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 3, 2009
Considers the "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" (Goldstone Report) to be biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy.
Supports the Administration's efforts to combat anti-Israel bias at the United Nations (U.N.).
Calls on the President and the Secretary of State to oppose any endorsement of the Report in multilateral fora, including through leading opposition to any U.N. General Assembly resolution and through vetoing any U.N. Security Council resolution that endorses the Report's contents, seeks to act upon the Report's recommendations, or calls on any other international body to take further action regarding such Report.
Calls on the President and the Secretary to oppose endorsement of, and measures stemming from, the Report.
Reaffirms support for Israel and for Israel's right to defend its citizens from violent militant groups and their state sponsors.
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.
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): 344 - 36, 22 Present (Roll no. 838). (text: CR H12232)
House roll call 838 · 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): 344 - 36, 22 Present (Roll no. 838).(text: CR H12232)
House roll call 838 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H12245)
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. 867.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H12232-12244)
Mr. Berman moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
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.867 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.867 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.867 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.867 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.