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 20, 1996
Sets forth the closed rule for the consideration of H.J. Res. 165 (continuing appropriations). Waives provisions of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives that require a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House with respect to resolutions reported by such Committee before April 1, 1996, to provide for the consideration or disposition of any of the following measures, including any amendment, conference report, or any amendment from conference in disagreement thereon: (1) a bill making general appropriations for FY 1996; or (2) a bill or joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for such fiscal year or increasing or waiving (for a temporary period or otherwise) the public debt limit.
People & committees
Rep. McInnis, Scott [R-CO-3] · R–CO
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: 237 - 183 (Roll no. 81).
House roll call 81 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 237 - 183 (Roll no. 81).
House roll call 81 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 234 - 187 (Roll no. 80).
House roll call 80 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2565-2577)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 197.
Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 165 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 joint resolution in the House. Upon adoption of this resolution, the requirement for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House shall be waived with respect to any resolution reported from that committee before April 1, 1996, and providing for consideration of a bill making a general appropriations; a further continuing resolution; or a bill or resolution increasing or waiving the debt limit. Bill is closed to amendments.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-489, by Mr. McInnis.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 104-489, by Mr. McInnis.
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.386 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.386 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.386 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.386 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.