PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 15, 1998
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should: (1) establish a collection of information that can be supplied to an appropriate international judicial tribunal for use as evidence to support a possible indictment and trial of Hun Sen, Prime Minister of Cambodia, for violations of international humanitarian law after 1978; (2) provide the tribunal any such information already collected; (3) work with members of interested countries and nongovernmental organizations relating to information any country or organization may hold concerning allegations posed against Hun Sen and any individual under his authority in Cambodia and give all such information to the tribunal; (4) work with other interested countries relating to measures to be taken to bring to justice Hun Sen and individuals under Hun Sen's authority indicted for such violations of international humanitarian law after 1978; and (5) support such a tribunal for the purpose of investigating Hun Sen's possible criminal culpability for conceiving, directing, and sustaining a variety of actions in violation of international humanitarian law after 1978 in any judicial proceeding that may result.
People & committees
Sen. Helms, Jesse [R-NC] · R–NC
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 Senate
Primary sources
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
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.Res.309 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.Res.309 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.Res.309 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.Res.309 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.