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 27, 2012
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 112) establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.
People & committees
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA-7] · R–GA
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: 241 - 184 (Roll no. 140). (text: CR H1654)
House roll call 140 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 241 - 184 (Roll no. 140).(text: CR H1654)
House roll call 140 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 235 - 183 (Roll no. 139). (consideration: CR H1662)
House roll call 139 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 597.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1654-1662, H1663-1664)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 122.
The first reading of the concurrent resolution shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution are waived. No amendment shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points of order against such amendments are waived except that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall constitute the conclusion of consideration of the concurrent resolution for amendment. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of March 29, 2012, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules, as though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure extending expiring surface transportation authority.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-423, by Mr. Woodall.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-423, by Mr. Woodall.
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.597 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.597 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.597 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.597 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.