PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 12, 2007
Sentencing Fairness and Equity Restoration Act of 2007 - Amends the federal criminal code to require: (1) federal courts to impose sentences for crimes at no less than the minimum of the range prescribed by U.S. Sentencing Commission Guidelines up to the statutory maximum; and (2) appellate de novo review of any sentence imposed below the minimum of the range in applicable sentencing guidelines
Directs the Attorney General to create and implement a new policy for the filing of motions for reducing a criminal sentence for substantial assistance in investigating or prosecuting another individual.
Amends the federal judicial code to: (1) exempt sentencing courts from the requirement of filing a written report with the U.S. Sentencing Commission for certain petty crimes for which there are no applicable sentencing guidelines; and (2) prohibit the delegation of certain judicial duties relating to sentencing to the executive branch.
People & committees
Rep. Feeney, Tom [R-FL-24] · R–FL
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, 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.993 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.993 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.993 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.993 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.