PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Apr 20, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Sets forth the rule for consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
People & committees
Rep. Sessions, Pete [R-TX-32] · R–TX
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. (text: CR H2174)
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H2174)
The previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 219.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2174-2178)
On motion to consider the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 231 - 193 (Roll no. 112).
House roll call 112 · Individual votesDEBATE - At the conclusion of debate on the point of order the Chair put the question on consideration of the resolution and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Subsequently, Mr. McGovern demanded the yeas and nays.
POINT OF ORDER - Prior to consideration of H. Res. 219, Mr. McGovern rose to a point of order against the resolution. Mr. McGovern stated that certain contents of the resolution violated section 426 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the extent that the resolution provided for an unfunded mandate. Pursuant to section 426(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Chair announced that Mr. McGovern had met the threshold required by the Act and recognized Mr. McGovern and Mr. Sessions for 10 minutes each to discuss the point of order.
CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 219 - By direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Sessions called up H. Res. 219 and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 22.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6 with 1 hour and 30 minutes of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-49, by Mr. Sessions.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-49, by Mr. Sessions.
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.219 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.219 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.219 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.219 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.