PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.For Further Action See H.R.3230.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · May 7, 1996
Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit and prescribe penalties for interstate stalking (i.e., traveling across a State line or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States with the intent to injure or harass another person and, in the course or as a result of such travel, placing that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to that person or a member of that person's immediate family).
People & committees
Rep. Royce, Edward R. [R-CA-39] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
For Further Action See H.R.3230.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 5083 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 5083 proposed by Senator Lott for Senator Lautenberg.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S8829-8830)
Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 421.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch without amendment. Without written report.
Committee on Judiciary. Reported to Senate by Senator Hatch without amendment. Without written report.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
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 H4457-4460)
Mr. McCollum moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 271.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-557.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 104-557.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.2980 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.2980 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.2980 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.2980 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.