in deregulation beyond what Congress explicitly voted for. They further argue that waiving all points of order removes normal procedural safeguards designed to ensure careful deliberation on measures with real-world consequences for workers, consumers, and protected resources.
Constitutional context
This resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. ch. 8), which is grounded in Congress's authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18) and the Nondelegation/Vesting Clause (Art. I, §1) to oversee and check executive agency rulemaking. Post-Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), courts independently assess whether agency rules have clear statutory authorization, making congressional disapproval a parallel political check on the same question courts now scrutinize more aggressively.
Checks and balances
Congress gains authority to nullify executive agency rules through this CRA process; the President retains a veto over the disapproval resolutions, and if the veto is overridden or signed, courts may still review whether the CRA process itself was properly followed.
Historical precedent
The Congressional Review Act has been used to overturn agency rules on multiple occasions, most notably in 2017 when Congress used it to repeal 14 Obama-era regulations in a single session, including an OSHA workplace injury reporting rule and an FCC broadband privacy rule.
Passed
Passed