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 · Jan 11, 2024
This resolution condemns the Biden Administration's border policies and urges the President to end such policies.
People & committees
Rep. Moran, Nathaniel [R-TX-1] · 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: 225 - 187 (Roll no. 13). (text: CR H165)
House roll call 13 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 225 - 187 (Roll no. 13). (text: CR H165)
House roll call 13 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H176-177)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 957, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the resolution and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Moran demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered on the resolution and preamble pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 957.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6914, H.R. 6918 and H. Res. 957. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6914, H.R. 6918, and H. Res. 957 under a closed rule, with one hour of general debate on each measure. The resolution provides for a motion to recommit on H.R. 6914 and H.R. 6918.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 969. (consideration: CR H165-173)
Rule H. Res. 969 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 969 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6914, H.R. 6918 and H. Res. 957. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6914, H.R. 6918, and H. Res. 957 under a closed rule, with one hour of general debate on each measure. The resolution provides for a motion to recommit on H.R. 6914 and H.R. 6918.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 27, 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.957 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.957 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.957 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.957 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.