PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 24, 2010
Demands that Hamas: (1) immediately and unconditionally release Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit; (2) allow prompt access to Gilad Shalit by competent medical personnel and representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross; (3) provide Gilad Shalit the humane treatment all captives are entitled to as a fundamental human right; (4) facilitate regular communication by Gilad Shalit with his family and allow his family to know where he is being held; and (5) cease compelling Gilad Shalit to appear in video and voice recordings intended to extort and coerce the government of Israel.
Expresses: (1) commitment to the survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state within recognized and secure borders; (2) support in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the creation of a democratic, viable, and independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel; (3) sympathy for Gilad Shalit's family and the families of other missing Israeli soldiers; and (4) commitment to seek the release of Gilad Shalit and other missing Israeli soldiers.
Recalls: (1) the attack on and kidnapping of the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev by the Iran-supported terrorist group Hezbollah; and (2) the missing Israeli soldiers Zecharya Baumel, Zvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Ron Arad, Guy Hever, and Majdy Halabi.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Condemns: (1) Hamas for the immoral cross border attack and kidnapping of Gilad Shalit; and (2) Iran and Syria, the primary state sponsors and patrons of Hamas, for their ongoing support for international terrorism.
People & committees
Rep. Ackerman, Gary L. [D-NY-5] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 6/23/2010 H4713-4714)
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 6/23/2010 H4713-4714)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4857)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Ackerman objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1359.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4713-4716)
Mr. Ackerman moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
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.Res.1359 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.Res.1359 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.Res.1359 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.Res.1359 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.