PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · May 20, 2002
Embassy Employee Compensation Act - Directs the Attorney General, through the Special Master appointed under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, to administer compensation to American victims of the August 7, 1998, bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Authorizes appropriations.(Sec. 5) Requires claimants to provide information to the Special Master concerning the physical harm suffered and any possible economic and noneconomic losses incurred from the bombings, as well as the "collateral sources" of compensation received or entitled to be received, defined as life insurance, pension funds, death benefit programs and payments by Federal, State, or local governments. Sets a two-year limit on filing claims, beginning after the promulgation of regulations to implement the Act.Directs the Special Master to determine whether a claimant is eligible for compensation and, if so, the amount to be disbursed based on harm suffered, facts of the claim, and individual circumstances of the claimant.Prohibits the Special Master from considering negligence or any other theory of liability with regard to claimants. Requires completion of the review and determination of a claim within 120 days after it is filed. Makes the Special Master's decision on a claim final and not subject to judicial review.Specifies that punitive damages may not be awarded. Requires that any award be reduced by collateral source compensation a claimant has received or is entitled to receive.Makes eligible to receive compensation any U.S. citizens who suffered physical harm from the bombing of the United States embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, or from the bombing of the embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Permits personal representatives of U.S. citizens killed by either bombing to receive compensation on behalf of the deceased.Limits claims to one per individual. Provides that upon filing a claim, an individual waives the right to seek damages in civil suits in Federal or State courts, except for pursuing collateral source compensation.(Sec. 6) Requires the Special Master to authorize payments to eligible claimants not later than 20 days after the date on which the determination of the amount has been made.Declares that this Act constitutes budget authority in advance of appropriations Acts and represents the obligation of the Federal Government to provide for the payment of compensation under the Act.Authorizes the Attorney General to accept contributions from individuals, business concerns, and other entities to carry out the Act, and directs the Attorney General to use donated funds before appropriated funds.(Sec. 8) Declares that the United States has the right of subrogation with respect to any claim paid from U.S. funds under the Act.
People & committees
Rep. Blunt, Roy [R-MO-7] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 391 - 18 (Roll no. 176). (text: CR H2680-2681)
House roll call 176 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 391 - 18 (Roll no. 176).(text: CR H2680-2681)
House roll call 176 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2746-2747)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3375.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2680-2685)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 287.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-477.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 107-477.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
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: Aug 10, 2026. 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.3375 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.3375 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.3375 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.3375 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.