Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Air Plan Approval; Florida; Revisions to Stationary Sources-Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule Provisions".
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 147.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This joint resolution seeks to express congressional disapproval of a specific rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency. The rule in question relates to "Air Plan Approval; Florida; Revisions to Stationary Sources--Removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule Provisions." If passed, the rule would have no force or effect.
Yes
No question was scored yes.
The opposite· 3 of 17
- Scored -3
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Disapproving the EPA rule could hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions in Florida.
- Scored -3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Disapproving an EPA rule related to air quality might weaken environmental protections.
- Scored -2
Would children be better off under this?
Potential negative impacts on air quality could disproportionately affect children's health.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Prevents the removal of Clean Air Interstate Rule provisions: Because the resolution seeks to disapprove the rule that removes these provisions, it would maintain the existing requirements for stationary sources in Florida.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Prevents revisions to stationary source rules: By disapproving the EPA rule, the resolution stops the specific revisions to stationary sources in Florida from taking effect.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Potential negative impacts on air quality could disproportionately affect children's health. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income households often live in areas with higher pollution levels and may be disproportionately affected. Would retired people be better off under this? — Retirees are more vulnerable to air pollution, so disapproving an air quality rule could have negative health impacts. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are more vulnerable to air pollution, so disapproving an air quality rule could have negative health impacts. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents are more likely to be exposed to higher levels of air pollution. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — African Americans may be disproportionately affected, as they often live in areas with higher pollution. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Asian Americans may be disproportionately affected, as they often live in areas with higher pollution. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Hispanic Americans may be disproportionately affected, as they often live in areas with higher pollution. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals may experience some long-term health consequences from potentially worsened air quality. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class households may experience some health impacts from potentially worsened air quality. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — People with respiratory disabilities could be more vulnerable to the effects of worsened air quality. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural residents near industrial sources may experience health impacts from potentially worsened air quality. Would students be better off under this? — Students may experience some long-term health consequences from potentially worsened air quality. Would white Americans be better off under this? — White Americans may experience some health impacts from potentially worsened air quality. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults may experience some long-term health consequences from potentially worsened air quality.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Disapproving an EPA rule related to air quality might weaken environmental protections. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Disapproving the EPA rule could hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions in Florida.
- 9/3/2025
- Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by petition pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 147.
- 7/22/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- Introduced in Senate