H.Res. 1438House simple resolution · 119th CongressIn progress2 votes from flippingCongress

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8884) to amend title II of t

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8884) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to reauthorize demonstration authority for the disability insurance program; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 113) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7008) to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6955) to make improvements to the Federal banking laws, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 9770) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2027, and

Sponsored byVirginia FoxxR-NC-5Introduced Jul 20, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 21, 2026) Motion to reconsider Agreed to without objection.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jul 20, 2026

This resolution provides for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8884) to amend title II of the Social Security Act to reauthorize demonstration authority for the disability insurance program; providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 113) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7008) to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6955) to make improvements to the Federal banking laws, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 9770) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2027, and for other purposes; and for other purposes.

Face Value

as passed the House
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

2 recorded
  • On Agreeing to the Resolutiondecisive vote

    House · Jul 21, 2026

    Whether to adopt the resolution itself.

    214211

    Passed

    Every vote →
  • On

    House · Jul 21, 2026

    A procedural vote to cut off debate and amendments. It sounds neutral; in practice it's a vote about who controls what happens next.

    213209

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

5 comments

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

Sort
24
PurpleDistrictDemoSC-2voted Nay19d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
24
grantwoodDemoVA-4voted Nay23d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
20
PurpleDistrictDemoSC-2voted Nay29d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
6
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Yea22d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
16
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Yea21d ago
This is the kind of unglamorous plumbing that never makes the news and matters more than the stuff that does.
Your position on H.Res. 143861% Yea · 23 VoteWire users