PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to table the measure Agreed to by recorded vote: 222 - 181, 14 Present (Roll no. 105).
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 5, 2009
Requires the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or a designated investigative subcommittee, to begin immediately an investigation and report to the House on the relationship between: (1) earmark requests on behalf of clients of the raided top defense-lobbying firm already made by Members; and (2) the source and timing of past campaign contributions related to such requests.
People & committees
Rep. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-6] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to table the measure Agreed to by recorded vote: 222 - 181, 14 Present (Roll no. 105).
House roll call 105 · Individual votesMr. Clyburn moved to table the measure.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H3024-3025; text of measure as introduced: CR H3024)
QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE - Mr. Flake rose to a question of the privileges of the House and offered a resolution. The Chair directed the Clerk to report the resolution. The Clerk completed the reading of H.Res. 212 and the Chair announced that the resolution met the required threshold under the rule.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 13, 2017. 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.212 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.212 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.212 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.212 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.