HRES-93-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by H. Griffith (R-VA)
What it does
This resolution is a procedural "rule" that would allow the House of Representatives to bring H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act, to the floor for a vote. It would waive all points of order that could otherwise block consideration of the bill, and it specifies that the bill would be considered in the form amended by the House Rules Committee. The resolution itself does not change any law — it only sets the terms under which the underlying fentanyl scheduling bill may be debated and voted on.
Who benefits
Members of Congress who support H.R. 27 and want it brought to a floor vote. The House majority leadership, which controls the Rules Committee and sets the legislative agenda. Indirectly, any group that would benefit from the underlying HALT Fentanyl Act — including law enforcement agencies, communities affected by fentanyl overdoses, and public health advocates — if the underlying bill ultimately passes.
Who is hurt
Members of Congress who oppose H.R. 27 and would prefer to use procedural tools (points of order) to block or delay its consideration. Minority party members who lose the ability to raise procedural objections. Indirectly, any group that would be negatively affected by the underlying HALT Fentanyl Act — such as criminal defense advocates concerned about mandatory minimums, or harm reduction organizations — if the underlying bill ultimately passes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that bringing H.R. 27 to the floor is a necessary step to address the fentanyl crisis, which the CDC has linked to over 70,000 overdose deaths annually in recent years. They contend that waiving points of order is a standard procedural tool used by both parties to ensure priority legislation receives a timely floor vote, and that the Rules Committee process provides an appropriate venue for amendments before full consideration.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that waiving all points of order removes important procedural safeguards that exist to ensure legislation complies with House rules, including budget rules and germaneness requirements. They contend that using a closed or structured rule to limit floor amendments reduces transparency and prevents members from offering changes that could improve the underlying bill or address concerns about its scope and potential unintended consequences.