H.Res.499, introduced June 11, 2025 by Rep. Virginia Foxx, would make it in order to consider H.R.4, a bill to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, under section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
The resolution sets a fast track for floor consideration, waiving points of order against the measure and against provisions in the bill, and it frames the floor process with limited debate and a single chance to recommit. It also specifies that section 1017 of the Impoundment Control Act will not apply to a bill introduced in connection with the June 3, 2025 special message, and it provides that House Resolution 492 is adopted.
In practical terms, the resolution governs how the House will handle H.R.4 on the floor, defining ordering, debate, and amendment rules, and clarifying interactions with the Impoundment Act’s procedural provisions. It does not change the substance of H.R.4 itself but sets the legislative atmosphere for consideration and potential passage.Taken together, the measure signals a procedural preference for prompt action on budget rescission authority, while raising questions about the scope of waivers and the implications for oversight and debate around significant budget decisions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Sec. 1 orders the consideration of H.R.4 on the House floor, waives points of order against the measure and its provisions, and sets the previous question to final passage subject to limited debate and a single motion to recommit.
Who It Affects
House members, floor leaders, and staff who manage debate and amendments; sponsors of H.R.4; and committees with jurisdiction over budget and impoundment procedures.
Why It Matters
It establishes a narrow, expedited process for reviewing a rescission bill tied to presidential budget messages, shaping how rigorously or quickly Congress can respond to proposed budget cuts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This resolution is purely procedural. It tells the House what to do if it pursues H.R.4, a bill aimed at rescinding certain budget authority that the President proposed to rescind in messages on June 3, 2025.
The key mechanics are that the House may consider H.R.4, all points of order against the consideration and the bill’s provisions are waived, and the bill will be read. Debate on the bill is limited to one hour, evenly split between the majority and minority leaders or their designees, with one motion to recommit allowed.
Section 2 says that Section 1017 of the Impoundment Control Act does not apply to a bill introduced in relation to the June 3, 2025 special message. This carve-out affects how the usual impoundment constraints interact with the proposed rescission bill.Section 3 simply states that House Resolution 492 is adopted, aligning the House’s procedural posture with that resolution as part of the process for considering H.R.4.
The document does not itself alter policy; it only sets rules for floor action and clarifies the interaction with the Impoundment Act’s provisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution makes it in order to consider H.R.4 on the House floor as part of the rescission package tied to the June 3, 2025 presidential messages.
All points of order against consideration and against provisions in the bill are waived.
Debate on the bill is limited to one hour, evenly divided between the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees, with one motion to recommit.
Section 1017 of the Impoundment Control Act does not apply to a bill introduced in relation to the June 3, 2025 special message.
House Resolution 492 is adopted as part of this procedural posture.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Order of consideration and debate
Sec. 1 authorizes the floor consideration of H.R.4 and waives any points of order against the consideration of the measure and against provisions therein. The bill is to be read, and the previous question is considered as ordered to final passage with two exceptions: one hour of debate split between the majority and minority leaders or their designees, and one motion to recommit.
Non-application of 1017 to related measures
Sec. 2 provides that Section 1017 of the Impoundment Control Act shall not apply to a bill or joint resolution introduced with respect to the June 3, 2025 special message. This creates a carve-out for the rescission proposal in question, affecting how impoundment rules constrain or permit consideration.
Adoption of H.Res.492
Sec. 3 states that House Resolution 492 is adopted. This formal action aligns House procedure with the resolution and the proposed track for considering H.R.4.
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
- Members seeking to advance H.R.4 and those who support rapid action on budget rescission, because the resolution tightens floor rules and accelerates consideration.
- Sponsors of H.R.4 and the bill’s floor managers, who gain a structured path to debate and potential passage with limited procedural friction.
- House leadership (Speaker, Majority Leader, and their designees) and committees handling budget matters, who control the timetable and process for deliberation.
Who Bears the Cost
- Opposing members who prefer extended debate or more opportunities for amendments, since the rules compress time and limit amendment access.
- House staff and committees that must manage expedited scheduling and coordination of the rescission process, potentially increasing workload with limited deliberation.
- Federal agencies whose budget authority could be affected by the eventual passage of H.R.4, given the expedited decision framework and the potential for rapid implementation or reversals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill must balance the need for a timely procedural path to address the President’s budget signals with the countervailing need for rigorous deliberation on the consequences of rescinding budget authority.
The resolution emphasizes speed and procedural control over substantive review. It trades thorough debate and robust amendment opportunities for a faster corridor to consider H.R.4, which could influence whether attached budget rescission measures are adopted.
The carve-out in Section 2 reduces the typical checks of the Impoundment Act for measures introduced in relation to the June 3, 2025 special message, raising questions about how closely impoundment rules would constrain future rescission actions tied to these messages. The adoption of H.Res.492 in Section 3 also signals alignment with another procedural posture, potentially shaping future floor operations and committee scheduling.
One area of risk is that rapid consideration could limit debate on the policy implications of rescinding budget authority, reducing opportunities for affected programs to be scrutinized in a standing committee context before floor action.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.