PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 29, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Condemns the July 2009 attacks in Jakarta and all other terrorist attacks against Indonesian targets.
Expresses condolences to the people of Indonesia and to the other countries suffering casualties in the attacks.
Supports the government of Indonesia's efforts to investigate and prosecute the attacks and calls upon Indonesia and its neighbors to work together to combat terrorism in Southeast Asia.
Expresses confidence that Indonesia remains a reliable partner in the global struggle against terrorism and a stable destination for trade, travel, and investment.
Reaffirms the commitment of the United States to strengthen democratic institutions and promote peace and ethnic and religious tolerance in Indonesia.
People & committees
Rep. Price, David E. [D-NC-4] · D–NC
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 voice vote. (text: CR 7/28/2009 H8944)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 7/28/2009 H8944)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9038)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 675.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8944-8946)
Mr. Faleomavaega moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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: 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.675 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.675 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.675 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.675 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.