[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 86 (Tuesday, June 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H3871-H3874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LIFETIME CONSEQUENCES FOR SEX OFFENDERS ACT OF 2002
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 4679) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide
a maximum term of supervised release of life for child sex offenders,
as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4679
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Lifetime Consequences for
Sex Offenders Act of 2002''.
SEC. 2. SUPERVISED RELEASE TERM FOR SEX OFFENDERS.
Section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(k) Supervised Release Terms for Sex Offenders.--
Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized term of
supervised release for any offense under chapter 109A, 110,
117, or section 1591 is any term of years or life.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R.
4679, as amended, currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders
Act of 2002, amends the current law, which grants Federal courts the
authority to include in any sentence a term of supervised release after
imprisonment.
Under this legislation, a court would be authorized to impose a term
of supervised release for any term of years or life for a number of
serious sex offenses. These offenses include crimes of sexual abuse,
sexual exploitation of children, transportation for illegal sexual
activity, sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion.
Under current law, a term of supervised release for any of these crimes
is limited to a maximum term of between 1 and 5 years.
This legislation will provide judges with greater discretion in
dealing with sex offenders. The court imposing the sentence is in the
best possible position to determine if an extended period of
supervision is necessary, based on that court's knowledge of the facts
of the case and the defendant's criminal history.
The court is also in the best position to determine what conditions
of release are necessary to ensure the defendant will not reoffend and
the public will be safe.
There is no requirement in this bill that a judge impose any term of
supervised release if the court feels that it is not necessary. The
court may also revoke such supervision at any time after 1 year if the
court decides that supervision is no longer warranted.
Lifetime supervised release is not a novel idea. A court may
currently impose a life term of supervised release for certain Federal
drug and terrorism offenses. It does not make any sense to tie the
hands of the court in the case of a sex offender if that court knows
that there is a greater possibility that a defendant will victimize
another person if they are not subject to the conditions of supervised
release.
Study after study has shown extremely high recidivism rates for sex
offenders. The lifelong harm that they cause to their victims far
outweighs any inconvenience they may suffer as a result of lifetime
supervision. This legislation will give the courts the ability to
permanently monitor those individuals who have demonstrated a higher
risk to society.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4679. Mr. Speaker, this
bill lacks any standard for application of lifetime supervision and
would make subject to lifetime supervision those who may be involved
only in misdemeanors and in cases involving consensual acts, including
consensual touching between teenagers still in high school. There may
be cases for which consideration of such treatment is warranted, but
certainly not in misdemeanors and consensual sex acts.
During the committee consideration of the bill, I offered amendments
aimed at focusing the bill on the types of cases that might warrant
consideration of lifetime supervision by eliminating misdemeanors and
consensual acts for first-time offenders, but these amendments were
rejected and were on a procedure that does not allow amendments on the
floor.
{time} 1245
Although judges have the discretion to impose lifetime supervision or
not, a judge must consider that if Congress authorizes lifetime
supervision for first-time misdemeanors or consensual acts between
adults or between high school students, with no indication of how it
should be applied in these cases, it must be that Congress intends for
it to apply in such cases. In this overzealous context of
indiscriminately ferreting out sex offenders for harsher treatment,
there are likely to be judges who, like the lawmakers promoting such
policies, who will prefer to err on the side of harsh treatments to
avoid the possible criticism that they were not as tough as they could
have been should an offender actually recidivate.
[[Page H3872]]
We have plenty of evidence as to how this harsh treatment is applied
in our criminal justice system and that it is minorities will be at the
receiving end. That is because this bill will only apply to cases of
Federal jurisdiction, and we know that the Federal jurisdiction crimes
fall disproportionately on Native Americans who comprise about 75 to 80
percent of all cases involving Federal jurisdiction. And even if the
clear racially disparate unfairness is not there, it is also unfair for
offenders in the same State to face vastly differing harshness and
treatments just because they were either right on the reservation or
across the road outside of the reservation.
For many crimes covered by this lifetime supervision provision, the
situation will be more about enforcing the conditions of supervision
than about preventing additional sex offenses. That is because the
supervision will take place when the defendant is out in the community
and just checks in occasionally for supervision. Offenders will be in
and out of prison not for new sexual offenses but for technical
violations of their conditions of supervision. This is not only unfair
to what may be a very minor offender but it is actually a waste of the
taxpayers' resources.
There were no hearings on the bill and no showing that there is any
problem with the length of supervision period now available for the
courts and certainly no hearing to see why this should apply
disproportionately to Native Americans, as to whether or not there is
any special problem in the Native American community. This suggests
something to make it look like we are doing something about crime when
in reality we are not doing anything but imposing unnecessarily harsh
and unfair policies on Native Americans. I, therefore, urge the defeat
of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the author of the bill.
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time,
and I thank everyone concerned.
This legislation was not born of a whim or out of reason of trying to
fill a day of litigation where other things could not have been
accomplished. This came about as a result of a Federal judge who was
shocked by the fact that on certain cases involving sex offenders that
the Federal judge was unable to put onto the offenders' sentence a
supervised release for more than 5 years, in some cases for no more
than 1 year.
So in discussions I had with the Federal judge, he proposed and I
accepted the proposition that, because a sex offender in front of a
judge is subject to the scrutiny of the entire background of this
offender to the extent of previous offenses, ages and names of people
who were harmed, the whole aspect of the offender who happens to be in
front of judge, coupled with the felony fact that recidivism among sex
offenders, particularly those who would harm young children, the
pedophiles, that that rate of recidivism is so high that we cannot as a
society gamble that after a short period of supervision that this
individual will not harm another youngster, and so we are here at the
well of the House proposing that we allow these Federal judges in front
of whom these sex offenders will appear to a lifetime maximum of
supervision.
It night not be that many years. It might be 10 years. It might be
five. And the judge at any time during this period can change it, can
change it back, all subject to the discretion of the judge pursuant to
the circumstances that obtain with regard to this particular sex
offender.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) opines that this is specially
hard on Indian tribes. But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) outlined that one of the patterns on which this sex
offender extended supervision period was based was for the drug
offenses and the terroristic offenses that already are on the books in
which lifetime supervision is part of the sentencing option. So they
were not fashioned at any cost to the Federal jurisdiction over Indian
tribes. Drug offenses among Indians or terrorists offenses among
Indians are treated equitably as the law provides. So it will be for
the sex offenders who have this high rate of recidivism which we wish
to curtail.
Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences
for Sex Offenders Act of 2002 to give our Federal judges the power they
need to properly ensure that sex offenders pay for their crimes, and
that our legal system remains appropriately accountable for a sex
offender when they are released into the public. As you know, Federal
judges currently have the power under 18 U.S.C. 3583 to order mandatory
periods of post-release supervision for Federal felons. The law
provides that Class A and B felons may be ordered into mandatory
supervision for a period of up to 5 years. Class C and D felons may be
ordered into mandatory supervision for up to 3 years. Furthermore,
lesser felons and misdemeanants may receive no more than a maximum
sentence of 1 year post-release supervision.
Importantly, Congress has created several important exceptions to the
three tiers of supervised release just described. Federal judges may
sanction many Title 21 Federal drug offenses by imposing conditions of
supervised release lasting up to a lifetime in length. Additionally, as
we all remember well, President bush signed into law the USA-PATRIOT
Act several months ago. That bill provided Federal judges with the
discretion of ordering long-term supervision of periods ranging up to a
lifetime for those guilty of many terrorism offenses.
Long-term supervision for Federal drug offenders and those who
attempt terroristic acts will help to ensure the future safety of our
citizens. It will clearly help to make sure our government can account
for those felons who are released from prison as they reintegrate with
society. This Congress recognized the severe nature of these crimes and
found wanting a system that hamstrung Federal judges from meting out
justice by severally limiting their options when it came to post
release mandatory supervision.
If Federal judges can impose lifetime supervision for drug offenses,
they should be able to provide a similar sanction for sex offenders. I
know very well that many Federal judges feel strongly that they are not
able to truly protect the citizenry from sex offenders without the
ability to escalate supervision requirements beyond the arbitrary 5
year limit. I recently spoke with Judge F.S. Van Antwerpen of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania about his experiences in sentencing
felons engaged in Internet child pornography crimes. The destructive
and harmful crimes engaged in by some of the felons he sentenced left
him with little hope that these child predators would truly reform
after release from prison. Without the sanction of long-term, and
possibly life-long supervision, these dangerous predators may relapse
back into their obscene habits later in life.
The sexual offenses covered under my bill, H.R. 4679, range from the
interstate coercion and enticement of minors into sexual activity, to
the transportation of individuals across state lines with the intent of
engaging in prostitution or other illegal sexual conduct. Longer
periods of supervision are available in many State legal systems. Why
should a sex offender who happened to cross State lines to sexually
abuse a child, receive a lighter sentence than one who engages in the
same acts with a child within a single State? How many of America's
parents realize that when a sex offender leaves the prison system, the
Federal legal system they rely upon to keep their children safe from
predators maintains no supervision of that sex offender after a few
short years? How many serious sex offenders have no one to help brake
them when they begin to slide into their old destructive ways?
I am very concerned about recidivism rates for sexual offenders.
Studies have shown recidivism rates varying from 15% to nearly 75% for
sex offenders, depending on the type of sex offense and the length of
the study. And these numbers do not tell the whole story: as much as
80% of sex offenses go unreported! Regardless of the numbers, any
repeat of these especially heinous crimes simply are not acceptable,
especially when the legal system can do more. There is reason for
optimism--if we take the right steps. Statistics suggest that people
are much more likely to engage in repeat victimization before they are
caught. Regardless of their inclinations, sex offenders are likely to
restrain themselves if they know they are being watched.
Mandatory supervision in no way implies 24 hour monitoring or
surveillance of individuals. Consistent and periodic contact with
Federal probation officers, however, makes sense. These Federal
officials are able to gauge the on-going efforts of released felons to
reintegrate into society. They can spot trouble before it becomes
destructive to the individual under supervision, or worse, to innocent
third parties. Additionally, Federal judges can add ``reasonable''
additional stipulations to the terms of release for Federal criminals
including mandatory counseling, thereby affording
[[Page H3873]]
released felons the safety net of counseling services for durations
beyond a handful of years.
My fellow colleagues, we all deplore the destructive and revolting
nature of sex crimes. Our Federal law enforcement agencies, our
prosecutors, and our judges want and need tools like the one I propose
today, to help combat these vile crimes. Let us take a positive step
today for America's families and our children. I ask that you vote for
H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2002.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that some of the cases, some of
the situations that would be covered by this would be crossing State
lines from Washington, D.C., to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the
purposes of committing fornication. That would be a crime for which,
that is, two consenting adults, that would be a crime for which you
could be subjected to lifetime supervision and a violation of which
could put you in jail for violating the provision of your supervision.
The bill needs to be narrowed to cover the kind of cases we are
talking about; and for that reason the bill should be opposed, the
motion to suspend the rules should be opposed so that we could have a
situation where we could actually amend the bill to cover those acts
which we are actually trying to cover.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4679, The Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders
Act of 2002, was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Gekas) and allows Federal judges to include, as part of the sentence of
a convicted sex offender, a term of supervised release for any period
of time. The court can end the term of supervised release and discharge
the defendant at any time after 1 year if the court is satisfied that
such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and serves the
interest of justice.
Studies have shown that sex offenders are four times more likely than
other violent criminals to recommit their crimes. Moreover, recidivism
rates do not appreciably decline as the offender ages.
According to the United States Department of Justice's Bureau of
Justice Statistics, since 1980 the number of prisoners sentenced for
violent sexual assault other than rape has increased 15 percent each
year, faster than any other category of violent crime.
National data also indicates that sex offenders are apprehended for
only a fraction of the crimes they actually commit. In fact, in some
estimates only one in five serious sex offenses are reported to
authorities and only 3 percent of such crimes result in the
apprehension of an offender.
By passing this legislation, we will give judges the discretion
necessary to impose a term of supervised release that is appropriate
for each defendant. Authorities will be able to monitor those sex
offenders who pose the greatest threat to our society for as long as
the court feels they are a danger to society.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing mandatory about this bill. If a judge
decides that supervision is not necessary, then there is no requirement
to impose any term of supervised release. But it is mandatory that
Congress pass this legislation if we are to deter criminals from
committing these terrifying crimes.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think the definition and the
explanation of this bill has been well made by the previous speakers. I
would like to focus on I think a singular and important point that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has made.
There is no doubt in my continued support on the floor of the House
for legislation that deals with penalizing, if you will, those who
would prey upon children and those who would act criminally with
respect to sex acts as it impacts the victims, both women and children
and others.
I have always been one that believes that there is more work to be
done in protecting the public from those that would be predators as it
relates to sexual offenses and, as well, crimes against children. We
have to look no further than our television screen right now and the
debate or the information coming out of Utah on the missing young Smart
girl as well as the long list of missing children and exploited
children to know that this is the work we should be doing. But I
believe the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has a
very valid point, and it should be addressed, and I really wish we had
the opportunity to have had this legislation go through the Committee
on Rules.
There is no emergency that would not have allowed us, again, to look
at this legislation for its best effectiveness. There is no reason to
not provide guidelines so that we can be assured that the legislation
attacks the problem that we want it to attack, and that is the violent
and, if you will, repeat and vicious offenders, sex offenders who would
go after and prey upon innocent victims.
It means that there should be a sense of tolerance, however, for
those who otherwise could be rehabilitated or that the offenses do not
meet the test. We are simply asking that you allow guidelines to be
utilized so that you can distinguish between potential for
misdemeanors, consensual sexual conduct or if something occurred
between two teenagers in the course of their interaction. This is what
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the key is on this legislation, to be able to
have a guideline to make this better legislation.
I would hope the gentleman would have the opportunity to have this
legislation assessed and that our colleagues would look at putting an
amendment in that deals with putting in guidelines for this
legislation.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just again state that someone in
Washington, D.C., crossing the line to go to the Commonwealth of
Virginia to commit fornication, two consenting adults, if caught, could
be subjected to lifetime supervision. I do not think that is the kind
of case the supporters of the bill were talking about.
We ought to bring this bill up in a forum where one could amend it to
take those kind of situations out, and for that reason the motion to
suspend the rules ought to be defeated.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the policy behind H.R. 4679, the Lifetime
Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, is unobjectionable. Given the high
rates of recidivism among sex criminals, it is certainly legitimate to
take steps to reduce the likelihood that a paroled sex criminal will
commit further crimes. In fact, given the likelihood that a sex
offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to
ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?
However, Mr. Speaker, questions of the proper punishment for sexual
crimes are not issues properly under federal jurisdiction. The
Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three
crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the
definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to include sex crimes.
Therefore, even though I agree with the policy behind H.R. 4679, I must
remind my colleagues that the responsibility for investigating,
prosecuting and punishing sex crimes is solely that of state and local
governments.
We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while
they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor
prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes
that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to
change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that
Congress' tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of
offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous
implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the
principle that states are something more than mere administrative
districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
[[Page H3874]]
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I am in fundamental agreement with
the policies expressed in H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex
Offenders Act, I must remind my colleagues that this is an area over
which Congress has no constitutional responsibility. I hope my
colleagues will join me in restoring state and local government's
constitutional authority over criminal activities not related to
treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4679 , as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________