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 · Jan 13, 2009
Sets forth the rule for consideration of H.R. 384 (TARP Reform and Accountability Act of 2009).
People & committees
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-3] · D–MA
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: 235 - 191 (Roll no. 17). (text: CR H273)
House roll call 17 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 235 - 191 (Roll no. 17).(text: CR H273)
House roll call 17 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H280)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 53.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H273-281)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 2.
The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. The resolution provides that the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion after general debate and that no further consideration of the bill shall occur except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-2, by Mr. McGovern.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-2, by Mr. McGovern.
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.53 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.53 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.53 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.53 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.