PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2007
Declares that the existence of racially restrictive covenants in housing documents is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Commends: (1) California for taking a lead role in removing such covenants from housing documents; and (2) the states of Kansas and Washington, and the Missouri State Senate, for passing legislation to do so too.
Urges the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to: (1) disseminate information regarding the removal of racially restrictive covenants from housing documents; (2) report to Congress on the number of complaints regarding such covenants; and (3) include the number of such covenants in the annual Fair Housing Report of data on each state.
Urges states to enact laws that: (1) will more readily permit property owners to remove racially restrictive covenants from their property documents; and (2) require homeowner associations to strike such covenants from governing documents.
People & committees
Rep. Cleaver, Emanuel [D-MO-5] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 29, 2021. 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.