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 · May 31, 2011
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.
People & committees
Rep. Reed, Tom [R-NY-29] · R–NY
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 recorded vote: 231 - 187 (Roll no. 382). (text: CR H3816-3817)
House roll call 382 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 231 - 187 (Roll no. 382).(text: CR H3816-3817)
House roll call 382 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3831)
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 235 - 186 (Roll no. 381). (consideration: CR H3829)
House roll call 381 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3829)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - The Chair put the question on ordering the previous question on the resolution, and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Polis (CO) demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on ordering the previous question until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 287.
On question of consideration of the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 234 - 183 (Roll no. 380). (consideration: CR H3819)
House roll call 380 · Individual votesPOINT OF ORDER - Mr. Ellison raised a point of order against the provisions of H.Res. 287 because it violates the Congressional Budget Act. The Chair announced that the disposition of the point of order would be resolved by the question of consideration of H.Res. 287. The House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the point of order at the end of which the Chair will put the question on consideration.
By direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Reed called up H.Res. 287 and asked for its immediate consideration. (consideration: CR H3816-3828)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 42.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except for section 536. The resolution authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-95, by Mr. Reed.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-95, by Mr. Reed.
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.287 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.287 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.287 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.287 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.