PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 5, 2007
Eurasia Foundation Act - (Sec. 3) Directs the Secretary of State to make an annual grant to the Eurasia Foundation to: (1) promote civil society, private enterprise, and public administration and policy in the countries of Eurasia; (2) strengthen indigenous institutions that foster national development, social change, economic growth, and cooperative international relationships consistent with U.S. interests in Eurasia; and (3) conduct programs in the region that would be difficult or impossible for an official U.S. entity.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) an appropriately funded Foundation can contribute significantly to the political, economic, and social development of democracy and human rights in the countries of Eurasia; (2) organizations that seek competitive grants typically perform in a more transparent and effective manner; and (3) the Foundation should seek competitive grants to supplement federal appropriations.
(Sec. 4) Sets forth grant eligibility provisions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 5) Directs the Foundation and any successor or related entity to the U.S. Russia Investment Fund (as defined by this Act) to enter into a memorandum of understanding for the purpose of coordinating activities carried out by the Foundation and the successor or related entity.
(Sec. 6) Defines "countries of Eurasia" as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.
(Sec. 7) Authorizes FY2008-FY2009 appropriations.
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.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H12462-12463)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H12462-12463)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2949.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H12462-12464)
Mr. Engel moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (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: 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.R.2949 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.R.2949 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.R.2949 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.R.2949 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.