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 · Mar 20, 2001
Makes it in order at any time on March 21 or 22, 2001, for the Speaker of the House of Representatives to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules relating to specified measures.
People & committees
Rep. Pryce, Deborah [R-OH-15] · R–OH
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 voice vote. (text: CR H1017)
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1017)
The previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 92.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H1017)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 8.
The resolution provides that the following measures may be considered under suspension of the rules at any time on the legislative day of Wednesday, March 21, 2001, or Thursday, March 22, 2001: H. Con. Res. 43; H.R. 1042; H.R. 1098; H.R. 1099; H.R. 496; and H.R. 802.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 107-23, by Ms. Pryce (OH).
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 107-23, by Ms. Pryce (OH).
Introduced 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: 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.92 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.92 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.92 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.92 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.