PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION - Pursuant to clause 2, rule XVI, Mr. Young (AK) withdrew H. Res. 657.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 27, 2000
Directs the Speaker of the House of Representatives to certify to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia a report of the Committee on Resources regarding the refusal of specified persons to produce papers and to answer questions under subpoena before the Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources and the refusal of the Project on Government Oversight to produce papers subpoenaed by the Committee.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION - Pursuant to clause 2, rule XVI, Mr. Young (AK) withdrew H. Res. 657.
DEBATE - Mr. Young (AK) asked that, in the event that the amendment is agreed to, the question on adoption of the resolution be divided within section 2 so that refusal of each of the 3 named individuals will be voted on separately. The Chair responded to the effect that a division of the question, as requested, will be in order at the appropriate time. Subsequently, the House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 657 and on the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H11385-11398; text of measure as introduced: CR H11385)
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.657 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.657 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.657 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.657 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.