PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 104-218.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 10, 1996
Confers honorary U.S. citizenship on Agnes Gonxha Bojahiu, also known as Mother Teresa.
People & committees
Rep. Flanagan, Michael Patrick [R-IL-5] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 104-218.
Became Public Law No: 104-218.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10891-10892)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10891-10892)
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 pass the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required):405 - 0 (Roll no. 415).
House roll call 415 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required):405 - 0 (Roll no. 415).
House roll call 415 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10494)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Flanagan objected to the Yea - Nay vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10452-10454)
Mr. Flanagan moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution, as amended.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 276.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-796.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-796.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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: 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.191 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.191 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.191 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.191 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.