PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 23, 1994
Expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should: (1) not have extended diplomatic recognition to the Skopje regime that insists on using the Greek name of Macedonia; and (2) reconsider this decision and withdraw diplomatic recognition until such time as such regime renounces its use of the name Macedonia, removes objectionable language in paragraph 49 of its constitution (calling for the unification of neighboring territories in Greece and Bulgaria with the Macedonian Republic), removes symbols which imply territorial expansion such as the Star of Vergina in its flag, ceases propaganda against Greece, and adheres fully to Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe norms and principles.
People & committees
Rep. Snowe, Olympia J. [R-ME-2] · R–ME
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 and the Middle East.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E221-222)
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: Feb 7, 2024. 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.210 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.210 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.210 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.210 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.