PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 6, 2005
Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to expand penalties for distributing drugs to persons under age 21 and to cover attempting or conspiring to do so, without regard to the type of controlled substance and schedule. Requires or increases minimum mandatory sentences.
Modifies provisions regarding distributing or manufacturing drugs in or near schools to delete the "100 feet" limitation, include public libraries and daycare facilities, and increase minimum imprisonment terms. Increases or expands the scope of penalties regarding: (1) employing children to distribute drugs near schools and playgrounds; (2) employing persons under age 18 in drug distribution; (3) distributing drugs to underage persons; (4) maintaining drug-involved premises affecting children; and (5) drug trafficking in the presence of children. Prohibits: (1) providing, or facilitating the sale of, drug paraphernalia; or (2) failing to protect children from drug trafficking activities.
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines to: (1) increase base offense levels for drug-related offenses involving minors and incompetent persons; and (2) provide sentencing enhancements for possessing or brandishing a firearm.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits and requires a minimum mandatory sentence for distributing or manufacturing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a drug treatment facility.
Amends CSA to: (1) increase penalties for, and expand provisions regarding, endangering human life while illegally manufacturing a controlled substance; and (2) provide for life imprisonment without release for drug felons and violent criminals convicted a third time.
Prohibits a court, in imposing sentence, from considering a defendant's race, sex, national origin, creed, religion, or socioeconomic status and sets forth factors a court may consider only with respect to calculating the sentencing range and imposing a sentence within that range.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
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 Health, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by the Yeas and Nays: 6 - 1.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Aug 15, 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.1528 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.1528 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.1528 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.1528 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.