PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 17, 1997
Condemns the violence committed by paramilitary groups on both sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland and by agents of the British Government as illegal, unjust, and inhumane. Commends and supports those in the British and Irish Governments who are building on the accomplishments of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Joint Declaration, and the Framework Documents by bringing the various political parties into the current negotiations and creating an environment in which negotiations may be reached expeditiously through inclusive talks. Declares that: (1) respect for human rights must now be at the heart of the peace process; (2) all participants at the multiparty talks must rededicate themselves to restoring civil rights and respecting human rights in Northern Ireland if a peace agreement is to have lasting value; (3) any peace agreement in Northern Ireland must recognize the state's obligation to protect human rights in all circumstances; (4) the establishment of a bill of rights for the people of Northern Ireland may advance and strengthen the peace process; (5) the multiparty negotiations should consider the feasibility of establishing an independent "Truth Commission" to look into outstanding cases of human rights abuses, giving special consideration to those who have been unable to obtain full disclosure about how their loved ones met their deaths; (6) the British Government should initiate a new independent inquiry into the deaths of civilians on "Bloody Sunday," repeal emergency legislation that limits internationally recognized individual human rights, and establish an independent complaints mechanism for the review of citizen inquiries regarding alleged abuses of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other security forces; (7) there should be a mechanism by which all defense solicitors will have a vigorous independent investigation of threats they receive; (8) those who report threats of violence should be accorded effective protection; and (9) plastic bullets should be withdrawn from use.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] · R–NJ
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.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table 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): 407 - 2, 1 Present (Roll No. 56).
House roll call 56 · 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): 407 - 2, 1 Present (Roll No. 56).
House roll call 56 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1258-1259)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed until March 18.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1196-1201)
Mr. Smith (NJ) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2368-2369)
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Requested from State.
Referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
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.Con.Res.152 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.152 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.152 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.152 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.