PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 2017
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that:
the Russian Federation has engaged in a widespread hacking and misinformation campaign in order to influence politics and elections in democracies throughout Europe;
Russian officials have expressed their desire to divide the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance, weaken democratic institutions, and support extremist, pro-Moscow candidates throughout Europe;
Russia should immediately cease all hacking and cyber-attacks aimed at European governments, political parties, government officials, election entities, and public information systems; and
it is U.S. government policy to sanction entities and individuals within Russia or associated with the Russian government engaged in hacking, cyber-attacks, and propaganda campaigns with the intention of interfering in democratic elections.
People & committees
Rep. Cicilline, David N. [D-RI-1] · D–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats.
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: Jan 23, 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.172 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.172 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.172 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.172 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.