PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 5, 2010
Commends Lance Orton and Duane Jackson for promptly alerting authorities about the suspicious vehicle involved in the attempted terrorist attack at Times Square on May 1, 2010.
Urges: (1) all Americans to remain vigilant about potential terrorist or suspicious activity within their communities and to report such activity to the appropriate authorities; and (2) all federal agencies to continue to work with state, local, and tribal partners to bolster preparedness for and prevention of terrorism.
Recognizes the New York City Police Department and its bomb squad, the Fire Department of New York, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the United States Customs and Border Protection, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, the Departments of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security (DHS), the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force, the Bridgeport Police Department, Detective Bureau, Patrol Division, and other Connecticut law enforcement agencies for their commitment in responding to terrorism and their work in apprehending a suspect only 53 hours after the attempted bombing.
People & committees
Rep. McMahon, Michael E. [D-NY-13] · D–NY
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, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 418 - 0 (Roll no. 246). (text: CR H3140)
House roll call 246 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 418 - 0 (Roll no. 246).(text: CR H3140)
House roll call 246 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3166-3167)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1320.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3140-3144)
Mr. Pascrell moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
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.1320 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.1320 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.1320 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.1320 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.