PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 25, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Expresses disapproval of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's issuance of a permit allowing BP to increase their daily dumping of ammonia and total suspended solids into Lake Michigan. Urges Indiana to reconsider issuance of such permit.
Calls for Congress to take action to protect and restore the Great Lakes.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) actions in the Great Lakes basin should be consistent with the goal of preserving and restoring the Great Lakes; and (2) EPA should not allow increased dumping of chemicals and pollutants into the Great Lakes.
People & committees
Rep. Emanuel, Rahm [D-IL-5] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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): 387 - 26, 2 Present (Roll no. 719). (text: CR 7/24/2007 H8301)
House roll call 719 · 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): 387 - 26, 2 Present (Roll no. 719).(text: CR 7/24/2007 H8301)
House roll call 719 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8419-8420)
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. 187.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8301-8307; text: CR 7/25/2007 H8301)
Mr. Oberstar moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.187 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.187 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.187 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.187 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.