PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 10, 1998
Megan's Law Implementation Act - Amends the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act to require the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to award a grant to each eligible State to offset costs directly associated with complying with the Act. Names such grant program the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program (SOMA). Directs that grants awarded be: (1) given directly to the State for distribution to State and local entities; and (2) used for training, salaries, equipment, materials, and other costs directly associated with complying with the Act. Requires a chief executive of a State, to be eligible for such a grant, to submit to the Director annually an application assuring that the State: (1) complies with such Act; and (2) has penalties comparable to or greater than Federal penalties for crimes listed in such Act. Requires the Director to conduct a study to assess the efficacy of SOMA and submit recommendations to the Congress. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Bass, Charles F. [R-NH-2] · R–NH
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.
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 21, 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.4026 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.4026 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.4026 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.4026 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.