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 81 · Passed House without amendment · Dec 22, 2010
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Removal Clarification Act of 2010 - Revises the federal judicial code to provide that a civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a state court and that is against or directed to the United States or a federal agency or officer, or specified others, may be removed to an appropriate U.S. district court.
Declares that civil actions and criminal prosecutions include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. Limits removal of such a proceeding, if there is no other basis for removal, to only that specific proceeding, with the remainder of the civil action or criminal proceeding to remain in state court.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares that the 30-day notice of removal requirement shall be satisfied in any such civil or criminal proceeding in which such a judicial order is sought, or issued, or sought to be enforced, if the person or entity desiring to remove the proceeding files notice of removal not later than 30 days after receiving, through service, notice of the proceeding.
Provides that the budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled "Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation" for this Act, provided that such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank," Jr. [D-GA-4] · D–GA
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.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed without objection. (text: CR H8976)
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed without objection.(text: CR H8976)
Considered by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR H8976-8977)
Mr. Johnson (GA) asked unanimous consent to discharge from committee and consider.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on The Budget discharged.
Committee on Judiciary discharged.
Committee on The Budget discharged.
Referred to House Budget
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 House Judiciary
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.6560 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.6560 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.6560 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.6560 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.