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 · Jul 22, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
States that the House of Representatives: (1) looks forward to the development of cordial relations between the United States and the Republic of Belarus; (2) emphasizes that a precondition for the integration of Belarus into the Western community of nations is its establishment of a democratic political system; (3) expresses its support for the efforts of the Belarusian people to establish a full democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights in Belarus; and (4) urges the Government of Belarus to ensure a democratic, transparent, and fair election process for its 2004 parliamentary elections.
People & committees
Rep. Bereuter, Doug [R-NE-1] · R–NE
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): 421 - 0 (Roll no. 412). (text: CR 7/21/2004 H6515-6516)
House roll call 412 · 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): 421 - 0 (Roll no. 412).(text: CR 7/21/2004 H6515-6516)
House roll call 412 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (CR H6613-6614)
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. 652.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6515-6518)
Mr. Leach moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, by Unanimous Consent.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe.
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.652 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.652 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.652 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.652 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.