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 23, 1994
Sets forth the rule for the consideration of H.R. 6 (extending the authorization of appropriations for the programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965).
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 voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
The previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H798-801)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 136.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill, as modified by the amendment printed in section 2 of H. Res. 366. Measure will be read by title. Bill is open to amendments. Amendments to be offered to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute must be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII prior to Friday, February 25, 1994. Amendments caused to be printed by Mr. Kildee may be considered en bloc, will be considered read, and may amend portions of the bill n...
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 103-426, by Mr. Beilenson.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 103-426, 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.366 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.366 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.366 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.366 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.