PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 29, 1999
Declares that it is U.S. policy to: (1) promote the development in the Slovak Republic of a market-based economy and a democratic government that respects the rights of all of its citizens, regardless of ethnic background; and (2) support the eventual integration of the Slovak Republic into pan-European and trans-Atlantic economic and security institutions.Expresses the sense of Congress that the Government of the Slovak Republic formed after the September 1998 elections is to be commended for: (1) its efforts to address the issue of proper treatment of its citizens, regardless of ethnic background; (2) its efforts to improve the economic situation in the Slovak Republic and to accelerate the privatization of state-owned enterprises in a fair and transparent process; (3) its support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); and (4) its continued support of the NATO effort to ensure stability and democratization across Europe. Calls for such Government to continue to implement programs that may qualify the Slovak Republic for entrance into the European Union and NATO.Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should support efforts for the eventual integration of the Slovak Republic into pan-European and trans-Atlantic institutions, and should view such integration as an important factor in consolidating democratic government and economic stability in the Slovak Republic.
People & committees
Rep. Mica, John L. [R-FL-7] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 404 - 12 (Roll no. 592).
House roll call 592 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 404 - 12 (Roll no. 592).
House roll call 592 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 165.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H12026-12029, H12061-12062)
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
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: 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.Con.Res.165 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.Con.Res.165 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.Con.Res.165 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.Con.Res.165 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.