PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Jan 22, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 - (Sec. 3) Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to increase the authorization of appropriations for the grant program for adult and juvenile collaboration for access to adequate mental health treatment and to extend such funding through FY2013.
(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to states, local governments, Indian tribes and tribal organizations for training programs and other services to assist law enforcement officers and campus security personnel in responding appropriately to incidents involving mentally-ill individuals. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2013.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 5) Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to states, local governments, Indian tribes and tribal organizations to provide services to female offenders with a mental illness, including mental health treatment, intensive case management services, and family support services. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2013.
(Sec. 6) Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to states, local governments, Indian tribes and tribal organizations to provide services for mentally-ill offenders, including: (1) assistance to correctional facilities for identifying mentally-ill offenders and for providing treatment plans for them; (2) local task forces to assist such offenders in reentry into the community; (3) housing options for such offenders; (4) development of community crisis services; and (5) links with local community mental health providers for assisting mentally-ill offenders with services prior to release from a correctional facility. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2013.
(Sec. 7) Authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to assist states, local governments, territories, and Indian tribes in planning and coordinating treatment programs for offenders with mental illnesses. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2012.
(Sec. 8) Reauthorizes the mental health courts grant program for FY2008-FY2013. Expands the permissible uses of grant funds to include pre-trial services and programs to provide alternatives to incarceration for offenders with mental illnesses.
(Sec. 9) Directs the Attorney General to provide for a study of the rate of occurrence of serious mental illnesses in individuals (including juveniles) on probation, incarcerated in a jail or prison, or on parole. Requires such study to identify the percentage of individuals with serious mental illnesses who, at the time of arrest, were eligible to receive social security disability or Medicaid benefits or who were homeless.
Requires the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress on such study within 18 months after the enactment of this Act.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2008 to carry out such study.
People & committees
Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3] · D–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H424-426)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H424-426)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3992.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H424-428)
Mr. Scott (VA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 314.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-514.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 110-514.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.3992 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.3992 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.3992 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.3992 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.