Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the importance of protecting American cruise ship passengers against crimes on the high seas and ensuring that the perpetrators of such crimes are brought to justice.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 17, 2007
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) members of the International Cruise Victims Association, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network are to be commended for their leadership in highlighting the problem of crimes against Americans on cruise ships; (2) Americans who are victims of crime on a cruise ship should have ready access to justice and additional steps should be taken to ensure that the perpetrators of such crimes are brought to justice; (3) the cruise industry should provide information to passengers about security risks and maintain necessary security personnel on each ship; and (4) Congress should provide oversight to ensure the safety and security of American passengers.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1899-1900)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.652 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.652 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.652 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.652 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.