PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Jan 11, 2023
This concurrent resolution condemns recent attacks on pro-life facilities, groups, and churches and calls on the current presidential administration to use appropriate law enforcement authorities to support their safety.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Mike [R-LA-4] · R–LA
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 agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 209 (Roll no. 30). (text: CR H169-170)
House roll call 30 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 209 (Roll no. 30). (text: CR H169-170)
House roll call 30 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H192)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Con. Res. 3, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the resolution and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Nadler demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on agreeing to the resolution until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Con. Res. 3.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 5. (consideration: CR H169-178)
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.
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.3 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.3 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.3 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.3 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.