PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.3606 / 105th Congress

Drug Testing, Intervention, and Trafficking Reduction Within Prisons Act of 1998

Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 31, 1998

Drug Testing, Intervention, and Trafficking Reduction Within Prisons Act of 1998 - Amends the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to require a State, to be eligible to receive a grant under the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In-Sentencing Grants Program: (1) to provide assurances to the Attorney General that the State has implemented, or will implement within 18 months, policies that provide for the recognition of the rights of crime victims; and (2) by September 1, 1998, to have a program of drug testing and intervention for appropriate categories of convicted offenders during periods of incarceration and criminal justice supervision, with sanctions including denial or revocation of release for a positive drug test, consistent with guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Allows Program funds to be: (1) applied to the cost of offender drug testing and appropriate intervention programs during periods of incarceration and criminal justice supervision; and (2) used by the States to pay the costs of providing to the Attorney General a baseline study on their prison drug abuse problem. Requires, beginning in FY 2000: (1) that States receiving Program funds have a system of sanctions and penalties that address drug trafficking within and into correctional facilities under their jurisdiction; and (2) a ten percent reduction in Program funds to a State for each fiscal year for which the Attorney General determines that such State is not in compliance with such requirement. Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize States that demonstrate that they have existing in-prison drug treatment programs that are in compliance with Federal requirements to use funds awarded under provisions regarding residential substance abuse treatment for State prisoners for treatment and sanctions both during incarceration and after release.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
1 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.

  2. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  3. Introduced in House

  4. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.3606 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.3606 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.3606 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.3606 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.

View full prompt & sources