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 · Sep 13, 1993
Sets forth the rule for the consideration of H.R. 1340 (to provide funding for the resolution of failed savings associations).
People & committees
Rep. Derrick, Butler C. [D-SC-3] · D–SC
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 the Yeas and Nays: 213 - 191, 1 Present (Roll no. 430).
House roll call 430 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 213 - 191, 1 Present (Roll no. 430).
House roll call 430 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H6683-6692)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 85.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1340 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered except motion to recommit. Specified amendments are in order. In lieu of the committee amendments now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, as modified by the amendments printed in part 1 of H. Rept. 103-237. All points of order against the substitute, as modified, shall be waived. No other amendment shall be in order except the amendments en bloc contained in part 2 of the report. Said en bloc amendments shall be debatable for 30 minutes and not subject to further amendment. After passage of H.R. 1340, it shall be in order to move to take S. 714 from the Speaker's table, strike all after the enacting clause and insert the text of H.R....
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 103-237, by Mr. Derrick.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 103-237, by Mr. Derrick.
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. 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.250 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.250 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.250 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.250 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.