PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 6, 2004
States that the House of Representatives calls on the Government of Romania to: (1) provide prompt and equitable restitution to the Romanian Greek Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Unitarian Church, the Hungarian Reformed Church, the Jewish community, and other affected religious communities for property confiscated under the former Communist government of Romania, including agricultural and forestry lands; (2) respect such churches' and communities' constitutional rights of existence and practice; (3) stop the demolition and dismemberment of Greek Catholic churches and immediately ensure the security of all Greek Catholic churches and other buildings from the 18th and 19th centuries; and (4) repeal Law-Decree NR. 126/1990, as the transfer of juridical duties of a state to a mixed ecclesiastic committee has proven ineffectual and seriously hampers the ability of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church to seek redress, and to allow the claims submitted to be heard by an independent, nonreligious commission.
People & committees
Rep. Tancredo, Thomas G. [R-CO-6] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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: Jan 2, 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.632 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.632 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.632 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.632 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.