Jump to content

HR 16 - SERVE Our Communities Act


SWMissourian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Representative DRAKE, for himself (and with thanks to Representative KATKO), introduced the following bill:

A BILL
To authorize grants for States, and units of local government that take efforts to stop enabling repeat violence, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Stop Enabling Repeat Violence and Endangering Our Communities Act” or the “SERVE Our Communities Act”.

SEC. 2. SERVE OUR COMMUNITIES GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authorization.—The Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, is authorized to make grants to eligible States and units of local government for the purposes described in subsection (c).

(b) Eligibility.—In order to be eligible for a grant under this section, a State or unit of local government—

  (1) shall allow a State court or magistrate to consider the danger an individual poses to the community when determining bail or pretrial release conditions; and

  (2) shall have taken steps during the previous calendar year to prevent repeat offenses by violent offenders, including—

    (A) enacting a law that allows a State court or magistrate to consider the danger an individual poses to the community when determining bail or pretrial release conditions;

    (B) expanding efforts of that jurisdiction to hire and retain law enforcement officers and prosecutorial staff; or

    (C) administering a public education program to combat anti-police sentiment and improve community-police relations.

(c) Use Of Funds.—A State or unit of local government that receives a grant under this section may use such funds for the purposes described in section 211(b) of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 60531(b)).

(d) Repayment. Any government unit which, in full or in large part, repeals or rescinds a measure or measures used to receive a grant under this Act without a substantially similar or stronger replacement, or which is found to be discretionarily generally not applying the measure(s) prior to the end of fiscal year 2029 shall be required to repay the grant in question to the federal government.

(e) Authorization Of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2028 to carry out this section.

(f) Definitions.—In this section, the terms “State” and “unit of local government” have the meanings given such terms in section 901 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Bruce changed the title to HR 16 - SERVE Our Communities Act
  • Bruce pinned this topic
  • Administrators
On 12/4/2021 at 3:18 PM, SWMissourian said:

Representative DRAKE, for himself (and with thanks to Representative KATKO), introduced the following bill:

A BILL
To authorize grants for States, and units of local government that take efforts to stop enabling repeat violence, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Stop Enabling Repeat Violence and Endangering Our Communities Act” or the “SERVE Our Communities Act”.

SEC. 2. SERVE OUR COMMUNITIES GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) Authorization.—The Attorney General, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, is authorized to make grants to eligible States and units of local government for the purposes described in subsection (c).

(b) Eligibility.—In order to be eligible for a grant under this section, a State or unit of local government—

  (1) shall allow a State court or magistrate to consider the danger an individual poses to the community when determining bail or pretrial release conditions; and

  (2) shall have taken steps during the previous calendar year to prevent repeat offenses by violent offenders, including—

    (A) enacting a law that allows a State court or magistrate to consider the danger an individual poses to the community when determining bail or pretrial release conditions;

    (B) expanding efforts of that jurisdiction to hire and retain law enforcement officers and prosecutorial staff; or

    (C) administering a public education program to combat anti-police sentiment and improve community-police relations.

(c) Use Of Funds.—A State or unit of local government that receives a grant under this section may use such funds for the purposes described in section 211(b) of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (34 U.S.C. 60531(b)).

(d) Authorization Of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2028 to carry out this section.

(e) Definitions.—In this section, the terms “State” and “unit of local government” have the meanings given such terms in section 901 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10251).

Nancy Pelosi

The House is called to order to debate the legislation for no less than 144 hours (approx Sunday 1/2 @ 2AM).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madam Speaker,
I support the thrust of this Act, but I believe it needs a tweak to actually be useful:
I move to add a SEC. 2 (d) after SEC. 2 (c) as follows:
 

Quote

(d) Repayment. Any government unit which, in full or in large part, repeals or rescinds a measure or measures used to receive a grant under this Act without a substantially similar or stronger replacement, or which is found to be discretionarily generally not applying the measure(s) prior to the end of fiscal year 2029 shall be required to repay the grant in question to the federal government.

Basically, I'm concerned that we cut a check to a given county which has applied for a grant. They get the check. They cash the check. They turn around and immediately repeal the measure, or they decide that the measure is simply "too much trouble after all" and let it lie dead on the books. All we will have succeeded in doing, at that point, is getting them to send a virtue signal - albeit not necessarily a bad virtue signal - so they can take the money and run.

Andrew Byrd (and family), Virginia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madam Speaker, 

I second the gentleman from Florida’s amendment and yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, Steven Andrews said:

Madam Speaker,
I support the thrust of this Act, but I believe it needs a tweak to actually be useful:
I move to add a SEC. 2 (d) after SEC. 2 (c) as follows:
 

Basically, I'm concerned that we cut a check to a given county which has applied for a grant. They get the check. They cash the check. They turn around and immediately repeal the measure, or they decide that the measure is simply "too much trouble after all" and let it lie dead on the books. All we will have succeeded in doing, at that point, is getting them to send a virtue signal - albeit not necessarily a bad virtue signal - so they can take the money and run.

Nancy Pelosi

The amendment would be out of order as it came with less than 24 hours remaining for debate. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madam Speaker, I accept the amendment as friendly and yield. 

Christopher Drake

Republican, NY-2

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Former Chief Administrator - Rounds 4 & 5, Evil Arch-Conservative, Frequent Republican Player

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
6 hours ago, Steven Andrews said:

Madam Speaker,
I support the thrust of this Act, but I believe it needs a tweak to actually be useful:
I move to add a SEC. 2 (d) after SEC. 2 (c) as follows:
 

Basically, I'm concerned that we cut a check to a given county which has applied for a grant. They get the check. They cash the check. They turn around and immediately repeal the measure, or they decide that the measure is simply "too much trouble after all" and let it lie dead on the books. All we will have succeeded in doing, at that point, is getting them to send a virtue signal - albeit not necessarily a bad virtue signal - so they can take the money and run.

Nancy Pelosi

The amendment has been accepted as friendly by the sponsor and has been added to the text of the bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 

Voting Bloc Total Aye Nay Present
Nationalist Republicans 51 51 0 0
Evangelical Republicans 51 51 0 0
Business Republicans 51 51 0 0
Moderate Conservative Republicans 50 50 0 0
Moderate Liberal Republicans 10 8 0 0
SJW Democrats 52 0 24 27
Progressive Democrats 52 0 24 27
Environmentalist Democrats 52 0 37 14
Moderate Liberal Democrats 52 0 13 38
Moderate Conservative Democrats 14 8 2 3
  219 100 109
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Bruce unpinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...