PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider the vote tabled.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 19, 2002
Sets forth the rule (closed) for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 353 (congressional budget).
People & committees
Rep. Goss, Porter J. [R-FL-14] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider the vote tabled.
On motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 213 - 206 (Roll no. 78).
House roll call 78 · Individual votesMr. Goss moved to table the motion to reconsider the vote.
Mr. Dreier moved to reconsider the vote.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 206 (Roll no. 77). (text: CR H1020)
House roll call 77 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 206 (Roll no. 77).(text: CR H1020)
House roll call 77 · Individual votesOn motion to table the motion to reconsider the vote. Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 206 (Roll no. 76).
House roll call 76 · Individual votesMr. Goss moved to table the motion to reconsider the vote.
Ms. Slaughter moved to reconsider the vote.
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 221 - 206 (Roll no. 75).
House roll call 75 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 372.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1020-1036)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 133.
Rule provides three hours of general debate, with two hours confined to the congressional budget equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget, and one hour on the subject of economic goals and policies equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative Stark of California or their designees. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution. rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules (H. Rept. 107-380) shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The rule permits the chairman of the Budget Committee to offer amendments in the House to achieve mathematical consistency. Provides that the concurrent resolution shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question of its adoption.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 107-380, by Mr. Goss.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 107-380, by Mr. Goss.
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.372 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.372 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.372 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.372 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.