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 · Feb 2, 1994
Sets forth the rule for the consideration of H.R. 3759 (supplemental appropriations for FY 1994).
People & committees
Rep. Beilenson, Anthony C. [D-CA-24] · D–CA
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: 342 - 65 (Roll no. 7).
House roll call 7 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 342 - 65 (Roll no. 7).
House roll call 7 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 244 - 168 (Roll no. 6).
House roll call 6 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H213-222)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 132.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3759 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Providing for the consideration of the bill in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against consideration of the bill shall be waived. Measure will be read by section. Specified amendments are in order. No amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in the report accompanying this resolution. Each amendment shall be debated in the order and manner specified in the report, shall not be subject to further amendment. All points of order against said amendments shall be waived. With the concurrence of the Minority Leader, amendment No. 2 in part 1 of the report may be offered in modified form. If more thatn one of the amendments printed in part 2 is adopted, only the last adopted shall be considered as...
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 103-416, by Mr. Beilenson.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 103-416, by Mr. Beilenson.
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.336 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.336 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.336 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.336 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.