Dialog of US House on HR 4472 on
There are no comments
made to portions of HR 4472 which do not affect sex offender or their issues,
nor should anything be inferred by the absence of comments with respect to
those portions.
eAdvocate
General
comments, many are important.
Bills which never were debated in the
New or Excessive
Punishments.
Actions of a singular
person, entity or group and are not reviewable by any
tribunal!
Questionable
comments, in a factual or logical sense, or are factoids.
Reasons
why hate crimes bills were removed from HR 4472. Hate crime descriptions, could long
term include registered sex offenders.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule,
the gentleman from
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4472, currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. This legislation contains bipartisan, comprehensive proposals to better protect our children from convicted sex offenders, to enhance judicial security, and to combat violent criminal gangs that terrorize our communities. Last year, the full House overwhelmingly approved three separate bills tailored to address these critical issues.
H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005, passed the House on
September 14 of last year by a vote of 371-52. H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to
Justice and Courthouse Protection Act, was approved by the House on
Last year our Nation was horrified by news of the sexual assault and kidnapping of Dylan and Shasta Groehne and the brutal murder of their parents and siblings. These heinous acts occurred after 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was abducted, raped and buried alive, and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde was murdered. All of these terrible crimes were committed by convicted sex offenders.
While these tragedies received the public attention and outrage they
demanded, sexual predators
continue to exploit current loopholes in our criminal justice system to
prey on
When child sex offenders are brought to justice and serve time for their offenses, they are often released into unsuspecting communities to resume their sexual attacks. There are over 550,000 convicted sex offenders in the country, and it is conservatively estimated that at least 100,000 of them, 100,000, are lost in the system, meaning that nonregistered sex offenders are living in our communities, attending schools and working at locations where they can prey on our children.
The threat to our children grows each day as more unregistered sex offenders move freely within our midst. This bill reduces these unconscionable vulnerabilities by strengthening sex offender notification requirements.
The bill also addresses the problem of violence in and around our courthouses against judges, prosecutors, witnesses, law enforcement and other court personnel, as well as their immediate families. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Federal judges receive nearly 700 threats a year, and several Federal judges require security personnel to protect them and their families from violent gangs, drug organizations and disgruntled litigants. Judges, witnesses, and courthouse personnel and law enforcement officers must operate without fear in order to enforce and administer the law without bias.
Finally, the bill includes relevant provisions to address the growing
national threat from violent and vicious gangs in our communities. According to
the last National Youth Gang Survey, it is estimated that there are now between
750,000 and 850,000 gang members in our country. Every city in the country with
a population of 250,000 or more has reported gang activity. There are over
25,000 gangs in more than 3,000 jurisdictions in the
H.R. 4472 is strongly supported by John Walsh of
These tireless advocates for
I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and to speak in a
clear and united voice to protect our children, to ensure a safe judiciary, and
to give
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[Time:
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume, and I am happy to be here today to join the debate
around this bill. I am hoping
that my good friend, the chairman of the committee, will somewhere in the
course of this suspension explain to us why three bills were mentioned but one
that was added by the majority of the House, H.R. 3132, which deals with hate
crimes and is arguably one of the most notable pieces of civil rights criminal
enforcement protection considered by the Congress, was inexplicably left off.
This makes the process very mysterious to me, because
[Page: H677]
hate crimes is a very important part of any Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act that is before us, and I am very disappointed that somewhere in the night this bill was dropped so that we are now combining three instead of four bills.
It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile; it is a Federal crime to possess cocaine. It ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to his death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. We should, and I hope we will through some parliamentary mechanism, seize upon the historic opportunity that is before us to enact legislation that would effectively augment existing Federal law and demonstrate that this Nation will not tolerate violence directed at any individual because of their identity. But instead of supporting this principle, the measure before us takes an opposite direction. I am really, really sorry about this because it does the House an injustice.
I am also, at the same time, wishing to register notice that an amendment
offered by the gentleman from
So I am hopeful that we can work out some kind of agreement or acknowledgment about the unusual parliamentary process by which this matter has been brought to us.
[Begin Insert]
I rise in strong opposition
to this legislation and the manner by which it comes before us today.
Introduced just over two months ago, this legislation, all 164 pages, has
managed to completely circumvent the traditional legislative process.
Without the benefit of a single hearing or committee markup, the legislation has somehow found its way here to the floor of the House of Representatives. To make matters worse, it's being considered under suspension of the rules, leaving with reasonable concerns no opportunity to offer modest amendments.
Some might suggest that hearings or markups aren't necessary under these circumstances; since this measure, in large part, is a combination of three different bills, H.R. 3132; H.R. 1279; and H.R. 1751, which have all been considered by this body in the past. But, I strongly disagree. This measure differs from those various proposals in several meaningful ways.
First and foremost, this measure fails to include the hate crimes amendment that I offered--and which was adopted by a 223-199 vote as part of H.R. 3132. My hate crimes amendment arguably is one of the most notable pieces of civil rights criminal enforcement protection considered by this Congress in the last 30 years.
The FBI has reported a dramatic increase in hate motivated violence since the September 11th terrorist attacks. While the overall crime rate has grown by approximately two percent, the number of reported hate crimes have increased dramatically from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,730 in 2001, a 20.7 percent increase. Racial bias again represented the largest percentage of bias-motivated incidents, 44.9 percent; followed by Ethnic/National Origin Bias, 21.6 percent; Religious Bias, 18.8 percent, Sexual Orientation Bias, 14.3 percent; and Disability Bias, 0.4 percent).
It's worth noting that the amendment I offered would not have created new law. It simply would have amended existing law. Namely, section 245 of title 18, passed in 1968, which allowed Federal prosecution of attacks on the Freedom Riders during their historical civil rights work in the South.
The amendment of Section 245 would make it easier for Federal authorities to prosecute racial, religious, ethnic and gender-based violence, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson: by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law.
Current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents that occur during the exercise of federally protected activities, such as voting, and does not permit Federal involvement in a range of cases involving crimes motivated by bias against the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four states have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 states have extremely weak hate crimes laws.
It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile or to possess cocaine, and it ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. We should seize upon this historic opportunity to enact legislation that would effectively augment existing Federal law and demonstrate that this Nation will not tolerate violence directed at any individual because of their identity, instead of supporting legislation, such as the measure before us today, that takes us in the opposite direction.
Second, this measure fails to include an amendment offered by Mr.
NADLER--also adopted by voice-vote--which would have prevented the sale of a firearm to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense.
By now, members of this body are painfully aware of the fact that sex offenders often use firearms to prey upon their unsuspecting victims. In fact, not long ago Keith Dwayne Lyons, a high-risk sex offender, was convicted of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
According to published police reports, Mr. Lyons was aided by the use of a firearm in carrying out his crime. Unfortunately, and notwithstanding such tragedies, it appears to be the wisdom of a small minority that the bill before us is not the proper vehicle to address such matters and prevent them from reoccurring in the future.
Finally, the measure
under consideration today includes a complex system of categories whereby sex
offenders are classified based upon the nature of their offense. They are also
routinely forced to verify the accuracy of their registry information based
upon this system.
This new system of registration and registry verification has never been discussed by members of our committee. While some may certainly welcome such a system, others most likely will not. In either event, a change of this magnitude should not be undertaken without adequate thought, consideration and debate.
Setting aside these issues, I remained deeply concerned by the legislation's inclusion of at least 43 new mandatory minimum penalties and over 10 new death penalty eligible offenses. In the past, I've gone to great lengths to explain my deep opposition to mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty, so I won't repeat many of those arguments here. Except, to say that such penalties are completely arbitrary, ineffective at reducing crime and a total waste of taxpayers' money.
Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, almost 10 percent of all inmates in
state and Federal prisons are serving life sentences, a near 83 percent
increase from 1992. In two states alone,
And, what do we have to show for such statistics? The answer is simple. A prison system that currently houses more than 2.1 million Americans and costs an estimated $40 billion a year to run and operate.
In the end, the list of lingering concerns associated with this bill is quite staggering.
Over 33 scientific researchers, treatment professionals and child advocates have written in to express their concerns regarding the bill's overly harsh treatment of juveniles.
Advocates from the immigration community have written in to complain about the bill's provisions which will likely encourage state and local law enforcement officials to enforce Federal immigration laws.
And, groups ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Library Association have expressed serious concerns that the provisions outlined in title 6 of the bill will create criminal liability for the producers and distributors of mainstream novels, photographs, Internet content, movies, and TV shows.
With so many outstanding issues and no opportunity to offer even modest amendments, it's hard to see how anyone could lend their support to this measure.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.
[End Insert]
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman
from
Mr. GREEN of
There is one provision I wish to speak about in this bill that the people
of
Law enforcement was not allowed to notify the community that a convicted, high-risk sex offender was back on the streets, because he had been a juvenile. As a result, he went on to portray himself as a youth minister and
[Page: H678]
preyed upon others. He was given the trust of other parents because they simply didn't know that he was a convicted sex offender.
These subsequent crimes were absolutely preventable. Under the Amy Zyla provision of this bill, if a sex crime committed by a juvenile offender is serious enough that it would qualify reporting under the sex offender registry had he been an adult, law enforcement has the authority to notify the community when that sex offender is released.
Madam Speaker, communities, victims, and parents must be able to rely upon the sex offender registries. This provision, and certainly this bill, will help us get there.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and no one has worked harder in this area than he.
Mr. SCOTT of
Madam Speaker, this is a very difficult bill to try to debate because it includes a lot of different bills, everything except the hate crimes bill, which had broad support at least on this side. It includes a variety of slogans and sound bites, many of which have actually been shown to increase crime, disrupt orderly, proportionate, and fair sentencing, it wastes money and violates common sense.
Among these approaches are trying more juveniles as adults, the mandatory minimums, new death penalties, and habeas corpus restrictions, which is a process by which dozens of innocent people on death row have been able to show their innocence and escape the death penalty because they were innocent of the underlying charges. It also includes a national sex offender registry that includes misdemeanors and juveniles in the same kind of registration as the most serious predatory offenses.
If we are going to be serious about dealing with child sexual abuse, we ought to face the fact that virtually all of the abusers are either related to the child or at least known to the child's family. No studies have shown that these things actually reduce child abuse; and, in fact, anecdotal evidence would suggest that we might be actually increasing crime. Because the people who are the subject of these are unable to get a job, unable to live in any kind of neighborhood, have nothing to lose, the restrictive covenants now restricting where they can live, and all of these things may in fact increase crime. But there are certainly no studies to show that they have reduced by any measurable amounts the amount of child sexual abuse.
We are treating more
juveniles as adults. That thing has been studied over and over again, and we
know that treating more juveniles as adults will increase the crime rates. In
every State, the most heinous crimes are already subject to juveniles being
treated as adults. So if this passes, we are talking about those who are not
now treated as adults who would be treated as adults under this bill. Those are
the marginal cases.
We know that those
marginal cases sent to adult court will not have education and psychological services
and family services available in the juvenile court. They will either be locked
up with adults or just released on probation. Whatever the adult court judge
does will be more likely to have crime in the future than if the juvenile court
can provide those services.
We know how to reduce juvenile crime. It is the prevention programs. And unlike many bills, there is actually some money in this bill for prevention programs. They work. So those provisions are actually meaningful. We also have reentry programs in here. They work and have been proven to reduce recidivism. So there are at least some provisions of the bill that have something to recommend them.
But the mandatory
minimums in the bill have been studied. We know from all the studies that mandatory
minimums have been shown to waste money, discriminate against minorities, and
violate common sense. This bill includes mandatory minimums for juveniles that
includes a 20-year mandatory minimum for a fistfight that results in a serious
injury, and 10 years mandatory minimum if there is no serious injury; 10 years
mandatory minimum for a fistfight in a school yard. This bill cannot be
serious.
We have death penalties which have been proven to have no effect on crime. Innocent people are convicted. We have a habeas corpus provision that will eliminate the possibility that many of those who are innocent on death row, and we know there are many of them, will not have the opportunity to have their cases adjudicated.
We saw in the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito, when he was asked if an innocent person had a constitutional right against execution, and he didn't give a straight answer. We need to make sure people's rights are protected and that habeas corpus provisions are eliminated from the bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman
from
Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on child safety issues.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act because it is a commonsense way to protect our school children from pedophiles.
Isn't it a matter of common sense to allow a local school district in
Isn't it common sense to protect young school children in the first place by keeping these pedophiles locked up with lengthy prison sentences?
Isn't it common sense
that coddling repeated sex offenders with self-esteem courses
and rehabilitation doesn't work, and that locking them up does work?
Madam Speaker, the best way to protect young children is to keep child predators locked up in the first place, because someone who has molested a child will do it again and again and again.
Last year, two young
It is high time that we crack down on child molesters by implementing these commonsense reforms, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4472.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mr. FRANK of
You will remember this bill came before us, many of the elements of this bill some time ago, and the House, working its will, voted to include an amendment to the hate crimes section. That appalled many Members of the majority. In fact, we read in some of the newspapers, members of the majority of the Republican Study Committee lamented the fact that the leadership had actually given the House membership a chance to vote. They said, we can't allow that to happen, we can't allow democracy to be running rampant on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
So today we have the
antidote to democracy. We have a bill brought forward that repeats much of what
was done before, which adds some other issues that ought to be debated, many
[Page: H679]
of which I support, some of which I might like to see
amended, and it prohibits amendments. It is a very important and somewhat
controversial piece. And there can be controversy about better ways to do it or
worse ways to do it, but it is brought up in an absolutely undemocratic
fashion.
So to those members of the Iraqi National Assembly who may happen to be observing this, I think there is a very important point we need to make: please don't try this at home.
We are trying to instill others in the world to be democratic. The President's inaugural address noted that we are going to bring democracy. Is this what you mean by teaching people to follow democratic procedures, Madam Speaker?
[Time:
The other side brings up a controversial bill, and because it was amended once, make sure you can bring it back again in an unamendable form, put in other aspects, and leave virtually no time for debate. We will have debated this bill under the same rule that we debate naming of post offices. We will give this bill the same amount of time as we give post offices, or that major piece of legislation, the only vote we cast last Wednesday when this House came out overwhelmingly in favor of Sandra Day O'Connor. That is the bill that we had 40 minutes of debate on, the same as this.
This is a shameful example of the degradation of the democratic process that has befallen this House. What happens is what has happened in the past: things get put in here that cannot be individually examined, they cannot be debated. Members will feel pressured to vote for the overall package. Members, and this is the goal, put a lot of things in here that are very important and very good, many of which I have voted for in the past, many of which I want to vote for. But Members have put in a few other things that are very controversial and do not allow this House to approach looking at things individually and saying an amendment here, yes or no. And then if Members do not buy the whole package, then you go after them.
The Republican majority has decided to legislate in the same manner in which you give a pill to a dog: you take something that the dog wants and you stick a couple of pills in it and you ram it down its throat. That is an inappropriate way for this democratic House to proceed.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Madam Speaker, this is not giving a pill to a dog. What this legislation does is it combines three bills that the House already debated and passed but which got stalled in the other body. What it does is it takes away the poison pills that have caused the essential legislation to be stalled in the other body. And it makes some amendments, some of which have been requested by people on the other side of the aisle such as getting rid of a certain number of mandatory minimum penalties.
The purpose of this exercise is to get legislation signed into law and it is important legislation on protecting children from pedophiles, protecting Americans from gangs, and protecting judges from kooks who want to try to do them and their families harm. That is why this procedure is being used today so that we can make a law.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. HARRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act.
Unfortunately, there are thousands of reasons why this legislation is so
vitally important. According
to the
This bill takes commonsense steps towards ensuring sex offenders are not free to prey on the most vulnerable members of our society. We require States to expand the definition of sexual offenders to include juveniles, alert other States when predators seek refuge in another State and make community notification proactive, not reactive efforts.
There are many reasons which cause parents across
Madam Speaker, sexual predators live in darkness but their victims live in vibrant colors of all our memories. In pinks and blues. And in purple.
Prior to her abduction and murder at the hands of a sexual predator in February of 2004, that was the favorite color of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia. It still is.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 16 seconds to the gentleman from
Mr. FRANK of
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill manipulates the legislative process by repackaging legislation that for the most part has already passed the House, and by taking out of that legislation two amendments that were passed on the floor of the House and giving us no opportunity, giving the House majority no opportunity to correct this.
The bill includes three previous bills. On one of them I offered an amendment to prohibit gun possession by convicted misdemeanor sex offenders against minors. The amendment was agreed to unanimously and incorporated in the underlying bill. This is one of the poison pills. One of the poison pills, in other words, is that apparently the sponsors of this bill think it is essential to allow people convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses against minors to possess firearms, so they can use firearms against minors the next time.
The other amendment, the ranking member offered an amendment to combat crimes based on race, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sexual orientation by allowing the Federal Government to provide resources to local law enforcement to act as a Federal backup if local authorities do not prosecute these crimes. The amendment passed 223-199.
Now we are faced with this legislation on a suspension calendar. We are told that it is on a suspension calendar and it is unamendable because we have already debated. Yes, but we passed it in different forms, and they are just taking out the two poison pills.
Who has the right to decide that what the majority of the House voted is a poison pill and not give this House the right to vote on whether it agrees with them or not?
If the gentleman brought forth this bill under the regular calendar and said should we remove these two provisions because we cannot pass them in the Senate, let the House debate that. Maybe we would decide it is more important to let the Senate pass this bill and permit misdemeanor sexual offenders to have firearms than not to pass the bill. Maybe we would decide that, but that should be decided in a debate, not because someone behind the scenes decides that the will of the House can be overturned.
I urge Members to oppose this bill because it does not include these two provisions, to ban gun possession by those convicted of misdemeanor sex offenders against minors. We should not go on record today, as a vote for this legislation would be in favor of gun possession by people convicted of misdemeanor sex offenses. And it also does
[Page: H680]
not include the hate crimes amendment that was sponsored by Mr. Conyers and included by the House by majority vote.
It is wrong to prostitute the procedures of this House to undo the majority votes on the floor by behind-the-scenes manipulation and then say this is democratic procedure.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and rise in strong support of the bill.
[Begin Insert]
Mr. Speaker, as a father and a grandfather I am often reminded of the dangers that surround my loved ones. Specifically the growing threat that sexual predators pose to our Nation's children and their families represents an area where our criminal justice system has fallen behind the public need. In order to effectively protect our loved ones, we must provide the American public with unfettered access to know who these dangerous criminals are and where they are living. If a picture is worth a thousand words, than a comprehensive nationwide publicly accessible database is worth at least that many lives.
I was pleased that Chairman SENSENBRENNER included provisions from my bill, H.R. 95, that would create a national, comprehensive, and publicly accessible sex offender database into this comprehensive piece of legislation. Additionally, I feel that it is important to have consistency not only with a national registry, but also in how offenders are classified. Currently each State classifies offenders differently according to the risk that they pose to the community. The result is inconsistent and unreliable classifications across state lines. I was pleased that the chairman saw the need to address this issue, and I appreciate him working with me to include a provision to study the merits of a national risk-based classification system that could be integrated into the national sex offender database.
Furthermore, I was delighted at the level of bipartisanship that both my
bill and today's legislation have received and I would like to personally thank
Mr. POMEROY from
Mr. Speaker, today we must come together to make certain that our children grow up in a safe and secure environment and that parents are unafraid to let their children play in their neighborhood because they have the information they need to protect them. Knowledge is power, and today we have an opportunity before us to supply the American public with the tools necessary to protect themselves, their family, and their friends against those that would commit these heinous crimes. I urge all of my colleagues to cast their vote in support of this legislation and collectively answer the American public's call to provide them with additional resources to combat these predators before another life is lost and tragedy befalls another family.
[End Insert]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman
from
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of collateral issues being discussed today, but the fact remains that the will of the House is not a mandate on the Senate. The Senate was unwilling to accept some provisions. Let us acknowledge that.
But let us talk about what we are here for today, and that is to protect the vulnerable children. You have heard the names repeatedly in this debate. I do not want to read about another one for our failure to act.
This House did overwhelmingly approve this bill because there are a lot of good legislative initiatives in this bill to protect our children. I have said repeatedly on this floor that we protect library books better than we do our children. We have a better system of accountability than we do for our children.
This is about the kids that have perished because they were at the hands of despicable child predators.
Mr. Sensenbrenner has crafted a bill that gets at the heart of this matter. I want to thank John Walsh, who lost his son Adam, as a tireless advocate who went and asked Senator Frist to bring this base bill to the Senate floor, and Senator Frist has agreed to that request, along with the other parents of the children who have lost their lives.
These brave parents have come to this city to urge Congress to not let the tragedies that have happened to their families happen to another child.
I thank Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite, an outstanding advocate who had a resident in her district who died at the hands of a pedophile. We can do better.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mike Volkov, Bradley Schreiber and others who helped craft this important legislation, and I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what are we here for, to let the other body off the hook? Anything they do not like, we have to take out? I do not follow that reasoning at all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from
Mr. FRANK of
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
(Mr. SCOTT of
Mr. SCOTT of
The letter is signed by the Chamber of Commerce, the American Library Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Screen Actors Guild, American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Association of Law Libraries and others.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Dear Senator Hatch: We are writing to express our continuing concern with the legislative language contained in S. 2140, the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation of Children Act that would significantly expand the scope of Title 18 U.S.C. §2257. As you know, we strongly support the objective of increasing the Justice Department's ability to combat child pornography and exploitation. The members of our broad coalition are committed to protecting children from exploitation. That is why we appreciate and acknowledge the efforts of the sponsors of S. 2140 to address many of the issues raised by prior attempts to amend §2257. However, serious concerns remain.
S. 2140 would significantly expand the types and categories of conduct that would trigger the requirements of §2257. For the first time, the statute would implicate a wide array of legitimate, mainstream businesses that have never been linked in any way to the sexual exploitation of children. S. 2140 dramatically expands the class of persons required to keep records and to label products under §2257. Many affected by the proposed expansion are businesses and individuals that have no actual contact or relationship with the performers in question. In some instances, the proposed amendments are vague and offer little guidance as to what is required of those needing to comply, and in others, they impose requirements that are simply impossible to meet. Expansion of §2257 as envisioned by the proposed legislation will likely divert even more resources toward legal challenges to the statute and away from the legislation's primary objective of prosecuting those who sexually exploit children.
It is important to note that since §2257 was passed in 1988, the inspection regime of the law has, to our knowledge, never been used. Rather than expanding the scope of §2257 to cover a myriad of lawful, legitimate, Main-street businesses, we believe effective enforcement of the existing regime is first necessary. Accordingly, any amendments to the statute should be narrow and focused on individuals that seek to harm young people.
Finally, from the outset of this process, we have been prepared to discuss the serious concerns our coalition has with the proposals to amend §2257. However, we are not involved in the negotiation of the current bill language. While we remain committed to working with all interested parties, we do not believe that in its current form, S. 2140 addresses the myriad of legitimate concerns raised by our coalition.
We applaud you for your continued leadership and dedication to protecting children
[Page: H681]
and reiterate our commitment to work with you to address this serious issue.
Sincerely,
United States Chamber of Commerce; Video Software Dealers Association;
Americans for Tax Reform; American Library Association; American Conservative
Union; National Association of Broadcasters; National Cable &
Telecommunications Association; Motion Picture Association of America; Screen
Actors Guild; Media Freedom Project; American Hotel and Lodging Association;
The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; Magazine Publishers of
America; Directors Guild of America; Digital Media Association; Computer &
Communications Industry Association; Association of Research Libraries; The
Creative Coalition; Association of National Advertisers; Association of
American Publishers; American Association of Advertising Agencies; American
Advertising Federation; American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression;
Publishers Marketing Association; Freedom to Read Foundation; American
Association of Law Libraries
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of
February 23 marked the 1-year anniversary of Jessica Lunsford's death. I knew the family; I knew the grandmother. If Jessica were still with us, she would have been in the fifth grade. She would be learning about decimals and fractions and the solar system. Instead, her life was taken by a sex offender who assaulted and murdered her, and then buried her in his backyard. That is what this bill is all about; it is going after those, as someone once described, pond-scum predators.
Congress has responsibility to punish those who perpetrate the worst and
most disgusting crimes against our children. My heartfelt
thanks to the chairman who was gracious enough to work with all of us on these
various bills to protect our children in
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to wait one day longer for this bill to
become law. On behalf of Jessica Lunsford's family, I urge every Member of this
House to vote in favor of this bill. It is important that we send a loud and
clear message that Congress is serious about protecting
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and include my statement for the Record:
[Begin Insert]
I want to thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, for bringing this bill to the House today. It is an important bill that will help protect children and our community's safety.
One section of this package includes H.R. 4894, legislation I introduced, that will provide our school districts with another tool in their extraordinary efforts to bring highly qualified staff to our classrooms and schools.
By providing our school districts with direct access to criminal information records, we can help ensure timely and complete information on prospective school employees. This provision will allow local and state educational agencies to access national criminal information databases and will ensure that schools have the information they need when hiring teachers entrusted with our children and our classrooms.
Teachers are unparalleled in the role they play in children's lives. Most teachers uphold the highest standards of conduct, and they deserve the trust they have earned in educating our children. However, particularly in rapidly-growing communities, a lack of good information may leave schools vulnerable and could endanger our students. This is a common sense opportunity to give states and local schools the tools they need to ensure safety in our schools.
This package also includes legislation I introduced, H.R. 4732, The Sergeant Henry Prendes Memorial Act of 2006. This legislation states that whoever kills, or attempts to kill or conspires to kill, a federally funded public safety officer while that officer is engaged in official duties, shall be imprisoned for no less than 30 years, or life, or, if death results may be sentenced to death. A `public safety officer' in this legislation means an individual serving a public agency in an official capacity, as a judicial officer, law enforcement officer, firefighter, chaplain, or as a member of a rescue squad or ambulance crew.
This is a common sense legislative package that will help keep our children and those who protect our communities safe. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and, again, applaud the Chairman for his leadership on the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, insert the following article on Sergeant Prendes into the RECORD.
[End Insert]
`Our Worst Nightmare': LV Officer Slain in Gunbattle
(By Brian Haynes, Review-Journal)
What was to have been a proud day for the Metropolitan Police Department on Wednesday ended as one of its darkest.
Fourteen-year police veteran Sgt. Henry Prendes
was shot and killed during a domestic violence call, becoming the first
``I can tell you, for the men and women of the Metropolitan Police Department this is a very sad day,'' Sheriff Bill Young said. ``It's our worst nightmare as an agency.''
Prendes, 37, was ambushed as he approached the
front door of a house in southwest
A second officer was shot in the leg during the gunbattle.
Police identified the gunman as Amir Rashid
Crump, 21, an aspiring
The incident began about
Police had responded to the home at
Prendes and several officers arrived and found the woman, who was Crump's girlfriend. Her mother and her brother were with her. Crump had gone inside the home.
Prendes ``cautiously approached'' the door when he was met with gunfire, Young said. An officer nearby saw Prendes ``reeling out of the house, saying, `I'm hit,' '' Young said.
Prendes fell on the sidewalk, but other officers could not reach him because Crump continued firing with his gun, which was similar to an AK-47, Young said.
Crump fired about 50 rounds and kept the officers pinned behind cars, walls and whatever cover they could find, he said. He went upstairs and fired down upon the officers, he said.
Investigators found several empty ammunition clips at the scene.
``He was prepared for this,'' Young said. ``He was ready, waiting and willing to kill a police officer.''
As the gunbattle continued, officers from across the valley sped toward the area and swarmed the neighborhood. Several roads were closed as police locked down the scene and surrounding neighborhood.
Joe Anello, a
Another neighbor, Anthony Johnson, said it sounded like a gunbattle.
``It sounded like someone was shooting, and then someone shooting back,'' he said.
Aaron Barnes, who lives on
He said his neighbor, a member of the rap group Desert Mobb, was usually quiet, except for occasional loud music in the middle of the night.
Despite the barrage of gunfire, police officers tried to rescue Prendes. A plainclothes officer with the gang unit was armed with an assault rifle and helped turn the tide.
``His weapon probably saved the day,'' Young said.
That officer was shot in the leg during the rescue attempt.
Police shot and killed Crump outside the front door.
About five or six officers fired their weapons during the incident. Their names will be withheld until 48 hours after the incident, which is department policy.
``This could have been a lot worse,'' Young said. ``We are extremely fortunate that other police officers were not killed in this incident.''
At
[Page: H682]
The last
Young said domestic violence calls can be the most dangerous for a police
officer, but
``Today, unfortunately, our luck ran out,'' Young said.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman
from
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to add my strong voice today in support of H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005. I also want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for his solid effort in making sure that this House is once again on record in working to protect our children and our families.
I am pleased that an amendment that I offered to the original legislation last year, which was adopted with a unanimous vote, is included once again in today's final bill.
My amendment requires the GAO to study the feasibility of implementing on
a nationwide basis a tough annual driver's license registration requirement
that my home State of
Just last month, it was reported that there are almost 2,000 convicted sex
offenders living in
This bill takes a huge step forward in protecting the most vulnerable among us, our children.
[Time:
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this critical bill and send a message to all that preying on our children will not be tolerated anytime, anywhere.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman
from
Ms. JACKSON-
Mr. Speaker, I wish as I listened to my good friends on the other side of
the aisle that we were squarely focusing on protecting our children. In fact, I
support the National Sex Offender Registry that is in this particular
legislation, the sex crimes, that provides, if you will, a list of the sex
offenders all over
My difficulty, of course, is the various kitchen
sink elements that are included. I may want to see the Federal judges that are
included and protected in this legislation protected, but have we vetted the
question of allowing judges to carry guns in the courtroom? Should we not
provide more resources to the
This legislation, which I am still in dilemma as to its merits for voting on, raises severe questions. Why didn't the gun legislation get in that eliminates sex offenders from being able to recklessly carry guns? We want to protect our children. We want to pay tribute to the legacy and the work of John Walsh and the legacy of his lost child and the many lost children that we don't want to see happen again. But for God's sake, can we do legislation that embraces all of us who believe in the necessity of protecting our children? There is a frustration of wanting to do what is right and yet having legislation that doesn't allow the vetting, the amending and the responsible consideration.
This bill that seeks to protect children has very many merits. I would just beg my colleagues to understand that this process must be one that can last and survive.
I can assure you that this will still have trouble in the Senate, because you have left off the hate crimes legislation which was a bipartisan effort. I ask my colleagues for consideration of this bill in the context in which I have discussed this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my Democratic friend
from
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Talk, talk, talk. The time for talking is over. Last week I had the opportunity to stand with people whose children have been taken from them, children who were victims of horrific crimes. So that their children not die in vain, these wonderful people, including Linda Walker, who is the mother of Drew Sjodin who lost her life in North Dakota, have focused their energies on trying to help keep other children safe and to keep them safe by giving families the information about dangerous, high-risk sexual predators who are living in their communities.
It is time we move this bill forward so that it might be conferenced with action the Senate would take on similar legislation. I am not happy with the Senate's handling of this proposal, not one bit, but I am not going to let some quest for perfection delay our efforts to make our families safer any longer. These families want action now, and this Congress should give it to them. Vote for this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for making sure that our children are safer. The days of child predators playing hide and seek are over in this country. No longer will they be able to hide in our communities and seek out our children as their prey.
The national registration in this bill will help protect our children so that when child molesters leave our penitentiaries and move about from State to State, we will be able to keep up with them.
As many Members of the House, I am the parent of four children, three
grandchildren and two on the way. I have met with parents who have lost their
children to child predators who left penitentiaries and preyed against them.
Mark Lunsford and Marc Klaas both came to
We need to have a response, and the first duty of government, which is to protect the public and to protect our children, is the greatest cause that we can be involved in. As a member of the Victims Rights Caucus that was started with Katherine Harris and Jim Costa, we support these efforts and applaud this act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the balance of our time to
the Congresswoman from
Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise not to address the substance of this bill, but to address a matter that is most unfortunately missing from this bill. Today we consider H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005, under the suspension calendar, which, of course, means that amendments cannot be offered.
This bill encompasses H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005, which passed the House in September of 2005. When that bill was considered on the floor, a hate crimes amendment was offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and it passed by a strong bipartisan vote of 223--199. Yet despite that strong bipartisan support from the Members of this Chamber, the hate crimes provision has been stripped out of the bill before us today, and there is simply no good reason for the House to consider H.R. 4472 without hate crimes language.
One cannot fully address the issues of crime reduction and child safety
without acknowledging the terrorizing impact hate-motivated violence has in
[Page:
H683]
our society, especially
in subjecting groups of individuals to a debilitating state of fear for their
safety and security. Hate crimes reduction is violent crime reduction, and it
is about keeping millions of Americans, including children, safe from
hate-motivated violence.
It is a shame that by introducing an omnibus crime prevention bill and proceeding under suspension of the rules that the majority undermines the democratic process by doing an end run around hate crime prevention. I urge my colleagues to bear these facts in mind as they consider this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the RECORD a section-by-section analysis of H.R. 4472.
H.R. 4472--The Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005
Sec. 101. Short Title. Short Title; Table of Contents, Sec. 102. Declaration of Purpose.
Sec. 111. This section sets forth the definitions for Title I of the Act.
Sec. 112. This section requires each jurisdiction to maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry conforming to the requirements of this title and authorizes the Attorney General to prescribe guidelines to carry out the purposes of the title.
Sec. 113. This section requires a sex offender to register, and maintain current information in each jurisdiction where the sex offender was convicted, where the sex offender resides, where the sex offender is employed and where the sex offender attends school.
Sec. 114. This section specifies, at a minimum, what information the registry must include.
Sec. 115. This section specifies the duration of the registration requirement.
Sec. 116. This section requires a sex offender to appear in person for verification of registration information.
Sec. 117. This section requires a jurisdiction official to inform the sex offender of the registration requirements.
Sec. 118. This section establishes the Jessica Lunsford Verification Program which requires State officials to verify the residence of each registered sex offender.
Sec. 119. This section requires the Attorney General to maintain a National Sex Offender Registry.
Sec. 120. This section creates the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website.
Sec. 121. This section requires each jurisdiction to make available to the public through an Internet site certain information about a sex offender.
Sec. 122. This section requires an appropriate official to notify, within 5 days of a change in a sex offender's information certain agencies.
Sec. 123. This section requires an appropriate official from the State or other jurisdiction to notify the Attorney General and appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies to inform them of any failure by a sex offender to comply with the registry requirements.
Sec. 124. This section provides that law enforcement agencies, employees of law enforcement agencies, contractors acting at the direction of law enforcement agencies, and officials from State and other jurisdictions shall not be held criminally or civilly liable for carrying out a duty in good faith.
Sec. 125. This section requires the Attorney General to develop software and make it available to States and jurisdictions to establish, maintain, publish and share sex offender registries.
Sec. 126. If the Attorney General determines that a jurisdiction does not have a minimally sufficient sex offender registry program, he is required to the extent practicable, to carry out the obligations of the registry program.
Sec. 127. This section requires jurisdictions to comply with the requirements of this title within 2 years of enactment.
Sec. 128. This section imposes a ten percent reduction in Byrne Grant funds to any jurisdiction that fails, as determined by the Attorney General, substantially to comply with the requirements of this Act.
Sec. 129. This section authorizes the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program to fund grants to jurisdictions to implement the sex offender registry requirements.
Sec. 130. This section authorizes the Attorney General to create a demonstration project for the electronic monitoring of registered sex offenders.
Sec. 131. This section authorizes the Attorney General to award grants to states that substantially implement electronic monitoring programs for life for certain dangerous sex offenders and for the period of court supervision for any other case.
Sec. 132. This section provides NCMEC with access to Interstate Identification Index data.
Sec. 133. This section provides NCMEC with limited immunity related to its CyberTipline.
Sec. 134. This section requires that the Bureau of Prisons make available appropriate treatment to sex offenders who are in need of and suitable for treatment.
Sec. 135. This section requires the GAO to conduct a study to determine the feasibility of using driver's license registration processes as additional registration requirements for sex offenders.
Sec. 136. This section requires the Attorney General to provide technical assistance to jurisdictions to assist them in the identification and location of sex offenders relocated as a result of a major disaster.
Sec. 137. For the purposes of this Act, the term
``federally recognized Indian tribe'' does not include within its purview
Alaska Native groups or entities. In 1884 when Congress created the first civil
government for
Sec. 138. This section authorizes the Justice
Department, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Department of
Homeland Security, to establish procedures to notify relevant jurisdictions
about persons entering the
Sec. 139. This section requires the Justice Department to study risk-based classification systems and report back to Congress within 18 months of enactment.
Sec. 140. This section requires the Justice Department to study the effectiveness of restrictions on recidivism rates for sex offenders and to report back to Congress within 6 months of enactment on this issue.
Sec. 151. This section creates a new federal crime for a Federal sex offender or offender crosses State lines.
Sec. 152. This section authorizes the Attorney General to assist in the apprehension of sex offenders who have failed to comply with applicable registration requirements.
Sec. 153. This section authorizes funding of such sums as necessary for the Attorney General to provide grants to States and other jurisdictions to apprehend sex offenders for failure to comply.
Sec. 154. This section creates an enhanced criminal penalty for use of a controlled substance against a victim to facilitate the commission of a sex offense; and a new criminal offense prohibiting Internet sales of certain ``date-rape'' drugs.
Sec. 155. This section repeals the predecessor sex offender registry program.
Sec. 156. This section authorizes grants to train
and employ personnel to help investigate and prosecute cases cleared through
use of funds provided for
Sec. 157. This section authorizes grants to law enforcement agencies to help combat sexual abuse of children, including additional personnel and related staff, computer hardware and software necessary to investigate such crimes, and apprehension of sex offenders who violate registry requirements.
Sec. 158. This section requires the Justice Department to expand training efforts coordination among participating agencies to combat on-line solicitation of children by sex offenders.
Sec. 159. This section amends the probation and supervised release provisions to mandate revocation when a offender commits a crime of violence or an offense to facilitate sexual contact involving a person under 18 years old.
Sec. 161. This section establishes an Office on Sexual Violence and Crimes Against Children.
Sec. 162. This section provides for Presidential appointment of a Director of the Office.
Sec. 163. This section states the purpose is to administer the sex offender registration and notification program; administer grant programs; and to provide technical assistance, coordination and support to other governmental and nongovernmental entities.
Sec. 201. This section amends the
Sec. 202. This section directs the Attorney
General to give appropriate consideration to the need for collection and
testing of
Sec. 203. This section directs the GAO to conduct a study two years after the publication of the model code on the extent to which States have implemented.
Sec. 301. This section modifies the existing statute and adopts new penalties for felony crimes of violence crimes committed against children.
Sec. 302. This section restricts federal habeas review of collateral sentencing claims relating to a state conviction.
Sec. 303. This section establishes victim rights requirements for habeas corpus proceedings.
Sec. 304. This section requires the Attorney General to study the implementation for a nationwide tracking system for persons charged or investigated for child abuse.
Sec. 401. This section modifies the criminal penalties for several existing sexual offenses
[Page: H684]
against children by amending the current law.
Sec. 402. This section expresses a sense of Congress with respect to reversal of criminal conviction of Jan P. Helder, Jr.
Sec. 403. This section authorizes a new grant program for child sex abuse prevention programs, and authorizes $10 million for fiscal years 2007 to 2011.
Sec. 501. This section amends the Social Security Act to require each State to complete background checks and abuse registries relating to any foster parent or adoptive parent application, before approval of such an application, and provides access to agencies responsible for foster parent of adoptive parent placements.
Sec. 502. This section authorizes the Attorney General to provide fingerprint-based background checks to child welfare agencies, private and public educational agencies, and volunteers in order to conduct background checks for prospective adoption or foster parents, private and public teachers or school employees.
Sec. 503. This section amends section 2422(a) and (b) of title 18, United States Code, to increase penalties for coercion and enticement.
Sec. 504. This section increases mandatory-minimum penalties for conduct relating to child prostitution ranging from a mandatory minimum of 10 years to a mandatory minimum of 30 years depending on the severity of the conduct.
Sec. 505. This section amends several statutes relating to sexual abuse.
Sec. 506. This section expands the list of mandatory conditions of probation and supervised release to include submission by the sex offender under supervision to searches by law enforcement and probation officers with reasonable suspicion, and to searches by probation officers in the lawful discharge of their supervision functions.
Sec. 507. This section expands the federal jurisdiction nexus for kidnapping comparable to that of many other federal crimes to include travel by the offender in interstate or foreign commerce, or use of the mails or other means, facilities, or instrumentalities of interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the offense.
Sec. 508. This section restricts the scope of the common law marital privileges by making them inapplicable in a criminal child abuse case in which the abuser or his or her spouse invokes a privilege to avoid testifying.
Sec. 509. This section amends 18 U.S.C. §1153, the ``Major Crimes Act'' for Indian country cases to add felony child abuse or neglect to the predicate offenses.
Sec. 510. This section authorizes civil commitment of certain sex offenders who are dangerous to others because of serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder.
Sec. 511. This section authorizes grants to States to operate effective civil commitment programs for sexually dangerous programs.
Sec. 512. This section amends United States Code, to impose a mandatory-minimum penalties when the offense involved trafficking of a child.
Sec. 513. This section amends United States Code to increase maximum penalties for sexual abuse of wards.
Sec. 514. This section authorizes the indictment of a defendant at any time for a criminal offense for child abduction and sex offenses.
Sec. 515. This section makes the failure to report child abuse a Class A misdemeanor rather than a Class B misdemeanor.
Sec. 601. Findings.
Sec. 602. This section improves the existing record-keeping regulatory scheme by adding to the types of depictions covered to include lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person, and clarifying the definitions applicable to the inspection regime so that those entities that produce such materials comply with the record-keeping requirements.
Sec. 603. This section adopts new record-keeping obligations on persons who produce materials depicting simulated sexual conduct.
Sec. 604. This section specifies that depictions of child pornography discovered by law enforcement must be maintained within the government's or a court's control at all times.
Sec. 605. This section amends the obscenity forfeiture provisions to make the procedures for obscenity forfeitures the same as they are for most other crimes.
Sec. 606. This section criminalizes the production of obscenity as well as its transportation, distribution, and sale, so long as the producer has the intent to transport, distribute, or sell the material in interstate or foreign commerce.
Sec. 607. This section authorizes compensation of court-appointed guardians ad litem.
Sec. 701. This section requires that the Director of the United States Marshals Service consult and coordinate with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch.
Sec. 702. This section authorizes $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for hiring additional necessary personnel.
Sec. 703. This section would create a new Federal criminal offense for the filing of fictitious liens against real or personal property owned by Federal judges or attorneys.
Sec. 704. This section makes it a Federal crime to knowingly make available otherwise restricted personal information to be used to intimidate or facilitate the commission of a crime of violence against covered officials or family members of covered officials.
Sec. 705. This section requires the Attorney General to report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the security of Assistant United States Attorneys.
Sec. 706. This section makes it a crime punishable by fine and imprisonment of ten years to flee prosecution for the murder, or attempted murder, of a peace officer.
Sec. 707. This section raises sentences for those convicted of murder, or attempted murder, and kidnapping or attempted kidnapping.
Sec. 708. This section authorizes Federal judges and prosecutors to carry firearms, subject to regulations implemented by the Justice Department regarding training and use.
Sec. 709. This section modifies the existing penalties for assaults against a federal law enforcement officer.
Sec. 710. This section creates a new criminal offense for the killing of, attempting to kill or conspiring to kill, any public safety officer for a public agency that receives Federal funding.
Sec. 711. This section raises maximum criminal penalties for violating 18 U.S.C. §1503 relating to influencing or injuring jurors or officers of judicial proceedings by killing, attempting to kill, use force or threatening to kill or harm an officer or juror.
Sec. 712. This section modifies 18 U.S.C. §1512 to increase penalties for killing or attempting to kill a witness, victim, or informant to obstruct justice.
Sec. 713. This section modifies 18 U.S.C. §1513 for killing or attempting to kill a witness, victim, or an informant in retaliation for their testifying or providing information to law enforcement by increasing penalties for causing bodily injury or damaging the person's property or business or livelihood, or threatening to do so.
Sec. 714. This section amends 18 U.S.C. §1952 relating to interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering enterprise by expanding the prohibition against ``unlawful activity'' to include ``intimidation of, or retaliation against, a witness, victim, juror, or informant.''
Sec. 715. This section amends section 1513 of title 18 to clarify proper venue for prosecutions to include the district in which the official proceeding or conduct occurred.
Sec. 716. This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 930(e)(1) to prohibit the possession of ``a dangerous weapon'' in a Federal court facility.
Sec. 717. This section modifies the Federal murder and manslaughter statutes to include new mandatory minimums.
Sec. 718. This section creates a new grant program for States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to create and expand witness protection programs in order to prevent threats, intimidation and retaliation against victims of, and witnesses to, crimes.
Sec. 719. This section authorizes grants to State courts to conduct threat assessments and implement recommended security changes.
Sec. 720. This section authorizes a new grant program to provide States with funds to develop threat assessment databases.
Sec. 721. This section amends 42 U.S.C. §13862 to authorize grants to create and expand witness protection programs to assist witnesses and victims of crime.
Sec. 722. This section authorizes grants for State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to provide witnesses assistance programs for young witnesses.
Sec. 723. This section modifies the eligibility requirements for discretionary grants to allow State court eligibility.
Sec. 801. This section revises existing section 521 of title 18, U.S.C., to prohibit gang crimes that are committed in order to further the activities of a criminal street gang.
Sec. 802. This section expands existing section 1952 of title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties and simplifies the elements of the offense.
Sec. 803. This section amends criminal statutes
relating to definition and penalties for carjacking, illegal gun transfers to
drug traffickers or violent criminals, special sentencing provisions, and
conspiracy to defraud the
Sec. 804. This section amends existing section 1958 of title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties for use of interstate commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire and other felony crimes of violence.
Sec. 805. This section amends existing section 1959(a) of title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties and expand the prohibition on include aggravated sexual abuse.
Sec. 806. This section fills a gap in existing federal law and creates a new criminal offense for violent acts committed during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
Sec. 807. This section creates a new criminal
offense for traveling in or causing another to travel in interstate or foreign
commerce or to use any facility in interstate or foreign commerce with the
intent that 2 or more murders be committed in violation of the laws of any
State or the
Sec. 808. This section modifies the list of RICO predicates to clarify applicability of predicate offense which occur on Indian country or in any other area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction.
Sec. 809. This section applies the rebuttable presumption in pre-trial release detention hearings to cases in which a defendant is charged with firearms offenses after having previously been convicted of a prior crime of violence or a serious drug offense.
[Page: H685]
Sec. 810. This section amends United States Code to clarify venue in capital cases where murder, or related conduct, occurred.
Sec. 811. This section extends the statute of limitations for violent crime cases from 5 years to 15 years after the offense occurred or the continuing offense was completed.
Sec. 812. This section permits admission of statements of a murdered witness to be introduced against the defendant who caused a witness' unavailability and the members of the conspiracy if such actions were foreseeable to the other members of the conspiracy.
Sec. 813. This section authorizes the Attorney General to charge as an adult in federal court a juvenile who is 16 years or older and commits a crime of violence.
Sec. 814. This section amends title 18 to create a new enhanced criminal penalty when an illegal alien commits a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense.
Sec. 815. This section requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide to the Department of Justice information about certain immigration violators so that such information can be included in national criminal history databases.
Sec. 816. This section requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly conduct a study on illegal immigration and gang membership.
Sec. 901. This section authorizes use of Byrne grants to State and local prosecutors to protect witnesses and victims of crimes; to fund new technology, equipment and training for prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors.
Sec. 902. This section reauthorizes the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program.
Sec. 903. This section authorizes the Justice Department to provide grants to establish offender reentry courts.
Sec. 1001. This section authorizes a new grant program for the National Crime Prevention Council.
Sec. 1002. This section requires the Justice Department to conduct a study.
Sec. 1101. Short Title.
Sec. 1102. This section requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with the Justice Department, to create a national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect.
Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to the
What we have heard from the opponents of this motion to suspend the rules
is that the bill is a good one, but it doesn't do enough, and we ought to add
this and this and this and this. But we tried that last year. We passed the
core bills of three separate components of this bill, and they ended up getting
stuck in the other side of the
Honestly, our children, our judges, and all Americans can't afford to wait any longer. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), I think, summed it up perfectly, that is, that the victims and their families cannot afford to wait any longer because of parliamentary objections to this, that and everything else.
Now, let us look at what this bill does. It allows a national registration of sex offenders so that we can get the over 100,000 convicted sex offenders who slipped through the registration cracks on the Internet so that people will know if they are in their neighborhood. If you defeat this bill, that is not going to happen.
This bill also prevents the sale of date-rape drugs over the Internet. If you defeat this bill, that is not going to happen.
The bill has a number of provisions to protect Federal judges and their
families and courthouse personnel and buildings so that we don't have the
tragedy that happened to Judge Lefkos in
Practically every community of over a quarter of a million in this country has faced the scourge of gangs. There is comprehensive gang law in this bill that will help our law enforcement get to the ringleaders of these gangs and to arrest them and throw them into jail. That is going to make all of us safer. You defeat this bill, and that is not going to happen.
I want to see a law made, and those who have spoken in support of this motion to suspend the rules want to see this bill become law as quickly as possible. We have a commitment from the majority leader on the other side of the Capitol, if this bill passes today, to schedule it quickly. In the name of our children and all Americans, vote to suspend the rules.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Hon. HOWARD P. ``
Chairman, Committee on Education and Workforce, House of Representatives,
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
--
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,
Given the importance of this legislation and your willingness to work with me in drafting the final language of Title XI, I will support the inclusion of this provision in the manager's amendment without consideration by my committee. However, I do so only with the understanding that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the Committee on Education and the Workforce's jurisdictional interest and prerogatives on these provisions or any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my committee in the future. Furthermore, should these or similar provisions be considered in a conference with the Senate, I would expect members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce be appointed to the conference committee on these provisions.
Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during the consideration of this bill. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. I thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
--
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON WAYS
Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has jurisdiction over matters concerning certain child welfare programs, particularly as they pertain to foster care and adoption. Section 501 of the bill would require States to conduct safety checks of would-be foster and adoptive homes as well as eliminate the ability of States to opt-out of Federal background check requirements restricting Federal support for children placed with foster or adoptive parents with serious criminal histories. Section 502 would require States to check child abuse registries for potential foster and adoptive parents. Thus these provisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite this bill for floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action. This is being done with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this bill or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 4472, and would ask that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in the Congressional Record during floor consideration.
Best regards,
Bill Thomas,
Chairman.
--
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Hon.
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives,
I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 4472, the ``Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005,'' which is scheduled for consideration on the House floor on Wednesday, March 8,
[Page: H686]
2006. I agree that sections 501 and 502 implicate the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means, and appreciate your willingness to forego consideration in order to facilitate floor consideration of this legislation. I agree that your decision to waive consideration of the bill should not be construed to limit the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means over H.R. 4472 or similar legislation, or otherwise prejudice your Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees to this or similar legislation.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
[Begin Insert]
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. Once again, this Congress is attempting to address very serious and complicated problems with a law that substitutes the talking points of ``tough on crime'' politicians for the wisdom of judges, prosecutors, treatment professionals and child advocates. As a father and someone who has fought for better foster care, education, and health care for children, I object to this ill-conceived legislation that is as much an attack on our independent judiciary as it is a bill to protect kids.
Many child advocates themselves oppose this bill because kids in grade school or junior high will be swept up alongside paroled adults in sex offender registries. Many caught in registries would be 13 and 14 year olds. In some states, children 10 and under would be registered.
This bill creates new
mandatory minimum sentences, which impose the judgment of Congress over every
case, regardless of the circumstances. The Judicial Conference of the
Finally, this bill expands the death penalty, which is not a deterrent, costs more to implement than life imprisonment, and runs the risk of executing the innocent.
Nobody, especially the parents and victims of sexual abuse who have contacted me on this issue, should confuse my objections to this bad policy with indifference to the problem of child sex abuse in this country. It is a huge problem, affecting millions of American children. Recent news stories prove that the registry system isn't working well.
I support aspects of this bill, including a strengthened nationwide registry for pedophiles, with strict requirements for reporting changes of address and punishments for failing to report. I support establishing treatment programs for sex offenders in prison, background checks for foster parents, funding for computer systems to track sex crimes involving the Internet, and, at last resort, procedures for committing sexually dangerous persons to secure treatment facilities.
However, I cannot violate my Constitutional duty to protect our independent judiciary nor can I support extreme, dangerous policies, so I will vote against this bill. I hope that, working with the Senate, we can improve this legislation and implement the policies that everyone agrees are needed without the unintended consequences of the bill in its current form.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the RECORD
regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on
[End Insert]
We would like to emphasize that there are several ways in which this bill will be helpful to the Judiciary, even though there are some provisions about which we have concerns or would wish to modify. In particular, we greatly appreciate inclusion in this bill of important measures designed to improve the security of our federal courts. Some of the impetus for these court security provisions in the bill arose from the tragic circumstances surrounding the murder of family members of Judge Joan Lefkow of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Her husband and mother were shot and killed by a disgruntled litigant.
The current bill contains several provisions that are of particular
interest to the federal courts and that are supported by the Judicial
Conference. One provision of the bill requires the
The bill contains two other provisions that are supported by the Judicial Conference including one that will help protect judges from the malicious recording of fictitious liens and another that extends to federal judges the authority to carry firearms under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General in consultation with the Judicial Conference of the United States. The latter provision says that, with respect to justices, judges, magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges, such regulations ``may'' provide for the training and regular certification in the use of firearms. The Judicial Conference believes that the training and certification requirement should be mandatory and that ``shall'' should replace ``may.''
While the bill addresses many important issues of interest to the Conference, the bill also contains some provisions about which we are concerned, which we briefly address below.
The bill would amend the habeas corpus procedures set out in 28 U.S.C.
§2264 and 2254 to bar federal court review of claims based upon an error in an
applicant's sentence or sentencing that a court determined to be harmless or
not prejudicial, that were not presented in state court, or that were found by
the state court to be procedurally barred, ``unless a determination that the
error is not structural is contrary to clearly established federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court.'' This section is similar to a provision of
the Streamlined Procedures Act (H.R. 3035 and S. 1088, 109th Congress) that was
opposed by the Judicial Conference as described in a
(1) Undermine the traditional role of the federal courts to hear and decide the merits of claims arising under the Constitution;
(2) Impede the ability of the federal and state courts to conduct an orderly review of constitutional claims, with appropriate deference to state-court proceedings; and
(3) Prevent the federal courts from reaching the merits of habeas corpus petitions by adding procedural requirements that may complicate the resolution of these cases and lead to protracted litigation. .....
The habeas provision in this bill raises similar concerns and is opposed by the Judicial Conference.
Another section would make it a federal crime for a person to knowingly fail to register as required under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act if the person is either a sex offender based upon a federal conviction or is a sex offender based on a state conviction who thereafter travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or enters or leaves, or resides in, Indian country. Because the requirement to register under that act would include convictions in state courts, this has the potential to expand federal jurisdiction over large numbers of persons whose conduct would previously have been subject to supervision solely by the state courts. In addition, as the bill requires the states to expand systems for supervising all persons convicted of specified offenses, the expansion of federal jurisdiction into this area risks duplication of effort and conflicts between the federal and state systems.
The bill would amend 18 U.S.C. §5032 to allow a juvenile who is prosecuted for one of the specified crimes of violence or firearms offenses to ``be prosecuted and convicted as an adult for any other offense which is properly joined under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and also [to] be convicted as an adult of any lesser included offense.'' Given that joinder of offenses is liberally allowed under the Rules, and that the bill further provides that the determination of the Attorney General to proceed against a juvenile as an adult is an exercise of unreviewable prosecutorial discretion, this provision could result in the federal prosecution of juveniles for myriad offenses if they are also prosecuted for a felony crime of violence or a firearms offense.
The bill contains various provisions that expand the application of mandatory minimum sentences. The Judicial Conference opposes mandatory minimum sentencing provisions because they undermine the sentencing guideline regime Congress established under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 by preventing the systematic development of guidelines that reduce unwarranted disparity and provide proportionality and fairness in punishment. While we recognize the desire to increase the security of persons associated with the justice system, we believe that this can be accomplished without resort to the creation of mandatory minimums.
I appreciate having the opportunity to express the views of the Judicial Conference on H.R. 4472, the ``Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005.'' If you have any questions regarding this legislation please contact Cordia Strom, Assistant Director, Office of Legislative Affairs.
Sincerely,
Leonidas Ralph Mecham,
Secretary, Judicial Conference
of the
--
[Page: H687]
are writing at this time to express our very deep concerns
about recently introduced H.R. 4472. This ``omnibus'' bill incorporates several
separate bills; two of these bills have been the focus of strong opposition by
this Coalition as being harmful and detrimental in many ways to the best
interests of youth.
Specifically, the National JJDP Coalition objects to provisions of Title I, Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, and Title VIII, Reduction and Prevention of Gang Violence.
TITLE I: SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION
The National JJDP Coalition strongly believes that juvenile offenders adjudicated delinquent of sex offenses should be excluded from both the National Sex Offender Registry to be maintained by the Attorney General and the state-level sex offender registries required by H.R. 4472. While we understand that certain Tier I juvenile sex offenders may not be included on the internet or subject to all of the program notification requirements, we believe that this potential remedy does not do nearly enough to differentiate between juvenile and adult sex offenders and simply cannot safeguard juveniles in accordance with established principles of confidentiality. Without the use of careful risk assessments and judicial review for each juvenile sex offender, youth who pose no future risk to public safety will have their own safety jeopardized and their futures inevitably compromised by their inclusion in the registry. We throw away these youth at great cost to our own public safety and future interests.
Critically, the
increased penalties in Titles
Research has consistently shown that youth who act out sexually differ significantly from adult sex offenders. First, juvenile offenders who act out sexually do not tend to eroticize aggression, nor are they aroused by child sex stimuli as adult sex offenders are. Many young people who exhibit sexual behavior have been sexually abused themselves and/or exposed to pornography or other sex stimulation by someone older. As a result of this abuse and victimization, they need mental health services and support. Mental health professionals regard this juvenile behavior as much less dangerous. Indeed, when applying the American Psychiatric Association diagnostic criteria for pedophilia (abusive sexual uses of children) to the juvenile arrests included in the National Incident Based Reporting System, only 8 percent of these incidents would even be considered as evidence of a pedophilia disorder.
Furthermore, many of the juveniles who are included on sex offender registries are done so for behavior that certainly does not fit the profiles compelling such requirements. For example, under the Idaho Code, two fifteen year olds engaged in ``heavy petting'' would be guilty of a felony requiring them to register on the state's sex offender list.
Regarding recidivism, not only is the re-arrest rate for youth charged
with sexual crimes much lower than that for adults, but the subsequent arrests
of these youth are primarily for non-sexual offenses. A 2000 study by the Texas
Youth Commission of 72 young offenders who were released from state
correctional facilities for sexual offenses (their incarceration suggests that
judges considered these youth as posing a greater risk) found a re-arrest rate
of 4.2% for a sexual offense. A 1996 study found similarly low sex offense
recidivism rates in
TITLE VIII: REDUCTION
The juvenile transfer provisions of Title VIII would result in the expanded ``transfer'' or ``waiver'' of youth to the adult criminal system and/or placing an additional number of youth in adult correctional facilities. Comprehensive national research on the practice of prosecuting youth in the adult system has conclusively shown that transferring youth to the adult criminal justice system does nothing to reduce crime and actually has the opposite effect. Study after study has shown that youth transferred to the adult criminal justice system are more likely to re-offend and to commit more serious crimes upon release than youth who were charged with similar offenses and had similar offense histories but remained in the juvenile justice system.
Moreover, national data shows that, in comparison to youth held in juvenile facilities, young people incarcerated with adults are: five times as likely to report being a victim of rape; twice as likely to be beaten by staff; and 50% more likely to be assaulted with a weapon.
A recent Justice Department report also found that youth confined in adult facilities are nearly 8 times more likely to commit suicide than youth in juvenile facilities.
Further, minority youth will be disproportionately affected by this policy. Recent studies by the Department of Justice have shown that more than 7 out of 10 youth admitted to state prisons across the country were youth of color. Youth of color sent to adult court are also over-represented in charges filed, especially for drug offenses, and are more likely to receive a sentence of incarceration than White youth even when charged with the same types of offenses.
Moreover, putting the transfer decision in the sole discretion of a prosecutor, not a judge as the law currently requires, violates the most basic principles of due process and fairness.
We urge you to strike the provisions we have described herein from H.R. 4472 that would place youth on a National Registry and would also expand the number of youth tried as adults and remove judicial discretion from the transfer decision. As advocates for at-risk youth, we are also strong advocates of community safety. But these provisions will not increase community or child safety, they will in fact have the opposite effect. Extensive data and research-based practice supports the positions of the National JJDP Coalition on these issues. We urge you to utilize this evidence in creating policy that will genuinely contribute to enhanced community safety and lower recidivism as well as assist and support system-involved youth in getting on the path to productive adulthood.
We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact Morna
Murray at the Children's Defense Fund at 202.662.3577,
mmurray@childrensdefense.org or Elizabeth Gladden Kehoe at the
Sincerely,
Morna A. Murray,
Children's Defense Fund, Co-chair, National Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Coalition;
John Tuell,
Child Welfare League of
[Begin Insert]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in
the RECORD regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on
[End Insert]
In
Based upon our long and extensive experience with New Jersey's system of notification and its registrants, as well as our contact with renowned experts in the field of sex offender recidivism, we believe we have a unique perspective to provide the House with comments concerning H.R. 4472 (the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005), currently pending a vote on the House floor.
Our comments focus on four aspects of the current bill. First, unlike the Senate bill on the same topic (S. 1086) the House bill will have a significantly negative impact on many juveniles, subjecting them to notification in their neighborhoods and via the Internet for possibly 20 years. This would inflict undue hardship which, given the low risk of re-offense juvenile sex offenders pose to the public and their strong amenability to treatment, is often not justified by a public safety need.
Second, the notification
required by H.R. 4472 will apply to thousands of persons in each state,
requiring notice to registrants' neighborhoods and around their work and
school, and via the Internet. The proposed notification would include home
addresses and places of employment. Neighborhood notification is currently
reserved only for
Because this form of notification will undermine the ability of many registrants to maintain stable housing, steady employment and ongoing treatment, it will have a marked impact on registrants' risk levels and opportunities to remain offense free, and thus will negatively affect public safety.
Third, by impacting
on registrants' abilities to provide for their most basic needs, H.R. 4472 will
severely impede the implementation of sex offender monitoring programs like
Fourth,the bill subjects all registrants, including many juveniles, to the
identical
[Page: H688]
form of Internet and community based notification, without an individualized risk assessment, despite vast differences among offenders' risk-of-re-offense levels. By treating persons with vastly different risk levels identically, H.R. 4472 creates the misimpression that all offenders pose the same risk. Thus, the bill dilutes the value of notification and diverts attention from those posing the greatest risk.
1. H.R. Will Inflict Undue Hardship on Juvenile Offenders Without a Corresponding Benefit to Public Safety.
Sections 111 and 122 of the bill would provide a limited exception from
public notification for juveniles. However, the bill would require juvenile
offenders deemed a tier II to be subject to 20 years of public notification to
communities and via the Internet. Sec. 111 (6). Some
young juveniles may even unfairly be deemed a tier
Five decades of follow-up studies demonstrate that the vast majority of juveniles will remain free of sex offense recidivism. It is consistently found that sex offense recidivism rates among juveniles are among the lowest of all such offenders--less than 8% in most treatment follow-up studies.
Moreover, studies demonstrate that the motivation and manifestation of sexually inappropriate behaviors of juveniles are very different than those of adult offenders. And, children with sexual behavior problems generally respond well to treatment interventions. If the proposed bill becomes law, however, it will mean that children will be stigmatized for life on the basis of their childhood behavior. Despite the questionable public safety benefits of community notification with juveniles, it is likely to stigmatize them fostering peer rejection, isolation, and increased anger. This impact can prevent juvenile offenders from realizing the benefits of effective treatments. The proposed notification and the ensuing stigma will also result in such persons being denied fair opportunities for employment, education, and housing despite the low risk of recidivism they typically pose. Accordingly, the bill will violate the long tradition in our country of recognizing that most youth who break the law during childhood can and will mature out of this behavior with appropriate guidance and treatment.
Thus, the bill would inflict undue hardship on juveniles, impacting their entire lives, and is not justified by a public safety need. Rather than resort to such a counterproductive approach, as the above cited experts recommend, treatment and supervision should be emphasized for this group of offenders.
2. The Notification Scheme In H.R. 4472 Will Deprive Many Registrants, Including Those Who Are a Low or Moderate Risk, Of The Basic Means To Live Productively In Society With the Unintended Consequence of Increasing Their Risk Of Re-Offense.
H.R. 4472 provides that in most cases the same public notification would be provided to registrant's neighborhoods and in the vicinity where they work and attend school, regardless of their danger to the public. Sec. 122(b),(c). In addition, without determining the actual risk a registrant poses, that notification will include both a registrant's home address and the address of his employer. Sec. 114(a)(3),(4). Moreover, the bill applies retroactively to all applicable offenses.
As set forth above, notification to a registrant's immediate neighbors is
currently reserved for roughly 160 high risk registrants in
Likewise,
Registrants pose a
much higher risk of re-offense when they have no job or stable housing. This is
agreed upon by studies in the field of sex offender recidivism,
Furthermore, homeless and jobless registrants are, of course, unable to pay for sex offender and substance abuse treatment which have been proven to markedly reduce offense risk. Also, we have witnessed how the desperation caused by this homeless and jobless state has led our clients to suffer severe stress, and relapse into substance abuse, and other high risk behaviors for recidivism. Thus, the notification proposed by H.R. 4472 to registrants' neighborhoods listing their place of employment may trigger a new offense, by removing the supportive components of a person's rehabilitation. See R. Karl Hanson & Andrew Harris, Solicitor General of Canada, Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism (1998) at 2 (``recidivists showed increased anger and subjective distress just prior to offending''); ATSA, The Registration and Community Notification of the Adult Sexual Offender at 3 (2005) (notification will ``ostracize[]'' sex offenders and ``may inadvertently increase their danger.'')
Finally, H.R. 4472 would require notification to be distributed to neighborhoods in cases involving an intra-familial offense. As this notification will result in victims' identities being disclosed to neighbors, the practice will act as a significant deterrent to having victims of familial offenses report them to police. Sec. 111 (6), (7). Thus, public notification in cases involving a single intra-familial offense should be eliminated from the bill.
Given the predictable consequences of the notification proposed in H.R. 4472, we submit that notice to a registrant's neighborhood or around his place of employment which includes his home address, and any notification including his place of work, should occur only for high risk offenders, and only after an individualized risk assessment. Otherwise, H.R. 4472 will run the danger of destabilizing large numbers of registrants by having them lose the jobs and housing essential to maintaining offense-free lives. As mentioned, the notice proposed by the bill will also discourage victims of intra-familial offenses from contacting law enforcement.
3. The Notification Proposed in H.R. 4472 Will Undermine the Ability of States Like New Jersey to Implement Parole for Life Programs Which Require Law Enforcement Officers to Monitor Registrants, and Require Registrants to Maintain Jobs, Housing and Treatment to Reduce their Risk of Re-Offense.
Since 1994, every adult registrant in
The success of this eleven-year-old program depends upon a parole officer being able to locate the lifetime parolee in their home, do random drug and alcohol testing, check for other signs' of instability or loss of employment, and thus prevent the precursors to re-offending. However, the notification provisions of H.R. 4472 will lead to large numbers of offenders becoming homeless and will result in parole officers being unable to locate registrants and provide them with the close supervision needed to reduce recidivism rates. Thus, the State's efforts to assist registrants in keeping stable housing or a job, basic requirements of parole, will be frustrated.
When we explained to a New Jersey parole officer that the proposed legislation will put the addresses of many sex offenders' employers on the Internet, and be provided to offenders' neighbors or to persons living around their employers, she stated that her parolees would ``spiral downward,'' and that they ``wouldn't care'' about trying to keep from re-offending. She stated, ``Our job would be so difficult ..... it's hard enough for them to get jobs.'' She expressed the view that a significant number might re-offend because, ``A lot of these things are due to high stress rates.'' Finally, she expressed concern that most of them would end up ``in homeless shelters'' where there is an ``increased risk of disappearance or committing a new offense of some kind''--either a non-sexual criminal offense or possibly a sexual offense.
In addition to Community and Parole Supervision for Life, New Jersey also assigns special probation officers to exclusively monitor sex offenders while on parole (prior to implementation of their special sentence of community or parole supervision for life) so they can concentrate on the particular needs this population presents, and provide the type of close supervision they require. (Notably, we have observed that other states appear to be putting more and more sex offenders on probation for life and similarly long sentences, even for very minor offenses--so it is likely that this legislation will strongly affect those states as well.)
When we explained the notification requirements of the bill to a special
probation officer he replied that, ``You'll end up having many, many people
re-offending--what else could they do?'' When asked if he thought these
provisions would cause many registrants to lose their jobs, he 4 replied, ``Absolutely. I can't imagine anyone would want them.'' He
explained that without ``work,
[Page: H689]
housing, and normal responsibilities'' the registrants would have ``no self esteem.'' He said that they ``would not listen to me,'' and would likely ``go out and assault someone else.''
Thus, there is serious concern that the basic purpose of the registration provisions of Megan's law (which is to enable law enforcement to locate registrants in the course of investigating new offenses, monitor registrants, and explore allegations of misconduct by such registrants), will be substantially undermined by the notification provision of H.R. 4472.
Over the past dozen years,
4. All Registrants Should Not be Subject to the Same Form of Notification. Rather, the Bill Should Require a Risk Assessment and A Tiered Approach to Community Notification Tied to Risk Level.
Pursuant to Section 122 of the bill, all ``sex offenders,'' regardless of their tier
determination, are subject to identical public notification to neighborhoods
and via the Internet. See Sec. 122.(b) (making the only potential
exception a Tier I, sex offender whose offense was a juvenile adjudication). It
has been our experience that, even if a registrant's tier level is included in
the notice, this approach will create the misimpression that all offenders pose
the same risk. Thus, it will dilute the effectiveness of notification by
focusing the public's attention on the offenders truly posing a significant
risk of recidivism. This can be avoided, as occurs in
Formal studies conducted at the behest of or relied upon by both the federal government and the states confirm that sex offender re-offense rates vary greatly among different categories of offenders. See CSOM, Myths and Facts About Sex Offenders, at 2 (August 2000) (citing various studies regarding recidivism rates and noting: ``Persons who commit sex offenses are not a homogeneous group, but instead fall into several different categories. As a result, research has identified significant differences in re-offense patterns from one category to another.'') For instance, studies and experts conclude that incest offenders present a very low risk of re-offense. See CSOM, Recidivism of Sex Offenders (May 2001) (citing study which found a 4% rate of recidivism for incest offenders). Other studies have determined that effective treatment substantially reduces recidivism levels. Id. at 12-14 (citing studies demonstrating 7.2% recidivism rate with relapse prevention treatment vs. 13.2% of all treated offenders vs. 17.6% for untreated offenders); Ten Year Recidivism Follow-up of 1989 Sex Offender Releases, State of Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction (April 2001) (sex-related recidivism after basic sex offender programming was 7.1 % as compared to 16.5% without programming).
Further studies cited by CSOM and ATSA recognize the positive impact that steady employment, stable housing, ongoing treatment and avoiding isolation play in reducing recidivism levels. See CSOM, Recidivism of Sex Offenders, supra.; ATSA, Ten Things You Should Know About Sex Offenders and Treatment, supra. Thus, while there is an array of well-recognized factors impacting significantly on a registrant's risk to the public, H.R. 4472 fails to consider any, and instead would compel participating states to label registrants based solely on their offense. It would also require the identical type of notification for the overwhelming majority of offenders. This system will unwisely overload the public with thousands of offenders' names and pictures and prevent the public from making informed decisions about which truly pose a significant risk. See In re Registrant E.I., 300 N.J. Super. 519, 526 (App. Div. 1997) (noting that a ``mechanical'' application of a notification law will ``impede [its] beneficial purpose''); E.B. v. Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077, 1107-08 (3d. Cir. 1997) (holding that a state does not have ``any interest in notifying those who will come in contact with a registrant who has erroneously been identified as a moderate or high risk.'')
For example, under H.R. 4472 a person convicted of criminal sexual contact
in New Jersey (N.J.S.A. 2C: 14-3) for touching a juvenile over clothing on the
buttocks on one occasion, years ago, with no history of any prior offense and
with a successful record of treatment, must be labeled a tier II sex offender.
This registrant, along with many others of a similar ilk, would be made subject
to notification in his neighborhood and via the Internet with other offenders
whose conviction and psychological profile made them much greater risk. (For
example, an offender convicted of aggravated sexual assault who
received no treatment and had recently been discharged from prison.) Multiply
this example by thousands of cases, and it becomes apparent that the public's
safety requires a time-tested notification system, like
In
In
The hearings also reveal the history of the registrant since the offense, and how many years he has been at liberty since it occurred which may be as long as 20 or 25 years ago, in some cases. His record of rehabilitation, achievement in sex offender specific therapy and substance abuse recovery, cooperation with probation and/or parole programs, and other information are also considered. Significantly, the system as a whole tends to encourage registrants to continue their rehabilitation when the court fairly considers the efforts of the individual to rehabilitate, and his years of successful adjustment to the community without further offense.
Other factors regarding risk that may be considered include whether the registrant is very ill, elderly and infirm, or wheelchair bound, so as to pose only a low risk for re-offense to the community.
In summary, studies in the field and our experience over the past ten years has shown that sex offenders are a highly heterogeneous group, and that this diversity includes offenders who present little risk of re-offense. Inundating the public with the same form of notification which includes many low risk offenders will only frustrate the remedial goals that notification is designed to serve. Such over-broad notification is especially egregious when one considers that, as discussed above, it impacts substantially upon the ability of an offender to work, find or remain in their housing, continue in treatment and to live offense-free in the community.
We therefore recommend that H.R. 4472 be amended to permit states, (like New Jersey, Massachusetts and New York), to participate in the federal program yet maintain systems which allow for accurate determinations of the true risk of recidivism for registrants and provide forms of notification which are commensurate with that risk. This will allow the public to easily differentiate between offender risk levels. Moreover, it will permit states to meaningfully implement parole for life programs for sex offenders and to monitor them under the regulations provided by those statutes so that they can maintain the stable housing, jobs and treatment needed to continue to pose as low a risk of re-offense as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Z. Buncher,
Deputy Public Defender,
State of
[Begin Insert]
Mr. SCOTT of
[End Insert]
Oppose H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005
[Page: H690]
wrongful
convictions in federal court, make it more difficult to monitor sex offenders
and create more serious juvenile offenders by incarcerating children in adult
prisons. H.R. 4472 is
scheduled for a vote on the House floor on
CONGRESS SHOULD NOT
EXPAND THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY UNTIL IT ENSURES INNOCENT PEOPLE
The death penalty is in need of reform, not expansion. According to the
Death Penalty Information Center, 123 prisoners on death row have now been
exonerated. Chronic problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial
disparities, plague the death penalty system in the
In addition to expanding the number of federal death penalty crimes, this bill also expands venue in capital cases, making any location even tangentially related to the crime a possible site for the trial. This raises constitutional as well as public policy concerns. The U.S. Constitution states that ``the Trial of all Crimes ..... shall be by Jury; and shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.'' This concept is important in order to prevent undue hardship and partiality when an accused person is prosecuted in a place that has no significant connection to the offense with which he is charged. This proposed change in H.R. 4472 would increase the inequities that already exist in the federal death penalty system, giving prosecutors tremendous discretion to ``forum shop'' for the most death-friendly jurisdiction in which to try their case.
In carjacking cases, this legislation would effectively relieve the government from having to prove that a person intended to cause the death of a person before being subject to the death penalty. This provision is likely unconstitutional in the context of capital cases. In addition, the bill would allow the death penalty for attempt and conspiracy in carjacking cases, which we believe is unconstitutional.
H.R. 4472 ERODES FEDERAL JUDGES' SENTENCING DISCRETION BY PROPOSING HARSHER MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES
This legislation would create 29 new mandatory minimum sentences that would result in unfair and discriminatory prison terms. Many of the criminal penalties in this bill are increased to mandatory minimum sentences, including the sentence for second-degree murder that would be a mandatory sentence of 30 years. Although, in theory, mandatory minimums were created to address disparate sentences that resulted from indeterminate sentencing systems, in reality they shift discretion from the judge to the prosecutor. Prosecutors hold all the power over whether a defendant gets a plea bargain in order for that defendant to avoid the mandatory sentence. This creates unfair and inequitable sentences for people who commit similar crimes, thus contributing to the very problem mandatory minimums were created to address.
PEOPLE COULD BE CONVICTED OF A ``GANG'' CRIME EVEN IF THEY
This legislation would impose severe penalties for a collective group of three or more people who commit ``gang'' crimes. This bill amends the already broad definition of ``criminal street gang'' to an even more ambiguous standard of a formal or informal group or association of three (3) or more people who commit two (2) or more ``gang'' crimes. The number of people required to form a gang decreases from five (5) people in an ongoing group under current law to three (3) people who could just be associates or casual acquaintances under this proposed legislation. Under current law it is essential to establish that a gang had committed a ``continuing series of offenses.'' By eliminating this requirement, H.R. 4472 defeats the purpose of a gang law, i.e. to target criminal activity that has some type of connection to a tight knit group of people that exists for the purpose of engaging in illegal activities.
H.R. 4472 JEOPARDIZES A PERSON'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
Innocent people could be convicted of crimes they did not commit if the statute of limitations is extended as proposed in this legislation. The Omnibus Crime bill proposes to extend the statute of limitations for non-capital crimes of violence. Generally, the statute of limitations for non-capital federal crimes is five (5) years after the offense is committed. Fifteen years after a crime is committed, alibi witnesses could have disappeared or died, other witnesses' memories could have faded and evidence may be unreliable. The use of questionable evidence could affect a person's ability to defend him or herself against charges and to receive a fair trial.
This legislation would also preclude defense attorneys in child pornography cases from obtaining possession of the alleged child pornography, possibly depriving the defendant of a fair trial. This provision is entirely unnecessary, since federal courts routinely issue extremely restrictive protective orders regarding alleged child pornography. These protective orders preclude duplication or review of the alleged child pornography except as necessary for the preparation of the defense. Giving the government sole possession of the material may well harm the defendant's case. Forensic analysis is often critical in determining whether the material is, in fact, child pornography.
TITLE VI INFRINGES UPON CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
The legislation would require record keeping for simulated sexual conduct. Simulated sexual conduct that is not obscene is protected under the First Amendment. ``Laws that burden material protected by the First Amendment must be approached from a skeptical point of view and must be given strict scrutiny.'' The fact that those laws only burden rather than prohibit protected material does not save them constitutionally.
This provision of the bill infringes upon protected speech and is not narrowly tailored to solve the problems of child pornography. Understandably, mainstream producers will comply with the law, but those who are intent on making child pornography are unlikely to do so. This provision is therefore constitutionally suspect.
FEDERAL COURTS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE UNABLE TO RELEASE SOME PEOPLE ON DEATH
Most habeas corpus petitions that challenge a person's death or criminal sentence are brought to federal court based on a constitutional error that under the law is considered ``harmless'' or ``non-prejudicial.'' These types of legal errors do not involve substantial rights and do not necessarily result in a person being released from custody. H.R. 4472 would prevent federal courts from hearing claims in death penalty cases that involve claims of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment or whether a defendant's lawyer was ineffective during the sentencing phase of a capital case.
This provision of the bill has serious implications for the independence
of the federal judiciary. Congress' attempt to strip Article
H.R. 4472 WOULD RESULT IN THE ROUTINE COLLECTION
The ``Violence Against Women Act of 2005'' (VAWA)
was signed into law on
However, H.R. 4472 would permit voluntarily submitted samples to be
included in CODIS and would eliminate the expungement
provision for people whose
In addition, the Omnibus Crime bill would allow states to upload to CODIS
H.R. 4472 WILL MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO MONITOR SEX OFFENDERS BY SIMPLY FORCING OFFENDERS UNDERGROUND
The proposed
legislation requires sex offenders to update registry information within 5 days
of a change in residence, employment or student status. This requirement is
unrealistic and works against the goal of being able to monitor sex offenders.
If the registration requirements are unrealistic, offenders will fail to
register and end up underground, which is contrary to the goal of tracking and
locating them. Under the Omnibus Crime bill, states will be required to verify
sex offender registry information in persons possibly as frequently as once
every three months and required to verify their residences as often as once
every month depending on the class of offender. This will be an enormous burden
on the states to create and implement systems to track sex offenders on a
monthly basis.
The bill will also
require the work addresses of sex offenders to be available on the Internet.
Publicizing information about employers and their addresses on the Internet
could ultimately lead to employers refusing to hire former sex offenders.
Research has shown that significant supervision upon release and involvement in
productive activities are critical to preventing sex offenders from reoffending. Limiting the opportunities
[Page: H691]
of sex offenders to maintain gainful employment is counter-productive to their rehabilitation as well as to keeping communities safe.
CHILDREN WOULD BE PUT IN
FEDERAL PRISON WITH LITTLE
Under the Omnibus Crime bill, more children will become hardened criminals after being tried in Federal court and incarcerated in adult prisons. H.R. 4472 would give prosecutors the discretion to determine when to try a young person in Federal court as an adult, if the juvenile is 16 years of age or older and commits a crime of violence. The decision by a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult cannot be reviewed by a judge under this legislation. This unreviewable process of transferring youth to adult Federal court is particularly troubling when juveniles are not routinely prosecuted in the Federal system and there are no resources or facilities to address the needs of youth.
For the
above-mentioned reasons, we urge members to oppose H.R. 4472 when the
House votes on the bill on
Sincerely,
Caroline Fredrickson,
Director,
Jesselyn McCurdy,
Legislative Counsel
--
Human Rights Watch Letter
The following provisions of the bill are of particular concern:
Juvenile Transfer Provisions: Under this legislation, the Attorney General could make unreviewable and unilateral decisions to subject children to adult trials and adult sentences. Under current law, children can generally only be tried and sentenced as adults after a transfer hearing, where a court considers the age and background of the child and determines whether a transfer serves the interest of justice. Under H.R. 4472, these teenagers would be subject to adult sentences, including life without parole, regardless of their vulnerability and capacity for reform.
More than 20 years of experience across the nation has revealed that subjecting children to adult sentences is an ineffective, unjust, and costly means of combating crime. Certainly, children can and do commit terrible crimes, and when they do, they should be held accountable. Yet, they should be held accountable in a manner that reflects their special capacity for rehabilitation. There is no legitimate basis for granting the Attorney General the unchecked authority to subject an increased number of children to adult sanctions.
Mandatory Minimums: The legislation would impose harsh, new mandatory minimums for a wide array of crimes, including crimes of conspiracy, aiding, and abetting. Punishment should be tailored to the conduct of the individual, including his or her role in the offense and his culpability. Blanket mandatory minimums tied to one or two factors do little to protect community safety at high cost to the criminal justice system. This legislation incorporates three bills that have already passed the House, H.R. 1279 (``Gang Deterrence Act of 2005''), H.R. 3132 (``Children's Safety Act of 2005''), and H.R. 1751 (``Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005''), with some modifications. It does not include the hate crime enhancement and gun prohibition provisions that passed as part of H.R. 3132.
If anything, Congress should be looking for ways to eliminate mandatory minimums and restore judicial discretion, proportionality, and fairness in sentencing.
Expansion of the Federal Death Penalty: The legislation greatly expands the number of federal crimes that carry the death penalty. This expansion of the death penalty is at odds with the growing recognition that the criminal justice system is fallible, arbitrary and unfair, and does not deter crime. There is no legitimate basis for expansion of this inherently cruel and immutable punishment.
Registration Requirements for Low-Level Offenders: There may be legitimate community safety rationales for requiring, for a limited period of time, certain sexual offenders to register. There is, however, no legitimate community safety justification for the provisions in this legislation that require offenders to register for the rest of their lives, regardless of whether they have lived offense free for decades. There is also no legitimate community safety goal served by the provisions that impose 20-year registration requirements on low-level or misdemeanor offenders. These registration requirements are imposed on individuals who have already served their sentences and are attempting to reintegrate into the community. Registration requirements put these individuals at risk of retaliation and discrimination and make it extremely difficult for these individuals to find employment, housing, and to rebuild their lives.
Human Rights Watch fully supports holding accountable those who violate the rights of others. But commission of a crime, even a crime that involves sexual misconduct, should not be license to run roughshod over principles of fairness and proportionality. Human Rights Watch urges you to vote against H.R. 4472.
Respectfully submitted,
Jennifer Daskal,
Advocacy Director,
[Begin Insert]
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. This bill combines three measures, previously approved by the House with strong bipartisan support, which seek to protect our children, combat gang violence and ensure the safety of judicial and law enforcement officials.
This legislation sends a strong message to our law enforcement officers
and local officials that the Federal government is a key partner in their
efforts to keep our communities safe. I represent
I would like to take a few moments to comment on the judicial and law enforcement protection provisions of the bill. Judges, peace officers and everyone involved in the justice system are protectors of the law and servants of safety. They devote their lives and often place themselves in harm's way so that we may live without fear and danger. Any attack on these dedicated Americans is an attack on the very foundation of our Nation.
H.R. 4472 addresses the growing national problem of violence against those
working to uphold the law. Although crime is down nationwide, threats and
attacks against police officers, judges, and witnesses continue to escalate.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), between 1994 and 2003,
616 law enforcement officers were murdered in the line of duty. This includes
59 officers from my home state of
Murdering a law enforcement officer is an especially despicable and
heinous crime. Tragically,
Over the last four years, Deputy March's family and friends, fellow law
enforcement officers, local public officials and my colleagues in Congress have
worked together to find a resolution to this horrible situation. Mr. Speaker,
we must protect our Nation's sovereignty and ensure that criminals who break
our laws and flee the country are brought to justice here at home. That is why
we urged President Bush and officials at the State and Justice Departments to
take aggressive action to change
Last year, my friend from
This is a national problem that will now receive national attention. Making it a federal crime to kill a peace officer will provide another critical tool to pursue and punish cop-killers on the federal level. This provision also ensures that criminals who murder law enforcement officers and escape to another country will have the full weight of the Federal Government on their trail.
Mr. Speaker, last year, we experienced a tremendous breakthrough in our efforts. In November 2005, the Mexican Supreme Court
[Page: H692]
issued a ruling to
allow extradition for suspects facing life in prison in the
And on February 23, Mexican law enforcement agents, acting on information
provided by the U.S. Marshals Service, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
and Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, apprehended Armando Garcia
in the Guadalajara suburb of Tonala. He is now in
custody and
Mr. Speaker, the capture of Armando Garcia is a victory for justice and, most important, for the March family. Law enforcement on both sides of the border deserve tremendous credit for working together and staying on his trail for nearly four years. This success demonstrates the importance of an ongoing dialogue between our two countries.
While approving H.R. 4472 is a bold step toward enhancing protection of
peace officers, we must continue our efforts to prevent tragedies like Deputy
March's murder from ever happening again. I firmly believe that the
Administration should use all available resources to bring about a change in
policy in any country that refuses to extradite murderers to the
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bill and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the measure.
Mr. FITZPATRICK of
Also Mr. Speaker, I want
to thank Chairman SENSENBRENNER for including my legislation, H.R. 4883,
the Justice for Crime Victims' Families Act, as part of this necessary bill. As
a former
My legislation focuses on the need to help our nation's criminal
investigators conduct investigations into abductions and homicides faster and more
efficiently and to fill the gap in communication that was expressed to me in
the County. My bill would require the Attorney General to produce a report to
Congress outlining the current state of coordination in information sharing
between Federal, state and local law enforcement, and the sources of funding
currently available for homicide investigators. The Attorney General must also
examine what is being done to expand national criminal records databases,
enhance the collection of
I am concerned that not enough is being done to give our investigators the best information available in the fastest time possible. We can't hinder our investigators with jurisdictional hurdles and information blockades. My legislation will look for ways to make communication and information sharing more efficient and productive especially for time sensitive cases. I call on my colleagues to support this important legislation.
[End Insert]
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Feeney). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from
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.
END