PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 5, 1993
Violent and Repeat Offender Accountability Act of 1993 - Requires each State, to be eligible for funds under this Act, to conduct and report to the Attorney General on a systematic review of its criminal sentencing laws and practices, including analyses related to: (1) the State statutory criminal sentencing scheme; (2) sentences actually imposed for specified crimes; (3) time actually served; (4) practices and procedures relating to probation, parole, and other alternatives to incarceration; (5) restitution; (6) pretrial detention; (7) victims rights; (8) post-conviction relief procedures; (9) application of adult sentencing laws to juvenile offenders; and (10) prison capacity. Directs each State to submit to the Attorney General for approval a plan that evaluates the criminal sentencing system and, if necessary, creates a sentencing system which provides for: (1) State constitutional or statutory authority for pretrial detention of dangerous criminals; (2) mandatory minimum prison sentences which do not allow probation or suspension of sentence, for certain violent or repeat offenders; (3) mandatory life sentence with no release for a third or subsequent conviction of a violent crime; (4) provisions which restrict parole, good-time credit release for violent offenders, or other early release to not more than a total reduction of 15 percent of the sentence imposed; and (5) State constitutional or statutory provisions which guarantee victims the right to be informed, present, and heard at all critical stages of the criminal case, and to ensure the collection, tracking, and enforcement of restitution from the offender in all cases involving economic loss to the victim. Makes funds available for this Act from amounts appropriated for foreign operations, for trade promotion, travel, and tourism activities, and for Federal land purchases. Limits the Federal share of grants made under this Act to 50 percent of total project costs.
People & committees
Rep. Royce, Edward R. [R-CA-39] · R–CA
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 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.2899 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.2899 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.2899 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.2899 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.