PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Sep 11, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Act of 2008 - Establishes the Daniel Webster Congressional Clerkship Program for the appointment of individuals who are graduates of accredited law schools to serve as Congressional Clerks in the Senate or House of Representatives.
Requires the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and the House Committee on House Administration to each select at least six individuals for a one-year term to serve as employees in their respective chambers.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Specifies eligibility criteria for a Congressional Clerk, including that the selected candidate be a graduate of such a law school as of the starting date of his or her clerkship.
Requires the committees to ensure that Congressional Clerks selected under this Act are apportioned equally between majority and minority party offices.
Entitles each clerk selected to the same compensation as, and comparable benefits to, an individual who holds the position of a judicial clerkship for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia within three months of graduating from law school.
Authorizes appropriations.
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.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to without objection. (text: CR 09/09/2008 H7899-7900)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to without objection.(text: CR 09/09/2008 H7899-7900)
ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. Lewis of Georgia asked unanimous consent that the motion to suspend the rules relating to H.R. 6475 be considered as adopted in the form considered by the House on Tuesday, September 9, 2008. (consideration: CR H8038-8039)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Ehlers 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. 6475.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7899-7903)
Mr. Brady (PA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 533.
Reported by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 110-831.
Reported by the Committee on House Administration. H. Rept. 110-831.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on House Administration.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.6475 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.6475 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.6475 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.6475 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.