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 19, 2012
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2087) to remove restrictions from a parcel of land situated in the Atlantic District, Accomack County, Virginia.
People & committees
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1] · R–UT
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: 232 - 170 (Roll no. 113). (text: CR H1405-1406)
House roll call 113 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 232 - 170 (Roll no. 113).(text: CR H1405-1406)
House roll call 113 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H1410)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 587.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1405-1410)
On consideration of the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 227 - 172 (Roll no. 112).
House roll call 112 · Individual votesPOINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION - Mr. Grijalva stated that the provisions of H. Res. 587 violate clause 9(b) of rule XXI of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives and made a point of order against the consideration of the resolution. Subsequently, the Chair noted that the required threshold of identifying the specific language in question had been met, and the House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. At the conclusion of debate on the question of consideration, the Chair will put the question to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
By direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Bishop (UT) called up the resolution H. Res. 587, and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 118.
The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The resolution makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill as original text for the purpose of amendment. The resolution makes in order only those amendments that are submitted for printing in the Congressional Record dated March 19, 2012, or pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-415, by Mr. Bishop (UT).
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-415, by Mr. Bishop (UT).
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.587 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.587 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.587 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.587 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.