PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair Agreed to by voice vote.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 30, 1996
Directs the Speaker of the House of Representatives to withdraw the invitation to the President of France, Jacques Chirac, to address a joint meeting of the Congress on February 1, 1996, because of the recent nuclear tests conducted by France in the South Pacific. Prohibits the Speaker from agreeing to the appearance before a joint meeting of the Congress by any head of state or head of government whose nation conducts nuclear tests.
People & committees
Rep. Mink, Patsy T. [D-HI-2] · D–HI
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 motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair Agreed to by voice vote.
Motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair tabled.
Ms. Pryce moved to table the motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair
Mrs. Mink moved to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The Chair ruled that the resolution did not constitute a question of the privileges of the House and, in addition, no question of personal privilege under rule IX of the Rules of the House was addressed by this resolution.
Members of the House were recognized to speak on whether the resolution consituted a question of the privileges of the House.
Consideration initiated as a question of the privileges of the House.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1058)
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H930)
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.350 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.350 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.350 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.350 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.