PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to table the measure Agreed to by recorded vote: 170 - 143 (Roll no. 397).
Congressional Research Service
Version 33 · Laid on table in House · Jul 18, 2003
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Declares that the House of Representatives disapproves of the manner in which Representative Thomas conducted the markup of legislation in the Committee on Ways and Means on July 18, 2003, and finds that the bill considered at that markup was not validly ordered reported to the House.
People & committees
Rep. Pelosi, Nancy [D-CA-8] · D–CA
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: 170 - 143 (Roll no. 397).
House roll call 397 · Individual votesMr. McCrery moved to table the measure.
DEMAND THAT WORDS BE TAKEN DOWN - During the course of debate on the resolution, objection was made to certain remarks to the extent that the words be taken down. Subsequently, the words in question were withdrawn by unanimous consent. The House resumed debate.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 324.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H7148-7157; text of measure as introduced: CR H7148)
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: Jan 2, 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.324 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.324 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.324 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.324 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.