PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E977)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 6, 1997
Jennifer's Law Act of 1997 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to provide for a ten percent reduction (for redistribution to States in compliance) for any State not substantially complying with rules made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to achieve greater ease in cross referencing indexes of missing persons with those of unidentified persons and requiring: (1) immediate reporting by a State's authorities of every unidentified person found in that State's jurisdiction, to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and to the State's law enforcement authorities; (2) the subsequent entry of a complete profile of the unidentified person; (3) the entry of an NCIC or other appropriate number on all unidentified persons' death certificates; and (4) the retention of all such records pertaining to unidentified persons in the NCIC and with appropriate State agencies until the person is identified. Directs the FBI to issue regulations to ensure compliance, including a requirement that any charge for making available such information not exceed the actual cost of making such information available.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Jay W. [D-WI-8] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E977)
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 21, 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.2850 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.2850 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.2850 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.2850 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.