PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2052)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 26, 2015
Amends Rule XXVIII (Conference Committees; Reports; Open Meetings) of the Standing Rules of the Senate to limit to two hours consideration of any motion (not only a related cloture motion) to:
disagree to a House amendment or insist upon a Senate amendment,
request a committee of conference with the House or to agree to a request by the House for a committee of conference; and
authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint conferees (or a motion to appoint conferees).
Applies this limitation as well to consideration of any related debatable motions or appeals.
People & committees
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2052)
Introduced in Senate
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: Jan 14, 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 S.Res.119 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 S.Res.119 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 S.Res.119 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 S.Res.119 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.