James McGovern (D-MA)
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 185) to advance responsible policies.
A Democratic resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Boyle (PA). Petition No: 119-3. (<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/DischargePetition/2025050603">Discharge petition</a> text with signatures.)
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
A House resolution is the House speaking for itself: stating a position, honouring someone, or setting its own rules. Adopting it is the whole process. Once the House agrees to it, it is officially the House's word; it is not a law, so the Senate and the President have no part in it.
What this bill would do
This resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 185. The bill seeks to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to create limitations on budget cuts. Specifically, it aims to prevent reconciliation bills or resolutions from reducing benefits or enrollment for Medicaid. It also prohibits reducing eligibility or benefits for households in the supplemental nutrition assistance program. These limitations are set to expire on January 20, 2029.
Yes· 3 of 28
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
The bill explicitly protects essential nutrition and healthcare benefits for these households.
- Scored +6
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Medicaid protection is a crucial component of healthcare for many people with disabilities.
- Scored +6
Is this likely to lift people out of poverty?
Protecting SNAP benefits and Medicaid provides a critical safety net against poverty.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill limits the ability to reduce spending through reconciliation, which may impact fiscal consolidation efforts.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Medicaid benefits: The bill adds a provision to prevent the reduction of enrollment or benefits for individuals enrolled in the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act (Section 1, subsection h, clause 1).
-
Protection of nutrition assistance: The bill prevents any reduction in eligibility or benefits for households participating in the supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (Section 1, subsection h, clause 2).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Time-limited protections: The limitations placed on cutting the aforementioned programs are set to expire on January 20, 2029 (Section 1, subsection i).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The bill explicitly protects essential nutrition and healthcare benefits for these households. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Medicaid protection is a crucial component of healthcare for many people with disabilities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Protecting food and health programs often has a positive impact on minority communities. Would children be better off under this? — Protection of SNAP and Medicaid benefits is highly beneficial for children in low-income households. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Food and health security are critical for these communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Ensuring access to health and nutrition programs is vital for many tribal communities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Medicaid protections are essential for low-income retirees. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Medicaid protections are vital for seniors requiring long-term care and health services. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Protecting social safety nets can assist eligible immigrant populations. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Medicaid protections are often critical for LGBTQ individuals' healthcare access. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural populations rely heavily on federal nutrition and health programs. Would students be better off under this? — Nutritional assistance is vital for students facing economic instability. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas often have high concentrations of program participants. Would women be better off under this? — Nutritional and healthcare stability is highly beneficial for women and families. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Nutritional and healthcare protections provide stability for young adults. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General protections for social safety nets benefit these populations. Would men be better off under this? — General safety net protections benefit all individuals. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protections offer a safety net for middle-aged individuals facing economic hardship. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Healthcare and nutritional stability assist all low-income populations, including veterans. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General protections for social safety nets benefit these populations. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased social safety net stability can benefit unionized workers in low-income brackets.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Protecting SNAP benefits and Medicaid provides a critical safety net against poverty. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Medicaid protection is vital for many individuals with disabilities. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Protecting nutrition and healthcare programs can disproportionately benefit minority communities. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Nutrition and healthcare protections can assist in stabilizing vulnerable populations.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By protecting Medicaid, the bill helps ensure continued healthcare access for vulnerable populations. Does this put more money into Medicaid, the health coverage for people on low incomes? — The bill protects Medicaid enrollment and benefits from being reduced through the reconciliation process.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill limits the ability to reduce spending through reconciliation, which may impact fiscal consolidation efforts.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill places new limitations on the legislative process regarding specific spending categories.
- 5/6/2025
- Motion to Discharge Committee filed by Mr. Boyle (PA). Petition No: 119-3. (<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/DischargePetition/2025050603">Discharge petition</a> text with signatures.)
- 3/31/2025
- Submitted in House
- Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.