PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 26, 1996
Directs the Chief Justice of the United States to assign three circuit court judges or justices (which may include senior judges or retired justices) to a division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to determine whether suits brought by persons, including foreign nationals, in Federal court for compensation for services performed for the United States pursuant to a secret Government contract may be tried by the court. Requires such division to determine whether the information that would be disclosed in adjudicating the action would do serious damage to U.S. national security or would compromise the safety and security of intelligence sources inside or outside the United States. Authorizes such division, if it determines that the case may be heard, to prescribe steps that the court shall take to protect national security and intelligence sources and methods. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) assignment and terms; (2) case referrals; (3) effect of the division's determinations; (4) other judicial assignments; (5) vacancies; and (6) support services. Makes this Act applicable to claims arising on or after December 1, 1976.
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 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.
Source last updated: Nov 21, 2018. 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.4224 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.4224 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.4224 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.4224 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.