PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 19, 1997
Sets forth the rule (modified closed) for the consideration of H.Res. 91 (House committee funding).
People & committees
Rep. Dreier, David [R-CA-28] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 210 - 213 (Roll no. 67).
House roll call 67 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 210 - 213 (Roll no. 67).
House roll call 67 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House resumed debate.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1231-1241)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 12.
Rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 91 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. The measure will be considered in the House and the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House Oversight now printed in the resolution shall be considered as adopted. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 105-33, by Mr. Dreier.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 105-33, by Mr. Dreier.
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.101 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.101 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.101 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.101 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.