HR1009Introduced in the House
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6945) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to clarify the authority of States to use funds for pregnancy centers, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6359) to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.
Introduced by Austin Scott, District GA-8
What does this bill do?
Plain-English breakdown
Checking for a plain-English summary…
Official description
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6945) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to clarify the authority of States to use funds for pregnancy centers, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6359) to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN.
Where it stands
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
January 21, 2026
How did lawmakers vote?
HouseStage: On Agreeing to the Resolution RC# 35 · January 21, 2026
213
Yes
210
No
8
Absent or Not Voting
431 representatives recorded in this House vote. Colors show vote categories only, not whether a vote was good or bad.
What do people think?
Citizen Voice
How would you vote on this bill?
An unofficial public opinion poll. It does not affect the bill or the official vote.
One response per device. Location is self-reported and not verified. Results are informal and not a scientific survey.
See how each representative voted
| Representative | District | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Nicholas Begich | AK | Yes |
| Barry Moore | AL-2 | Yes |
| Shomari Figures | AL-2 | No |
| Mike D. Rogers | AL-3 | Yes |
| Robert Aderholt | AL-4 | Yes |
| Dale Strong | AL-5 | Yes |
| Gary Palmer | AL-6 | Yes |
| Terri Sewell | AL-7 | No |
| Eric Crawford | AR-1 | Yes |
| French Hill | AR-2 | Yes |
Bill history
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 119-459, by Mr. Scott, Austin.
The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6945, H.R. 6359, and H.J. Res. 140 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each measure.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 55.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1131-1138)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1009.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 1009, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. McGovern demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1138-1139)
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 210 (Roll no. 34).
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 213 - 210 (Roll no. 35). (text: CR H1131-1132)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Verify the information
Our commitment to neutrality
We provide factual information only. We never tell you which politicians or bills to support, and we do not rank, score, or endorse anyone.