PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 13, 2005
Drug Courts Improvement Act of 2005 - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize grants for a drug court only if the court has mandatory periodic testing. Directs the Attorney General to specify testing standards, which: (1) shall ensure that each participant is tested for every controlled substance or addictive substance that the participant has been known to abuse and for every other commonly used controlled or addictive substance; (2) shall ensure that the testing is as accurate as practicable; and (3) may specify the regularity of the testing.
Allows grant amounts to be used: (1) for a drug court that imposes immediate and dramatic punitive sanctions, therapeutic measures, or both, whenever a participant fails a drug test; and (2) by a drug court to carry out programs under which the court holds hearings in public places such as schools. Lists examples of such sanctions and measures, ranging from incarceration to increased drug screening requirements, increased counseling, electronic monitoring, and public apology.
People & committees
Rep. Boozman, John [R-AR-3] · R–AR
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 15, 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.3739 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.3739 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.3739 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.3739 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.