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 · Mar 10, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Declares that the House of Representatives mourns the significant loss of life, as well as the physical damage, caused by the February 27, 2010, earthquake and resulting tsunami in Chile.
Expresses the deepest condolences of the House and sympathy to the families of the victims.
Recognizes that Chile is a close ally and friend of the United States, and that its embrace of democratic ideals and the Chilean government's ability to implement strict building standards greatly mitigated the impact of this disaster.
Commends the rescue, relief, and recovery actions, still underway, taken by the government of Chile.
Commends the U.S. government, the entire international community, and nongovernmental organizations for their prompt deployment of assistance to Chile.
Urges the President to continue to support the government of Chile as it assesses its relief and recovery needs.
People & committees
Rep. Hinojosa, Ruben [D-TX-15] · D–TX
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 recorded vote (2/3 required): 404 - 1 (Roll no. 100). (text: CR 3/9/2010 H1188-1189)
House roll call 100 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 404 - 1 (Roll no. 100).(text: CR 3/9/2010 H1188-1189)
House roll call 100 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1287)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Connolly (VA) 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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. 1144.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1188-1190)
Mr. Connolly (VA) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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: Apr 7, 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.1144 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.1144 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.1144 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.1144 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.