[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 27, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6135-H6137]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1910
 SIMPLIFYING THE AMBIGUOUS LAW, KEEPING EVERYONE RELIABLY SAFE ACT OF 
                                  2010

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 5662) to amend title 18, United States Code, with 
respect to the offense of stalking, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5662

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Simplifying The Ambiguous 
     Law, Keeping Everyone Reliably Safe Act of 2010'' or the 
     ``STALKERS Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. STALKING.

       (a) In General.--Section 2261A of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 2261A. Stalking

       ``(a) Whoever, with intent to kill, physically injure, 
     harass, or intimidate a person, or place under surveillance 
     with the intent to kill, physically injure, harass, or 
     intimidate a 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 in the course of, or as a result of, such 
     travel--
       ``(1) causes or attempts to cause bodily injury or serious 
     emotional distress to a person other than the person engaging 
     in the conduct; or
       ``(2) engages in conduct that would be reasonably expected 
     to cause the other person serious emotional distress;
     shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).
       ``(b) Whoever, 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 a person other than the person engaging 
     in the conduct; or
       ``(2) occurs in circumstances where the conduct would be 
     reasonably expected to cause the other person serious 
     emotional distress;
     shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).
       ``(c) The punishment for an offense under this section is 
     the same as that for an offense under section 2261, except 
     that--
       ``(1) if the offense involves conduct in violation of a 
     protection order; and
       ``(2) if the victim of the offense is under the age of 18 
     years or over the age of 65 years, the offender has reached 
     the age of 18 years at the time the offense was committed, 
     and the offender knew or should have known that the victim 
     was under the age of 18 years or over the age of 65 years;
     the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed is 
     increased by 5 years over the term of imprisonment otherwise 
     provided for that offense in section 2261.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 2261A 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 110A of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``2261A. Stalking.''.

     SEC. 3. BEST PRACTICES REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF ANTI-STALKING 
                   LAWS TO BE INCLUDED IN ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 
                   ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       In the annual report under section 529 of title 28, United 
     States Code, the Attorney General shall--
       (1) include an evaluation of Federal, tribal, State, and 
     local efforts to enforce laws relating to stalking; and
       (2) identify and describe those elements of such efforts 
     that constitute the best practices for the enforcement of 
     such laws.

     SEC. 4. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the STALKERS Act of 2010 makes a number of changes in 
the United States Code with respect to the offense of stalking. It 
clarifies, strengthens, and enhances the current law.
  First it allows law enforcement to intervene in cases where a victim 
may not be aware of the seriousness of the threat before it's too late. 
The existing statute requires a person have reasonable fear of bodily 
injury or to undergo emotional distress. These injuries are difficult 
to demonstrate, often frustrating both victims and prosecutors.
  H.R. 5662 addresses this problem by permitting law enforcement to 
intervene in any event of stalking that might reasonably be expected to 
cause another person serious emotional distress. This small change will 
go a long way towards both effective law enforcement and justice for 
victims.
  Second, the bill reaches criminals who make use of new technologies 
to stalk their victims. It extends the law to any course of conduct in 
or substantially affecting interstate commerce, which will apply to 
cyberstalking, acts of surveillance and other forms of stalking that 
employ emerging technologies.
  Third, the bill takes several steps towards more effective 
enforcement of the Federal stalking statute and other

[[Page H6136]]

stalking laws. It increases the maximum term of imprisonment by 5 years 
if a criminal violates a protection order or if the victim is under the 
age of 18 or over the age of 65.
  The bill also requires the Attorney General to conduct a annual study 
of best practices and enforcement of stalking laws nationwide. In 
short, this legislation updates current law to target the full range of 
behavior that stalkers direct towards their victims. It will help law 
enforcement seek justice, help victims seek closure, and increase 
protections of the most vulnerable amongst us.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) 
for her hard work and advocacy on behalf of victims of stalking. I ask 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  First, let me say, Mr. Speaker, both as a Member of Congress and as 
the former attorney general of the State of California, I have long 
been concerned with the plight of those who have been victimized by 
crime. The anti-stalking law we had in the State of California was one 
that we worked with local law enforcement on and the agents that worked 
for me also worked on that in coordination with the local law 
enforcement officers. Certainly, those who have suffered from the 
threats of stalkers warrant our concern and our action.
  I also would like to acknowledge the work, the pioneering work, that 
was done by the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) on this with the 
original Federal anti-stalking legislation.
  I certainly appreciate the motivations and efforts of the gentlewoman 
from California who brings this bill here today in an effort to respond 
to this serious issue.
  However, I must suggest that legislation of this magnitude is of 
sufficient importance that it warrants attention by our committee 
commensurate with the serious nature of the stalking issue. 
Regrettably, we have had no hearings on this bill, no markups, no 
legislative process of any kind. Until this evening, we did not even 
know the full contents of this bill, and now Members are being asked to 
vote on it.
  Further, it's my understanding the bill was added to the suspension 
calendar late last night. I understand that we may need to revisit the 
Federal statute now if this is not adequate to protect the victims of 
stalking. But having just received a copy of the final version of this 
legislation this evening, I do wish we had had more time to devote to 
this important bill.
  Certainly, victims of emotionally and physically devastating crimes 
like stalking deserve the very best this Congress can produce, rather 
than us perhaps making some errors in the bill that we are considering, 
particularly a bill that was finalized an hour before votes. Although 
this bill comes to the floor under suspension of the rules, the lack of 
process surrounding this vote seems to have suspended all of the rules, 
unfortunately.
  Nevertheless, the proposal does address issues of legitimate concern 
to stalking victims.
  I, therefore, support this measure, and I would argue that all 
Members should support this measure. However, I do feel it necessary to 
register strong disappointment considering the method with which this 
bill has been brought to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to a strong advocate for victims of stalking, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I thank our chairman, Bobby Scott, 
for bringing this forward and to Chairman Conyers for bringing this 
forward.
  You know, about a year and a half ago we put the first stalking 
legislation together for what we call the UCMJ, the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice. That is the code or the laws that govern our 
military. Since I am the ranking woman on all military issues here, I 
was the author of that.
  Having looked at that and done that for the military code, I thought 
about all the issues that were still outstanding in the current Federal 
civil code. So I am here today to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing 
me to bring this long overdue piece of legislation, the STALKERS Act of 
2010.
  Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and I have bridged 
party lines to introduce H.R. 5662, and I want to thank her for her 
leadership on this issue. There is also a companion bill that will be 
introduced in the Senate, we hope, next week.
  No one can deny that the Internet is a remarkable tool, capable of 
connecting billions of people throughout the world. Unfortunately, it 
has also proven to be an effective weapon for stalkers to prey on 
innocent people.
  Current Federal stalking statutes simply have not caught up with what 
is going on with the new tools and the emerging technologies that 
criminals have at their disposal. So the STALKERS Act would bring our 
lives into the 21st century by giving law enforcement the tools that it 
needs to combat stalking in the digital age.
  The STALKERS Act would protect victims and empower prosecutors by 
increasing the scope of existing laws to cover acts of electronic 
monitoring, including spyware, bugging, video surveillance and other 
new technologies as they develop. Currently, Federal laws cannot be 
enforced unless stalking victims can demonstrate that they are in 
reasonable fear of physical injury. Because stalking is often a gateway 
to more violent acts, by the time a victim can actually demonstrate 
that they have ``reasonable fear,'' it may be too late.
  So the STALKERS Act lowers the threshold for action by permitting law 
enforcement to prosecute any act of stalking that is reasonably 
expected to cause another person serious emotional distress. Our laws 
should help to protect the victims, not serve as a roadblock to their 
safety.
  This legislation helps to do that. At its core, stalking is about 
power and control. It is a violation of the worst kind and our justice 
system needs every single tool available to combat this crime.
  I am proud to have introduced this STALKERS Act, and I urge my 
colleague to pass this bill. It is time we fight against stalking and 
other forms of harassment and intimidation and be on the side of 
victims.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of this bill. Anybody who has 
spoken with or in any way had an opportunity to meet with those who 
have been the victims of stalkers understands the terrible emotional 
impact that this illegal activity can have. Oftentimes, it is an act 
precedent to actual physical harm; but even when actual physical harm 
is not done, the emotional toll is, in fact, real and extensive.
  This bill, I think, furthers the interest that we have in the Federal 
anti-stalking law, but at the same time I do register my reservation 
about the manner in which it was brought forward without full 
consultation with those of us on this side of the aisle on the 
committee.

                              {time}  1920

  Nonetheless, it's a good idea. I urge my colleagues to support it, 
and I hope it gets unanimous support.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank my colleague from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) 
for his support and the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez) for her strong advocacy on behalf of victims of stalking. I 
hope that we will pass the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5662, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H6137]]



                          ____________________