A resolution calling for the release from prison of former Prime Minister of Ukraine Yulia Tymoshenko in light of the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling.
Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and an amended preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8082-8083; text as passed Senate: CR S8082)
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Nov 18, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the Senate on June 25, 2013. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Calls on: (1) the government of Ukraine to release former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko from imprisonment based on politicized charges and in light of the April 2013 European Court of Human Rights verdict, and (2) European Union (EU) members to include Ms. Tymoshenko's release as a criterion for signing an association agreement with Ukraine at the upcoming Eastern Partnership Summit in Lithuania.
Expresses the Senate's concern that the politically motivated imprisonment of Ms. Tymoshenko detracts from Ukraine's otherwise strong relationship with Europe, the United States, and the community of democracies.
Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and an amended preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8082-8083; text as passed Senate: CR S8082)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Resolution agreed to in Senate with an amendment and an amended preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8082-8083; text as passed Senate: CR S8082)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 95.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Menendez with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and with an amended preamble. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Reported by Senator Menendez with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and with an amended preamble. Without written report.
Committee on Foreign Relations. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4061-4062)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.Res.165 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.Res.165 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.Res.165 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.Res.165 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.