PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 27, 2010
Simplifying The Ambiguous Law, Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe Act of 2010 or the STALKERS Act of 2010 - Amends the federal criminal code to revise the definition of stalking and impose criminal penalties on anyone who, with intent to kill, physically injure, harass, or intimidate a person or to place a person under surveillance with the intent to kill, physically injure, harass, or intimidate such person, travels in interstate or foreign commerce or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or enters or leaves Indian country and: (1) causes or attempts to cause bodily injury or serious emotional distress to another person; or (2) engages in conduct that would be reasonably expected to cause serious emotional distress to another person.
Imposes the same criminal penalties on anyone who, with intent to kill, physically injure, harass, or intimidate a person, engages in a course of conduct in or substantially affecting interstate or foreign commerce that: (1) causes or attempts to cause bodily injury or serious emotional distress to another person; or (2) occurs in circumstances where the conduct would be reasonably expected to cause another person serious emotional distress.
Increases penalties for stalking offenses if: (1) the offense involves conduct in violation of a protection order; or (2) the victim of the offense is under the age of 18 or over the age of 65.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the annual report of the Attorney General to include an evaluation of efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking and to identify and describe elements of such efforts that constitute the best practices for the enforcement of such laws.
Provides for compliance of the budgetary effects of this Act with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
People & committees
Rep. Sanchez, Loretta [D-CA-47] · D–CA
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 the 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. (text: CR H6135)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6135)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5662.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6135-6136)
Mr. Scott (VA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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.5662 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.5662 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.5662 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.5662 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.