Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2360, September 28, 1995 (Volume Pt. 2) online

Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.

Does anyone else have a question of Mr. Martinez or Mr. Barr?

Thank you very much for coming.

Next we have got Representative Dick Chrysler of the Eighth
District of Michigan.

You have a piece of legislation before us. We are beginning to get
in the groove of doing these bills this morning. You are welcome



79

to make a statement, and your statement, as those of your col-
leagues, will be in toto put in the record, without objection, but you
may summarize or give us your thoughts.
Thank you. Please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. DICK CHRYSLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chrysler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss what I believe is very important and much needed
legislation, the Crimes Against Children and the Elderly Increased
Punishment Act.

Day after day, we see news accounts of criminals committing vio-
lent acts throughout our communities only to walk away with little
or no punishment. You only need to watch the local evening news
on any given night to see the havoc criminals create in our neigh-
borhoods. Too often these criminals are deterred from their violent
actions because they know the expected benefits of their crimes far
outweigh any possible penalties. If we are to decrease the rate of
crime in our country, I believe it is time for the criminals to be
more afraid of us than we are of them.

I believe this is an opportunity to put the word "punishment"
back into the criminal justice system.

While crimes of any degree are unacceptable, it is even more dis-
turbing when violent criminals prey upon those in society least
able to defend themselves, our children and our seniors. These
criminals know exactly what they are doing and deserve increased
punishment.

That is why I introduced the Crimes Against Children and the
Elderly Increased Punishment Act legislation. It will provide for an
automatic increase in the length of criminal sentences for crimes
committed against children under 12 years of age and seniors 65
years and older.

Mr. Chsiirman, crimes against the children and senior citizens
across the country today are serious and remain at intolerable lev-
els. From 1985 to 1991, there was a 90-percent increase in personal
crimes committed against senior citizens, from 627,000 in 1985 to
1,146,000 in 1991.

While there has been a 12-percent decrease in the number of
homicides from 1980 to 1994, the homicide rate for children in-
creased in that period. From 1985 to 1993, there was a 47-percent
increase in homicides of children.

Increasing the penalties for those who would hurt our children
and elderly will provide the needed protection for these vulnerable
citizens while giving criminals the punishment they deserve.

This legislation will send a clear signal to those who commit
these cowardly acts, and their actions will — and says that their ac-
tions will not be tolerated and they will face certain and severe
punishment.

The Increased Punishment Act amends the Violent Criminal
Control Act of 1994 to provide for automatic increases in the sen-
tencing guidelines for violent crimes of assault, homicide, rape, and
adds robbery to the Federal definition of "violent crimes,"



80

While this legislation would apply only to crimes prosecuted
under Federal laws, as my friend and the chairman of the full com-
mittee, Henry Hyde, has said, this will serve as a guide for future
actions at the State level. In addition, it will send a signal to crimi-
nals throughout the Nation that we are serious about getting tough
on time and we cannot allow the most vulnerable members of our
society to be left improtected. Criminals must know that if they are
to inflict harm upon our children and seniors, there will be a heavy
price to pay.

Already in the 104th Congress^ the House of Representatives has
acted to dramatically empower local law enforcement. The In-
creased Punishment Act would be another step in the right direc-
tion toward a safer and more secure society for our families.

American families have a right to be safe in their homes and on
their streets and in their neighoorhoods. If criminals seek to violate
this right, they should expect swift and sure punishment. The
Crimes Against Children and the Elderly Increased Punishment
Act seeks to send this very message to the criminal.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chrysler follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dick Chrysler, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Michigan

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss what I believe is very unportant and much-need-
ed legislation, the Crimes Against Children and the Elderly Increased Punishment
Act.

Day after day, we see news accounts of criminals committing violent acts through-
out our communities, only to walk away with little or no punishment. You only need
to watch the local evening news on any given night to see the havoc criminals wreak
in our neighborhoods.

Too often, these criminals are not deterred from their violent actions because they
know the expected benefits of their crimes far outweigh any possible penalties. If
we are to decrease the rate of crime in our country, I believe it is time for the crimi-
nals to be more afraid of us than we are of them. I believe it is time to put the
word punishment back in the criminal justice system.

WhUe crimes of any degree are unacceptable, it is even more disturbing when vio-
lent criminals prey upon those in society least able to defend themselves: our chil-
dren and our seniors.

That is why I introduced the Crimes Against Children and Elderly Increased Pun-
ishment Act, legislation that will provide for an automatic increase in the length
of criminal sentence for crimes committed against chUdren under 12 years of age
and seniors 65 years and older.

Mr. Chairman, crimes against children and senior citizens across the country
today are serious and remain at intolerable levels.

From 1985 to 1991, there has been a 90% increase in personal crimes committed
against senior citizens, from 627,318 in 1985 to 1,146,929 in 1991.

While there has been a 12% decrease in the number of homicides from 1980 to
1994, the homicide rate for children increased in that period. From 1985 to 1993,
there has been a 47% increase in homicide of children.

In 1992, one out of every six raoe victims (16%) was a female child under the age
of twelve. This figure was drawn from only the 12 states that report ages on victims,
and in all likelihood is a conservative estimate due to the many rapes that go unre-
ported.

Increasing the penalties for those who would hurt our children and elderly will
provide the needed protection for these vulnerable citizens, while giving criminals
the punishment they deserve. This legislation wiU send a clear signal to those who
commit these cowardly acts that their actions will not be tolerated and they wiU
face certain and severe punishment.

The Increased Punishment Act amends the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 to
provide for automatic increases in the sentencing guidelines for the violent crimes



81

of assault, homicide, rape, and adds robbery to the federal definition of violent
crime.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, under current federal guidelines, sentencing for
criminal acts is determined under a ranked offense level that is deemed commensu-
rate with the crime. There are currently 43 levels by which sentencing is deter-
mined; this legislation wUl require an automatic increase oi five levels when deter-
mining the length of the sentence for a criminal who commits a violent crime
against a child or senior citizen.

For example, an individual convicted of robbery of a child or senior begins with
a base offense level of 20, equating to 33 to 41 months (2V2 to 3V2 years) in jaU.
This legislation would automaticcdly raise the offense level to 25, increasing the sen-
tence to 57 to 71 months (4y2 to 6 years), adding an additional 2 to 3 years of incar-
ceration.

An individual convicted of assault with intent to commit murder faces a base of-
fense level of 28, equating to 78-97 months (eVz to 8 years) in jaU. If the victim
was a child or senior, the base offense level would rise to 33, increasing the sentence
to 135—168 months (11 to 14 years), an additional 5 to 6 years of incarceration.

While this legislation would only apply to crimes prosecuted under federal laws,
as my friend and the Chairman of the full Committee Henry Hyde has said, this
will serve as a guide for future action at the state level. In addition, it will send
a signal to criminals throu^out the nation that we are serious about getting tough
on crime.

We cannot allow the most vulnerable members of our society to be left unpro-
tected. Criminals must know that if they are to inflict harm upon our children and
seniors, there will be a heavy price to pay.

Already in the 104th Congress, the House of Representatives has acted to dra-
matically empower local law enforcement. The Increased Punishment Act would be
another step in the right direction toward a safer, more secure society for our fami-
lies.

American families have a right to be safe in their homes, on their streets, and
in their nei^borhoods. If criminals seek to violate this right, they should expect
swift and sure punishment. The Crimes Against Children and the Elderly Increased
Punishment Act seeks to send this very message to criminals.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chrysler.

Does anybody have a question they wish to ask?

Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. Lofgren. I do.

I very much agree with the intent of what you are trying to do
here, and I did nave — I don't have proposed amendments today,
but in looking through the Justice Department's analysis, they sug-
gest that the definition section on page 2, starting on line 10, could
be expanded to include even more offenses, and I think what I was
going to suggest is, between now and the full committee, that we —
you and perhaps the committee staff could consult with the Justice
Department and see if we couldn't expand the crimes included, if
they are correct. And I don't think that is at all contrary to what
you are trying to achieve, and I agree with vou.

And I wanted to mention that and make that suggestion, Mr.
Chairman.

And then the other question I had: "Child" is defined as a person
who is 11 years of age or younger.

Now, not going into the case law but just as a mother, I have
an 11-year-old and I have a 14-year-old, and my 14-year-old is still
a child, and I — the Justice Department suggested that we might
also include individuals who a perpetrator should have known was
a vulnerable person.

And I again don't want to offer an amendment today, but I would
like to suggest that, working with the author and perhaps the Jus-
tice Department and staff between now and the full committee,
that we might not expand that definition, because certainly there



82

are young boys and girls who are older than 11 but who are vulner-
able, and the intent is to make sure that we do our very best to
make sure that the vulnerable amongst us receive the most protec-
tion.

Along those lines, the Justice Department also suggested — frank-
ly, it is not something I had thought of, but it is correct — ^that there
are people who are fully adult but because of, for example, a dis-
ability or a developmental disability, they are as vulnerable as a
small child, and perhaps you might want to add that to the defini-
tion of the bill to expand it,

I didn't have a chance to talk to Mr. Chrysler before the hearing.
My guess is, none of these would be contrary to what he is trying
to achieve, and I would just recommend that between now and full
committee perhaps we could add those to the bill.

Mr. McCoLLUM. If the gentlelady will yield, they both sound like

good suggestions to me. We will certainly work with her and Mr.
Ihrysler on those suggestions as we move to mark up on this bill.

Mr. Chrysler. I am sure there is room for flexibility in all of
this, certainly.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Coble, do you wish to ask a question?

Mr. Coble. I came in late, Mr. Chairman. I might have missed
this.

Dick, in a crime of violence against an elderly person or a child
covered by your bill, how much longer or more severe would the
sentence t3T)ically be under your bill?

Mr. Chrysler. Well, for an example, an individual convicted of
a robbery of a child or a senior begins with a base offense level of
20, and there are 43 levels in the Sentencing Guidelines. That
equates to about 33 to 41 months, 2 and a half to 3 and a half
years, in jail. This legislation would automatically raise the offense
level to 25, increasing the sentence to 57 to 71 months or 4y2 to
6 years, adding an additional 2 to 3 years of incarceration.

Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Are there any other questions for Mr. Chrysler?

If not, thank you very much, Dick, for coming and testifying. We
really appreciate it.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Fox, you are next on the list. I know we
have got some who have been here waiting longer than you, but we
were going to go in the order on here.

Mr. Royce, you have been here quite a while.

Do you want to yield to him on this?

Mr. Fox. Mr. Royce is first.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Do you want to yield to him on this?

Mr. Fox. I yield to Mr. Royce.

Mr. Royce. Thank you, Mr. Fox.

Mr. McCoLLUM. If you do, I would be glad to take Mr. Royce up
next.

Mr. Royce, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Royce. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I want to thank the
members of the committee.



83

I first became interested in stalking crimes about 6 years ago,
Mr. Chairman, when at that time four different women in my coun-
ty went to the police and pleaded for protection. The police told
them there was nothing they could do until an act of violence was
committed, and that it wasn't a crime iust to threatening to kill
someone. In each case, these victims suosequently lost their lives.
One officer told me at the time, that the hardest thing he ever had
to do in his life was to tell someone, "I know you have been threat-
ened with death, but I can't act until you are physically attacked."
She consequently lost her life.

Well, the result, Mr. Chairman, was the California antistalker
law, which has been upheld in the courts and versions of which
have now been adopted in all 50 States and in the District of Co-
lumbia.

Unfortunately, State laws have not proven enough of a deterrent
to stalkers, who are now crossing State lines to pursue their vic-
tims.

As you know, many times victims are told, "Get away from your
stalker, move — ^maybe to another State," and in these cases the
stalker follows the victim.

This bill, H.R. 2980, has a new section to title 18, interstate
stalking, to resolve the problem. The bill is consistent with last
year's domestic violence legislation, which has an antistalker provi-
sion, which I had proposed, the provision only applies in that legis-
lation in cases where the victim is a spouse or intimate partner.
We found that many people, as many as 50 percent, are stalked by
someone other than a spouse or intimate partner and they need
protection.

I will point out the rising yoimg actress, Rebecca Schaeffer, was
killed on her doorstep by an obsessed fan. Judges who sentence
people to jail; district attorneys; many people who are simply fol-
lowed by someone who is obsessed — become stalker victims.

No one is immune fi-om the crime; but the problem is, when peo-
ple leave their home State they still need protection. So this bill
defines interstate stalking as crossing a State line with the intent
to injure or harass another person and, in so doing, placing that
person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury to them
or their immediate family.

We need the bill, as I said, because people are falling between
the cracks. I am familiar with a case where a woman was stalked
for 10 years by someone who only knew her from high school and
became obsessed witii her. They never even talked. He would call
her, threaten her. He showed up at her home with guns, handcuffs,
and a rope one day and attempted to abduct her. The result was
a 10-hour standoff with the police, ending when he was arrested
and sent to prison.

Well, as soon as he got out of prison, he instantly jumped parole
and disappeared. His victim called me. She had moved to a dif-
ferent State, and, luckily, it was because we had contacted the
California attorney general that the stalker was picked up and re-
incarcerated.

This bill is needed to bridge the gap between police in different
States, to catch stalkers who might otherwise fall between the
cracks when they cross State lines.



84

In fact, I have in the audience two women from New Jersey, Lisa
Singleton and Jamie Winters, who worked on securing passage of
antistalker legislation in that State and who can testify to the
problems of stalkers crossing State lines. And I know we are not
to have witnesses here today, but I would just like to ask them to
stand, if I could, Mr. Chairman, and submit their written state-
ment for the record. So at this time, if I could ask them to stand.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Certainly.

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I urge you to pass this bill and give meaningful protection to
women or anyone whose life is threatened by a stalker.

Mr. Chairman, in the meantime, counsel has raised a suggestion
related to the bill. For some reason, there has been a rash of stalk-
ing on military bases and in post offices, perhaps it has to do with
stress, but I was approached by postal officials who asked for pro-
tection, and I am aware of a case in which a woman was being
stalked on a military base and, unfortunately, lost her life. These
cases also fall between the cracks, and the suggested amendment
to the bill would make it apply to the territorial and maritime
properties of the United States.

I have language which we have prepared with counsel for an
amendment which will cover cases of this type of stalking also on
a military base or a U.S. postal office. So I think it will help pro-
vide a modicum of protection to those who serve their country, and
I offer that as an author's amendment.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Royce follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Caufornia

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I became seriously interested in stalking crimes about
six years ago, when three different women, stalking victims, in Orange County,
California, went to the police and pleaded for protection. The police told them there
was nothing they could do until an act of violence was committed — that it wasn't
a crime to iust threaten to kill someone. Each of these women subsequently died
at the hands of their stalker. One officer told me it was the hardest thing he ever
had to do — to teU those women that he couldn't protect them.

The result, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, was the California Anti-Stalking law,
which has been upheld in the courts and versions of which have now been adopted
in ^1 50 states and the District of Columbia. Unfortunately, state laws have not
proven enough of a deterrent to stalkers, who will cross even state lines to pursue
their victim. This bill, H.R. 2980, adds a new section to Title 18 of the U.S. Code:
Section 2261 A, Interstate Stalking, to resolve the problem.

The bill is consistent with last year's domestic violence legislation (which has an
anti-stalker provision but only applies in cases where the victim is a "spouse or inti-
mate partner"). We've found that many people, as many as 50 percent, are stalked
by someone other than a spouse or intimate partner, and they need protection. The
rising young actress, Rebecca Schaeffer, was killed on her doorstep by an obsessed
fan. Judges, who sentence people to jail, district attorneys, even politicians — can be
stalker victims ... no one is inmiune from this crime. But the problem is when
people leave their home state: they still need protection.

Tnis bill defines interstate stalking as crossing a state line with intent to injure
or harass another person and in so doing placing that person in reasonable fear of
death or serious bodily injury to them or their unmediate family. Why do we need
this bill? Because people can fall between the cracks.

Fm familiar with a case, for example, where a woman was stalked for ten years
by someone who just knew h6r from high school and became obsessed with her.
lliey never even dated. He would call her . . . threaten her; he even showed up
at her home with guns, handcuffs an rope one day and attempted to abduct her.
The result was a 10-hour standoff with the police, ending when he was arrested and
sent to prison.



85

As soon as the stalker got out last year, he jumped parole and disappeared. His
victim, who now lived in a different state, was terrified, and rightly so. It was only
because she called me and I called the California Attorney General that the stalker
was picked up in another state and re-incarcerated before he could realize his life-
long obsession to kidnap and kill her. This bill is needed to bridge the gap between
police in different states, to catch stalkers who might otherwise fall between the
cradcs when they cross state lines.

I urge you to pass this bill and give meaningful protection to women, or to anyone
whose life is threatened by stalkers. Thank you.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Royce.

As you are well aware, stalking is something that this sub-
committee, and the Congress, is very concerned about. We have ad-
dressed it to some extent in the previous Congress, and we are
most willing to look back, as we are with your bill today, at the
subject again, because it is very grievous, and if there is any way
we can do anything that would deter that, we certainly would want
to do that.

I personally don't have any questions. But I do understand your
bill.

Does anyone else, Ms. Lofgren — anyone else have a question?

Mr. Barr.

Mr. Barr. Thank you.

Mr. Royce, have you or the bill's proponents spoken directly with
the FBI? Do they concur in the Department of Justice's support of
the legislation?

Mr. Royce. I believe they do, but I will be happy, Mr. Barr, to
make a formal inquiry of support.

Law enforcement associations are in support of the bill, but in
response to your question, I will be happy to talk to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Barr. OK. And just to clarify, I see the Department's re-
sponse here, and I know they support the bill, and obviously you
do. Do they believe, and do you believe, that the existing Federal
laws are simply unable to reach this activity even with the broad
scope of use of telephones under current law and the use of the
conspiracy statutes and so forth?

Mr. Royce. Let me just give an example, and I will submit some
testimony from some of the — victims' rights associations that are
here.

But let us take a situation where someone in New Jersey obtains
protection from a stalker, but let us say that that individual actu-
ally works in New York City, so she has to go across a State line.
And let us say the stalker is cognizant of that and, thus, is able
to harass her in the neighboring State of New York, where she
does not have protection.

Basically, what we are doing is taking care of those people who
are tracked across State lines by their stalker.

Now I will submit for you some of the testimony so you can actu-
ally see the examples, the specific examples, of why we need the
legislation in these cases.

Mr. Barr. OK. Thank you, Mr. Royce.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Information not received by time of printing.]

Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Are there any other questions of Mr. Royce?



86

If not, thankyou very much for presenting your bill today.
Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Fox, you are now recognized to discuss your
bill — the Honorable Jon Fox of the 13th District of Pennsylvania.

STATEMENT OF HON. JON D. FOX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for oflFering me the oppor-
tunity to testify before your committee and the members of your
subcommittee about important issues facing the American judicial
system.

I speak of jury and witness tampering and witness retaliation.