PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by recorded vote (2/3 required): 183 - 231 (Roll No. 595).
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Nov 8, 1999
United States Marshals Service Improvement Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal judicial code to provide for the appointment of U.S. marshals for each judicial district of the United States and for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by the Attorney General of the United States (currently, by the President), subject to Federal law governing appointments in the competitive civil service.(Sec. 3) Sets forth transitional provisions. Requires the President to appoint a marshal, for a four-year term, to fill the first vacancy which occurs in the office of U.S. marshal in any district between the date of this Act's enactment and December 31, 2001.(Sec. 4) Directs the General Accounting Office to conduct a study detailing the number of U.S. marshals chosen by the Attorney General who are people of color and women and report to Congress.
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.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by recorded vote (2/3 required): 183 - 231 (Roll No. 595).
House roll call 595 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by recorded vote (2/3 required): 183 - 231 (Roll No. 595).
House roll call 595 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Collins objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed until Nov. 12. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2336.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11921-11922, H12063-12064)
Mr. Bachus moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 266.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-459.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-459.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
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.
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.R.2336 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.2336 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.2336 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.2336 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.