PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 255.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 8, 1994
Violent Repeat Offender Incarceration Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to individual States and to States organized as multi-State compacts to develop, expand, modify, or improve correctional facilities and programs to ensure that prison cell space is available for the confinement of violent repeat offenders. Sets eligibility requirements for such grants, including assurances that: (1) the States have implemented, or will implement, correctional policies and programs designed to provide sufficiently severe punishment for violent repeat offenders; (2) the prison time served is appropriately related to the determination that the inmate is a violent repeat offender and is for a period of time deemed necessary to protect the public; (3) the States have implemented policies that provide for recognition of victims' rights and needs; (4) funds received will be used for correctional facilities and programs that ensure that prison space is available for the confinement of violent repeat offenders and to supplement, not supplant, other Federal, State, and local funds; and (5) the States have a comprehensive correctional plan which represents an integrated approach to the management and operation of correctional facilities and programs. Requires documentation of a multi-State compact agreement specifying the development, expansion, modification, or improvement of correctional facilities and programs. Limits the Federal share to 75 percent of the costs. Authorizes the Attorney General to request the Directors of the National Institute of Corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide technical assistance and training to States that receive a grant; and (2) assist with an evaluation of programs established with funds under this Act. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Hughes, William J. [D-NJ-2] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 255.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-462.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-462.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 16, 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.3968 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.3968 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.3968 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.3968 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.