PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.1334 / 119th Congress

SASS Act

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Official summary

No official summary is available in the imported record yet.

Who introduced it

Rep. Moskowitz, Jared [D-FL-23] · D–FL

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
4 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  2. Introduced in House

  3. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Jul 8, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.1334 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.1334 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.1334 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.1334 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.

View full prompt & sources

Read the proposal in plain language

AI-generated · Source-checked by AI · Oct 31, 2026

Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.

What it would do

The proposed Single Application for School Safety Act would change how applicants apply for school-security grants. It would require the Attorney General to establish a process allowing one application under the two grant authorities named in the bill. The relevant grant administrator would also have to help applicants complete their applications.

Check the sources
This Act may be cited as the Single Application for School Safety Act or the SASS Act.
Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2025-02-13
The Attorney General shall establish a process under which a single grant application may be submitted for a grant that is authorized to be made by the COPS Director under paragraph (1) of section 2701(a) and the BJA Director under paragraph (2) of such section.
Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2025-02-13
The COPS Director or the BJA Director, as the case may be, shall provide technical assistance to applicants to complete an application for a grant under this part.
Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2025-02-13

How it would work

Section 2 would add a single-application process to the existing grant law. Establishing the process would be mandatory for the Attorney General; using a single application would be permitted for applicants. The provision covers the grant authorities assigned to the COPS Director and BJA Director in the referenced law.

Check the sources
Section 2702 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10552) is amended by adding at the end the following:
Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2025-02-13
The Attorney General shall establish a process under which a single grant application may be submitted for a grant that is authorized to be made by the COPS Director under paragraph (1) of section 2701(a) and the BJA Director under paragraph (2) of such section.
Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2025-02-13

The relevant director would be required to provide technical assistance—help completing a grant application—to applicants under this part of the existing law.

Check the source
The COPS Director or the BJA Director, as the case may be, shall provide technical assistance to applicants to complete an application for a grant under this part.
Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2025-02-13

What the record shows

The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated July 8, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 13, 2025.

Check the source
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-08T12:36:43Z. 2025-02-13: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-13: Introduced in House
Official legislative record · 2025-07-08T12:36:43Z

Riders & Targeted Benefits

Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.

This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.

Riders

Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.

None identified in the reviewed text

No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.

Earmarks

Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.

None identified in the reviewed text

No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; earmark disclosures and accompanying committee materials were not supplied.

Other targeted benefits

Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.

None identified in the reviewed text

No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.

What this analysis cannot establish

  • The supplied bill is the introduced version. The dated actions snapshot does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment; its silence does not prove the bill never advanced or became law.
  • The existing statutory provisions being amended or referenced are not reproduced. The bundle therefore does not establish the full eligibility rules, matching requirements, permitted grant uses, or other existing program conditions.
  • The proposed additions specify no implementation deadline, termination condition, detailed application procedures, or enforcement mechanism.

Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 8, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI