Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should work within the framework of the United Nations process and in good faith with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by finding a mutually acceptable name that must apply for all internal and international uses (erga omnes), for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 11, 2014

Urges the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to: (1) work within the United Nations (U.N.) framework and with Greece to achieve longstanding U.S. and U.N. policy goals by finding a mutually acceptable name that must apply for all internal and international uses for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and (2) abstain from all hostile activities and stop violating the U.N.-brokered Interim Agreement between the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Greece regarding hostile activities or propaganda.

Urges the United States to work in partnership with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies to uphold certain NATO decisions and extend an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached within the U.N. framework.

Expresses the view of the House of Representatives that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia can be considered for accession into the European Union (EU) only after a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached within the U.N. framework.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12] · D–NY

Committees

Foreign Affairs Committee

6 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Feb 11, 2014
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Feb 11, 2014
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E197)
Feb 11, 2014
Introduced in House
Feb 11, 2014
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Feb 11, 2014 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.Res.477 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.477, 113th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should work within the framework of the United Nations process and in good faith with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by finding a mutually acceptable name that must apply for all internal and international uses (erga omnes), for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/477

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2014-02-11.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hres477/BILLS-113hres477ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T02:13:20Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.Res.477 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Res.477 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.477, 113th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should work within the framework of the United Nations process and in good faith with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by finding a mutually acceptable name that must apply for all internal and international uses (erga omnes), for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/477

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2014-02-11.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hres477/BILLS-113hres477ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T02:13:20Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.477 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Res.477 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.477, 113th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should work within the framework of the United Nations process and in good faith with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by finding a mutually acceptable name that must apply for all internal and international uses (erga omnes), for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/477

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2014-02-11.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hres477/BILLS-113hres477ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T02:13:20Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.477 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Res.477 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.477, 113th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia should work within the framework of the United Nations process and in good faith with Greece to achieve longstanding United States and United Nations policy goals by finding a mutually acceptable name that must apply for all internal and international uses (erga omnes), for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/477

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2014-02-11.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hres477/BILLS-113hres477ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T02:13:20Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.477 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.