PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Apr 9, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Calls on the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) to: (1) end its crackdown on nonviolent Tibetan protesters and its continuing cultural, religious, economic, and linguistic repression inside Tibet; (2) begin a dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to address the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people and provide for a long-term solution in Tibet; and (3) release all Tibetans who are imprisoned for nonviolently opposing Chinese government policies in Tibet.
Calls on the U.S. Department of State to: (1) reconsider its decision not to include the PRC among the group of countries described as "the world's most systematic human rights violators"; and (2) implement the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002.
People & committees
Rep. Pelosi, Nancy [D-CA-8] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413 - 1 (Roll no. 166). (text: CR 4/8/2008 H2048)
House roll call 166 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413 - 1 (Roll no. 166).(text: CR 4/8/2008 H2048)
House roll call 166 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2098-2099)
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 - By unanimous consent, debate time was expanded by an additional 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 1077.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2048-2058)
Mr. Berman moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
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.Res.1077 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.Res.1077 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.Res.1077 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.Res.1077 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.