PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 10, 1997
Royal Hong Kong Police Anticrime Strategy Act of 1997 - Directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to study and report to specified congressional committees regarding the potential recruitment, hiring, or retention of qualified former officers of the Royal Hong Kong Police by Federal law enforcement agencies to assist in the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of Federal criminal offenses. Authorizes appropriations for: (1) FY 1998 for conducting such study; and (2) FY 1998 through 2001 for the recruitment, hiring, or retention of up to 100 of such officers for each of the Departments of Justice and the Treasury if the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury each certify that it would be of significant assistance to Federal law enforcement.
People & committees
Sen. Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [D-DE] · D–DE
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 Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3033-3034)
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.558 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.558 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.558 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.558 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.