PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jan 23, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act - (Sec. 2) Requires quarter dollar coins issued during 2009 to have designs on the reverse side which are emblematic of the District of Columbia and the territories.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue during 2009 redesigned quarter dollars commemorating the District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the design on the reverse side of each quarter dollar issued during 2009 to be emblematic of one of the following: The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Prohibits inclusion in the design of any quarter dollar any head and shoulders portrait or bust of any person, living or dead, including any portrait of a living person.
Sets forth a timing and order of issuance in equal sequential intervals.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H851-852)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H851-852)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 392.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H851-855)
Mr. Gutierrez moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E68)
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: Jan 14, 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.392 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.392 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.392 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.392 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.