[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HOUSE BILLS ON
SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,
AND HOMELAND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 764, H.R. 95, H.R. 1355, H.R. 1505, H.R. 2423, H.R. 244, H.R.
2796, and H.R. 2797
__________
JUNE 9, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21-657 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ZOE LOFGREN, California
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
CHRIS CANNON, Utah MAXINE WATERS, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RIC KELLER, Florida ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DARRELL ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
MIKE PENCE, Indiana DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
TOM FEENEY, Florida
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Philip G. Kiko, General Counsel-Chief of Staff
Perry H. Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida MAXINE WATERS, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
RIC KELLER, Florida WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
Jay Apperson, Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Sokul, Special Counsel for Intelligence
and Homeland Security
Michael Volkov, Deputy Chief Counsel
Jason Cervenak, Full Committee Counsel
Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 9, 2005
OPENING STATEMENT
Page
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 1
The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........................ 3
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security............................... 4
WITNESSES
The Honorable Mark Foley, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Florida
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Texas
Oral Testimony................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
The Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Florida
Oral Testimony................................................. 11
Prepared Statement............................................. 12
The Honorable Earl Pomeroy, a Representative in Congress From the
State of North Dakota
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security....................................................... 35
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security........ 35
Document entitled ``Case Study of Serial Killers and Rapists: 60
Violent Crimes Could Have Been Prevented Including 53 Murders
and Rapes''.................................................... 37
Document entitled ``Highlights of the Foley Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act''............................ 57
List of Individuals and Organizations Supporting H.R. 2423, the
``Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act''............. 59
Letter from the Honorable William Moschella, Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of
Justice, to the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch....................... 60
Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States............. 82
Document entitled ``Preventable Crimes In Chicago''.............. 83
Document entitled ``The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005," Introduced
by Senator Jon Kyl............................................. 85
HOUSE BILLS ON
SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard
Coble (Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Coble. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I want
to--we're one witness shy, but I am told that Mr. Pomeroy is en
route, so we will commence and await his arrival.
I want to welcome everyone to the second of three hearings
this week before this Subcommittee to examine the problem of
violent and sexual crimes against our Nation's children.
I want to first extend my thanks to my friend and colleague
from Wisconsin, Representative Mark Green, who chaired the
Subcommittee's first hearing on June the 7th, and who has
agreed to chair the hearing following this one at 4 today.
We've all been shocked, I am sure, by the tremendous
tragedies that have recently occurred involving brutal sexual
and violent attacks against our young children. As citizens,
parents, and legislators, our first duty is to protect our
children, because they represent the future of our country. Now
Congress has an important role to play in this area. We must
quickly and responsibly--strike that. We must act quickly and
responsibly when necessary to ensure the safety of the
children.
This hearing will examine recent proposals made by Members
of the Judiciary Committee and other proposed bills introduced
by several non-Judiciary Committee Members. Most of these
proposals focus on reforms knitted to the Jacob Wetterling Act
or the sex offender registries.
The proposals are all aimed at ensuring that sexual
offenders comply with registry requirements; adequate efforts
are made to apprise the public of the presence of sexual
offenders in their neighborhoods; and to ensure the accuracy of
the information in the registries; and furthermore, to make
State and national registries more user-friendly and accessible
to the public.
In addition, we are examining related proposals that
address collection and use of DNA evidence, a tool which is
critical to solving sex crimes and other violent crimes.
The problems with sex offender registries were underscored
by the recent rash of attacks by convicted sex offenders
resulting in the killings of Jessica Lunsford, Sarah Lunde,
Jetseta Gage, and other children. Since 1994, when Congress
first passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and
Sexually Violent Offender Act, States have been required to
maintain sex offender registries. After the tragic murder of 7-
year-old Megan Kanka by a released sex offender living on her
street, Congress passed Megan's Law, mandating community
notification programs.
All 50 States have sexual offender registries, and all 50
States have some form of community notification requirements.
However, States are given broad discretion in creating their
own policies governing registry requirements and public
notification efforts.
The challenge we face today is monumental, when you
consider these facts. There are currently nearly 550,000
registered sex offenders in the United States. Most are not in
prison, and most are unknown to the people in these various
communities.
Sex offender laws do not cover certain classes of
offenders, such as juvenile sex offenders or other types of
offenders who commit crimes against minors, which reflect a
risk of possible harm to our children.
The State criminal justice supervision and registry systems
are currently overwhelmed. Probation, parole, and community
supervision resources are strained. It is conservatively
estimated that there are approximately 100,000 lost--that is
``lost''--sex offenders; those that have failed to comply with
State registration requirements.
There is a wide disparity in the requirements of each
State, and there is little to no infrastructure needed to
ensure registration when sex offenders move from one State to
another or when a sex offender enters another State to go to
work or to enroll in a school. There's a strong need for more
consistency and uniformity among State programs.
We should be committed to developing a more comprehensive
system for Internet availability of such information. We
should, furthermore, consider the use of new technologies for
tracking sex offenders and for protecting our children from
possible attack. Of course, we also need to examine what
additional funding may be needed to accomplish these broad
goals.
I want to commend my colleagues who have put forth
comprehensive and well thought-out proposals to address these
problems and others. I look forward to hearing from them today
and reviewing these proposals by Members who are not here today
before the Subcommittee.
Our children are our most precious resource--you've heard
it said dozens of times, but I say it again--that we have in
our country. And our hearts go out to the families of those
innocent and beautiful children who've been killed, sexually
assaulted, or tortured. Too many times, we've had to read
gruesome news accounts about these attacks, watch disturbing
news reports, or listen to the anguish of the parents of these
children.
I'm anxious to hear from our distinguished panel of
witnesses. And now I am pleased to recognize the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, the Ranking Member of
this Subcommittee.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing on the various bills regarding sex and other violent
crimes against children.
A host of bills have been filed by Members on both sides of
the aisle in the wake of several horrific sex crimes and
murders against children in recent years. These types of crimes
are especially abhorrent, and the public demands actions to
address them and to prevent similar crimes, to the extent
possible.
I know all of the bills before us are developed with these
objectives in mind. However, as policymakers, we know that
these types of tragedies will occur from time to time; so it is
incumbent upon us not to simply do something, but to do
something that will actually reduce the incidences of these
crimes.
We know that many more children die as a result of child
abuse that is reflected by tragic cases of child sexual abuse
and murder than we have seen in the news. And we know that the
vast majority of child abusers, including child sex offenders,
were abused themselves as children.
We also know that the vast majority of abusers are
relatives and other individuals well known to the child and
family--90 to 95 percent, according to Be a Child's Hero
Network--and that most cases of abuse are never reported to
authorities, or even dealt with in an official manner.
It would be nice to think that we can legislate away the
possibility of such horrific crimes, but it is not realistic to
believe that we can. And we should certainly seek to avoid
enacting legislation that extends scarce resources in a manner
that is not cost-effective or that actually makes the problem
worse.
While it is clear that having police and supervision
authorities aware of all location and identification
information about convicted child sex offenders, it is not
clear that making that information indiscriminately available
to the public, with no guidance or restriction on what they can
do with or in response to such information, is helpful or
harmful to children.
There have been incidences of vigilante and other
activities which have driven offenders underground. And again,
the vast majority of offenders are family members or associates
well known to the victim. In one recent case, a teacher was
reading the names of offenders to a grade school class, in
which the name of the father of one of the students, the
victim, was in the class.
Some of the elaborate procedures and requirements of the
bills before us will cost a lot of money. And we should assure
that such cost/benefit analysis of what would be the most
productive use of such money should take place; rather than
simply impose the requirements, without any reference to
effectiveness or cost/benefit.
Some States have already enacted initiatives, such as those
we'll hear today. Hopefully, we'll hear what effect those
initiatives have had on crimes against children, so we can
consider Federal legislation which will be the most cost-
effective.
So, Mr. Chairman, in hearing the testimony today we'll be
listening for anything that reflects research and reliable
evidence regarding to what might actually protect children and
reduce incidences of child sexual and other abuse.
I know we all mean well, but we also must assure that what
we do will be actually productive, rather than something that
just sounds good but might actually be counterproductive. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, Mr. Scott.
It's the custom of this Subcommittee to limit opening
statements to the Chairman and the Ranking Member, and the
Ranking Member of the full Committee and the Chairman of the
full Committee, if they happen to be in attendance. Today,
however, Mr. Green, the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin,
and Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee, the distinguished gentlelady from
Texas, each of those have bills. And I, at this point, would
recognize each one of those for a brief statement about their
bill. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman, I actually will waive that. I know
the hour is late, and a lot of folks have a lot of things to
do. So I'll pass on my right to opening statement.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Texas?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence,
and I appreciate very much the Member witnesses that are before
us, and so I will summarize very quickly. And I thank the
Ranking Member, as well.
As we look at this question of child sexual predators, it
is important to look comprehensively at this issue. I simply
offer that I'm very pleased that over the last two sessions
I've introduced H.R.--in this session--244, but I've introduced
it over the last two sessions, the act called the ``Save Our
Children, Stop the Violent Predators Against Children DNA Act
of 2005.'' It's based on the premise that only 22 State sex
offender registries collect and maintain DNA samples as a part
of registration.
The single age with the greatest proportion of sexual
assault victims reported to law enforcement was age 14. There
were more victims of sexual assault between ages 3 and 17 than
in any individual age group over age 17, and more victims age 2
than in any age group over 40.
Children like 5-year-old Samantha Runyon of California, who
was abducted, sexually violated, and murdered, are most likely
to be victims of sexual assault; with over one-third of all
sexual assaults involving a victim who is under the age of 12.
Just a few days ago, law enforcement officers in Texas, my
Houston Police Department, buried a little ``Doe,'' a little
young lady by the name of ``Angel Doe,'' whose face was eaten
away as she was thrown into a watery ditch.
It is clear that we need to address this question very
directly. And I would hope, as we look comprehensively at this
legislation, we'll look at ways and means of attacking the
problem head-on.
I close, Mr. Chairman, to say that this legislation would
ask the Attorney General to establish and maintain, separate
from any other DNA database, a database solely for the purpose
of collecting the DNA information with respect to violent
predators against children.
It would also provide incentive grants for the Attorney
General to make grants to each State that has in effect one or
more programs that decrease the rate of recidivism among
violent predators against children.
We can only do this together, and we can only do this
comprehensively. And so I look forward to the full hearing and
the presentation by Members, and the consideration of all of
our legislative initiatives. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Pomeroy, we knew that you were en route, so we started
ahead of time. But we knew you would be with us. Good to have
you with us.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have four distinguished witnesses
with us today. Our first witness is the Honorable Mark Foley.
Representative Foley serves the 16th Congressional District in
the State of Florida, and was first elected to Congress in
1994. He is currently the Co-Chairman of the Missing and
Exploited Children's Caucus. Prior to serving in Congress,
Representative Foley was a member of the Florida State Senate
and the House of Representatives.
Our second witness is the Honorable Ted Poe. Representative
Poe serves the Second Congressional District in the State of
Texas, and was recently elected to Congress this year. For 20
years, he served as a felony court judge in Houston, Texas.
Judge Poe has devoted himself to many issues related to
children, including child abuse, neglect, and violence. He
currently serves on the board of the National Children's
Alliance.
Our third witness is the Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite.
Representative Brown-Waite serves the Fifth Congressional
District in the State of Florida, and was first elected to
Congress in 2003. She is currently a member of the
Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute and works with
Angels in Adoption to recognize families who reach out to
children. Prior to serving in Congress, Representative Brown-
Waite was commissioner of Hernando County, from 1990 to 1992,
and served in the Florida State Senate for 10 years.
Our final witness today is the Honorable Earl Pomeroy.
Representative Pomeroy serves the At-Large--how many are there
now, Earl?
Mr. Pomeroy. Seven.
Mr. Coble. Seven States who have At-Large Members of the
House. And Mr. Pomeroy serves At-Large for the State of North
Dakota, and was first elected to the Congress in 1993.
Presently, he's served as a member of the--strike that.
Previously, he served as a member of the North Dakota State
House of Representatives and as a North Dakota insurance
commissioner.
Folks, it's good to have you all with us. I will say to you
that our Subcommittee operates under the 5-minute rule. We
apply that 5-minute imposition against you, as well as against
ourselves. So when you see the red light illuminate in your eye
in that panel in front of you, Mr. Scott and I will be breaking
out the buggy whip if you don't wrap up before too long.
But if you can stay with the 5-minute time rule, we'd
appreciate it for a couple of reasons. Number one, time is of
the essence. And number two, we have a second hearing on this
subject matter immediately following this one.
Mr. Foley, why don't you kick us off.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK FOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Foley. Thank you, Chairman Coble and Ranking Member
Scott. On behalf of Congressman Bud Cramer and myself and the
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, I want
to thank you for holding this important hearing today, for
giving me the opportunity to testify on H.R. 2423, the ``Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Act.''
Mr. Chairman, we've all heard the names in the news--
Jessica Lunsford, Jetseta Gage, Sarah Lunde, Megan Kanka, Jacob
Wetterling, just to name a few--all beautiful children,
carrying with them the hopes and dreams of every young child in
this country; all taken away from their parents and their
futures; killed by sex offenders.
The numbers are shocking. There are 500,000 registered sex
offenders in the United States, with 24,000 of them living in
North Carolina and Virginia alone and 34,000 in Florida. Of
that, according to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, we're missing 100,000 to 150,000 of these
people.
What may be even more surprising to you is that there is a
200,000-person difference between all of the State registries
and the Federal National Sex Offender Registry. There are many
reasons we have not been able to keep track of these dangerous
predators, but let me highlight a few.
First, uniform registration information is not being
collected. While most States have some form of registry, they
are not usually the ones collecting the registration
information. Instead, that responsibility falls on local
communities, who use their own specialized criteria and then
pass along the info to the States; which results in a registry
with inaccurate and conflicting information.
Second, current law does not take into account the
increasing transient nature of these predators, or the
development of newer technologies that can be used to track
them.
Third is that most States are not completely complying with
the law because the carrot-and-stick approach we developed in
the original law does not apply. In practice, States are
supposed to be eligible for funds for any costs associated with
implementing the law. However, we in Congress never funded the
program. In addition, the penalty assigned to States for not
complying, a 10 percent reduction in JAG funding, no longer
applies, because of the way we changed that formula last year.
The Sex Offender Registration Notification Act was designed
to address these and a dozen other problems facing the current
system. This bill is a thoughtful, pragmatic approach modeled
on current law. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to recent
events in my State. We have spent over 8 months working on this
comprehensive bill with the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI,
and other Federal agencies.
This legislation has been introduced in the Senate by
Senators Orrin Hatch and Joseph Biden. It builds on the
assumption that everyone--the Federal Government, the States,
an average citizen--has a role to play in keeping track of sex
offenders.
First thing we did when we began to draft H.R. 2423 was to
clean up the Wetterling Act. We examined what the law was
designed to do; kept its intent; tightened up the language; and
then placed it into neater categories.
Under current law, this bill clearly lays out what the
Federal Government, the States, and sex offenders must do after
conviction triggering registration. We then went through and
added 25 common-sense provisions that would further strengthen
the way we track these pedophiles.
Some of these provisions include requiring the States, not
localities, to collect sex offender registration information;
requiring sex offenders to register before they leave custody;
incorporating tribal lands under the law; requiring sex
offenders to update their registration more quickly than is now
required; requiring States to have multi-field, searchable
databases and requiring States to make this information
available to other States; requiring at least semi-annual
registration; requiring annual updates of the offender photos
and fingerprints; and increasing registration duration period.
Sex offenders are not petty criminals. They prey on our
children like animals, and they will continue to do so unless
we stop them. We need to change the way we track these
pedophiles.
Mr. Chairman, it has been noted that a society can be
judged on how it best treats its children. We have a moral
responsibility to do everything in our power to protect our
kids from these animals. This bill will turn the tables, and
make prey out of these predators. Failing to act on this
measure is just playing Russian roulette with our children.
I want to thank John Walsh, particularly, who has led the
fight on this effort, and quote him, ``I believe that in our
State of Florida, who really does a pretty good job of trying
to track these low-lifes, that Sarah Lunde and Jessica Lunsford
might be alive today if this bill was passed a year ago.''
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you. I thank
Chairman Sensenbrenner as well, and all of the Committee
Members, for giving us a chance, for all partnering on this
very, very important societal problem, and working together to
find some common ground and common solutions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foley follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Mark Foley, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida
Chairman Coble,
On behalf of Congressman Bud Cramer and the Congressional Missing
and Exploited Children's Caucus, I want to thank you for holding this
important hearing today and for giving me the opportunity to testify on
H.R. 2423, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
Mr. Chairman, we have all heard their names. Jessica Lunsford,
Jetseta Gage, Sarah Lunde, Megan Kanka, Jacob Wetterling, just to name
a few. All beautiful children carrying with them the hopes and dreams
of every young child in this country. All taken away from their parents
and their futures--killed--by sex offenders.
The numbers are shocking. There are currently over 500,000
registered sex offenders in the United States--with 24,000 of them
living in North Carolina and Virginia alone. Of that, according to the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, we are missing
between 100,000 to 150,000 of these predators.
What may be even more surprising to you is that there is a 200,000
person difference between all of the state registries and the federal
National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR).
There are many reasons we have not been able to keep track of these
dangerous predators, but I will just highlight what I believe are the
top three for you today.
First, uniform registration information is not being collected.
While most states have some form of registry, they are not usually the
ones collecting the registration information. Instead, that
responsibility falls on local communities who use their own,
specialized criteria and then pass along that info to the states. What
results is a registry with inaccurate or conflicting information.
Second, is that current law does not take into account the
increasingly transient nature of these predators or the development of
newer technologies that can be used to track them.
Third, is that most states are not completely complying with the
law because the ``carrot and stick'' approach we developed in the
original law does not apply. In practice, states are supposed to be
eligible for funds for any costs associated with implementing the law.
However, we never funded the program. In addition, the penalty assigned
to states for not complying--a 10% reduction in JAG funding--no longer
applies because of the way we changed the formula last year.
The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act was designed to
address these and dozen other problems facing the current system. This
bill is a thoughtful, pragmatic approach modeled on current law. This
is not a knee-jerk reaction to recent events. We have spent over eight
months working on this comprehensive bill with the National Center
Missing and Exploited Children, the Justice Department and other
federal agencies.
The legislation, which has been introduced in the Senate by
senators Hatch and Biden, builds on the assumption that everyone--the
federal government, the states and the average citizen--has a role to
play in keeping track of sex offenders.
The first thing we did when we began to draft H.R. 2423 was to
``clean up'' Wetterling. We examined what the law was designed to do,
kept its intent, tightened up the language and then placed it into
neater categories. Unlike current law, this bill clearly lays out what
the federal government, the states and sex offenders must do after a
conviction triggering registration.
We then went through and added 25 common sense provisions that
would further strengthen the way we track these pedophiles. Some of
those provisions include: requiring the states, not localities, to
collect sex offender registration information; requiring sex offenders
to register before they leave custody; incorporating tribal lands under
the law; requiring sex offenders to update their registrations more
quickly than is now required; requiring states to have multi-field,
searchable database and require states to make that information
available to other states; requiring at least semi-annual
registrations; requiring annual updates of the offenders photos and
fingerprints; and increasing the registration duration period.
Sex offenders are not petty criminals. They prey on our children
like animals and will continue to do it unless stopped. We need to
change the way we track these pedophiles.
Mr. Chairman, it has often been noted that a society can be judged
on how it best treats it children. We have a moral responsibility to do
everything in our power to protect our kids from these animals. This
bill will turn the tables and make prey out of these predators. Failing
to act on this measure is just playing Russian roulette with our
children's lives.
I think John Walsh said it best when he said: ``I truly believe
that in our state of Florida--who really does a pretty good job of
trying to track these lowlifes--that Sarah Lundy and Jessica Lunsford
might be alive today if this bill was passed a year ago.''
I look forward to working with you and Chairman Sensenbrenner on
moving this bill as quickly as possible. I look forward to answering
any of your questions.
Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Foley, you have just applied pressure to
your three colleagues, because you did comply with the 5-minute
rule. I commend you for that.
Mr. Foley. May be a first in my life. Thank you.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Poe, good to have you with us.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE TED POE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Scott.
I appreciate the chance to be here, and you holding this
hearing.
Media stories about sex crimes against children are
presently being reported at an alarming rate in the United
States. These crimes are also some of the most under-reported
of criminal activity.
One of the victims' grandmothers of one of these recent
crimes said that, ``People have the right to know where sex
offenders are living. The police should know, and they should
notify the public.'' We know the number-one thing that child
predators desire is to remain anonymous. Those days are over.
No longer can ex-convicts for child sexual assault move in and
out of our neighborhoods without us knowing who they are.
While some States have registration laws for convicted
child predators, many still manage to slip through the system.
We know that the recidivism rate of convicted child
molesters is extremely high. When many leave the penitentiary,
they continue their ways against our greatest resource,
children.
On March 15th of this year, I introduced the very first
bill in Congress that I've introduced, House Resolution 1355,
the ``Child Predator Act of 2005,'' to hold criminals
accountable; impose tougher sentences for child predators who
repeat. The Act closes loopholes in the present law, and places
tools in the hands of parents who want to safeguard their
children from these predators. This legislation amends the
Wetterling Act of 1994 in six ways.
First, the Child Predator Act defines the term of a ``child
predator'' as a person who has been convicted of a sexual crime
against a victim who is a minor, if the offense is sexual in
nature and the minor is of the age of 13 years or younger.
Second, child predators must report change of residence
within 10 days of a move.
Third, the Child Predator Act requires community
notification. Child predators would have to notify, at a
minimum, schools, public housing, and at least two media
outlets such as newspapers and television stations, radio
stations, that are covering the community.
Fourth, the Predator Act would classify non-compliance as a
Federal felony, rather than a misdemeanor. Rather than getting
a slap on the wrist, these predators who knowingly fail to
register would be charged with a felony in our Federal courts.
Fifth, the Child Predator Act would mandate a national
database. This would be available on a free access of Internet
website.
And finally, this Act would require prominent flagging of
all the records in the national database of child predators.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
confirms that sexual victimization of children is overwhelming
in magnitude; yet largely unrecognized, and it is under-
reported. Statistics cited by the center reveal that one in
five girls and one in ten boys are sexually exploited before
they reach adulthood. However, less than 35 percent of child
sexual assaults are reported to authorities.
Even though previous legislation has addressed this social
ill, this criminal conduct, we must stay the course. We must
remain ever-vigilant, and not stop the fight. Child predators
are innovative. They stalk neighborhoods, playgrounds, Cub
Scout dens, our houses of worship and, as of late, they exploit
the Internet to target youngsters.
Mr. Chairman, we must put child predators on notice and let
them know once and for all that we will not tolerate
victimization of children.
Mr. Chairman, Congress must make a statement to the
American public that, while we are concerned about victims in
other nations, we cannot overlook victims at home.
The first duty of government is to protect its citizens. We
as a people are not judged by the way we treat the rich, the
famous, the influential, the powerful; but by the way we treat
the weak, the innocent--our children.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Poe follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, media stories about sex crimes against
children are presently being reported at an alarming rate. These crimes
are also some of the most underreported of criminal acts.
One of these victim's grandmothers said: ``People have
the right to know where sex offenders are living. The police should
know . . . and they should notify the public.'' We know the number one
thing child predators desire is to remain anonymous. Those days are
over. No longer can ex-cons for child sexual assault move in and out of
our neighborhoods without us knowing who they are. While some states
have registration laws for convicted child predators, many still manage
to slip through the system.
We know that the recidivism rate of convicted child
molesters is extremely high. When many leave the penitentiary, they
continue their evil ways against our greatest natural resource--
children.
On March 15th of this Year, I introduced my first bill--
the Child Predator Act of 2005--to hold criminals accountable and
impose tougher sentences for child predators who repeat. The Act closes
loopholes in the present law and places tools in the hands of parents
who want to safeguard their children from child predators. This
legislation amends the Wetterling Act of 1994 in six key ways.
First, the Child Predator Act defines the term child
predator as a person who has been convicted of a sexual offense against
a victim who is a minor--if the offense is sexual in nature and the
minor is age 13 years old or younger.
Second, child predators must report change of residence
within 10 days of a move.
Third, the Child Predator Act requires community
notification. Child predators would have to notify--at a minimum--
schools, public housing, and at least 2 media outlets such as
newspapers, television stations, or radio stations covering that
community.
Fourth, the Child Predator Act would classify
noncompliance as a federal felony. Rather than getting a slap on the
wrist, child predators who knowingly fail to register would be charged
with a felony.
Fifth, the Child Predator Act would mandate a national
database. This would be available on a free access internet website.
And finally, the Child Predator Act would require
prominent flagging of all the records in the national database for all
child predators.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
confirms that, ``The sexual victimization of children is overwhelming
in magnitude yet largely unrecognized and underreported.'' Statistics
cited by the Center reveal that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys are
sexually exploited before they reach adulthood; however, less than 35%
of those child sexual assaults are reported to authorities. Even still,
according to the Crimes Against Children Research Center, in 2000
alone, 89,000 cases of child sexual abuse were substantiated.
Even though previous legislation has addressed this
terrible societal ill, we must stay the course. We must remain ever
vigilant and not deescalate the fight. Child predators are innovative.
They stalk our neighborhood playgrounds, our Cub Scout dens, our houses
of worship, and as of late they exploit the internet to target our
youngsters.
Mr. Chairman, we must put child predators on notice and
let them know--once and for all--that we will not tolerate the
victimization of children
The first duty of government is to protect its citizens.
We as a people are not judged by the way we treat the rich, famous,
influential, powerful, but by the way we treat the weak, the innocent--
the children.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Poe.
Ms. Brown-Waite.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GINNY BROWN-WAITE, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Ms. Brown-Waite. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
holding this hearing, and certainly the Ranking Member and the
other Members who are here today, on this very important issue.
Mr. Coble. Ms. Brown-Waite, if you could suspend just a
moment, I failed to recognize we've been joined by the
distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.
Good to have you with us.
Go ahead, Ms. Brown-Waite.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you. Nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford
was stolen from us on February 24, and our community has not
stopped mourning for her since. As a mother and a grandmother,
my heart goes out to the Lunsford family in their terrible time
of grieving.
I personally experienced the anxiety and fear throughout
the Citrus County area, when residents searched for Jessica for
days, and then weeks. I live in Citrus County, about 8 miles
away from the Lunsford family. When sexual offender John Couey
was arrested, we learned that little Jessica had not only been
kidnapped, but had been sexually assaulted and buried alive. I
saw the pain in Jessica's father's eyes when he spoke of how
she was taken from him. She was his best friend, and his
future. I still cannot get out of my head what that little girl
must have gone through those days hidden in Couey's closet in
the trailer, and being sexually abused, and eventually buried
alive in a plastic trash bag.
Almost daily, we hear tragic stories of young children
whose lives were robbed from them, and parents who cannot
escape from these tragedies. Frankly, like many Members of
Congress, I am fed up with these stories, because in most
cases, such as Jessica's, they could have been prevented.
Her killer, John Couey, was a registered sex offender in
the State of Florida. A man already convicted of molesting a
child, he was not living at the address on file with law
enforcement. In addition, this monster had a criminal record of
24 arrests, including DUIs and drug charges.
If harsher penalties and more frequent checks had been in
place for failing to report a change of address, Couey would
have never been on the streets and able to prey on this
innocent child. Additionally, Couey's probation officer has
stated if he had known of Couey's sex offender status, he would
have kept a closer eye on his whereabouts.
Moreover, Florida is not the only State to suffer from
these tragedies. Taken as a whole, many States cannot account
for up to 24 percent of the sex offenders who are supposed to
be there.
Congress has a duty to act and protect our children. That's
one of the reasons why I introduced H.R. 1505--the bill is
known as the ``Jessica Lunsford Act''--which would make needed
reforms to our sex offender laws. Electronic monitoring of sex
offenders must be one of those reforms. Today, these monsters
are free to attack our children. We need to know where they are
at all times. Period. With this technology, law enforcement
will be equipped to do just that. Technology today is good, and
it is accurate.
Offenders who would fail to register, under the bill, with
a State are currently penalized with a $100,000 fine and 1 year
in prison, for a first offense, and a $100,000 fine and 10
years in prison for two or more offenses. My legislation
applies this penalty to those who fail to report a change of
address, as well.
Most importantly, it mandates that sex offenders who fail
to register with a State, or fail to report a change of
address, have to wear ankle monitoring devices for 5 years
when, and if, they are released from prison. Sexual predators
would wear the device for 10 years upon release. Families can
feel safer knowing that these penalties ensure that the lowest
of criminals are consistently and constantly monitored, and
properly punished.
Additionally, my bill requires that address verifications
be sent out at least twice per year, and that they are randomly
generated. The current Wetterling law requires that they be
sent out once a year, and that they're not randomly generated.
Non-forwardable verification mailers were written into the
Jacob Wetterling Act, but then later removed. The bill ensures
that offenders can no longer game the system. Under the bill,
they would be unaware of when to expect this mailer.
Mark Lunsford's heart breaks every time he thinks of
missing his little girl's first day in high school, her college
graduation, or the grandchildren that he never will meet. I
urge this Committee to take action so that no other family
suffers because of needless loopholes in the current law. We
must fix this, and I stand ready to help in whatever capacity I
can.
Thank you again, Chairman Coble, for the opportunity to
testify on this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown-Waite follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Ginny Brown-Waite, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Florida
I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Chairman Coble for
holding this important hearing today.
Nine-year-old Jessica Lunsford was stolen from us on February 24th,
2005 and our community has not stopped mourning for her. As a mother
and a grandmother, my heart goes out to the Lunsford family in their
terrible time of grieving.
I personally experienced the anxiety and fear throughout the Citrus
County, Florida area when residents searched for Jessica for days. When
sexual offender John Couey was arrested, we learned that little Jessica
had not only been kidnapped but had been sexually assaulted and buried
alive. Every heart in the community broke. I saw the pain in Jessica's
father's eyes when he spoke of how she was stolen from him. She was his
best friend and his future. I still cannot get out of my head what that
little girl must have gone through during days hidden in Couey's
closet.
Almost daily, we hear tragic stories of young children whose lives
were robbed from them and parents who cannot escape from these
tragedies. Frankly, I am fed up with these stories because in most
cases, such as Jessica's, they could have been prevented.
Jessica's killer, John Couey, was a registered sex offender in the
state of Florida. A man already convicted of molesting a child, he was
not living at the address on file with law enforcement. In addition,
this monster had a criminal record of 24 arrests, including a DUI and
drug charges. If harsher penalties and more frequent checks had been in
place for failing to report a change of address, Couey would not have
been on the streets and able to prey on our innocent children.
Additionally, Couey's probation officer has stated that if he had known
of Couey's sex offender status, he would have kept a closer eye on his
whereabouts.
NEED FOR ACTION
There is nothing we can do about the ``what ifs'' of Jessica's
murder, but Congress can make sure we never fail another family because
stricter laws and the elimination of loopholes could have prevented a
tragedy. Moreover, Florida is not the only state to suffer from such
tragedies. Taken as a whole, states cannot account for 24% of sex
offenders who were supposed to register.
Worried constituents ask me every day how this tragedy could have
happened, and what their government is doing to prevent it from
happening again. Congress has a duty to act and to protect our children
nationwide, because these predators move from state to state.
HR 1505
Before you today is my bill, H.R. 1505, the Jessica Lunsford Act,
which would make the needed reforms to our sex offender laws.
Electronic monitoring of sex offenders must be one of these reforms.
Today, these monsters are free to attack our children. We need to know
where they are at all times--period. With this technology, law
enforcement will be equipped to do just that. We can even program the
devices to send alarms if an offender is too close to a school or a
playground. Technology today is that good and that accurate.
My legislation mandates that sex offenders who fail to register
with a state or fail to report a change of address two or more times
wear an ankle-monitoring device for 5 years. Sexual predators would
wear the device for 10 years. Families can feel safer knowing that
these penalties ensure these lowest of criminals are constantly
monitored and properly punished.
Additionally, my bill requires that address verification mailers be
sent out at least twice per year and that they are randomly generated.
Current law only specifies annual address verification. HR 1505 ensures
that offenders can no longer game the system. Under my bill, they would
be unaware of when to expect the mailer, or how often they would be
checked.
HR 1505 also corrects the information block that has prevented
probation officers from being provided with their probationer's sex
offender background. The Jessica Lunsford Act requires a state officer
or a court to notify the individual's supervising probation officer of
any past sexual offense.
Random address checks, electronic monitoring, and probation officer
notification could have saved Jessica Lunsford's life. If these
provisions had been in place, Jessica might be alive today.
Mark Lunsford's heart breaks every time he thinks of missing his
little girl's first day of high school, her college graduation, the
grandchildren he could have met, and all the beautiful life events they
could have shared together. I urge this Committee to take action so
that no other family suffers because of needless loopholes in the
current law.
Pass this bill and make sure Jessica's death was not meaningless.
Give her a legacy of saving lives. We must fix this, and I stand ready
to help in whatever capacity I can.
Thank you again Chairman Coble for the opportunity to testify on
this legislation.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Ms. Brown-Waite.
Mr. Pomeroy, you are our clean-up hitter today.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE EARL POMEROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Pomeroy. And it's a very impressive starting lineup
that's been before me, Mr. Chairman. I commend my colleagues
for the legislation that they've introduced. I'm honored to be
on this panel with them.
I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee
Members. Here we are late in the legislative day, after the
last vote's been had for the week. We very much appreciate you
spending the time in this hearing to hear about these
circumstances.
I believe that these circumstances of the bill that I've
introduced, H.R. 95, the ``Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender
Public Database Act of 2005,'' along with the other legislation
noted today, show that tragedies have happened. We can learn
from these tragedies and make legislative responses that make
it less likely for tragedies to happen in the future.
We had a situation in Grand Forks, North Dakota, where a
lovely young co-ed, Dru Sjodin, was abducted from a shopping
center parking lot in daylight on a Saturday afternoon. This
never happens in our part of the country, and it traumatized
the whole community.
They trudged through snowbanks in the worst weather you
ever saw, searching for Dru Sjodin for months. When the snow
started to melt, they found her dead body. And some time after
that, an arrest was made. A trial was pending, but Alfonso
Rodriguez, Jr., has been charged with the crime.
He had been recently released from serving a 23-year
sentence for rape and attempted kidnapping, and had other prior
convictions before that. He was released. Upon his release, his
Minnesota registration was placed in the Minnesota database.
The information was sent in to the Department of Justice, under
the Jacob Wetterling Act. But there was no other publication,
and so the community of Grand Forks, North Dakota, just across
the border, a short distance from where he was residing, did
not have broad knowledge in any way that we had such a
dangerous individual in our midst.
Additionally, he was released from prison without any
referral to the attorney general's office relative to whether
they might want to pursue civil commitment. Minnesota has civil
commitment laws but, essentially, the jailer made the
determination he was free to go, and they never even had the
chance to apply that type of review.
Finally, there was no particular extraordinary monitoring,
even though while in prison he had not participated in the
psychological counseling, not participated in the sexual
offender treatment that was specifically recommended for this
particular inmate. He was clearly high-risk, and indeed
classified high-risk upon his discharge; but there was no
extraordinary monitoring.
The legislation that I'm pleased to have co-sponsored with
Paul Gillmor is identical to what passed out of the Senate,
with lead sponsor Senator Dorgan, called the Dru Sjodin Law,
and addresses, we think, in three common-sense basic areas,
loopholes that possibly, when closed, would stop this from
happening again.
First, we would allow the public to have access to this
national database compiled by the Department of Justice under
the Jacob Wetterling Act.
Secondly, we would have mandatory referral, mandatory
notification to the attorney general's office in those States
where civil commitment laws exist, so that they have awareness
that the individual is coming out of jail, in a timely fashion
to evaluate whether they want to seek civil commitment in light
of ongoing danger to the society.
Thirdly, we would also have extraordinary monitoring for
especially the first year of release. Statistics show us that
the most likely period of repeat offense will occur within the
first year of release from prison. And so we would have
exceptional monitoring during this period of time as part of
the release.
I also want to say that I have co-sponsored Congressman
Foley's legislation, H.R. 2423, and commend that to you. I
believe H.R. 95 and H.R. 2423 are fair and reasonable responses
to further secure the safety of our children, and commend them
to your attention. Thank you for listening.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Earl Pomeroy, a Representative in
Congress from the State of North Dakota
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to join you to discuss efforts
to strengthen our laws in ways that will protect children from sexual
predators. Let me commend you at the outset for holding this hearing
and for your willingness to examine this critical issue.
It has been conclusively established that recidivism rates are
alarming high for those convicted of sexual offenses. According to a
Bureau of Justice Statistics study of male sex offenders released from
15 states in 1994, 78.5 percent of those studied had been arrested at
least one time prior to their incarceration and 13.9 percent had a
prior conviction for a violent sexual offense. This study further finds
that 5.3 percent of those sex offenders studied were rearrested for a
new sex crime within three years of their release. In addition, the
study found that of the released sex offenders who allegedly committed
another sex crime, 40 percent perpetrated the new offense within a year
or less from their prison discharge.
A tragedy in my state of North Dakota has demonstrated the need for
legislation to address these facts. Dru Sjodin, a 22-year-old
University of North Dakota student, disappeared on November 22, 2003,
at the Columbia Mall in Grand Forks, North Dakota. This young woman's
disappearance sent Grand Forks, a small town which had not seen a
kidnapping since 1989, reeling. And for days and weeks and months on
end, thousands of volunteers worked tirelessly, trudging through snow,
ice and sleet in search of any signs that could unlock the mystery to
her disappearance. Her body was eventually discovered in a ravine,
nearly five months later, in Crookston, Minnesota.
A 51-year-old Minnesota man named Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. was charged
with Dru's kidnapping and murder. Mr. Rodriguez had been released from
prison just six months prior to Dru's disappearance after having
completed a 23-year sentence for rape and attempted kidnapping. During
Mr. Rodriquez's incarceration, he repeatedly refused psychological
treatment offered to assist him in his rehabilitation. Mr. Rodriguez
was released from prison under just one condition: that he register as
a sex offender in the state of Minnesota.
What's significant about the story of Mr. Rodriguez is that he had
been rated by the Minnesota Department of Corrections as a ``level
three sex offender,'' a category for those viewed to be likely to re-
offend. Although Minnesota had a civil commitment law for dangerous sex
offenders, failure of the Department of Corrections to alert applicable
authorities meant that no consideration was given about the need for
civil commitment in this case.
The circumstances surrounding this tragic case reveal the
significant shortcomings of our present system. As Members of Congress,
we have a responsibility to take these lessons and improve our laws to
prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future. That is why
Rep. Paul Gillmor and I introduced the ``Dru Sjodin National Sex
Offender Public Database Act.'' This bill is identical to legislation
introduced by my North Dakotan colleague, Senator Byron Dorgan, that
passed the Senate last November by unanimous consent. This common-sense
bill gives our citizens the tools necessary to better protect
themselves from sexual offenders.
Sex offenders do not stop at state lines, and neither should our
sex offender registries. That is why this legislation would create a
federal online sex offender database that would be free and accessible
to the general public. The current national database, established under
the Jacob Wetterling Act, is accessible only by law enforcement. While
many states and local communities provide their own online, public
registries, they do not provide information on neighboring states.
Recently, the Department of Justice announced their plans to
provide for an online collection of the state databases that currently
exist. While I applaud their efforts to nationalize these registries, I
believe we must go a step further to ensure that a standardized and
truly national database is created. Currently, not all states have
online sex offender registries and those that do have registries do not
collect the same information. This legislation would ensure that the
same information would be collected and posted for all fifty states.
Should states not comply with this legislation within three years, the
state's funding allocated to them under the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 would be cut by 25 percent and reallocated
to state's already complying with the law.
The Sjodin case demonstrated that the decision to proceed with a
civil commitment proceeding in the case of a level three offender
should be left to the state and not a prison corrections officer. Under
this legislation, states with civil commitment proceedings would be
required to provide timely notice to their state's attorney general of
the impending release of a high risk sex offender, so that they can
consider whether to institute a civil commitment proceeding.
Finally, the Sjodin case demonstrated that high risk offenders
cannot be without some level of monitoring to ensure that these
individuals do not once again prey on our communities. Just because
someone has served their time does not mean that they have been
rehabilitated. Under this legislation, the state would be required to
intensely monitor for at least one year any high risk sex offender who
has not been civilly committed and who has been unconditionally
released.
Before I conclude, I would also like to mention that I am also an
original co-sponsor of H.R. 2423, The Sex Offender and Registry
Notification Act of 2005. I believe it is imperative to protect our
children when they are online and to go after those who would bring
harm to our children. H.R. 2423 addresses the threat of online
predators by expanding the definition of a criminal offense against a
minor to include ``use of the Internet to facilitate or commit a crime
against a minor.'' I appreciate the Subcommittee's full and fair
consideration of this bill.
I believe that H.R. 95 and H.R. 2423 are fair and reasonable
responses to further secure the safety of our children, and I would
deeply appreciate your assistance in moving legislation on this issue
through the Committee and to the floor of the House of Representatives.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Mr. Coble. Thank you. And I think, Mr. Scott, this is the
first case, the first impression, when all the witnesses
complied with the 5-minute request. I commend you for that.
I've been told that Mr. Poe is on a short leash, that you
have to leave in 25 minutes, Mr. Poe; so let me start with you.
Mr. Poe, you've discussed in your testimony the gaps in current
law in terms of coverage of certain sexual offenders. More
specifically, how significant is this problem when it comes to
States, and how much variance is there?
Mr. Poe. States have different registration laws. Some
comply mentally with a mental--excuse me, minimal registration
requirement. Others, such as Florida and Texas, have great
registration laws. People move across State lines. They fall
through the cracks. They don't re-register when they move to
another State. The State they left loses jurisdiction. And that
is the purpose of this bill, to prevent that from happening, by
having a national database.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Foley, you submitted a national map revealing the
number of ``lost'' sexual offenders in each State. And I'm told
that, conservatively, there are 100,000 in that group.
Elaborate on the problem, the extent of it, and why this
problem has occurred.
Mr. Foley. Well, I think you have to take it back to the
basic problem of not having cross-State registrations. First
and foremost, we are able to collect data from all of these
States, thanks to the National Center's excellent efforts in
doing so. The Federal Government relies on them for this
information.
But as Mr. Pomeroy clearly indicated, and particularly,
anyone on a border area, whether you're living in north Florida
and surrounded by Georgia, Alabama, or a quick trip to
Mississippi, you may feel harassed or put upon in one of those
States, so you quickly go across another State's jurisdiction
where you no longer have a registration responsibility or
capability.
That's why we try to incorporate this as a model for 50
States to follow, because we think it's best not only to get
the data to the law enforcement personnel that can then
monitor, but also protect those residents of adjoining States.
And so this is why we chose to show the severity of the
problem with the kind of numbers that are evident throughout
the entirety of the United States. It's not just Florida. It's
not just one State. All of us share in the same grave
responsibility.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
Mr. Pomeroy, your proposal would require the creation of a
national sex offender registry. How would that differ from the
recent announcement by the Justice Department of its plan to
create a National Sex Offender Public Registry Website?
Mr. Pomeroy. Right. The proposal--and we certainly welcome
it, and it's an advance from where we are--by the Department of
Justice would essentially collect the State registrations, and
put them out in a compiled form.
What the legislation would do is have a uniform format,
applied across the 50 States. And so we think, therefore, the
legislative response is a bit stronger and is going to be more
helpful. But we certainly do welcome the DOJ initiative.
Mr. Coble. I thank you, sir.
Ms. Brown-Waite, you've outlined an interesting idea. That
is, mail verification of addresses for sexual offenders on the
registry. Elaborate, if you will, logistically how that would
work. And in your view, would it be cost-effective?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to answer
that. The bill calls for a random mailing to the sex offender
and predators twice a year. By this random mailing, they're not
going to know when it's going to arrive. Right now, States do
one mailing a year, and most States do it shortly after the
beginning of the year, or after the beginning of their fiscal
year; so that the sexual offenders know when it's going to
arrive. A random mailing would be a better method to determine
whether or not these predators and offenders who violate our
children are really living where they say they're living.
Mr. Coble. You probably don't have--well, I shouldn't say
that. Do you have an idea as to cost?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Actually, we do have an idea as to cost.
And I would remind the members of the panel that there are
right now methods that States can go through to draw down some
funding. One is what are called SOMA grants, Sexual Offender
Management Assistance grants. So that's one source that States
could turn to. And of course, the other is the Byrne grant
process.
But CBO has given our bill a preliminary estimate of
500,000 for the mailer; and a range of 5 million, possibly as
high as 30 million, with an estimate of about 18 million, for
the ankle monitoring device.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, ma'am.
The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eighteen million for
the ankle bracelet? Is that what you said?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Yes, sir.
Mr. Scott. I've seen estimates for Virginia alone at the
$100 million range for the ankle bracelet program.
Ms. Brown-Waite. I can just share with you that technology
has brought down the cost of the ankle monitoring devices. And
I know that the State of Florida recently passed legislation
requiring this, and we are using many of the newer figures.
Mr. Scott. Are these national figures, or just Florida
figures?
Ms. Brown-Waite. They're national figures, but they also--
they reflect the newer, lower cost of the tracking devices.
Mr. Scott. How many offenders would be monitored?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Well, it would depend--I don't know the
number that they were looking at when they came up with this
estimate. Those who did not notify of a change of address or
those who failed to respond to the mailer would then be sent to
prison. So that's, of course, part of the cost. They would be
sent to prison. When they get out, then they would have to wear
the ankle monitoring device.
Mr. Scott. Of all of the children abused in America, how
many are abused by those who have already been convicted of a
sex offense and would be covered by this notification?
Ms. Brown-Waite. There have been estimates. I have seen
estimates, Mr. Scott, of anywhere from a recidivism rate of
about 24 percent, all the way up to a very high percentage,
over 50 percent, so I don't----
Mr. Scott. What does ``recidivism rate'' mean?
Ms. Brown-Waite. The ``recidivism rate'' means they were a
sexual offender on a child; they got out, and did it again,
sir.
Mr. Scott. Did anything again? Or the 3 percent that would
offend again with a sex offense?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Yes, they were sex offenders. Sex offense.
Mr. Scott. It's your testimony that the recidivism rate for
sex offenders is higher than average recidivism rate? That's
your testimony?
Ms. Brown-Waite. I didn't compare it to average recidivism
rate, sir. I just gave the criminal rate----
Mr. Scott. Of the portion of children that are abused, what
portion are abused by those convicted of a child abuse crime?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Of the percentage of children who are
sexually abused----
Mr. Scott. Right.
Ms. Brown-Waite.--what percentage are violated by somebody
who previously was convicted of a sex crime?
Mr. Scott. Right.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Again, that figure, the recidivism rate
figure, is 24 percent----
Mr. Scott. Do you know? It's a very simple question. If a
million children have been abused, how many of them were abused
by someone already convicted of a sex crime against children?
Do you know?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Mr. Scott, I don't know.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Ms. Brown-Waite. I can only give you the recidivism rate.
Mr. Scott. Does anybody on the panel know? The Justice
Department has 3 percent. You've said 20. Does anybody know?
Mr. Foley. Well, the statistic I have is that a sex
offender released from custody is four times more likely to be
arrested for a sex offense crime than any other criminal
infraction.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Of the children who are abused in America
this year, how many of them will be abused by a person
previously convicted of a child sex crime? Does anybody on the
panel know?
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Scott, the statistics I have are from an
article entitled, ``Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From
Prison in 1994.'' This is a study of Bureau of Justice
statistics: 9,691 male sex offenders. And again, it is the 1994
year. Some of these stats may be helpful to you. Released child
molesters with more than one prior arrest for child molestation
were more likely to be rearrested for the same crime----
Mr. Scott. Wait a minute. Of all of the children who are
abused in America, what portion of them were abused by someone
who had previously been convicted?
Mr. Pomeroy. I do not have that figure.
Mr. Scott. Okay. If no one has the--if you don't know, I
mean, you don't know. I mean, we just make up questions. It's a
simple question. Because if we're trying to reduce child abuse,
and a very small percentage are being abused by those
convicted, then we're missing most of the target, if our goal
is to reduce child abuse. My question was: Of all of those
abused, how many of them were abused by someone convicted of a
child sexual offense? And no one appears to know. Okay.
Now, we know we're going to hear later this afternoon from
experts who will tell us that rehabilitation programs will
reduced the problem 50 percent. Any of the bills have any
rehabilitation in them, since we know that works?
Mr. Foley. My bill does not. But I welcome that kind of
insight because I truly believe that this is a serious issue
that needs to be dealt with, not only with criminal penalties
and ankle bracelets, but we've got to get to the root cause,
which is mental illness and other things that cause someone to
so aggressively go after a child.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Now, Ms. Brown-Waite has given the cost
estimates of the cost of her bill. Do others have the cost
estimates for their bills?
Mr. Pomeroy. I do not.
Mr. Scott. Okay. Okay, we do not. And finally, before my
time expires, we have these reporting requirements in effect
in, what, all 50 States now? All 50 States? Do we have any
research showing the result of reducing child sexual abuse as a
result of those initiatives?
Mr. Foley. Do we have empirical data, is that what you're
asking? I think, clearly, when you know where they are and
you're able to monitor them you have a better handle on their
whereabouts and their presence. Some of the crimes we've seen
committed are a result of their either not being on the
registry, not having properly registered, not complying with
probation.
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Scott, I would add to that, these accounts
carry reports of communities that are highly concerned upon
learning that they have someone with a--has a conviction record
relative to sex offenses moving into their community, and they
are moved out of the community. So we don't know whether that
in the end prevents a crime, but we know they feel safer.
Mr. Scott. I know it's an unfair question to ask, if
there's any research to suggest that any of these proposals
will make a difference. I know that's an unfair question.
Mr. Foley. Well, I think one of the things we want to do
is, by having a conversation, a national conversation on the
consequences of what people are doing, we hope it may stop them
from acting. The Virginia State Crime Commission today, which
is just meeting, came up with a lot of problems in the registry
there. They have 170 registered sex offenders who were
discovered among the State prison population, even though the
registry shows them as free and living in Virginia. We have a
lot of problems, Mr. Scott, in Florida, in Virginia, in North
Carolina.
Mr. Scott. Those are problems with the registry. My
question was, has there been any study to show that the
registry makes a difference in the number of children sexually
abused in the State in which the registry is active?
Mr. Pomeroy. I don't have empirical data. You want
empirical data----
Mr. Scott. Because you have, I'm sure, reports of child
sexual abuse, and then you have the registry coming in, and
then you have other reports of child sexual abuse. Did the
registry make a difference?
Mr. Pomeroy. I see----
Mr. Scott. And I know it's an unfair question to ask, if
there's any evidence to show that these make a difference. I
know it's an unfair question.
Mr. Pomeroy. Well, look, I think we don't have to have
empirical data to tell you it absolutely makes a difference to
people concerned about the safety of their children, to be able
to have access to information that there might be an elevated
risk of a sexual offender down the street. They care deeply
about that. They think that's information they need to have to
keep their----
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired. We could
revisit this in second round, if we do that. We've got to get
Mr. Poe out of here.
We've been joined by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Chabot, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gohmert. And in order of appearance, the gentleman from
Wisconsin is going to be recognized, since you were here first.
Mark?
Mr. Green. If it's okay, I will yield my place and order to
Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Coble. I recognize the distinguished gentleman from
California, Mr. Lungren, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lungren. I thank the gentleman. I would not ask for
that, except I have to go to the transportation conference. And
it's been a while since I've been on a conference committee,
and I don't want to miss that opportunity.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Lungren, I'm supposed to be there, too, so
cover me.
Mr. Lungren. I'll promise not to take your programs. That's
a nice gesture. [Laughter.]
This is an important subject for so many of us. We've moved
so far. When I was in Congress the first time around, 25 years
ago, we worked with John Walsh to set up the first legislation
dealing with missing and exploited children. That was
controversial at the time. The question was, ``Why should there
be any Federal responsibility?''
When I was attorney general in California, I noted that at
that time, while sex offenders were required to register and
their records were ``public,'' we had created such difficulty
for any member of the public to find that out that, in essence,
they were a protected class.
And, at that point in time, the argument against
legislation that my office drafted and we carried and
eventually was passed was that we were invading the privacy
rights of sexual offenders, and that it would somehow upset
their rehabilitation.
We were asked questions such as just asked by the gentleman
from Virginia, as to whether we would prove absolutely whether
or not publication of this information would provide a
difference. And it's the difficulty of proving a negative,
because it is successful in the area of deterrence.
The question really is whether or not parents of children
ought to have information so they can take reasonable
approaches to protect their children from those who have
offended previously. That's really the question. If one parent,
having that information, intervenes such that a child does not
come in the custody of an individual, that may very well be a
deterrent effect. Without this information, you couldn't check
on those who sign up to be volunteer baseball coaches, soccer
coaches. And we found that on numerous occasions.
But the question I'd like to ask the four of you is this: I
see there is support for further publication of this
information by ease of the Internet. At the time I first dealt
with the legislation in California, some ``experts'' in the
field suggested that we not do that because they suggested that
some confirmed pedophiles, frankly, liked to work with one
another, given the opportunity, and that Internet access would
give them the opportunity to find out who else might also be
involved in this aberrant behavior.
As a result, when we first set it up, we required that
people had to access that information at a law enforcement
department, and at that time had to sign a document saying they
were not a registered sex offender. Believe it or not, the
first time we tried it out at the California state fair, we had
a specific instance in which a woman was checking for sex
offenders in her neighborhood, and discovered that her
boyfriend, who was standing next to her, was a registered child
sex offender. He had neglected to tell her that.
We had other instances where individuals were preyed upon
by male adults who apparently were seeking a relationship with
the mother of a child or children, such that they would have
the opportunity for sexual exploitation.
So my question is, with the four of you who support this
legislation, has that ever entered into it with respect to your
thinking on these bills? And has anybody ever advised you that
we ought to be concerned about this information being
accessible to the pedophile sexual predators themselves? Mr.
Foley?
Mr. Foley. I don't know if there's a way to limit those
types from viewing and joining together, if you will.
Mr. Lungren. Well, the question is, do we put it on the
Internet so that it's accessible to anybody who's got Internet
access? Or do we have it in some other form or fashion?
Mr. Foley. I think a wide publication, the widest possible
publication, is the best deterrent.
Mr. Lungren. Okay.
Mr. Foley. And the Internet today is the modem of choice
for people to gather information. And I think, again, if people
have committed the most senseless of crimes against innocent
victims, then they should suffer the consequences. And if that
includes everyone in America seeing their face, then that is
the sentence for their behavior.
Mr. Lungren. Judge Poe?
Mr. Poe. Likewise, I think public notice of conduct is the
greatest deterrent of conduct. And make it easy access. I think
it's absurd that many parents now in some of our databases have
to pay to get into the Internet site. And so I would agree with
Mr. Foley. Let everybody know who they are.
Mr. Coble. And the other two witnesses may respond to the
question, as well.
Ms. Brown-Waite. I certainly agree with Mr. Foley. And I
can just tell you that in Florida we have the availability--you
put in your zip code. And it used to give you just the sexual
offenders and predators in your zip code. It now does a 5-mile
radius around your zip code. So that, you know, the whole
community can know.
And whether you live in a mobile home community, or whether
you live in a gated, multi-million-dollar-home community,
regardless, people are shocked when they put that information
in and they find out that right down the street is a sexual
offender or predator; which puts parents and caregivers and
grandparents on guard. And that's the important thing. That's
the benefit from having it on the Internet.
Mr. Pomeroy. I think that the technology now available
through the Internet, and people's broad acceptance and
familiarity with that technology, lends itself toward broader
publication, along with my fellow panelists. And in the course
of the consideration of the Dru Sjodin law, which included last
Congress, I've not heard this raised as a serious concern by
law enforcement. Interesting idea, though.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, I
think one of the frustrations that many of us have when we
engage in debates on these bills is that we just don't have
very good numbers, period. There are not very good studies out
there. There are not good statistics that we can refer to. And
my friend and colleague, Mr. Scott, as he was cross-examining
each of the witnesses testifying here----
Mr. Scott. I wasn't cross-examining them. I was asking them
questions.
Mr. Green. Oh, I think ``cross-examination'' is a pretty
good term for what you were attempting.
Let me ask a similar question of at least a couple of the
members of the panel. Now, I'm not going to ask you if you have
absolute proof that these databases, that these registries
would make a huge, marked difference in deterring such crime,
but I'll ask you something else.
And let me begin with Ms. Brown-Waite, if I can. Instead of
giving us numbers and statistics on a national scale, perhaps
you can tell us how your legislation would in fact have made a
difference in the case of Jessica Lunsford. You can tell us
with that.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you. That's an excellent question.
Let me give you but one portion of the bill that certainly
would have helped. Mr. Couey, the offender, the kidnapper/
sexual predator, who also killed the young lady, was on
probation. His probation officer was never told that he had a
prior sexual offense. And he was working at the same school
that Jessica went to. Had his probation officer known that, he
never would have allowed him to work at a school. That's one of
the provisions that certainly would have been a preventative
measure that would have kept Jessica, perhaps, alive today.
Mr. Green. So I guess what you're saying is, while you
don't have broad studies that you can point to, to show how
this would make a huge difference nationwide, if this had been
the law, there is at least a good chance that Jessica Lunsford
would be alive?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Green. Well, it seems to me that that's a pretty good
purpose for legislation.
I turn now to my good friend, Mr. Pomeroy. I guess I'd ask
you a similar question. With your legislation--obviously, so
many of our bills--my own, as well--are driven by stories where
a human face is put on a problem that all too often is reduced
to numbers and anecdotes. Perhaps if you can talk a bit about
your legislation and how that legislation, had it been in
effect, would have made a difference in this case?
Mr. Pomeroy. Sure. Three provisions in the law. First, the
national publication of the registry. It is highly probable
that there would have been an awareness that a dangerous
individual, a person, Mr. Rodriguez, was in the vicinity;
albeit on the Minnesota side.
Secondly, it's highly possible that there might have been
civil commitment proceedings brought, had the attorney
general's office only known that this dangerous sex offender,
who had refused to participate in the prison programs, had been
released. And so it's quite possible he never would have been
on the street. He would have been civilly committed.
Thirdly, with the extraordinary monitoring required under
the bill, Mr. Rodriguez, assuming he's convicted, would have
had the pressure of very frequent, heavy monitoring. And that
might have influenced his behavior in ways where he was not out
there perpetrating. Thank you.
Mr. Green. So again, Congressman Pomeroy, you're not
telling us that you have studies that can show how this law
would dramatically change the overall crime rate, recidivism
rate; but you are saying to us, at least in the case that we
all know about and followed, quite frankly, from all parts of
the country, this legislation would almost certainly have made
a difference, and perhaps have prevented her untimely death?
Mr. Pomeroy. Yes, I'm convinced it would have prevented her
death.
Mr. Green. Thanks. That's all I have.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to
applaud the hearing, which I think is long overdue. It seems
that we can give attention to so many different issues in this
Congress, and not focus in a pointed way on how do we resolve a
most gruesome and continuing problem.
Let me just note for the record--though I wish I had sort
of the long list--it seems that this has been a bad year. In
2004 and 2005, we have seen time after time--and it is not
regionally directed--violence and atrocities that have occurred
to the most vulnerable, and that is our children.
Let me ask, I'd appreciate it if I could hear from all of
my colleagues. And I thank you for indulging--I've reviewed
your testimony, but was taken away by another meeting. What
would be the single most important aspect, if we could come
together and generate the marking up and the moving to the
floor of the legislative initiatives that are before us, what
would be the statement that we would be making nationally?
And I think that's really the key. Because someone reminded
me that we're talking about Federal law. And Judge Poe, I think
you're well aware that there's a State jurisdiction, as well,
that oversees these individuals, many of whom may be tried in
State courts. And so I think that one of the most important
things that we can do in the Judiciary Committee is to make the
national statement of intolerance, that we will no longer
tolerate this kind of random and reckless and violent attacks
against the Nation's children.
So maybe, Congressman Foley, you want to pull out a
singular entity of your bill, Congressman Poe, Congresswoman
Brown-Waite, and certainly Congressman Pomeroy. And certainly,
all of them seem to center around the question of registration.
You know that I'm going to offer the point that we want to
make sure that we have the rights of the innocent protected,
and that means those who may be charged inappropriately. But I
think that there is always a higher standard when we are
talking about children, who cannot speak for themselves.
And many times, unfortunately, the Government has to step
in where parents and custodial adults fall, if you will, for
whatever reason, or fail for whatever reason, to protect the
Nation's children, or their children.
So I'd appreciate your comment on the importance of a
national statement, and the importance of seeing these bills
through the process of hearings and markups and some results
that would create this national standard that we're so eager to
have. Congressman Foley?
Mr. Foley. Well, first, let me suggest, regrettably, that
in this Nation we track library books better than we do
pedophiles. Your suggestion on DNA testing and other things is
so critically important, and I think what you said is
absolutely accurate: to send a clear message to anyone
contemplating a crime of this nature, that we will make their
life a living hell.
Because part of what we do here in this process is to try
and set up deterrence; whether it's Sarbanes-Oxley on criminal
mischief in corporations, or pedophiles and our children. It's
not always about reconciling statistics. It's about setting the
bar so they realize that if they offend, that their life as
they knew it will be terminated.
No longer will they have freedoms. Ankle bracelets, some
people reject. I'm sorry. We put one on Martha Stewart. She
wasn't going to hurt anyone. And we're worried about a sexual
predator being monitored during their probation--and required
to wear it for life, as our bill does, if they re-offend?
So I think you're right on point, Ms. Jackson Lee. It's
high time we elevate this debate to a national voice--a yelling
match, if we have to. Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Congressman Poe? I'm going down the line.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Jackson Lee. I appreciate your concern
about this epidemic. It's not only a crime issue. I think we
should make a statement that it is a public health issue, when
you're dealing with the health and wellbeing, physical and
mental health, of children. That would be the first place that
I would move on a national basis.
And second, based on the over 20,000 criminal cases I
heard--and a good many of them are these type of cases--the one
thing that these individuals want is to remain anonymous. Those
days need to be over. Therefore, community notification in my
bill I think is vital; that they notify the communities which
they move into.
And the second thing we know is that they repeat again. The
people I've tried, we know that most of them had multiple
crimes against the one victim, and there were other victims as
well that were never in the courtroom that were also prey to
these individuals. So community notification and a public
health issue.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Congresswoman?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Thank you very much. I know of your
sensitivity to this issue. I think whether we are from Texas or
whether we're from Florida, whether we are from North Dakota,
we want to make sure that children nationwide have, and
families have, a sense of security.
Unfortunately, predators and offenders don't stay in one
State. They go across State lines. And we need to make sure
that there is a time frame and a punishment for not registering
when you do move, when you change your address. Because if I
pull up on the Internet my zip code, and I know who's around
there, but three of the people have left and they've moved to
your State, I think you need to know that right away, and your
State officials need to know that right away. Absent a severe
penalty for not informing officials that they move, then our
children are clearly at risk. That, to me, we can't tolerate.
We, as Federal elected officials, have to make the Jacob
Wetterling Act and Megan's Law, all of those laws that protect
children, we need to make them tougher.
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Pomeroy, you may respond.
Mr. Pomeroy. While I've been serving in Congress, I've been
privileged to become the father to two children that I've
adopted, and I feel this legislation so deeply and so
personally. The parents of the victims that we've discussed in
the course of this hearing have had to live the worst fears of
any parents.
There's an awful lot of parents out there worrying about
the safety of their children. And moving this legislation
forward, I'm absolutely convinced, can do some good in terms of
keeping those children safe. Certainly, it's not the end of the
day, it's not the guarantee; it's still a dangerous world out
there. But this helps. And these families deserve our response.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the Chairman. Some of the things,
Mr. Chairman, that we are speaking of I believe only the
Federal legal system can handle, and that's why I think it's so
very important.
Mr. Coble. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Poe, what do you
have, Mr. Poe, four or 5 minutes left?
Mr. Poe. I need to leave now, Mr. Chairman, if I could be
excused.
Mr. Coble. If you have a question, put it to Mr. Poe first,
if you will, Mr. Chabot.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. I don't have one specifically, but I
appreciate your testimony here this morning. And I want to
thank you for holding this hearing.
Mr. Coble. You are recognized, Mr. Chabot. And Mr. Poe, if
you have to leave, you may be excused.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gohmert. Could I ask the gentleman to yield, so I could
ask Mr. Poe?
Mr. Chabot. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. Coble. That will be fine.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, and I can yield back. But to my
former fellow district judge from Texas, I know you have
sensitivities about States' rights, too. I know we both feel
very passionately about this issue, and the recurrence of these
types of offenses. So I'm sure you in your own mind dealt with
the States' rights issues here. And is the Federal Government
usurping Federal--I mean States' rights? And I'd just ask for
you to comment on that, please.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Gohmert, the problem is, they cross State
lines. And because they cross State lines, they re-offend, and
the Federal Government has to do something about that. But I'm
sensitive to State's rights, but this is a problem that has
occurred with the numerous cases this year. All of these
individuals moved about from State to State, because of the
lack of a national registration requirement.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Reclaiming my time, we've got a very
distinguished panel. We appreciate their time being here today.
And the statistics that our colleague, Mr. Foley, had included
in his testimony are really shocking, and they demonstrate what
our children are up against, and the fact that we need to
mobilize all the resources available to us to stop really this
horrible trend that we've seen in our country.
And it includes using DNA technology. And we know the
effectiveness of DNA testing to help crack down on sex
offenders and child predators. But I'd like to focus my
question on the effectiveness of DNA testing to help families
find their children who may be missing because they've been
abducted by a predator; or in the most unfortunate situation,
to identify the remains of those that have been violently
murdered.
We had a particularly horrific incident in our area in
Cincinnati, and we've been working with the mother of a
daughter who was abducted and ultimately discovered to have
been murdered. Her remains, however, have--they've not
discovered the location of the remains; although the
perpetrator has been convicted.
And we have discovered that there are literally thousands
of remains at coroners' offices around the country, in police
departments. And, unfortunately, we haven't done the DNA
testing that's really necessary to locate a number of these
people and give some closure to some of these families.
So Mr. Foley, in Florida you have a very comprehensive
missing person program, including receiving grants to increase
the use of DNA testing to locate missing children and adults
and identify human remains.
Do you believe that encouraging law enforcement to take DNA
from family members is part of a missing person investigation?
Would it enhance our efforts to help families who may have had
to go through these ordeals? And do you think that encouraging
law enforcement to take DNA samples from remains would help to
locate and to bring the families more--let them know that
actually something's being done and that they're positively
contributing by cooperating in that manner?
Mr. Foley. It serves a multitude of opportunities. As Ms.
Jackson Lee knows in her bill, what you try to do both is use
it as a way to go back after prior crimes and find out if the
person accused in this crime committed the crime against that
child, using DNA collections.
You also, most recently, had a case where a mother was told
there was a fire in a building; her child they thought had died
in the fire. They found this child who looked very similar to
hers several years later. They did a DNA test, identified it as
the child of this woman who thought her own child had perished.
So DNA testing can be a valuable tool to help families come to
grips on whether the missing person is in fact theirs.
Once in a while, we're never able to solve the crime, but
closure for them is as important, knowing if that is their
loved one, that at least they can bring closure and finality to
their search.
I've got to imagine the pain of a family wondering where
their child is. And I just believe that that gives us a tool
both for the protection and, as Ms. Jackson Lee mentioned, the
exoneration of people that are not complicit to the crime.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I know Mr. Green has a bill that
deals a little more specifically with DNA. And we've talked
with them, and are willing and would like to work with them.
With the additional remaining time that I have here, I'd be
happy to allow the other two panel members to comment either on
what we talked about just now or anything else that you perhaps
thought that we needed to go into a little bit more and didn't
have sufficient time. Ms. Brown-Waite?
Ms. Brown-Waite. Let me just briefly touch on the DNA
testing. It certainly is one tool that law enforcement can use.
And I was delighted, about a month and a half ago, 2 months
ago, they were telling on the news that there is a kit that's
out now that parents can actually take a swab from the inside
of the child's mouth, put it in a preservative, and keep it in
the refrigerator indefinitely. Certainly, medical and
scientific technology like this, as it advances, will go a
long, long way to help to solve some of the issues involving
missing family members.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
Mr. Pomeroy. Well, thank you very much for the opportunity.
I very much want to call your attention to this provision in
the bill that I've introduced relative to making sure civil
commitment authorities are notified when there is a release
from prison.
A number of States--I think it's a trend--are bringing on-
line civil commitment. And it's the traditional civil
commitment jurisdiction where, if you're a danger to yourself
or others, you can be--it's not criminal, but you can be
civilly committed.
And so if you have a dangerous offender, highly likely to
commit a crime again, and they can prove that up in a civil
commitment hearing, that individual is not in society. That
individual is civilly committed.
And there has to be agencies talking to one another. There
has to be notification when these people are coming out of
prison. This seems to me to be a very simple thing. But I think
the Federal Government can help address some dysfunction at the
State level, with this provision. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. And I would be glad to yield, Mr. Chabot, if
you'd like more time. All right, thank you.
I had a question actually for each of you, just to see your
impression and get your comments. And before I ask, I would
like to just commend all of you for the work you've done, and
Ms. Jackson Lee. There are so many of us that, as I mentioned,
my former judge friend, are very passionate about this issue.
We've seen so much injustice, so much that could have been
avoided if the proper steps had been taken.
My question has to do with the type of registration. Texas
requires registration. I've seen situations where people were
paroled far sooner than they should have been, and adequate
registration didn't occur and other things happened.
I'm wondering if we should require perhaps even the charge
itself to be accessible in the registration. Because I've known
of situations where some young kid ``moons'' somebody, and his
lawyer said, ``Just plead `No Contest'. You get probation.''
And the next thing you know, he's got to register as a sex
offender. And then it scares everybody in the neighborhood that
this nice young man is a sex offender.
On the other hand, one of the things that makes sex
offenders often so dangerous is they are so persuasive. They
are incredibly persuasive. So they can convince young people,
they can convince girlfriends, they can convince people that
they are not this horrible person, and convince them that the
charge wasn't nearly what somebody might have thought it was.
I'm wondering if it might not be a good idea to have the
actual charge set out, that they on such-and-such day of such-
and-such, they did then and there do such-and-such act to such-
and-such person, something along that--I'd just like you all's
comments.
Mr. Foley. No question. I think we have to be very, very
cautious, because there are differences between aggravated
sexual offenses and things like you described. A recent case,
where neighbors chose to create posters of a young man in the
community; he happened to be suffering a mental illness, and he
probably exposed himself and was listed as a sex offender. He
was so mortified, he committed suicide.
We've got to be careful that we delineate what a sex
offender is, and maybe some unusual behavior. We have to rely
on the courts to discern. We could get into familia situations,
where a 19-year-old boy takes off with a 17-year-old girl; the
father has a problem with it, despite the fact they're
consenting; charges him with a crime. His life could be ruined.
And facts should prevail in that case to exonerate him from a
sexually deviant behavior.
And so I think your question is why we're before the
Judiciary Committee; to sort out and provide some guidelines
and some safety valves from, you know, going too far, as well.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Actually, I think that's an excellent
idea, and I'll tell you why. Because it also could go the other
way. I know of a case where a middle-aged man truly was a
sexual offender. He told people it was a lot less serious than
what it was. He said, you know, someone walked in the men's
room. And to make matters even worse, this particular person's
wife had an adult home, where she took elderly people into her
home.
And the State of Florida, until I made a ruckus over it,
did absolutely nothing about it. But he was able to talk it
down and say exactly that. So I think having the offense
specifically be spelled out will help on both ends of the
spectrum.
Mr. Pomeroy. I agree. I've nothing to add in terms of well-
spoken words of my panelists here, but I agree.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, I appreciate you all's comments. That
was my question. I applaud you all's efforts. And having
handled thousands of criminal cases and having testified in
different types of cases myself, I know it's never comfortable
to be in the hot seat, but I applaud your efforts in doing so.
This is a good cause you're here for.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Coble. I say to the gentleman from Texas, I commend you
for that line of questioning. And Mr. Foley pointed out the
tragic situation where the guy died by his own hand. We do have
to be extremely cautious. And I don't want to nail anybody
unjustly. And I'm glad you opened that door, Mr. Gohmert.
Now, folks, keep in mind, we've got to be out of here
imminently, but I do think we have time for another round. And
I'll start mine off very quickly, and then I'll recognize Mr.
Scott.
Much has been said, folks, about the State compliance on
registry requirements, or the non-compliance. Let me ask each
of you this question. What is your belief regarding the role of
the Federal Government in ensuring that States comply with the
registry requirements? Mr. Foley, I'll start with you.
Mr. Foley. Well, the first thing we want is the U.S.
Attorney General, in consultation with the States, to develop a
seamless statewide-national database. We also provide some
funding for their--if you will, a ``carrot'' approach, to get
them into compliance. It doesn't do any good to have 50
different States working on 50 different systems. So in this
bill we set up a national, with consultation with States, and
try to encourage their compliance and participation.
Mr. Coble. Ms. Brown-Waite?
Ms. Brown-Waite. I think the role of the Federal Government
is to set stricter minimum standards than currently exist in
the law now. States, of course, because of States' rights, have
the ability to have more stringent regulations in place. But I
think it's incumbent on us to set stricter Federal regulations.
Mr. Coble. Mr. Pomeroy?
Mr. Pomeroy. I think that Federal action would make it
comprehensive, could make it uniform, and could establish a
floor of protection. Because clearly, the danger to our little
ones shouldn't vary by geography. I want a floor of protection.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think
there's some confusion between notifying law enforcement and
monitoring and those who may need to know, like a day care
center or something like that getting access, and public
release on the Internet where anybody out of curiosity can just
look. They're two different things.
In the cases that were cited, I think the suggestion was,
had the person been monitored by law enforcement, things
wouldn't have happened. I don't think there's any debate over
the law enforcement's need to know and monitor and all this
information available to law enforcement. The question is
whether it is productive or counterproductive to have it, or
the expense of having the public display.
One of the--I think it's well known, and we're going to
hear later this afternoon, that 90 to 95 percent of child
sexual abuse is friends and family. And so if we're talking
about stranger convicts, you're talking about a small,
minuscule number of the cases of child sexual abuse.
Ms. Brown-Waite, I think you cited a study from 1994. And I
assume it's the ``Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released From
Prison in 1994,'' that's presently available on the Bureau of
Justice Statistics' website, Department of Justice. And you
cited that of the released sex offenders, 24 percent were re-
convicted of a new offense.
You didn't read the part that said compared to non-sex
offenders released from State prison, sex offenders have a
lower overall re-arrest rate. When re-arrests of any type of
crime, not just sex crimes, were counted, the study found that
43 percent of released sex offenders were re-arrested. The
overall re-arrest rate of those released for non-sex offenders
was higher, 68 percent. It goes on to say that of those
released sex offenders, 3.5 percent were re-convicted of a sex
crime within the 3-year follow-up, 3.5 percent.
Let me ask a couple of questions. Is there anything in any
of the bills that deals with the liability questions if someone
is wrongfully listed, or someone wrongfully not listed, or not
sanctioned if they haven't reported, or they haven't been
followed up on?
Mr. Foley. Are there any penalties if they do not?
Mr. Scott. Is there any consideration of liability one way
or the other?
Mr. Foley. No. I have not created liability for----
Mr. Scott. So if someone is wrongfully listed, what
happens? Anything?
Mr. Foley. Well, hopefully, they can declare their
innocence and be immediately removed from the list.
Mr. Scott. Is there any process for that?
Mr. Foley. [No response.]
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Scott, I think they'd also have their full
array of civil justice remedies.
Mr. Scott. Well, that's civil liability. You can sue
somebody for wrongfully--for damages.
Mr. Pomeroy. Right.
Mr. Foley. Current law has a way in which to be removed
from a website. And this would continue in our bill, as well.
Mr. Scott. There would just be removal? No civil liability?
Mr. Foley. No, sir.
Mr. Scott. You suggested that the crime reporting is not
uniform; different States describe different crimes using
different descriptions. With that being the case, how do you
have a uniform reporting so that everybody is reporting similar
crimes? What kind of database would we be talking about?
Mr. Foley. Again, working with the U.S. Department of
Justice and the Attorney General, trying to create similar
fields, so you have data entry points much like we have a 1040
form, a standardized form, for our taxes; try to create a
uniform form for all States to input the same data and then
share the data.
Mr. Scott. I can assure you, that's going to be difficult,
because people describe--I mean, just assaults, there are
various gradations, from a little fistfight to attempted
murder. Different States describe those crimes using different
terms, and where you draw the line is going to be extremely
difficult. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No more questions.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to
offer my appreciation for the Ranking Member and the Chairman
of this Committee, to finally gather all of these legislative
initiatives for it to be heard that Congress is concerned.
And I just want to offer these two points into the record.
Some of these statistics, obviously, are always changing.
Murder is the only major cause of childhood death that has
increased over the past three decades. Between 300,000 and
400,000 children are victims of some type of sexual abuse,
exploitation, every year.
And certainly, Mr. Pomeroy, as you've noted, becoming a
father during your tenure in Congress, your interest and
concern is raised; but I would simply say that we owe an
obligation, regardless of our status. We're grateful, those of
us who are parents. We do have this great interest. But we know
all of our colleagues realize that we must make a national
statement on behalf of our children.
I would say to you this question in closing, as well. One
of the aspects of the legislation that I have offered that I'm
glad that Mr. Foley and I are on the same page is that we
provide a single database for convicted sexual predators, so
that there is the opportunity for law enforcement to have a
quick check, if you will, when they begin to do their
investigation.
I want to acknowledge that we have been really moved on
this issue by Missing and Exploited Children's organization,
that has been a great leader for years.
And then I want to share two stories. In my community, a
series of sexual acts against little boys--and that's another
thing that we need to realize. This is an equal-opportunity
offender, a sexual predator. No parent who has a son should be
comforted, or has a daughter should be comforted, of any age.
And this individual was preying upon a region or an area in
my congressional district for a 2-year period. And certainly,
our local law enforcement were doing a fine job. But I came in
all of a sudden and met with community leaders, and I said,
``Has anybody called the FBI?'' No one had called the FBI to
engage on a number of grounds that they could have been called.
Once they got called in, you would not have imagined. In 24
hours, this individual, who lived in the neighborhood--I can't
say that he was a friend of these children; he just happened to
live in the neighborhood; a grown, grown man, living with his
mother--was found immediately. That's one incident where we can
do better at cooperation.
The second one is this whole idea of stranger, friend, or
not. What about a little boy who's in a shopping area with his
family. Someone comes up to him and says, ``I don't speak
English well--'' he happens to be of the same ethic background
``--help me go and talk to the McDonald's man about getting
some food.'' In a matter of seconds, this little boy is taken
away, 12 years old, and sexually assaulted.
So I think that the point again about the national standard
is key. And one of the things I'd appreciate if you'd answer so
that--this whole question of cooperation between Federal and
State, if I allow each of you to answer it.
But this other point in the legislation that I have is the
whole question of recidivism. Giving States incentives that can
prove that they are working with some sort of strategy to
eliminate the recidivist inclination of a sexual predator or
someone who violently acts against a child. I'd appreciate if
you all would answer those questions.
Ms. Brown-Waite. I'll be happy to go first. I had a problem
with the Jessica Lunsford case, where the State's attorney did
not proceed--actually, dropped charges against three people who
had information about what was going on in the trailer.
Thankfully, the United States Attorney's Office--I'd been
working with them--they have assured me that they have an
ongoing case.
But very often, what you have is a turf battle, where the
local law enforcement doesn't want the big brother to come in
from outside. And so that, unfortunately, is a problem.
Ms. Jackson Lee. We need more cooperation.
Ms. Brown-Waite. Absolutely. And, you know, I don't know if
you mandate that. I guess that would be like, you know,
mandating goodness. Like one child asked me to draft a bill
that everybody be kind to each other. But getting law
enforcement to cooperate. And you know, certainly the FBI has a
lot more technology available to them than what very often
local law enforcement has.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Pomeroy?
Mr. Pomeroy. I think legislation, Ms. Jackson Lee, could
help encourage the kind of cooperation that we need. Federal,
State, local--parent's don't care; they want their kids safe.
And we've got to cut across jurisdictional lines to do it. I
think maybe some encouraging direction in the language of the
legislation itself could be helpful.
And I like what you said about a special sentence to really
work on this recidivist question. Because the statistics in the
article I earlier quoted show that convicted sex offenders are
significantly more likely than a non-convicted sex offender to
re-perpetrate. And so let's get after this with more of a
focused effort. And I think some incentives would be a great
idea.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Foley.
Mr. Foley. Let me just say that, in all my 11 years serving
in this Congress, this has probably been the most productive on
issues like this, where Democrats and Republicans are blurred
by partisan distinction.
And I think the same goes for our law enforcement
communities. They want to do a good job protecting kids. We
haven't given them comprehensive tools. We haven't provided the
funding that we promised in these bills. We mandate things, and
then we say, ``Go it alone, and good luck.''
And the technology is so out of date, no one can even
access the data. They don't even report missing persons to a
national registry. So we've got to start, I think, with a clean
page; start with a proper approach; provide uniformity and
continuity; and then give them the efforts, or at least the
resources that they need to fulfill the mission.
When we find these cases, these horrific cases, I can tell
you, those State attorneys and those sheriffs and those police
chiefs who have been in the glare of the media spotlight think,
``What could we have done to prevent this?'' Well, it's a
little late at that point.
So what we are doing here in these bills--and, thankfully,
we're all on the same page with different provisions--but at
the end of the day, as these bills merge together, we're going
to have a product that works and that has been thought through
and contemplates all of the pitfalls. And that's why I'm very
proud of the kind of tone we're setting here today.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. You're indeed welcome.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And if you would indulge me just a minute
to thank these witnesses, and to make mention of the fact that,
as you were speaking, the CEO and President of Missing and
Exploited Children walked into the room. And I hope he sensed
the harmony and the spirit of cooperation that the Chairman and
the Ranking Member are exhibiting, and, of course, Members of
this body are exhibiting.
And hopefully, this will work all the way through passage
of these legislative initiatives, with a sense of fairness to
individuals who would be prosecuted wrongly; but to make sure
we make a national statement on behalf of our children.
Mr. Foley. If the gentlelady will yield, Mr. Allen was, in
fact, on the NBC ``Today Show'' this morning, doing the great
work of the National Center, as well. And I thank you.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Coble. And I want to reiterate what the lady from Texas
said. I commend you all for your passion. Obviously, you feel
very passionately about this. And we thank you all for your
testimony.
In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration
of this important issue, the record will be left open for
additional submissions for 7 days. Also, any written questions
that a Member wants to submit to the witnesses should be
submitted within the same 7-day period.
This concludes the legislative hearing on ``House Sexual
Crimes Against Children Bills.'' Thank you for your
cooperation, and for those in the audience, as well. The
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding ths hearing on bills regarding
sex and other violent crimes against children. A host of bills have
been filed by members on both sides of the aisle in the wake of several
horrific sex crimes and murders against children in recent years. These
types crimes are especially abhorrent and the public demands actions to
address them and to prevent similar crimes to the extent possible.
I know that all of the bills before us are developed with these
objectives in mind. However, as policy makers, we know that these type
tragedies will occur from time to time, so it is incumbent upon us to
not simply do something, but to do something that will actually reduce
the incidences of these crimes. We know that many more children die as
a result of child abuse than is reflected by the tragic cases of child
sexual abuse and murder that have been in the news, and we know that
the vast majority of child abusers, including child sex offenders, were
abused themselves as children. We also know that the vast majority of
abusers are relatives and other individuals well known to the child and
family, 90-95% according to BACHNET (Be a Child's Hero Network), and
that most cases of abuse are never reported to authorities or ever
dealt with in an official manner.
It would be nice to think that we can legislate away the
possibility of such horrific crimes, but it is not realistic to believe
we can and we should certainly seek to avoid enacting legislation that
expends scarce resources in a manner that is not cost effective or that
exacerbates the problem. While it is clear that having police and
supervision authorities aware of all location and identification
information about child sex offenders, it is not clear that making that
information indiscriminately available to the public, with no guidance
or restriction on what they can do with, or in response to, such
information, is helpful or harmful to children. There have been
incidences of vigilante and other activities which have driven
offenders underground. And, again, the vast majority of offenders are
family members or associates known to the victim. In one case, a
teacher was reading the names of offenders to a grade school class on
which there was the name of the father of one of the students, the
victim, in the class.
Moreover, some of the elaborate procedures and requirements of the
bills before us will cost a lot of money, and we should assure there is
a cost benefit analysis of what would be the most productive use of
such money rather than simply impose the requirements without
references to effectiveness or cost/benefit.
So, Mr. Chairman in hearing the testimony today, I will be
listening for anything that reflects research and reliable evidence
regarding what might actually protect children and reduce incidences of
child sexual and other abuse. I know we all mean well, but we must also
assure that what we do is actually productive rather simply something
that sounds good, but is counterproductive. Thank you.
__________
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
The problem of violence against children and sexual exploitation of
children has been highlighted by recent events involving brutal acts of
violence against children. Recent examples include: (1) the abduction,
rape and killing of 9 year old Jessica Lunford (who was buried alive);
(2) the slaying of 13 year old Sarah Lunde, both of whom were killed in
Florida by career criminals and sex offenders. In Philadelphia, four
defendants were charged with the stabbing and killing of a 15 year old
girl, who they then threw into the Schuykill River. All of these tragic
events have underscored the continuing epidemic of violence against
children.
These tragic events have underscored the continuing epidemic of
violence against children, and the need to reexamine the Jacob
Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender
Registration Act, Megan's Law and the Pam Lyncher Sex Offender
Trafficking and Identification Act. Specifically, recent proposals have
been made to fill in gaps in existing law in order to protect children
from sexual predators.
Furthermore, there is a wide disparity among the state programs in
the registration requirements and notification obligations for sex
offenders. Given the transient nature of sex offenders and the
inability of the states to track these offenders, it is conservatively
estimated that approximately 20 percent of 400,000 sex offenders are
``lost'' under state sex offender registry programs. In addition, there
is a disparity among state programs as to the existence of Internet
availability of relevant sex offender information, and the specific
types of information included in such websites. Moreover, the States
tend to take a more passive role in disseminating sex offender
information, relying instead on law enforcement to disseminate such
information to interested entities such as schools and community
groups. Recently, the Justice Department announced that its plan to
implement a public, national sex offender registry, linking together
the State registries into one national website.
In addition, the sexual victimization of children is overwhelming
in magnitude and largely unrecognized and underreported. Statistics
show that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys are sexually exploited before
they reach adulthood, yet less than 35 percent of the incidents are
reported to authorities. This problem is exacerbated by the number of
children who are solicited online--according to the Department of
Justice 1 in 5 children (10 to 17 years old) receive unwanted sexual
solicitations online.
Department of Justice statistics underscore the staggering toll
that violence takes on our youth (DOJ national crime surveys do not
account for victims under the age of 12, but even for 12 to 18 year
olds, the figures are alarming). Data from 12 States during the period
of 1991 to 1996 show that 67 percent of the all victims of sexual
assaults were juveniles (under the age of 18), and 34 percent were
under the age of 12. One of every seven victims of sexual assault was
under the age of 6.
In closing, I look forward to hearing the testimony of our
distinguished panelist.
Document entitled ``Case Study of Serial Killers and Rapists: 60
Violent Crimes Could Have Been Prevented Including 53 Murders and
Rapes''
Document entitled ``Highlights of the Foley Sex Offender Registration
and Notification Act''
List of Individuals and Organizations Supporting H.R. 2423,
the ``Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act''
Individuals and Victim's Parents
Maureen Kanka, Megan Kanka's mother
Ed Smart, Elizabeth Smart's father
Linda Walker, Dru Sjodin's mother
John Walsh, America's Most Wanted
Patty Wetterling, Jacob Wetterling's mother
Organizations
Boys and Girls Clubs of America
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
Fraternal Order of Police
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
National Children's Alliance
National District Attorneys Association
Letter from the Honorable William Moschella, Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, to
the Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Map of Registered Sex Offenders in the United States
Document entitled ``Preventable Crimes In Chicago''
Document entitled ``The DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005,''
Introduced by Senator Jon Kyl