PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 23, 1996
Federal Tea Tasters Repeal Act of 1996 - Repeals the Tea Importation Act (thereby eliminating the Board of Tea Experts).
People & committees
Rep. Klug, Scott L. [R-WI-2] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 104-128.
Became Public Law No: 104-128.
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 Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S2838)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S2838)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate.
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H2577)
Mr. Klug asked unanimous consent to discharge from the Union Calendar and consider.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 228.
Reported by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 104-467, Part II.
Reported by the Committee on Commerce. H. Rept. 104-467, Part II.
House Committee on Commerce Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than March 11, 1996.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Health and Environment Discharged.
House Committee on Commerce Granted an extension for further consideration ending not later than March 7, 1996.
Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 104-467, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. H. Rept. 104-467, Part I.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, 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 Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, 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 Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, 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.
Source last updated: Jun 3, 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.2969 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.2969 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.2969 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.2969 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.