PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 271.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 26, 1993
Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to make grants to States for the purpose of developing and implementing residential substance abuse treatment programs within State correctional facilities, as well as within local correctional facilities in which inmates are incarcerated for a period of time sufficient to permit substance abuse treatment. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) State application requirements (including a drug testing requirement and an aftercare component to be eligible for a preference for participation in a drug treatment program); (2) review of State applications; (3) allocation and distribution of funds; and (4) evaluations. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Brooks, Jack B. [D-TX-9] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 271.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 394 - 32 (Roll No. 543).
House roll call 543 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays (2/3 required): 394 - 32 (Roll No. 543).
House roll call 543 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8753-8754)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8739-8744)
Mr. Brooks moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 174.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-323.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-323.
Ordered to be Reported.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2532)
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: Jun 2, 2021. 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.3354 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.3354 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.3354 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.3354 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.