PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Laid on the table. See S. 1605 for further action. (consideration: CR H3068)
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 12, 1998
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 1998 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to: (1) make grants to States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to purchase armor vests for use by State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers; and (2) give preferential consideration to applications from jurisdictions that have the greatest need, have or will institute a mandatory wear policy, have a violent crime rate at or above the national average, or have not received a block grant under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) minimum and maximum apportionments; (2) 50 percent matching funds (and specifies that any funds appropriated by the Congress for the activities of any agency of an Indian tribal government or the Bureau of Indian Affairs performing law enforcement functions on Indian lands may be used to provide the non-Federal share of a matching requirement funded under this Act); (3) the allocation of at least half the funds to units of local government with fewer than 100,000 residents; and (4) applications and eligibility requirements;. Authorizes appropriations. (Sec. 4) Expresses the sense of the Congress that entities receiving assistance under this Act should, in expending such assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and products.
People & committees
Rep. Visclosky, Peter J. [D-IN-1] · D–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Laid on the table. See S. 1605 for further action. (consideration: CR H3068)
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 4 (Roll No. 140).
House roll call 140 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 412 - 4 (Roll No. 140).
House roll call 140 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3046-3054, H3066-3067)
Mr. McCollum moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2195-2196)
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.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.2829 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.2829 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.2829 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.2829 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.