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.

Bill Number: H.Res. 1009
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 2
Policy Area: Congress
Status: Passed House
Latest Action: 2026-01-21: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Last Updated: 2026-06-11T05:06:24Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

H. Res. 1009 is a procedural resolution that sets the rules for the House of Representatives to consider three specific legislative items: H.R. 6945 (on funding for pregnancy centers), H.R. 6359 (on support for pregnant students in higher education), and H.J. Res. 140 (disapproving a federal land withdrawal rule). Its main goal is to streamline debate and voting on these items by waiving certain procedural objections (called "points of order") and limiting discussion time, allowing quicker advancement without standard delays.

Key Provisions

Section 1 (H.R. 6945): Makes it in order to debate and vote on this bill, which amends the Social Security Act (part A of title IV) to clarify that states can use certain federal funds for pregnancy centers (organizations that provide support like counseling and resources to pregnant individuals). An amendment from the Rules Committee is automatically adopted, the bill is treated as read, and all points of order are waived. Debate is limited to one hour, split equally between the majority and minority leaders of the Ways and Means Committee (or their designees), followed by a vote. A single motion to send the bill back to committee (recommit) is allowed, but no other interruptions.

Section 2 (H.R. 6359): Similar process for this bill, which requires colleges and universities to share information with students about the rights, accommodations (like schedule changes or medical leave), and resources available for pregnant students. The Education and Workforce Committee's amendment is adopted automatically, points of order are waived, and debate is one hour, split between that committee's leaders (or designees), with a recommit motion permitted.

Section 3 (H.J. Res. 140): Applies the same streamlined process to this joint resolution, which uses the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code—a law allowing Congress to overturn certain federal agency rules) to disapprove a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule tied to Public Land Order No. 7917. This order withdraws federal lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, from certain uses (like mining or development). Debate is one hour, controlled by the Natural Resources Committee's leaders (or designees), with a recommit option.

In all cases, after debate, the House automatically moves to a final vote ("previous question") without further amendments or delays.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This resolution itself does not amend any laws; it is purely procedural and does not create new substantive rules. However, it facilitates potential changes through the underlying bills:

H.R. 6945 would clarify (but not expand) state flexibility in using Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds—existing federal welfare block grants—for pregnancy centers, potentially resolving ambiguities in current guidelines.
H.R. 6359 would add a new federal mandate for higher education institutions to proactively inform pregnant students of their rights under laws like Title IX (which prohibits sex discrimination in education).
H.J. Res. 140, if passed and signed, would directly overturn the BLM's land withdrawal rule, reversing an administrative action without needing new legislation.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: The BLM could lose authority over the specified Minnesota lands if H.J. Res. 140 passes, opening them to uses like resource extraction. States and the Department of Health and Human Services might see clearer guidelines for TANF fund allocation under H.R. 6945, reducing administrative disputes. The Department of Education could enforce new disclosure requirements on colleges via H.R. 6359.

On Citizens: Pregnant individuals and families could gain better access to state-funded support services (H.R. 6945) and educational protections (H.R. 6359), potentially reducing barriers to continuing studies or receiving aid. Residents and businesses in the affected Minnesota counties might benefit from or face changes in land access (e.g., economic opportunities from development) if the BLM rule is disapproved.

On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the items focus on domestic social, educational, and land issues.

Overall, passage could expedite pro-family support policies and challenge federal environmental restrictions, affecting funding flows and resource management.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Pregnancy Centers and States: Nonprofits providing pregnancy-related services and state welfare agencies, who could receive clearer federal funding paths under H.R. 6945.
Higher Education Institutions and Pregnant Students: Colleges, universities, and their students, particularly pregnant or parenting individuals, impacted by information and accommodation mandates in H.R. 6359.
Federal Land Managers and Local Communities: The BLM, environmental groups, mining/development interests, and residents of Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, affected by the potential reversal of land withdrawal in H.J. Res. 140.
Congressional Committees: Ways and Means, Education and Workforce, and Natural Resources, as they control debate.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Relies on established procedures like the Congressional Review Act for H.J. Res. 140, which has a fast-track process but requires presidential approval (or override). The bills invoke existing frameworks (Social Security Act, Title IX) without major overhauls, minimizing constitutional challenges, though H.R. 6359 could invite scrutiny over federal mandates on private institutions.

Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's spending power (for funding clarity) and oversight of executive actions (for rule disapproval), but waiving points of order raises questions about diluting minority party input, potentially testing House rules on fair procedure.

Political: As a majority-led resolution, it signals partisan priorities—support for pregnancy-related initiatives and opposition to Biden-era land protections (assuming the 2026 context). It could heighten debates on reproductive rights, education equity, and federalism, influencing midterm or future election dynamics without broader veto-proof majorities.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA-8]

Recent Actions

2026-01-21: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
2026-01-21: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 213 - 210 (Roll no. 35). (text: CR H1131-1132) (Roll call 35)
2026-01-21: Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 213 - 210 (Roll no. 35). (text: CR H1131-1132) (Roll call 35)
2026-01-21: On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 210 (Roll no. 34). (Roll call 34)
2026-01-21: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1138-1139)
2026-01-21: 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.
2026-01-21: DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1009.
2026-01-21: Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1131-1138)
2026-01-20: Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 55.
2026-01-20: 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.
2026-01-20: The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 119-459, by Mr. Scott, Austin.
2026-01-20: The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 119-459, by Mr. Scott, Austin.

Bill Versions

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. — issued 2026-01-21 — PDF (3 pages)
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. — issued 2026-01-20 — PDF (6 pages)