PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 27, 1999
Condemns: (1) Palestinian efforts to circumvent United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, as well as violate the Oslo peace process, by attempting to revive UN General Assembly Resolution 181 and thereby placing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process at risk; and (2) the UN Commission on Human Rights for voting to formally endorse such Resolution as the basis for the future of Palestinian self-determination.Reiterates: (1) that any just and final peace agreement regarding the final status of the territory controlled by the Palestinians can only be determined through direct negotiations and agreement between the State of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization; and (2) Congress' continued unequivocal support for the security and well-being of the State of Israel and of the Oslo peace process based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.Calls for the President to declare that: (1) it is U.S. policy that UN General Assembly Resolution 181 is null and void; (2) all negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians must be based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338; and (3) the United States regards any attempt by the Palestinians, the UN, or any entity to resurrect UN General Assembly Resolution 181 as a basis for negotiations, or for any international decision, as an attempt to sabotage the prospects for a successful peace agreement in the Middle East.
People & committees
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8190)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8190)
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 186.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported to Senate by Senator Helms without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported to Senate by Senator Helms without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6381-6382)
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.Con.Res.36 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.Con.Res.36 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.Con.Res.36 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.Con.Res.36 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.