It's unclear to me what's the exact meaning of this wording from H.Res. 1160

Upon transmission to the Senate of a message that the House has concurred in the Senate amendment to H.R. 815 with an amendment, the bills specified in subsection (d) that have passed the House shall be laid on the table.

Does that mean that the House deems they've added their own amendment to the Senate's version/amendment[s], so now the Senate needs to further approve that (House amendment/version)? Or does it simply mean that the House approved the Senate version and no further action is needed by the Senate?

  • "Does that mean that the House deems they've added their own amendment to the Senate's version/amendment[s], so now the Senate needs to further approve that (House amendment/version)?" In a word, yes. Under the Constitution, the House and Senate must both pass the same legislation before sending it to the President. This means that if one of the two bodies changes the bill, the other one has to approve the changes so they both are still sending an identical bill to the President. Apr 21 at 22:14

2 Answers 2


The Actions page is a bit clearer in that the House amendment inserts text into the previous House Resolution (H.R. 815) that was amended and approved by the Senate. The Senate must approve these amendments to H.R. 815 before it is sent to the president.

04/19/2024-8:45am The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 8034 under a closed rule and H.R. 8035, H.R. 8036, and H.R. 8038 under a structured rule. Provides for 30 minutes of general debate and one motion recommit on each bill. Rule also provides that upon disposition of the bills under consideration, the House will be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table H.R. 815 and to have concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment inserting the texts of all bills as passed by the House, if passed.


Yeah, Rick Smith's answer is correct. A major House addition to the bill was a Tik Tok sell-or-ban provision:

Johnson made a number of changes to the Senate-passed foreign aid bill — which he called “innovations” — to try and assuage conservative concerns, including adding a provision that could lead to a ban of the popular app TikTok.

The House overwhelmingly passed a bill in March that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, to divest the app within roughly five months of it going into effect or it will be banned from U.S. app stores and web hosting services, legislation that faced an unclear fate in the Senate.

But now, a modified version — which gives ByteDance a year to divest, kicking the deadline past the November election — is on its way to Senate passage and, then, President Biden’s desk, a resounding accomplishment for proponents of banning TikTok who have raised concerns about national security risks the app poses in the U.S.

This is almost certainly through H.R. 8038. It presently doesn't have a summary on congress.gov, but the full text mentions Tik Tok (among quite a few other things though). That in fact got its own section titled "Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act".

Tech Crunch commented:

The House already passed a similar bill in March — a bill that the Senate showed little interest in taking up. This new version expands the window for ByteDance to sell TikTok to nine months (compared to six months in the previous bill), as well as giving the president ability to grant a single, additional 90-day extension.

It sounds like the change has satisfied some Senate skeptics. Senate Commerce chair Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) told reporters Thursday that she’d suggested the extension, as it “assures that divestiture will more likely happen.”

The new bill was passed 360-58, with strong support from a majority of both Republicans and Democrats. [...] The Senate could take up the package this coming week, and President Joe Biden has said he supports the bill and will sign it. If that happens, TikTok is expected to challenge the bill in court.

(N.B. voting tally for H.R. 8038 matches the above.)

Also, another bill that was previously stalled in the Senate was included in 8038, one on expanded Iran sanctions:

“Mahsa Law” Reinstatement: The package includes the “Mahsa Law,” which mandates sanctions against Iranian regime officials responsible for human rights abuses. This provision, originally passed by the House in September 2023, was previously stalled in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Notably, the law targets high-ranking regime officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Ebrahim Raisi. Additionally, it requires the U.S. government to submit regular reports detailing human rights violations committed by these individuals and their associated entities.

Expanded Oil Sanctions: The bill significantly expands existing U.S. sanctions against Iranian regime oil exports. The “SHIP ACT” targets foreign entities – ports, ships, and refineries – that knowingly facilitate the transportation, transfer, trading, or processing of Iranian regime crude oil and other petroleum products. These sanctions go beyond primary restrictions, including “secondary sanctions” that penalize transactions involving Iranian oil purchases, even if they involve Chinese financial institutions.

Those are divisions H & F, respectively. (The SHIP Act had also been separately sent to the Senate before, and stalled there. It is/was distinct from MAHSA.)

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .