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 · Jul 13, 1995
Sets forth the rule for the consideration of H.R. 1977 (Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations).
People & committees
Rep. Pryce, Deborah [R-OH-15] · R–OH
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 voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H7021-7030)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 73.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1977. Provides for the futher consideration of H.R. 1977. Restricts amendments to those printed in the Congressional Record before July 14, 1995, Each futher amendment to the bill may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed and shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone requests for recorded votes until a time later during further consideration. Specified amendments are in order.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-186, by Ms. Pryce.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-186, by Ms. Pryce.
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.189 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.189 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.189 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.189 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.