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 S8140; text as passed Senate: CR S8102)
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Nov 18, 2013
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Authorizes: (1) Peter Mitchell and Grace Pettus, a current and a former employee, respectively, of the Office of Senator Bill Nelson, and Adele Griffin and Ashley Cook, current employees of the Office of Senator Marco Rubio, and any other current or former employee from either office from whom relevant evidence may be sought, to produce documents and provide testimony in the case of United States v. Allen, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted; and (2) the Senate Legal Counsel to represent such employees in the case.
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 S8140; text as passed Senate: CR S8102)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S8140; text as passed Senate: CR S8102)
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: Jan 10, 2023. 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.298 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.298 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.298 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.298 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.