H.Res. 1177: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the practice of the Department of Defense to continue to use stop-loss orders to retain members of the Armed Forces who have completed their contractual obligations runs contrary to the stated policy of the United States to utilize an all-volunteer force.

H.Res. 1177: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the practice of the Department of Defense to continue to use stop-loss orders to retain members of the Armed Forces who have completed their contractual obligations runs contrary to the stated policy of the United States to utilize an all-volunteer force.

110th Congress · introduced 2008-05-06 · Armed Forces and National Security · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2008-05-06 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Sutton, Betty [D-OH-13] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the practice of the Department of Defense to continue to use stop-loss orders to retain members of the Armed Forces who have completed their contractual obligations runs contrary to the stated policy of the United States to utilize an all-volunteer force.

Plain summary

Declares that the Secretary of Defense should immediately: (1) submit to Congress a plan to minimize the use of stop-loss orders that prevent Armed Forces members who have completed their contractual obligations from voluntarily separating from the Armed Forces; and (2) implement a new stop-loss policy to ensure that no member of the Armed Forces who has completed a tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan is subject to a stop-loss order.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

A Yea supports adopting this resolution.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the practice of the Department of Defense to continue to use stop-loss orders to retain members of the Armed Forces who have completed their contractual obligations runs contrary to the stated policy of the United States to utilize an all-volunteer force.

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Sutton, Betty [D-OH-13] · 21 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

Cosponsors on this site

Steve Cohen (D-TN), Betty McCollum (D-MN), James P. McGovern (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL), Danny K. Davis (D-IL), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Linda T. Sánchez (D-CA)

Agencies named in this bill

Department of Defense: its federal spending and other bills that name it

Found automatically: the agency's full official name appears in the bill title. A bill can affect agencies it does not name, so this list may be incomplete.

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (3)

Obligation: A binding promise by a government agency to pay money, for example by signing a contract or awarding a grant. Spending data such as USAspending.gov counts money when it is obligated, which can be before it is actually paid out.
Resolution: A formal statement or decision by a legislative body. Simple resolutions often only express an opinion or set rules for one chamber; they do not become law.
Roll-call vote: A vote where each member's position is recorded by name, so the public can see how every member voted. "Yea" means yes, "Nay" means no, "Present" means the member was there but did not take a side.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-110hres1177.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/110/hres>

Record fed-us-cong110-hres1177 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong110 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong110