PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 11, 1997
Directs the Chief Justice of the United States to assign three circuit court judges or justices to a division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to determine whether an action brought in a U.S. court for compensation for services performed for the United States pursuant to a secret Government contract may be tried by the court. Prohibits the division from determining that the case cannot be heard solely on the basis of the nature of the services to be provided under the contract. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) justice or judge assignment, terms, and vacancies; (2) the court's determination of 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 (allows the division to prescribe steps to protect national security and intelligence sources and methods, including holding proceedings in camera); (3) case referral; (4) the effect of the division's determination; (5) other judicial assignments; and (6) support services. Makes this Act applicable to claims arising on or after December 1, 1976. Waives the statute of limitations that would otherwise apply to claims arising before enactment of this Act, provided an action is brought on such claim with two years after enactment of 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 Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E209-210)
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 16, 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.691 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.691 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.691 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.691 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.