PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Sep 4, 2018
Pro bono Work to Empower and Represent Act of 2018 or the POWER Act
(Sec. 3) This bill requires the chief judge for each judicial district to conduct public events to promote pro bono legal services for survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
Additionally, the chief judge for a judicial district that contains an Indian tribe or tribal organization must conduct, at least once during each two-year period, a public event to promote pro bono legal services for Indian or Alaska Native victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.
A chief judge must, in conducting public events, seek to maximize the local impact and the provision of high-quality pro bono legal services to survivors.
(Sec. 4) Chief judges must report to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on the public events they conduct. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts must compile and summarize the reports and submit them to Congress.
People & committees
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 115-237.
Became Public Law No: 115-237.
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 to the Senate bill by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5669)
Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate agreed to the House amendment to the Senate bill by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S5669)
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 H6282-6283)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6282-6283)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 717.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6282-6285)
Mr. Goodlatte moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S4694-4695)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S4694-4695)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S4694-4695)
Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S4694-4695)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.717 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.717 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.717 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.717 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.