H. Res. 377 (119th)Bill Overview

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 276) to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America", and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 881) to establish Department of Homeland Security funding restrictions on institutions of higher education that have a relationship with Confucius Institutes, and for other purposes.

Congress|CongressHouse of Representatives
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
May 5, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageFloor

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief

H.Res. 377 is a House floor rules resolution that permits consideration of two separate bills: H.R. 276, which would rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” and H.R. 881, which would impose Department of Homeland Security funding restrictions on institutions of higher education that have relationships with Confucius Institutes.

The resolution waives points of order, deems committee substitutes adopted, treats the bills as read, limits debate to one hour (divided between committee leaders), allows one motion to recommit, and expedites final passage procedures for each bill.

It is purely procedural, setting debate and amendment terms for floor consideration rather than changing policy itself.

Passage40/100

Symbolic renaming likely to clear procedural hurdles; substantive DHS funding restrictions face tougher Senate and implementation/legal scrutiny.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a conventional House floor-consideration resolution that is clear in purpose and provides concrete procedural mechanisms needed to govern immediate consideration of the named bills. It specifies adopted substitutes, waivers, debate time, and motion-to-recommit rights, aligning the execution detail with its limited agenda-setting role.

Contention72/100

Progressives emphasize academic freedom and diplomatic harm

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Who this appears to help vs burden50% / 50%
Targeted stakeholdersTargeted stakeholders
Likely helped
  • Targeted stakeholdersSpeeds legislative action by setting structured, expedited rules for floor consideration of both bills.
  • Targeted stakeholdersRenaming the Gulf could be framed as a symbolic affirmation of national identity and unity.
  • Targeted stakeholdersRenaming supporters may argue potential modest benefits for U.S. branding and regional tourism marketing.
Likely burdened
  • Targeted stakeholdersRenaming a widely used international geographic name could create confusion and diplomatic objections abroad.
  • Targeted stakeholdersChanging official names may impose government and private costs for maps, signage, and legal documents.
  • Targeted stakeholdersDHS funding restrictions may chill academic freedom and reduce Chinese language and cultural programming on campuses.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Progressives emphasize academic freedom and diplomatic harm
Progressive20%

Likely opposed overall.

Views the resolution as fast-tracking two controversial substantive bills — a symbolic renaming and restrictive measures on academic programs — while curtailing debate.

Concern centers on diplomatic offense, threats to academic freedom, and performative nationalism.

Likely resistant
Centrist55%

Mixed/guarded.

Views the resolution as a pragmatic vehicle to consider these bills but worries about limited debate and waived procedural checks.

Supports careful, evidence-based consideration of national security risks, and sees the renaming as largely symbolic and potentially diplomatically costly.

Split reaction
Conservative85%

Generally supportive.

Views the resolution positively for expediting bills that assert national identity (renaming) and limit foreign influence via Confucius Institutes.

Appreciates waived points of order and limited debate as tools to overcome procedural delays.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Reached or meaningfully advanced

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood40/100

Symbolic renaming likely to clear procedural hurdles; substantive DHS funding restrictions face tougher Senate and implementation/legal scrutiny.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Senate cloture and amendment dynamics
  • Potential legal or diplomatic implications of renaming
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Progressives emphasize academic freedom and diplomatic harm

Symbolic renaming likely to clear procedural hurdles; substantive DHS funding restrictions face tougher Senate and implementation/legal scr…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a conventional House floor-consideration resolution that is clear in purpose and provides concrete procedural mechanisms needed to govern immediate consideration o…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis