PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H. Res. 343.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 3, 1994
Condemns: (1) the speech given by Khalid Abdul Muhammad as outrageous hate mongering of the most vicious and vile kind; and (2) all manifestations and expressions of racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, and ethnic or religious intolerance.
People & committees
Rep. Lantos, Tom [D-CA-12] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H. Res. 343.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 361 - 34, 29 Present (Roll no. 29).
House roll call 29 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 361 - 34, 29 Present (Roll no. 29).
House roll call 29 · Individual votesThe previous question was ordered pursuant to a previous order of the House.
DEBATE - The House resumed debate.
EXTENSION OF DEBATE TIME - Mr. Lantos asked unanimous consent that the time for debate on the resolution be extended for not to exceed twenty minutes. Agreed to without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Consideration initiated by agreement of February 22, 1994. (consideration: CR H567-581)
Mr. Gordon asked unanimous consent That it be in order on Wednesday, Feb. 23, 1994, to consider H. Res. 343 in the House, and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. Agreed to without objection.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights.
Mr. Lantos asked unanimous consent That it be in order on Thursday, February 10, 1994, to consider H. Res. 343 in the House, and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. Agreed to without objection.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H209)
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: Jun 2, 2021. 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.343 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.343 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.343 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.343 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.