Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Burundi is at risk of mass atrocities, and that the Government of Burundi should comply with constitutional limits on presidential terms and re-engage in regionally-brokered peace talks.

Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Congressional Research Service

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 7, 2017

Calls upon the government of Burundi to: (1) accept unarmed United Nations (U.N.) police to monitor the security and human rights situation, (2) disarm those engaged in political violence and the illegal possession of weapons, (3) investigate allegations of human rights violations and hold perpetrators accountable, (4) allow the full deployment of African Union human rights observers and military experts throughout the country, and (5) participate in the political dialogue led by the East African Community (EAC) without preconditions.

Calls on: (1) the political opposition in Burundi to renounce violence, (2) Burundian stakeholders to participate in the Inter-Burundian Dialogue to peacefully resolve contentious issues, (3) the EAC to guarantee the inclusiveness of the dialogue process, (4) the African Union to impose targeted sanctions on those perpetuating violence, and (5) the U.N. Security Council to impose targeted sanctions against all who threaten the peace and security of Burundi.

Calls on the President of the United States to impose specified additional targeted sanctions, including against any individuals responsible for or complicit in actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, or stability of Burundi or that undermine democratic processes.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

Calls on the Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to use appropriated funds to: (1) continue U.S. humanitarian assistance and food aid for Burundians, (2) support media, civil society, and human rights actors on the ground to create opportunities for inclusive citizen participation in political dialogue, (3) develop a strategy and programming to address the medium-term risk of political violence, and (4) ensure that the USAID and the State Department are adequately staffed to monitor and develop strategies to rapidly respond to contingencies on the ground.

Read the summary on Congress.gov

PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

People & committees

Who introduced it

Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-16] · D–NY

Committees

Foreign Affairs Committee

3 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Legislative record

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

Dec 7, 2017
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Dec 7, 2017
Introduced in House
Dec 7, 2017
Introduced in House

Primary sources

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Introduced in House · Dec 7, 2017 Formatted Text PDF Formatted XML

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

AI Conversation Starters

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.Res.651 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.651, 115th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Burundi is at risk of mass atrocities, and that the Government of Burundi should comply with constitutional limits on presidential terms and re-engage in regionally-brokered peace talks.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/651

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2017-12-07.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres651/BILLS-115hres651ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T01:02:45Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Analyze H.Res.651 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.

Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.Res.651 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.651, 115th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Burundi is at risk of mass atrocities, and that the Government of Burundi should comply with constitutional limits on presidential terms and re-engage in regionally-brokered peace talks.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/651

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2017-12-07.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres651/BILLS-115hres651ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T01:02:45Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.651 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.

Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.Res.651 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.651, 115th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Burundi is at risk of mass atrocities, and that the Government of Burundi should comply with constitutional limits on presidential terms and re-engage in regionally-brokered peace talks.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/651

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2017-12-07.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres651/BILLS-115hres651ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T01:02:45Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.651 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.

Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.Res.651 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.

View full prompt & sources

Discuss H.Res.651, 115th Congress: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Burundi is at risk of mass atrocities, and that the Government of Burundi should comply with constitutional limits on presidential terms and re-engage in regionally-brokered peace talks.

Official record: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/651

Text version to examine: Introduced in House · 2017-12-07.

Official full text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hres651/BILLS-115hres651ih.htm

Imported record last updated by the source: 2025-01-03T01:02:45Z. Verify current status and distinguish any later version from the version above.

Read the official text before answering. If you cannot access it, say so and ask me to provide it; do not assume a link means you have read the document. Distinguish proposals from enacted law, cite sources, and separate facts, interpretation, and uncertain predictions. Include counterarguments even when using a particular perspective.

Examine H.Res.651 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.