Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a federal rule issued by an agency. If both chambers of Congress pass this joint resolution and the President signs it (or Congress overrides a veto), the specified EPA rule is nullified and cannot take effect. The Act also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule that is substantially the same unless Congress enacts new legislation authorizing it. The Congressional Review Act provides expedited consideration for such disapproval measures in the Senate.
Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels (89 Fed. Reg. 89416, November 12, 2024).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
As a joint resolution it must be passed by both the House and the Senate and be presented to and signed by the President (or a veto must be overridden) to take effect. Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate considers such disapproval resolutions under expedited, privileged procedures that prevent filibusters and require only a simple majority for passage.
This joint resolution, submitted under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. ch.8), declares congressional disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency rule titled "Reconsideration of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and Dust-Lead Post-Abatement Clearance Levels" (89 Fed.
Reg. 89416).
If enacted, the resolution would provide that the specified EPA rule "shall have no force or effect." The measure is referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Narrow CRA tool makes enactment procedurally straightforward but politically fraught; needs both chambers plus executive assent.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise Congressional Review Act disapproval that correctly identifies the targeted EPA rule and states the required dispositive language to nullify the rule upon enactment, relying on the existing CRA statutory framework for additional effects.
Public-health protection for children versus regulatory cost burdens
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Public-health protection for children versus regulatory cost burdens
Likely opposes the resolution as an attempt to block an EPA action addressing lead hazards.
Views the rule as a public-health measure protecting children and vulnerable communities, so disapproval is seen negatively.
Notes uncertainty because the bill text does not describe the rule's substantive changes.
Approaches the resolution cautiously and wants more information on costs and benefits.
Sees value in congressional review but prefers measured fixes (delay, targeted amendment) over blanket nullification.
Concerned both about child health and economic burdens for small property owners.
Likely supports the resolution as a check on EPA regulatory overreach.
Views disapproval as protecting property rights, limiting costs, and reasserting legislative authority over agency policymaking.
Will frame the rule as a costly federal mandate (noting rule text specifics are not in the joint resolution).
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow CRA tool makes enactment procedurally straightforward but politically fraught; needs both chambers plus executive assent.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Public-health protection for children versus regulatory cost burdens
Narrow CRA tool makes enactment procedurally straightforward but politically fraught; needs both chambers plus executive assent.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise Congressional Review Act disapproval that correctly identifies the targeted EPA rule and states the required dispositive language to nullify the rule upo…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.