Electing certain Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

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

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 53 · Passed House · Jul 30, 2020

This resolution elects specified Members to the following House committees: (1) Representative Troy Balderson of Ohio to Agriculture, (2) Representative Mike Garcia of California to Homeland Security, (3) Representative Mark Green of Tennessee to Foreign Affairs, and (4) Representative Pete Stauber of Minnesota to Natural Resources.

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. Cheney, Liz [R-WY-At Large] · R–WY

Committees

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.

Jul 30, 2020
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Jul 30, 2020
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection. (text: CR H4177)
Jul 30, 2020
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.
Jul 30, 2020
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H4177)
Jul 30, 2020
Introduced in House
Jul 30, 2020
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 · Jul 30, 2020 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

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.1072 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.1072, 116th Congress: Electing certain Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/1072

Text version to examine: Engrossed in House · 2020-07-30.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1072/BILLS-116hres1072eh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-07T15:15:56Z. 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.1072 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.1072 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.1072, 116th Congress: Electing certain Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/1072

Text version to examine: Engrossed in House · 2020-07-30.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1072/BILLS-116hres1072eh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-07T15:15:56Z. 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.1072 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.1072 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.1072, 116th Congress: Electing certain Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/1072

Text version to examine: Engrossed in House · 2020-07-30.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1072/BILLS-116hres1072eh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-07T15:15:56Z. 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.1072 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.1072 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.1072, 116th Congress: Electing certain Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/1072

Text version to examine: Engrossed in House · 2020-07-30.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/116/bills/hres1072/BILLS-116hres1072eh.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-04-07T15:15:56Z. 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.1072 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.