Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 95) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal year 2005, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010, and for other purposes.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Apr 28, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Waives points of order against the consideration of the conference report on H.Con.Res. 95 (establishing the congressional budget for FY 2006).
Makes it out of order for a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report a bill to the House of Representatives if the bill, as amended, exceeds an applicable allocation of new budget authority under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as estimated by the Committee on the Budget.
Requires the Chair of the Committee to put the question regarding the motion if a point of order is sustained.
Excludes from such prohibition a motion offered under rule XXI (Restrictions on Certain Bills) or after disposition of the question on a given bill.
Makes it out or order, if a question is decided in the negative, for a further amendment except: (1) one proper amendment, under specified conditions; and (2) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, for debate purposes.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 248.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2693-2702)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 32.
All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-63, by Mr. Putnam.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-63, by Mr. Putnam.
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.248 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.248 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.248 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.248 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.