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 14, 1999
Sets forth the rule (modified closed) for the consideration of H.R. 2415 (U.S. embassy security and Department of State authorization).
People & committees
Rep. Diaz-Balart, Lincoln [R-FL-21] · R–FL
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 agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
The previous question was ordered without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 247.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H5680-5684)
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2415 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Measure will be considered read. Specified amendments are in order. After passage of H.R. 2415, it shall be in order take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 886 and to consider the bill in the House. It shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof of the provisions of H.R. 2415 as passed by the House.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 87.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 106-235, by Mr. Diaz-Balart.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 106-235, by Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.247 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.247 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.247 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.247 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.