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 · Oct 11, 2013
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the House managers of the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642 (Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013) agricultural and other programs) should: (1) agree to provisions regarding a premium subsidy limitation based on average adjusted gross income in excess of $750,000, (2) agree to provisions for a crop insurance study and the impacts of an adjusted gross income limitation, and (3) not agree to provisions regarding a delayed effective date.
People & committees
Rep. Ryan, Paul [R-WI-1] · R–WI
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. (text: CR H6527)
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6527)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H6532)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 379.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 380. (consideration: CR H6527-6532)
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
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.379 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.379 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.379 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.379 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.