A joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding.
Became Public Law No: 110-171.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 26, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Grants the consent of Congress to the International Emergency Management Assistance Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut and the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H15501-15503)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H15501-15503)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S.J. Res. 13.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H15501-15504)
Mr. Crowley moved to suspend the rules and pass the resolution.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S12449-12450; text as passed Senate: CR S12449-12450)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S12449-12450; text as passed Senate: CR S12449-12450)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 397.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6406-6407)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6405-6406)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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: Sep 3, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.J.Res.13 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.J.Res.13 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.J.Res.13 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.J.Res.13 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.