A resolution expressing support for the Government of Georgia's South Ossetian Peace Plan and the successful and peaceful reintegration of the region into Georgia.
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 12/22/2005 S14403-14404; text as passed Senate: CR 12/22/2005 S14403-14404; text of measure as introduced: CR 12/22/2005 S14336)
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Dec 21, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Commends the government of Georgia for its vision and determination to resolve peacefully the conflict in South Ossetia.
Supports Georgia's sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, and urges all Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe states to respect Georgia's independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
Supports the government of Georgia's plan to control peacefully and reestablish authority in South Ossetia, viewing it as an opportunity to restore the country's territorial integrity and to protect the individual rights and democratic liberties of South Ossetia's residents.
Urges the United States to increase its efforts in support of the peaceful reincorporation of South Ossetia to Georgia.
Supports the ongoing democratic transformation in Georgia, including the implementation by all sides of their obligations under the peace plan if it is accepted.
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR 12/22/2005 S14403-14404; text as passed Senate: CR 12/22/2005 S14403-14404; text of measure as introduced: CR 12/22/2005 S14336)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR 12/22/2005 S14403-14404; text as passed Senate: CR 12/22/2005 S14403-14404; text of measure as introduced: CR 12/22/2005 S14336)
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: Apr 7, 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.344 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.344 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.344 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.344 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.