House Republicans officially kicked off their pursuit of a second budget reconciliation bill this Congress, unveiling a policy framework Tuesday that is loaded with energy and environment provisions.
The blueprint, which the 190-member Republican Study Committee developed over the past several months, represents the GOP’s first concrete step toward another party-line bill as the conference looks to score more legislative wins ahead of the November midterm elections.
Committee leaders cast the framework as a “vetted menu” of policy options for the broader conference to consider. It includes numerous proposals intended to streamline the permitting process for energy projects, as well as ideas for killing energy efficiency standards, overhauling the government’s regulatory process, and imposing new restrictions on federal grants and subsidies.
“It would be political malpractice if we did not pursue a reconciliation 2.0 plan,” Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), chair of the conservative Republican Study Committee, told reporters Tuesday.
“There’s no reason to stop our progress right now,” Pfluger added. “We have momentum on our side, and there’s more work to be done.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and some other Republican leaders in Congress are bullish on the prospect of advancing a sequel to last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, though they have not commented on the RSC’s plans specifically.
The effort faces significant headwinds. Other key players — including the chairs of some of Congress’ energy and environment committees — have been cold to the idea. President Donald Trump has said Republicans “don’t need” a second party-line bill.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) were noncommittal about reconciliation when reporters asked Tuesday. They noted there is still no consensus on whether to try again or what the focus would be.
Last year’s push around the One Big Beautiful Bill Act caused significant strife. Republicans are now working with an even narrower House majority and in an election year with long recesses scheduled for the summer and fall.
Still, the framework released Tuesday includes several dozen bullet points that could help Republicans get the process started. It states that those policies, if enacted, would yield more than $1.6 trillion in spending reductions, producing a “net deficit reduction” of more than $1 trillion.
“Fighter pilots like August don’t wait for somebody to tell them to engage,” said House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), referring to Pfluger. “They see a problem and they attack it. And that’s the mentality we have to have at this historic moment.”
The reconciliation process would be guided by the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” which sets parameters around the kinds of policies that can pass that chamber by simple majority. Provisions must have a budget nexus.
RSC leaders said they hope to avoid procedural setbacks later in the process by using a custom-built artificial intelligence tool that has been “trained on thousands of Byrd Rule documents to generate compliant legislative text and preempt Democrat challenges.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, criticized the RSC plan on Tuesday, calling it an effort to “seize ideological trophies instead of focusing on making life more affordable.”
Permitting reform in reconciliation?
Under the heading “Energy Independence and Economic Security for All Americans,” the RSC included multiple proposals to ease permitting-related obstacles for energy and infrastructure projects.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers have been working on a bipartisan permitting reform package. That effort was upended last month when Senate Democrats stepped away from the negotiating table in response to the Trump administration unilaterally freezing renewable energy projects.
An effort to enact permitting changes as part of a party-line package could exacerbate those tensions. It could also run into problems with the Senate parliamentarian, who last year struck some permitting items from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Pfluger said Republicans see an avenue to try to challenge the parliamentarian again this year with fresh permitting proposals.
“It is 100 percent in our interest to continue to press the Senate parliamentarian — who I believe wrongly cut out some of those [provisions] from the first bill in July of last year — and to once again make that case,” Pfluger said.
“Our permitting system has been completely broken for so many years, where it takes decades, literally, to build anything,” he added. “This is a great opportunity for us to do that.”
One provision in the RSC blueprint would establish a program to “provide economic protection” against future administrations canceling approved permits, licenses and investments for fossil fuel projects. The framework does not mention renewables or energy sources with broad bipartisan support, such as nuclear and geothermal.
Republicans included a plan to establish categorical exclusions — presumably under the National Environmental Policy Act — for “forest management-related activities.” The goal would be “protecting natural resources and promoting effective wildfire management,” according to the framework.
House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) said Tuesday that he had not yet seen the RSC’s recommendations. He added that he would prefer to pursue permitting reform through the regular legislative process.
“We could do some of it [through reconciliation], but the vast majority of permitting needs to be done through regular order, through the 60-vote process in the Senate,” Westerman said. “So that’s why I keep saying it has to be bipartisan.”
More energy, environment ideas
Republicans want to try again to pass a version of the “REINS Act” through reconciliation. The legislation, a conservative priority, would restrict an administration’s ability to implement major rules without Congress’ approval.
The RSC framework contains a proposal to impose “royalty-style fees” on plaintiffs suing the federal government for alleged violations of “procedural environmental laws.” The fee revenues would go to the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.
Another proposal would tax third-party litigants, such as environmental advocacy groups, “to discourage frivolous lawsuits that undermine economic growth.”
The blueprint includes a proposal to impose a fee on states’ applications for waivers that would allow them to set more stringent pollution limits than those imposed by the Clean Air Act.
Republicans added a proposal to “dramatically reduce” the Bureau of Land Management permitting requirements for certain minerals projects. Another proposal would require the development of a rule to establish a new permit for oil, gas and liquid natural gas exports.
Also on the list is a plan to refill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, at least partially with oil from Venezuela.
