PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 26, 2003
Winning the Peace Act of 2003 - Authorizes the President to designate a Director of Reconstruction for, and to provide assistance for reconstruction services for, each country or region in which the U.S. armed forces have engaged in armed conflict or which will receive reconstruction services from the U.S. Government due to armed conflict.
Gives the Director authority over all reconstruction activities of the U.S. Government within the country or region of operation.
Authorizes the Secretary of State to establish a permanent office to provide support to each Director.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to establish an Office of International Emergency Management to: (1) maintain a database of entities with expertise in providing reconstruction services; and (2) provide support for mobilizing such entities to provide services requested by a country or region Director.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretaries of State and Defense should propose to establish within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) an Integrated Security Support Component to prepare NATO units for reconstruction-related security tasks. Authorizes the President to commit U.S. personnel to such a Component.
Requires the Secretary of State to establish an interagency Training Center for Post-Conflict Reconstruction Operations.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the President should: (1) establish a task force to implement a reserve force of law enforcement officers willing to provide reconstruction services overseas; and (2) direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to review immigration rules for aliens admitted for permanent residence who wish to participate in return of talent programs in their country of origin.
Establishes a U.S. Security Development Fund.
People & committees
Rep. Farr, Sam [D-CA-17] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1364-1365)
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: Aug 18, 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.2616 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.2616 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.2616 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.2616 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.