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 · Nov 9, 1995
Sets forth the closed rule for the consideration of Senate amendments to H.R. 2586 (temporary increase in the public debt limit).
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 the Yeas and Nays: 220 - 185 (Roll no. 783).
House roll call 783 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 220 - 185 (Roll no. 783).
House roll call 783 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H12098-12105)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 118.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2586 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to take the bill from the Speaker's table, with any Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House a motion offered by Majority Leader or his designee to dispose of all Senate amendments.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-332, by Ms. Pryce.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-332, 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.262 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.262 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.262 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.262 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.