PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5] · R–SC
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 Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 209 - 214, 3 Present (Roll no. 297).
House roll call 297 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House On agreeing to the resolution Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 209 - 214, 3 Present (Roll no. 297).
House roll call 297 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4761-4762)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Res. 888, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the resolution and by voice vote, announced the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Raskin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered without objection.
Considered as unfinished business.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 888.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to refer Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 213 - 214 (Roll no. 293).
House roll call 293 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to refer was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on the Clark (MA) motion to refer H. Res. 888.
Ms. Clark (MA) moved to refer to Ethics. (CR H4738)
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H4737-4745; text: CR H4737-4738)
QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mr. Norman rose to a question of the privileges of the House and offered the resolution. The Chair directed the Clerk to report the resolution. Upon examination of the resolution, the Chair determined that the resolution did constitute a question of the privileges of the House.
NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO OFFER RESOLUTION - Mr. Norman notified the House of his intent to offer a privileged resolution pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX. The Chair announced that a determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Ethics.
Submitted in House
Submitted in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Nov 21, 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.888 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.888 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.888 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.888 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.