To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disregard certain amounts of capital expenditures in applying $10,000,000 limit on such issues, and for other purposes.

Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 26, 1997

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to disregard $10 million of capital expenditures in applying the $10 million limitation on the face amount of qualified small issue bonds. Excludes any qualified small issue bond from the limitation on use for land acquisition. Repeals the percentage limitation on directly related and ancillary facilities which may be financed by qualified small issue bonds. Changes the private activity bond volume cap State ceiling maximum amount.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. English, Phil [R-PA-21] · R–PA

Committees

Ways and Means Committee

17 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Feb 26, 1997
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Feb 26, 1997
Introduced in House
Feb 26, 1997
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Feb 26, 1997 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.840 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.840, 105th Congress: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disregard certain amounts of capital expenditures in applying $10,000,000 limit on such issues, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/840

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1997-02-26.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr840/BILLS-105hr840ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:40:58Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.R.840 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.840 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.840, 105th Congress: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disregard certain amounts of capital expenditures in applying $10,000,000 limit on such issues, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/840

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1997-02-26.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr840/BILLS-105hr840ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:40:58Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.840 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.840 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.840, 105th Congress: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disregard certain amounts of capital expenditures in applying $10,000,000 limit on such issues, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/840

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1997-02-26.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr840/BILLS-105hr840ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:40:58Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.840 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.840 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.R.840, 105th Congress: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disregard certain amounts of capital expenditures in applying $10,000,000 limit on such issues, and for other purposes.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/840

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 1997-02-26.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hr840/BILLS-105hr840ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2024-02-07T16:40:58Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.R.840 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.