Passed
213 Yea208 Nay11 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-1095-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Brian Jack (R-GA)
What it does
H. Res. 1095 is a procedural "rule" resolution that would set the terms for House floor consideration of H.R. 7744, the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026. It would waive all points of order against the bill and its provisions, deem the bill as already read, limit debate to one hour equally divided between the majority and minority, and allow only one motion to recommit. It does not itself appropriate any funds or change any law — it only governs how the House may debate and vote on the underlying spending bill.
Who benefits
House majority leadership, which gains a structured, time-limited path to a floor vote on the DHS spending bill with minimal procedural obstacles. Members who support the underlying DHS appropriations bill benefit from a guaranteed vote. The Rules Committee, which drafted the terms, retains control over the amendment process.
Who is hurt
House minority members and any majority members who oppose the underlying bill lose the ability to raise procedural objections (points of order) that might otherwise slow or block consideration. Members who wish to offer amendments to the DHS bill are foreclosed from doing so under this closed rule structure. Advocacy groups or interests opposed to specific provisions in H.R. 7744 lose a procedural avenue to challenge those provisions on the floor.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that structured rules are a routine and necessary tool for managing House floor time efficiently, and that this resolution follows standard practice for major appropriations bills. They contend that waiving points of order and limiting debate prevents procedural delay tactics that could stall essential government funding, noting that DHS operations — including border security, disaster response, and cybersecurity — depend on timely appropriations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that waiving all points of order and blocking amendments limits minority participation and reduces transparency in the appropriations process. They contend that a closed rule prevents members from offering amendments to address objectionable provisions in the underlying DHS bill, effectively concentrating floor control in the hands of majority leadership and bypassing the deliberative process the House rules are designed to protect.
Passed
Passed