PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 4, 2015
Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act of 2015
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish a national Blue Alert communications network within the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue Blue Alerts through the initiation, facilitation, and promotion of Blue Alert plans for the dissemination of information received as a Blue Alert, in coordination with states, local governments, and law enforcement agencies; and (2) assign an existing DOJ officer to act as the national coordinator of the network.
Defines "Blue Alert" as information sent through the network relating to: (1) the serious injury or death of a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, (2) an officer who is missing in connection with the officer's official duties, or (3) an imminent and credible threat that an individual intends to cause the serious injury or death of a law enforcement officer.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth the duties of the national coordinator, including:
providing assistance to states and local governments that are using Blue Alert plans;
establishing voluntary guidelines for states and local governments to use in developing such plans;
developing protocols for efforts to apprehend suspects;
working with states to ensure appropriate regional coordination of various elements of the network;
establishing an advisory group to assist states, local governments, law enforcement agencies, and other entities in initiating, facilitating, and promoting Blue Alert plans;
acting as the nationwide point of contact for the development of the network and the regional coordination of Blue Alerts through the network; and
determining what procedures and practices are in use for notifying law enforcement and the public of a Blue Alert and which procedures and practices are effective and do not require the expenditure of additional resources to implement.
Requires the guidelines to: (1) provide that appropriate information relating to a Blue Alert is disseminated to officials of law enforcement, public health, and other agencies; (2) provide mechanisms that ensure that Blue Alerts comply with all applicable federal, state, and local privacy laws and regulations; and (3) include standards that specifically provide for the protection of the civil liberties of law enforcement officers and their families.
Directs the coordinator to report annually on the coordinator's activities and the effectiveness and status of the Blue Alert plans that are in effect or being developed.
People & committees
Rep. Reichert, David G. [R-WA-8] · R–WA
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, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.1269 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.1269 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.1269 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.1269 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.