PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 16, 1999
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) no bilateral or multilateral assistance or benefit to any country should be conditioned upon that country's adoption of population programs or relinquishment of its sovereign right to implement the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development; (2) family planning service providers or referral agents should not implement or be subject to numerical targets of total number of births, family planning acceptors, or acceptors of a particular method of family planning (but allows the use of quantitative estimates or indicators for budgeting and planning purposes); (3) no family planning project should include payment of financial reward to any person in exchange for becoming a family planning acceptor or to program personnel for achieving a numerical target or quota of total number of births, number of family planning acceptors, or acceptors of a particular method of family planning; (4) no project should deny any right or benefit, including the right of access to participate in any program of general welfare or the right of access to health care, as a consequence of any person's decision not to accept family planning services; (5) every family project should provide family planning acceptors with comprehensible information on the health benefits and risks of the method chosen, and should ensure that experimental contraceptive drugs and devices and medical procedures are provided only in the context of a scientific study in which participants are advised of potential risks and benefits; and (6) the United States should reaffirm these principles in the special session of the United Nations General Assembly to be held between June 30 and July 2, 1999, and in all preparatory meetings for the special session.
People & committees
Rep. Tiahrt, Todd [R-KS-4] · R–KS
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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 118.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1510-1525)
Mr. Chabot moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
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.118 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.118 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.118 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.118 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.