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 · May 6, 2004
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
States that the House of Representatives urges the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the United Nations, the European Union, and the Association of South East Asian Nations to work for: (1) unrestricted access to Laos by international election monitors and international human rights organizations; (2) the rights of opposition political parties and their candidates to run for public office and for all adult citizens of Laos to vote; (3) the right of the citizens to assemble, protest, and to organize; (4) the cessation of all acts of violence against the Hmong population; (5) the release of those jailed in connection with the 1999 pro-democracy demonstrations; and (6) the promotion of religious freedom in Laos.
People & committees
Rep. Burton, Dan [R-IN-5] · R–IN
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): 408 - 1, 1 Present (Roll no. 149). (text: CR 5/5/2004 H2607-2608)
House roll call 149 · 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): 408 - 1, 1 Present (Roll no. 149).(text: CR 5/5/2004 H2607-2608)
House roll call 149 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2679-2680)
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. 402.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2607-2614)
Mr. Burton (IN) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, by Voice Vote.
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.402 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.402 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.402 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.402 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.