PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 108-4.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 27, 2003
Amends Public Law 107-229 to extend until February 7, 2003, specified continuing appropriations for FY 2003.
People & committees
Rep. Young, C. W. Bill [R-FL-10] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 108-4.
Became Public Law No: 108-4.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1757)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S1757)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by voice vote. (text: CR H181)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by voice vote.(text: CR H181)
On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 201 - 222 (Roll no. 16).
House roll call 16 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with ten minutes of debate on the Obey motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the Committee on Appropriations to report the joint resolution back to the House with amendments to provide $3.5 billion in homeland security grants to equip first responders, and to provide $90 million for the Centers for Disease Control for baseline health screening and long-term medical monitoring of emergency response and recovery personnel exposed to toxic substances at the WTC site.
Mr. Obey moved to recommit with instructions to Appropriations. (consideration: CR H187; text: CR H187)
On motion to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 196 (Roll no. 15).
House roll call 15 · Individual votesMr. Putnam moved to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair
Mr. Obey appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the chair.
Point of order sustained against the motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. Putnam raised a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. The provisions of the motion to recommit violate section 302 (c) of the Budget Act. Sustained by the Chair.
Mr. Obey moved to recommit with instructions to Appropriations.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 13.
Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 13 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Debate is equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. Resolution provides that upon receipt of a message from the Senate transmitting H.J.Res. 2 with a Senate amendment thereto, it shall be in order to consider in the House a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendment and request or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 29. (consideration: CR H180-190)
Rule H. Res. 29 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 29 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 13 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Debate is equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. Resolution provides that upon receipt of a message from the Senate transmitting H.J.Res. 2 with a Senate amendment thereto, it shall be in order to consider in the House a motion offered by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendment and request or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.J.Res.13 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.J.Res.13 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.J.Res.13 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.J.Res.13 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.