Passed
213 Yea207 Nay10 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-682-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Austin Scott (R-GA)
What it does
H. Res. 682 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. 3838, the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which would authorize military spending and set personnel levels for the Department of Defense and Department of Energy defense programs; and (2) H.R. 3486, which would increase criminal penalties for unauthorized immigrants who enter or re-enter the United States after removal. The resolution specifies time limits for debate, which amendments may be offered, and waives procedural objections (points of order) against both bills.
Who benefits
The majority party in the House, which controls the Rules Committee and shapes the amendment process to its advantage. Members designated in the Rules Committee report, who are granted the exclusive right to offer specific amendments. House leadership, which gains a structured, predictable floor process. Indirectly, any group that benefits from the underlying bills — military contractors, service members, and veterans (via the NDAA); and those who favor stricter immigration enforcement (via H.R. 3486).
Who is hurt
Minority party members, who have limited ability to offer amendments or slow the bills' progress. Members of the majority not designated in the Rules Committee report, who are also blocked from offering amendments. Indirectly, any group negatively affected by the underlying bills — those who oppose the specific defense spending levels or immigration penalty increases — though this resolution does not itself enact those policies.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that structured rules resolutions are a necessary and routine tool for managing House floor time efficiently, preventing dilatory tactics, and ensuring that complex, high-priority legislation like the annual NDAA receives focused debate. They contend that the one-hour debate limit for each bill, equally divided between majority and minority, provides a fair opportunity for both sides to make their case, and that waiving points of order prevents procedural gamesmanship from derailing legislation that has already cleared committee review.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a "closed" or tightly "structured" rule — one that limits which amendments can be offered and by whom — concentrates power in the Rules Committee and the majority leadership, effectively shutting out rank-and-file members from meaningfully shaping major legislation. They contend that bundling two substantively unrelated bills (defense authorization and immigration penalties) into a single procedural vehicle limits accountability and forces members into an all-or-nothing vote on the floor process, reducing transparency and deliberation.
Passed
Passed