PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Mar 11, 1998
Traffic Stops Statistics Study Act of 1998 - Requires the Attorney General to conduct a study of stops for routine traffic violations by law enforcement officers. Directs that such study include consideration of factors including: (1) the traffic infraction that led to the stop; (2) the race, ethnicity, and age of the individual stopped; (3) whether a search was instituted and the rationale for, method of, and contraband discovered in, the search; (4) whether a warning, citation, or arrest resulted; and (5) the benefit of traffic stops with regard to the interdiction of drugs and the proceeds of drug trafficking. Prohibits the data from: (1) being used for other than research or statistical purposes or in any legal or administrative proceeding to establish an inference of discrimination on the basis of particular identifying characteristics; or (2) containing any information that may reveal the identity of individuals stopped or law enforcement officers. Directs the Attorney General to report the results of the study to the Congress.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1387-1389)
Mr. Hyde moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 245.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-435.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-435.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Crime Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E10)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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 H.R.118 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 H.R.118 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 H.R.118 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 H.R.118 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.