PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · May 21, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Honors sculptor Korczak Ziolkowski, the Ziolkowski family, and the Crazy Horse Memorial Foundation on the 60th anniversary of the commencement of the mountain carving of the Crazy Horse Memorial (in South Dakota).
People & committees
Rep. Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie [D-SD-At Large] · D–SD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 5/19/2008 H4069)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 5/19/2008 H4069)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4402)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Issa objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1074.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4069)
Ms. Bordallo moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.Res.1074 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.Res.1074 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.Res.1074 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.Res.1074 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.