HRES-1014-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
What it does
H. Res. 1014 is a procedural "rule" resolution that sets the terms under which the House of Representatives would consider two FY2026 consolidated appropriations bills (H.R. 7148 and H.R. 7147). It limits debate time, waives points of order against the bills, restricts which amendments may be offered and by whom, sequences the order of passage, and directs the Clerk on how to combine and engross the final text. It also repeals a previously enacted provision (Section 213 of a prior continuing resolution) that required the Senate to be notified before certain Senate data disclosures could be made in response to legal process.
Who benefits
The House majority party, which gains tighter control over floor proceedings and limits the minority's ability to offer amendments or delay passage. Appropriations Committee leadership, whose preferred bill text is protected from floor changes. Federal agencies and program recipients who depend on FY2026 funding certainty. Government contractors, grantees, and benefit recipients whose funding would be resolved by the underlying spending bills. Parties who sought to remove the Senate data-disclosure notification requirement (Section 213 repeal).
Who is hurt
The House minority party, which loses the ability to offer unlimited amendments or raise procedural objections. Individual House members outside the Appropriations Committee, who are restricted to only pre-approved amendments. Senators or Senate institutional interests who supported the Section 213 notification requirement, which this resolution repeals. Transparency advocates who favored the prior requirement that the Senate be notified before its data is disclosed in response to legal process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that structured rules are a necessary and routine tool for managing complex, multi-division spending legislation on a tight legislative calendar — without them, unlimited amendments and procedural motions could prevent timely passage of government funding. They contend that waiving points of order and pre-approving amendments allows the House to move efficiently toward a final product that has already been vetted through committee, and that the Section 213 repeal corrects an unworkable notification requirement that could impede lawful legal process.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a closed or highly restricted rule on major government spending legislation limits democratic deliberation and prevents members from offering amendments that reflect their constituents' priorities — a concern amplified when the underlying bills span multiple divisions and hundreds of billions in spending. They contend that waiving all points of order shields potentially problematic provisions from scrutiny, and that repealing Section 213 without separate debate removes a Senate data-protection safeguard through a procedural vehicle rather than through transparent standalone legislation.