PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 16, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Palestinian Authority's (PA) continued inability or unwillingness to pursue and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who killed John Branchizio, Mark Parson, and John Marin Linde calls into question the PA's suitability as a U.S. partner in diplomatic efforts to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; (2) future U.S. assistance to the PA may be suspended or conditioned, and the continued operation of the PLO Representative Office in Washington may be jeopardized, if the PA does not cooperate in bringing these individuals to justice; and (3) it is in the U.S. national interest to safeguard diplomats and all embassy and consulate personnel, and to use the full power of the United States to bring to justice any individual or entity that threatens or harms them.
Directs the Secretary of State, within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and every 120 days thereafter, to report to the appropriate congressional committees describing U.S. and PA efforts to bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who killed John Branchizio, Mark Parson, and John Marin Linde.
People & committees
Rep. Ackerman, Gary L. [D-NY-5] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7798)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7798)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2293.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7798-7800)
Mr. Ackerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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.2293 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.2293 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.2293 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.2293 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.