PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 10, 1999
Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act of 1999 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to require at least five percent of the drug control program funds provided to a State to be reserved for distribution to law enforcement agencies to establish an administrative process which requires that a law enforcement agency that investigates a law enforcement officer for matters which could lead to disciplinary action (including dismissal, demotion, suspension, or transfer) provide recourse for such officer that includes access to the administrative process prior to the imposition of disciplinary action, as well as the right to a hearing, representation, and the confronting of witnesses.Authorizes the immediate suspension of an officer: (1) whose continued presence is considered a substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of such agency or the public; (2) who refuses to obey a direct order issued to conform with the agency's written and disseminated rules and regulations; or (3) who is accused of committing an illegal act.Exempts from this Act an employing agency that has in effect an established system, board, or procedure which meets or exceeds such minimum standards.
People & committees
Rep. Barr, Bob [R-GA-7] · R–GA
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.
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 20, 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.3299 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.3299 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.3299 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.3299 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.