PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Postal Service.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 1997
Amends Federal law to prohibit Members of the House of Representatives from sending as part of a mass mailing: (1) customary congressional newsletters or press releases which may deal with matters such as impacts of laws and decisions on State and local governments and individual citizens, reports on official actions taken by Members of Congress, and discussions and positions regarding proposed or pending legislation or governmental actions; (2) customary congressional questionnaires seeking public opinion on any law, pending or proposed legislation, or public issue; and (3) mail matter expressing congratulations to a person who has achieved some public distinction.
People & committees
Rep. LaHood, Ray [R-IL-18] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Postal Service.
Referred to House Government Reform
Referred to the Committee on House Oversight, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Oversight
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E185)
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 4, 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.642 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.642 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.642 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.642 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.