PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 234 - 184 (Roll no. 93). (text: CR H1180)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 25, 2015
Sets forth the rule for consideration of H.R. 5 (Student Success Act).
People & committees
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 234 - 184 (Roll no. 93). (text: CR H1180)
House roll call 93 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 234 - 184 (Roll no. 93).(text: CR H1180)
House roll call 93 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 234 - 177 (Roll no. 92). (consideration: CR H1191-1192; text CR H1191)
House roll call 92 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 125.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1180-1192)
On consideration of the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 167 (Roll no. 91). (consideration: CR H1181-1182)
House roll call 91 · Individual votesPOINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION - Mr. Polis made a point of order against consideration of H. Res. 125 on the grounds that it violated section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The Chair announced that the point of order met the threshold burden under the rule and recognized Mr. Polis and a Member opposed for up to twenty minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled, on the question of consideration. Following debate, the Chair would then put the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of the point of order.
By direction of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Foxx called up H. Res. 125 and asked for its immediate consideration. (consideration: CR H1180-1182)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 11.
The rule provides for further consideration of H.R. 5. The rule provides that an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-8, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted. No further amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 114-29, by Ms. Foxx.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 114-29, by Ms. Foxx.
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.125 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.125 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.125 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.125 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.