PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 15, 2000
Expresses the sense of Congress that the Federal Government should take: (1) responsibility for the fire intentionally set by the National Park Service (NPS) at the Bandelier National Monument, New Mexico, on May 4, 2000, which burned out of control near Los Alamos, New Mexico; and (2) all necessary steps to mitigate the threats from the fire to the public health and well-being of the New Mexico residents, and to compensate the people of New Mexico for the losses incurred as a result of NPS actions.Commends the: (1) people of New Mexico for opening their homes and their hearts to the New Mexican communities affected by this fire; (2) New Mexico firefighting teams for their efforts and courage in battling the fire; (3) New Mexico National Guard and the State of New Mexico for their efforts in mitigating the fire and assisting those affected by it; (4) American Red Cross and numerous other charitable organizations and volunteers for the extensive assistance provided to the fire victims; (4) Western States that have assisted New Mexico by sending people and equipment to help fight the fire; (5) businesses which have served as food and clothing collection points; (6) organizations and individuals that have collected and disseminated information to those affected by the fire; (7) Sandia National Laboratories for extending assistance to fire victims; (8) Department of Energy for providing analysis and monitoring public health concerns; and (9) people of the United States for opening their hearts to assist with the plight of New Mexicans affected by the fire and for sending additional firefighting teams to help battle the fire.
People & committees
Rep. Wilson, Heather [R-NM-1] · R–NM
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 Energy and Natural Resources.
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): 404 - 0, 6 Present (Roll no. 183). (text: CR H3062-3063)
House roll call 183 · 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): 404 - 0, 6 Present (Roll no. 183).(text: CR H3062-3063)
House roll call 183 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 326.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3062-3067)
Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
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.326 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.326 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.326 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.326 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.