PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.667 / 104th Congress

Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995

Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 25, 1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Truth in Sentencing Title II: Stopping Abusive Prisoner Lawsuits Title III: Stop Turning Out Prisoners Violent Criminal Incarceration Act of 1995 - Title I: Truth in Sentencing - Revises the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (VCCLEA) to authorize the Attorney General to provide grants to eligible States and to eligible States organized as a regional compact (eligible States) to build, expand, and operate: (1) space in correctional facilities in order to increase the prison bed capacity in such facilities for the confinement of persons convicted of a serious violent felony; and (2) temporary to permanent correctional facilities, including facilities on military bases, for the confinement of convicted nonviolent offenders and criminal aliens for the purpose of freeing suitable existing prison space for the confinement of persons convicted of a serious violent felony. Limits eligible States to receiving either a general grant or a truth-in- sentencing incentive grant. Requires a State, to be eligible to receive general grant funds, to submit an application to the Attorney General that provides assurances (general grant requirements) that such State since 1993 has increased: (1) the percentage of convicted violent offenders sentenced to prison; (2) the average prison time actually to be served in prison by such offenders; and (3) the percentage of sentence to be actually served in prison by violent offenders sentenced to prison. Requires a State, to be eligible to receive truth-in-sentencing incentive grants, to submit an application to the Attorney General that provides assurances that the State has enacted laws and regulations which include: (1) truth-in-sentencing laws which either currently require or within three years will require that persons convicted of a serious violent felony serve not less than 85 percent of the sentence imposed or 85 percent of the court-ordered maximum sentence for States that practice indeterminate sentencing; and (2) laws requiring that the sentencing or releasing authorities notify and allow the victims of the defendant or the family of such victims the opportunity to be heard regarding the issue of sentencing and any postconviction release. Makes a State eligible for grants under this Act notwithstanding the general grant requirements if the State practices indeterminant sentencing and the average times served in such State for murder, rape, robbery, and assault exceed, by ten percent or greater, the national average of times served for such offenses. Specifies that such requirements shall apply except that a State may provide that the Governor of the State may allow for the release of a prisoner over age 70 after a public hearing in which representatives of the public and the prisoner's victims have an opportunity to be heard regarding a proposed release. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the formula for determining the amount of funds that each State may receive; (2) accounting, audit, and reporting requirements; and (3) limitations on funds. Authorizes appropriations. Title II: Stopping Abusive Prisoner Lawsuits - Amends the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act to prohibit any civil action for deprivation of rights from being brought by an adult convicted of a crime confined in any correctional facility until available plain, speedy, and effective administrative remedies are exhausted. (Sec. 202) Requires the court to dismiss any such action if satisfied that the action fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or is frivolous or malicious. (Sec. 203) Repeals a provision requiring that the minimum standards provide for an advisory role for employees and inmates in the formulation, implementation, and operation of the system. (Sec. 204) Amends the Federal judicial code to authorize the court to request an attorney to represent a person financially unable to employ counsel (current law) at any time. Requires (current law authorizes) the court to dismiss the case if the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious. Requires: (1) a prisoner in a correctional institution who files an affidavit of indigence to include a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses; and (2) the court to make inquiry of the institution for information relating to the extent of the prisoner's assets and to require full or partial payment of filing fees according to the prisoner's ability to pay. Title III: Stop Turning Out Prisoners - Revises provisions of the VCCLEA regarding judicial remedies with respect to prison conditions. Specifies that prospective relief in a civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to remove the conditions that are causing the deprivation of the Federal rights of individual plaintiffs in that action. Prohibits the court from granting or approving any prospective relief unless it finds that the relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to remedy the violation of the Federal right. Directs the court, in determining the intrusiveness of the relief, to give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief. Prohibits the court, in any such action, from granting or approving any relief the purpose or effect of which is to reduce or limit the prison population unless the plaintiff proves that crowding is the primary cause of the deprivation of the Federal right and no other relief will remedy that deprivation. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) termination of relief (including provision for the automatic termination of prospective relief after a two-year period); (2) procedure for motions affecting prospective relief; (3) standing (grants standing to specified Federal, State, or local officials to oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of relief the purpose or effect of which is to reduce or limit the prison population and to intervene in any proceeding relating to that relief); (4) special masters; and (5) attorney's fees.

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. McCollum, Bill [R-FL-8] · R–FL

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
  • Judiciary Committee
3 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. Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held.

  2. Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

  3. The Clerk was authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross references, and to make other necessary technical and conforming corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 667.

  4. Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  5. On passage Passed by recorded vote: 265 - 156 (Roll no. 117).

    House roll call 117 · Individual votes
  6. Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 265 - 156 (Roll no. 117).

    House roll call 117 · Individual votes
  7. On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 193 - 227 (Roll no. 116). (consideration: CR H1585)

    House roll call 116 · Individual votes
  8. The previous question on the motion to recommit with instructions was ordered without objection.

  9. DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions.

  10. Mr. Conyers moved to recommit with instructions to Judiciary.

  11. The House adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

  12. The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.

  13. The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 667.

  14. DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the Scott amendment.

  15. DEBATE - Pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement of Thursday, Feb. 11, 1995, debate on all amendments offered will be limited to 20 minutes each, 10 minutes allocated to the proponent and 10 minutes allocated to the opponent.

  16. The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.

  17. Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1561-1585)

  18. Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 667 as unfinished business.

  19. ORDER OF PROCEDURE - Mr. McCollum asked unanimous consent that the time for debate on each subsequent amendment, and all amendments thereto, be limited to not to exceed 20 minutes. Agreed to without objection.

  20. GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate.

  21. The Speaker designated the Honorable Jim Kolbe to act as Chairman of the Committee.

  22. House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 63 and Rule XXIII.

  23. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 667 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered except motion to recommit. Bill is open to amendments. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed ten hours. The Chair may accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Record. Such amendments are considered as read.

  24. Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 63. (consideration: CR H1479-1530)

  25. Rule H. Res. 63 passed House.

  26. Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 63 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 667 with 1 hour of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered except motion to recommit. Bill is open to amendments. It shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule for a period not to exceed ten hours. The Chair may accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Record. Such amendments are considered as read.

  27. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 8.

  28. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-21.

  29. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-21.

  30. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 11.

  31. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  32. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  33. Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.

  34. Introduced in House

  35. 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

Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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.667 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.667 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.667 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.667 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