PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 1, 1994
Expresses the sense of the Congress that: (1) unduly short State statutes of limitations infringe upon the procedural due process rights of adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse who become aware of the harm of childhood sexual abuse later in life; (2) the States and the District of Columbia should enact comprehensive legislation that affords victims of childhood sexual abuse access to civil courts and should consider legislation allowing criminal prosecution based on the evidence offered by adult survivors; (3) the Attorney General should cooperate with and assist adult survivors and should gather data on State activities in this area and the need for Federal legislation; and (4) the Congress commits itself to revisit the question of the adequacy of State law within two years to protect adult survivors and society's interest in deterring such abuse through the criminal justice system.
People & committees
Rep. Schroeder, Patricia [D-CO-1] · D–CO
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 Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H87)
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 16, 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.200 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.200 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.200 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.200 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.