PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2006
Amends rule IV (The Hall of the House) of the Rules of the House of Representatives to deny entitlement to the privilege of admission to the Hall of the House and adjacent rooms to any former Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, a former Parliamentarian of the House, or a former elected officer of the House or former minority employee nominated as an elected officer of the House, if the individual is a registered lobbyist under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or any successor law or a lobbyist who, as an employee of an organization, is covered by the registration of that organization under that Act or any successor law.
People & committees
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.646 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.646 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.646 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.646 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.