PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 8, 2004
Resolution of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Dispute Act of 2004 - (Sec. 4) Expresses the sense of Congress that both Ethiopia and Eritrea should: (1) take all appropriate actions to implement the Algiers Agreements, including by accepting the "Delimitation Decision" issued by the neutral Boundary Commission on April 13, 2002, with respect to the boundary between the two countries; and (2) fully cooperate with the United Nations (UN) Special Envoy for Ethiopia-Eritrea.
(Sec. 5) Declares that: (1) Congress expresses its support for the Boundary Commission established by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and calls on the international community to continue to support the UN trust fund to facilitate the demarcation process between Ethiopia and Eritrea and the economic and social transition of affected communities to new borders; (2) it shall be U.S. policy to limit U.S. assistance for Ethiopia or Eritrea if either country is not in compliance with, or is not taking significant steps to comply with the Algiers Agreements; and (3) Congress strongly condemns statements by senior Ethiopian officials criticizing the Boundary Commission's decision and calls on the Government of Ethiopia to accept the Commission's decision.
(Sec. 6) States that economic and military assistance for Ethiopia or Eritrea may only be provided for any period of time for which the President determines that either Ethiopia or Eritrea is in compliance with, or is taking significant steps to comply with, the Algiers Agreements. Authorizes presidential waiver of such provision for national security purposes. Exempts from such provision assistance for humanitarian or human rights purposes, or for HIV/AIDS control.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 7) Directs the President to establish, after finalization of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border demarcation, an integration and border development initiative, including projects to: (1) increase basic services; (2) develop free trade and community development; and (3) reinforce peace and reconciliation.
(Sec. 8) Sets forth presidential reporting requirements.
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.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H9029-9032; text of measure as introduced: CR H9029-9030)
Mr. Smith (MI) asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Committee on International Relations discharged.
Committee on International Relations discharged.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Africa.
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: 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.2760 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.2760 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.2760 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.2760 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.