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 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 17, 2006
Federal Judiciary Emergency Tolling Act of 2006 - Authorizes the chief judge of a federal judicial district or circuit to delay, toll, or otherwise grant relief from time deadlines (including the time for filing or perfecting an appeal) for any class of cases pending or thereafter filed in the district court or bankruptcy court of the district, or for any class of cases pending in the court of appeals, in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation requiring the closure of courts or rendering it impracticable for the U.S. Government or a class of litigants to comply with deadlines imposed by any federal or state law or rule that applies in federal court.
Extends such tolling authority to all laws and rules affecting criminal and juvenile proceedings (including, prearrest, post-arrest, pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures), civil actions, bankruptcy proceedings, and the time for filing and perfecting an appeal.
Excludes from such authority, however, any statute of limitation for: (1) a criminal action; or (2) a civil action, if the claim arises under state law and extending the limitations period would be inconsistent with such law.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows the exercise of such authority, in the absence of the chief judge, by: (1) the senior district judge in regular active service, or, if no such judge is available, by the chief judge of the circuit that includes the district; or (2) by the senior circuit judge of appeals in regular active service.
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
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.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 363 - 0 (Roll no. 377). (text: CR H5240-5241)
House roll call 377 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/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): 363 - 0 (Roll no. 377).(text: CR H5240-5241)
House roll call 377 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5246-5247)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3729.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5240-5242)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 202.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-371.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-371.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.3729 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.3729 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.3729 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.3729 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.