PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 18, 2008
Condemns the restrictions on freedom of the press and expression in the Arab world and the widespread presence of anti-Semitic material, Holocaust denial, and incitement to violence in the Arab media.
Deplores the practices utilized by the governments in the Middle East to exert control over the press and on public expression.
Expresses concern that many of the Arab governments to which United States has turned for assistance in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are responsible for using their government-controlled media to promulgate incendiary speech regarding Israel and the Jewish people that makes U.S. efforts to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict all the more difficult.
Calls on the President to: (1) raise the issue of the lack of media freedom in the Middle East and the proliferation of anti-Semitic incitement; and (2) take into account the compliance of governments throughout the region with international norms and obligations regarding media freedom and anti-Semitic incitement when determining U.S. assistance.
Calls on U.S. allies and governments throughout the Middle East to publicly repudiate purveyors of anti-Semitic incitement.
People & committees
Rep. Ackerman, Gary L. [D-NY-5] · D–NY
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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5522-5523)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5522-5523)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1127.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5522-5526)
Mr. Ackerman moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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.1127 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.1127 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.1127 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.1127 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.