We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
Expressing support for rural communities across the United States as stewards of the environment, major suppliers of United States energy resources, critical providers of food production and manufacturing capacity, and drivers of national economic stability, and recognizing the work of the House of Representatives in the 119th Congress in support of those vital communities.
What Do You Think?
How would you vote?
Referandom Vote
Vote to see the result.
How Congress Voted
What Happened in Congress?
✓Agreed To
April 22, 2026
HousePassed 220 to 196
Where the Bill Stands
✓Introduced, done
✓Committee, done
✓Floor Vote, done
4Outcome, current stage
What This Bill Does
This resolution states that the House of Representatives has demonstrated support for U.S. prosperity and economic growth, especially in rural communities, through policies related to energy, health care, manufacturing, and broadband connectivity.
House floor actionsConsidered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1189. (consideration: CR H3052-3057)
Agreed To
House floor actionsRules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1189 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4690, H. Res. 1182, H.R. 1897 and H.R. 5587. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 4690, H. Res. 1182, H.R. 1897, and H.R. 5587 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate on each measure. The resolution provides for one motion to recommit on H.R. 4690, H.R. 1897, and H.R. 5587.
Library of CongressSubmitted in House
House floor actionsReferred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced
Committee
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.
What Congress Said
Members who spoke about this bill on the floor, in their own words from the Congressional Record.
Republicans3 spoke
For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
I rise to explain this resolution to not only this body but my Democratic colleagues. In 2013, when I was 31 years old, I was stationed here at Andrews Air Force base in Washington, D.C., and I was diagnosed with cancer. I went through a 13-hour surgery and 2 weeks in an ICU room.
They are not here debating immigration or gas prices or healthcare costs or any number of priorities. They are not here debating legislation that, frankly, I am likely to oppose, but nonetheless would be legislation and priorities that Republican voters might care about. They are not here debating that.
I wish to speak about this bill today because I think that it is very unfortunate that this resolution is coming to the floor. Prices are soaring for the American people.
Today, we are voting on H. Res. 1182, and I want to be direct with my colleagues about what this resolution actually is because the title alone does not tell the story.
This bill will also give us time to continue negotiating much-needed reforms to ICE and border protection. Americans from New York to Minneapolis to L.A. have watched as their neighbors have been wrongly arrested, beaten, and even killed in broad daylight.
I was unable to vote during this vote series today. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted: NAY on Ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 1189 and NO on adoption of H. Res. 1189, Rule providing for consideration of H.
Like other Members of the Committee on Appropriations, I missed a vote because I was participating in a markup of the FY2027 Financial Services and General Government bill. Had I been present, I would have voted Nay on Roll Call No. 130.
I was at the Appropriations vote or the DACA Amendment and was held up at the committee. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 130.
Comments
Comments with insults, hate speech or personal information are removed.