PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 13, 1999
Bipartisan Rural Law Enforcement Crime-Fighting Scholarship Act - Directs the Attorney General, through the Office of Justice Programs and in consultation with the National Center for Rural Law Enforcement at the University of Arkansas, to establish a rural law enforcement scholarship program by providing grants to rural law enforcement agencies and consortia of law enforcement agencies to be used to allow law enforcement officers to observe the advanced strategies and technologies employed by Federal and urban law enforcement agencies to fight gangs, abolish illegal drug trafficking and distribution systems, and create safer neighborhoods and communities. Requires the Attorney General, before grants are awarded, to identify Federal and urban law enforcement agencies willing to allow rural law enforcement officers to observe and to publish a list of those agencies in the Federal Register. Limits each grant award to $2,500 for an individual rural law enforcement agency and $7,500 for a consortium of law enforcement agencies. Allows officers selected for a rural law enforcement scholarship to participate in a particular observation opportunity for a maximum period of one month. Prohibits more than one officer from the same rural law enforcement agency from participating in the program. Permits grants to be used for paying the costs of official travel, lodging, and expenses that participating law enforcement officers incur. Directs the Attorney General to report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the success of participating rural law enforcement agencies in employing strategies or technology observed. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2] · D–MS
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.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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.1792 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.1792 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.1792 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.1792 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.