PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 19, 2012
Supports: (1) strengthened U.S. engagements with Georgia aimed at helping Georgia enhance its security and to restore its territorial integrity through exclusively peaceful means, (2) implementation of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership, and (3) Georgia's North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership aspirations.
Affirms that it is U.S. policy to support Georgia's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity and to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as regions of Georgia illegally occupied by the Russian Federation.
Calls on: (1) the Russian Federation to end the occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and withdraw its troops from the internationally recognized border of Georgia; and (2) the Russian Federation, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Tuvalu, and Nauru to reverse their recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Urges Russia and the authorities in control in the regions to allow for the return of internally displaced persons and for international mission access to the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Encourages Georgia to: (1) continue strengthening its democracy; and (2) preserve cultural heritage, language, and ethnic identity aimed at reconciling divided communities of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Affirms that a peaceful resolution to this conflict is a U.S. priority in the Caucasus region.
People & committees
Rep. Shuster, Bill [R-PA-9] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 H6083-6084)
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 H6083-6084)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 526.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6083-6086)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Unanimous Consent .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia.
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: 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.526 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.526 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.526 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.526 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.