PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.1659 / 106th Congress

National Police Training Commission Act of 1999

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 109.

Official summary

Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jun 18, 1999

National Police Training Commission Act of 1999 - Establishes the National Police Training Commission to study and report to Congress on the effectiveness of training, recruiting, hiring, oversight, and funding policies and practices in law enforcement.(Sec. 6) Amends the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCLEA) to authorize appropriations for training, recruitment, hiring, and oversight assistance to New York, New York, Chicago, Illinois, Los Angeles, California, Washington, D.C., Charlotte, North Carolina, and to one police department from each of the four geographical regions of the country, two of which have less than 100 police officers and two of which have less than 300 police officers. Authorizes the assistance to include funding for equipment, not to exceed ten percent of the amount of the grant made to each city. Directs that money appropriated for such assistance be distributed to those cities in proportion to the size of their police departments and upon receipt of written assurances from the police department that the department will provide access to its operations to the Commission.(Sec. 7) Amends VCCLEA to require a State or States organized as multi-State compacts, to be eligible to receive a Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grant, to include in the application assurances that the State will follow the guidelines established by the Attorney General in reporting, on a quarterly basis, specified data on deaths of persons in custody.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Serrano, Jose E. [D-NY-16] · D–NY

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
22 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. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 109.

  2. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-190.

  3. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-190.

  4. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

  5. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  6. Committee Hearings Held.

  7. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  8. Introduced in House

  9. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

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: Feb 10, 2026. 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.1659 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.1659 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.1659 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.1659 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