PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 110-41.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Jun 14, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 9, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Army Specialist Joseph P. Micks Federal Flag Code Amendment Act of 2007 - Amends federal law with regard to the flying of the national flag at half-staff to: (1) allow a governor of a state, territory, or possession of the United States (governor) to proclaim that the national flag be flown at half-staff upon the death of a member of the Armed Forces from the governor's state, territory, or possession who dies while serving on active duty; (2) provide the same authority to the Mayor of the District of Columbia (District) with respect to present or former District officials and members of the Armed Forces from the District; and (3) require, when a governor or Mayor of the District issues such a proclamation, the national flag flown at any federal installation or facility in that state, territory, possession, or District to be flown at half-staff consistent with that proclamation.
People & committees
Rep. Stupak, Bart [D-MI-1] · 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: 110-41.
Became Public Law No: 110-41.
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 S7777)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7777)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 191.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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): 408 - 4 (Roll No. 346). (text: CR H4976)
House roll call 346 · 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): 408 - 4 (Roll No. 346).(text: CR H4976)
House roll call 346 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5014-5015)
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.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 692.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4976-4978)
Mr. Stupak moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 81.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-139.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-139.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.692 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.692 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.692 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.692 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.