Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the courageous leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the urgent need for religious freedom and related human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 30, 2003
Congratulates the new leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam.
Urges the Government of Vietnam to: (1) respect the right of all independent religious organizations to freely practice their faith; and (2) release all Vietnamese citizens imprisoned for doing so, especially the Most Venerable Thich Huyen Quang and the Very Venerable Thich Quang Do. Urges the passage of the Vietnam Human Rights Act and implementation of the recommendations of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Urges the United States Embassy in Vietnam to closely monitor cases of abuse of religious belief and practice and report to the Congress on specific measures taken to protect and promote religious freedom in Vietnam.
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): 409 - 13 (Roll no. 639). (text: CR H11520-11521)
Passed/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): 409 - 13 (Roll no. 639).(text: CR H11520-11521)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H11573)
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. 427.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11520-11524)
Mr. Leach 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
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.427 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.427 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.427 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.427 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.