PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 14, 1999
Amends the Federal judicial code to require the employer of a Federal grand or petit juror to pay to that juror, for each day during which such individual performs jury duty, a wage not less than the differential compensation less the aggregate amount of any fees and allowances paid to the juror for that day. Defines "differential compensation" to mean: (1) if that juror has a regular employment schedule with that employer, the wage or salary that the juror would have been paid for that day but for that juror's performance of jury duty; and (2) if that juror does not have a regular schedule with that employer, the average daily wage or salary of the juror during the seven-day period ending on the day before the juror first performed jury duty.Defines "employer" to include any public or private employer.Allows a person summoned for jury service to be excused upon a showing by his or her employer that payment of differential compensation would result in significant hardship to the employer.
People & committees
Rep. Andrews, Robert E. [D-NJ-1] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 16, 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 H.R.2853 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 H.R.2853 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 H.R.2853 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 H.R.2853 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.