PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 9, 1995
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995 - Declares it is U.S. policy that: (1) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and (2) construction of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem should begin no later than December 31, 1996, and officially open no later than May 31, 1999. States that not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated for FY 1997 and 1999 to the Department of State for "Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad" may be obligated in the respective fiscal year until the Secretary of State determines, and reports to the Congress, that (for FY 1997) such construction has begun and that (for FY 1999) the Embassy has opened. Limits the availability of specified amounts of such funds in certain fiscal years until they are expended for: (1) costs associated with relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; and (2) the costs for its construction. Requires the Secretary of State to report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on: (1) the Department of State's plan to implement this Act; and (2) progress made toward opening the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.
People & committees
Sen. Dole, Robert J. [R-KS] · R–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Introduced in the Senate and read twice and held at the desk by unanimous consent. Until the close of business on May 10, 1995.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6345)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 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.770 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.770 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.770 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.770 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.