Passed
209 Yea206 Nay17 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-1142-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)
What it does
This resolution would set the procedural terms for the House to accept the Senate's version of H.R. 7147, a consolidated appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026 (ending September 30, 2026). Specifically, it would deem the House to have taken up the Senate-amended bill and concurred in that amendment — but with a further amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-21. In practice, this is a procedural "rule" that allows the House to move quickly to a final vote on a modified version of the spending package without going through a standard conference process.
Who benefits
The House majority leadership, which gains a streamlined path to pass the spending bill without a formal House-Senate conference. Federal agencies and their employees, who gain funding certainty for the remainder of FY2026. Government contractors and grant recipients dependent on continued federal appropriations. Members of Congress who prefer the specific spending levels in Rules Committee Print 119-21.
Who is hurt
Members of Congress — particularly in the minority or those opposed to the underlying spending bill — who lose the opportunity to offer amendments or force a more deliberate conference process. Taxpayers and advocacy groups who prefer greater transparency and deliberation in the appropriations process. Any programs or agencies whose funding levels in Rules Committee Print 119-21 differ unfavorably from the Senate-passed version of H.R. 7147.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this procedural resolution is a necessary and efficient mechanism to finalize government funding and avoid a lapse in appropriations, which can disrupt federal services and harm federal workers and contractors. They contend that the Rules Committee Print 119-21 reflects a negotiated compromise, and that using a deemed-passed rule is a well-established congressional practice that allows the House to act decisively when time is short.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that using a self-executing "deem and pass" rule bypasses the regular order of a formal conference committee, reducing transparency and limiting members' ability to scrutinize the final spending text. They contend that consolidating major appropriations decisions into a single procedural vote — without a direct up-or-down vote on the underlying bill's final text — undermines accountability to constituents and concentrates power in House leadership and the Rules Committee.
Constitutional context
The Constitution's Bicameralism and Presentment Clause (Art. I, §7) requires that both chambers pass identical legislation before it is presented to the President. This resolution navigates that requirement through a procedural mechanism; courts have generally treated internal congressional rules as non-justiciable under the political question doctrine, so no clear constitutional challenge is likely here.
Checks and balances
The House Rules Committee and majority leadership gain procedural control over the path to final passage; the check on this power is the full House vote required to adopt the resolution itself, and ultimately the President's veto power over the underlying appropriations bill.
Historical precedent
Self-executing "deem and pass" rules have been used by both parties in prior Congresses to advance appropriations and other major legislation, including during the FY2010 budget process.
Passed
Passed