Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 556) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1958) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that aliens who have been convicted of defrauding the United States Government or the unlawful receipt of public benefits are inadmissible and deportable; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4638) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that an alien who has been convicted of harming animals used in law enforcement is inadmissible and deportable, and for other purposes; and relating to consideration of motions to suspend the rules.
H. Res. 1115 is a House rules resolution that sets the terms for floor consideration of three separate bills and one suspension debate. It does not itself change substantive law; instead, it establishes how the House will debate and amend H.R. 556, H.R. 1958, and H.R. 4638, and it extends debate time for a balanced-budget constitutional amendment resolution under suspension of the rules.
For H.R. 556, the resolution makes it in order to consider legislation that would bar the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting lead ammunition or tackle on certain federal lands and waters. For H.R. 1958, it sets up consideration of a bill amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to make aliens convicted of defrauding the federal government or unlawfully receiving public benefits inadmissible and deportable. For H.R. 4638, it provides for consideration of a bill making aliens convicted of harming animals used in law enforcement inadmissible and deportable.
Because this is a procedural resolution, its direct legal impact is on House floor procedure rather than on state law. It waives points of order, deems committee amendments adopted, limits debate, and allows one motion to recommit for each bill. The practical effect is to move these measures quickly to final House consideration and shape the amendment process, but any substantive changes to federal law would come only if the underlying bills are later passed and enacted.
The general sentiment reflected in the vote history suggests a narrow and partisan divide. The resolution passed the House by slim margins, with 195 yeas and 191-192 nays on the recorded votes, indicating that support existed but was not broad. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the close vote suggests the package was contested.
The main points of contention likely centered on the underlying policy areas: lead ammunition restrictions and wildlife/environmental management on federal lands, immigration enforcement and deportability standards, and the treatment of offenses involving law-enforcement animals. Members opposed to the resolution may have objected both to the substance of the underlying bills and to the structured rules that limited amendments and expedited consideration. Supporters likely favored advancing the measures efficiently and preventing procedural delays.
H. Res. 1115 affects House procedure only: it sets special rules for floor debate on H.R. 556, H.R. 1958, and H.R. 4638, waives certain points of order, deems committee substitutes adopted, and limits debate and amendment opportunities. It does not amend state law or federal substantive law directly, but it facilitates expedited House consideration of bills that would affect federal wildlife and ammunition policy and immigration inadmissibility/deportation rules if enacted.
The resolution appears to have been viewed in a sharply divided manner, with passage by narrow margins of 195-191 and 195-192 indicating limited bipartisan support and significant opposition. The vote pattern suggests the House majority supported bringing the underlying bills to the floor under structured rules, while the minority largely opposed both the procedural approach and the underlying policy agenda.
The likely areas of contention were the underlying bills themselves and the restrictive rule governing their consideration. H.R. 556 drew conflict over lead ammunition and tackle restrictions on federal lands and waters, pitting hunting/fishing and access concerns against environmental and wildlife policy considerations. H.R. 1958 and H.R. 4638 were contentious because they expand immigration inadmissibility and deportability based on specific criminal convictions, raising due process, enforcement, and policy concerns. Opponents likely objected to the rule’s waivers and limited amendment process, while supporters favored moving the measures forward efficiently.