PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 30, 2004
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that: (1) Israel shares the commitment to democratic government and the market economy that is the foundation of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD); (2) Israel meets the OECD's membership requirements and has been an active participant as a non-member country in various OECD activities; (3) the United States should support and advocate the accession of Israel to the OECD, including through coordination of efforts with Mexico, Great Britain, and other countries supportive of Israel's OECD membership; and (4) given the discriminatory policies against Israel in other international fora, Israel, upon accession to the OECD, should be afforded all the rights and privileges granted to all other member countries.
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.
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.617 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.617 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.617 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.617 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.