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 · Nov 2, 2015
Supports individuals and organizations working to encourage cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.
Condemns the wave of violent attacks in Israel and the West Bank.
Reiterates condemnation of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement in the Palestinian Authority (PA) as antithetical to peace.
Calls on the PA to: (1) discontinue incitement to violence in all PA-controlled media outlets and publicly repudiate attacks against Israelis; (2) continue security cooperation with Israel; and (3) renew direct talks with the Israelis, including the reconstitution of the Trilateral Commission on Incitement.
Encourages responsible nations to condemn the PA's incitement to violence.
Supports the government of Israel in its fight against terror. Directs the Department of State to monitor and publish information on all official PA incitement against Jews and Israel.
Calls on the Administration to continue publicly repudiating and raising the issue of Palestinian anti-Israel incitement to violence in all appropriate bilateral and international forums.
People & committees
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-27] · R–FL
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 H7360)
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 H7360)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 293.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7360-7363)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa.
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 28, 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.293 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.293 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.293 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.293 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.