PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Mar 7, 2019
This resolution rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, and condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements. The resolution reaffirms support for the mandate of the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism. Additionally, the resolution rejects attempts to justify hatred or violent attacks over political frustrations. Law enforcement is encouraged to avoid conduct that raises the specter of unconstitutional profiling against anyone because of their race, religion, nationality, politics, or social group.
This resolution also acknowledges the harm suffered by Muslims from harassment, discrimination, and violence and condemns anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against all minorities.
Finally, the resolution condemns death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress.
People & committees
Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8] · D–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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): 407 - 23, 1 Present (Roll no. 108). (text: CR H2547-2548)
House roll call 108 · 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): 407 - 23, 1 Present (Roll no. 108).(text: CR H2547-2548)
House roll call 108 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 183.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2547-2555)
Mr. Nadler moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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.Res.183 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.Res.183 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.Res.183 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.Res.183 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.