Passed
213 Yea209 Nay11 Not voting1/2 required
HRES-873-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Michelle Fischbach (R-MN)
What it does
H. Res. 873 is a procedural "rule" resolution that would allow the House to take up and vote on the Senate's version of H.R. 5371, a continuing appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026. It would waive all points of order against considering the Senate amendment, limit debate to one hour split equally between the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, and prevent any additional motions or amendments from being offered before a final vote.
Who benefits
The House majority leadership, which gains a streamlined path to pass the continuing resolution without procedural delays or amendments. Federal agencies and their employees, who benefit from funding continuity. Federal contractors and grant recipients whose payments depend on appropriations remaining active. Members of the public who rely on federally funded programs and services.
Who is hurt
House members — particularly in the minority, but also some in the majority — who would prefer to offer amendments or extend debate on the underlying spending bill. Legislators who object to specific provisions in the Senate amendment have no procedural avenue to force changes under this rule. Advocacy groups on any side of spending disputes lose a potential leverage point.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a structured rule is a standard and necessary tool for managing complex legislation on the House floor, and that the one-hour, equally divided debate still provides meaningful opportunity for both parties to make their case. They contend that waiving points of order prevents procedural gamesmanship from blocking a time-sensitive continuing resolution that keeps the federal government funded and avoids a shutdown.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that waiving all points of order and blocking amendments removes the House's ability to exercise its constitutional power of the purse in a deliberate, transparent way. They contend that limiting debate to one hour on a government-wide spending measure — which affects hundreds of billions of dollars and every federal agency — denies members adequate time to scrutinize the Senate's changes and hold the majority accountable.
Passed
Passed