PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 104-63.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 24, 1995
Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act of 1995 - Declares that it shall not be unlawful under any Federal antitrust law, or a similar State law, for two or more persons that are exempt (as a corporation or community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, educational, or other specified purposes) from taxation under the Internal Revenue Code to use, or agree to use, the same annuity rate for the purpose of issuing one or more charitable gift annuities, except where expressly provided otherwise by a State law enacted within three years after enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Hyde, Henry J. [R-IL-6] · 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: 104-63.
Became Public Law No: 104-63.
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 by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S17828)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Received in the Senate, read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S17828)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: (3/5 required): 427 - 0 (Roll no. 823).
House roll call 823 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: (3/5 required): 427 - 0 (Roll no. 823).
House roll call 823 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
VOTE POSTPONED - At the conclusion of debate, the Chair put the question on final passage of the bill and announced that, by a three-fifths voice vote, the bill was passed. Mr. Hyde requested the yeas and nays, which request was supported by one-fifth of the Members present, so they yeas and nays were ordered. The Chair postponed further consideration of the bill.
The previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered from the Corrections Calendar. (consideration: CR H13670, H13677-13681)
Called up from the Corrections Calendar for consideration.
Placed on the Corrections Calendar, Calendar No. 9.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 180.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-336.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-336.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2024-2025)
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.2525 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.2525 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.2525 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.2525 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.