To amend title 28 of the United States Code to provide for a remedy against the United States for claims based upon conduct involving human experimentation, to provide a remedy against the United States with respect to constitutional and human rights violations, and for other purposes.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 1, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Federal Tort Claims Amendments Title II: Constitutional and Human Rights Violations Title I: Federal Tort Claims Amendments - Makes the Federal Tort Claims Act applicable to any claim arising out of: (1) conduct or research involving a human being as an experimental subject without the informed consent of the subject or a legal representative; (2) the subjection of a human being to any experimental chemical, radiological, or biological agent, drug, or other test article without informed consent; and (3) operations of any federally owned nuclear weapons facility involved in the production of nuclear weapons under the authority of the Secretary of Energy or any predecessor. Title II: Constitutional and Human Rights Violations - Grants the district courts exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims for money damages based on constitutional torts. Authorizes the head of each Federal agency to compromise and settle any claim for money damages based on a constitutional tort, except that any award, compromise, or settlement in excess of $25,000 shall be effected only with the Attorney General's prior written approval. Sets forth provisions regarding limits on the liability of the United States, disposition by a Federal agency as a prerequisite to court action, jury trial requirements, the effect of certain judgments as a bar to an action, the Attorney General's authority to compromise such a claim, attorney's fees, exclusiveness of remedy, and administrative action concerning the responsible employee when a judgment is awarded against, or a settlement is paid by, the United States. Establishes a statute of limitations of: (1) three years for claims arising out of unlawful human experimentation; and (2) two years for claims against the United States for money damages based on a constitutional tort, with exceptions.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.3946 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.3946 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.3946 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.3946 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.