Overview
Title
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8997) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8998) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The resolution explains how two groups will decide on spending money for things like energy, water, and taking care of nature over the next year. It sets rules on how they will talk about it, make changes, and then vote to decide what should happen.
Summary AI
H. RES. 1370 sets the terms for how two bills will be considered in the House of Representatives. The first bill, H.R. 8997, deals with funding for energy and water development agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025. The second bill, H.R. 8998, covers funding for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the same fiscal year. This resolution outlines the debate rules, amendment process, and voting procedures for both bills.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The House Resolution 1370 is designed to facilitate the consideration of two significant appropriations bills in the U.S. House of Representatives. The first bill, H.R. 8997, pertains to funding for energy and water development projects for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025. The second bill, H.R. 8998, focuses on appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the same fiscal year. The resolution outlines procedures for debating, amending, and ultimately voting on these bills, aiming to streamline legislative consideration by setting specific rules and timelines.
Significant Issues
Several issues arise from the resolution, primarily related to the legislative process and transparency:
Waiving of Procedural Safeguards: The resolution waives all points of order against the provisions in the bills, potentially reducing opportunities for thorough scrutiny and debate. This lack of debate could lead to overlooked issues or unintended consequences.
Use of Complex Legislative Language: Terminology such as "en bloc" and "pro forma amendments," along with procedural jargon, may not be accessible to the general public, impeding transparency and understanding.
Limited Debate Time: Restricting debate to one hour could limit detailed discussion on complex and potentially controversial appropriations, risking incomplete consideration of the bills' implications.
Authorization of Amendments En Bloc: This allows multiple amendments to be considered as a single unit, which can reduce transparency and complicate individual consideration of each amendment.
Potentially Insufficient Oversight and Accountability: The resolution does not specify mechanisms for ensuring how allocated funds will be utilized, raising concerns about accountability and potential misuse of appropriated resources.
Public Impact
The resolution might impact the public by expediting the approval process for appropriations necessary for energy, water, environmental, and interior projects. This swift process might benefit project implementation and continued funding for critical infrastructure and environmental protection initiatives. However, the lack of debate and potential oversight could lead to the unintended allocation of funds, which might not align with public priorities or address pressing needs.
Stakeholder Impact
Positive Impact: - Government Agencies: Agencies involved in energy, water, and environmental projects may benefit from the expedient allocation of funds, allowing them to proceed with planning and execution without delays. - Contractors and Suppliers: Businesses contracting with the government for these projects may see faster project initiation, positively affecting their operations and economic metrics.
Negative Impact: - Legislators and Advocates for Thorough Debate: Individuals and groups advocating for detailed legislative scrutiny may view the procedural shortcuts as undermining democratic processes. - Public Accountability Advocates: Those concerned with transparency and the proper use of federal funds might find the lack of detailed oversight mechanisms troubling, fearing resource allocation might benefit specific interests over the public good.
Overall, while House Resolution 1370 intends to streamline the legislative process for crucial appropriations, it raises significant questions about transparency, accountability, and the adequacy of public and legislative oversight.
Issues
The resolution's waiving of all points of order against provisions in the bill may prevent thorough scrutiny and debate of potential issues within the bill (Section 1, Section 6, Section 7).
The language and process described within the bill are highly procedural and may not be accessible to the general public, reducing transparency and understanding of the bill's implications (Section 1, Section 6).
The provision allowing amendments en bloc can reduce transparency, as it makes it difficult for members to consider each amendment individually, and could allow for inclusion of unrelated or controversial changes (Section 3, Section 8).
The provision that amendments shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question might suppress opportunities for detailed scrutiny and debate on specific parts of the amendments (Section 7).
The use of terms like 'en bloc' and 'pro forma amendments' might be confusing to those not familiar with legislative terminology, leading to potential misunderstandings (Section 2, Section 9).
The resolution allows for an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which could introduce significant changes not initially debated or visible in the original bill, potentially obscuring transparency (Section 1, Section 6).
The limited debate time (one hour for general debate and five minutes per amendment rule) may not allow for a thorough discussion of a complex appropriations bill, risking insufficient oversight (Section 1, Section 6).
The section does not specify mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency regarding how the funds will be utilized by the related agencies (Section 1).
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 House of Representatives can begin discussing a bill about funding for energy and water projects for 2025 without a formal initial reading, and any objections to considering the bill are waived. The debate is limited to one hour, evenly split between both parties, and the bill can be changed under specific rules, with all parts being open for further amendments.
2. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that no more changes can be made to H.R. 8997, except for specific amendments listed in a report from the Committee on Rules or amendments detailed in sections 3 and 4 of this resolution. It also specifies the rules for discussing these amendments, who can propose them, and mentions that certain objections to these amendments are not allowed.
3. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, or someone they choose, can propose multiple amendments at once, as long as these are part of a specific report and haven't been addressed yet. These grouped amendments will be discussed for 20 minutes, with time evenly split between two main committee members or their representatives, and they can't be changed or divided further during the process.
4. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In Section 4, the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or people they choose to represent them, are allowed to propose up to 10 amendments each to the bill H.R. 8997 just for discussion purposes.
5. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The committee will review and amend bill H.R. 8997, then report it to the House. The vote on the bill will happen without any delays, except for one chance to send it back for more changes.
6. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Speaker of the House can direct the House to review a bill for funding the Department of the Interior and related areas for the 2025 fiscal year. The process will skip the first reading, allow limited debate, and permit amendments based on a specific proposal.
7. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section of the bill outlines the rules for proposing further amendments to H.R. 8998. It specifies that only amendments listed in a specific committee report or described in sections 8 and 9 of this resolution are allowed, detailing the order, presentation, and debate time for each amendment, and waiving certain procedural objections.
8. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the chair of the Committee on Appropriations to propose groups of amendments together. These amendments can be debated for 20 minutes, with the time divided equally between members, and they cannot be altered further or divided into separate votes, unless another section of the resolution allows it.
9. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section allows the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their designees, to each propose up to 10 amendments during the discussion of H.R. 8998, specifically for debate purposes.
10. Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section explains that after discussing amendments to H.R. 8998, the committee will present the amended bill to the House. It further states that the bill will be prepared for a final vote without any delays, except for a chance to send it back to the committee for more changes.