HRES-1189-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Chip Roy (R-TX)
What it does
H. Res. 1189 is a procedural "rule" resolution that would set the terms for House floor debate on four separate pieces of legislation: (1) H.R. 4690, which would repeal certain federal building energy efficiency standards; (2) H. Res. 1182, a non-binding resolution expressing support for rural communities; (3) H.R. 1897, which would modify the Endangered Species Act to change how species are listed, recovered, and how permits are issued; and (4) H.R. 5587, which would waive federal drilling permit requirements and environmental review obligations for certain geothermal energy activities. The resolution itself does not change any law — it only controls how and when the House may debate and vote on those four measures.
Who benefits
Members of the House majority who favor bringing these four bills to a floor vote under controlled debate conditions. Supporters of the underlying bills — including energy developers, geothermal companies, rural landowners, property developers, and industries affected by Endangered Species Act permitting — would benefit if the procedural path leads to passage of those measures.
Who is hurt
House minority members and others who oppose the underlying bills would have less ability to delay or amend the legislation under a structured rule. Environmental advocacy organizations, wildlife conservation groups, and others who support existing federal building efficiency standards or current Endangered Species Act protections could be indirectly harmed if the procedural resolution enables passage of the underlying bills.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that procedural rules are a routine and necessary tool for managing House floor time efficiently, and that this resolution simply allows duly introduced legislation to receive an up-or-down vote. They contend that the underlying bills address real regulatory burdens — such as federal building efficiency mandates that may increase construction costs and ESA permitting delays that can stall infrastructure and energy projects — and that the House has a responsibility to bring these measures to the floor for democratic deliberation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the rule is designed to fast-track legislation that would weaken environmental protections, and that bundling four substantive policy changes into a single procedural package limits meaningful debate on each measure's merits. They contend that repealing building efficiency standards and waiving NEPA review for geothermal drilling removes safeguards that protect public health and the environment, and that the structured rule restricts the minority's ability to offer amendments or slow consideration of consequential policy changes.