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 · Oct 4, 1999
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) the erosion of the independence of judicial and electoral branches of the Government of Peru, the interference with freedom of the press, and the blatant intimidation of journalists in Peru constitute a threat to democracy in that country and are matters for concern by the United States; (2) the U.S. Government and other members of the Inter-American community should review the forthcoming report of an independent investigation conducted recently by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States on democracy, the press, and judicial independence in Peru; and (3) U.S. representatives in Peru and to international organizations should make clear U.S. concern regarding threats to democracy and violations of the rule of law in Peru.
People & committees
Rep. Gilman, Benjamin A. [R-NY-20] · R–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.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 57.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9261-9263)
Mr. Bereuter moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights Discharged.
Executive Comment Requested from State.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E221)
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.57 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.57 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.57 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.57 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.