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 · Sep 10, 2012
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5544) to authorize and expedite a land exchange involving National Forest System land in the Laurentian District of the Superior National Forest and certain other National Forest System land in the State of Minnesota that has limited recreational and conservation resources and lands owned by the State of Minnesota in trust for the public school system that are largely scattered in checkerboard fashion within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and have important recreational, scenic, and conservation resources, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5949) to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years.
People & committees
Rep. Nugent, Richard B. [R-FL-5] · 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 recorded vote: 233 - 179 (Roll no. 561). (text: CR H5780)
House roll call 561 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 233 - 179 (Roll no. 561).(text: CR H5780)
House roll call 561 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 232 - 177 (Roll no. 560). (consideration: CR H5676-5787)
House roll call 560 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5785-5787)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 773, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Polis (CO) demanded the yeas and nays, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on ordering the previous question until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 773.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H5780-5785)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 158.
Resolution provides for consideration of both H.R. 5544 and H.R. 5949. Both measures are debatable for one hour each. For H.R. 5544, specified amendments are in order. For H.R. 5949, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. For each bill, one motion to recommit is in order, with or without instructions.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-660, by Mr. Nugent.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-660, by Mr. Nugent.
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.773 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.773 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.773 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.773 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.