PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Cloture on the Dole amendment (SP 3961) not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 54-43. Record Vote No: 112.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Mar 19, 1996
Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to reimburse former employees of the White House Travel Office whose employment in that Office was terminated on May 19, 1993, for any attorney fees and costs they incurred with respect to that termination. Requires a claim to be filed no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act. Reduces any such payment by the amount received before the enactment of this Act for such costs. Provides that any payment accepted by an individual shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of that individual against the United States for such termination.
People & committees
Rep. Clinger, William F., Jr. [R-PA-5] · R–PA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Cloture on the Dole amendment (SP 3961) not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 54-43. Record Vote No: 112.
Senate roll call 112 · Individual votesConsidered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4989-4993)
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4970)
Cloture motion on the Dole amendment (SP 3961) presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S4921-4922)
Amendment SP 3961 proposed by Senator Dole to Amendment SP 3955.
Proposed amendment SP 3960 withdrawn in Senate.
Cloture on the Dole amendment (SP 3960) not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52-44. Record Vote No: 111. (consideration: CR S4921)
Senate roll call 111 · Individual votesMotion to waive the Budget Act with respect to SP 3960 made in Senate.
Point of order raised in Senate with respect to SP 3960.
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4890-4893, S4895-4926)
Cloture motion on the Dole amendment (SP 3960) presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S4819)
Amendment SP 3960 proposed by Senator Dole to Amendment SP 3955.
Proposed amendment SP 3956 withdrawn in Senate.
Second cloture not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 53-45. Record Vote No: 110. (consideration: CR S4816)
Senate roll call 110 · Individual votesConsidered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4813-4837, S4846-4848)
Cloture not invoked in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52-44. Record Vote No: 109. (consideration: CR S4781)
Senate roll call 109 · Individual votesConsidered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4773-4782, S4786-4791)
Second cloture motion presented in Senate.
Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S4717-4723)
Cloture motion on the bill presented in Senate. (consideration: CR S4672)
Amendment SP 3956 proposed by Senator Dole to Amendment SP 3955.
Amendment SP 3955 proposed by Senator Dole.
Motion by Senator Dole to refer to Senate Committee on Judiciary with instructions made in Senate.
Amendment SP 3954 proposed by Senator Dole to Amendment SP 3953.
Amendment SP 3953 proposed by Senator Dole to Amendment SP 3952.
Amendment SP 3952 proposed by Senator Dole.
Measure laid before Senate. (consideration: CR S4670-4672)
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 380.
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 350 - 43 (Roll No. 69).
House roll call 69 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 350 - 43 (Roll No. 69).
House roll call 69 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2376-2377)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Schiff objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2334-2339)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 234.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-484.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-484.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E140-141)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.2937 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.2937 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.2937 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.2937 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.