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 · Mar 9, 1994
Sets forth the rule for the consideration of H. Con. Res. 218 (setting forth the congressional budget for the Government for FY 1995 through 1999).
People & committees
Rep. Derrick, Butler C. [D-SC-3] · D–SC
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 the Yeas and Nays: 245 - 171 (Roll No. 50).
House roll call 50 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 245 - 171 (Roll No. 50).
House roll call 50 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1162-1170)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 138.
Rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 218 with 2 hours of general debate. Providing for the consideration of the concurrent resolution in the Committee of the Whole. General debate shall proceed for 2 hours, with an additional hour of debate on each of the substitute amendments to be offered by Mr. Kasich and Mr. Mfume, and ten additional minutes after the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. Measure will be read by section. Specified amendments are in order. No amendment shall be in order except the substitute amendments specified in the report accompanying this resolution, to be offered and debated in the order and manner specified. All points of order against the amendents shall be waived. If more than oneamendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the House. The previous quest...
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 103-429, by Mr. McDermott.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 103-429, by Mr. McDermott.
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.384 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.384 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.384 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.384 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.