PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 1995
Rapid Deployment Strike Force Act - Directs the Attorney General to establish in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) to assist units of local government in combating crime. Provides that: (1) the RDF shall be headed by a Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI and comprised of approximately 2,500 Federal law enforcement officers with training and experience in the investigation of violent and drug-related crime, criminal gangs, and juvenile delinquency and community action to prevent crime; and (2) to the extent that the RDF is staffed through the transfer of personnel from other entities in the Department of Justice or any other Federal agency, such personnel shall be replaced through the hiring of additional law enforcement officers. Authorizes the Deputy Assistant Director, on application of the Governor of a State and the chief executive officer of the affected local government (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the mayor), and upon finding that the occurrence of criminal activity in a particular jurisdiction is being exacerbated by the interstate flow of drugs, guns, and criminals, to deploy on a temporary basis an RDF unit to the jurisdiction to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in the investigation of criminal activity. Sets forth requirements regarding: (1) applications for assistance; (2) conditions of deployment; and (3) deputization of RDF members. Directs the Attorney General to establish and administer an annual leave system applicable to the Federal law enforcement officers serving in the RDF. Requires that: (1) RDF units be based in the Nation's major regions at locations and in facilities determined by the Attorney General; (2) RDF members receive training and education in the regional crime problems of the region where they are based; and (3) the Deputy Assistant Director, whenever possible, deploy units in the region where they are based. Provides for the use of the RDF, when not deployed, to provide training and education to local law enforcement agencies and to support Federal law enforcement efforts.
People & committees
Rep. Kennelly, Barbara B. [D-CT-1] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Justice.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E24-25)
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.97 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.97 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.97 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.97 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.