Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
This resolution sets the amount of House funds available to the House Committee on the Judiciary for the 119th Congress. It authorizes up to $31,714,000 total, split into two equal session amounts of $15,857,000 for each year. The money is for committee expenses, including staff salaries, and will be paid from the House accounts for committee salaries and expenses. Payments must be made on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by its Chairman, and spent under rules set by the Committee on House Administration.
This is a House simple resolution that applies only to the House of Representatives and its internal operations. It does not become law, is not presented to the President, and does not require Senate approval.
This resolution allocates up to $31,714,000 for the House Committee on the Judiciary for the 119th Congress, split evenly between the two annual sessions ($15,857,000 each).
Payments are to be made on vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the Committee Chairman, and expended under regulations prescribed by the Committee on House Administration.
As a House internal resolution, it is likely to be adopted by the House but is not a statute requiring Senate or Presidential action, so chance of becoming law is negligible.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution is a concise, well-specified administrative funding measure that clearly allocates specific sums to the Committee on the Judiciary for the 119th Congress and sets basic procedural controls for disbursement.
Debate over whether the amount is adequate versus excessive
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Debate over whether the amount is adequate versus excessive
Likely supportive because it funds committee staff and oversight capacity.
Concerned about possible partisan use of funds without stronger transparency and protections for nonpartisan staff.
Likely to view the resolution as routine and necessary for committee functioning, with an emphasis on fiscal prudence and adherence to House Administration rules.
Wants clear reporting and auditability to avoid waste.
Likely supportive because funding enables majority-led oversight and committee priorities; may still push for spending discipline and accountability.
May favor the Chairman-signed voucher requirement as administrative control.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
As a House internal resolution, it is likely to be adopted by the House but is not a statute requiring Senate or Presidential action, so chance of becoming law is negligible.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Debate over whether the amount is adequate versus excessive
As a House internal resolution, it is likely to be adopted by the House but is not a statute requiring Senate or Presidential action, so ch…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this resolution is a concise, well-specified administrative funding measure that clearly allocates specific sums to the Committee on the Judiciary for the 119th Congress and se…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.