H.R. 2183 · 99th Congress · enacted
A bill to amend title 28 of the United States Code to make certain changes with respect to the participation of judges of the Court of International Trade in judicial conferences and for other purposes.
Became Public Law No: 99-466.
Latest official action 1986-10-14 · Enacted
The bill, briefly
Amends Federal law to allow the chief judge of the Court of International Trade or his designee to attend the Judicial Conference of the United States. Authorizes the chief judge of the Court of International Trade annually to summon judges of such court to a judicial conference for the purpose of considering its business and improvements in the administration of justice. Permits U.S. marshals for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York to act as marshals of the Court of International Trade when it sits in these districts.
Congressional Research Service · 1985-04-23
Who reported lobbying on this bill?
Amount spent specifically on this bill: not disclosed
The reports below name this bill and disclose an organization’s overall lobbying expenses or a firm’s client income for the period. They can cover many bills and issues. These amounts are not payments to the bill or its politicians.
2,409 latest lobbying reports imported. Some source imports are still in progress.
Politicians behind the bill
Sponsors and cosponsors from the official source, limited to members currently in office. Campaign amounts are cycle-wide and are not payments for this bill.
0 of 0 source cosponsor records retrieved; only current officials and unwithdrawn sponsorships appear.
PAC donors to the listed sponsors
These are all-cycle contributions to the listed sponsors’ and cosponsors’ campaigns. FEC does not attribute them to this bill. A donation plus sponsorship does not establish why a politician acted.
The largest 40 donor totals appear here. Open each politician for their complete, paginated PAC donor list.
What happened after enactment?
Dated agency-reported implementation and uptake measures are shown with their scope. They do not by themselves establish causal success. If no evidence is listed, the outcome is not established.