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 21, 1995
Sets forth the modified closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 4 (Personal Responsibility Act of 1995).
People & committees
Rep. Solomon, Gerald B. H. [R-NY-22] · R–NY
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 Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 217 - 211 (Roll no. 255).
House roll call 255 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 217 - 211 (Roll no. 255).
House roll call 255 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H3436-3449)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 35.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Providing for the further consideration of the bill, without futher general debate. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 1214 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the 5 minute rule. Specified amendments are in order. No further amendment to the bill shall be in order except the amendments specified in the report accompanying this resolution, the en bloc amendments in section 2, and the amendments in section 3 of this resolution. Each resolution shall be debatable for 20 minutes. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a later tim...
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-85, by Mr. Solomon.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-85, by Mr. Solomon.
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.119 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.119 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.119 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.119 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.