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 · Nov 20, 2013
Universal Racial Profiling Elimination Standards, and Procedures for Effective Constitutional Rights Training Act or the Universal RESPECT Act - Prohibits federal law enforcement agents from engaging in racial profiling. Requires: (1) the Attorney General to review all applicable law enforcement policies and procedures to ensure that they are sufficient to eliminate racial profiling while performing official law enforcement duties, and (2) the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure that no recipient of covered federal law enforcement assistance engages in racial profiling.
Directs the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) to develop and incorporate any necessary changes to all training, curriculum, and professional certification classes to ensure consistency with the requirements of this Act.
Requires: (1) the Director to identify, develop, and update model practices that prevent racial profiling; and (2) the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board (FLETAB) to incorporate such practices into the law enforcement community through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Model Practice Clearinghouse and other means.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs FLETAB to: (1) develop a standard of review of anti-racial profiling components of law enforcement training curricula, and (2) deny accreditation or reaccreditation to academies, programs, and instructors not meeting such standard.
Requires: (1) the Officer and the Office for State and Local Government Coordination to review the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) or equivalent program of the states to assess the anti-racial profiling education component of such curricula, and (2) the Secretary to notify states of deficiencies in the curriculum and to make available to the states assistance to develop sufficient curriculum to meet minimum anti-racial profiling standards.
Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to require state, local, and tribal government recipients of DHS grants for law enforcement to certify that they do not engage in racial profiling.
Directs the Officer and the FLETC to develop guidance, outreach, training, and programs that include civil rights and civil liberties training, in particular programs designed to prevent racial profiling.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop and distribute to state, local, and tribal authorities courses and materials that comply with the Grant Programs Directorate Information Bulletin No. 373 or successor bulletin for integration into the curricula for recruits and recurrent training for experienced law enforcement officers; and (2) make available to the states assistance to develop sufficient curriculum to meet minimum anti-racial profiling standards.
Requires guidance for DHS grants for law enforcement to inform recipients that expenditures on any training, programs, presentations, and speakers that are acquired from an entity other than DHS must be approved in advance by the Chief Privacy Officer and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Grants the Officer primary jurisdiction over all matters relating to the review, implementation, and oversight of the requirements of this Act.
Requires the Officer: (1) using information gained by investigations of complaints and information indicating possible abuses of civil rights or civil liberties by DHS employees and officials or that are related to DHS activities, to make recommendations to DHS for improvements in policy, supervision, training, and practice related to civil rights or civil liberties or for the relevant office to review the matter and take appropriate action; and (2) to review and assess information alleging abuses of civil rights, civil liberties, and racial and ethnic profiling by law enforcement agencies receiving grants or assistance from DHS. Requires each DHS component and executive agency to ensure that it provides the Officer with access to requested information within 30 days after the Officer requests it. Authorizes the Officer to require access by subpoena to any institution or entity outside of the federal government and any record relating to such institution or entity that is the subject of or related to an investigation.
Authorizes the Officer to: (1) request the assistance of the Inspector General to investigate compliance with civil rights protection standards and complaints of racial profiling by law enforcement agencies; and (2) suspend the eligibility of a state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency to receive grants or training at federal law enforcement training facilities for violating this Act until the practices of the agency are brought into compliance.
Requires law enforcement entities receiving grants or training from DHS to: (1) collect data on all routine or spontaneous investigatory activities, (2) provide that the data collected shall include detail sufficient to permit an analysis of whether a law enforcement agency is engaging in racial profiling, (3) utilize a standardized form that shall be made available to law enforcement agencies, (4) maintain all data collected for not less than four years, and (5) protect the privacy of individuals whose data is collected.
Directs the Officer to receive and maintain data from the states on: (1) the implementation of racial profiling education curricula in state POSTor equivalent state-level program peace officer certification, (2) the adoption rate by state POST programs of the FLETAB model practices on racial profiling, (3) the number of credible complaints of improper racial profiling practices filed against state law enforcement entities, (4) the disposition of such complaints, and (5) the disciplinary action by state law enforcement entities against officers and agents adjudicated guilty of improper racial profiling practices.
Requires the Secretary's annual report on the Officer to include a section related to the enforcement of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Horsford, Steven [D-NV-4] · D–NV
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 Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 Homeland Security, 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.3560 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.3560 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.3560 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.3560 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.