PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 26, 1999
United States-Macau Policy Act of 1999 - Title I: Policy - Expresses the sense of Congress with respect to U.S. policy toward Macau.Title II: The Status of Macau in United States Law - Declares that U.S. laws (including treaties and international agreements) shall continue to apply to Macau on or after December 20, 1999, unless otherwise expressly provided by law or by Executive order.(Sec. 201) Directs the President to establish with respect to Macau any export control policies and regulations necessary to protect fully U.S. national security interests.(Sec. 202) Authorizes the President, whenever it is determined that Macau is not sufficiently autonomous to justify treatment under a particular U.S. law different from that accorded China, to issue an Executive order suspending the application of U.S. law.(Sec. 204) Directs the President to consult with Congress in carry out this title.Title III: Reporting Provisions - Directs the Secretary of State to report to specified congressional committees on conditions in Macau of interest to the United States, including: (1) significant developments in U.S. relations with Macau (including the change in the exercise of sovereignty over it affecting U.S. interests there or the U.S. relations with Macau and China); (2) any significant problems or other developments arising with respect to the application of U.S. export controls to Macau; (3) the suspension (or termination of such suspension) with respect to the application of U.S. laws to Macau; (4) the application of treaties and other international agreements to Macau; (5) the development of democratic institutions in Macau; and (6) compliance by China and Portugal with their obligations under the Joint Declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Portugal on the Question of Macau, dated April 13, 1987.
People & committees
Sen. Thomas, Craig [R-WY] · R–WY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9224)
Introduced in Senate
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: Aug 20, 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 S.1430 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 S.1430 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 S.1430 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 S.1430 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.