PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S443)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 27, 1998
Public Health Funds Preservation Act - Limits attorney's fees to $125 per hour, plus out-of-pocket expenses approved by the court, for attorneys acting on behalf of a State or political subdivision of a State or other plaintiff in connection with the settlement of a State action against one or more tobacco companies to recover tobacco-related Medicaid expenditures or for other causes of action involved in the settlement agreement dated June 20, 1997. Prohibits the award of attorney's fees under any national tobacco settlement until the attorneys have: (1) provided to the Congress a detailed time accounting regarding the work performed; and (2) made public disclosure of such time accounting and fee arrangements. Requires each attorney whose fees are subject to this Act to submit to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees a comprehensive record of the time and expenses for which the fees are to be paid. Provides that this Act shall not be construed to limit attorney's fees paid by manufacturers of tobacco products in connection with such actions.
People & committees
Sen. Faircloth, Lauch [R-NC] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S443)
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
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.1570 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.1570 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.1570 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.1570 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.