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 16, 2011
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to prohibit Federal funding of National Public Radio and the use of Federal funds to acquire radio content.
People & committees
Rep. Nugent, Richard B. [R-FL-5] · 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 - 181 (Roll no. 190). (text: CR H1911)
House roll call 190 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 236 - 181 (Roll no. 190).(text: CR H1911)
House roll call 190 · Individual votesPoint of order raised by Mr. Weiner on the content of the measure. Mr. Weiner stated that the underlying bill made in order by H. Res. 174 had not been posted online for 72 hours, and as such, was in violation of the rules of the House. Point of order overruled by the Chair.
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 233 - 179 (Roll no. 189). (consideration: CR H1919)
House roll call 189 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 174.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1911-1920)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 19.
The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Although the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, the Committee is not aware of any points of order. The waiver is prophylactic in nature. Although the rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, the Committee is not aware of any points of order against any of the provisions in the bill. The waiver of all points of order against provisions in the bill is prophylactic in nature.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-35, by Mr. Nugent.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-35, by Mr. Nugent.
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.174 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.174 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.174 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.174 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.