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 · Jul 15, 2004
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) the President should direct the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations (UN) to seek an immediate end to the inequality experienced by Israel in the United Nations; (2) U.S. interests would be well served if Israel were afforded the benefits of full membership in the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations so that it could fully participate in the UN system; (3) the Secretary of State and other appropriate U.S. officials should pursue diplomatic efforts and should take all necessary steps to ensure the extension and upgrade of Israel's WEOG membership; and (4) the Secretary should report to Congress on a regular basis respecting actions taken to effect Israel's full WEOG membership and member states' responses to such efforts.
People & committees
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] · R–FL
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 418 - 0, 1 Present (Roll no. 377). (text: CR 7/14/2004 H5761)
House roll call 377 · 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): 418 - 0, 1 Present (Roll no. 377).(text: CR 7/14/2004 H5761)
House roll call 377 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5801-5802)
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 until July 15.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 615.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5761-5763)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Middle East and Central Asia.
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 28, 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.615 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.615 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.615 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.615 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.