H. Res. 1142 is a one-paragraph House resolution that, if adopted, treats the House as having taken H.R.7147 from the Speaker’s table and as having concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment composed of the text of Rules Committee Print 119–21.
The resolution is purely procedural: it does not itself change programmatic law or appropriate funds; it sets the House’s procedural posture toward the Senate amendment to the consolidated appropriations bill for FY2026.
This step matters because it is the mechanism by which the House formally adopts a specific text as its position on a large, omnibus appropriations measure. By specifying the Rules Committee Print as the amendment to be agreed to, the resolution determines the textual vehicle the House will treat as its response to the Senate, a necessary move before the bill can be finalized under regular order or sent on for enrollment and presentation to the President.
At a Glance
What It Does
The resolution directs that H.R.7147 be taken from the Speaker’s table and that the House is to be considered to have concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the full text of Rules Committee Print 119–21. It accomplishes this in a single operative sentence and contains no independent substantive appropriations language.
Who It Affects
House leadership and the Committee on Rules control the floor posture created by this resolution; the Appropriations Committees and their staff will implement the agreed text. Federal agencies and program recipients are indirectly affected because this motion is a procedural prerequisite to finalizing FY2026 funding language.
Why It Matters
This is a gatekeeping procedural move: it fixes the House’s official text in relation to the Senate amendment and thereby clears a path toward finalizing the consolidated appropriations package. For practitioners tracking funding or riders, the meaningful content to monitor is the Rules Committee Print referenced by the resolution.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 1142 does one discrete thing: it instructs the House that, upon adoption, the legislative vehicle H.R.7147 is to be taken from the Speaker’s table and that the House will be treated as having agreed to the Senate’s amendment but with a precise substitution—the text printed as Rules Committee Print 119–21.
The resolution itself contains no fiscal provisions; its legal effect is procedural, setting the House’s posture so the underlying appropriations bill can move forward under the agreed textual framework.
The practical effect of such a disposition is that the specific language the House will be treated as having adopted is whatever appears in Rules Committee Print 119–21. That Print, not the resolution text, carries the substantive changes, riders, and funding allocations.
Members and stakeholders must therefore consult the Committee Print to see the actual policy and funding decisions that would govern FY2026 appropriations.Because the resolution states the House is 'to have concurred' with the Senate amendment as amended, it resolves a point of formal legislative posture: the House need not separately vote on each element of the Senate amendment if the resolution is adopted in the form reported. In ordinary practice, that disposition is the immediate step before enrollment and presentation to the President, though H.
Res. 1142 itself does not direct enrollment or transmission.
The Five Things You Need to Know
H. Res. 1142 is the House procedural resolution that directs the House to take H.R.7147 from the Speaker’s table and to be considered as having concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment composed of Rules Committee Print 119–21.
The resolution contains a single operative sentence and does not include substantive appropriations language; the Rules Committee Print it references supplies the substantive text.
The resolution was reported by the Committee on Rules and is printed as House Calendar No. 69 with Report No. 119–575.
Adoption of the resolution changes the House’s formal posture toward H.R.7147—fixing the text the House is treated as having agreed to without the resolution itself creating funding or policy provisions.
Because H. Res. 1142 is procedural, its immediate legal effect is internal to House process; the practical consequences for programs depend entirely on the contents of Rules Committee Print 119–21.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Take bill from Speaker’s table and concur with Senate amendment as amended
This single clause instructs that upon adoption the House is to be considered to have taken the consolidated appropriations bill (H.R.7147) from the Speaker’s table and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the Rules Committee Print 119–21 text. Practically, 'taking from the Speaker’s table' is the formal phrase that restores the bill to the House’s active status; 'concurred' plus a substitute text sets the House’s official response to the Senate amendment.
Specifies the exact textual substitute the House will be treated as having agreed to
By pointing to Rules Committee Print 119–21 as the amendment text, the resolution delegates substantive content to that printed document. The House’s formal concurrence is therefore content-driven by the Committee Print rather than by the language within H. Res. 1142. Stakeholders must read the Committee Print to know what policies, riders, or funding allocations are being adopted.
Reported by Committee on Rules and placed on the House Calendar
The resolution was issued by the Rules Committee and printed with Report No. 119–575 as House Calendar No. 69. That placement is procedural: it makes the resolution available for floor consideration under the House’s schedule and signals that the Rules Committee has framed the procedural vehicle for disposing of the Senate amendment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- House majority leadership — Gains a controlled, single-step mechanism to fix the House’s position on H.R.7147 and expedite final disposition of the appropriations package.
- Appropriations Committee staff and agency budget offices — Benefit from clarity about which textual vehicle (the Rules Committee Print) governs negotiations and implementation planning.
- Federal programs and recipients awaiting FY2026 funding — Stand to benefit from accelerated resolution of appropriations if this procedural step leads to final enactment.
Who Bears the Cost
- House minority members and rank-and-file members seeking floor amendments — May lose opportunities to offer or force separate votes on changes if the House adopts the resolution without additional debate or amendment.
- Lobbyists and outside stakeholders — Face compressed timelines to influence specific riders or funding lines once the Rules Committee Print is fixed as the operative text.
- House Parliamentarian and clerical staff — Bear the immediate administrative workload of processing the procedural disposition and any subsequent enrollment work if the bill moves forward.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the institutional need to resolve a major appropriations bill quickly (to prevent funding gaps and provide certainty to agencies) and the democratic value of extended floor consideration and amendment. The resolution solves the first problem by fixing a single, committee-prepared text; it necessarily constrains the second by shortening the window for broader House amendment and debate.
H. Res. 1142 is intentionally spare: it resolves only the House’s posture toward a single, large appropriations vehicle and punts all substantive detail to Rules Committee Print 119–21.
That design creates two practical complications. First, the decisive policy content sits outside the resolution itself, so anyone assessing the impact of this disposition must obtain and analyze the Committee Print rather than relying on the resolution text.
Second, because the resolution fixes the House’s posture in one clause, it can compress opportunities for amendment and extended floor debate—raising implementation questions about how quickly offices and agencies can interpret and act on the final text.
Another unresolved implementation question is procedural sequencing: the resolution does not spell out whether additional procedural steps (enrollment, message exchanges with the Senate, or technical corrections) will follow or how any discrepancies between House and Senate clerical actions will be resolved. Those technical steps are routine, but they matter for timing and for stakeholders who need certainty about when appropriations become available.
Finally, because the resolution is a standard procedural tool, it does not surface any internal congressional compromises or concessions embedded in the Committee Print; those policy trade-offs may only be visible if the Committee Print is compared line-by-line to prior texts.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.