PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-375.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 16, 1997
Directs the Secretary of State to report annually to the Congress on: (1) the number of persons and aliens residing in the United States who are entitled to diplomatic immunity from criminal prosecution, including each case involving such an alien whom appropriate law enforcement authorities reasonably believe to have committed a serious crime within the United States; and (2) the number of U.S. citizens residing in a receiving state who are entitled to diplomatic immunity from criminal prosecution there, including each case in which the United States has been requested by the government of the state to waive immunity. Expresses the sense of the Congress that the Secretary should explore, in appropriate fora, whether states should enter into agreements and adopt legislation to provide: (1) jurisdiction in the sending state to prosecute crimes committed in the receiving state by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity; and (2) that where there is probable cause to believe that an individual with such immunity committed a serious crime, the sending state will waive immunity or will prosecute the individual.
People & committees
Sen. Coverdell, Paul [R-GA] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-375.
Became Public Law No: 105-375.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10870)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Hamilton objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10855-10857)
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S12206)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment and an amendment to the Title by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S12206)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 247.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported to Senate by Senator Helms with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported to Senate by Senator Helms with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
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: 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 S.759 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.759 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.759 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.759 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.