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 · Jun 19, 1995
Sets forth the modified closed rule for the consideration of H.R. 1854 (legislative branch appropriations).
People & committees
Rep. Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [R-FL-21] · R–FL
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: 236 - 191 (Roll no. 392).
House roll call 392 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 236 - 191 (Roll no. 392).
House roll call 392 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by recorded vote: 232 - 196 (Roll no. 391).
House roll call 391 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6117-6118)
At the conclusion of debate, the Chair put the question on moving the previous question and announced that, by voice vote, the motion was agreed to. Mr. Beilenson objected to the vote on grounds that a quorum was not present and made a point of order that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings were postponed and, by unanimous consent, the point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H6096-6104)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 59.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1854 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with sec. 302(f) or 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act shall be waived. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI shall be waived. Measure will be read by section. Specified amendments are in order. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this report, to be considered in order, manner and time specified in the report and not subject to further amendment or demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone requests for recorded votes on amendments.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-146, by Mr. Diaz-Balart.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-146, by Mr. Diaz-Balart.
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.169 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.169 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.169 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.169 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.