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 · Jul 11, 2016
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5538) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes; providing for proceedings during the period from July 15, 2016, through September 5, 2016.
People & committees
Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4] · R–WA
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: 237 - 179 (Roll no. 407). (text: CR H4675)
House roll call 407 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 237 - 179 (Roll no. 407).(text: CR H4675)
House roll call 407 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 236 - 174 (Roll no. 406).
House roll call 406 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4686-4688)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Res. 820, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Ms. Slaughter demanded the yeas and nays, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of ordering the previous question until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with further debate on H. Res. 820.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 820.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H4675-4676)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 135.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall bedebatable for 20 minutes. on any legislative day during the period from July 15, 2016, through September 5, 2016, the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved; the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 114-683, by Mr. Newhouse.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 114-683, by Mr. Newhouse.
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.820 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.820 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.820 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.820 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.