PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 19, 2006
Welcomes the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's recent attempts to establish private land use rights for some of its citizens and hopes that these rights are expanded to all Vietnamese citizens.
Calls on the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to more fully recognize its property restitution responsibility, and to direct local officials, particularly in the Central Highlands region, to resolve land confiscation complaints.
Urges the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to: (1) form a national restitution claims commission; and (2) ensure that land use reforms do not result in increased land inequity, particularly for the poor and for those out of favor with the Communist Party.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should: (1) consider individual land use rights in determining whether the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a country of particular concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998; and (2) direct the Secretary of State to include the status of land use rights and restitution claims in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in the annual country reports on human rights under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
People & committees
Rep. Sanchez, Loretta [D-CA-47] · 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, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H6685-6686)
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 H6685-6686)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 415.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6685-6687)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen 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.Res.415 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.415 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.415 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.415 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.