A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill directs the Attorney General to establish a grant program aimed at improving the clearance rates of homicides and firearm-related violent crimes. The program will provide funds to various law enforcement agencies for projects such as hiring personnel, upgrading technology, and providing victim services. It includes specific requirements for training, evidence processing, and supporting officers experiencing trauma. The Attorney General is tasked with ensuring funds reach both rural and urban areas, with specific percentages set aside for Tribal and rural entities. The bill also mandates regular audits and evaluations to ensure accountability and effectiveness.
Yes· 3 of 26
- Scored +6
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Specifically mandates a minimum of 5% of funds for Tribal law enforcement and prosecuting offices.
- Scored +6
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Mandates the provision of disability access supports for victims.
- Scored +5
Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities?
Specifically mandates disability access supports for victims in the criminal justice process.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -2
Does this protect people from being watched or searched?
New forensic and investigative technologies could potentially infringe on privacy.
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Creates a new grant program involving an annual appropriation of $60 million.
- Scored -2
Does this give people more control over their personal data?
Upgrades in forensic and investigative technology may pose risks to individual privacy.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Crime Investigation: Grants can be used to hire and train personnel specifically for investigating homicides and firearm-srelated violent crimes, or to upgrade forensic and investigative technology (Section 2(b)(4)(A-D)).
-
Victim Support Services: The bill allows for funding to ensure victims and their families have access to emergency needs like food, housing, clothing, and transportation (Section 2(b)(4)(K)).
-
Comprehensive Victim Care: Funds can be used to provide medical and psychological wellness, ongoing counseling, and legal advice to victims and their families (Section 2(b)(4)(M)).
-
Protection of Rights: The bill includes provisions for developing policies that safeguard civil rights and civil liberties during the evidence collection and testing process (Section 2(b)(4)(H)).
-
Officer Wellness: The program can establish support systems for officers who experience stress or trauma from investigating violent crimes (Section 2(b)(4)(I)).
-
Accessibility for All: It provides for language and disability access supports to help victims and families participate in the criminal justice process (Section 2(b)(4)(O)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Risk of Misused Funds: There is a possibility of waste, fraud, or abuse of funds, which the Inspector General is tasked to monitor through audits (Section 2(g)(2)(B)).
-
Exclusion from Funding: Agencies found to have unresolved audit findings regarding unauthorized expenditures will be ineligible to receive grant funds for the following fiscal year (Section 2(g)(2)(C)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically mandates a minimum of 5% of funds for Tribal law enforcement and prosecuting offices. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Mandates the provision of disability access supports for victims. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Ensures distribution of funds to rural applicants and mandates a 5% minimum allocation. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Provides language access supports for victims in the criminal justice process. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Provides emergency financial assistance and essential goods to victims of violent crime. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Ensures distribution of funds to urban applicants to solve violent crimes. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Focuses on solving violent crimes and mandates race-based data reporting for equity. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides language access supports and focuses on violent crime clearance. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Provides language access supports and focuses on violent crime clearance.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Specifically mandates disability access supports for victims in the criminal justice process. Does this change how police departments operate? — Encourages best practices in agency cooperation, accountability, and community relationships. Does this make housing cost less? — Allows grant funds to provide emergency housing for victims of violent crimes. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Provides emergency food and financial compensation to victims. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Requires data collection on race of victims and suspects and policies to safeguard civil rights. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Provides temporary emergency housing for crime victims.
- Healthcare
- Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Provides funding for psychological wellness and counseling for victims and officers. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Ensures victims have access to medical wellness services through grant funding. Does this put more money into medical research? — Funds the analysis of crime trends and evidence-based programs.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires detailed annual reports and audits of grant usage. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Requires policies to safeguard civil rights and liberties during evidence processing. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes a federal grant program with reporting and audit requirements for local agencies. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — New forensic and investigative technologies could potentially infringe on privacy.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Mandates that at least 5% of funds go to rural law enforcement agencies.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Provides funding for hiring additional law enforcement and forensic personnel. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Requires audits by the Inspector General and strict reporting to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Creates a new grant program involving an annual appropriation of $60 million. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Increases federal spending by authorizing $60 million annually.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Provides funding for forensic testing and technological investigative methods. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Upgrades in forensic and investigative technology may pose risks to individual privacy.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this give the government more power to monitor people inside the country? — Funds the acquisition and upgrade of investigative and forensic technology.
- 5/12/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
4 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Don BaconRepublican · Nebraska