PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Laid on the table. See S. 1254 for further action. (consideration: CR H10284)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 6, 1995
Disapproves the U.S. Sentencing Commission's amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines relating to: (1) equalization of crack and cocaine powder quantities for trafficking and possession offenses; and (2) money laundering and transactions in property derived from unlawful activity.
People & committees
Rep. McCollum, Bill [R-FL-8] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Laid on the table. See S. 1254 for further action. (consideration: CR H10284)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by recorded vote: 332 - 83 (Roll no. 725).
House roll call 725 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 332 - 83 (Roll no. 725).
House roll call 725 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 149 - 266 (Roll no. 724). (consideration: CR H10283)
House roll call 724 · 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 Watt (NC) motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions that the Committee report the bill back to the House forthwith with an amendment requiring the U.S. Sentencing Commission to report back to the Congress by March 1, 1996 new sentencing guidelines with respect to crack cocaine and money laundering.
Mr. Watt (NC) moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary.
The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 2259.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 237, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of debate on the Conyers amendment.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Doug Bereuter to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 237 and Rule XXIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2259 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. A specified amendment is in order. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of S. 1254, as passed by the Senate, shall be considered as adopted in the Committee of the Whole and in the House. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment. No further amendment shall be in order except the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, debatable for 1 hour and not subject to amendment. After passage of the bill, it shall be in order to take from the Sp eaker's table and consider the bill S. 1254. It shall be in order to move to strike all afte...
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 237. (consideration: CR H10263-10283)
Rule H. Res. 237 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 237 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2259 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Measure will be read by section. A specified amendment is in order. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of S. 1254, as passed by the Senate, shall be considered as adopted in the Committee of the Whole and in the House. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment. No further amendment shall be in order except the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, debatable for 1 hour and not subject to amendment. After passage of the bill, it shall be in order to take from the Sp eaker's table and consider the bill S. 1254. It shall be in order to move to strike all afte...
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 141.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-272.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-272.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 7 - 3.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
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.
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.R.2259 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.R.2259 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.R.2259 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.R.2259 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.