PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jan 1, 2013
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the North Korean missile launch of December 12, 2012, represents a flagrant violation of specified U.N. Security Council resolutions; (2) North Korea continues to defy the U.N., its Six-Party partners, and the international community; (3) the member nations should immediately impose sanctions covered by such resolutions and censure North Korea; (4) all current restrictions against North Korea, including sanctions that ban the importation into the United States of North Korean goods, should remain in effect until North Korea no longer engages in activities that threaten U.S. interests and global peace; (5) China should cooperate with the United States in a new round of Security Council sanctions, pressure its North Korean partner, redouble its efforts to prevent Chinese companies from transferring military and dual-use technologies to North Korea, and crack down on transshipments through China that relate to North Korean military, missile, and nuclear programs and proliferation activities; and (6) North Korea should dismantle its missile and nuclear weapons programs, cease its proliferation activities, and comply with all relevant international agreements and Security Council resolutions.
People & committees
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-18] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 12/31/2012 H7498)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 12/31/2012 H7498)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7560)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Berman objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 145.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7498-7500)
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
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: 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.Con.Res.145 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.145 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.145 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.145 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.