PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-130.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 17, 1999
Amends the Federal judicial code to: (1) repeal a condition that court for the western division of the southern district of Mississippi be held at Natchez only if suitable quarters and accommodations are furnished at no cost to the United States; and (2) provide that court for the eastern division of the northern district of Illinois shall be held at Chicago (current law) and Wheaton.
People & committees
Sen. Cochran, Thad [R-MS] · R–MS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-130.
Became Public Law No: 106-130.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate agreed to the House amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S14914; text: CR S14914)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to the House amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S14914; text: CR S14914)
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H12118)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H12118)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1418.
Mr. Hyde moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H12118-12119)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S14222; text: CR S14222)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S14222; text: CR S14222)
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 386.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch without amendment. Without written report.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1418 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 S.1418 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 S.1418 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 S.1418 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.