PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 2, 1993
Amends the Federal criminal code to establish penalties with respect to a person who: (1) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in the course of interstate travel, or by the use of an instrument of interstate or foreign commerce, harasses or makes a credible threat against another person; (2) under a protection order engages in such conduct; and (3) with a prior stalking conviction engages in such conduct. Prohibits an offense within the jurisdiction of a State from being prosecuted by the United States under such provisions unless the Attorney General (or the highest ranking subordinate of the Attorney General with responsibility for criminal prosecutions) makes a written determination that the offender will not be expeditiously or effectively prosecuted under State law. Requires as a condition of probation granted to an offender under such provisions that the offender participate in counseling, unless the court finds that counseling is not necessary. Requires a court to consider issuing an order enjoining an offender from any contact with the victim for a period of up to ten years.
People & committees
Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2211)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.470 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 S.470 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 S.470 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 S.470 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.