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 · Jul 28, 2010
Recognizes the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).
Commemorates the significance and importance of SNCC and its role in organizing the national sit-in movement and the role that they played in the desegregation of U.S. society and for creating the political climate necessary to pass legislation to expand civil rights and voting rights.
Encourages the people of the United States to recognize and celebrate the legal victories of the national sit-in movement that sought to eradicate segregation in U.S. society.
States that the House of Representatives aspires to work with the same courage, determination, dignity, and commitment exemplified by those pioneering students who dared to challenge a segregated society by addressing modern-day inequalities and injustice.
People & committees
Rep. Lewis, John [D-GA-5] · D–GA
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 410 - 0 (Roll no. 503). (text: CR H6440-6441)
House roll call 503 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 410 - 0 (Roll no. 503).(text: CR H6440-6441)
House roll call 503 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6484-6485)
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 resumed debate on H. Res. 1566.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1566.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6440-6442)
Mr. Cohen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
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: 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.1566 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.1566 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.1566 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.1566 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.