PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 104-305.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Oct 3, 1996
Drug-Induced Rape Prevention and Punishment Act of 1996 - Amends the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to impose penalties of up to 20 years' imprisonment and a fine for violating CSA provisions by distributing a controlled substance to an individual without that individual's knowledge, with intent to commit a crime of violence (including rape) against such individual. Enhances penalties for certain activities involving flunitrazepam under: (1) the CSA, including manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute specified quantities of flunitrazepam (and increases penalties for unlawful simple possession of flunitrazepam); and (2) the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, including possessing, manufacturing, and distributing for purposes of unlawful importation of such quantities. Directs: (1) the United States Sentencing Commission to review and amend, as appropriate, the sentencing guidelines for offenses involving flunitrazepam and to ensure that such guidelines reflect the serious nature of such offenses; and (2) the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, in consultation with other Federal and State agencies as appropriate, to conduct a study on the appropriateness of rescheduling flunitrazepam as a Schedule I controlled substance. Sets forth reporting requirements. Authorizes the Attorney General to create educational materials regarding the use of controlled substances in the furtherance of rapes and sexual assaults for dissemination to police departments throughout the United States.
People & committees
Rep. Solomon, Gerald B. H. [R-NY-22] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 104-305.
Became Public Law No: 104-305.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection. (consideration: CR H12275-12276)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to without objection.(consideration: CR H12275-12276)
Mr. Solomon asked unanimous consent that the House agree to the Senate amendment.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 5429 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 5429 proposed by Senator Lott for Senator Hatch.
Measure laid before Senate. (consideration: CR S12376-12379)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421 - 1 (Roll no. 435).
House roll call 435 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421 - 1 (Roll no. 435).
House roll call 435 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H11244)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5, rule I, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed until Sept. 26.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11122-11126)
Mr. McCollum moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.4137 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.4137 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.4137 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.4137 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.