H. Res. 369 is a House “sense of the House” resolution that asks the Secretary of Health and Human Services to withdraw a Federal Register notice published March 3, 2025 (90 Fed.
Reg. 11029) that, according to the resolution, would reduce opportunities for public notice and comment. The resolution also directs that HHS affirm the rulemaking practices that were in effect on February 27, 2025.
While the measure does not change statute or bind the Secretary, it signals congressional concern about alterations to long-established notice-and-comment procedures at HHS and elevates transparency and stakeholder participation—issues of practical importance to program beneficiaries, state and local governments, providers, and regulated entities that rely on HHS rulemaking timelines and processes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution expresses the House’s view that the HHS Secretary should withdraw a specific Federal Register notice from March 3, 2025 that would reduce public notice-and-comment opportunities, and it asks HHS to keep rulemaking practices as they were on February 27, 2025. It offers no statutory command or enforcement mechanism.
Who It Affects
Primary audiences are the Department of Health and Human Services and the Secretary, plus parties that participate in HHS rulemaking: program beneficiaries, state and local agencies, human services providers, industry stakeholders, and public-interest organizations. Administrative law practitioners and courts may also take note when litigating procedural challenges to HHS rules.
Why It Matters
The resolution signals congressional expectations about procedural transparency at one of the largest federal agencies and could influence HHS’s internal decisionmaking, inter-agency coordination, and the administrative record for future rules. For stakeholders, it clarifies congressional preference for maintaining existing opportunities for public input rather than adopting the procedures described in the March 3 notice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 369 is a simple, single-subject House resolution that asks the HHS Secretary to retract a March 3, 2025 Federal Register notice (90 Fed.
Reg. 11029) described in the text as reducing public notice-and-comment opportunities. The resolution frames its request against decades of agency practice, citing the Department’s adherence to Administrative Procedure Act notice-and-comment procedures for 54 years, and emphasizes the practical importance of public participation to people and organizations affected by HHS regulations.
The core operative language is an exhortation: the House “expresses the sense” that the Secretary should withdraw the notice and affirm the agency practices that existed on February 27, 2025. As a sense resolution, it does not alter statutory law, amend the Administrative Procedure Act, or impose a legal duty on the Secretary.
Its force is political and communicative: it is a formal expression of congressional sentiment intended to persuade an executive-branch official to act a certain way.Practically, the resolution creates a congressional record that stakeholders can cite when they want HHS to prioritize open rulemaking. Administrative counsel, advocacy groups, and litigants may rely on the resolution’s findings in public comments, in asking HHS to reopen proceedings, or as ancillary evidence in procedural challenges.
At the same time, the resolution leaves unchanged the agency’s legal options: if HHS believes it has statutory authority or faces exigent circumstances warranting a departure from prior practice, the agency retains the ability to proceed unless constrained by statute or a court order.The document also names affected parties—beneficiaries, state and local governments, providers, and organizations—making the point that the consequences of procedural changes are distributed across public programs and service networks. By referring the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, the sponsors put the matter where congressional oversight of administrative procedure and judicial review lives, creating a potential venue for hearings or further non-binding statements but not for immediate legal relief.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution expressly asks the HHS Secretary to withdraw the Federal Register notice published March 3, 2025, cited as 90 Fed. Reg. 11029.
It asks HHS to affirm the agency’s rulemaking practices as they existed on February 27, 2025, rather than adopt the changes described in the March 3 notice.
H. Res. 369 is a non-binding 'sense of the House' resolution and does not create or modify legal obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The resolution highlights HHS’s 54-year history of following APA notice-and-comment procedures as part of its rationale.
Sponsor and procedural detail: Rep. Elizabeth Fletcher introduced the resolution on May 1, 2025, and it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Background and reasons for the resolution
The preamble lists findings: public participation is essential to fair rulemaking, open rulemaking reduces arbitrary outcomes, HHS has followed APA notice-and-comment procedures for decades, and HHS regulations affect millions of Americans. These statements set the political and normative frame that justifies asking the Secretary to reverse course. For practitioners, these clauses are a roadmap to the sponsors’ concerns—transparency, long-standing practice, and broad stakeholder impact—without prescribing legal remedies.
House 'sense' asking HHS to withdraw the March 3, 2025 notice
This single operative paragraph directs the House’s sentiment: the Secretary should withdraw the March 3 notice (90 Fed. Reg. 11029) and affirm practices in effect on February 27, 2025. The clause is hortatory, not mandatory; it expresses congressional preference rather than a command. Its legal consequence is limited to signaling to HHS and the public the House’s expectations regarding administrative procedure.
Request to preserve existing notice-and-comment procedures
By asking HHS to 'affirm practices as in effect on February 27, 2025,' the resolution anchors the requested withdrawal to a specific baseline. That baseline could influence how stakeholders frame comments or litigation: advocates may argue that any departure from that state should be justified in the administrative record. However, the resolution does not define what 'practices' encompass (e.g., comment period lengths, use of direct final rules, good-cause exceptions), leaving interpretive work to counsel and HHS officials.
Committee referral and non-binding nature
The resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, placing it within congressional oversight that traditionally addresses administrative procedure and judicial review. The document’s final paragraph contains no enforcement mechanism or appropriations instruction; it neither amends statute nor imposes penalties. Its practical effect is political: it may catalyze oversight, public attention, or informal pressure on the Secretary.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Program beneficiaries (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP recipients, etc.): The resolution pushes to preserve public participation that can surface implementation issues and protections that directly affect benefits and access.
- State and local governments: Keeping prior notice-and-comment practices helps subfederal authorities engage on rules that affect funding, compliance burdens, and program administration timelines.
- Human services providers and non‑profits: Providers gain time and a formal avenue to comment on regulatory changes that affect reimbursement, reporting, and service delivery.
- Public-interest and advocacy organizations: The resolution affirms a role for organized stakeholder input and strengthens narrative support for challenging procedurally inadequate rulemaking.
- Administrative law practitioners and compliance teams: The congressional statement creates a record they can cite when advising clients, submitting comments, or framing litigation strategy.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Health and Human Services leadership and staff: The resolution increases political pressure to maintain longer or more extensive notice-and-comment procedures, which can slow rulemaking and consume agency resources.
- HHS program offices seeking rapid regulatory change: Offices that argue for expedited procedures (e.g., in response to emergencies or statutory deadlines) may face additional scrutiny and procedural friction.
- Regulated industry and stakeholder groups favoring faster regulatory certainty: Entities that prefer quicker agency action to reduce regulatory uncertainty may see increased delays if HHS preserves prior, more extensive procedures.
- Congressional oversight committees and staff: If the resolution prompts hearings or oversight activities, committees incur time and administrative costs to investigate and press HHS officials.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing two legitimate goals: protecting public participation and transparency in HHS rulemaking versus preserving agency agility to issue timely regulations. The resolution leans toward preserving procedural safeguards, but it does so by urging, not requiring, HHS to maintain prior practices—so the practical question becomes how much procedural rigor is appropriate when agencies argue speed is necessary.
Two implementation ambiguities stand out. First, the resolution asks HHS to 'affirm practices as in effect on February 27, 2025' but does not define what those practices include—length of comment periods, use of expedited or direct-final procedures, reliance on 'good cause' exceptions, notice formats, or electronic engagement methods.
That ambiguity leaves a gap between the House’s intent and any concrete operational change, and it opens the door to disputes about whether an HHS action complies with the resolution’s request.
Second, the resolution’s non-binding form both limits and complicates its effect. It cannot compel agency action, yet it creates a public record that stakeholders and courts may use rhetorically or procedurally.
That can produce mixed outcomes: it may deter an agency from adopting faster procedures even when legally justified, potentially slowing needed regulatory responses; conversely, litigants could cite the resolution to argue that HHS acted contrary to congressional expectations, though courts treat such resolutions as weak evidence of statutory intent. Finally, the resolution trades off administrative agility for greater transparency; the bill does not engage with situations where expedited rulemaking might be necessary (health emergencies, statutory deadlines), leaving unresolved how to balance speed and public participation in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.