PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 14, 2001
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the United States should not subsidize any oil or gas pipeline in the South Caucasus the commercial viability of which is in doubt or which hinders the U.S. goal of integrating Armenia into a secure and prosperous regional economic framework; (2) all proposals for South Caucasus oil and gas pipeline routes should be carefully evaluated to ensure that all Caucasus nations are included in consideration of energy and trade routes; (3) any engineering and feasibility study, and any project implementation, that utilizes U.S. Government funds, regarding the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline or similar energy transportation projects, must include trans-Armenian routes; and (4) the Trade Development Agency should fund and support a feasibility study to determine the cost savings of a trans-Armenia Baku-Ceyhan pipeline.
People & committees
Rep. Knollenberg, Joe [R-MI-11] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe.
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: Jan 23, 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.162 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.162 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.162 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.162 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.