PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 17, 2021
Accountability in Assignment Restrictions Act
This bill sets out a process through which Department of State employees may appeal assignment restrictions. These are restrictions on an employee's security clearance that preclude the employee from serving in certain diplomatic posts or working on certain issues in the United States to (1) prevent potential targeting and harassment by foreign intelligence services, and (2) lessen foreign influence or foreign preference security concerns.
Specifically, the bill establishes the Assignment Restriction Appeals Panel to hear assignment restriction appeals from Foreign Service and civil service employees. Additionally, the State Department must annually report to Congress on its use of assignment restrictions, including the rationale for the restrictions, data about employees subject to restrictions in the previous year, and information about the appeals process.
People & committees
Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33] · D–CA
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 Foreign Affairs.
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: Jan 3, 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.5275 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.5275 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.5275 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.5275 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.