PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-323.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 1, 1998
Amends the State Department Basic Authorities Act to increase: (1) the maximum rewards for information concerning international terrorism; and (2) the authorization of appropriations, without fiscal year limitation, for use in the payment of such awards. Adds to the list of actions for which rewards are available the furnishing of information leading to the arrest or conviction in any country, or transfer to, or conviction by, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, of any individual who is the subject of an indictment by the Tribunal for serious violations of international humanitarian law. Declares that all determinations of the Secretary of State under this Act shall be final and not subject to judicial review. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Gilman, Benjamin A. [R-NY-20] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-323.
Became Public Law No: 105-323.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H10955-10957)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H10955-10957)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on the motion.
Mr. Gilman moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 3827 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 3827 proposed by Senator Jeffords for Senator Helms.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S12604)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10166-10169)
Mr. Gilman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Committee Agreed to Seek Consideration Under Suspension of the Rules, (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
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: Apr 7, 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.4660 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.4660 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.4660 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.4660 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.