PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 4, 1997
Condemns the bombing in Jerusalem on September 4, 1997, and those responsible for encouraging or inciting such acts. Expresses: (1) condolences to the families of the victims; and (2) solidarity with the people of Israel. Reaffirms that the United States should fully cooperate with Israel in helping to stem the tide of terrorism which has threatened the Oslo peace process and the stability of the region. Affirms that the United States should provide no monetary or other assistance to the Palestinian Authority until it has fulfilled its obligations under the Oslo Accords.
People & committees
Sen. Hutchinson, Tim [R-AR] · R–AR
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.
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Resolution agreed to in Senate with amendments and an amended preamble by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate with amendments and an amended preamble by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S9239)
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8832-8833)
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.50 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.50 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.50 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.50 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.