PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Feb 25, 2010
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) National Urban Crimes Awareness Week provides a special opportunity to educate Americans about urban violence; and (2) it is appropriate to acknowledge victims of urban violence and to commend efforts to prevent such violence.
Calls for recognition of: (1) national and community organizations and private sector supporters for their work in promoting awareness about urban violent crimes and in assisting victims, families, and survivors of such crimes; (2) public safety, law enforcement, and health professionals for their efforts to combat urban violent crime; and (3) victim advocates and criminal justice professionals for their work in establishing alternatives to incarceration and rehabilitation programs for offenders and victims alike.
Recommends that national and community organizations, private businesses, colleges and universities, and the media: (1) promote awareness of violent urban crimes and strategies to decrease the incidence of these crimes; and (2) support the goals and ideals of National Urban Crimes Awareness Week.
People & committees
Rep. Towns, Edolphus [D-NY-10] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
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 the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 0 (Roll no. 68). (text: CR 2/23/2010 H687)
House roll call 68 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 411 - 0 (Roll no. 68).(text: CR 2/23/2010 H687)
House roll call 68 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H907)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Scott (VA) 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Con. Res. 227.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H687-688)
Mr. Scott (VA) moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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: Aug 10, 2026. 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.227 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.227 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.227 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.227 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.