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 · Oct 26, 1993
Urges the Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to cooperate with the U.S. Postal Service and the Polly Klaas Search Center to use nationwide mailings to disseminate information concerning the kidnapping of Polly Klaas. Commends the community of Petaluma, California, the Petaluma Police Department, and the FBI for their hard work on this case.
People & committees
Rep. Woolsey, Lynn C. [D-CA-6] · D–CA
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 - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10578-10579)
Mr. Sawyer moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Postal Operations and Services.
Referred to the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H8491-8492)
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: Feb 6, 2024. 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.285 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.285 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.285 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.285 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.