H. Con. Res. 260 (110th)Bill Overview

Demand Release of U.S. Hostages Held by FARC

Concurrent ResolutionInternational Affairs|Americans in foreign countriesColombia
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Nov 15, 2007
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Concurrent ResolutionWhat this resolution actually does

This resolution is a concurrent resolution adopted by Congress to state its official position about a foreign group's actions. It condemns the FARC for kidnapping three U.S. citizens, demands their immediate and unconditional release, and expresses sympathy to their families. It records Congressional views and urges action but does not create binding law or require the President to act.

Passage rules

Concurrent resolutions must be approved by both the House and the Senate but are not presented to the President and do not become law. They are nonbinding statements or expressions of Congress's views or intentions.

This concurrent resolution condemns the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) for kidnapping three U.S. citizens (Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Marc Gonsalves) taken on February 13, 2003, and demands their immediate, unconditional release.

It also condemns the FARC for the murder of Tom Janis, deplores the FARC’s use of kidnapping, ransom, extortion, and drug trafficking, and expresses sympathy to the hostages' families.

The resolution reiterates that the U.S. Government does not make concessions to terrorists and states U.S. support for efforts to secure the hostages' safe return.

Passage0/100

Concurrent resolution is nonbinding and not presented to the President; it cannot become law even if passed by both chambers.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly drafted symbolic concurrent resolution: it identifies the issue and makes specific declarative statements and demands but contains no operational directives, fiscal provisions, or accountability mechanisms.

Contention12/100

Tactics: liberals favor humanitarian/diplomatic channels; conservatives favor pressure and force options.

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedLikely burdened

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases diplomatic and international pressure for the hostages' immediate and unconditional release.
  • Potential benefitSignals moral and public support to the hostages' families and raises awareness of their plight.
  • Potential benefitReaffirms U.S. counterterrorism stance and supports existing designation of FARC as a terrorist organization.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenReiterating no concessions may constrain future negotiators seeking pragmatic hostage-release options.
  • Potential burdenAs a non-binding resolution, it may have limited practical impact on securing hostages' release.
  • Potential burdenStrong rhetoric could reduce willingness of intermediaries to engage with both FARC and Colombian actors.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Tactics: liberals favor humanitarian/diplomatic channels; conservatives favor pressure and force options.
Progressive90%

Likely strongly supportive of the human-rights and hostage-protection language, and sympathetic to victims' families.

Supportive of diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to secure hostages while opposing concessions to terrorists.

Leans supportive
Centrist85%

Generally supportive as a measured, nonbinding condemnation and support for hostages and families.

Prefers clarity that the resolution remains symbolic and does not commit funds or military action.

Leans supportive
Conservative95%

Strongly supportive of condemning the FARC as terrorists and demanding immediate release.

Views resolution as consistent with tough stance on terrorism and support for law enforcement action.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood0/100

Concurrent resolution is nonbinding and not presented to the President; it cannot become law even if passed by both chambers.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether either chamber will prioritize floor time for a symbolic resolution
  • Actual diplomatic developments affecting hostage status
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Tactics: liberals favor humanitarian/diplomatic channels; conservatives favor pressure and force options.

Concurrent resolution is nonbinding and not presented to the President; it cannot become law even if passed by both chambers.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly drafted symbolic concurrent resolution: it identifies the issue and makes specific declarative statements and demands but contains no operational directi…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis