Adam Schiff (D-CA)
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 "Extension of Deadlines in Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review Final Rule".
A Democratic resolution with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 46 - 51. Record Vote Number: 622.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
How Congress voted
- See who voted how →A vote on whether to start debating something · 11/19/2025
What this bill would do
S.J. Res. 76 is a joint resolution that expresses congressional disapproval of a specific rule from the Environmental Protection Agency. This rule relates to the "Extension of Deadlines in Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review Final Rule." If passed, the resolution ensures that this EPA rule shall have no force or effect.
Yes
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Oil and gas businesses benefit from reduced regulatory burdens and compliance costs.
- Scored +2
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural areas where oil and gas are extracted may see temporary economic benefit from reduced regulation.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The resolution eliminates an EPA rule designed to set standards for oil and natural gas sector emissions.
- Scored -6
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Removing the EPA rule on emissions guidelines for oil and gas may hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions.
- Scored -4
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
Removing emissions constraints generally supports the continued operation of fossil fuel infrastructure.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The Senate: a vote on whether to start debating something This decides only whether the chamber takes the measure up at all. Nothing about the measure itself has been decided when it passes. Blocked 46 yes · 51 no
11/19/2025 · Roll call 622 · recorded as “On the Motion to Proceed S.J.Res. 76”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Congressional Oversight: The resolution uses chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to allow Congress to disapprove of an agency rule, which serves as a mechanism to hold the Environmental Protection Agency accountable.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Removal of EPA Rule: Because the resolution states the rule shall have "no force or effect," the specific extensions of deadlines and emissions guidelines for the oil and natural gas sector provided in the "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review Final Rule" would be eliminated.
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.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The resolution eliminates an EPA rule designed to set standards for oil and natural gas sector emissions. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Removing the EPA rule on emissions guidelines for oil and gas may hinder efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Removing emissions constraints generally supports the continued operation of fossil fuel infrastructure.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Oil and gas businesses benefit from reduced regulatory burdens and compliance costs. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural areas where oil and gas are extracted may see temporary economic benefit from reduced regulation. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Oil and gas operations frequently occur on or near indigenous lands, impacting their environment. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Environmental injustice often disproportionately affects minority communities near industrial sites. Would children be better off under this? — Reduced environmental protections on emissions can have long-term health impacts on children. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Environmental injustice often disproportionately affects minority communities near industrial sites. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income communities often bear the brunt of pollution from oil and gas operations. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Environmental deregulation often negatively impacts younger generations facing climate change.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — While it is a federal action, it reduces the regulatory power of a federal agency (EPA).
- 11/19/2025
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 46 - 51. Record Vote Number: 622.
- 9/16/2025
- 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. 162.
- 9/4/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island