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 · Sep 8, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Supports the U.S. Stimson Doctrine to not recognize territorial changes effected by force, and affirms that this policy should continue to guide U.S. foreign policy.
Condemns Russia's military intervention and occupation of Georgia and its continuous illegal activities along the occupation line in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Calls upon Russia to: (1) withdraw its recognition of Georgia's territories of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia as independent countries, (2) refrain from acts and policies that undermine Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and (3) take steps to fulfill the August 12, 2008, Ceasefire Agreement between Georgia and the Russian Federation.
Urges the United States to: (1) declare that it will not recognize Russian de jure or de facto sovereignty over any part of Georgia, including Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia; (2) deepen cooperation with Georgia, including Georgia's advancement towards Euro-Atlantic integration; and (3) enhance Georgia's security through joint military training and the provision of self-defensive capabilities.
Affirms that a free, united, democratic, and sovereign Georgia is in the long-term U.S. interest.
People & committees
Rep. Poe, Ted [R-TX-2] · R–TX
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): 410 - 6 (Roll no. 491). (text: CR 9/08/2016 H5136-5137)
House roll call 491 · 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): 410 - 6 (Roll no. 491).(text: CR 9/08/2016 H5136-5137)
House roll call 491 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5187-5188)
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. 660.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5136-5139)
Mr. Royce moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats.
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.660 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.660 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.660 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.660 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.