PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 5, 1993
Violent Crime Control and Regional Prison Partnership Act of 1993 - Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish a Regional Prison Task Force comprised of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and a senior correctional officer of each State wishing to participate, designated by the Governor of the State; and (2) create a plan, in consultation with the Task Force, for the establishment of a nationwide regional prison system. Requires the plan to: (1) define the boundaries and number of regions in which regional prisons will be placed; (2) establish the terms of the partnership agreements that States must enter into with the Attorney General in order to participate in the regional prison system; (3) set forth the role of the Federal Bureau of Prisoners in administering the prisons; (4) determine the way two or more States in a region will share responsibility for the activities associated with such prisons; and (5) specify both the Federal responsibility and the State responsibility (which shall not be less than 50 percent) for construction and operating costs of such prisons. Prohibits a State from sending prisoners to be held at a regional prison unless such State: (1) enters into a partnership under this Act and abides substantially by its terms; (2) establishes minimum mandatory sentences of ten years for persons who are convicted of a serious felony and are subsequently convicted of a crime of violence involving the use of a firearm or a crime of violence involving a sexual assault; (3) establishes a truth in sentencing policy under which offenders will serve no less than 85 percent of the term of imprisonment to which they are sentenced after specified dates; (4) provides pretrial detention similar to that provided in the Federal system; (5) takes steps to eliminate court-imposed limitations on its prison capacity resulting from consent decrees or statutory provisions; and (6) provides specified assurances. Sets forth provisions regarding prisoner eligibility. Establishes in the U.S. Treasury a Regional Prison Fund. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. McCollum, Bill [R-FL-8] · R–FL
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 Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Referred to the House Committee on 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 26, 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.2892 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.2892 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.2892 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.2892 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.