PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-58.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Nov 23, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll, during active-duty service abroad in the Armed Forces, the 90-day periods of time for an alien spouse or petitioning spouse to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status. States that: (1) at the petitioner's option the petition may be filed during such active-duty service at any time after commencement of the 90-day petition period, and (2) the tolling of the 90-day interview period shall not be construed to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) from waiving the interview requirement.
People & committees
Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-16] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-58.
Became Public Law No: 112-58.
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.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S7390-7391)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S7390-7391)
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 Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 426 - 0 (Roll no. 684). (text: CR H5820)
House roll call 684 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 426 - 0 (Roll no. 684).(text: CR H5820)
House roll call 684 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5829-5830)
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. 398.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5819-5821)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 89.
Committee on The Budget discharged.
Committee on The Budget discharged.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-141, Part I.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 112-141, Part I.
Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement Discharged.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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 the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, 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: Sep 8, 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.398 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.398 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.398 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.398 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.