Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2009

My colleague, Judge Poe, the Representative from Texas, has told you some of the examples about women who have found themselves in this dire situation. We had in my county, Orange County, California, a total of four young women in 1990 who were, in the span of 6 weeks, all confronted by the same situation. They were being stalked by an acquaintance or a former beau, someone they knew. Each knew they were going to be attacked. Each had been threatened that they would be attacked.

I spoke after the attack with a law enforcement officer there who said it was the hardest thing he ever had to do in his life was to tell one of these young women, I know you feel he's going to attack you, but there's nothing we can do until you're physically attacked. Despite the threats he's made, there's nothing we can do. So he said, I took it upon myself to follow this individual because I knew he intended to carry out that attack. He said, I came within 2 minutes of preventing him from killing her. But, unfortunately, he took her life, and then when he saw me, he took his own. This was the example given in this one case, but there were four cases within that 6 weeks in 1990.

I had previously passed legislation in the State senate on terrorism as it related to credible threats made against synagogues and churches by those who threatened to blow up synagogues. And I thought, Well, perhaps we can extend this and actually give law enforcement the chance to step in. Since that other law had been upheld by the State supreme court, perhaps it would uphold a law if we passed an anti-stalker law that said if you threatened the victim with a credible threat of great bodily harm, it became a stalking crime, and thereby perhaps you would have the deterrent effect of having law enforcement able to go to these victims or go, more importantly, to perpetrators and tell them, You may not understand this, but under this new law you face 3 years or more in State prison if you do this.

We passed the legislation in California after some debate. We had particularly effective testimony from one young woman who had been stalked for

years by a high school acquaintance who she didn't even know, and finally taken at knifepoint. There was a 12-hour standoff. But because he didn't drag her more than the allotted number of feet, it was not a kidnapping. So, finally, with her testimony, we got that through the State house.

And then we found that the very advice we were giving these victims-- get away from your stalker; move, because there's little we can do-- meant that when they moved from the State of California to another State--let's say Florida, an example that I'm familiar with--the restraining order was no longer in effect, which meant that he couldn't be charged with stalking.

So the answer to that was a Federal law. By that time, we had used the California law as a template. We passed it in all 50 States. Japan had adopted the law. Parliaments in Europe adopted the law. But the question was: How do you protect those who go from State to State when those restraining orders are no longer in effect?

So in the United States House of Representatives I introduced that legislation. As a result, this new law provides a uniform Federal law protecting stalking victims when they cross State lines either to travel or work or to get away from their stalkers, or for any other purpose; and when they're on Federal property; if they're on a military base, for example; if they're at a post office.

It was signed into law in 1996. And I will tell you now why I am appreciative of these Members bringing this law up to date, of which I am a cosponsor. Our key problem is getting people aware of the existence of this law. Our key challenge today is deterrence. As mentioned, you have a case today where one out of every four young women who is killed is being murdered by someone who formerly stalked her. And there is a deterrent effect to law enforcement coming to you and saying you could be serving 3 years in a Federal penitentiary or in jail. You've got 3.4 million people being stalked every year, according to the Department of Justice.

If we had those in law enforcement, if judges were more cognizant of the challenges of this problem, we'd be better able to handle this situation.

Many communities have come to understand that stalking is a serious problem. Many have come up with programs that can support victims and combat this crime, but we really need law enforcement to have more focus because how many times can you look at a situation and say, All right. There's something we could have done to help deter this. We know the incidences where that has been effective here.

Most stalkers are known by their victims. It isn't always the case, but most are known.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And in today's world, stalkers, unfortunately, are using a very new and upgraded type of technology from what, traditionally, they used. It used to be that, you know, they'd leave a message on the phone. Today it's computers, it's GPS units, it's cell phones, it's social networking, and all of this can be used to harass victims.

If anyone would like more information on National Stalking Awareness Month, I urge you to visit www.stalkingawarenessmonth.org, and try--for those out there in law enforcement--try to understand just how devastating this can be to victims, and try to give them a hand, and try to deter these attacks before they occur.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to be the sponsor of this legislation. Stalking is described as repeated harassment or threatening behavior toward somebody else. The stalker can be a stranger or someone the victim knows very well--an ex-partner, a family member. Laws vary from State to State, but stalking is usually considered under the law to be any unwanted contact between the stalker and the victim, that he or she either directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places fear in the victim. Some examples include, but are not limited to, unwanted phone calls; letters; emails; instant messages; following the victim; showing up at the location where the victim is without any reason; leaving unwanted items or presents; and spreading false information or rumors about the victim.

Stalking can turn any ordinary day and any ordinary activity, like walking to your car, into a terrifying experience for the victim. Victims of stalking will never really know if they are safe whether they are at home, in their cars, at their work, or even just walking down the street. Stalkers show up at the oddest places. They will be sitting out in front of someone's home; they'll be there when the lady drops her child off at school; when she picks him up in the afternoon; when she goes to church. The stalker is everywhere.

One example is a wonderful young lady from Maryland by the name of Yvette Cade. Yvette Cade was severely burned by her husband shortly after a restraining order against him was removed by the judge. Just 3 weeks before, she begged a judge to reinstate a restraining order that had been ordered against her husband. And she told him, the judge, that she feared for her life. But the judge, in his incompetence, refused to reinstate the restraining order. The judge has been reprimanded for that conduct--for refusing to listen to Mrs. Cade's case--which could have prevented the horrible tragedy.

Let me make it clear: when the judge refused to reinstate the restraining order, her husband followed her to the store that she worked in. He walked in the store. He had a bottle of gasoline. He poured it over the top of her head and he set Yvette Cade on fire, all because he had been stalking her, but also a judge had the ability to intervene and prevent that activity--and he did not do so.

Yvette Cade survived those injuries, and she is an advocate for victims' rights to this day. This case is a reminder why we must educate law enforcement and others, including judges, about stalking and domestic violence in order to help them recognize situations as happened to Mrs. Yvette Cade. During a 12-month period, an estimated 3.4 million people ages 18 and older are victims of stalking.

There's a similar story of a woman named Peggy Klinke. She lived in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and broke up with her boyfriend, named Patrick Kennedy, after dating him for 3 years. He couldn't handle not being with Peggy and stalked her outside of her work. He waited for her outside of her gym. He followed her everywhere she went. And she could always find his truck wherever she showed up.

She filed stalking charges against him and had a protective order put out against him. Eventually, Peggy started dating someone else and tried to move on with her life. Patrick set her boyfriend's house on fire and flew to Peggy's mother's house in Ohio and spray painted her house with profanity. The police then thought they had enough evidence to take him to court. Six months before the trial began, Peggy moved to California to hide from Patrick. He hired a private investigator to find her, and he did so in California. Two weeks before the trial, he located her and then killed her and then killed himself.

The most effective way of preventing stalking is making people aware it exists and how dangerous it can be. While not every instance of stalking ends in violence, many do. Stalking must be taken seriously and decisive measures must be taken by law enforcement officials as soon as the behavior begins in order to prevent the escalation into a violent situation.

House Res. 960 expresses support for the designation of January 2010 as National Stalking Awareness Month to raise awareness and encourage the prevention of stalking. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

I yield 5 minutes to the original author of the national stalking criminal legislation some years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

I yield to the gentleman for 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to yield but I did want to make comments regarding my colleague Mr. Johnson.

I appreciate his comments about his family and how stalking violence can happen anywhere in the United States to anybody. We, as a body, must be aware that victims throughout the country go through terrible tragedies in their lives. This legislation brings awareness of stalking to the national front.

Stalking laws are imposed to protect the right to be left alone, and that's a right that all people have in this country, to be left alone. I want to thank the victims groups that have supported this legislation and, as chairman of the Victims' Rights Caucus, all of the numerous members of the caucus who also support this. I urge its adoption.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 960) expressing support for designation of January 2010 as ``National Stalking Awareness Month'' to raise awareness and encourage prevention of stalking.

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 resolution under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 960 expresses support for January 2010, being designated as ``National Stalking Awareness Month.'' Every year, Mr. Speaker,

an estimated 3.4 million people are the victims of stalking. Stalking occurs through many different behaviors, such as unwanted phone calls, letters or emails, the victim being followed, or a stalker showing up at places without a legitimate reason. While these individual acts may not be criminal in and of themselves, collectively and repetitively these behaviors can cause a victim to fear for his or her safety.

This crime of stalking can be extremely dangerous. The fear and mental anguish that stalking causes can leave a victim's life in shambles. Anxiety, insomnia, or severe depression is much more prevalent among stalking victims than within the general population. This is especially the case if the stalking involves being followed or having one's property destroyed.

Over 12 percent of employed stalking victims report losing time from work as a result of their victimization, and more than half lose 5 days of work or more. In fact, many stalking victims have been forced to relocate their residences, and they often need psychological counseling. Stalking is often a precursor to physical attacks on a victim. This is why stalking is a crime in all 50 States and in the District of Columbia and is a crime under Federal law as well. Over 75 percent of women murdered by an intimate partner had been stalked by that partner before being killed. Victims are increasingly vulnerable to the crime of stalking, with advances in technology giving stalkers more access to the victims' personal information.

I would like to thank my Judiciary Committee colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), for introducing this bipartisan resolution; and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Resolution 960.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I will close just after making this statement. My sister Lynnette Maria Johnson was murdered back on May 30, 1973. That happened right here in Washington, D.C.

From high school sweethearts to college, these two individuals, my sister and this gentleman who stalked her and killed her, were an item. But when she went to college, she started meeting new people and her interests changed, and the gentleman just could not take it and so he continued to stalk her. Finally, it resulted in him killing her. At that time, I don't think there were any stalking laws that would have prevented his misconduct, and so I personally have a zero tolerance level for stalkers.

I am proud to support this bill. Representative Poe, a trial lawyer and a trial judge who has seen so many cases like these in his career, I'm sure. And Mr. Royce of California spoke eloquently on this issue as well. So I want to congratulate him for introducing the Federal legislation that came before this.

I would advise all victims that as soon as it starts happening, let the police know and go get some counseling so that you don't allow this thing to get out of control. If you hit it hard when it first rears up, I think that the chances are much better that the result down the line will be positive and not negative.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Child Safety Pilot Program, originally created in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act, has proven to be a valuable resource for groups that work with children, such as the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, the National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Council of Youth Sports. Using this pilot program, nonprofit organizations that provide youth-focused care, as defined in the National Child Protection Act of 1993, may request criminal history background checks from the FBI on applicants for volunteer or employee positions that involve working with children.

Currently, nearly 68,000 background checks have been administered through the Child Safety Pilot Program. Of those checks, over 6 percent of all workers screened had criminal records of concern, including serious crimes such as murder, rape, and child assault cases. More than 41 percent of applicants with a criminal record committed crimes in other States other than the one in which they were applying to work as a volunteer. Only a nationwide check, such as the Child Safety Pilot Program, could have provided this information to employers.

A nationwide check is vital to these organization since many of these applicants are looking for work in other States specifically to escape their criminal pasts. That's why I support S. 2950, the Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2009, which extends this program for 14 more months.

Unfortunately, organizations that work with children are often the targets of those with criminal backgrounds and less than honest intentions. We need to equip these organizations so they can spot individuals with criminal records before it's too late, allowing them to only hire professional and responsible people. S. 2950 extends the Child Safety Pilot Program that has successfully helped these groups and their missions to provide a safe learning environment for children. This is a commonsense piece of legislation that should enjoy widespread support, so I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2950) to extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal history background checks.

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 now under consideration.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, S. 2950, the Criminal History Background Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2009, will extend the national Child Safety Pilot Program for another 14 months. Passed in 2003 as part of the PROTECT Act, the national Child Safety Pilot Program assists organizations in checking the criminal records of volunteers before placing them as mentors with our children. Every year, millions of Americans generously give their time and energy to volunteer and mentor children throughout the country. While the vast majority of these volunteers act out of purely benevolent intentions, it is important that we are able to identify those who may seek to do harm.

Since 2003, the national Child Safety Pilot Program has enabled youth-serving organizations to work with the State governments to access the FBI's national fingerprint-based background checks system. By providing access to the more comprehensive data in the FBI's database, the pilot program has helped prevent child predators and sex offenders from getting access to children through legitimate mentoring programs. Notably, 6 percent of checks came back with serious criminal records.

This is a noncontroversial, fee-based program that we have authorized twice before, Mr. Speaker. It's been extremely successful in providing invaluable information to mentoring organizations, and it's at no cost to the taxpayers. Now we hope that this 14-month extension will give us more time to work with the Department of Justice on permanently authorizing this program.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.