PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 9, 2001
World Trade Center Attack Claims Act - Establishes within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) the Office of World Trade Center Attack Claims. Entitles persons (individuals and entities) who suffered injury as a result of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and who reside or maintain a place of business in the area south of Canal Street in Manhattan to Federal compensation. Requires the Director of FEMA (or an Independent Claims Manager if appointed to head such Office) to investigate and deny or pay (and determine appropriate amounts for) claims submitted for such compensation.Limits claim payments to: (1) the amount necessary to compensate for injuries suffered during the 18-month period following the attack; and (2) $500,000, with exceptions. Prescribes compensable residential losses and business losses. Requires the Director to reduce the amount to be paid for any claim by the amount of any insurance or other Federal assistance program payments as appropriate to prevent a claimant's recovery in excess of actual compensatory damages.Provides claimants the right to appeal payment decisions regarding residential losses to the Director or regarding business losses to the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.Declares that this Act shall not affect the rights of an injured person to request benefits under any Federal entitlement programs.
People & committees
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-8] · D–NY
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 Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 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.3272 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.3272 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.3272 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.3272 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.