PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 20, 1993
Prohibits funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense from being obligated or expended for activities of any element of the armed forces that is under the operational control of a foreign national acting on behalf of the United Nations, unless the President certifies to the Congress that such operational control is necessary to protect vital U.S. national security interests. Requires a follow-up report from the President to the Congress within ten days after such a certification. Provides an exception to such prohibition in the case of elements involving fewer than 100 members of the armed forces in any one country.
People & committees
Rep. Barrett, Bill [R-NE-3] · R–NE
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 International Security, International Organizations and Human Rights.
Executive Comment Requested from DOD.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
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: Jun 6, 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.3319 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.3319 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.3319 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.3319 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.