PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-89.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 18, 1999
Requires the Department of State to raise the matter of Zachary Baumel (a U.S. citizen), Yehuda Katz, and Zvi Feldman with the appropriate government officials of Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and with other governments in the region and elsewhere which in the Department's view may be helpful in locating and securing the return of these soldiers. Urges decisions with regard to U.S. economic and other forms of assistance to such countries and U.S. policy towards these governments and authorities to take into consideration their willingness to assist in locating and securing the return of such soldiers. Requires the Department to report to specified congressional committees on its consultations with the appropriate governments and any affected U.S. policies.
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.
Became Public Law No: 106-89.
Became Public Law No: 106-89.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421 - 0 (Roll no. 541). (consideration: CR H10834-10835)
House roll call 541 · Individual votesResolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421 - 0 (Roll no. 541).(consideration: CR H10834-10835)
House roll call 541 · Individual votesAt the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House has proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the Senate amendments to H.R. 1175.
Mr. Campbell moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with amendments by Unanimous Consent.
The committee amendment was agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1620 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.
Amendment SP 1620 proposed by Senator Brownback for Senator Leahy.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S10531-10532; text of measure as reported in Senate: CR S10531-10532)
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported with an amendment favorably.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 187.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported to Senate by Senator Helms with an amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported to Senate by Senator Helms with an amendment. Without written report.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 5, 1 Present (Roll no. 246). (text: CR H4783)
House roll call 246 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 5, 1 Present (Roll no. 246).(text: CR H4783)
House roll call 246 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4708-4709)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1175.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4683-4685)
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations. (text of measure as introduced: (CR E498)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1409-1410, E497-498)
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.R.1175 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.R.1175 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.R.1175 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.R.1175 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.