PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Dec 13, 2012
Requires that the principal office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) be in the metropolitan area of Washington, DC, but allows the CAVC to sit any place within the United States.
Requires judges in active service on the CAVC to: (1) have their official duty station at the principal office; and (2) reside within 50 miles of such metropolitan area.
Allows the President to remove judges violating that residency requirement who were confirmed on or after January 1, 2012.
Sets forth exceptions for recall-eligible retired judges.
People & committees
Sen. Burr, Richard [R-NC] · R–NC
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 Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text: CR S8046)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text: CR S8046)
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8046)
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 112-668.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 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.2045 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.2045 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.2045 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.2045 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.