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 · May 19, 1998
Sets forth the rule (modified closed) for the consideration of H.R. 3616 (Department of Defense authorization).
People & committees
Rep. Solomon, Gerald B. H. [R-NY-22] · R–NY
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: 304 - 108 (Roll No. 166).
House roll call 166 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 304 - 108 (Roll No. 166).
House roll call 166 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 281 - 134 (Roll No. 165).
House roll call 165 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House resumed debate.
Mr. Solomon asked unanimous consent that, notwithstanding any other provision of the pending resolution, the Taylor (MS) and Everett amendments placed at the desk shall be deemed to have been included as the last amendments printed in part D of the report accompanying this resolution. Agreed to without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H3495-3505)
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3616. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendent under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on National Security now printed in the bill. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. No amendment shall be in order except those amendments printed in the report accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution. Unless otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, except that the chairman and ranking minority member each may offer one pro forma amendment. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on Nationa...
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 105-544, by Mr. Solomon.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 193.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 105-544, by Mr. Solomon.
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.441 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.441 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.441 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.441 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.