PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 113-145.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Aug 4, 2014
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on August 1, 2014. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Resolution, 2014 - Appropriates FY2014 supplemental funds to the Department of Defense (DOD) to assist the government of Israel with procurement of the Iron Dome defense system to counter short-range rocket threats.
Provides that the funds shall be transferred immediately only through an exchange of letters to address emergent operations in support of Operation Protective Edge, notwithstanding the U.S-Israel Iron Dome Procurement Agreement.
Designates funding provided in this joint resolution as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget And Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
People & committees
Rep. Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [R-NJ-11] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 113-145.
Became Public Law No: 113-145.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 395 - 8 (Roll no. 480). (text as House agreed to Senate Amendments: CR H7205)
House roll call 480 · Individual votesResolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 395 - 8 (Roll no. 480).(text as House agreed to Senate Amendments: CR H7205)
House roll call 480 · Individual votesPOSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on the Rogers (KY) motion to agree in the Senate amendments to H.J.Res. 76, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the Senate amendments and by voice vote, announced that the ayes prevailed. Mr. Rogers (KY) demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until later in the legislative day.
The previous question was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H7205)
Mr. Rogers (KY) moved that the House agree to the Senate amendments. (consideration: CR H7205, H7236)
ORDER OF BUSINESS - Mr. Sessions asked unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the Speaker's table H.J.Res. 76, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a single motion offered by the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendments; the Senate amendments be considered as read; the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question; and the Chair may postpone the question of adoption of the motion as though under clause 8 of rule 20.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S5318-5319)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 220.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 248 - 176 (Roll no. 542). (text: CR H6497)
House roll call 542 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 248 - 176 (Roll no. 542).(text: CR H6497)
House roll call 542 · Individual votesOn motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 226 - 195 (Roll no. 541).
House roll call 541 · Individual votesMr. Frelinghuysen moved to table the appeal of the ruling of the Chair.
Ms. Kelly (IL) appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the chair. (consideration: CR H6502)
Mr. Frelinghuysen raised a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. Frelinghuysen stated that the amendment was not germane to the underlying bill. Sustained by the Chair.
Point of order sustained against the motion to recommit with instructions.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Kelly (IL) motion recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House forthwith with an amendment to replace the underlying bill with the Senate Amendment to H.J. Res. 59, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2014, pending reservation of a point of order.
Ms. Kelly (IL) moved to recommit with instructions to Appropriations. (consideration: CR H6502; text: CR H6502)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6502-6504)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair announced that further proceedings on H.J. Res. 76 had been postponed.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6502)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with 40 minutes of debate on H.J. Res. 76.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 371. (consideration: CR H6497-6502)
Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.J.Res.76 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.J.Res.76 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.J.Res.76 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.J.Res.76 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.