PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 8, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Expresses condolences to the people of Lebanon and to the members of Lebanon's Cabinet for the terrorist assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Amin Gemayel.
Affirms support for the international tribunal to try suspects in the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Urges that the perpetrators of Pierre Gemayel's assassination be brought to justice.
Expresses concern regarding the increasing polarization of Lebanon's religious sects and calls on the government of Lebanon to pursue electoral reform as a first step in reducing confessional tensions.
Recognizes that a regional peace in the Middle East will greatly contribute to Lebanon's long-term security and stability.
Reaffirms the U.S. commitment to promote the development of democratic institutions in Lebanon, including an independent Parliament and a strong central government that serve the interests of the Lebanese people.
People & committees
Rep. Dreier, David [R-CA-26] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 0 (Roll no. 531). (text: CR 12/7/2006 H8864)
House roll call 531 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 0 (Roll no. 531).(text: CR 12/7/2006 H8864)
House roll call 531 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9023-9024)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed until Dec. 7.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1088.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR 12/7/2006 H8864-8866)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
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.Res.1088 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.Res.1088 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.Res.1088 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.Res.1088 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.