PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6391-6392; text as passed Senate: CR S6391-6392; text of measure as introduced: CR S6388)
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Jun 9, 2009
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Authorizes: (1) Dianne Liepa, a former employee of Senator Tom Harkin, to testify in the cases of United States v. Edward Bloomer, Frank J. Cordaro, Elton Davis, Chester Guinn, and Renee Espeland, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted; and (2) the Senate Legal Counsel to represent Dianne Liepa, and any other employee from whom evidence may be sought, in connection with such cases.
People & committees
Sen. Reid, Harry [D-NV] · D–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6391-6392; text as passed Senate: CR S6391-6392; text of measure as introduced: CR S6388)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6391-6392; text as passed Senate: CR S6391-6392; text of measure as introduced: CR S6388)
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: Apr 7, 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 S.Res.180 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.Res.180 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.Res.180 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.Res.180 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.