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 · Feb 14, 2011
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1) making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, and waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.
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.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 242 - 174, 2 Present (Roll no. 39). (text: CR H804-805)
House roll call 39 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 242 - 174, 2 Present (Roll no. 39).(text: CR H804-805)
House roll call 39 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 240 - 179 (Roll no. 38). (consideration: CR H815)
House roll call 38 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H815-817)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Res. 92, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question, and by voice vote, the Chair announced the noes had prevailed. Mr. Woodall demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of ordering the previous question until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 92.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H804-815)
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 9.
The resolution makes in order only those amendments received for printing in the Congressional Record dated at least one day before the day of consideration of the amendment (but no later that February 15, 2011). The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported providing for consideration or disposition of H.R. 1. The resolution makes in order only those amendments received for printing in the Congressional Record dated at least one day before the day of consideration of the amendment (but no later that February 15, 2011. Clause 6(a) of rule XXI shall not apply to amendments addressing objects within more than one suballocation made by the Committee on Appropriations under section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-13, by Mr. Woodall.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-13, 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.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.