PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 8, 1993
Disapproves the recommendation of the President to extend nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of China.
People & committees
Rep. Solomon, Gerald B. H. [R-NY-22] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 105 - 318 (Roll no. 347).
House roll call 347 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On passage Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 105 - 318 (Roll no. 347).
House roll call 347 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered pursuant to a previous order of the House.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of July 15, 1993, and the preceeding modification, the House proceeded with one hour and ten minutes of debate.
Mr. Solomon asked unanimous consent that the time for general debate on the resolution be extended to not to exceed one hour and ten minutes. Agreed to without objection.
Consideration initiated pursuant to prior agreement.
Considered unanimous consent agreement 7/15/93. (consideration: CR H4867-4885)
Discharged from Union Calendar.
Mr. McDermott asked unanimous consent that it be in order to consider the resolution in the House; that all points of order against the resolution and its consideration be waived; that the joint resolution be debated for one hour; that pursuant to sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act of 1974, the previous question be considered as ordered without intervening motion; that the provisions of sections 152 and 153 of the Trade Act shall not apply to any other joint resolution of the 103rd Congress disapproving the extensionof most-favored nation treatment to the People's Republic of China recommended by the President.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 92.
Reported adversely by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 103-167.
Reported adversely by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 103-167.
Ordered to be Reported Adversely by the Yeas and Nays: 35 - 2.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee Unfavorably.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Trade.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. 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.208 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.208 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.208 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.208 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.