PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 225 - 194 (Roll no. 376). (text: CR H5355)
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · May 17, 2007
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the conference report on S.Con.Res. 21 (congressional budget).
People & committees
Rep. Sutton, Betty [D-OH-13] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 225 - 194 (Roll no. 376). (text: CR H5355)
House roll call 376 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 225 - 194 (Roll no. 376).(text: CR H5355)
House roll call 376 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 224 - 193 (Roll no. 375). (consideration: CR H5360)
House roll call 375 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 409.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H5355-5361)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 63.
All points of order against the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for one hour.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 110-156, by Ms. Sutton.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 110-156, by Ms. Sutton.
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.409 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.409 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.409 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.409 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.