PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.Res.367 / 106th Congress

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3073) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to provide for grants for projects designed to promote responsible fatherhood, and for other purposes.

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 8, 1999

Sets forth the rule (modified closed) for the consideration of H.R. 3073 (grants for projects designed to promote responsible fatherhood).

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Pryce, Deborah [R-OH-15] · R–OH

Committees

  • Rules Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

    2. On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 278 - 144 (Roll no. 582).

      House roll call 582 · Individual votes
    3. Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 278 - 144 (Roll no. 582).

      House roll call 582 · Individual votes
    4. DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 367.

    5. Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H11860-11867)

    6. Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 156.

    7. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3073 with 1 hour and 30 minutes of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions. Specified amendments are in order.

    8. The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 106-463, by Ms. Pryce (OH).

    9. The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 106-463, by Ms. Pryce (OH).

    10. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.Res.367 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.Res.367 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.Res.367 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.Res.367 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.

    View full prompt & sources