PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 6, 1993
Law Enforcement Family Support Act of 1993 - Establishes an Office of Family Support within the Department of Justice (DOJ), to be headed by a Director. Requires the Director to: (1) oversee the implementation of family-friendly policies within law enforcement-related offices in DOJ; (2) study the effects of stress on law enforcement personnel and family well-being and disseminate the findings to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and others; (3) evaluate model programs that provide support services to law enforcement personnel and families; (4) provide technical assistance and training programs to develop stress reduction and family support to State and local LEAs; (5) collect and disseminate information regarding family support, stress reduction, and psychological services to LEAs, law enforcement-related organizations, and others; and (6) determine issues to be researched by the Office and by grant recipients. Authorizes the Director to make grants to States and local LEAs and to organizations representing State and local law enforcement personnel to provide family support services to law enforcement personnel. Directs State or local law enforcement grant recipients to use sums provided to establish or improve training and support programs for law enforcement personnel, including providing at least one of the following services: (1) counseling for law enforcement family members; (2) child care on a 24-hour basis; (3) marital and adolescent support groups; (4) stress reduction programs; (5) stress education for law enforcement recruits and families; and (6) technical assistance and training programs to support such services. Authorizes recipients to provide services such as: (1) post-shooting debriefings for officers and their spouses; (2) group therapy; (3) hypertension clinics; (4) counseling for families of personnel killed in the line of duty; (5) seminars regarding alcohol, drug abuse, gambling, and overeating. Sets forth provisions with respect to application requirements, grant durations, and limitations on the use of funds. Authorizes the Director to reserve ten percent of appropriated funds for discretionary research grants. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Schroeder, Patricia [D-CO-1] · D–CO
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 Crime and Criminal Justice.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2038)
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.2994 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.2994 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.2994 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.2994 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.