PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 10, 1998
Declares that, in observance of the 59th anniversary of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression, the Congress: (1) reaffirms the U.S. policy of the non-recognition of the occupation by the Soviet Union of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia subsequent to the Pact, which for the 50 years after the signing of the Pact, was a commendable bipartisan policy that refused to legally recognize the Soviet occupation of such countries; (2) urges Russia to renounce the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression and its secret supplemental protocols as illegal; (3) welcomes and supports the signing of the United States-Baltic Charter by the United States, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia that reiterates the strong historical kinship between the peoples of these countries; and (4) calls on the President and the Secretary of State to work to ensure that Russia understands that the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression should be considered illegal and null and void.
People & committees
Rep. Shimkus, John [R-IL-20] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 0 (Roll No. 518).
House roll call 518 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 0 (Roll No. 518).
House roll call 518 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10409)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House continued with debate.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10270-10274)
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
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: Apr 7, 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.320 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.320 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.320 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.320 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.