PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 23, 2005
Notes with concern the unwillingness of past Romanian governments to provide fair restitution of religious property confiscated by the former Communist government of Romania.
Calls on the Government of Romania to: (1) respect the constitutional rights of all religious communities to practice their religion in respectable locations and openly communicate their religious beliefs; (2) provide fair restitution, including agricultural and forestry land restitution, to all religious communities under Romanian law and in accordance with the Constitution of Rumania and all international agreements to which Romania is a party; and (3) amend Decree-Law 126/1990 to require that claims involving Romanian Greek Catholic properties be heard by an independent nonreligious commission, and to prevent the demolition of Greek Catholic churches.
Calls upon the Government of Romania, with respect to Romanian Law No. 501/2002, to: (1) amend the law to reflect the principle of "restitution in integrum" and restore full property ownership; (2) reduce to one year the period during which public institutions can continue to occupy confiscated religious properties; (3) provide compensation for demolished religious properties; (4) increase the rent paid to religious communities for properties which they cannot immediately regain use; (5) cease requiring religious communities to cover state maintenance costs for confiscated buildings; and (6) obligate local governments to cooperate in implementing Special Restitution Committee decisions.
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.
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 H3729)
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 H3729)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 191.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3729-3732)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe and Emerging Threats.
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.191 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.191 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.191 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.191 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.