PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 324.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 3, 2001
Wartime Treatment of European Americans and Refugees Study Act - Establishes the Commission on Wartime Treatment of European Americans and Refugees to review the U.S. Government's: (1) wartime treatment of European Americans and European Latin Americans; and (2) refusal to allow European refugees fleeing persecution in Europe entry to the United States.Directs that such review include: (1) a comprehensive review of the facts and circumstances surrounding U.S. Government actions during World War II which violated the civil liberties of European Americans and European Latin American; (2) a review of U.S. Government action with respect to European Americans, including registration requirements, travel and property restrictions, establishment of restricted areas, raids, arrests, internment, exclusion, internee employment by American companies, exchange, repatriation, and deportment, and the immediate and long-term effect of such actions, particularly internment; (3) a brief review of the participation by European Americans, including those whose families were interned, repatriated, or excluded, in the U.S. armed forces; and (4) a recommendation of appropriate remedies, including how civil liberties can be better protected during war, an assessment of the continued viability of the Alien Enemy Act, and public education programs.
People & committees
Sen. Feingold, Russell D. [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 324.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and an amendment to the title. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S8920-8922)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S8918-8920)
Introduced in Senate
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: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.1356 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 S.1356 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 S.1356 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 S.1356 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.