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 · Jul 26, 2006
Condemns: (1) the actions and inactions of the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with respect to criminal drug trafficking; (2) the failure of the government of Venezuela to stem the flow of illicit narcotics through its territory; and (3) the complicity of Venezuelan law enforcement and transportation officials in enabling large scale shipments of cocaine and heroin through the Simon Bolivar International Airport and other transit points.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) it should continue to be U.S. policy to support cooperation between Venezuela and its partners in the Andean region to combat drug trafficking; (2) efforts to restore bilateral law enforcement cooperation between Venezuela and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should be continued; (3) it should continue to be U.S. policy to assist the international community in a review of security measures at the Simon Bolivar International Airport and to work with the Organization of American States (OAS) to bring Venezuela into compliance with OAS conventions and treaties to punish and eliminate narco-terrorism; (4) the Secretary of Transportation should report to Congress on actions taken by the government of Venezuela to restore airport security measures at such Airport; and (5) the Secretary of State should report to Congress on Venezuela's compliance with international counternarcotics treaties.
People & committees
Rep. Burton, Dan [R-IN-5] · R–IN
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 voice vote. (text: CR H5930-5931)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H5930-5931)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 400.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5930-5936)
Mr. Burton (IN) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
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.400 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.400 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.400 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.400 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.