PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 30, 2013
National Center for the Right to Counsel Act - Establishes in the District of Columbia a private, nonprofit corporation to be known as the National Center for the Right to Counsel to provide: (1) financial support to supplement, but not supplant, funding for public defense systems that provide legal assistance to indigent defendants in criminal cases, including systems run by state or local governments as well as private entities or individuals providing services under contract with such governments; and (2) financial and substantive support for training programs to improve delivery of legal services to indigent defendants.
Requires each state to have a state advisory council to: (1) monitor, receive, and investigate complaints regarding the compliance of public defense systems that receive funding with applicable laws and regulations; (2) notify the Center of any apparent violations; and (3) collect data on the delivery of public defense services and facilitate information sharing between the state's public defense systems.
Authorizes the Center to: (1) make grants and contracts; (2) undertake research, training, and technical assistance; and (3) serve as a clearinghouse for information.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the Center from interfering with attorneys' professional responsibilities to their clients or from abrogating the authority of states or other jurisdictions to enforce such standards.
Requires the Center, to the extent feasible, to have services provided in an indigent defendant's principal language in areas where significant numbers of indigent defendants speak a language other than English.
Directs the Center to make available to the public an online database that includes the contact information for all public defense systems in every state.
Requires the Center to establish regional backup service centers to assist public defense systems with access to investigators, sentencing mitigation specialists, and information about available grants.
People & committees
Rep. Deutch, Theodore E. [D-FL-21] · D–FL
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, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 12, 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.3407 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.3407 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.3407 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.3407 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.