A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the detention of Tibetan political prisoners by the Government of the People's Republic of China.
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11860-11861, S11905; text as passed Senate: CR S11860-11861; text of measure as introduced: CR S11905)
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Dec 7, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Expresses the sense of the Senate that: (1) the Government of the People's Republic of China is in violation of international human rights standards by detaining and mistreating Tibetans who engage in peaceful activities to protest China's occupation of Tibet or promote the preservation of a distinct Tibetan identity; (2) sustained international pressure on the Government of the People's Republic of China is essential to improve the human rights situation in Tibet and secure the release of Tibetan political prisoners; (3) the Government of the United States should raise the cases of Tenzin Delek and other political prisoners at every opportunity with officials from the People's Republic of China, and work with other governments concerned about human rights in China, including Tibetan areas, to encourage the release of political prisoners and promote systemic improvement of human rights in China; and (4) the Government of the People's Republic of China should release all political prisoners, including Tenzin Delek.
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S11860-11861, S11905; text as passed Senate: CR S11860-11861; text of measure as introduced: CR S11905)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S11860-11861, S11905; text as passed Senate: CR S11860-11861; text of measure as introduced: CR S11905)
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 13, 2023. 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.483 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.483 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.483 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.483 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.