PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 1, 2000
Recognizes the right of the Austrian people to express their political views through a democratic election, but reaffirms the right and obligation of the U.S. House of Representatives to express its opposition to the anti-democratic, racist, and xenophobic views that have been expressed by Joerg Haider and other leaders of the FPO and to state its opposition to the party's participation in the Austrian Government.Condemns the insulting, racist, and xenophobic statements which have been made over many years by Haider and other leaders of the party. Expresses regret and dismay that the FPO will play a major role in the new Austrian Government. Commends the leaders of the European Union (EU), the 14 other member states of the EU, Canada, Norway, and other countries which have expressed their serious concerns regarding the participation of the FPO in such Government.Calls upon: (1) the President, the Secretary of State, and other U.S. Government officials and agencies to emphasize to Austrian Government officials the concern about the inclusion of any party in the Austrian Government, including the FPO, that has been associated with xenophobic, racist policies, and statements supportive of Nazi-era programs; (2) Members of Congress to use any meetings with ministers and other political leaders of that Government to express concern for Austria's continued adherence to democratic standards and full respect for human rights; and (3) the Secretary of State to continue to scrutinize the policies of the new Austrian Government and to be prepared to take additional measures if circumstances so warrant.
People & committees
Rep. Lantos, Tom [D-CA-12] · D–CA
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 voice vote. (text: CR H1645)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1645)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 429.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1645-1648)
Mr. Ballenger moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.429 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.429 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.429 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.429 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.