HRES-672-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by H. Griffith (R-VA)
What it does
This resolution would set the procedural rules governing House floor debate on four separate pieces of legislation: (1) H.R. 4553, the FY2026 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill; and (2) three Congressional Review Act joint resolutions (H.J. Res. 104, 105, and 106) that would nullify Bureau of Land Management (BLM) resource management plans for federal lands in Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska. It would limit amendments, waive certain points of order, set debate time limits, and allow the Appropriations Committee chair to bundle undisposed amendments into a single en bloc vote. It also formally adopts H. Res. 668 and H. Res. 605, and tables H. Res. 598.
Who benefits
The House majority party, which controls the Rules Committee and shapes which amendments are allowed — giving it significant influence over the final content of the underlying bills. Members whose amendments are pre-approved in the Rules Committee report gain guaranteed floor time. Energy and water project stakeholders (utilities, water districts, dam operators, nuclear facilities) who benefit from the appropriations bill moving forward. Oil, gas, and ranching interests operating on federal lands in Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska who may benefit if the BLM land-use restrictions are nullified.
Who is hurt
House minority party members, whose ability to offer floor amendments is restricted by the closed/structured rule. Members whose amendments are not included in the Rules Committee report are blocked from offering them. Environmental and conservation groups that supported the BLM resource management plans being targeted for nullification. Indigenous communities and outdoor recreation industries in the affected regions whose interests may have been reflected in the BLM plans.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that structured rules are a standard and necessary tool for managing complex legislation on the House floor, preventing dilatory tactics and ensuring orderly debate. They contend that the three BLM plans being targeted imposed restrictive land-use designations that limit energy production and economic activity on federal lands without adequate congressional input, and that the Congressional Review Act exists precisely to give Congress a check on agency rulemaking of this kind.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a structured rule limiting amendments undermines the deliberative function of the full House, concentrating power in the Rules Committee and effectively silencing minority members on consequential spending and land-use decisions. They contend that nullifying the three BLM resource management plans — which underwent years of environmental review and public comment — through a fast-tracked procedural vehicle bypasses the normal legislative process and eliminates protections for public lands in Montana, North Dakota, and Alaska without substantive floor debate.
Constitutional context
The Congressional Review Act joint resolutions invoke Congress's authority under Article I to oversee executive agency rulemaking. Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts independently assess whether agency rules like BLM resource management plans fall within the agency's statutory authority — making CRA disapproval a parallel congressional check on the same question courts now scrutinize more rigorously.
Checks and balances
The House majority gains procedural control over floor debate and amendment opportunities; checks include the Senate (which must separately pass the underlying bills and CRA resolutions), the President's veto power, and judicial review of any resulting BLM plan nullifications.
Historical precedent
Structured and closed rules governing appropriations floor debate are routine in the modern House; the Congressional Review Act has been used dozens of times since 1996 to nullify agency rules, most prominently in 2017 when Congress used it to repeal 14 Obama-era regulations in a single session.