PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 109-481.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 12, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House passed version is repeated here.)
Geneva Distinctive Emblems Protection Act of 2006 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the wearing or displaying of the Red Crescent or the Third Protocol Emblem (the Red Crystal), or any other insignia imitating such emblems, for the fraudulent purpose of claiming membership in an authorized national society using such emblems, the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to six month for violations.
Authorizes the use of such emblems, consistent with the Geneva Conventions, by: (1) authorized national societies that are members of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; (2) the International Committee of the Red Cross; (3) the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; and (4) the sanitary and hospital authorities of the armed forces of State Parties to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Attorney General to bring a civil suit to enjoin violations of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-6] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 109-481.
Became Public Law No: 109-481.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11606-11607)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11606-11607)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
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 H8692)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H8692)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6338.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8692-8693)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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.6338 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.6338 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.6338 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.6338 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.