PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 112-44.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Oct 21, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the Senate on October 6, 2011. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 2011 - Extends the United States Parole Commission for two years.
Directs the Commission to report the following with regard to each type of case over which it has jurisdiction for FY2006-FY2011: (1) the number of offenders; (2) the number of hearings, record reviews, and National Appeals Board considerations conducted by the Commission; (3) the number of hearings conducted by the Commission by type of hearing; (4) the number of record reviews conducted by the Commission by type of consideration; (5) the number of warrants issued and executed compared to the number requested; (6) the number of revocation determinations by the Commission; (7) the distribution of initial offenses; (8) the distribution of subsequent offenses; (9) the percentage of offenders paroled or re-paroled compared with the percentage of offenders continued to expiration of sentence; (10) the percentage of cases in which the primary and secondary examiner disagreed on the appropriate disposition of the case, the release conditions to be imposed, or the reasons for the decision; (11) the percentage of revocation and non-revocation hearings in which the offender is accompanied by a representative; (12) the number of administrative appeals and the action of the National Appeals Board in relation to those appeals; and (13) the Commission's annual expenditures for offenders.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Commission also to report on: (1) the percentage of decisions within, above, or below its decision guidelines for federal initial hearings and federal and D.C. Code revocation hearings; (2) the projected number of federal offenders that will be under its jurisdiction as of October 31, 2014; (3) an estimate of the date on which no federal offenders will remain under its jurisdiction; and (4) its annual expenditures, including travel expenses and the annual salaries of its members and staff for FY2006-FY2011.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 112-44.
Became Public Law No: 112-44.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6841)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(text as House agreed to Senate amendment: CR H6841)
Mr. Smith (TX) asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendment. (consideration: CR H6841)
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S6351-6352)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 0 (Roll no. 712). (text: CR H6243)
House roll call 712 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 0 (Roll no. 712).(text: CR H6243)
House roll call 712 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H6255-6256)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Smith (TX) objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2944.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6243-6244)
Mr. Smith (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
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: Jul 2, 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.2944 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.2944 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.2944 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.2944 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.