PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 21, 1995
Disaster Victims Crime Prevention Act of 1995 - Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to direct the Attorney General, following the declaration of a major disaster by the President: (1) to consult with the appropriate U.S. Attorney and State and local law enforcement officials to determine the extent to which victims of the disaster are being further victimized by fraudulent or otherwise unscrupulous activities of suppliers offering consumer goods and services for the cleanup, repair, and other recovery from the effects of the disaster (cleanup); and (2) if it appears that resources of such officials are insufficient, to establish an anti-fraud task force to quickly and adequately investigate and prosecute the activities. Sets penalties to be imposed against: (1) any supplier who, during the 180 days following declaration of a major disaster, obtains anything of value through false pretenses or fraudulent conduct in connection with an agreement to provide a consumer good or service for the cleanup; (2) any person who obtains through false pretenses any form of Government assistance for the cleanup; and (3) any supplier who provides or offers to provide during such period any consumer good or service at an unconscionably excessive price, based on a specified formula (and authorizes actions by victims and by State attorneys general for relief). Requires the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to: (1) develop public information materials to assist victims of major disasters in detecting and avoiding unscrupulous suppliers; and (2) provide for the distribution of such materials to the victims of each major disaster as soon as practicable after the President's declaration of the existence of the disaster. Directs the United States Sentencing Commission to review and, if necessary, amend the sentencing guidelines to make the commission of specified offenses in connection with the provision of a consumer good or service for the cleanup an aggravating factor that may result in the imposition of a sentence twice as great as that which would otherwise be imposed.
People & committees
Sen. Akaka, Daniel K. [D-HI] · D–HI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 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 S.1492 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 S.1492 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 S.1492 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 S.1492 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.