PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 3, 1993
Amends the Federal judicial code to make the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund available to the Attorney General for support of community-based social service agencies that provide programs for at-risk youth, victim assistance, and drug abuse prevention, treatment, and control. Limits amounts paid for such purposes to 25 percent of the total of amounts paid from the Fund for each fiscal year. Directs the Attorney General to give preference to social service agencies in communities in which forfeited property is located.
People & committees
Rep. Reynolds, Mel [D-IL-2] · D–IL
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 Crime and Criminal Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E501)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 2, 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 H.R.1206 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 H.R.1206 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 H.R.1206 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 H.R.1206 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.