PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 26, 2003
Schools Safely Acquiring Faculty Excellence Act of 2003 - Prohibits the Secretary of Education from making any funds available to a State under any program administered by the Department of Education unless the Secretary determines that the State has in place a criminal information sharing system.
Directs the Secretary to make such determination with regard to each State within one year after enactment of this Act.
Requires such a system to be one under which the State shares with the Federal Government information (including for non-criminal justice purposes) on each arrest, charge, or conviction (including any no contest plea) in such State for specified covered offenses. Requires such information to include the identity of: (1) each individual so arrested, charged, or convicted; and (2) the identity of each individual under suspicion for such an offense. Requires such system to cover any offense that: (1) is a felony or involves violence, a controlled substance, child abuse, statutory rape, rape, molestation, or sexual abuse; and (2) occurs on or after the date that is 15 years before the date of the enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Porter, Jon C. [R-NV-3] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
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: Mar 23, 2026. 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.2649 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.2649 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.2649 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.2649 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.