PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 27, 1999
Prohibits a State that does not have, or fails to implement, specified safeguards against sexual harassment of women inmates at State correctional institutions from receiving ten percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to the State under violent offender incarceration and truth-in-sentencing incentive grant provisions of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Provides for the reallocation of such funds to States in compliance.Includes among such safeguards requirements that: (1) each State department of corrections provide mandatory sexual harassment and abuse (harassment) awareness training to the department's officials and staff (officials), periodically submit a report to the State attorney general for the purpose of detecting any pattern of harassment of women inmates, and carry out a system under which women inmates are able to confidentially report harassment by department officials, reports are investigated, and the officials responsible are sanctioned; and (2) the State have criminal penalties explicitly prohibiting custodial sexual misconduct by correctional staff against women inmates and submit reports to Congress and to the Attorney General on State compliance with these safeguards.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
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.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2201)
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: Jan 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.3158 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.3158 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.3158 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.3158 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.