Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to overturn a recent Department of the Interior rule. If Congress passes the resolution and the President signs it (or the resolution otherwise becomes law), the rule will be void and have no legal force. The Act also prevents the agency from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future unless Congress passes new legislation, and the CRA process provides expedited consideration in the Senate.
The rule titled "Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—High Pressure High Temperature Updates" (published at 89 Fed. Reg. 71076 on August 30, 2024).
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Under the Congressional Review Act this type of disapproval gets expedited consideration in the Senate and is not subject to a filibuster, so it needs only a simple majority there; it must be passed by both chambers and presented to the President to take effect. Such resolutions must be introduced and acted on within a limited time after the agency issued the rule.
This joint resolution, submitted under the Congressional Review Act, would disapprove and nullify the Department of the Interior rule titled "Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—High Pressure High Temperature Updates" (89 Fed.
Reg. 71076, Aug. 30, 2024).
If enacted, the rule would be treated as having no force or effect.
Narrow and administratively-focused but on a politically sensitive energy topic; success depends on congressional majorities and presidential response.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the target rule and states the intended legal effect. It relies on the CRA statutory framework for procedural and consequential detail rather than including those details in the resolution text.
Progressives emphasize environmental and worker safety harms from rollback
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize environmental and worker safety harms from rollback
Likely opposed.
Progressives would view disapproval as a rollback of safety and environmental safeguards for high-pressure, high-temperature offshore drilling.
They would be skeptical that eliminating the rule improves safety or climate outcomes, though they might accept procedural fixes if the rule had serious technical flaws.
Mixed to cautious.
Moderates would weigh the rule's technical merits against economic impacts.
They would seek evidence the rule is either necessary for safety or unnecessarily burdensome, and favor amendment or delay rather than blunt disapproval if possible.
Supportive.
Conservatives would likely view the disapproval as curbing regulatory overreach and reducing burdens on domestic energy producers.
They would frame it as protecting jobs, lowering costs, and promoting energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and administratively-focused but on a politically sensitive energy topic; success depends on congressional majorities and presidential response.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize environmental and worker safety harms from rollback
Narrow and administratively-focused but on a politically sensitive energy topic; success depends on congressional majorities and presidenti…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies the target rule and states the intended legal effect. It relies on the CRA statutor…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.