PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 110-137.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Dec 13, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Amends Public Law 110-92 to extend through December 21, 2007, specified continuing appropriations for FY2008.
People & committees
Rep. Obey, David R. [D-WI-7] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-137.
Became Public Law No: 110-137.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Cleared for White House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S15432)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S15432)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 385 - 27 (Roll no. 1162). (text: CR H15438)
House roll call 1162 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 385 - 27 (Roll no. 1162).(text: CR H15438)
House roll call 1162 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
On motion to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 194 (Roll no. 1161).
House roll call 1161 · Individual votesMr. Obey moved to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the chair (consideration: CR H15440)
Mr. Lewis (CA) appealed the ruling of the chair. The question was then put on sustaining the ruling of the chair.
Mr. Obey raised a point of order against the motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. Obey stated that the provisions of the Lewis (CA) motion to recommit with instructions was non-germane to the joint resolution. Sustained by the Chair.
Point of order sustained against the motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. Lewis (CA) moved to recommit with instructions to Appropriations. (consideration: CR H15439; text: CR H15439)
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule. (consideration: CR H15439)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 69.
Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 69 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be considered read. Bill is closed to amendments.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 869. (consideration: CR H15438-15440, H15442-15443)
Rule H. Res. 869 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 869 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 69 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. 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.69 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.69 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.69 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.69 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.