PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 23, 2008
Honorable Stephanie Tubbs Jones College Fire Prevention Act - Directs the Secretary of Education to make competitive demonstration grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs), fraternities, and sororities for up to half the cost of installing fire sprinkler systems, or other fire suppression or prevention technologies, in student housing and dormitories owned or controlled by such entities.
Gives grant priority to applicants that demonstrate the greatest financial need. Reserves the following portions of grant funds made available for each fiscal year: (1) at least 10% for historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions, and IHEs that are eligible for Institutional Aid under the Higher Education Act of 1965; and (2) at least 10% for social fraternities and sororities. Prohibits the use of more than 2% of a grant for administrative expenses. Directs the Secretary to report to Congress regarding such grant program and governmental policies that impede the development and installation of fire suppression or prevention technologies. Authorizes FY2009-FY2011 appropriations for the grant program. Provides that any application for assistance under this Act, any negative determination on the part of the Secretary with respect to such application, or any statement of reasons for the determination, shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity (except a proceeding to enforce an agreement entered into between the Secretary and a grantee under this Act).
People & committees
Rep. Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [D-OH-11] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 365 - 51 (Roll no. 627). (text: CR H8659)
House roll call 627 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 365 - 51 (Roll no. 627).(text: CR H8659)
House roll call 627 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8658-8659)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
CHANGE OF SPONSORSHIP - Mr. Clyburn asked unanimous consent that he be considered the first sponsor of H.R. 642 for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprints pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 642.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8528-8530)
Mrs. Davis (CA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H10786)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. 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.