PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 24, 2002
Oklahoma City Victims Compensation Act - Establishes a program to provide compensation to any individual (or relatives of a deceased individual) who was physically injured or killed as a result of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995.Directs the Attorney General, acting through the Special Master appointed under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, to administer the program, requiring determinations of claims within 120 days and payment within 20 days of determination. States that such determinations are final and not subject to judicial review.Limits claims to one per injured person or decedent and excludes claimants from pursuing civil action for damages, as specified.Grants the United States the right of subrogation with respect to any claim paid by the United States under this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Traficant, James A., Jr. [D-OH-17] · D–OH
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 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 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.3633 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.3633 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.3633 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.3633 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.