PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 106-515.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 4, 1999
America's Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project - Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to authorize the Attorney General to make grants to States, State courts, local courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments, acting directly or through agreements with other public or nonprofit entities, for up to 125 programs that involve: (1) continuing judicial supervision, including periodic review, over preliminarily qualified offenders with mental illness, mental retardation, or co-occurring mental illness and substance abuse disorders who are charged with non-violent offenses; and (2) the coordinated delivery of services, which includes specialized training of law enforcement and judicial personnel to identify and address the unique needs of a mentally ill or mentally retarded offender, voluntary outpatient or inpatient mental health treatment that carries with it the possibility of dismissal of charges or reduced sentencing upon successful completion of treatment, and centralized case management involving the consolidation of all of a mentally ill or mentally retarded defendant's cases (including violations of probation) and the coordination of all mental health treatment plans and social services, including life skills training.Defines "preliminarily qualified offender with mental illness, mental retardation, or co-occurring mental and substance abuse disorders" to mean a person who: (1) previously or currently has been diagnosed by a qualified mental health professional as having a mental illness, mental retardation, or co-occurring mental and substance abuse disorders or who manifests obvious signs of mental illness, mental retardation, or co-occurring mental and substance abuse disorders during arrest or confinement or before any court; and (2) is deemed eligible by designated judges.Directs the Attorney General to issue regulations and guidelines necessary to carry out this Act, including the methodologies and outcome measures proposed for evaluating each applicant program.Sets forth provisions regarding application requirements, the Federal cost share (75 percent), geographic distribution of grants, reporting requirements, and technical assistance, training, and evaluation. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. DeWine, Mike [R-OH] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 106-515.
Became Public Law No: 106-515.
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 H10636-10637)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H10636-10637)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10708-10709)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Scott 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 withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 1865.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10636-10640)
Mr. Chabot moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
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 S9329-9330; text as passed Senate: CR S9329-9330)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9329-9330; text as passed Senate: CR S9329-9330)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 734.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch 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 Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S13983-13984)
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: 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.1865 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.1865 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.1865 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.1865 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.