PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. (text: CR H2219)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 31, 2011
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1255) enacting H.R. 1, which makes continuing appropriations for FY2011, as passed by the House.
People & committees
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA-7] · R–GA
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. (text: CR H2219)
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 229 - 187 (Roll no. 222).
House roll call 222 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 229 - 187 (Roll no. 222).
House roll call 222 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 230 - 187 (Roll no. 221). (consideration: CR H2232, H2238)
House roll call 221 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2238-2239)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Res. 194, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question on H.Res. 194 and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Slaughter demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on ordering the previous question on H.Res. 194 until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 194.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2221-2232)
On motion to consider the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 219 - 172 (Roll no. 213). (consideration: CR H2221-2222)
House roll call 213 · Individual votesQUESTION OF CONSIDERATION - Mr. Ellison stated that H.Res. 194 violated section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act by imposing an unfunded mandate. Subsequently, the Chair noted that the required threshold of identifying the specific language in question had been met, and the House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the question of consideration, after which, the Chair would put the question to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
Mr. Woodall moved to consider the resolution. (consideration: CR H2219-2221)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 24.
The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-49, by Mr. Woodall.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-49, by Mr. Woodall.
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.194 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.194 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.194 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.194 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.