PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Federal Communications Commission Collaboration Act of 2013

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 7, 2013

Federal Communications Commission Collaboration Act of 2013 - Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to allow a bipartisan majority of Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), notwithstanding a specified open meeting provision, to hold a meeting that is closed to the public to discuss official business if: (1) no agency action is taken, (2) each person present is an FCC Commissioner or employee or a member or person on the staff of a joint board to which the FCC has referred a matter under such Act, and (3) an attorney from the FCC's Office of General Counsel is present.

Defines "bipartisan majority of Commissioners" as at least three Commissioners including at least one Commissioner for each political party of which any Commissioner is a member and at least one unaffiliated Commissioner if any Commissioner has no political affiliation.

Requires public disclosure of the meeting, attendees, and matters discussed.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN] · D–MN

Committees

  • Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

  2. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.245 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.245 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.245 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.245 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.

View full prompt & sources