PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4535-4536)
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 20, 2014
Supports the people of Nigeria, especially the parents and families of the girls abducted by Boko Haram in Borno state, and calls for their immediate and safe return.
Condemns Boko Haram for its attacks on civilian targets, including schools, mosques, churches, villages, and agricultural centers.
Encourages the government of Nigeria to strengthen efforts to protect children seeking an education and to hold those who conduct such attacks accountable.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Commends U.S. efforts to hold terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram accountable, and supports U.S. offers to assist in the search for the abducted girls.
Recognizes that every individual, regardless of gender, should have the opportunity to pursue an education without fear of discrimination.
Encourages the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USDA) to continue supporting initiatives that promote the human rights of women and girls in Nigeria.
Urges the President to strengthen U.S. security, law enforcement, and intelligence cooperation with Nigeria.
Calls on the President to provide Congress with a comprehensive strategy to counter the growing threat posed by radical Islamist terrorist groups in West Africa, the Sahel, and North Africa.
People & committees
Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4535-4536)
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 H4535-4536)
DEBATE - The House continued with debate on H. Res. 573.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H. Res. 573.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4535-4541)
Mr. Royce moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H3457-3458)
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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.573 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.573 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.573 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.573 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.