PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 111-355.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 4, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1332 Sharon Copley Road in Sharon Center, Ohio, as the "Emil Bolas Post Office."
People & committees
Rep. Boccieri, John A. [D-OH-16] · D–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 111-355.
Became Public Law No: 111-355.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10365-10366; text as passed Senate: CR S10365)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10365-10366; text as passed Senate: CR S10365)
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 9/28/2010 H7029)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 9/28/2010 H7029)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7378)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Bilbray 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 The point of no quorum was withdrawn.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 on H.R. 4602.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7029)
Mr. Driehaus moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Ordered to be Reported.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
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: 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.4602 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.4602 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.4602 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.4602 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.