[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 29549-29553]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         STALKING PREVENTION AND VICTIM PROTECTION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1869) to amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the 
prohibition on stalking, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1869

       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 ``Stalking Prevention and 
     Victim Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF THE PROHIBITION ON STALKING.

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

     ``Sec. 2261A. Stalking

       ``(a) Whoever--
       ``(1) for the purpose of stalking an individual, travels or 
     causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, 
     uses or causes another to use the mail or any facility in 
     interstate or foreign commerce, or enters or leaves, or 
     causes another to enter or leave, Indian country; or
       ``(2) within the special maritime and territorial 
     jurisdiction of the United States or within Indian country, 
     stalks an individual;
     shall be punished as provided in section 2261.
       ``(b) For purposes of this section, a person stalks an 
     individual if that person engages in conduct--
       ``(1) with the intent to injure or harass the individual; 
     and
       ``(2) that places the individual in reasonable fear of the 
     death of, or serious bodily injury (as defined for the 
     purposes of section 2119) to, that individual, a member of 
     that individual's immediate family (as defined in section 
     115), or that individual's intimate partner.
       ``(c) The court shall at the time of sentencing for an 
     offense under this section issue an appropriate protection 
     order designed to protect the victim from further stalking by 
     the convicted person. Such an order shall remain in effect 
     for such time as the court deems necessary, and may be 
     modified, extended or terminated at any time after notice to 
     the victim and opportunity for a hearing.''.
       (b) Detention Pending Trial.--Section 3156(a)(4)(C) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or 
     section 2261A'' after ``117''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 110A of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to section 2261A and 
     inserting the following:

``2261A. Stalking.''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on the bill now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am managing this bill on behalf of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum), my friend and colleague, and at this time I 
would like to recognize his leadership on this bill and also the 
leadership of the chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I do rise at this time in support of H.R. 
1869, the Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999.
  The bill was introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Kelly), and this bill has been the result of 4 years of hard labor on 
behalf of the gentlewoman from New York. She recognized that presently 
we have over 1 million women in this country that are being stalked, we 
have about 400,000 men, and we have hundreds of thousands of children 
that are now being stalked because of the Internet.
  The full Committee on the Judiciary favorably reported the bill as 
amended by voice vote. The goals of the bill are to expand the reach of 
the Federal stalking statute to prosecute cyberstalkers who are 
currently beyond the reach of Federal law enforcement but are deserving 
of Federal prosecution, and to better protect stalking victims by 
authorizing pretrial detention for alleged stalkers, and mandating the 
issuing of a civil protection order against convicted stalkers.
  These goals are worthwhile, and these goals will give Federal 
prosecutors the tools they need to prosecute stalkers who might 
otherwise not be prosecuted at the State and local level.
  That said, let me emphasize that the vast majority of stalking cases 
are, and even after this legislation passes, will be prosecuted at the 
State and local level. This legislation does not in any way seek to 
federalize stalking crimes. What it does do is that it will help 
Federal prosecutors respond to predatory stalking behavior that under 
current law is beyond the reach of State and local officials because of 
cyberstalking.
  The bill would make several significant changes or additions to 
current law. I would like to go over those at this time.
  First, it would reach stalkers who use the mail or any facility in 
interstate or foreign commerce to stalk their victims. A lot of times, 
that is the Internet. Under current law, Federal jurisdiction over 
stalking crimes is triggered only when a stalker actually crosses State 
lines physically with the intent to injure or harass a person, and his 
conduct places that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily 
injury.
  So Members can see from that definition, it would not include someone 
stalking by use of the mail or the Internet, because they would not 
physically cross a State line.
  This bill actually just brings us into the electronic age, and is 
long overdue. The physical travel requirements preclude the Federal 
prosecution of stalkers who use other means of interstate 
communication, such as mail or the Internet, to threaten or harass 
their victims. With the explosive growth of the Internet and other 
telecommunication technologies, there is evidence of cyberstalking. 
Stalking using advanced communication technologies is

[[Page 29550]]

becoming a serious problem. I am sure the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly) will speak further to that.
  The second thing this bill does, Mr. Chairman, it will require that a 
Federal court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of stalking, that 
it issue a protective order to protect the victim from further stalking 
prior to the trial.
  Unfortunately, some stalkers remain interested in their targets for 
years, even after they have been prosecuted, convicted, and 
incarcerated for stalking. A civil protection order would permit a 
Federal court to maintain jurisdiction over the convicted stalker after 
the completion of the sentence imposed by the crime, both to reduce the 
threat of future stalking by the defendant, and to provide an 
enforcement mechanism should the order be violated. That is the 
probation order, in most cases, or the protective order.
  The suspension document presently before the House contains a 
modification to the protection order language, specifically to 
paragraph C of what will be the new 18 U.S. Code Section 2261(a).
  Concern was expressed with the reported version of the bill that 
protective orders might continue in force in perpetuity, long after any 
need for them. The suspension document addresses that problem by 
assuring that a Federal court will have the discretion to craft a 
protective order to fit the circumstances of each case.
  The new language reads that such an order ``shall remain in effect 
for such time as the court deems necessary, and may be modified, 
extended, or terminated at any time after notice to the victim and an 
opportunity for a hearing.''
  Third, the bill would permit a Federal court to order the detention 
of an alleged stalking defendant pending trial in order to assure the 
safety of the victim and the community, as well as the defendant's 
appearance at trial.
  This is because of one simple fact. This is that fact, that stalking 
victims run a higher risk of being assaulted or even killed by a 
stalker immediately after the criminal justice system intervenes; that 
is, just after the stalker is arrested and then released on bond, prior 
to trial.
  Mr. Speaker, it was only 9 years ago that the first anti-stalking 
statute was passed in California. Since that time, all 50 States have 
enacted stalking statutes in one form or another. Congress passed the 
first Federal stalking statute in 1996. This bill would be the first 
amendment to that statute since it was enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will give Federal prosecutors 
better tools to more effectively prosecute interstate stalking in 
cyberstalking cases and to better protect the victims of those crimes 
and the community.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the bill as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to manage this bill on behalf of my friend 
and my colleague from Florida, Mr. McCollum, and want to recognize his 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1869, the ``Stalking 
Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999.'' The bill was introduced 
by Representative Sue Kelly and has bipartisan support. The Full 
Judiciary Committee favorably reported the bill, as amended, by a voice 
vote.
  The goals of the bill are to expand the reach of the Federal stalking 
statute to prosecute cyber stalkers who are currently beyond the reach 
of federal law enforcement but are deserving of federal prosecution, 
and to better protect stalking victims by authorizing pretrial 
detention for alleged stalkers and mandating the issuance of civil 
protection orders against convicted stalkers. I believe these goals are 
worthwhile. I believe we should give federal prosecutors the tools they 
need to prosecute stalkers who might otherwise not be prosecuted at the 
state and local level. That said, let me emphasize that the vast 
majority of stalking cases are, and if this legislation passes, will 
continue to be, prosecuted at the state and local level. This 
legislation does not seek to federalize stalking crimes. But H.R. 1869, 
as amended, will help federal prosecutors respond to predatory stalking 
behavior that, under current law, is beyond their reach--like 
cyberstalking.
  The bill would make several significant changes or additions to 
current law. First, it would reach stalkers who use the mail or any 
facility in interstate or foreign commerce to stalk their victims. 
Under current law, Federal jurisdiction over a stalking crime is 
triggered only when a stalker travels across a state line with the 
intent to injury or harass a person and his conduct places that person 
in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury.
  The physical travel requirement precludes the federal prosecution of 
stalkers who use other means of interstate communication--such as the 
mail or the Internet--to threaten or harass their victims. With the 
explosive growth of the Internet and other telecommunications 
technologies, there is evidence that cyberstalking--stalking using 
advanced communications technologies--is becoming a serious problem.
  Second, H.R. 1869 would require that a Federal court, when sentencing 
a defendant convicted of stalking, issue a protection order to protect 
the victim from further stalking. Unfortunately, some stalkers remain 
interested in their targets for years, even after they have been 
prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated for stalking. A civil 
protection order would permit a Federal court to maintain jurisdiction 
over a convicted stalker after the completion of the sentence imposed 
for the crime, both to reduce the threat of future stalking by the 
defendant and to provide an enforcement mechanism should the order be 
violated.
  The suspension document presently before the House contains a 
modification to the protection order language--specifically, to 
paragraph (c) of what would be the new 18 U.S.C. section 2261A. Concern 
was expressed with the reported version of the bill that protection 
orders might continue in force in perpetuity, long after any need for 
them. The suspension document addresses that problem by assuring that a 
Federal court will have the discretion to craft a protection order to 
fit the circumstances of the case. The new language reads that such an 
order ``shall remain in effect for such time as the court deems 
necessary, and may be modified, extended or terminated at any time 
after notice to the victim and an opportunity for a hearing.''
  Third, H.R. 1869 would permit a Federal court to order the detention 
of an alleged stalking defendant pending trial in order to assure the 
safety of the victim and the community as well as the defendant's 
appearance at trial. Stalking victims run a higher risk of being 
assaulted or even killed by the stalker immediately after the criminal 
justice system intervenes--that is, just after the stalker is arrested 
and then released on bail.
  Mr. Speaker, it was only nine years ago that the first anti-stalking 
statute was passed in California. Since then, all 50 States have 
enacted stalking statutes of one form or another. Congress passed the 
first federal stalking law in 1996. H.R. 1869 would be the first 
amendment to that statute since it was enacted.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill will give Federal prosecutors 
better tools to more effectively prosecute interstate stalking and 
cyberstalking cases and to better protect the victims of these crimes. 
I urge all my colleagues to support the bill as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus); the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum); the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); and the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly), as well as the ranking member of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for working with us in preparing 
this bill for presentation today.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this anti-stalking bill, as amended, provides 
valuable additional tools to law enforcement in preventing the crime of 
stalking and the dreadful impact it has on its victims.
  The first anti-stalking bill was passed in California approximately 9 
years ago, and since then all 50 States have enacted anti-stalking 
statutes. Congress passed its first anti-stalking law in 1996. This 
bill, H.R. 1869, as filed, broadened the present Federal jurisdiction 
and gives Federal authorities more tools in getting at stalking. The 
gentleman from Alabama has outlined the provisions in the bill as we 
will consider them.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill, as amended, addresses concerns 
about several of the initial provisions, including the bail provisions, 
protective orders, and jurisdictional and criminal intent language.
  Mr. Speaker, while I had reservations about H.R. 1869 in its original 
form, I now enthusiastically support it. I want

[[Page 29551]]

to thank those involved for their willingness to address those 
concerns. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the fine work the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) did on this bill, and express our 
appreciation on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) 
and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman McCollum) for the gentleman's 
fine work on this bill. I think this is a great example of a bipartisan 
effort.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who is the architect of 
this bill, and as I said, it represents the culmination of 4 years of 
labor on her part.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of the 
Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act, legislation I introduced 
to strengthen the current Federal anti-stalking statute. Although 
stalking is not a new phenomenon, it is certainly one we have only 
recently identified as a distinct and troubling societal affliction.
  Just 10 years ago, not one State in the Union had on its books a law 
designed to criminalize the insidious behavior of human predators who 
devote themselves to the haunting and harassment of others.
  Though we will probably never be able to fully stop or comprehend the 
behavior of those driven by delusions and personal demons, it is our 
responsibility to do all that we can to assist the millions of stalking 
victims in our country.
  In the last 10 years, lawmakers across the land have acknowledged 
this responsibility. As it stands now, there is not one State that does 
not have an anti-stalking statute on its books. We have responded at 
the Federal level, as well. Three years ago, my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) shepherded through Congress 
the International Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act, the first 
Federal anti-stalking statute.
  This provision makes it a crime for any person to travel across State 
lines with the intent to injure or harass another person, thereby 
placing that person or a member of that person's family in reasonable 
fear of death or serious bodily injury. This was landmark legislation 
that was an important first step to our effort.
  I come to the House floor today to continue that effort. In 
considering the proposal before us, we ought to be guided not so much 
by memories of high profile cases of celebrity stalking, but rather by 
an increasing awareness that stalking is a commonplace circumstance 
affecting millions of Americans. It is my hope to help these millions 
who have not the resources to cocoon themselves from mainstream society 
as celebrities do.
  The Justice Department has estimated that over 1 million women and 
over 370,000 men are currently stalked every year. They further 
estimate that one out of every 12 women and one out of every 45 men has 
been stalked at some point in their lives.
  In light of these projections, a reassessment of the current Federal 
law must yield a conclusion that modifications should be made. My 
proposal seeks to build on current law by addressing the definition of 
stalking, which addresses only traveling over interstate lines. This 
new definition works by including those avenues of communication we are 
addressing in this area believed by many experts to be the most 
vulnerable medium to an increased rate of stalking in the coming years, 
the Internet.
  Though its magnitude is unknown at this point, a report on 
cyberstalking released just 2 months ago by the Justice Department 
concluded that there may be potentially tens or even hundreds of 
thousands of victims of recent cyberstalking in the United States. 
Because of its ostensibly anonymous, nonconfrontational nature, many 
are concerned that stalking over e-mail and the Internet will increase 
as more Americans gain access to this exciting new communications tool.
  By acting now, we will impose a serious disincentive to stalkers who 
consider using technological capabilities to inflict harassment and 
fear.
  My proposal also seeks to provide additional protections to stalking 
victims by stipulating that a protection order be issued at the time of 
sentencing, and by specifying that there be a presumption against bail 
in cases where the accused has a previous history of stalking offenses.
  I think all of my colleagues would agree that this body has no 
directive more important than the one which guides us to work each day 
to improve the lives of Americans. Though perhaps in the grand scheme 
of our efforts this measure may be very small, it nevertheless carries 
great significance to those Americans across the country whose basic 
daily freedoms are contaminated and crippled by an undaunted menace.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this proposal.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, in my opening statement on this bill, I 
mentioned that California passed the first law, the first anti-stalking 
statute of all the United States. I also mentioned the Federal statute 
that this body passed.
  I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the author of both of 
those bills, the California statute and the first Federal statute.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which is the 
Stalking Prevention and the Victim Protection Act. In 1990, I was the 
author of the first antistalking law in the country. That came about at 
a time when there was a 6-week period in which four young women in my 
county of Orange County, California, were each told that they were 
going to be killed. And each one informed law enforcement and law 
enforcement, unfortunately, had to tell them there was nothing that 
they can do until they were physically attacked.
  One police officer told me the worst thing he ever had to do in his 
life was to try to apprehend that stalker in the act, and he almost 
succeeded. Unfortunately, the young woman lost her life. She was killed 
just before the apprehension of the stalker was made.
  So all four of these young women who knew they were going to be 
killed, who told law enforcement, who told their friends that this was 
going to happen to them lost their lives in the span of 6 weeks.
  That was the impetus for the bill. Today, all 50 States have 
antistalker laws on their books. When I came to Congress, I felt that 
there was need for a Federal law. Why? Because in the case of 
restraining orders between the States, there is a situation where those 
restraining orders often are lost when the victim moves from one State 
to another State. Why does the victim do that? Because they are told by 
victim witness programs get away from the stalker. And when they try to 
do that, they lose the protections under the law.
  So the Federal antistalker law protected those victims. But now we 
have a new type of stalking which has come to the fore, and this bill 
which was prompted by a Justice Department report on the frequency and 
the seriousness of cyberstalking, will do something about that. It is 
going to tighten Federal antistalking law to include threats through 
the Internet, threats through regular mail, and with the passage of 
this bill, victims of this crime will have further legal recourse. They 
are going to have an increased sense of security.
  I talked to one young woman who was stalked for 14 years by a young 
man she did not even know. He watched her when she was on the high 
school track team. He began following her, stalking her, threatening 
her, and there was nothing, again, that law enforcement could do at the 
time. It culminated with a standoff on her front doorstep for 12 hours 
with police. He had tried to abduct her with a knife to her throat.
  Mr. Speaker, these are instances where these individuals let their 
intent

[[Page 29552]]

be known. They publish their threats against these victims. There is no 
reason why we cannot let law enforcement act upon those threats before 
it is too late, before these victims lose their lives. I urge passage 
of this bill.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), who we learned today had three brothers 
that fought in World War II.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus) for yielding me this time, and thank him for his leadership on 
this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the ranking member. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his work on this; and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) in absentia; indeed, the prime sponsor, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), for it.
  And, sure, I have three brothers who served in wartime and what we 
are trying to do with this legislation is to prevent some of the wars 
that are going on with the stalking.
  Mr. Speaker, we have heard the statistic that in 1997, the Department 
of Justice report concluded that 1 million women and 370,000 men are 
stalked every year. This greatly exceeds any expectations or estimates. 
And, indeed, it continues to increase, from what we understand.
  According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, there is no 
definitive psychological or behavior profile for stalkers, which makes 
the effort to devise effective antistalking strategies very difficult. 
I must say, with all of our advances in technology, technology itself 
has allowed for additional opportunity for stalking.
  So, Mr. Speaker, that is why I think this bill is so very important. 
We heard from the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) about the 
origin, the genesis of the first stalking law that we had. It is time 
now that we alter it. It is time now that we go beyond the current DOJ 
model antistalking code that was released in 1993 and the legislation 
enacted in 1996.
  So what this bill does is it alters the current antistalking 
legislation by expanding the Federal prohibition on stalking. And what 
it does that I think is so important, it broadens the Federal 
definition of stalking to include interstate commerce, which can 
include e-mail, telephone, and other forms of interstate communications 
as a means of stalking.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to mention also that it adds new provisions, 
which have already been stated, with regard to bail restrictions and 
protection orders at the time of sentencing.
  We in government must do all that we can to protect our citizenry 
from stalking and to show it is against the law. H.R. 1869 helps us 
mightily to do so. It deserves passage.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly) for sponsoring the bill. I thank the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his kind remarks, because we in fact did 
resolve several concerns about the bill constructively and today the 
bill should enjoy broad bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, law enforcement agencies have said that 
this bill is necessary for them to protect the citizens who are their 
charge to protect. The National Center for Victims of Crime has given a 
strong endorsement to this bill. Sometimes here we become cynical, but 
I can honestly say that this legislation that the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Kelly) has brought before us will make America a safer place 
and will protect many Americans from unnecessarily being stalked. I 
simply would like to again give my thanks to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), and to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce), who drafted the underlying legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the National Institute of 
Justice found that stalking is a crime that will victimize far too many 
in this country: 8% of American women and 2% of American men will be 
stalked in their lifetimes. In fact, 1.4 million Americans are stalked 
every year.
  While I am pleased that we have been able to work with the majority 
to craft a stalking bill that strikes the correct balance between the 
need to protect stalking victims and the constitutional due process 
rights of all accused persons, I am disappointed that we are still 
addressing domestic violence issues in fits and starts.
  The Violence Against Women Act of 1999, H.R. 37, which I have 
sponsored and which has 175 co-sponsors, addresses the continuing 
problem of domestic violence in a comprehensive fashion. H.R. 357 goes 
beyond merely expanding the federal definition of stalking and would 
reauthorize the important programs to stop sexual assault and domestic 
violence that Congress funded in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. 
H.R. 357 would also build on the good work we did in 1994 and expand 
funding to other areas such as violence against children, sexual 
assault prevention, domestic violence prevention, violence against 
women in the military system, and many others.
  Stalking is a serious problem that deserves our attention, but we 
cannot shut our eyes to the broader problems of domestic violence. 
Studies show that women and girls annually experience approximately 
960,000 incidents of assault, rape, and murder at the hands of a 
current or former spouse or intimate partner.
  It is ironic, indeed, that we had people on the other side of the 
aisle decrying violence against fetuses several weeks ago, but they 
have still been unable to hold hearings on H.R. 357, which addresses 
domestic violence against women, children, and men.
  I am happy that H.R. 1869 will allow for prosecution of stalking 
where a stalker transmits a threatening communication over the 
telephone, through the mail, or by email. I also support provisions in 
the bill that make it clear that at the time of sentencing, the court 
should issue an appropriate protective order designed to protect the 
victim from further stalking by the convicted person. Under the bill, 
this order will remain in effect for as long as the court deems it 
necessary in order to prevent the stalking victim from being harassed 
after the person is released from prison.
  In addition, we have seen far too many instances where an arrest will 
not make a stalker stop threatening a victim or will even result in a 
stalker escalating his stalking to a point that is life-endangering to 
the victim. While I certainly believe that everyone is innocent until 
proven guilty and that bail should be granted to the accused in as many 
cases as possible, it is also necessary in certain cases to detain 
alleged stalkers before trial. By defining stalking as a ``crime of 
violence'' under our criminal laws, H.R. 1869 will permit a federal 
court to detain an alleged stalker pending trial in order to assure the 
safety of the community or the defendant's appearance at trial.
  While I applaud these changes in our stalking laws, we still need to 
do more. I encourage Congress to make this stalking bill only the first 
step in a broader battle against domestic violence. We should hold 
hearings on H.R. 357 and, at a minimum, continue the good work we began 
in the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, by reauthorizing those 
programs.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support The Stalking 
Prevention and Victim Protection Act that seeks to prevent the criminal 
act of stalking and to protect the rights of victims. Stalking is a 
very serious issue that deserves the full attention of this Committee 
and of Congress.
  Each year, 1.4 million Americans are stalked. Of this number over 79% 
of adult stalking victims are women, and 59% of female stalking victims 
are stalked by a current of former intimate partner. In 80% of those 
cases, the victim was physically assaulted. The increasing number of 
these stalking cases have prompted increased attention as to 
significant impact stalking has on our society.
  In addition to the statistics I have just recited, the Justice 
Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics cites that one in 12 women 
will be stalked at some point in their lives. However, of this high 
number of women who have been stalked or will be stalked in their 
lifetime, only 28% of these female victims will attain restraining 
orders against their stalkers. In recognition of the high percentage of 
stalking cases occurring yearly, unprecedented interest in stalking 
over the past decade, and increased media accounts of stalking victims,

[[Page 29553]]

anti-stalking laws have been passed in all 50 States and the District 
of Columbia which have further been supplemented the Violence Against 
Women's Act and the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act 
of 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, hearings held within the Judiciary Committee have 
revealed that stalking is a much bigger problem than previously assumed 
and should be treated as a major criminal justice problem and public 
health concern. Stalkers often do not threaten their victims verbally 
or in writing; therefore, many groups have recommended that credible 
threat requirements should be eliminated from anti-stalking statutes to 
make it easier to prosecute such cases. This bill would address these 
concerns and provide adequate protection to the potential victims.
  I commend the sponsors of this legislation and urge my colleagues to 
support final passage of this bill.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1869, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________