Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a recently issued federal regulation. If both chambers approve this joint resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the EPA rule would be nullified and would have no force. The law also stops the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same without new legislation from Congress. The CRA gives Congress an expedited path to vote to disapprove rules.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3 (89 Fed. Reg. 29440, April 22, 2024).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate considers disapproval resolutions under expedited procedures that prevent filibusters and require only a simple majority to pass; the resolution must also pass the House and be presented to the President for signature or veto.
HJ Res 26 is a Congressional Review Act joint resolution that would disapprove the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles—Phase 3" (89 Fed.
Reg. 29440, April 22, 2024).
If passed by Congress and signed by the President (or if a veto overridden), the resolution would nullify that EPA rule and prevent its reissuance in substantially the same form.
Narrow but ideologically charged CRA resolution; plausible in a partisan House but low Senate odds absent broad bipartisan support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act designed to nullify a single EPA rule. The text precisely identifies the rule and invokes the relevant statutory authority but provides no explanatory findings, fiscal analysis, or supplementary implementation or oversight provisions.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-health benefits of the rule.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-health benefits of the rule.
Likely opposed.
They would view the EPA Phase 3 heavy-duty vehicle standards as necessary climate and public-health regulation, and see congressional disapproval as a rollback of emissions limits.
They would emphasize the rule's role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and accelerating cleaner vehicle technology.
Mixed.
They would weigh regulatory benefits for emissions reductions against economic and compliance costs for manufacturers and fleets.
Many centrists would prefer modifying the rule to add flexibility, longer phase-in, or targeted assistance rather than blanket disapproval.
Likely supportive of the disapproval.
They would characterize Phase 3 standards as administrative overreach imposing costly mandates on manufacturers, operators, and consumers.
They would value reduced regulatory burden and greater industry flexibility.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but ideologically charged CRA resolution; plausible in a partisan House but low Senate odds absent broad bipartisan support.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize climate and public-health benefits of the rule.
Narrow but ideologically charged CRA resolution; plausible in a partisan House but low Senate odds absent broad bipartisan support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused congressional disapproval under the Congressional Review Act designed to nullify a single EPA rule. The text precisely identifies the rule and i…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.