PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 4, 1993
Franking Fairness and Voting Disclosure Resolution - Requires the House Commission on Congressional Mailing Standards and each Member of the House of Representatives to make all matter approved by the Commission for franked mass mailing by the Member available to the public for review and copying. Requires the Doorkeeper of the House, upon request, to disclose to the public the voting record of any Member of the House in a standard format approved by the Committee on House Administration.
People & committees
Rep. Santorum, Rick [R-PA-18] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Referred to the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service.
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: Aug 26, 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.297 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.297 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.297 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.297 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.