PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 10, 1994
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) the Department of Justice should repudiate its interpretation of a provision of the Federal criminal code pertaining to the destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities as extending the reach of such provision to law enforcement operations and actions taken by U.S. agencies; and (2) the Department of Defense and other U.S. departments and agencies should resume their former authorized practice of providing aid, information, and material support to locate, interdict, and prevent the operation of illegal drug producers and traffickers in the Andean nations and wherever else such operations have been impeded by such interpretation.
People & committees
Rep. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY-9] · D–NY
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 Western Hemisphere Affairs.
Referred to the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
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: Jun 6, 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.452 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.452 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.452 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.452 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.