PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 19, 2013
States that in order to be credible the July 2013 parliamentary elections in Cambodia must implement the recommendations in the July 16, 2012, Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights in Cambodia, and must include the participation of all political parties leaders, including Sam Rainsy.
Urges the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) not to support national or local elections in Cambodia if such United Nations (U.N.) recommendations are ignored, and if political parties and opposition leaders are excluded or hampered from freely participating in electoral processes.
States that: (1) any election in Cambodia that the Secretary of State determines is not credible should be deemed as an illegitimate expression of the Cambodian peoples' will; and (2) a resulting Cambodian government should not be eligible for direct U.S. government assistance, and the Department of State and USAID should reduce assistance for Cambodia and urge international financial institutions to do the same.
People & committees
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH-1] · R–OH
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 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: 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.Res.310 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.310 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.310 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.310 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.