PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 8, 2000
Commends the Library of Congress and its employees, both past and present, on 200 years of service to Congress and the Nation. Encourages the American public to participate in activities to commemorate the Library's bicentennial.
People & committees
Rep. Ehlers, Vernon J. [R-MI-3] · R–MI
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.
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2815)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S2815)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 502.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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): 416 - 0 (Roll no. 78). (text: CR H1437-1438)
House roll call 78 · 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): 416 - 0 (Roll no. 78).(text: CR H1437-1438)
House roll call 78 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1449-1450)
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. 269.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1437-1441)
Mr. Ehlers moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
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: Aug 10, 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.269 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.269 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.269 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.269 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.