PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · 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.
People & committees
Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 189 - 235 (Roll no. 232).
House roll call 232 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 189 - 235 (Roll no. 232).
House roll call 232 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4344-4345)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Con.Res. 108, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the resolution and by voice vote, announced the noes had prevailed. Mr. Meek demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to a previous order of the House.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Con. Res. 108.
Considered pursuant to a previous order. (consideration: CR H4304-4309; text: CR H4304)
Consideration initiated pursuant to a previous order.
ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Mast asked unanimous consent that, it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 108 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees. Agreed to without objection.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Submitted in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Jul 3, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Con.Res.108 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Con.Res.108 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Con.Res.108 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Con.Res.108 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-06-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposed concurrent resolution would direct the President to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities in Lebanon within seven days after adoption. It would preserve security cooperation with Lebanon’s armed forces and protection of diplomatic facilities, while providing no authorization to use military force. The withdrawal requirement concerns participation in hostilities, rather than expressly requiring all U.S. personnel to leave Lebanon.
Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from any hostilities in Lebanon by not later than the date that is 7 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.
Nothing in this concurrent resolution may be construed to prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the protection of diplomatic facilities.
nothing in this concurrent resolution may be construed as authorizing the use of military force.
Section 1 invokes section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution as the basis for directing the President to end U.S. armed forces’ participation in any hostilities in Lebanon. Its seven-day deadline would run from adoption of the concurrent resolution, rather than from its introduction.
Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from any hostilities in Lebanon by not later than the date that is 7 days after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution.
Section 2 says the resolution must not be interpreted to prevent or restrict security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or protection of diplomatic facilities. These are express limits on how the withdrawal directive should be read.
Nothing in this concurrent resolution may be construed to prevent or limit security cooperation with the Lebanese Armed Forces or the protection of diplomatic facilities.
Section 3 says the resolution itself would not authorize military force. It ties that interpretation to section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution.
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(a)(1)), nothing in this concurrent resolution may be construed as authorizing the use of military force.
The supplied July 3, 2026 source snapshot records submission and referral to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on June 3, 2026. It records that the House rejected the resolution on June 30 by 189 votes to 235, so that recorded vote did not adopt the proposed withdrawal directive.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-03T08:05:38Z.
2026-06-03: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. 2026-06-03: Submitted in House
2026-06-30: On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 189 - 235 (Roll no. 232).
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-06-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials, which were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit warranting a finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The provisions preserving security cooperation and diplomatic protection define the scope of the main military policy. This conclusion is limited to the supplied version.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 3, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI