PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5557-5558)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 21, 2000
Capturing Criminals Act of 2000 - Authorizes the Attorney General to establish Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces, which shall consist of Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities in designated regions of the United States and be coordinated by the Director of the United States Marshals Service, to locate and apprehend fugitives. Authorizes appropriations.(Sec. 3) Authorizes the Attorney General, in any investigation with respect to the apprehension of a fugitive (defined as a person who has been accused or convicted of committing a felony under Federal or State law and who undertakes specified acts, such as fleeing or escaping from lawful Federal or State custody), to subpoena witnesses for the production of any records relevant to discerning the fugitive's whereabouts. Sets forth provisions governing the jurisdiction, service, enforcement, and notice of, noncompliance with, and the time for response to such a subpoena, as well as the rights of a subpoena recipient and nondisclosure requirements..Directs: (1) the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to issue guidelines governing the issuance of such subpoenas, including a requirement that they be issued only after review and approval of senior supervisory personnel within the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury; and (2) the Attorney General to report each January to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees on the number of administrative subpoenas issued under this section, on whether each matter involved a fugitive from Federal or State charges, and on the agency issuing the subpoena and imposing the charges.(Sec. 4) Directs the Attorney General to complete a study on the use of administrative subpoena power by executive branch agencies or entities and to report the findings to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.
People & committees
Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT
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 the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S5557-5558)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5556-5557)
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.2761 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.2761 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.2761 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.2761 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.