PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jan 8, 2018
Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Reporting Act of 2017 or the SAFER Act of 2017
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act of 2004 to require the Department of Justice (DOJ), in providing information about the role of forensic nurses to certain health-related entities, to provide information about the role of both adult and pediatric forensic nurses. DOJ must also provide additional information on the need for pediatric sexual assault nurse examiners in responding to the abuse of both children and adolescents.
(Sec. 3) Additionally, the bill amends the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 to reauthorize through FY2022 the requirement for DOJ to allocate a certain percentage of funds under the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program for grants to audit backlogged sexual assault kits (i.e., rape kits).
It extends from 2018 to 2023 the sunset date of DOJ's authority to award grants to collect DNA of arrestees and to audit backlogged rape kits.
People & committees
Sen. Cornyn, John [R-TX] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 115-107.
Became Public Law No: 115-107.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H10362)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10362)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10405)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mrs. Handel objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was considered as withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1766.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10362-10364)
Mrs. Handel moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S6717; text as passed Senate: CR S6717)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S6717; text as passed Senate: CR S6717)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 231.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Grassley with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5006)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.1766 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.1766 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.1766 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.1766 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.