PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 16, 2007
House Page Board Revision Act of 2007 - Amends House Resolution 611, 97th Congress, agreed to November 30, 1982, as enacted into permanent law, to increase from one to two the number of Members of the House appointed to the House Page Board by the House minority leader.
Requires the one-year (renewable) appointment to the Page Board, jointly by the Speaker and the minority leader, of: (1) one individual who, at any time during the five-year period ending on the date of his or her appointment, is or was a parent of a page participating in the program; and (2) one individual who is a former page of the House, but who is not a Member of the House or the parent of a page.
Authorizes per diem travel payments to such individuals for attending Board meetings away from home or business.
Requires the Page Board to meet regularly, in accordance with a schedule established jointly by the Speaker and minority leader.
People & committees
Rep. Kildee, Dale E. [D-MI-5] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-2.
Became Public Law No: 110-2.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S1000)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S1000)
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: 416 - 0 (Roll No. 42). (text: CR H765)
House roll call 42 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 416 - 0 (Roll No. 42).(text: CR H765)
House roll call 42 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered pursuant to a previous order of the House. (consideration: CR H768)
DEBATE - Pursuant to a previous special order, the House proceeded with 30 minutes of debate on H.R. 475.
Considered by previous special order.
Consideration initiated by previous special order. (consideration: CR H764-768)
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
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: May 17, 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.475 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.475 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.475 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.475 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.