H.Con.Res. 108House concurrent resolution · 119th CongressIn progressInternational Affairs

Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in Lebanon.

Sponsored byRashida TlaibD-MI-12Introduced Jun 3, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 30, 2026) Motion to reconsider Agreed to without objection.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 3, 2026

This concurrent resolution directs the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from hostilities in Lebanon within seven days of the resolution's adoption.

The resolution specifies that it shall not be construed to prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the protection of diplomatic facilities.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On Agreeing to the Resolutiondecisive vote

    House · Jun 30, 2026

    Whether to adopt the resolution itself.

    189235

    Failed

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • J Streetno position stated
    …H.Con.Res.84 - Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from Lebanon. H.Con.Res.108 - Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in… filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

11 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
23
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea18d ago
I keep going back and forth. The problem is real; I'm unconvinced this is the instrument for it.
0
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Yea25d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
10
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay20d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
10
lauren_vDemoOK-2voted Nay18d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
15
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Yea19d ago
I'd vote yes, but not enthusiastically. It solves a narrow version of a broad problem, and I'd rather have the narrow fix now than nothing for another two years.
12
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay22d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
7
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Nay21d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
2
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay24d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
1
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Nay19d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
3
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Yea17d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
8
publiclandsfanDemoNC-11voted Nay21d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
Your position on H.Con.Res. 1080% Yea · 1 VoteWire user