Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to war crimes against United States military personnel and their families, and in particular to the war crimes committed in El Salvador against United States Army pilots David H. Pickett and Earnest Dawson, Jr.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 3, 1998
Expresses: (1) sincere appreciation for the military service of Lieutenant Colonel David H. Pickett, Private First Class Earnest Dawson, Jr., and Chief Warrant Officer Daniel Scott; and (2) deepest sympathy to the families of David H. Pickett and Earnest Dawson, Jr., for their tragic and wrongful deaths; (3) profound regret that the available remedies have failed to bring Ferman Hernandez and Serveriano Fuentes, the men responsible for executing Pickett and Dawson, to justice. Declares that: (1) the United States should improve the legal protections for its military personnel who serve in foreign lands and their families; and (2) the Government of El Salvador should amend its Constitution to permit the extradition of Hernandez and Fuentes to the United States for trial. Urges the President to: (1) continue efforts to obtain the extradition of Hernandez and Fuentes; (2) initiate changes to the Geneva Convention and other international agreements that would prevent amnesty from being used to deny redress for grave breaches of the Geneva Convention; (3) initiate other changes to the Geneva Convention and other relevant international agreements to ensure and improve the legal protections for U.S. military personnel serving in foreign lands and their families; (4) examine all status-of-forces agreements and similar agreements and obtain revisions to ensure that the legal protections for U.S. military personnel will not suffer another failure; (5) encourage other countries to enact laws substantially similar to the War Crimes Act of 1996; and (6) report to the Congress at least annually regarding the actions taken and the progress made.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Con.Res.314 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Con.Res.314 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Con.Res.314 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Con.Res.314 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.