Providing for the concurrence by the House, with an amendment, in the amendment by the Senate to the bill H.R. 1727.

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

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 26, 1994

Considers H.R. 1727 (establishing a program of grants to States for arson research, prevention, and control) to be taken from the Speaker's table and the Senate amendment agreed to with an amendment.

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.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Boucher, Rick [D-VA-9] · D–VA

Committees

0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

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

Apr 26, 1994
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Apr 26, 1994
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
Apr 26, 1994
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
Apr 26, 1994
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Apr 26, 1994
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2751-2753)
Apr 26, 1994
Mr. Boucher moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Apr 26, 1994
Introduced in House
Apr 26, 1994
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

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

Agreed to House · Apr 26, 1994 Formatted Text PDF
Engrossed in House · Apr 26, 1994 Formatted Text PDF

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Jun 2, 2021. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

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.413 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

Discuss H.Res.413, 103rd Congress: Providing for the concurrence by the House, with an amendment, in the amendment by the Senate to the bill H.R. 1727.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-resolution/413

Text version to examine: Agreed to House · 1994-04-26.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hres413/BILLS-103hres413ath.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2021-06-02T19:15:49Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.Res.413 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Res.413 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

Discuss H.Res.413, 103rd Congress: Providing for the concurrence by the House, with an amendment, in the amendment by the Senate to the bill H.R. 1727.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-resolution/413

Text version to examine: Agreed to House · 1994-04-26.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hres413/BILLS-103hres413ath.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2021-06-02T19:15:49Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.413 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Res.413 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

Discuss H.Res.413, 103rd Congress: Providing for the concurrence by the House, with an amendment, in the amendment by the Senate to the bill H.R. 1727.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-resolution/413

Text version to examine: Agreed to House · 1994-04-26.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hres413/BILLS-103hres413ath.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2021-06-02T19:15:49Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.413 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Res.413 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

Discuss H.Res.413, 103rd Congress: Providing for the concurrence by the House, with an amendment, in the amendment by the Senate to the bill H.R. 1727.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-resolution/413

Text version to examine: Agreed to House · 1994-04-26.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hres413/BILLS-103hres413ath.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2021-06-02T19:15:49Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.413 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.