PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Nov 5, 1999
Stalking Prevention and Victim Protection Act of 1999 - Rewrites stalking provisions of the Federal criminal code. Prohibits: (1) for the purpose of stalking an individual, traveling or causing another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, using or causing another to use the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, or entering or leaving, or causing another to enter or leave, Indian country; or (2) stalking an individual within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or within Indian country. Specifies that 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 to, that individual or a member of that individual's immediate family (defined as that individual's parent, child, sibling, spouse, or intimate partner).Directs the court at the time of sentencing for an offense under this Act to issue an appropriate protection order designed to protect the victim from further stalking by the convicted person, to remain in effect until otherwise ordered by the court after notice to the victim and opportunity for a hearing.Redefines "crime of violence" to permit a court to order the detention of an alleged stalking defendant pending trial in order to assure the safety of the community or the defendant's appearance at trial pursuant to the pretrial detention statute.
People & committees
Rep. Kelly, Sue W. [R-NY-19] · R–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1869.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11910-11913)
Mr. Bachus moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 264.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-455.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 106-455.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1028)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1869 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1869 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1869 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1869 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.