United StatesFederal law would name sentencing and police-training record recipients
Federal law would expressly name sentencing commissions and state police standards and training agencies among bodies whose authorized officials may receive records for official use.
What it does
Federal record-sharing law would expressly name the U.S. Sentencing Commission, state sentencing commissions, and state police standards and training agencies as eligible official users.
Argument forExplicitly naming these bodies could reduce uncertainty when sentencing and police-training officials need federal records for official work.
Argument againstExpressly naming more government bodies could lead to wider sharing of sensitive criminal-history records, increasing privacy and oversight concerns.
More detail
The Attorney General's record-sharing duty would expressly name the listed commissions and state police standards and training agencies. The provision covers federal, state, tribal, and city officials and penal or other institutions. “State” includes the 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories and possessions. Officials must be authorized, and the records and information must be used for official purposes. A police standards and training agency must have authority under state law to set hiring, training, ethics, and retention standards through certification, licensing, or a similar process. The Attorney General would have 180 days after enactment to update federal regulations as needed to carry out the act.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To President
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Oct 14Message on Senate action sent to the House.Latest
- Sep 30Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.Minor
- Sep 30Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5299)Passed Senate
- May 13Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- May 12Mr. Schmidt moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- May 12Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3370-3372)
- May 12DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8352.
- May 12Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3370-3371)Passed House
- May 12Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- May 4Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-636.
- May 4Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 553.
- Apr 22Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Apr 22Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
- Apr 16Introduced in House
- Apr 16Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.Introduced
Criminal JusticePublic SafetyGovernment & Ethics