PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 103-275.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 13, 1994
Makes additional FY 1994 appropriations for the following Department of Housing and Urban Development accounts: (1) mutual mortgage insurance program account; (2) general and special risk program account; and (3) guarantees of mortgage-backed securities loan guarantee program account.
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: 103-275.
Became Public Law No: 103-275.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S7477)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S7477)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 410 - 9 (Roll No. 259).
House roll call 259 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 410 - 9 (Roll No. 259).
House roll call 259 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, June 17, 1994, the House proceeded with one hour of general debate.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H4748-4750)
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 302.
Reported by the Committee on Appropriations. H. Rept. 103-550.
Reported by the Committee on Appropriations. H. Rept. 103-550.
Mr. Durbin asked unanimous consent That it be in order at any time on June 21, 1994, or any day thereafter, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider in the House the bill H.R. 4568, that the bill be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and that the previous question be considered as ordered to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. Agreed to without objection.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 5, 2024. 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.4568 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.4568 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.4568 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.4568 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.