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 · May 6, 2024
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6192) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7109) to require a citizenship question on the decennial census, to require reporting on certain census statistics, and to modify apportionment of Representatives to be based on United States citizens instead of all persons; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 109) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to "Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121"; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2925) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of mining claims for ancillary activities.
People & committees
Rep. Houchin, Erin [R-IN-9] · R–IN
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 recorded vote: 205 - 199 (Roll no. 181). (text: CR H2883)
House roll call 181 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 205 - 199 (Roll no. 181). (text: CR H2883)
House roll call 181 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 204 - 200 (Roll no. 180).
House roll call 180 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2890-2891)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 1194, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 1194, and by voice vote announced that the ayes prevailed. Mr. Neguse demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1194.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2883-2889)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 74.
The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6192 under a structured rule and H.R. 7109, H.J. Res. 109, and H.R. 2925 under a closed rule. Rule provides for one hour of general debate on H.R. 6192, H.R. 7109, and H.J. Res. 109, and thirty minutes of general debate on H.R. 2925. One motion to recommit allowed on each bill.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 118-487, by Mrs. Houchin.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 118-487, by Mrs. Houchin.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: May 27, 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.1194 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.1194 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.1194 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.1194 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.