PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 18, 2010
Denounces: (1) the actions of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) that seek to legitimize military rule in Burma through a flawed election process; and (2) the military regime's dissolution of the National League for Democracy and insists that no government in Burma can be considered democratic or legitimate without the participation of Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League for Democracy, the ethnic nationalities, and the full restoration of democracy.
Insists that Burma's military regime begin an immediate transition toward national reconciliation and the full restoration of democracy.
Demands the release of detained Buddhist monks, and all other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Calls on the Administration to: (1) not recognize the military regime's elections as legitimate; and (2) implement the Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act of 2008 by nominating the Special Representative and Policy Coordinator on Burma and by imposing appropriate financial sanctions.
Calls on the Burmese junta to permit members of the democratic opposition and ethnic minorities to participate in the government.
Calls for full accountability of those responsible for human rights violations.
Urges support for an international inquiry to investigate the Burmese regime's war crimes and crimes against humanity.
People & committees
Rep. Manzullo, Donald A. [R-IL-16] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 11/17/2010 H7510-7511)
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 11/17/2010 H7510-7511)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7578)
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. Res. 1677.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7510-7512)
Ms. Watson moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Referred to House Judiciary
Referred to House Ways and Means
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House 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.1677 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.1677 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.1677 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.1677 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.