PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Mar 6, 2008
Arts Require Timely Service (ARTS) Act - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to adjudicate a visa petition filed by an employer on behalf of an alien with extraordinary ability in the arts (O- and P- visas other than athletes) and an accompanying alien not later than 30 days after: (1) the date on which the petitioner submits the petition with a written advisory opinion, letter of no objection, or request for a waiver; or (2) the date on which the 15-day period to comment upon a petition has expired if the petitioner has had an opportunity, as appropriate, to supply rebuttal evidence.
States that if such petition is not adjudicated within the required time frame and the petitioner is a qualified nonprofit organization or an individual or entity petitioning on behalf of a qualified nonprofit organization the petitioner shall be provided premium-processing services without a fee.
People & committees
Rep. Berman, Howard L. [D-CA-28] · D–CA
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 Read twice 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 pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H1857)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H1857)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1312.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1857-1860)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 330.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-540.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-540.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 7 - 5 .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
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.R.1312 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.1312 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.1312 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.1312 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.