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 · Nov 2, 1999
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is to be commended for its pivotal role in preserving trans-Atlantic peace and stability; (2) the new NATO strategic concept, adopted by the Allies at the Summit meeting held in Washington, D.C., in April 1999 articulates a concrete vision for the Alliance in the 21st century; (3) the Alliance should as a fundamental task identify crisis management operations outside the NATO treaty area, based on case-by-case consensual Alliance decisions; (4) the Alliance must recognize and act upon the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism by intensifying consultations among political and military leaders, and deploying comprehensive capabilities to counter such threats to the international community; (5) the Alliance should welcome efforts by European Union (EU) nations to strengthen their military capabilities and enhance their role within the Alliance through the European Security and Defense Identity; (6) it is essential that security arrangements elaborated under the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) complement rather than duplicate NATO efforts and provide for full involvement of all European Allies; (7) the Alliance should remain prepared to extend invitations for accession negotiations to any European democracy meeting NATO membership criteria on the same conditions as applied to the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland; (8) NATO should seek to strengthen its relations with Russia and Ukraine as partners in building long-term peace in the Euro-Atlantic area; and (9) the Alliance should fully support the North Atlantic Assembly's activities in enhancing and stabilizing democracy in Central and Eastern Europe nations.
People & committees
Rep. Bereuter, Doug [R-NE-1] · R–NE
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 278 - 133, 1 Present (Roll no. 554).
House roll call 554 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 278 - 133, 1 Present (Roll no. 554).
House roll call 554 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 59.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11212-11218, H11339-11340)
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
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.59 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.59 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.59 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.59 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.