H.Res. 518House simple resolution · 119th CongressIn progressCongress

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2913) to authorize support for Ukraine, and for other purposes.

Sponsored byGregory W. MeeksD-NY-5Introduced Jun 17, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 4, 2026) Motion to reconsider Agreed to without objection.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Jun 17, 2025

This resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2913, the Ukraine Support Act. It also provides that the Clerk of the House shall transmit to the Senate a message that the House has passed H.R. 2913 no later than one week after the bill's passage.

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 · Jun 4, 2026

    Whether to adopt the resolution itself.

    216204

    Passed

    Every vote →
  • On Motion to Discharge

    House · Jun 3, 2026

    218204

    Passed

    Every vote →

Discussion

12 comments

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

Sort
24
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay29d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
10
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay24d ago
This is my worry too — the cost estimate always assumes full compliance and full compliance never happens.
18
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea25d 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.
5
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay19d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it now means starting over in the next Congress.
6
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Yea24d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
4
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Yea20d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
6
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay17d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
5
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea19d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
12
PlainsVoterDemoIL-7voted Yea26d ago
Support. The reporting requirements alone would be worth it. You can't fix what nobody is required to measure.
1
gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Yea23d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
7
OldLineStateDemoOH-1voted Nay28d ago
The intent is fine. The drafting is not. There's no sunset, no review, and no mechanism to stop it if it turns out to be counterproductive.
3
gulfcoastgailDemoNJ-8voted Yea18d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
Your position on H.Res. 51850% Yea · 6 VoteWire users