Overview
Title
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1023) to repeal section 134 of the Clean Air Act, relating to the greenhouse gas reduction fund; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1121) to prohibit a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6009) to require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw the proposed rule relating to fluid mineral leases and leasing process, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 86) expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the United States economy; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 987) denouncing the harmful, anti-American energy policies of the Biden administration, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R 7023) to amend section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to codify certain regulatory provisions relating to nationwide permits for dredged or fill material, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill sets rules for the House of Representatives to talk about and decide on several new laws related to things like clean air, water pollution, and energy policies. It makes sure that everyone knows how these discussions will be done, but does it in a way that might not give much time to talk about important details.
Summary AI
The resolution H. RES. 1085 outlines procedures for the House of Representatives to consider multiple bills and resolutions. It allows consideration of several specific bills: H.R. 1023, which aims to repeal part of the Clean Air Act; H.R. 1121, prohibiting a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing; H.R. 6009, addressing regulations related to fluid mineral leases; H.R. 7023, amending water pollution regulations; and resolutions H. Con. Res. 86, opposing a carbon tax, and H. Res. 987, criticizing the Biden administration's energy policies. The resolution waives all points of order and sets guidelines for debate and amendments for these bills and resolutions.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The recent resolution passed by the House of Representatives outlines the procedure for considering multiple bills, dealing predominantly with energy and environmental regulations. The bills covered include repealing parts of the Clean Air Act, preventing halts on hydraulic fracturing, amending rules about fluid mineral leases, expressing opposition to a carbon tax, criticizing the current administration's energy policies, and modifying regulations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The procedural aspects are detailed, granting predefined debate times and restricting amendments.
General Summary
The resolution streamlines the process for debating several important bills in the House. These bills focus significantly on energy policies and regulations. Key components involve the potential repeal of certain environmental protections under the Clean Air Act, prohibition of restrictions on hydraulic fracturing, and the disapproval of carbon taxes due to supposed economic harm. The measures also include criticism of the current administration's energy policies and modifications to water pollution control laws.
Significant Issues
Lack of Justification and Transparency: One primary issue is the lack of clear justification for legislative changes, particularly repealing parts of the Clean Air Act connected to the greenhouse gas reduction fund. This move might significantly affect U.S. environmental policies without a thorough explanation of the anticipated outcomes or benefits.
Procedural Limitations: The bills' consideration waives many procedural hurdles and limits debate time, which may interfere with thorough legislative discourse. This could potentially undermine the democratic principle of accountability by restricting the opportunity for in-depth discussion and amendments.
Vague Language: Some legislative language is notably vague, like using terms such as "for other purposes," which leaves room for broad interpretations. Such ambiguity can confuse stakeholders and hinder clear understanding of the legislation's intent and potential impacts.
Public Impact
The legislative process described in the resolution could impact the public by altering environmental and energy policies without transparent deliberation. If the proposed changes are implemented, there might be a mix of short-term economic benefits weighed against long-term environmental consequences. The public could witness shifts in energy sector regulations, influencing economic aspects like job creation in fossil fuel industries while potentially risking environmental sustainability efforts.
Impact on Stakeholders
Environmental Advocates: These stakeholders might view the set of legislative proposals with concern, particularly regarding deregulatory actions that could impede progress on climate change mitigation and environmental protection goals.
Energy Sector: Companies in fossil fuels or hydraulic fracturing might benefit from fewer restrictions, likely leading to expanded operations and potential economic growth in these industries. This could result in increased job opportunities and investment in infrastructure supporting these industries.
Policy Makers and Legislators: Policymakers may find navigating these bills challenging due to constrained debate and amendment opportunities, which can stifle comprehensive legislative oversight.
The resolution's procedural nature and lack of transparency offer room for critique from stakeholders seeking balanced policy that considers both economic and environmental priorities. Legislative efficiency is balanced against the risk of reducing public and stakeholder engagement in critical policy-making processes.
Issues
Section 1: The bill repeals section 134 of the Clean Air Act without providing justification or explanation, which is significant due to the potential impact on environmental policies and lack of clarity on the consequences regarding the greenhouse gas reduction fund. This lack of transparency might foster public and environmental stakeholders' concern.
Section 5: The resolution denounces the energy policies of the Biden administration as harmful and anti-American but lacks specific details or evidence, which could propagate divisive political discourse without constructive dialogue on energy policy effectiveness.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 6: The procedural language waives all points of order and allows for minimal debate time, which may limit thorough discussion and transparency in the legislative process, possibly undermining democratic principles of accountability and due deliberation.
Section 6: The complex procedural approval of amendments without clear rationale or flexibility raises concerns about fairness and transparency, potentially limiting the legislative process's effectiveness.
Section 4: The resolution against a carbon tax lacks detailed exploration of its economic impact, potentially leading to misunderstandings and insufficient consideration of related fiscal policies and environmental effects.
Sections 1, 2, 3: The broad use of amendments in the nature of a substitute without clarity or detailed content could obscure the substantive impacts and implications of the bills, leaving the public inadequately informed.
Section 5: The usage of vague language 'for other purposes' could lead to ambiguous interpretations and unintended applications, which may raise legal or ethical concerns regarding the resolution's scope and intent.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The resolution allows the House to consider a bill aimed at repealing a part of the Clean Air Act related to the greenhouse gas reduction fund. It specifies that the bill can be debated for one hour, with no further amendments allowed except for one motion to recommit.
2. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The resolution allows the House to consider the bill H.R. 1121, which aims to prevent stopping the use of hydraulic fracturing. It states that there should be one hour of debate divided between two committee leaders and permits one opportunity to send the bill back for changes before the final vote.
3. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The resolution allows the House to consider the bill H.R. 6009, which requires the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw a proposed rule on fluid mineral leases. It waives any rules that might block the bill's consideration or its contents, adopts an amendment from the Committee on Natural Resources, and sets the bill up to be debated for one hour, split between both parties, with one opportunity to send it back for changes.
4. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section describes that once this resolution is adopted, it allows for the consideration of a concurrent resolution in the House. This resolution expresses that a carbon tax would be harmful to the U.S. economy, with all objections against both the resolution itself and its provisions being ignored, allowing for one hour of debate split between the committee leaders.
5. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The resolution H. Res. 987 can be considered in the House without the usual procedural objections, focusing on criticizing the Biden administration's energy policies. It will be discussed for one hour, with time equally shared between leaders of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
6. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Speaker of the House can initiate the review of Bill H.R. 7023, which aims to amend certain aspects of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The bill's discussion is limited to one hour and can be further amended following specific guidelines, with all procedural objections waived for the amendments mentioned in this section.