US Federal House Bill HR242

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/24/25

Caption

Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 24) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers"; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers"; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1048) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen disclosure requirements relating to foreign gifts and contracts, to prohibit contracts between institutions of higher education and certain foreign entities and countries of concern, and for other purposes.

Summary

H. Res. 242 is a House rules resolution that sets the terms for floor consideration of three separate measures. First, it makes in order two joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act that would disapprove Department of Energy energy-efficiency standards: one for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers, and another for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. Second, it provides for consideration of H.R. 1048, a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen disclosure of foreign gifts and contracts and to restrict certain contracts between colleges and universities and foreign entities or countries of concern. The resolution waives points of order, limits debate, and structures amendment procedures for each measure, including a one-hour debate limit and a single motion to recommit for the disapproval resolutions, and a structured amendment process for H.R. 1048. In practical terms, the resolution does not itself change substantive law, but it determines how the House can debate and vote on the underlying measures, including whether the chamber will consider overturning DOE energy standards and advancing new higher-education foreign influence restrictions.

Impact

H. Res. 242 affects House procedure rather than state law or federal substantive law directly. Its legal effect is to authorize expedited consideration of the underlying Congressional Review Act resolutions and the higher-education bill, waive procedural obstacles, and define the amendment and debate rules for those measures. Any actual change to federal law would come only if the House and Senate later enact the underlying joint resolutions or H.R. 1048; this resolution itself does not amend statutes or regulations.

Sentiment

The voting history suggests the resolution was supported by a narrow House majority but opposed by most Democrats, indicating a partisan split. The votes on ordering the previous question and on agreeing to the resolution both passed by slim margins, reflecting that the majority was able to control the floor agenda but only with limited support. The overall sentiment appears to favor moving the underlying measures forward, especially the energy-standard disapproval resolutions and the foreign-gift disclosure bill, while the minority likely viewed the resolution as advancing controversial policy changes under restrictive procedures.

Contention

The main points of contention are the two Department of Energy efficiency standards and the foreign-influence provisions in higher education. Supporters of the resolution likely favor reconsidering or blocking DOE appliance-efficiency rules as burdensome regulations and backing tighter scrutiny of foreign ties at colleges and universities. Opponents likely object to using the rules process to fast-track disapproval of energy standards and may also have concerns about the scope or impact of the higher-education restrictions, including how they affect institutional autonomy, international partnerships, and compliance burdens. The procedural waivers and limited amendment opportunities are also likely contentious because they reduce the minority’s ability to modify the underlying measures.