PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6295-6296)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 26, 2008
States that the Senate appreciates the efforts of those countries in Europe that have enacted legislation for the restitution of, or compensation for, private, communal, and religious property confiscated during the Nazi or Communist eras.
Urges the governments of Poland and Lithuania and the governments of other European countries that have not already done so to enact legislation so that victims, and communities, of Nazi persecution whose private religious, or communal, property was confiscated by the Nazis and in turn seized by a Communist government are able to obtain restitution of, or compensation for, such property.
Welcomes a country in Europe to host a 2009 follow-up international conference to the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets which would address issues relating to: (1) restitution or compensation; and (2) the opening of archives and the work of historical commissions.
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] · D–FL
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S6295-6296)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6296-6297)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.603 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.603 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.603 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.603 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.