PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 8, 1994
Expresses the sense of the Congress that: (1) the Department of State, in its formal human rights dialogue with Vietnam, should place a high priority on seeking the release of all nonviolent political prisoners and reforms to bring Vietnam's legal procedures and practices into conformity with international human rights standards; (2) the Secretary of State should submit a progress report on such dialogue to the Congress within six months; and (3) the United States should actively support resolutions at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights expressing concern about the imprisonment of nonviolent political and religious dissidents in Vietnam, urge the Government of Vietnam to invite international humanitarian organizations to provide their confidential humanitarian services to prisoners in Vietnam, and consult with its allies to coordinate international public and private appeals for improvement in human rights in Vietnam.
People & committees
Rep. Gilman, Benjamin A. [R-NY-20] · R–NY
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.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10921-10922)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Walker objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed until Oct. 5. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10835-10836)
Mr. Andrews (NJ) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Executive Comment Received from State.
Executive Comment Requested from State.
Referred to the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E375)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 23, 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 H.Con.Res.216 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 H.Con.Res.216 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 H.Con.Res.216 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 H.Con.Res.216 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.