PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2374)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 3, 1993
Jacob K. Javits Senate Fellowship Program Extension Resolution - Extends the Jacob K. Javits Fellowship Program (Program) for five years. Directs the Jacob K. Javits Foundation, Inc., New York, New York, to select Program participants and set criteria for their completion of graduate study. Limits to ten the number of annual fellowship participants who may be employed in the Senate component of the Program. Authorizes the Secretary of the Senate to appoint them and set their compensation. Requires them to be placed in positions supportive of their academic programs, if practical. Terminates the Program on September 30, 1998.
People & committees
Sen. Mitchell, George J. [D-ME] · D–ME
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2374)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S2374)
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: Aug 26, 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.75 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.75 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.75 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.75 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.