PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 7, 1997
Amends the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to direct the Director of the Office of Foreign Missions to develop records, and to report to the Congress, on each incident in which a diplomat has committed a serious criminal offense within the United States which was not subject to criminal prosecution. Directs the Director to take the necessary steps to: (1) educate local law enforcement officials on the extent of the immunity from criminal prosecution provided to diplomats and their families; and (2) encourage such officials to investigate and prosecute such individuals who commit a serious criminal offense to the extent consistent with their immunity. Prohibits any Department of State officer or employee from interfering with the investigation or prosecution by a State or local government of a diplomat, or a family member of a diplomat, or any other alien not immune from criminal prosecution.
People & committees
Rep. Hefley, Joel [R-CO-5] · R–CO
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 International Operations and Human Rights.
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: 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.R.1547 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.1547 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.1547 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.1547 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.