PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 214.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Nov 18, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on April 28, 2009. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Commends the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran and the government of Switzerland for the ongoing assistance to the U.S. government and to the family of Robert Levinson.
Notes that Iranian officials ensured the safety of the Levinson family during their December 2007 visit to Iran and have promised their continued assistance.
Urges: (1) the government of Iran to intensify its cooperation on the Levinson investigation with the Embassy of Switzerland in Tehran and to share the results of its investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and (2) the President and U.S. allies to raise the Levinson case at every opportunity in all appropriate fora.
Expresses sympathy to the family of Robert Levinson.
People & committees
Rep. Wexler, Robert [D-FL-19] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 214.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Kerry without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Kerry without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
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. (text: CR H4864-4865)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4864-4865)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 36.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4864-4866)
Mr. Scott (GA) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.36 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.36 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.36 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.36 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.