PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 227 - 192 (Roll no. 42). (text: CR H516-517)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2013
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 273) to eliminate the 2013 statutory pay adjustment for Federal employees.
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.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 227 - 192 (Roll no. 42). (text: CR H516-517)
House roll call 42 · 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: 227 - 192 (Roll no. 42).(text: CR H516-517)
House roll call 42 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 229 - 194 (Roll no. 41). (consideration: CR H528-529)
House roll call 41 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 66.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H519-529)
On motion that the House consider the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H519)
POINT OF ORDER - Mr. Polis raised a point of order against the provisions of H.Res. 66 because it violates the Congressional Budget Act. The Chair announced that the disposition of the point of order would be resolved by the question of consideration of H.Res. 66. The House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the point of order, at the end of which the Chair will put the question on consideration.
By direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Woodall called up H.Res. 66 and asked for its immediate consideration. (consideration: CR H516-519)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 4.
Section 2 of the resolution provides that during any recess or adjournment of not more than three days, the Speaker or his designee may reconvene the House at a time other than that previously appointed, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution. Section 3 of the resolution authorizes the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules through the legislative day of February 15, 2013, relating to a measure condemning the government of North Korea and its February 12, 2013 test of a nuclear device. Section 4 provides that on any legislative day from February 16, 2013 through February 22, 2013: (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved; (b) the Chair may adjourn the House to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution. Section 5 authorizes the Speaker to appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 4 as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 113-9, by Mr. Woodall.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 113-9, 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.66 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.66 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.66 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.66 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.