Passed
206 Yea200 Nay27 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-377-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Austin Scott (R-GA)
What it does
H. Res. 377 is a procedural "rule" resolution that sets the terms under which the House of Representatives would debate and vote on two separate bills: (1) H.R. 276, which would rename the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America," and (2) H.R. 881, which would restrict Department of Homeland Security funding to colleges and universities that maintain a relationship with Confucius Institutes. For each bill, the resolution waives procedural points of order, designates the committee-approved text as the working draft, allows one hour of equally divided debate, and permits one motion to recommit.
Who benefits
The House majority party, which controls the Rules Committee and benefits from a structured, time-limited floor process that limits minority procedural delays. Supporters of the Gulf renaming (H.R. 276) and supporters of the Confucius Institute funding restrictions (H.R. 881) benefit by having a clear path to a floor vote. Indirectly, institutions of higher education that do not have Confucius Institutes would face no new restrictions and could benefit competitively if rivals lose DHS funding.
Who is hurt
The House minority party loses the ability to raise procedural points of order against either bill, limiting its tools to slow or block floor consideration. Colleges and universities that currently operate Confucius Institutes — estimated at roughly 50 institutions as of recent years — could face DHS funding restrictions if H.R. 881 passes. Students and staff at those institutions could be indirectly affected by funding changes. Entities with an interest in the traditional "Gulf of Mexico" name — including the Mexican government, international mapping bodies, and U.S. businesses using that geographic designation — could be affected by H.R. 276.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this rule provides an orderly, fair process — giving each bill one hour of equally divided debate and a motion to recommit — which is the standard mechanism for bringing legislation to the floor efficiently. They contend that both underlying bills address legitimate national interests: asserting American identity over a shared geographic feature and protecting university research environments from potential foreign influence, citing FBI and congressional testimony documenting concerns about Chinese government-affiliated programs on U.S. campuses.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that packaging these two unrelated bills under a single closed rule — waiving all points of order — prevents meaningful scrutiny of either measure. They contend that waiving points of order forecloses legitimate procedural challenges, and that the Confucius Institute funding restriction in H.R. 881 could raise First Amendment and Spending Clause concerns by conditioning federal funds on the content of academic relationships, potentially chilling lawful educational exchange programs without individualized findings of wrongdoing.
Passed
Passed