PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Apr 6, 2006
Condemns: (1) the arbitrary detention of Dr. Pham Hong Son and others by the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and calls for their immediate release; and (2) the violations of freedom of speech, religion, movement, association, and the lack of due process afforded to individuals in Vietnam.
Urges the government of Vietnam to: (1) consider the implications of its actions for the broader U.S.-Vietnam relationship; and (2) allow access to the Central Highlands and to the Northwest Highlands by foreign diplomats, the international press, and nongovernmental organizations.
Applauds the European Parliament for its December 2005 resolution regarding human rights in Vietnam, and urges the government of Vietnam to comply with such resolution.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should: (1) make the immediate release of Dr. Pham Hong Son a top concern; (2) continue to urge the government of Vietnam to comply with internationally recognized standards for basic freedoms and human rights; (3) make clear to the government of Vietnam that it must adhere to the rule of law and respect the freedom of the press in order to broaden its relations with the United States; (4) make clear to the government of Vietnam that the detention of Dr. Pham and others is not in the interest of Vietnam because such detentions create obstacles to improved U.S. relations; and (5) reiterate its deep concern over the continued imprisonment of Dr. Son and other persons whose human rights are being violated and discuss the legal status and immediate humanitarian needs of such individuals with the government of Vietnam.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
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): 425 - 1 (Roll no. 96). (text: CR 4/05/2006 H1479)
House roll call 96 · 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): 425 - 1 (Roll no. 96).(text: CR 4/05/2006 H1479)
House roll call 96 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1623)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 320.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1479-1482)
Mr. Smith (NJ) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations.
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.