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 · Apr 19, 2024
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8034) making emergency supplemental appropriations to respond to the situation in Israel and for related expenses for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8035) making emergency supplemental appropriations to respond to the situation in Ukraine and for related expenses for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8036) making emergency supplemental appropriations for assistance for the Indo-Pacific region and for related expenses for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8038) to authorize the President to impose certain sanctions with respect to Russia and Iran, and for other purposes; and providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 815, with an amendment.
People & committees
Rep. Burgess, Michael C. [R-TX-26] · R–TX
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 Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 316 - 94 (Roll no. 142). (text: CR H2526-2527)
House roll call 142 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 316 - 94 (Roll no. 142). (text: CR H2526-2527)
House roll call 142 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2532-2533)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 1160, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the resolution and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Burgess demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1160.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2526-2532)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 72.
The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 8034 under a closed rule and H.R. 8035, H.R. 8036, and H.R. 8038 under a structured rule. Provides for 30 minutes of general debate and one motion recommit on each bill. Rule also provides that upon disposition of the bills under consideration, the House will be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table H.R. 815 and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment inserting the texts of all bills as passed by the House, if passed.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 118-466, by Mr. Burgess.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 118-466, by Mr. Burgess.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Nov 18, 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.Res.1160 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.Res.1160 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.Res.1160 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.Res.1160 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.