Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act of 2022
Became Public Law No: 117-325.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 49 · Public Law · Dec 27, 2022
Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act of 2022
This act directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop scenario-based training curricula (or identify existing curricula) that includes topics such as alternatives to the use of force, de-escalation tactics, and safely responding to an individual experiencing a mental, behavioral health, or suicidal crisis.
The act also directs DOJ to make grants to states for costs associated with providing the training to law enforcement officers or mental health professionals.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9841)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on S. 4003, the Chair put the question on passage and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Biggs demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on S. 4003.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948, S. 3905 and S. 4003. Rule provides for one hour of general debate each for H.R. 1948, S. 3905, S. 4003. Rule provides for one hour of general debate on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1437. Rule provides that H. Res. 1516 and H. Con. Res. 124 are adopted. Rule provides that the House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table H.R. 2617, with the Senate amendments thereto, to have concurred in the Senate amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5, and to have concurred in the Senate amendment numbered 4 with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-73.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1518. (consideration: CR H9745-9752)
Rule H. Res. 1518 passed House.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1518 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1948, S. 3905 and S. 4003. Rule provides for one hour of general debate each for H.R. 1948, S. 3905, S. 4003. Rule provides for one hour of general debate on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1437. Rule provides that H. Res. 1516 and H. Con. Res. 124 are adopted. Rule provides that the House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table H.R. 2617, with the Senate amendments thereto, to have concurred in the Senate amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5, and to have concurred in the Senate amendment numbered 4 with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-73.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 247 - 160, 1 Present (Roll no. 486).
Failed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 247 - 160, 1 Present (Roll no. 486).
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8642)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on S. 4003.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8612-8618; text: CR H8612-8615)
Mr. Nadler moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Held at the desk.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S3832-3835)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR S3832-3835)
The committee substitute withdrawn by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S3829-3835)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 422.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Durbin with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Durbin 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.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.4003 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.4003 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.4003 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.4003 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.