PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 20, 2003
Mandatory Prison Work and Drug Testing Act of 2003 - Amends the Crime Control Act of 1990 to require inmates confined in Federal prisons to engage in: (1) work for not less than 50 hours weekly; (2) job training; and (3) educational and life skills preparation study. Allows the services of inmates to be made available to nonprofit entities.Prescribes the portions of an inmate's earned wages to be allocated to offset the cost of incarceration, for victim restitution, to be held for the inmate until release in a non-interest bearing account, to be paid directly to the inmate for mandatory expenses and daily basic needs while incarcerated, and to be distributed to certain States and local jurisdictions.Requires: (1) the establishment of a zero tolerance policy for drug use in the Federal prison system, including random drug testing of inmates and prison employees, routine sweeps for contraband, and residential drug treatment programs for all inmates; and (2) the Bureau of Prisons to ensure that Federal prisoners do not use or possess tobacco, possess or view sexually explicit materials, possess televisions (unless provided by the prison for group viewing), listen to music containing violent or certain other types of lyrics, view cable television which is not educational, and engage in sexual activity.Amends the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to direct the Attorney General to make incentive grants to eligible States and local governments to establish drug-free prisons and jails.Requires the Bureau of Prisons to place in a shock incarceration program any person who is sentenced to a term of imprisonment (current law permits program placement for a consenting person sentenced to imprisonment for 12 to 30 months).
People & committees
Sen. Ensign, John [R-NV] · R–NV
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4169-4170)
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.672 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.672 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.672 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.672 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.