Electing Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hres/42
Last Updated: February 6, 2025

Sponsored by

Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1]

ID: H001082

Follow the money

The bill

Electing Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

HRES. 42, 119th Congress.

The sponsor

Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$82,105 raised

30 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 470-472 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

January 14, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another thrilling episode of "Congressional Kabuki Theater"! Let's dissect this masterpiece, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** Oh boy, the suspense is killing me... The main purpose of HRES 42 is to elect members to certain standing committees. Wow, what a bold move! I bet it took hours of intense deliberation and soul-searching to come up with this earth-shattering idea.

In reality, this bill is just a routine exercise in bureaucratic busywork, designed to make it seem like Congress is actually doing something productive. It's the legislative equivalent of a doctor writing a prescription for a patient they've never met – all show, no substance.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** Ah, the thrilling part! This bill changes... wait for it... nothing. Zilch. Zero. Nada. It simply lists the names of committee members and says "yay, you're on the team!" No actual policy changes or reforms are proposed. Just a bunch of self-congratulatory back-patting.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** Oh, the usual suspects: politicians looking for photo ops, lobbyists seeking to curry favor, and voters who will inevitably be disappointed by the lack of real action. The only ones who might actually care about this bill are the committee members themselves, who get to add another line to their resumes.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** *yawn* This bill has all the impact of a feather in a hurricane. It's a non-event, a mere formality designed to distract from the real issues plaguing our country. Don't worry, folks; this won't affect your life one iota. Unless, of course, you're a committee member looking for a promotion or a lobbyist seeking to schmooze with the right people.

In conclusion, HRES 42 is a perfect example of legislative theater – all drama, no substance. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the chronic inability of our politicians to address real problems and instead focus on self-serving grandstanding. So, let's give this bill the attention it deserves: a collective eye-roll and a healthy dose of skepticism.

Diagnosis: "Legislative Lethargy" – a condition characterized by a lack of meaningful action, excessive posturing, and an unhealthy obsession with appearances over substance. Treatment: a strong dose of reality, followed by a healthy dose of accountability. Prognosis: poor, unless we start electing politicians who actually care about governing rather than just looking good on TV.

Related Topics

Congressional Rules & Procedures
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$82,105
25 donors
PACs
$3,000
Organizations
$35,700
Committees
$0
Individuals
$43,405
1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
2 transactions
$3,000
1
CHICKASAW NATION
2 transactions
$6,600
2
CHEROKEE NATION
2 transactions
$5,000
3
OSAGE NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
4
UNITED KEETOOWAH BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,000
5
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
2 transactions
$3,000
6
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KYMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
7
SYCUAN BAN OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$2,500
8
MARSH POINTE MANAGEMENT LLC
1 transaction
$2,000
9
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON
1 transaction
$1,650
10
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,650
11
SANTA YNES BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,500
12
DIEBOLT & SON INSURANCE PARTNERS LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
13
EMERALD NURSING & REHAB LANCASTER LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
14
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000

No committee contributions found

1
BRUTON, BRENDA
2 transactions
$6,735
2
GASPAR, CLAY
1 transaction
$6,600
3
GIBBS, GEORGE E
1 transaction
$6,000
4
BLANTON, LORI
1 transaction
$4,000
5
ABBOTT, AARON
1 transaction
$3,435
6
HOM, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$3,435
7
BROWN JR, JAMES
1 transaction
$3,300
8
LATTNER, D.K.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
THOMAS, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
10
THOMAS, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 63 nodes and 30 connections (67 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $82,105

Top Donors - Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC14 Orgs10 Individuals

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak
Vector: 59%
Pages: 470-472AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 42 concerns the routine election of House members to standing committees, while the Project 2025 EPA section focuses on reforming EPA advisory committees and science policy; the only connection is the general theme of committee membership and advisory body composition."

Key themes:committee membershipadvisory bodiestransparency

— 438 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and their membership has too often been handpicked to achieve certain politi- cal positions. In the Biden Administration, key EPA advisory committees were purged of balanced perspectives, geographic diversity, important regulatory and private-sector experience, and state, local, and tribal expertise. Contrary to con- gressional directives and recommendations from the GAO and intergovernmental associations, these moves eviscerated historic levels of participation on key com- mittees by state, local, and tribal members from 2017 to 2020. As a result, a variety of EPA regulations lack relevant scientific perspectives, increasing the risks of economic fallout and a failure of cooperative federalism. EPA also has repeatedly disregarded legal requirements regarding the role of these advisory committees and the scope of scientific advice on key regulations.46 Needed Science Policy Reforms Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk com- munications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct. In addition, EPA should: l Shift responsibility for evaluating misconduct away from its Office of Scientific Integrity, which has been overseen by environmental activists, and toward an independent body. l Work (including with Congress) to provide incentives similar to those under the False Claims Act47 for the public to identify scientific flaws and research misconduct, thereby saving taxpayers from having to bear the costs involved in expending unnecessary resources. l Avoid proprietary, black box models for key regulations. Nearly all major EPA regulations are based on nontransparent models for which the public lacks access or for which significant costs prevent the public from understanding agency analysis. l Reject precautionary default models and uncertainty factors. In the face of uncertainty around associations between certain pollutants and health or welfare endpoints, EPA’s heavy reliance on default assumptions like its low-dose, linear non-threshold model bake orders of magnitude of risk into key regulatory inputs and drive flawed and opaque decisions. Given the disproportionate economic impacts of top-down solutions, EPA should implement an approach that defaults to less restrictive regulatory outcomes. — 439 — Environmental Protection Agency l Refocus its research activities on accountable real-world examinations of the efficacy of its regulations with a heavy emphasis on characterizing and better understanding natural, background, international, and anthropogenic contributions for key pollutants. It should embrace concepts laid out in the 2018 “Back-to-Basics Process for Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards” memo48 to ensure that any science and risk assessment for the NAAQS matches congressional direction. Legislative Reforms While some reforms can be achieved administratively (especially in areas where EPA clearly lacks congressional authorization for its activities), Congress should prioritize several EPA science activity reforms: l Use of the Congressional Review Act for Congress to disapprove of EPA regulations and other quasi-regulatory actions and prohibit “substantially similar” actions in the future. l Reform EPA’s Science Advisory Board and other advisory bodies to ensure independence, balance, transparency, and geographic diversity. l Build on recent bipartisan proposals to increase transparency for advisory bodies, subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act49 as well as recommendations from the Administrative Conference of the U.S., to strengthen provisions for independence, accountability, geographic diversity, turnover, and public participation. This should include a prohibition on peer review activities for unaccountable third parties that lack independence or application of these same principles to non- governmental peer review bodies (including NASEM). l Add teeth to long-standing executive orders, memoranda, recommendations, and other policies to require that EPA regulations are based on transparent, reproducible science as well as that the data and publications resulting from taxpayer-funded activities are made immediately available to the public. l Reject funds for programs that have not been authorized by Congress (like IRIS) as well as peer review activities that have not been authorized by Congress. l Revisit and repeal or reform outdated environmental statutes. A high priority should be the repeal or reform of the Global Change Research Act of 1990,50 which has been misused for political purposes.

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 58%
Pages: 398-400AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"HRES 42 is a procedural resolution that merely fills committee vacancies and does not directly address energy policy goals such as repealing IIJA/IRA or promoting energy independence; any alignment is indirect through potential future committee actions."

Key themes:committee assignmentsenergy policy oversightscience and technologynatural resources

— 365 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions l Support repeal of massive spending bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)3 and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA),4 which established new programs and are providing hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to renewable energy developers, their investors, and special interests, and support the rescinding of all funds not already spent by these programs. l Unleash private-sector energy innovation by ending government interference in energy decisions. l Stop the war on oil and natural gas. l Allow individuals, families, and business to use the energy resources they want to use and that will best serve their needs. l Secure and protect energy infrastructure from cyber and physical attacks. l Refocus the Department of Energy on energy security, accelerated remediation, and advanced science. l Promote U.S. energy resources as a means to assist our allies and diminish our strategic adversaries. l Refocus FERC on ensuring that customers have affordable and reliable electricity, natural gas, and oil and no longer allow it to favor special interests and progressive causes. l Ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission facilitates rather than hampers private-sector nuclear energy innovation and deployment. American Science Dominance. Ever since the age of Benjamin Franklin, the United States has been at the forefront of scientific discovery and technological advancement. Beginning with the groundbreaking science of the Manhattan Proj- ect, the U.S. has developed 17 National Laboratories that conduct fundamental and advanced scientific research. The National Labs have been critical in supporting national defense and ensuring that the United States leads on scientific discoveries with transformative applications that benefit America and the world. In recent years, however, U.S. science has been under threat. Externally, adversaries like the Chinese military have been engaged in scientific espionage, infiltrating taxpayer-funded scientific research projects, and funding their own science research. In addition, the National Labs have been too focused on climate change and renewable technologies.

Environmental Protection Agency

Minimal
Vector: 60%
Pages: 455-457AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses solely on electing members to House standing committees and contains no provisions related to EPA regulatory review, air pollution policy, or any of the Project 2025 EPA objectives."

— 423 — Environmental Protection Agency regulatory review (before options are selected); causality of health effects; low-dose risk estimation (linear no-threshold analysis); and employment loss analysis. Personnel The majority of the political appointee team must be assembled, vetted, and ready to deploy before Day One. To the extent provided by the Federal Vacan- cies Reform Act,15 appointees in consideration for Senate-confirmed positions (excluding the Administrator) should be prepared to serve as a Deputy or Principal Deputy to get into the agency on Day One while their nomination and affiliated confirmation processes proceeds. In addition to a deputy slated for the Assistant Administrator role, each office will need a political chief of staff, senior advisers designated to run suboffices, and energized assistants. Teams should be balanced with technical knowledge, legal expertise, and political exposure. Ideally, they should also be geographically diverse. Appointee positions should also extend to all the regional offices and specialty labs. OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR) OAR develops national programs, policies, and regulations to control air pollution and radiation exposure. In recent decades, OAR and its statutory respon- sibilities under the Clean Air Act have been reimagined in an attempt to expand the reach of the federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court has stopped and stricken several actions from OAR under liberal Administrations, citing a lack of requisite legal support. A reformed OAR should focus on EPA’s mission of limiting and minimizing criteria and hazardous air pollutants in partnership with the states. Cross-Cutting Reforms. OAR consists of four suboffices with two located in Washington, D.C.; one in Ann Arbor, Michigan; and one at Research Triangle Park in Raleigh, North Carolina. The following reforms should be implemented across all OAR offices: l Issue a rule to ensure consistent and transparent consideration of costs. l When doing cost-benefit analysis, use appropriate discount rates, focus on the benefits of reducing the pollutant targeted by Congress, identify “co-benefits” separately, and acknowledge the uncertainties involved in quantifying benefits. l Review and revise Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) cost guidance to ensure that calculations are accurate and reflect the actual regulatory burden, including costs of air rules implementation and compliance. — 424 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Obey Congress’s direction in CAA § 32116 to “conduct continuing evaluations” of the employment and plant-closure effects of air regulations. l Ensure that all provisions of CAA § 307(d)17 are observed. Congress placed special constraints on air rules, and that intent should be respected. l To the extent that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)18 remains in place, ensure to the maximum extent possible that grants and funding are provided to state regulatory entities and not to nonprofits. l Remove any regulations or requirements that confer on third parties any authorities that have been provided to EPA, such as the oil and gas supplemental, which created a Super-Emitter Response Program that allows third parties to act as EPA enforcers. Policy-Specific Actions National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) l EPA adopted by regulation a goal of restoring natural visibility by 2064. The statute does not require this, and EPA should consider whether a longer timeline is less disruptive or more realistic. Regional haze rules should be revised to prevent subsequent “planning periods” from being abused to compel the shutdown of disfavored facilities. l Under the Good Neighbor Program/Interstate pollutant transport program, review Biden-era regulations to ensure that they do not “overcontrol” upwind states in violation of the statute as construed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Reverse the program’s 2022 expansion beyond power plants. l Putting guardrails on downwind states is an abuse of the CAA § 126(b)19 petition process. EPA must ensure, in keeping with statutory text, that petitions identify a reasonably discrete “group” of upwind sources alleged to violate the good neighbor provision. l Ensure that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) considers all of the statutorily charged factors (for example, social and economic effects resulting from NAAQS attainment and maintenance strategies). l Ensure that the requirements EPA puts on a state that has achieved attainment status from nonattainment status are limited to those that

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills