PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 113-62.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 20, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Extends through December 29, 2019, the authority of the Marshal of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court Police to protect, in any state, the Justices of the Supreme Court, any official guest of the Supreme Court, and any officer or employee of the Supreme Court performing official duties.
People & committees
Rep. Holding, George [R-NC-13] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 113-62.
Became Public Law No: 113-62.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S8605)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8605)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 399 - 3 (Roll no. 572). (text: CR H6974)
House roll call 572 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 399 - 3 (Roll no. 572).(text: CR H6974)
House roll call 572 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6978)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2922.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6974-6975)
Mr. Holding moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 186.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 113-259.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 113-259.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
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: 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.R.2922 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.R.2922 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.R.2922 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.R.2922 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.