PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Jul 10, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Requires the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) to engrave the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the National Motto of "In God we trust" in the Capitol Visitor Center, in accordance with an engraving plan setting forth the design and location of such engraving which is prepared by the AOC and approved by the House Committee on House Administration and the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration.
People & committees
Rep. Lungren, Daniel E. [R-CA-3] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7372)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Received in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7372)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 410 - 8, 2 Present (Roll no. 515). (text: CR 7/7/2009 H7721)
House roll call 515 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 410 - 8, 2 Present (Roll no. 515).(text: CR 7/7/2009 H7721)
House roll call 515 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7867-7868)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Harper objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 131.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7721-7723)
Mrs. Christensen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 75.
Reported by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 111-152.
Reported by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 111-152.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Introduced in House
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.Con.Res.131 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.Con.Res.131 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.Con.Res.131 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.Con.Res.131 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.