PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 27, 1995
Calls on Thailand to: (1) release the six Hmong-Lao camp leaders and their remaining family members so they may leave Thailand and rejoin their families; and (2) open Ban Na Pho repatriation camp and Sikhiu Detention Center and permit all eligible Hmong combat veterans and refugees there to leave Thailand for resettlement in third countries. Urges the President and Secretary of State to use every diplomatic means available to ensure that the maximum allowable Hmong refugees are accepted for admission into the United States in 1995-96 and to ensure protection of the safety and human rights of the Hmong refugees in Ban Na Pho refugee repatriation camp, Sikhiu Detention Center, Phanat Nikhom refugee resettlement camp, the Buddhist temple of Wat Tham Krabok, and elsewhere in Thailand.
People & committees
Rep. Dornan, Robert K. [R-CA-46] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
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: Jan 23, 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.Con.Res.129 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.Con.Res.129 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.Con.Res.129 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.Con.Res.129 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.