PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 13, 1997
Urges: (1) the Supreme Court of Argentina to designate a single investigative judge to conduct the investigation of the March 17, 1992 terrorist bombing of the Israeli embassy; (2) Argentinean judicial authorities to move forward aggressively in the investigation of the July 18, 1994 terrorist bombing of the Asociacion Mutual Israelita Argentina Jewish Community Center; (3) Argentinean authorities to acknowledge publicly the reports submitted by Argentinean, U.S., and Israeli experts which determined that the explosion at the Israeli embassy took place outside the walls of the embassy; and (4) the President and appropriate executive agencies to provide all appropriate assistance which has been or which may be requested to help Argentinean authorities investigate these acts of terrorism.
People & committees
Rep. Lantos, Tom [D-CA-12] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E486)
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.50 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.50 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.50 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.50 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.