PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 7, 2016
Urges the working group established by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany to recognize the imperative to fund immediately and fully the medical, mental health, and long-term care needs of surviving Holocaust victims, with full transparency and accountability, to ensure all funds for Holocaust victims from the Federal Republic of Germany are administered efficiently, fairly, and without delay.
Urges the Federal Republic of Germany also to continue to reaffirm its commitment to fulfill its moral responsibility to Holocaust victims by:
ensuring that each Holocaust victim receives all of the prescribed medical care, home care, mental health care, and other vital services necessary to live in dignity; and
providing, without delay, additional financial resources to address the unique needs of Holocaust victims.
People & committees
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-27] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 363 - 0 (Roll no. 269). (text: CR H3475-3476)
House roll call 269 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 363 - 0 (Roll no. 269).(text: CR H3475-3476)
House roll call 269 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H3490-3491)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 129.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3475-3478)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H2069-2070)
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.
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.Con.Res.129 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.Con.Res.129 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.Con.Res.129 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.Con.Res.129 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.