PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 22, 2013
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) those individuals responsible for the July 1999 murders of U.S. citizens Ylli, Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi in Serbia should be brought to justice; (2) it is reprehensible that no individual has ever been found guilty for executing the Bytyqi brothers, or of any other crimes associated with their deaths; (3) the government of Serbia and its relevant ministries and offices, including the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor's Office, should make it a priority to investigate and prosecute those current or former officials believed to be responsible for their deaths; (4) the United States should devote sufficient resources to assist and monitor Serbia's efforts to investigate and prosecute those individuals believed to be responsible; and (5) progress in resolving this case should remain a significant factor in determining the further development of U.S.- Serbia relations.
People & committees
Rep. Bishop, Timothy H. [D-NY-1] · D–NY
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, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1543-1544)
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.61 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.61 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.61 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.61 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.