PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 16, 2023
Stop Taxpayer Funding of Hamas Act
This bill prohibits obligating or expending U.S. funds in Gaza unless the President makes certain certifications.
Specifically, it prohibits such expenditures unless the President certifies that the funds will not benefit Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, other foreign terrorist organizations, or their members. The bill also prohibits obligating or expending funds in Gaza through any United Nations entity or office unless the President certifies that the entity or office is not encouraging or teaching anti-Israel or anti-Semitic ideas or propaganda.
People & committees
Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL] · R–FL
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.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 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.489 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.489 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.489 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.489 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.