PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Jul 26, 2023
This resolution sets forth the rule for consideration of
H.R. 4366 (Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, which provides appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies),
S.J. Res. 9 (which nullifies a rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that adds specified population segments of lesser prairie chickens to the list of threatened species and the list of endangered species), and
S.J. Res 24 (which nullifies a rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that reclassifies the northern long-eared bat from a threatened species to an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act).
People & committees
Rep. Reschenthaler, Guy [R-PA-14] · R–PA
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, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote: 217 - 206 (Roll no. 368).
House roll call 368 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote: 217 - 206 (Roll no. 368).
House roll call 368 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 208 - 191 (Roll no. 367).
House roll call 367 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3974-3976)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Res. 614, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question to H.Res. 614 and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Neguse demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 614.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST - Mr. Reschenthaler asked unanimous consent that the resolution be amended by striking the last sentence in the first section of H. Res. 614 and inserting "All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.". Agreed to without objection.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H3966-3974; text: CR H3966-3967)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 31.
The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4366, under a structured rule with one hour of general debate and a motion to recommit. The resolution provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 9 and S.J. Res. 24, under a closed rule with one hour of general debate for both joint resolutions and one motion to commit for both joint resolutions.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 118-158, by Mr. Reschenthaler.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 118-158, by Mr. Reschenthaler.
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 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.Res.614 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.614 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.614 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.614 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.