PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 16, 1995
Repeals a Federal law authorizing the Secretary of the Army to operate the military education and training facility known as the U.S. Army School of the Americas. Authorizes the Secretary to operate the United States Academy for Democracy and Civil-Military Relations (Academy). Requires instruction at the Academy to be provided to civilian and military personnel of Latin American and Caribbean countries through seminars, roundtable discussions, conferences, and a guest instructor program. Directs the Secretary to conduct a thorough screening of potential instructors and students at the Academy for commitment to and respect for democracy and human rights. Requires the Secretary to establish an advisory committee to provide advice on establishing and operating the Academy, as well as the content of its curriculum. Provides Academy funding. States that this Act does not affect the authority to conduct countermine programs at Fort Benning, Georgia, at the School of the Americas in response to a request from the Organization of American States. Directs the Secretary to report to the Congress on Academy achievements after two years of operation. Expresses the sense of the Congress that resources made available to operate the Academy should be commensurate with the total resources that were dedicated to the School of the Americas in FY 1996.
People & committees
Rep. Kennedy, Joseph P., II [D-MA-8] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on National Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on National Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on National Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Jun 6, 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.2652 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.2652 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.2652 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.2652 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.