PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Jun 29, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Directs the Architect of the Capitol to transfer the catafalque which is situated in the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Visitor Center to the Senate Chamber so that it may be used in connection with services for the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, late a Senator from West Virginia.
People & committees
Sen. Reid, Harry [D-NV] · D–NV
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 agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection. (text: CR H5209)
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to without objection.(text: CR H5209)
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H5209)
Mr. Boccieri asked unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table and consider.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5630; text as passed Senate: CR S5630; text of measure as introduced: CR S5545)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S5630; text as passed Senate: CR S5630; text of measure as introduced: CR S5545)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.Con.Res.65 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 S.Con.Res.65 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 S.Con.Res.65 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 S.Con.Res.65 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.