PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Jul 21, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Recognizes the historic and continued contribution of the Food and Nutrition Service and its employees.
Commends the efforts of states, territories, local governments, and nonprofit charitable and faith-based organizations to end hunger and provide nutritious food to U.S. citizens.
Encourages continued efforts to educate U.S. citizens about the importance of eating nutritiously and living a healthy lifestyle.
Recognizes the commitment of the United States to end hunger in the United States and in the world.
People & committees
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-3] · D–MA
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 and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7807-7808)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Received in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7807-7808)
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 422 - 0 (Roll no. 596). (text: CR 7/20/2009 H8371)
House roll call 596 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 422 - 0 (Roll no. 596).(text: CR 7/20/2009 H8371)
House roll call 596 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8445)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 164.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8371-8373)
Mr. Scott (GA) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
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.164 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.164 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.164 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.164 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.