[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 3355, VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND 
                      LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993

  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion to instruct 
conferees on the bill (H.R. 3355) to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow grants to increase police 
presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law 
enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and 
disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sharp). The Clerk will report the 
motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Dunn moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill 
     H.R. 3355 be instructed not to make any agreement that does 
     not include subtitle F of title VIII of the Senate amendment, 
     relating to sexually violent predators.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] 
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion instructs conferees on the crime bill to 
encourage States to establish registration and tracking procedures and 
community notification with respect to released sexually violent 
predators. This same language was accepted by unanimous consent as a 
part of the Senate Crime bill. An effort to add companion language in 
the House--the bipartisan Dunn-Deal amendment--unfortunately was denied 
by the House Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this now is an opportunity for Members of the House to 
go on record in support of the strong Senate language. We can send a 
precise message to conferees on the importance not only of registration 
and tracking provisions, but of notification that a sexually violent 
predator has moved into a community. American women and families 
deserve no less.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a proven approach. The legislative language is 
modeled after a successful Washington State law, and will monitor 
sexually violent predators--including those convicted of stalking--
wherever they may locate once they are released. Even if they move 
across State lines. Washington State leads the Nation in coping with 
this small group of criminals who terrorize primarily women, in their 
neighborhoods, homes, and workplaces.
  The problem of sexually violent predators has unfortunately become 
too widespread in our society. We need only recall the tragic case of 
young Polly Klaas of Petaluma, CA who was snatched from her home and 
brutally murdered.
  It is worth noting that the Polly Klaas Foundation is fully 
supportive of efforts not only to establish registration and tracking 
procedures, but also to institute community notification when sexually 
violent predators are released into the general public.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had friends who have been raped. And as the 
ranking member of the Police and Personnel Subcommittee of House 
Administration, I have become aware of stalking cases right here on 
Capitol Hill. More to the point, I know firsthand what it feels like to 
have a stalker watching my every move, with the implicit threat of 
violence that is involved in that.
  When rapists, women-beaters, or convicted violent stalkers are 
released into a community, the women in that community have a right to 
know that a dangerous individual has been placed in their midst. In 
fact, the Washington State Supreme Court already has ruled that this 
type of law is constitutional.
  Already, both the House and Senate have passed legislation that 
requires law enforcement officials to notify communities when child 
molesters and others who pose a threat to children are released. This 
is right and good: A warning that society owes to parents and their 
children.
  Likewise, our society owes to its women some notification that a 
predator is being released. And law enforcement officials should be 
encouraged to track their movements just as they do for those who have 
committed crimes against children.
  That is all this language would do. I hope and believe it is 
something we all can agree on and endorse.
  By contrast, Mr. Speaker, the language that is being proposed in the 
conference committee would completely strip any community notification 
from the crime bill. That is unacceptable. Law-abiding citizens, 
especially women, have a right to know when a predator is being 
released into their community.
  What is the point of registering and tracking these convicted 
predators if we are not going to share that information with the very 
citizens who are at risk? How can we justify knowing where a sexual 
predator has located, and not notify the women and families in that 
neighborhood? The rate of recidivism for these crimes is astronomical. 
We know that. And that is why it is incumbent upon us to ensure that 
community notification is encouraged. Without the community 
notification, the effort is reduced simply to the collection of data.
  I would hope the House would recognize this fact and express its 
strong support for community notification just as the Senate has done.
  Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the thousands of women who work here on 
Capitol Hill. On behalf of the millions of women across the country and 
in every congressional district represented here, I respectfully ask 
that you support this bipartisan motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion for several 
reasons. First, Madam Speaker, on a substantive basis the Senate 
version, the Senate language, has several problems with it. The Senate 
version says that, if we define someone as a sexual predator; and the 
first problem is, I say to my colleagues, ``If you look at the language 
in the bill as to defining a sexual predator, it's all-predicting. 
Someone with a mental abnormality, defined as a condition, a congenital 
or acquired condition, that affects the emotional or volitional 
capacity of the person in the manner that predisposes the person to the 
commission of criminal sexual acts.''
  Madam Speaker, we do not have the knowledge of the human mind and the 
brain that enables a proper decision to the degree of certitude 
required by criminal law as to a mental abnormality that predisposes 
someone to commit a crime. I do not think there is anything in the law 
books of this country, and I dare say of any State, that subjects 
someone to a penalty for a predisposition, for a prediction, that this 
person may commit a crime. That is a major danger here and a problem 
with this.
  Second, let us assume that we did know. Let us assume that we did 
know how to predict this properly. What does this bill do? It says to 
the State, ``Notify local law enforcement. Establish a program 
requiring someone who is released from jail either on probation, or 
parole, or at the completion of a sentence. He must notify local law 
enforcement as to where he lives and must keep that current.'' I 
frankly do not have a great problem with that if we want to say that 
some person, that we have the ability to predict that some person, is 
sufficiently dangerous, that although we are going to let him out of 
jail; and if he is so dangerous, I do not know why we let him out of 
jail; but he is sufficiently not dangerous enough to keep in jail, but 
sufficiently dangerous, we should notify local law enforcement and let 
them know to keep an eye on him.
  OK; but this bill goes on to say that there should be community 
notification. The gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] in her 
statement in support of this motion says the women of America have a 
right to know when a sexual predator moves into their neighborhood, and 
what is anybody going to do with this information? Move out of the 
neighborhood? Agitate to push that person out of the neighborhood so he 
goes to someone else's neighborhood where the process will start over 
again? Of what use is this information?
  If we are going to mandate the release of information to the public, 
it should be with information that someone can do something with. 
Releasing this information to law enforcement might make some sense 
because law enforcement will keep an eye on him perhaps, but releasing 
this to the public is simply saying that someone who has committee a 
crime, paid the full penalty, spent 20 years in jail, or 30 years in 
jail, or 10 years or whatever it is, we are not going to penalize that 
person. But saying we are going to notify people that this is a 
pervert, and they can then go and try to demonstrate in front of his 
house, ask people to kick him out of the neighborhood or whatever, is 
fundamentally unfair.
  More to the point:
  If we have a person who is really this dangerous as to deserve or to 
necessitate such warning to the neighborhood, that person ought to be 
kept in jail. If people are sufficiently dangerous, then the criminal 
law ought to be such that they are kept in jail while they are 
dangerous to protect the people from their being let out, and if we let 
people out because we judge them no longer so dangerous, maybe 
community law enforcement notification to keep an eye on the fellow, 
maybe that makes sense, too. But to say sufficiently dangerous that we 
should notify the community so they can demonstrate against him or try 
to get him to move out of the neighborhood so some other neighborhood 
can demonstrate against him, but he is not dangerous enough to keep in 
jail, does not make sense.

  Finally, Madam Speaker, in all of this, these issues, I am not going 
to attempt to persuade anybody of the rightness of these issues or of 
the rightness of what I just said of my view of these issues except to 
say that they are serious issues here.

                              {time}  1710

  But they are probably issues for State legislatures. The arguments 
that I just made should really be made before a State legislature, as 
should the arguments of the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], and 
the legislature might have policy reasons, might agree with her, might 
agree with me, might decide to lengthen the criminal penalties of some 
of these crimes, might decide for police notification or even community 
notification.
  Those are questions for State legislatures. This is local law. What 
we are attempting to do here, or what the Senate is attempting to do 
here, what we should not agree with, is to mandate the States to enact 
a State criminal law and a State criminal program.
  It says here, in fact we are writing State criminal law here. It says 
a person required to register under a State program who knowingly fails 
to register, shall be subject to criminal penalties in the State. Not 
in the Federal courts, in the State courts.
  So we are writing State criminal law here. We are mandating the 
States under threat of withholding Federal funds as to a criminal law 
they are to enact. The Federal Government should not be in the business 
generally of enacting and writing local State criminal laws. That is 
the business of the State. The State legislature has ample policy 
arguments on both sides. I have enunciated some on one side of the 
issue, the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] on the other. I do 
not think this makes a heck of a lot of sense. But those are decisions 
for the State legislature, and, therefore, I oppose the motion to 
instruct the conferees and I urge that it be defeated.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker will be gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I would just like to make one 
brief comment, and that is in Indiana not long ago, we had a woman 
terrified of a man who had been incarcerated. She asked specifically 
that she be notified if this man were to be released. She was not 
notified, and within hours after he was released, he went up to her 
home, 200 miles away, and brutally murdered her. Had she been notified, 
as this provision would mandate, she would be alive today.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I recall that incident, and I would 
say, number one, that that is a matter for the State legislature. But, 
number two, I would not have a problem, in concept or in policy, I 
think it makes eminent sense. Certainly if an individual was harassed 
by someone in State custody, if an individual has reason to believe 
that that person has something against them or is going to harass them, 
it makes eminent sense to notify that person when he is going to be 
released so that she can seek an order of protection, so that she can 
take whatever protective measures, so she can ask the local police to 
keep an eye on him or her, if it is going to be in the same community. 
I have no problem with that.
  But that is not what this says. This says the general community at 
large should know about all people that a judge or some board will 
decide may have these characteristics, wherever he may go.
  Now, it is true, and this case that the gentleman referred to is an 
example of that, it is true that there are certain individuals in our 
society, unfortunately, who are fixated on someone and may do bodily 
harm or kill that person. And that person ought to be protected, if we 
know about it, obviously. And certainly the woman that you referred to 
should have been protected. She had the right to know. She should have 
been told when he was being released, although if he were so dangerous, 
he probably should not have been released. But that is a separate 
question. She should have known. But that person is probably not a 
danger to anybody else.
  So I would say, again, these are matters for the State legislature. 
We should not get into the business of writing State criminal laws. And 
the State legislature in its wisdom might fashion a more narrow 
protection that would take care of the concern raised by the gentleman.
  So, again, I urge that this motion be defeated.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal], a former prosecuting attorney, and who has been 
very active in putting this together.
  Mr. DEAL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] and I, were 
cosponsors of an amendment to our original version of the crime bill 
that would have included language much more comprehensive than the 
language we are talking about instructing conferees to deal with. We 
were so presumptuous as to call it the Dunn-Deal amendment, and, as a 
result, the Committee on Rules did not allow us to vote on it.
  We have a chance to make it a done deal here today by instructing our 
conferees that the language in the conference committee for purposes of 
consideration should be accomplished.
  All of you, I think, knows what it does. It does require there be 
some tracking of those who are sexual predators. It is similar to 
language that is in the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children 
Registration Act, which both bodies have passed.
  I would like to take a moment to address the concerns of the 
gentleman from New York. He suggests to us we should not do this 
because in order to require registration, it requires we prove a 
predisposition of a mental condition to commit a crime, and that we 
have the inability to do that.
  I would suggest to the gentleman we ought to tell all the defense 
attorneys in this country that that is impossible to prove, because it 
is the basis upon which defenses for being guilty but mentally ill or 
other mental defenses are usually based in order to get someone out of 
being punished for a crime.
  The truth of the matter is we do have the ability to show this, and, 
yes, we do release them from jails and from prisons, even with that 
knowledge. And it is that basis upon which we should act.
  I would also suggest that the fact that we may be telling State 
legislatures what they should or should not do has never been a 
deterrent to this body. In fact, if we took those provisions out of the 
Federal crime bill, we would probably have only a few pages to deal 
with whatsoever. We are in the business of writing Federal statutes. We 
are in the business of dealing with legislation that affects people who 
cross State lines, things that State legislatures cannot do. There is 
an old saying that in time of crisis, women and children first. This is 
a time of crisis. We have taken care of the children with registration. 
It is now the time to do the same thing for the women of this country.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio [Ms. Pryce], a former judge and an active Member of the freshman 
class.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Dunn motion to instruct conferees on the crime bill.
  As a former judge, I strongly believe one of the most important 
duties of government is to ensure that its citizens can live safely in 
their homes and neighborhoods, free from violence and crime. Yet each 
year thousands of our citizens, our neighbors and loved ones, face the 
reality of violent sexual crimes, and their lives are changed forever. 
Madam Speaker, I've seen the bad remnants of many of these lives 
hundreds of times in my former court room.
  This motion to instruct conferees is a simple way to monitor this 
group of violent sexual offenders who are released into society after 
serving time for these heinous offenses. After decades of elevating the 
needs and rights of criminals, the American public has slowly begun to 
recognize that victims and potential victims of crime have rights as 
well. With the passage of this motion the American people will at least 
have more information about released sexual predators.
  Madam Speaker, this should not be a controversial issue. For the 
thousands of individuals who are victims of sexual violence every year, 
we are simply trying to give the law enforcement officials another 
commonsense tool to do their jobs to protect the communities from these 
most violent and brutal criminals. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Dunn motion to instruct and urge its passage.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Ms. Molinari].
  Ms. MOLINARI. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Dunn 
motion to instruct conferees. Let me just say in the moment I have 
left, the sexually violent predator as defined by this motion is a 
person who has been convicted of the sexually violent offense, and who 
suffers from mental abnormalities. At that moment of conviction under 
the Dunn motion, we are saying yes, you then abdicate your civil rights 
to live a free and normal life, just like your victim did at the moment 
that the crime was committed.
  What does that accomplish? It gives every other woman who may live in 
that town an opportunity to be aware and be on guard. Does that sound 
fair? It is not fair. Nor is it fair for a sexual predator to be able 
to roam a neighborhood and ruin lives. And the moment that that 
conviction occurs, that person relinquishes his ability to serve with 
his civil rights like every other law-abiding citizen in the United 
States. And to the Dunn motion to instruct, it lets you know once and 
for all, at least in one portion of our Criminal Code, that if you 
violate this law, it will be an offense that haunts you for the rest of 
your life. Not only because that is justice, but because that is 
fairness for every woman who may live in that neighborhood.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I strongly support the 
motion.

                              {time}  1720

  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida [Mrs. Fowler], who, just as the gentlewoman from New York 
[Ms. Molinari], has been a very active member of our conference and who 
is another strong, hard-working Member of the freshman class.
  (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. FOWLER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Dunn motion to 
instruct conferees on the crime bill to ensure that the conference 
report includes: National tracking and registration of released 
sexually violent predators; community notification of the presence of 
these released individuals; immunity for law enforcement agencies that 
act in good faith to notify communities.
  A sexually violent predator is a person who has been convicted of a 
sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or 
personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in another 
such offense.
  This measure targets the small group of violent sexual offenders who 
are released into society after serving time for rape or child 
molestation, despite the fact that they are a continued threat.
  After a determination has been made that a person is a sexually 
violent predator, it is simply a commonsense precaution for law 
enforcement officials to monitor the person's whereabouts and warn 
communities where the person may commit another offense.
  Currently, law enforcement officials often fail to communicate the 
presence of a sexual predator in their communities, because they either 
have no way of ensuring his residence or lack the legal protection to 
do so.
  This measure gives our law enforcement officials the tools to protect 
their communities from some of the most violent and brutal criminals.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the cost of this 
measure is negligible.
  The Dunn motion to instruct is a commonsense motion, which will serve 
to protect women and children in the future, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], a member of the Subcommittee on Crime and 
Criminal Justice who has worked on this legislation for 3\1/2\ years.
  (Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Dunn motion.
  As Members will recall, the House passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes 
Against Children Act last fall, and this measure was also included in 
the crime bill.
  As the author of this legislation, I've worked on this issue for 3 
years. I know how important it is to coordinate with the States to 
develop a national registration system to keep track of released sex 
offenders who are known to be notorious repeat offenders.
  I support expanding the Wetterling bill to cover sexually violent 
predators, and I commend Republican Dunn for bringing this motion to 
the floor.
  Regarding community notification, reasonable minds can disagree over 
whether it is good policy. Yes, there is the potential for abuse. On 
the other hand, we need to protect the public from persons we know are 
dangerous.
  But the key point is that the individual State legislatures--not the 
U.S. Congress--should decide whether they want to adopt some form of 
community notification. This is all the Dunn motion would do.
  Attorney General Janet Reno, in her recommendations to the conferees 
dated June 13, discussed this very issue as it pertains to the 
Wetterling bill, which, I might add, she supports. She recommends that 
the conferees strike the provision in the Wetterling bill which deems 
the registration information to be ``private data.''
  As she says, ``this could interfere with State discretion to use the 
data for other legitimate purposes, such as notifying school 
authorities or victims of earlier offenses that a child molester has 
moved nearby.''
  As you can see, the Attorney General essentially supports the concept 
of ``community notification,'' and like me, she believes this should be 
a matter of State discretion.
  Indeed, I think it is also instructive to note that her comments 
regarding the Senate's registration system for sexually violent 
predators, which is the subject of the Dunn motion, do not raise any 
objections to community notification.
  While not the subject of this motion, I urge the conferees to accept 
the Attorney General's recommendation regarding deletion of the 
``private data'' provision in the Wetterling bill.
  And I urge Members today to vote for the Dunn motion. The women and 
children of America deserve nothing less.
  A vote for the Dunn motion is a vote for victims rights.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Mazzoli].
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Madam Speaker, I really had not expected to speak on 
this issue until I got in the Chamber. My disposition, frankly, is to 
support the gentlewoman from Washington, and I intend to do so because 
I think that her instruction makes a very important point.
  I have listened to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], and he 
did an excellent job of presenting the nuances, the subtleties of the 
law, and the questions that are necessarily raised by this instruction.
  But I think what we are talking about here, if I have heard 
correctly, and if the Members on the proponents' side of the argument 
are clear in their understanding, we are talking about those who have 
preyed upon children as well as preyed upon women. Is that correct?
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MAZZOLI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, it is sexual predators, and they prey most 
often upon women but also talking about children.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. Madam Speaker, if I am correct in that, this would be a 
notification to the communities about the presence in those communities 
of people who have preyed upon children, who have abused children, who 
have raped and sodomized children. Is that correct?
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the 
way we define sexually violent predator, the term sexually violent 
predator means a person who has been convicted of a sexually violent 
offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality 
disorder that makes that person likely to engage in predatory sexually 
violent offenses.
  Mr. MAZZOLI. I thank the gentlewoman for that, because I remember 
when we had the markup of the crime bill in our Committee on the 
Judiciary, I had just come upon an article which appeared in the 
Courier-Journal, a Louisville, KY newspaper, about a man who did not 
live in Louisville, but nearby, who was a sexual predator, who had 
committed horrible and heinous offenses against children in his career 
as a career criminal and who freely confessed that he could not prevent 
himself from committing these acts again. And I think that the reality 
is that psychologists and the psychiatrists indicate that people who 
have preyed upon children are almost inevitably going to prey again. 
They are almost inevitably going to commit these acts again. So it does 
appear to me that, while I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler] has performed a very valiant duty here, it does seem to me that 
we should tell our conferees that we believe this kind of treatment is 
necessary to protect American women and American children.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham], who has been very active on behalf of the 
initiatives to inform and protect women and who has been a strong 
supporter of this legislation.
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I do not think it is too unreasonable 
to ask to instruct in a motion that is going to protect our most 
vulnerable citizens, our senior citizens are not included in this, but 
they should be, but the children and women.
  The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] talked about a lady that was 
harassed by a gentleman and asked to be notified when that gentleman 
got out of prison. She was not. The gentleman immediately drove 200 
miles and killed that lady.
  We need to protect these kinds of people. The gentleman from New York 
said, well, it is not our responsibility. It is the States' 
responsibility to do that.
  I cannot tell my colleagues on this House floor what I feel about 
that response from the gentleman from New York. It is all of our 
responsibilities to protect our men and women, not just the State 
legislature. I have heard that it is unfair to have somebody register.
  If you are a sexual molester, you molest either of my two daughters, 
you better not be told that you are in my district because you are 
probably not going to survive.
  At a minimum, we ought to at least let the community know that that 
individual that has been convicted of rape, of stalking, of sexual 
molestation is in the district. Is it unfair? It is unfair to be raped. 
It is unfair to be sexually molested, and it is unfair to be stalked.

                              {time}  1730

  They should be informed not only at the time, but for the future 
people that that person is going to commit that crime against. Madam 
Speaker, I hope we look at the O.J. Simpson case out in California that 
is going on right now, as far as domestic violence, and get stronger 
penalties with that. Polly Klaas' dad was asking for at least 85 
percent of the time that a molester should spend in jail, at a minimum. 
I would like to see 100 percent, but that did not happen.
  Madam Speaker, it is time, a long overdue idea, that we quit 
protecting criminals and criminal rights and focus on the victims' 
rights, not only those that have been victimized, but those that will 
be victimized it we do not notify.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], and I thank the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal] as well.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kyl], who has been very active on behalf of this and other 
protective legislation.
  Mr. KYL. Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time to me, and for offering this motion. She has been a real 
leader in this field, and that is an important reason why I think we 
will be improving the crime bill and able to pass a very strong crime 
bill before this Congress is finally adjourned.
  Madam Speaker, sexual violence is one of the most troubling issues 
facing our Nation today. Today, again, we have the opportunity on the 
floor of this chamber to help combat domestic and sexual violence. For 
the sake of the thousands of victims, I once again urge the House not 
to pass up an opportunity to strengthen laws against domestic and 
sexual abuse.
  Both the House and Senate have wisely passed legislation to require 
law enforcement officials to notify communities when a child molester 
is released from prison and then moves into a community. Likewise, when 
a sexually violent predator is released from prison into a community, 
the citizens of that community should be notified.
  During debate on the Senate crime bill, an amendment passed which 
provides for community notification of released sexual predators. The 
Senate amendment also encourages States to establish registration and 
tracking procedures of violent sexual offenders and establishes 
immunity for officials notifying communities of the presence of violent 
sexual offenders. This amendment, it should be noted, passed unopposed.
  During consideration of the House crime bill, Representatives Dunn, 
Susan Molinari, and I attempted to offer that amendment, as well as 
other sexual assault measures, but we were rejected, on a party-line 
vote, from doing so. Today, we have an opportunity to continue the 
battle against domestic and sexual violence by ensuring that both the 
House and Senate are on record in support of these provisions. This 
notification amendment is important and complements the objectives of 
the Sexual Assault Prevention Act, legislation Representative Susan 
Molinari and I have introduced to combat sexual and domestic violence 
and give victims greater protection while going through the criminal 
justice system.
  Every community in this nation has had to grapple with sexual 
abusers. And, in hearings I have held on sexual violence here in 
Washington and in Arizona, experts have testified the prognosis for 
curing violent sexual abusers in poor. They also testified that the 
likelihood of sexual abusers repeating acts of sexual violence is very 
high. If a criminal justice system were in place to put and keep 
sexually violent predators in jail, then a notification system would 
not be necessary. However, according to the Bureau of Justice, rapists, 
on average, spend only 3 years in jail. Given the recidivist nature of 
these offenders, it makes clear and perfect sense to let the citizens 
of a community know that a potentially dangerous person in living in 
their neighborhood.
  My interest in ensuring that victims and communities receive proper 
notification of the release of perpetrators was heightened last year. 
During my work on the House Armed Services Committee, I became aware 
that the Department of Defense knows little about domestic and sexual 
violence even though 28,000 military families were touched by violence 
in 1992 alone. In those situations, victims were often not notified of 
their rights. As a result, I had language added to the DOD 
authorization bill last year which requires DOD to implement a system 
to ensure notification of victims and witnesses if prisoners in 
military correctional facilities are moved or released. As a result of 
last year's Defense bill, DOD has also established a new, centralized 
Victim and Witness Assistance Program.
  Victims and citizens in communities around the country deserve to 
know when a violent abuser will be released from prison. The Dunn 
motion to instruct will help to accomplish this goal and so I urge my 
fellow colleagues to vote to instruct crime bill conferees to agree to 
subtitle F of title VII of the Senate-passed crime bill. Again, Members 
should not pass up the opportunity to make a positive difference in the 
lives of those who have experienced the tragedy of sexual and domestic 
assault.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to close debate for this side.
  Madam Speaker, a number of references were made in the discussion 
that are not really apropos to the subject of the amendments, to the 
provision that the Senate seeks to put in this bill, which this motion 
urges our conferees to accede to. Reference was made, for instance, to 
protecting victims of child molestation, to protecting children.
  The fact is that 12 pages earlier in this bill there is subtitle C, 
crimes against children, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children 
Registration Act to which the gentlewoman and several speakers on that 
side referred. This is the section of the bill which the House and 
Senate both passed, which is not the subject of what we are talking 
about, that is designed to protect children, and that sets up a 
notification system.
  What we are considering here is a separate section which the Senate 
did but we did not on sexually violent predators. The child molestation 
notification is in subtitle C of the bill, which both House and Senate 
agree on. Here we are talking about setting up a sexually violent 
predators definition, and mandate on the States to set up a program to 
notify the police and the communities and local people.
  Madam Speaker, I would point out that the Jacob Wetterling provision, 
which we are going to enact as part of the crime bill, because both 
Houses agree, is not a precedent for this, because it does the right 
thing.
  It provides for notification of the police in a community when 
someone who has been a child molester is going to be released, so the 
police are notified, the law enforcement agencies are notified, and can 
keep an eye on this person to protect the community. It does not 
provide for community notification.
  Madam Speaker, my main objection to this provision is the community 
notification, because once someone has been released from jail, if we 
think he is dangerous, I think it makes eminent sense to do two things: 
First, notify the police, and that makes eminent sense; second, if he 
has shown a fixation on an individual victim, as in the case in I 
forget which State was referred to before, in Indiana, notify the 
victim, by all means. If someone has been a victim, then he or she 
certainly should be notified when the felon or the perpetrator is going 
to be released.
  However, to notify the world at large, what effect does it have, 
other than to enable people to demonstrate and try to put pressure on 
this person not to live in that community, so he can move to another 
community where they will have the same problem, and so forth, from one 
community to the other?
  If this person is so dangerous, then that person should be in jail. 
As I said before, this is criminal law, local criminal law, and the 
State legislature should deal with it. Let the State legislatures 
mandate longer prison terms, or in certain cases, maybe life without 
parole. That is the prerogative of the State legislature.
  Madam Speaker, again, either the person is so dangerous that he 
should be in jail or he is not so dangerous that he should be hounded 
from community to community because he is labeled a sexually violent 
offender and everybody is told about it when he is released from jail x 
number of years later.
  Police notification makes sense, individual notification makes sense, 
large-scale notification does not make sense, because if we need large-
scale notification, so-called community notification, then we should 
not be releasing him from jail, and the State legislature should be 
dealing with both ends of this problem, and that is the bottom line of 
this. This is a State matter.
  When I hear someone stand up here and say that it is all of our 
responsibility, sure, it is all of our responsibility, but in this 
country we leave general decisions of criminal law generally to the 
States except when it crosses the State line. Here there is no 
suggestion of crossing State lines.
  In fact, in this provision we are saying to the State, ``If you do 
not do it exactly the way we tell you to do it, then we are going to 
take Federal funds away from you and we are going to mandate it. We are 
not going to leave it to the discretion of the Attorney General or 
anything.''
  This is telling the States, ``We know best how to do it, we are 
telling you how to do it in the States,'' and that is not something we 
ought to be doing in the criminal law in a matter of this kind, 
especially when there are strong policy arguments that this particular 
solution to this problem has real problems with it. Let the State 
legislature deal with the specifics of how to deal with this.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who has been a diligent leader 
on crime legislation.

                              {time}  1740

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
that time and her kind words.
  Madam Speaker, I do not intend to take up the full 10 minutes. I 
first of all want to commend the gentlewoman from Washington for 
offering this. This is a very important and constructive provision in 
the crime bill that should have been out here on the floor with an 
opportunity for the Members of the House to vote on it way back on 
April 21 when we considered this bill. It was not for her lack of 
diligence. She tried very hard to convince the Committee on Rules, and 
many of us supported her, to get this opportunity to offer the 
amendment that today she is seeking us to offer in the motion to 
instruct to tell our conferees to accept what is in the Senate bill.
  Madam Speaker, why is this so important? First of all, the No. 1 
issue in the crime world today for the American public is violent 
crime. There is no greater violent crime problem that faces American 
women and children today than that of a sexual predator, that is, a 
stalker. That is what we are talking about today. We are talking about 
somebody who has been convicted of not just any old crime but a violent 
sexual crime who then is going to go back out onto the streets again, 
whose opportunity to commit another crime of that nature will be there, 
who has a track record that undoubtedly shows a predisposition of some 
sort with a mental abnormality or some personality disorder that 
psychologists and psychiatrists would say has this predisposition, and 
then who is somebody who probably is going to be winding up stalking a 
woman or potentially a child in our communities locally.
  I cannot think of anything more appropriate to the crime bill than 
this provision. What does this provision do? We have heard a lot of 
talk about it today. It is pretty darn straightforward. What it is is 
simply saying to the States around the country who are receiving a lot 
of Federal largess under the Federal Justice Assistance Act and under 
many other provisions that are in this crime bill that is a 
multibillion dollar bill if we ever get around to being able to see the 
final product. We are simply saying to the States, ``Look, if you want 
to get all of that justice assistance money that is coming out, if you 
do not want to lose 10 percent of it, then we want you to take the 
minimum step of enacting laws that require that any time somebody who 
is one of these sexually violent predators is defined, who has been 
convicted of such a crime, is released from jail, that they register 
with the local enforcement officials and that if they move, that they 
indeed take that address and notify the new folks of it and that the 
local law enforcement people where these folks have been released also 
take the step of notifying the next folks down the line where these 
folks are moving, in other words, to keep track of them.''

  Yes, there is the possibility of community notification. What is all 
the hullabaloo about that has been discussed today on that? I would 
like to read it. Community notification. It says:
  ``The designated State law enforcement agency may,'' does not require 
it to, but may, ``release relevant information that is necessary to 
protect the public concerning a specific sexually violent predator 
required to register under this section.''
  Madam Speaker, this legislation if adopted would simply say that the 
local law enforcement agency could determine, your local police chief, 
your local sheriff, your local or State head law enforcement person 
could determine that in a particular given case of such an egregious 
nature, this person's characteristics are such that that should be 
generally known by the public that his presence is in the community.
  I doubt that occurs very often, but what is wrong with that? We are 
seeing today where 6 percent of the criminal population of this country 
are committing 70 percent of the violent crimes and serving only an 
average of about a third of their sentences. We are seeing sexual 
predators who have committed violent crimes against women and children 
released on the streets. The very least we should do is have the 
opportunity not only for registration in the States and local law 
enforcement agencies as someone who has done this and been released but 
also the opportunity for those law enforcement locals to make a 
discretionary judgment on a case-by-case basis to let the general 
population know that this particular individual is up and about and out 
and been released. That is all this is about. It is our opportunity to 
instruct conferees.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that we are stuck 
right now without a crime bill. It has been since April 21, when we 
passed our crime bill, the Senate all the way back last year passed 
its, and we still do not have any movement toward a conference report 
between the House and the Senate. Every single week that passes, there 
are officially at least 2,000 rapes committed in this country. There 
are reportedly 12,000 or so that have not been reported in officially 
that are committed every week. That is just one of many statistics on 
violent crime that demonstrate the importance and the urgency of a 
crime bill that the other side has not been able to get its Members 
together and act on.
  We have things like the so-called Racial Justice Act, the quotas for 
murderers that we have already passed a provision on saying we want to 
retreat from here on a motion to instruct similar to the one tonight 
passed a couple of weeks ago, passed long before we went out on our 
recess for the Fourth of July. But it seems that provision from all we 
hear on this side of the aisle is hanging up on the on the Democrat 
side of the aisle and they are unable to come up with an opportunity 
for us to get together on a crime bill.
  Madam Speaker, how many more weeks have got to pass before we get 
legislation through a conference committee and get it passed into law 
that will stop some of this nonsense and give the resources to the 
States for prisons? I do not know. But I do know that tonight, because 
of the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] and her motion to 
instruct conferees, we at least have the opportunity to tell our 
conferees that when and if we ever get together as a conference on this 
with the Senate, they should accept this Senate language that takes 
care of the simple matter of requiring States to pass rules and 
regulations having registration of stalkers, of sexually violent 
predators and giving community notification.
  It is a good proposal that the gentlewoman is offering. It is a 
simple proposal. There should not be any no votes on it. It should not 
be controversial. It should have been brought out on the floor and 
allowed under the rules. The other party did not let that happen when 
the bill was voted on before. Certainly tonight we should be correcting 
that problem and at the very least saying to the conferees, ``Please 
accept this language when you go to conference. Don't tinker around 
with it. Don't take out this permissive language on community 
notification.'' It is just permissive, but it is very, very important.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for letting me close.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do want to say, Madam Speaker, this has been a joint operation and 
I want to send my special thanks across the aisle to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Deal] for all the work he has done and for his helping so 
much in his very adroit, adaptable, and effective way in making this a 
``Dunn-Deal.''
  I hope the Congress will support us as well.
  Madam Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion to 
instruct.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Kaptur). The question is on the motion 
to instruct offered by the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407, 
nays 13, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                               YEAS--407

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--13

     Brooks
     Clay
     Gonzalez
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hughes
     Kopetski
     Meek
     Nadler
     Owens
     Rangel
     Waters
     Watt

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Armey
     Bishop
     Boehner
     Conyers
     DeLay
     Edwards (CA)
     Gallo
     Laughlin
     McCurdy
     McDade
     Obey
     Rowland
     Slattery
     Washington

                              {time}  1807

  Mr. HUGHES changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, and Mr. 
RUSH changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________