PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (text: CR S7254-7259)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 15, 2022
This bill limits attorneys' fees for claims involving individuals who were exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina between August 1, 1953, and December 31, 1987.
Further, the bill requires an attorney representing an individual for such a claim to disburse the funds of any judgment or award to that individual before collecting any compensation for services rendered.
The bill also establishes certain penalties for (1) a person who solicits, contracts, charges, receives, or attempts such actions with respect to the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of a veterans benefits claim; and (2) any legal representative who charges, demands, receives, or collects for services rendered in connection with certain tort claims or certain claims related to Camp Lejeune.
People & committees
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. (text: CR S7254-7259)
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: Jan 14, 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 S.5274 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.5274 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.5274 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.5274 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.