Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
This resolution sets a total spending limit for the House Committee on Natural Resources for the 119th Congress and directs that the money be paid from the House accounts for committee salaries and expenses. It divides the total into two equal yearly amounts, requires committee-authorized vouchers signed by the committee chair for payments, and says the funds must be spent under rules from the Committee on House Administration. It is an internal House measure for committee operating expenses and does not create federal law or need the President's signature.
This is a House simple resolution that only the House of Representatives adopts; it is an internal, nonbinding measure and is not presented to the President.
This House resolution authorizes up to $19,311,600 for the Committee on Natural Resources for the 119th Congress.
The total is split evenly between the first and second sessions, with $9,655,800 available each session.
Payments must be made on committee-authorized vouchers signed by the Committee Chairman and approved per House Administration direction.
House adoption is likely, but as a House resolution it does not become federal law and does not require Senate or Presidential action.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative resolution that is clear and specific about funding levels, timing, and basic payment controls, and its construction is generally appropriate for routine committee expense authorization.
Progressive worries funds could enable partisan deregulatory efforts
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressive worries funds could enable partisan deregulatory efforts
Likely to view the resolution as a routine committee funding measure but with caution.
Supporters will want assurances the money advances environmental oversight and staff capacity, not deregulatory agendas or partisan attacks.
Some progressives may push for transparency and accountability requirements given sponsor and majority control concerns.
Seen as a standard, necessary appropriation to allow the committee to function.
Supportive if funds are spent efficiently and transparently.
Will look for clear accountability and that the amount is reasonable relative to House budgets.
Generally supportive as needed funding for a committee overseeing natural resources and energy policy.
Will favor the resolution if it enables strong oversight, deregulation where applicable, and support for domestic energy development.
Minimal opposition expected given routine nature and modest total.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
House adoption is likely, but as a House resolution it does not become federal law and does not require Senate or Presidential action.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressive worries funds could enable partisan deregulatory efforts
House adoption is likely, but as a House resolution it does not become federal law and does not require Senate or Presidential action.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative resolution that is clear and specific about funding levels, timing, and basic payment controls, and its construction is generally…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.