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 · Jun 15, 1999
Declares that the House of Representatives should work: (1) to empower community- and faith-based organizations to promote effective long-term solutions to the social, financial, and emotional needs of urban centers and rural communities; and (2) with the Senate and the President to support a compassionate grassroots approach to addressing the family, economic, and cultural breakdown in such communities.
People & committees
Rep. Pitts, Joseph R. [R-PA-16] · R–PA
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 - Mr. Scott asked unanimous consent that debate on the resolution be extended by 10 minutes. Agreed to without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 207.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4685-4698)
Mr. Souder moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
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: Jul 21, 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.207 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.207 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.207 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.207 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.