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 S2552; text: CR S2520-2521)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 21, 2024
This resolution authorizes the offices of Senator Jacky Rosen and Senator Catherine Cortez Masto to produce documents and testimony in the case of United States v. Miller.
The resolution specifically authorizes Dara Cohen, John Fossum, and Carlos Lara, employees in the office of Senator Rosen, to testify (except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted).
The resolution also authorizes employees in the office of Senator Cortez Masto from whom relevant evidence may be needed to testify in the case (except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted).
Further, the resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the employees of Senator Rosen's and Senator Cortez Masto's offices in connection with the case.
People & committees
Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY] · D–NY
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 S2552; text: CR S2520-2521)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Submitted in the Senate, considered, and agreed to without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S2552; text: CR S2520-2521)
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 18, 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.614 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.614 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.614 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.614 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.