PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 26, 2000
Provides for consideration of H.R. 1550 (Fire Administration authorization) and a Senate amendment thereto.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-9] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 384 - 5 (Roll no. 566). (text: CR 10/26/2000 H11321-11324)
House roll call 566 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 384 - 5 (Roll no. 566).(text: CR 10/26/2000 H11321-11324)
House roll call 566 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H11400-11401)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Hall (TX) objected to the Yea - Nay vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed until Oct. 27. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 655.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11321-11327)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
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.655 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.655 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.655 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.655 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.