PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Feb 1, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to S. 1932 (providing for reconciliation under the concurrent resolution on the budget for FY2006).
People & committees
Rep. Putnam, Adam H. [R-FL-12] · R–FL
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: 216 - 214 (Roll no. 4). (text: CR H37)
House roll call 4 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 216 - 214 (Roll no. 4).(text: CR H37)
House roll call 4 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H68)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 653, the Chair put the question on adoption of the resolution and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Slaughter demanded the Yeas and Nays and the Chair announced that further proceedings on the question of adoption of the resolution would be postponed until later in the legislative day.
The previous question was ordered without objection. (consideration: CR H60)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 653.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H37-60)
On motion to consider the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 226 - 201 (Roll no. 2).
House roll call 2 · Individual votesPOINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION - Mr. McDermott stated that the provisions of H. Res. 653 violate the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by imposing an unfunded mandate and made a point of order against the consideration of the resolution. Subsequently, the Chair noted that the required threshhold of identifying the specific language in question had been met, and the House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
By direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Putnam called up H. Res. 653 and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 142.
Upon adoption of the resolution, the House shall be deemed to have agreed to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to S. 1932.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-366, by Mr. Putnam.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-366, by Mr. Putnam.
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.653 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.653 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.653 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.653 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.