PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 17, 2011
Competitive Justice Training Act of 2011 - Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) deviating from the competitive open grant process for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program (ICAC Program) training and establishing arbitrary limitations on the amount of such training provided by certain providers is anti-competitive and does not result in maximizing taxpayer value, training participation, or program quality or reducing associated overhead costs; and (2) the Attorney General should administer ICAC Program training grants without arbitrary statutory or regulatory limitations and should prioritize cost, quality, and proven training results.
Amends the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 to repeal the provision prohibiting the Attorney General from awarding any one entity other than a law enforcement agency more than $2 million annually to establish and conduct training courses for ICAC task force members and other law enforcement officials.
People & committees
Rep. Ribble, Reid J. [R-WI-8] · R–WI
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, and Homeland Security.
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 14, 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.3470 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.3470 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.3470 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.3470 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.