PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 22, 2004
Commends, for their extraordinary dedication and hard work during Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Ivan, the employees of the National Weather Service, especially the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Tropical Prediction Center/National Hurricane Center, Hydrometeorological Prediction Center, and National Data Buoy Center; the 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the 403rd Wing of the Air Force Reserve Command at Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Aircraft Operations Center at MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, Florida; the Hurricane Liaison Team; the National Ocean Service; and the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service.
Commends also, for their extraordinary dedication and hard work during those hurricanes, the Southern and Eastern Region Weather Forecast Offices of San Juan, Miami, Tampa Bay, Key West, Melbourne, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Atlanta, Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile, Morristown, Charleston, Morehead City, Wilmington, Wakefield, and Taunton, Lake Charles, New Orleans, Jackson, Nashville, and Houston.
Extends the thanks of Congress to the commercial and media meteorologists for their contributions in disseminating the NOAA forecasts and warnings to the public.
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.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7370)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7370)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 488.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7370-7373)
Mr. Ehlers moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on Science.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1581)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.488 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.488 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.488 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.488 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.