PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 235 - 186, 1 Present (Roll no. 255). (text: CR H2726)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 15, 2012
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4970) to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4310) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2013.
People & committees
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 235 - 186, 1 Present (Roll no. 255). (text: CR H2726)
House roll call 255 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 235 - 186, 1 Present (Roll no. 255).(text: CR H2726)
House roll call 255 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 235 - 187 (Roll no. 254). (consideration: CR H2742-2743; text: CR H2742)
House roll call 254 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 656.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H2726-2744)
On motion to consider the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 239 - 183 (Roll no. 253).
House roll call 253 · Individual votesAt the conclusion of debate on the Moore point of order, the Chair put the question on consideration of the resolution.
POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION - Ms. Moore stated that the provisions of H. Res. 656 violate section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and made a point of order against 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, Ms. Foxx called up the resolution, H. Res. 656, and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 131.
Resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4970. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, shall be considered as adopted. Previous question shall be considered as ordered on H.R. 4970, as amended, without intervening motions except one motion to recommit. Resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4310. No further consideration of H.R. 4310 shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-481, by Ms. Foxx.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-481, by Ms. Foxx.
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.656 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.656 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.656 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.656 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.