Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify a specific EPA rule about lead and copper in drinking water. If enacted, the named rule would have no force or effect and the agency would be barred from issuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation. Like other joint resolutions, it must be passed by both chambers and presented to the President for signature or veto. CRA disapprovals are handled under expedited procedures in the Senate and can be approved by a simple majority.
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI), published at 89 Fed. Reg. 86418 (October 30, 2024).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the CRA, Senate consideration is expedited and the resolution is not subject to a filibuster; it can pass the Senate by a simple majority. As a joint resolution, it still must pass both chambers and be signed by the President (or have a veto overridden) to take effect.
This joint resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to disapprove and nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's rule titled "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI)" (89 Fed.
Reg. 86418, Oct 30, 2024).
If enacted, the resolution would render that EPA rule "of no force and effect." The text does not describe the LCRI rule provisions; it only declares congressional disapproval.
Content is narrowly focused and administratively simple but touches a contentious public-health rule and faces high Senate hurdles and potential executive opposition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the target rule and the legal effect (no force or effect).
Public-health protections versus regulatory cost burden for utilities.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Public-health protections versus regulatory cost burden for utilities.
Likely strongly opposed to the resolution.
They would view blocking the LCRI as weakening public-health protections against lead exposure, especially for children.
They would emphasize evidence-based regulation and federal role in protecting drinking water.
Mixed reaction: cautious about regulatory costs and implementation feasibility, but concerned about public-health consequences.
They will want cost-benefit evidence, implementation timelines, and federal funding details before endorsing disapproval.
May prefer targeted fixes rather than blanket nullification.
Likely supportive of the resolution.
They would view nullifying the LCRI as limiting federal overreach and preventing new regulatory costs.
Emphasize state/local control, property rights, and regulatory relief for utilities and homeowners.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrowly focused and administratively simple but touches a contentious public-health rule and faces high Senate hurdles and potential executive opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Public-health protections versus regulatory cost burden for utilities.
Content is narrowly focused and administratively simple but touches a contentious public-health rule and faces high Senate hurdles and pote…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the target rule and the legal effect (no force or effect).
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.