Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 3930) to authorize trial by military commission for violations of law of war, and for other purposes and consideration of the bill (H.R. 4772) to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges under the United States Constitution have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other governments officials or entities acting under color of State law, and for other purposes.

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 29, 2006

(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 28, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Waives points of order against the conference report to accompany H.R. 5441 making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.

Provides for consideration of S. 3930 to authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for consideration of H.R. 4772 to simplify and expedite access to the federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges under the United States Constitution have been deprived by final actions of federal agencies or other government officials or entities acting under color of state law.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] · R–TX

Committees

Rules Committee

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Sep 29, 2006
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sep 29, 2006
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 218 - 188 (Roll no. 505). (text: CR H7907)
House roll call 505 · Individual votes
Sep 29, 2006
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 218 - 188 (Roll no. 505).(text: CR H7907)
House roll call 505 · Individual votes
Sep 29, 2006
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 186 (Roll no. 504). (consideration: CR H7915)
House roll call 504 · Individual votes
Sep 29, 2006
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1054.
Sep 29, 2006
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H7907-7916)
Sep 28, 2006
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 243.
Sep 28, 2006
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-701, by Mr. Sessions.
Sep 28, 2006
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-701, by Mr. Sessions.
Sep 28, 2006
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Engrossed in House · Sep 29, 2006 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML
Reported in House · Sep 28, 2006 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.Res.1054 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1054, 109th Congress: Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 3930) to authorize trial by military commission for violations of law of war, and for other purposes and consideration of the bill (H.R. 4772) to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges under the United States Constitution have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other governments officials or entities acting under color of State law, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-resolution/1054

Text version to examine: Engrossed in House · 2006-09-29.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hres1054/BILLS-109hres1054eh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-07T13:33:47Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.Res.1054 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Res.1054 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1054, 109th Congress: Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 3930) to authorize trial by military commission for violations of law of war, and for other purposes and consideration of the bill (H.R. 4772) to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges under the United States Constitution have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other governments officials or entities acting under color of State law, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-resolution/1054

Text version to examine: Engrossed in House · 2006-09-29.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hres1054/BILLS-109hres1054eh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-07T13:33:47Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1054 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Res.1054 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1054, 109th Congress: Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 3930) to authorize trial by military commission for violations of law of war, and for other purposes and consideration of the bill (H.R. 4772) to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges under the United States Constitution have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other governments officials or entities acting under color of State law, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-resolution/1054

Text version to examine: Engrossed in House · 2006-09-29.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hres1054/BILLS-109hres1054eh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-07T13:33:47Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1054 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Res.1054 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.1054, 109th Congress: Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 5441) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill (S. 3930) to authorize trial by military commission for violations of law of war, and for other purposes and consideration of the bill (H.R. 4772) to simplify and expedite access to the Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and privileges under the United States Constitution have been deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other governments officials or entities acting under color of State law, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-resolution/1054

Text version to examine: Engrossed in House · 2006-09-29.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/109/bills/hres1054/BILLS-109hres1054eh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-07T13:33:47Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.1054 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.