PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 5, 2007
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should: (1) support the independence of Kosova within its existing borders as a sovereign and democratic state; (2) establish a monitoring body in conjunction with the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and other multilateral organizations to ensure that the new state of Kosova provides for the protection of minority and community rights, and to facilitate an orderly transition from a U.N. protectorate to a democratic government; (3) work with the Council of Europe to develop and implement anti-racism programs throughout the Balkans; (4) work with the United Nations and NATO to facilitate the return of Albanians and Serbs to their pre-war homes in Mitrovica and other parts of Kosova; (5) provide assistance, trade, and other programs to support an independent Kosova; and (6) recognize the danger that delay in the resolution of Kosova's final status poses for the political and economic viability of Kosova, its neighbors, and Southeast Europe.
People & committees
Rep. Lantos, Tom [D-CA-12] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 23, 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.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.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.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.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.