[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H7887-H7924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 436 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3132.

                              {time}  1206


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3132) to make improvements to the national sex offender 
registration program, and for other purposes, with Mr. Simpson in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to bring to the House floor today H.R. 3132, the 
Children's Safety Act of 2005.
  I introduced this legislation on June 30 in a bipartisan effort to 
address the growing epidemic of violence against children and the need 
for greater protection from convicted sex offenders through State 
registration and notification programs.
  This year our country has been shocked by a series of brutal attacks 
against children at the hands of convicted sex offenders. In June, our 
Nation was horrified by the kidnapping and murders of members of the 
Groene family by a convicted sex offender.
  Two well-publicized tragedies earlier this year in Florida, in which 
9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde were murdered 
by convicted sex offenders further underscore the need for quick 
congressional action to address the danger posed by individuals who 
prey on children.
  In addition to the widely reported tragedies that have rightly 
brought this issue to the forefront, the statistics regarding the 
frequency with which such heinous crimes occur are staggering. 
Statistics show that one in five girls and one in 10 boys are sexually 
exploited before they reach adulthood. Yet less than 35 percent of the 
incidents are reported to authorities.
  According to the Department of Justice, one in five children between 
the ages of 10 and 17 receive unwanted sexual solicitations online. 
Additionally, statistics show that 67 percent of all victims of sexual 
assault were juveniles under the age of 18, and 34 percent were under 
the age of 12.
  In June of this year, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security held a series of three hearings on child crimes 
issues, focusing on violent crimes against children, sexual 
exploitation of children, and the Sex Offender Registration and 
Notification program and related legislative proposals.
  On July 30, the Judiciary Committee considered this bill and ordered 
it favorably reported by an overwhelming vote of 22 to 4.
  Mr. Chairman, there are over 550,000 sex offenders in the country; 
and it is conservatively estimated that at least 100,000 of them are 
lost in the system, meaning that nonregistered sex offenders are living 
in our communities and working at locations where they can, and likely 
will, come into contact with our children.
  This is simply unacceptable, and the legislation specifically targets 
this problem to enhance the safety of America's families and 
communities. The Children's Safety Act will make much needed reforms to 
the Sex Offender and Registration program by expanding the scope and 
duration of sex offender registration and notification requirements to 
a larger number of sex offenders.
  The legislation also requires States to provide Internet availability 
of sex offender information, requires timely registration by sex 
offenders, and then enhances penalties for their failure to register 
and increases the disclosure requirements regarding their whereabouts.
  The bill authorizes United States marshals to apprehend sex offenders 
who fail to register and increases grants to States to apprehend sex 
offenders who are in violation of registration requirements contained 
in the legislation.

[[Page H7888]]

  Additionally, H.R. 3132 would authorize demonstration programs for 
new electronic monitoring programs such as anklets and global position 
system monitoring, which will require examination of 
multijurisdictional monitoring procedures.
  H.R. 3132 also revises the use of DNA evidence; increases penalties 
for violent crimes committed against children, and sexual exploitation 
of children; streamlines habeas review; State death penalties are 
imposed against child killers; and protects foster children by 
requiring States to perform more complete background checks before 
approving a foster or adoptive parent program and placement.
  This legislation is strongly supported by America's Most Wanted, John 
Walsh; Ernie Allen from the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children; Robbie Calloway from the Boys and Girls Clubs of America; and 
many victims and representatives of victims organizations.
  The courage of some, such as the father of Jessica Lunsford, to speak 
out on this important issue in the face of unmistakable grief is truly 
admirable. They have provided critical input throughout the process and 
have urged Congress to enact this legislation as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, the time to protect our Nation's children from sexual 
predators in our communities and online on the Internet is now.
  The scope of this problem requires a swift congressional response, 
and I urge Members of this body to move swiftly to help protect 
America's children from violent sexual offenders.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we all abhor the horrific cases of child murders or sex 
offenses committed by those who are referenced in the bill. But the 
question before us is whether what we are doing in the bill will 
actually reduce the incidence of child molestation or actually increase 
it.
  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. It is clear that having police supervision and 
police awareness of the location and identification information about 
sex offenders is appropriate and helpful.
  But it is not clear that putting that information indiscriminately on 
the Internet, regardless of the dangerousness of the individual, with 
no guidance or restriction of what people should do with the 
information, it is unclear whether that is helpful or harmful.
  There have been incidents of vigilantes and other activities where 
offenders have actually been driven underground, so you actually do not 
know where they are. That is certainly not good for children. And try 
to sell your home when a sex offender moves a few blocks away. Are 
children actually helped by that? That would be a necessary problem; 
but there is no evidence that putting that information on the Internet 
actually reduces the incidence of child molestation, so the real estate 
prices all over the neighborhood go down.
  Now, research shows that 90 percent of sex offenses against children 
involve either family members or someone well known to the victim. So 
when you put names and addresses on the Internet, 90 percent of the 
offenses are not even covered. We also have the situation where those 
on the Internet are ostracized and subjected to public notoriety, 
embarrassment, ridicule, and harassment.
  In one actual case, a teacher was reading the names of offenders to 
grade school students in an apparent effort to protect them, when one 
student blurted out the question to another student: ``Is that not your 
father?''
  This victimizes the victim twice and may well discourage offense 
reporting that is already considered very low in these situations. Many 
offenders identified on the Internet will not only become unemployed 
and unemployable because of that notoriety, but they may also have to 
leave their home to avoid embarrassment or other consequences to 
themselves and their families, and having done that, may just go 
underground and not bother to register again.
  Where an offender clearly represents a threat to the public, perhaps 
the consequences to the victims and their family members cannot be 
avoided; but where the individual clearly does not present a threat to 
the public, informing the general public may do more harm than good.
  Law enforcement and child-serving authorities should have access to 
the information. Until they have reliable information to show that the 
impact of the Internet will actually reduce the incidence of child 
molestation, we should be circumspect on how we use this information.
  Now, we have taken a step in the right direction in the bill by 
encouraging those States and localities that are not already doing so 
to consider whether there are offenders who should be required to 
register, but may not have to be put on the Internet.

                              {time}  1215

  I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has indicated his willingness as the bill moves towards 
conference to continue to look for ways we might support the States and 
localities who are already making such assessments while encouraging 
those who are not making those assessments to do so.
  There are effective things we can do, and hopefully we will have 
amendments that will deal with this. Because research has shown that 
intensive, therapeutic sexual offender treatment cuts sexual offense 
recidivism in half. Fortunately, the evidence is that, even without the 
treatment, recidivism is low amongst sexual offenders of children. This 
is not what the legend is, but the facts are that a recent study by the 
Department of Justice showed that the rearrest rate among child 
molesters is 3.3 percent, much less than the recidivism rate of other 
criminals.
  Any recidivism rate is too high, so I am pleased that we are working 
together to fashion a provision that will assure that all sex offenders 
in the Federal system will receive appropriate, effective treatment 
prior to their release; and I hope that we can continue to work 
together to provide a similar system for State offenders where we could 
significantly reduce child victimization by assuring access to 
effective treatment for all.
  Now there are provisions in this legislation that are not based on 
research or sound reasoning like the death penalty, mandatory minimums, 
both of which have been studied and shown not to have any effect on 
crime. We also have the anomaly in this because it is Federal 
legislation that because Indian reservations, their sole access to 
courts is the Federal system, they will all be under the Federal system 
but most others will not. So it will have a disproportionate effect 
against Native Americans.
  Now, day by day we are seeing more and more evidence that the death 
penalty administration is fraught with mistake, racial discrimination 
and it is applied in an arbitrary way. We have also seen the mandatory 
minimums have been shown to waste the taxpayers' money, been racially 
discriminatory, and the Judicial Conference reminds us every time we 
have a mandatory minimum for consideration that mandatory minimums 
violate common sense compared to traditional sentencing approaches.
  This bill includes a 5-year mandatory minimum for any technical 
violation involved in registration. For example, if you are already 
registered and you attend the local community college but forgot to 
recognize that the community college is in a different jurisdiction and 
you should have registered there, too, well, that offense is subject to 
a 5-year mandatory minimum. Notwithstanding the fact that the original 
offense was 15 years ago, was a misdemeanor for which no time was 
imposed, it is a 5-year mandatory minimum for the technical violation 
of not registering correctly.
  Another provision that is in the bill that will not have much effect 
on reducing child molestation is eliminating the access to habeas 
corpus. That will not reduce sex crimes. All of these are good, 
politically appealing sound bites that will help politicians get 
elected but which have no evidence that they will actually reduce the 
incidence of child molestation.
  This bill will cost over $500 million over the next few years. We 
need to

[[Page H7889]]

make sure that when we spend that kind of money that we actually do 
something constructive. Here we have a bill with mandatory minimums, 
death penalties that have been shown that have nothing to do with 
reducing crime, it is primarily focused on Native Americans, and I 
would hope that we would support amendments to eliminate such 
extraneous matters on the bill so we can concentrate the $500 million 
on effective crime-reducing approaches.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time. More importantly, I thank the gentleman for his great 
leadership on the subject of child safety.
  Mr. Chairman, when I came to this House I hoped that I would have the 
chance to make a difference in the area of crimes against kids, and 
thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) I have had this opportunity. In fact, we have all had 
this opportunity.
  We have made great strides in recent years: the Amber Alert System; 
two strikes and you are out for child molesters; the Debbie Smith Act 
which we passed last session which will make sure that our DNA 
databases are up to date and more usable and we will have better 
training and education for those health care professionals and law 
enforcement professionals who work in this field.
  But, sadly, we have been reminded in recent months that despite all 
the work that we have done we have a long way to go. Dru Sjodin, 
Jessica Lunsford, Sara Hunde and, sadly, other names have reminded us 
painfully, tragically that there is a lot of work to do.
  The Children's Safety Act is, in my view, a great stride towards 
doing what we can and what we must to protect our kids from those who 
would prey upon them.
  First off, it has tough penalties. It does have tough penalties. It 
does have mandatory minimums, because I believe and so many people 
believe that we have to send a clear, unmistakable signal that those 
who prey upon our kids will not be tolerated.
  Secondly, we increased the size of the DNA database, which means that 
we give to law enforcement professionals the tools they need to track 
down these monitors and to put them away, to put them behind bars.
  And, third, and I believe most importantly, we expand the use of the 
sex offender registry and increased notification requirements. We take 
that registry system nationwide, we make it accessible online, and we 
close up some of the loopholes that, sadly, have led to some of the 
crimes that we have all heard about.
  I would like to speak briefly about one of those loopholes that 
people in my home State of Wisconsin have learned about tragically. The 
situation, the case, the story of Amie Zyla which has led to the Amie 
Zyla provisions in this bill.
  The case of Miss Zyla, she was a young girl in the county of 
Waukesha, Wisconsin, when she was assaulted brutally by a young 
offender. He was found guilty. He was sentenced to a juvenile facility. 
But when he turned 18 he was released; and when he was released, 
because he had committed that act as a juvenile, the record was sealed. 
Law enforcement was not allowed to notify the community that they were 
having released back into the midst of this community a sex offender, a 
dangerous sex offender. The assailant went on to hold himself out as a 
youth minister; and, as you can guess, he preyed upon a number of 
children, destroyed lives, damaging families and causing so much 
terror.
  In fact, Amie Zyla was not notified of the release of this man until 
she saw him on TV, actually saw him on the news, and there was his face 
and she realized for the first time that the man who had done so much 
damage to her was back out on the street right where she was.
  Under this bill, we say that if the crime committed by the juvenile 
offender was so serious that it would have qualified for reporting 
under the sex offender registry if he were an adult, then that means 
that law enforcement has the ability, not the obligation but the 
ability, to notify the community when that sex offender is released 
back into the community.
  That is about giving tools to our parents, to our families, to our 
community leaders, to those organizations that are so important to us, 
giving them the tools to prevent these acts from occurring again; and 
nothing is more important.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, a lot of numbers have already been tossed around 
and will be tossed around in the coming debate. You have heard one out 
of five girls has been sexually exploited before reaching adulthood. We 
have heard that 67 percent of all victims of sexual assault are 
juveniles. But I want to suggest to you that this is not about the 
numbers and that people will toss around the numbers, but we cannot 
tell if those numbers are accurate because we know that these crimes 
are the most underreported crimes in society.
  My guess is and most experts will tell you that the damage that is 
done, the number of crimes is far in excess of any of the studies that 
are out there. More importantly, numbers do not tell the true story. 
Each child who is attacked and assaulted by one of these offenders 
represents a life damaged, an innocence stolen, and, all too often, 
sadly, tragically, a family destroyed.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this legislation. We need to give tools 
to community leaders and to parents to make sure those acts never occur 
again. There is so much we have accomplished in the last few years. 
There is so much left to do. We do that with the Child Safety Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I come reluctantly before you to re-
express my desire to protect all our children from predators, and I am 
confident that I speak for all Members when we say that each new 
abduction brings a concern, an outrage that we all feel.
  Child molesters prey on those that are most vulnerable in our 
society, and we must stop them. But how can we stop them if we are 
primarily creating 36 new mandatory minimum criminal penalties that are 
completely arbitrary, that have been shown to be ineffective at 
reducing crime, and a consummate waste of taxpayer money? But that is 
not the only reason.
  Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, almost 10 percent of all 
inmates in the Federal and State prisons are serving life sentences, an 
83 percent increase since 1992. In two States, New York and California, 
20 percent of the people in prison are serving life sentences. And what 
do we have to show for these statistics? Well, a system that currently 
houses more than 2 million Americans, almost four times the number of 
individuals incarcerated in 1985, at a cost of $40 billion to run and 
operate.
  We create additional new death penalty eligibility offenses. This 
spring, 120 death row inmates were exonerated due to proof of their 
innocence. So, in the end, if we are truly serious about protecting our 
children from acts of sexual exploitation and violence, we have got to 
turn to prevention. We have got to use preventative solutions that 
really try to get to the root of the problem instead of after-the-fact 
criminal penalties that do not address the issue.
  Do these sick people check the statutes to find out what the newest 
penalties are or whether they are mandatory or not or whether they can 
carry additional incarceration terms? I doubt it.
  Finally, we have people that have written, professionals, scientific 
researchers treatment professionals, child advocates, who have serious 
reservations about this measure, H.R. 3132.
  From the Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, the Editor-in-Chief on 
Child Maltreatment, the Journal of American Professional Society of the 
Abuse of Children, the Director of Crimes Against Children Research 
Center, the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, Dr. 
Friedrich of the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Medical School, from the Board of 
Directors Association of the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, all these 
letters have poured in urging that we put more prevention into this 
measure rather than less.
  Please let us turn this measure back.

[[Page H7890]]

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a co-sponsor of the Children's Safety Act because 
we must crack down against child molesters by making sure they serve 
longer sentences and by requiring sex offenders who fail to comply with 
registration requirements to go back to jail where they belong.

                              {time}  1230

  The best way to protect young children is to keep child predators 
locked up in the first place because someone who has molested a child 
will do it again and again and again.
  Earlier this year, two young girls from my home State of Florida, 9-
year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde, were abducted, 
raped and killed. In both cases, the crimes were committed by convicted 
sex offenders who were out on probation. Coddling pedophiles with 
rehabilitation and self-esteem courses does not work. Locking them up 
works.
  This law imposes a mandatory minimum punishment of 30 years for those 
who commit violent sexual crimes against children, as well as a minimum 
punishment of life in prison or a death sentence when that crime 
results in the child's death.
  This legislation also cracks down on those sex offenders who refuse 
to follow registration requirements. Nearly 100,000 sex offenders 
remain unregistered and are moving freely about the country. This 
legislation will make it a Federal crime for those sex offenders who 
fail to register and will send them back to jail for another 5 to 20 
years.
  It is high time that our government cracks down on child molesters by 
implementing these commonsense reforms, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3132.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety 
Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
for advancing this legislation.
  It is unfortunate, but our children are not as safe as they could be. 
There are nearly 550,000 registered sex offenders here in the United 
States, one for nearly every 200 children. Worse, many of these 
individuals are able to slip through the cracks and become lost to law 
enforcement because many of these do not register; and when they move, 
States do not reregister. A 2003 investigation found in California 
alone 33,000 registered sex offenders could not be accounted for.
  Studies indicate that the recidivism rate for child molesters is as 
high as 13 percent.
  Consider the horrific case that all of us have read about recently of 
9-year-old Jessica Lunsford. Jessica was abducted from her home, raped 
and then buried alive by a convicted sex offender who lived 150 feet 
from her home. Law enforcement officials had lost track of her murderer 
and were unaware that he worked at her school.
  Mr. Chairman, when I worked in the White House, we worked on passing 
Megan's Law. That law was effective because it used the right 
technology at that point to help ensure the safety of our children. 
This legislation, with this type of technology, builds on the progress 
we made under Megan's Law to protect our children.
  To utilize this new technology and to make our children safer, I 
introduced H.R. 3407, the Jessica Lunsford and Sarah Lunde Act, with 
companion legislation in the Senate with Senator Nelson.
  Similar to programs already under way in some States, the system 
would utilize electronic technology, such as GPS, to track sexual 
predators upon their release from prison. There is no opt in or opt 
out. It would be a system to track them within 10 feet of their 
location at any time.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 
has included an electronic monitoring pilot program in the Children's 
Safety Act. Furthermore, I am pleased that the chairman is also willing 
to address some of the other issues we discussed in the manager's 
amendment.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 
for his help in securing our amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is our children are not as safe as they could 
be. This bill, the Children's Safety Act, is an important step toward 
ensuring their safety and using the technology that is available today 
in the marketplace to ensure our law enforcement community has all the 
tools that are necessary to protect our children.
  I support this bill and hope that my colleagues will join me and 
quickly pass this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) for sponsoring this legislation. I am glad to be a 
co-author/cosponsor of the legislation.
  The burden victims carry does not go away when the headlines do. The 
Children's Safety Act has important preventative measures, but it also 
instigates appropriate response after a citizen has been victimized.
  The Children's Safety Act provides tough tools to keep predators 
accountable and their whereabouts known by the rest of us. There is one 
thing that a predator wants more than anything else and that is to 
remain anonymous, to sneak in and out of our communities and commit 
their criminal ways.
  The issue of protecting our children from predators is on the minds 
of every mother and father as they put their children on school buses 
every morning during the school year. From the countless phone calls, 
letters, and e-mails pleading to protect our kids from sex predators, 
we know these protections to our children in the Children's Safety Act 
are a priority to our Nation and our people.
  Keeping our children safe from predators should be all of our 
priorities here in the United States Congress. We know that child 
molesters, after they leave the penitentiary, most of them do it again.
  In this country, we are able to track a cow from the time it is born 
as a calf to the time it ends up on the supper table somewhere in the 
United States as a steak. We do that because of public safety. Now we 
are going to track child molesters when they leave the penitentiary. We 
will track them indefinitely because of public safety. Children should 
be at least as important as cattle.
  As a co-author and cosponsor of the Children's Safety Act, as a 
former judge in Houston, Texas, I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to listen to their constituents, listen to the people of this 
country, vote in favor of safety for American children. The days of 
child molesters running and hiding are over.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Children's Safety Act 
of 2005. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for 
this legislation and appreciate very much the bipartisan way in which 
he has worked with me in developing this legislation and in listening 
to the concerns that I have brought from experiences in our region.
  Deviant sexual predators have clearly shown us that sex offenders do 
not stop at State lines, and neither should our sex offender laws. The 
Children's Safety Act is a comprehensive, bipartisan child safety bill 
that brings uniformity to our current sex offender registry system and 
increases penalties for those who prey upon our children.
  The urgent need for a national system is clearly and tragically 
demonstrated by the case of Dru Sjodin. Dru Sjodin was a lovely young 
woman, a senior at the University of North Dakota, where she was 
holding down two jobs. She was an exceptional student, a leader in our 
community. She was abducted from a shopping center parking lot in broad 
daylight on a Saturday afternoon nearly 2 years ago.
  This type of disappearance never happens in our part of the country, 
and it traumatized the whole community. Thousands spent weeks trudging 
through snow banks in the worst weather we ever saw searching for Dru.

[[Page H7891]]

Well, 5 months later, her dead body was found in a ravine just outside 
of Crookston, Minnesota.
  It just so happens the investigation has revealed that a recently 
released Level III sex offender from Minnesota named Alfonso Rodriguez, 
Jr., was charged with Dru's kidnapping and murder. He was living in 
Minnesota. We did not know of his existence in North Dakota. He was 
registered as a sex offender only in the State of Minnesota.
  This tragic example illustrates why we have to have a comprehensive 
response here, a nationwide Internet available, a registry system that 
families can access. It provides the kind of information in terms of 
where these high-risk offenders are living, where they are working, 
going to school, what kind of vehicle they are driving. People need 
this information to keep their children safe, and that is why I am 
proud to be a cosponsor of this bill and pleased that the chairman has 
designated in the legislation this registry in memory of Dru Sjodin, 
the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Registry.
  The bill also has tough requirements for complying with keeping the 
registration information current so that the information on there is of 
value to families. It also has tough sanctions for those who would harm 
our children and, finally, Federal dollars to assist local police 
departments in making certain that people are complying with their 
registry requirements.
  I believe that this legislation is a comprehensive response to a 
significant public policy need, and I urge the adoption of this. 
Families need this protection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, as co-chairman of the Congressional Missing 
and Exploited Children's Caucus and an original author of the Sex 
Offender Registration and Notification measure included in this bill, I 
rise in strong support of H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005.
  Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the 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.
  This is an important piece of legislation we are faced with today. It 
is probably one of the most tragic things any family will ever deal 
with. While Katrina, the hurricane, and Judge Roberts are much in the 
headlines, below the fold seems to be daily an occurrence of a violent 
act against our children. It is time we get tough.
  I have said repeatedly that in this country we track library books 
better than we do sex offenders. This bill, thanks to the good efforts 
of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and others, seeks 
to correct that.
  This bill is not a knee-jerk reaction. We have worked over 1 year on 
this legislation with the National Center For Missing and Exploited 
Children, the U.S. Department of Justice, and other Federal agencies.
  It is horrific that in this country we are experiencing these untold 
tragedies throughout our Nation; but we can do better, and in this bill 
we will do better.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and his staff, Mike Volkov, for working tirelessly to 
produce this comprehensive child protection legislation. This bill has 
indeed many fathers and mothers. It is for the children, though, that 
we work and we labor.
  I have often said this bill is a labor of love. Yet it is a labor of 
shame that we have these kinds of incidents of violence and tragedies 
affecting our kids.
  I would like to thank Bradley Schreiber, my legislative director, who 
has worked so many hours in trying to perfect and work alongside staff 
to make this legislation possible; Ernie Allen from the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children; John Walsh from America's Most 
Wanted, who has led a crusade for well over 20 years since the death of 
his beautiful son Adam in Florida. John Walsh has brought a scrutiny to 
child protection legislation unlike any other human being.
  Finally, and most important, I want to recognize the victims' 
parents. It is their hard work and determination, their tears and their 
frustration, and their fears for their other children that has brought 
this bill to the floor so quickly. They took away from their own 
tragedies a chance to help fellow Americans protect other children; and 
for that we are entirely grateful.
  Mr. Chairman, these are not petty criminals. These are sex offenders, 
and they must be dealt with accordingly.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Virginia very much 
for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3132, the 
Children's Safety Act of 2005. I am proud to have been an original 
cosponsor of this legislation, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) for incorporating a piece of legislation that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and I proposed last year, the Sex 
Offenders Registration and Notification Act.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and I stood with John Walsh, 
with Ernie Allen, with the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 
representatives of the Boys and Girls Club as well, and parents of 
children who have been killed by sex offenders.
  This Children's Safety Act of 2005 does, in fact, close the gaps. It 
tightens the ability to track down where convicted sex offenders are 
living and to improve the ways we notify our neighborhoods and our 
school districts when convicted sex offenders choose to live in our 
community.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Foley) 
legislation and my legislation was effectively included in title I of 
the bill we are considering today. When watching the news for the past 
2 years, it is sickening to see of how many communities, how many 
neighborhoods, how many parents are terrorized because sex offenders 
are back in their neighborhoods.
  I know from being a district attorney that our States have done a lot 
to correct the gaps, but more needs to be done. As a father, I do not 
want to see a child of mine victimized in that way, and I want to put 
myself in the shoes of those parents who had to experience this 
dreadful victimization.
  We must support this legislation today because the Children's Safety 
Act will increase and tighten supervision of those sex offenders and 
will enhance uniform notification standards for tracking sex offenders. 
I strongly believe that this comprehensive bill finally will give law 
enforcement officers the tools and resources they need to track these 
criminals and to protect our children and families.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt the Children's 
Safety Act.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time. I appreciate the gentleman's 
work on this important legislation that will help protect our Nation's 
children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3132, the Children's 
Safety Act. As we are hearing today, there is an epidemic of violence 
against our Nation's children. Almost weekly we hear of another tragic 
report of sex offenders preying on children. We all remember Jessica 
Lunsford, age 9, who was buried alive and murdered. Jessica's mother 
lives in my congressional district.
  Tragically, one in five girls and 1 in 10 boys is sexually assaulted 
before adulthood. One of every six sexual assault victims is under the 
age of 6.
  This is an issue that is very important to me. My home State of Ohio 
has made significant improvements to its sex offender registration and 
notification system. As a legislator in the Ohio General Assembly, I 
authored legislation, now Ohio law, that requires law enforcement to 
notify neighbors who live within a thousand feet of a sexual predator. 
I sought this change from prior law after a sexual predator moved 
across the street from a school bus stop in my district.

[[Page H7892]]

  Mr. Chairman, I ask that this bipartisan legislation be unanimously 
passed.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  During the last few minutes, we have heard a lot of praise of 
mandatory minimums. I just want to remind the House that the Judicial 
Conference writes us frequently and reminds us that mandatory minimums 
violate common sense. That is because if the offense requires the 
mandatory minimum and that makes common sense, it can be applied; but 
if it makes no sense, mandatory minimums require us to impose that 
sentence anyway.
  Many of the provisions of the bill are crimes which we do not think 
would be subject to 5- or 10-year mandatory minimums. There is a 
provision in the bill that says that felonious assaults against a 
juvenile, which could be two juveniles having a fist fight in the 
school yard, if it gets into a big fight, that that is a 10-year 
mandatory minimum if no injury occurs. Now, of course, if an injury 
occurs in the fight, then you are talking about 20 years. I think 
common sense should prevail and a more appropriate sentence could be 
given.
  This entire registration program that requires people to register has 
not been shown to reduce the incidence of child molestation. For 
someone who commits a crime, even as a juvenile, they will be subject 
to lifetime registration. There is no suggestion and there is no 
evidence that that reduces crime. It may actually increase crime.
  We know that 90 percent of the offenses against children were people 
that would not be covered by the legislation, and 3.3 percent of those 
covered by the legislation might offend. We have other ways of dealing 
with that in such a way that we can actually reduce that 3.3 as much as 
50 percent. We ought to be focused on that.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to focus on the things that will actually 
reduce crime. This bill, many of the provisions of it, obviously, do 
not; and I would hope that we would focus appropriately to actually 
protect the children.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the so-called Child 
Safety Act, H.R. 3132, because it forsakes meaningful crime reduction 
in favor of ineffective solutions that will only create a false 
illusion that our children are better protected from sexual abuse.
  We have all read with heartbreak and anger the horrible, the terrible 
stories of sexual abuse, abduction, and murder of children. It is clear 
that we need to protect children from sexual predators and pedophiles 
through stronger laws and better enforcement. I realize that voting 
against a bill with a title as attractive as this is easily 
misunderstood and mischaracterized. But I have never been one to vote 
for form over substance, nor to shy away from standing up for what is 
right regardless of the political slings and arrows. Unfortunately, 
this bill will do more harm than good, and in the balance will do 
precious little to make our children safer. I hope the Senate will do 
better.
  We need a real system that gives parents peace of mind and enables 
them to be aware of the presence of pedophiles in their neighborhood. A 
National Sex Offender Registry, that is maintained by the United States 
Department of Justice is a very good idea that I support. Members of 
every local community would be able to access this registry online, and 
be able to keep tabs on those who may pose harm to our children. States 
would notify each other when sex offenders move between States, and 
reporting requirements would be uniform so that it's easier to keep the 
lists current and accurate. This is a sensible thing that we should be 
doing to protect our children. I would be proud to support it and I 
hope it will be addressed on the floor in a more rational way.
  That leads me to my overriding criticism of this bill: Its flaws are 
so troubling and fundamental that it compels me to oppose passage 
despite my support of one component part.
  This bill creates 36 new mandatory minimum penalties. Mandatory 
minimum penalties do not work. They discount mitigating factors in 
crimes, prevent judges from meting out punishments that are tailored to 
the criminal, and have been proven discriminatory to people of color. 
They do not work. They may make legislators feel good but they have 
been shown not to reduce crime rates. Even the Judicial Conference, the 
group that represents Federal judges, has said that mandatory minimums 
violate common sense. Let me explain how just one of the new minimums 
will make us less safe, instead of more. If a previously convicted but 
released sex offender commits a technical violation of the reporting 
requirements--for example, they miss the registration deadline by a day 
or a week--they would receive a mandatory 5-year sentence. There is no 
discussion, and there can be no evaluation by a Federal judge.
  The result is that sex offenders who miss the deadline or commit 
other technical violations will only be driven underground. Instead of 
turning themselves in, they will go under the radar and into 
unsuspecting communities. This is exactly the opposite of what needs to 
happen.
  Also troubling is the fact that this legislation creates two 
additional death penalties. Yet, research has shown that capital 
punishment is not a deterrent to crime. Let me repeat, the death 
penalty simply does not reduce crime.
  Those who commit the most heinous and terrible crimes against our 
children should have to face being locked away for the rest of their 
lives, where they must contemplate their crimes until the end of their 
days, without posing harm to society. But expanding the already 
ineffective death penalty to crimes where the victim's death is not 
even intentional is not only illogical, it is immoral. The government's 
job is to prevent crime and punish criminals, often severely. But 
killing citizens in order to exact retribution is inappropriate for a 
government that seeks to be moral.
  We do need a Child Safety Act, but it should be a real one. We need 
sensible punishments and preventative measures that will actually 
reduce sexual predation, not just talk tough.
  I am very disappointed that this bill weakens sound registration 
requirements and penalties by stacking them on fundamentally flawed 
provisions. It is my hope that sensible actions to protect our children 
are considered at the earliest possible date.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3132, the 
Children's Safety Act of 2005. Once again, this Congress is attempting 
to address a very serious and complicated problem with a law that 
substitutes the talking points of ``tough on crime'' politicians for 
the wisdom of judges, prosecutors, treatment professionals and child 
advocates. As a father and someone who has fought for better foster 
care, education, and health care for children, I object to this ill-
conceived legislation that is as much an attack on our independent 
judiciary as it is a bill to protect kids.
  Many child advocates themselves oppose this bill because kids in 
grade school or junior high will be swept up alongside paroled adults 
in sex offender registries. Many caught in registries would be 13 and 
14 year olds. In some States, children 10 and under would be 
registered.
  This bill creates 36 new mandatory minimum sentences, which impose 
the judgment of Congress over every case, regardless of the 
circumstances. The Judicial Conference of the United States and the 
U.S. Sentencing Commission have found that mandatory minimums actually 
have the opposite of their intended effect. They ``destroy honesty in 
sentencing by encouraging plea bargains.'' They treat dissimilar 
offenders in a similar manner, even though there are vast differences 
in the seriousness of their conduct and their danger to society. Judges 
serve a very important role in criminal justice, and Congress should 
not attempt to do their job for them.
  Finally, this bill expands the death penalty, which is not a 
deterrent, costs more to implement than life imprisonment, and runs the 
risk of executing the innocent.
  Nobody, especially the parents and victims of sexual abuse who have 
contacted me on this issue, should confuse my objections to this bad 
policy with indifference to the problem of child sex abuse in this 
country. It is a huge problem, affecting millions of American children. 
Recent news stories prove that the registry system isn't working well.
  I support aspects of this bill, including a strengthened nationwide 
registry for pedophiles, with strict requirements for reporting changes 
of address and punishments for failing to report. I support 
establishing treatment programs for sex offenders in prison, background 
checks for foster parents, funding for computer systems to track sex 
crimes involving the Internet, and, at last resort, procedures for 
committing sexually dangerous persons to secure treatment facilities.
  However, I cannot violate my constitutional duty to protect our 
independent judiciary nor can I support extreme, dangerous policies, so 
I will vote against this bill. I hope that, working with the Senate, we 
can improve this legislation and implement the policies that everyone 
agrees are needed without the unintended consequences of the bill in 
its current form.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 3132. It is an 
important bill that will help ensure the safety of American children 
against sexual predators.
  In recent months we have heard all too often about the innocent lives 
of children being shattered by an adult who sexually abuses the child.
  We are all familiar with the cases, some of which have been mentioned 
today, such as Jessica Lunsford who was kidnapped, held captive, abused 
and tortured for 3 days by a

[[Page H7893]]

convicted sex offender who ultimately killed her by burying her alive.
  And there was the case of 8-year-old Shasta Groene who was kidnapped, 
sexually abused, and held captive for weeks by a convicted sex offender 
who murdered her family.
  These stories are atrocious and that is why Congress is acting to 
further protect American children with the Children's Safety Act.
  The bill requires jurisdiction-wide sex offender registries 
containing information like where the sex offender resides and is 
employed or attends school. The bill requires a sex offender to appear 
in person at least once every 6 months to verify their registration 
information.
  The bill also creates a new Federal crime for failure to register as 
a sex offender and sets the mandatory minimum for that offense at 5 
years and a maximum of 20 years.
  The bill sets other mandatory minimum sentences for crimes of 
violence against children like murder, kidnapping, maiming, aggravated 
sexual abuse, sexual abuse or where the crime results in serious bodily 
injury.
  The statistics surrounding child sexual abuse are astonishing--1 in 5 
girls and 1 in 10 boys are sexually exploited before they reach 
adulthood. And one of every six sexually assaulted victims is under the 
age of 6.
  We must protect our children by every possible means. The Children's 
Safety Act of 2005 will help us do so and for that reason I support 
this legislation.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3132, the 
Children's Safety Act. I would have voted ``yes'' on this legislation. 
However, I am in New York City on official business for the House of 
Representatives. I was appointed by Speaker Hastert as a delegate from 
the Committee on International Relations to serve as a representative 
to the United Nations General Assembly.
  H.R. 3132 will help to address loopholes in current sex offender 
notification requirements, so that parents and the public can be armed 
with knowledge of any sex offenders living and working in their 
community. This legislation addresses a number of child crime issues, 
including registration of sex offenders, violent crimes against 
children, sexual crimes against children, sexual exploitation of 
children, and protection of foster and adopted children. The Children's 
Safety Act was drafted in response to the recent horrific attacks and 
murders of Jessica Lunsford, Sarah Lunde, Jetseta Gage, and others who 
have recently been killed by sex offenders. I strongly support this 
bill and look forward to it becoming law.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Children's Safety Act. This legislation will close sexual offender 
registration loopholes and punish offenders who do not follow the law.
  Sadly, every year hundreds of children are victimized by a convicted 
sexual offender. Convicted predators should be put in prison where they 
belong and kept away from our Nation's children. The Children's Safety 
Act, H.R. 3132, will do this. These tougher sentences will lock up 
repeat offenders and help keep our children safe. Because we know the 
recidivism rate of sexual offenders is very high, these longer 
sentences are crucial to protecting our children. We must hold these 
sexual offenders accountable and lock them up.
  A National Sex Offender Registry, which is one of the components of 
the Children's Safety Act, will better enable us to protect our 
children. People have a right to know where sex offenders live and it 
is important for parents to have access to a national registry in order 
to make sure their children are safe.
  In addition, to punishing sexual offenders and protecting our 
children, we must also provide services, resources and counseling to 
the people who are victims of these horrible crimes. Children need help 
healing the wounds caused by the heinous actions of sexual offenders. 
We must not forget their needs. Because the needs of victims are so 
crucial, I along with Congressman Ted Poe and Congresswoman Katherine 
Harris have formed the Victims' Rights Caucus. Through the caucus we 
draw attention to victim issues, work to protect funding that provides 
victims' services and introduce legislation to assist with victims. We 
must not forget the victims of crimes, especially when they are 
children.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support of the 
Children's Safety Act of 2005. This legislation, if passed, will close 
the loopholes in the current system that allow sexual predators to 
evade law enforcement. It will enhance the current sex offender 
registration and community notification law. It will create a 
comprehensive national system for sex offender registration, improve 
information exchange between States when sex offenders move from State 
to State, and increase penalties for failing to comply with the 
registration law.
  I would like to commend the Chairman for bringing this outstanding 
package to the floor today. I am very grateful that the Chairman has 
included several provisions from a bill that I introduced entitled the 
Sexual Predator Sentencing Act of 2005. These provisions would toughen 
several existing sentencing guidelines and keep sex offenders off the 
street.
  Provisions incorporated from my bill will increase the criminal 
penalties and establish mandatory minimums for those that harm our 
children whether it is over the Internet or in person.
  Strong laws that hold the criminal accountable are a vital component 
in the effort to protect children. Those who abduct children are often 
serial offenders who have already been convicted of similar offenses. 
Strong sentencing is an essential component in any effort to fight 
crimes against children.
  This legislation contains many vital provisions in protecting our 
children from these violent predators. Our children must be protected 
against repeat sexual offenders. The Children's Safety Act of 2005 
should be passed to keep sexual predators behind bars and our children 
safe.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, as a father and a grandfather I am often reminded of 
the dangers that surround my loved ones. Specifically, the growing 
threat that sexual predators pose to our Nation's children and their 
families represents an area where our criminal justice system has 
failed the American people. In order to effectively protect our loved 
ones, we must provide the American public with unfettered access to 
know who these dangerous criminals are and where they are living. If a 
picture is worth a thousand words, then a comprehensive nationwide 
publicly accessible database is worth at least that many lives.
  I was pleased that Chairman Sensenbrenner included provisions from my 
bill, H.R. 95, that would create a national, comprehensive, and 
publicly accessible sex offender database into this comprehensive piece 
of legislation. Additionally, I was delighted at the level of bi-
partisanship that both my bill and today's legislation have received 
and I would like to personally thank Mr. Pomeroy from North Dakota for 
his leadership and support. Also, I would like to extend my gratitude 
to organizations like the Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America and 
the Safe Now Project for their endorsements of H.R. 95's national 
database provision.
  H.R. 3132 directly addresses the shortcomings of our criminal justice 
system and aims to make our country safer and more secure from those 
that would prey on our most vulnerable and our most prized assets--our 
children. With over 500,000 registered sex offenders and countless 
others which remain unknown, law enforcement and corrections personnel 
will have additional resources at their disposal to prevent and solve 
these types of crimes. Additionally, this bill strengthens the criminal 
code for sexually violent crimes and creates more stringent regulations 
which convicted offenders must adhere to in order to ensure proper 
monitoring. Americans have heard the heart wrenching stories of 
innocent children being harmed by predators, and we must make every 
effort to ensure that tragedies like these never happen again.
  Mr. Chairman, today we must come together to make certain that our 
children grow up in a safe and secure environment and that parents are 
unafraid to let their children play in the neighborhood because they 
have the information they need to protect them. Knowledge is power, and 
today we have an opportunity before us to supply the American public 
with the tools necessary to protect themselves, their family, and their 
friends against those that would commit these heinous crimes. I urge 
all of my colleagues to cast their vote in support of this legislation 
and collectively answer the American public's call to provide them with 
additional resources to combat these predators before another life is 
lost and tragedy befalls another family.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule by title, and each title 
shall be considered read.
  No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed 
in that portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose 
and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Amendments printed 
in the Record may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be 
printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.

[[Page H7894]]

  The text of section 1 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3132

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's 
     Safety Act of 2005''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

        TITLE I--SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Declaration of purpose.

Subtitle A--Jacob Wetterling Sex Offender Registration and Notification 
                                Program

Sec. 111. Relevant definitions, including Amie Zyla expansion of sex 
              offender definition and expanded inclusion of child 
              predators.
Sec. 112. Registry requirements for jurisdictions.
Sec. 113. Registry requirements for sex offenders.
Sec. 114. Information required in registration.
Sec. 115. Duration of registration requirement.
Sec. 116. In person verification.
Sec. 117. Duty to notify sex offenders of registration requirements and 
              to register.
Sec. 118. Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Program.
Sec. 119. National Sex Offender Registry.
Sec. 120. Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website.
Sec. 121. Public access to sex offender information through the 
              Internet.
Sec. 122. Megan Nicole Kanka and Alexandra Nicole Zapp Community 
              Notification Program.
Sec. 123. Actions to be taken when sex offender fails to comply.
Sec. 124. Immunity for good faith conduct.
Sec. 125. Development and availability of registry management software.
Sec. 126. Federal duty when State programs not minimally sufficient.
Sec. 127. Period for implementation by jurisdictions.
Sec. 128. Failure to comply.
Sec. 129. Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) Program.
Sec. 130. Demonstration project for use of electronic monitoring 
              devices.
Sec. 131. Bonus payments to States that implement electronic 
              monitoring.
Sec. 132. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children access to 
              Interstate Identification Index.
Sec. 133. Limited immunity for National Center for Missing and 
              Exploited Children with respect to CyberTipline.

   Subtitle B--Criminal law enforcement of registration requirements

Sec. 151. Amendments to title 18, United States Code, relating to sex 
              offender registration.
Sec. 152. Investigation by United States Marshals of sex offender 
              violations of registration requirements.
Sec. 153. Sex offender apprehension grants.
Sec. 154. Use of any controlled substance to facilitate sex offense.
Sec. 155. Repeal of predecessor sex offender program.

                      TITLE II--DNA FINGERPRINTING

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Expanding use of DNA to identify and prosecute sex offenders.
Sec. 203. Stopping Violent Predators Against Children.
Sec. 204. Model code on investigating missing persons and deaths.

TITLE III--PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE OF CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ACT OF 
                                  2005

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Assured punishment for violent crimes against children.
Sec. 303. Ensuring fair and expeditious Federal collateral review of 
              convictions for killing a child.

  TITLE IV--PROTECTION AGAINST SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 
                                  2005

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Increased penalties for sexual offenses against children.

 TITLE V--FOSTER CHILD PROTECTION AND CHILD SEXUAL PREDATOR DETERRENCE

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Requirement to complete background checks before approval of 
              any foster or adoptive placement and to check national 
              crime information databases and state child abuse 
              registries; suspension and subsequent elimination of opt-
              out.
Sec. 503. Access to Federal crime information databases by child 
              welfare agencies for certain purposes.
Sec. 504. Penalties for coercion and enticement by sex offenders.
Sec. 505. Penalties for conduct relating to child prostitution.
Sec. 506. Penalties for sexual abuse.
Sec. 507. Sex offender submission to search as condition of release.
Sec. 508. Kidnapping penalties and jurisdiction.
Sec. 509. Marital communication and adverse spousal privilege.
Sec. 510. Abuse and neglect of Indian children.
Sec. 511. Civil commitment.
Sec. 512. Mandatory penalties for sex-trafficking of children.
Sec. 513. Sexual abuse of wards.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 1? The Clerk will 
designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:

        TITLE I--SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Sex Offender Registration 
     and Notification Act''.

     SEC. 102. DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.

       In response to the vicious attacks by violent sexual 
     predators against the victims listed below, Congress in this 
     Act establishes a comprehensive national system for the 
     registration of sex offenders:
       (1) Jacob Wetterling, who was 11 years old, was abducted in 
     1989 in Minnesota, and remains missing.
       (2) Megan Nicole Kanka, who was 7 years old, was abducted, 
     sexually assaulted and murdered in 1994, in New Jersey.
       (3) Pam Lychner, who was 31 years old, was attacked by a 
     career offender in Houston, Texas.
       (4) Jetseta Gage, who was 10 years old, was kidnapped, 
     sexually assaulted, and murdered in 2005 in Cedar Rapids, 
     Iowa.
       (5) Dru Sjodin, who was 22 years old, was sexually 
     assaulted and murdered in 2003, in North Dakota.
       (6) Jessica Lunsford, who was 9 years, was abducted, 
     sexually assaulted, buried alive, and murdered in 2005, in 
     Homosassa, Florida.
       (7) Sarah Lunde, who was 13 years old, was strangled and 
     murdered in 2005, in Ruskin, Florida.
       (8) Amie Zyla, who was 8 years old, was sexually assaulted 
     in 1996 by a juvenile offender in Waukesha, Wisconsin, and 
     has become an advocate for child victims and protection of 
     children from juvenile sex offenders.
       (9) Christy Ann Fornoff, who was 13 years old, was 
     abducted, sexually assaulted and murdered in 1984, in Tempe, 
     Arizona.
       (10) Alexandra Nicole Zapp, who was 30 years old, was 
     brutally attacked and murdered in a public restroom by a 
     repeat sex offender in 2002, in Bridgewater, Massachusetts.

Subtitle A--Jacob Wetterling Sex Offender Registration and Notification 
                                Program

     SEC. 111. RELEVANT DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING AMIE ZYLA EXPANSION 
                   OF SEX OFFENDER DEFINITION AND EXPANDED 
                   INCLUSION OF CHILD PREDATORS.

       In this title the following definitions apply:
       (1) Sex offender registry.--The term ``sex offender 
     registry'' means a registry of sex offenders, and a 
     notification program, maintained by a jurisdiction.
       (2) Jurisdiction.--The term jurisdiction means any of the 
     following:
       (A) A State.
       (B) The District of Columbia.
       (C) The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       (D) Guam.
       (E) American Somoa.
       (F) Northern Mariana Islands.
       (G) The United States Virgin Islands.
       (H) A federally recognized Indian tribe.
       (3) Amie zyla expansion of sex offender definition.--The 
     term ``sex offender'' means an individual who, either before 
     or after the enactment of this Act, was convicted of, or 
     adjudicated a juvenile delinquent for, an offense (other than 
     an offense involving sexual conduct where the victim was at 
     least 13 years old and the offender was not more than 4 years 
     older than the victim and the sexual conduct was consensual, 
     or an offense consisting of consensual sexual conduct with an 
     adult) whether Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign (other 
     than an offense based on conduct that would not be a crime if 
     the conduct took place in the United States), military, 
     juvenile or other, that is--
       (A) a specified offense against a minor;
       (B) a serious sex offense; or
       (C) a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor.
       (4) Expansion of definition of offense to include all child 
     predators.--The term ``specified offense against a minor'' 
     means an offense against a minor that involves any of the 
     following:
       (A) Kidnapping (unless committed by a parent).
       (B) False imprisonment (unless committed by a parent).
       (C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
       (D) Use in a sexual performance.
       (E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.
       (F) Possession, production, or distribution of child 
     pornography.
       (G) Criminal sexual conduct towards a minor.
       (H) Any conduct that by its nature is a sexual offense 
     against a minor.
       (I) Any other offense designated by the Attorney General 
     for inclusion in this definition.
       (J) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit an offense 
     described in this paragraph.
       (5) Sex offense.--The term ``sex offense'' means a criminal 
     offense that has an element involving sexual act or sexual 
     contact with another, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit 
     such an offense.
       (6) Serious sex offense.--The term ``serious sex offense'' 
     means--
       (A) a sex offense punishable under the law of a 
     jurisdiction by imprisonment for more than one year;
       (B) any Federal offense under chapter 109A, 110, 117, or 
     section 1591 of title 18, United States Code;
       (C) an offense in a category specified by the Secretary of 
     Defense under section 115(a)(8)(C) of title I of Public Law 
     105-119 (10 U.S.C. 951 note);
       (D) any other offense designated by the Attorney General 
     for inclusion in this definition.
       (7) Misdemeanor sex offense against a minor.-- The term 
     ``misdemeanor sex offense against a minor'' means a sex 
     offense against a minor punishable by imprisonment for not 
     more than one year.

[[Page H7895]]

       (8) Student.--The term ``student'' means an individual who 
     enrolls or attends an educational institution, including 
     (whether public or private) a secondary school, trade or 
     professional school, and institution of higher education.
       (9) Employee.--The term ``employee'' includes an individual 
     who is self-employed or works for any other entity, whether 
     compensated or not.
       (10) Resides.--The term ``resides'' means, with respect to 
     an individual, the location of the individual's home or other 
     place where the individual lives.
       (11) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means an individual who has 
     not attained the age of 18 years.

     SEC. 112. REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTIONS.

       Each jurisdiction shall maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex 
     offender registry conforming to the requirements of this 
     title. The Attorney General shall issue and interpret 
     guidelines to implement the requirements and purposes of this 
     title.

     SEC. 113. REGISTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS.

       (a) In General.--A sex offender must register, and keep the 
     registration current, in each jurisdiction where the offender 
     resides, where the offender is an employee, and where the 
     offender is a student.
       (b) Initial Registration.--The sex offender shall initially 
     register--
       (1) before completing a sentence of imprisonment with 
     respect to the offense giving rise to the registration 
     requirement; or
       (2) not later than 5 days after being sentenced for that 
     offense, if the sex offender is not sentenced to a term of 
     imprisonment.
       (c) Keeping the Registration Current.--A sex offender must 
     inform each jurisdiction involved, not later than 5 days 
     after each change of residence, employment, or student 
     status.
       (d) Retroactive Duty to Register.--The Attorney General 
     shall prescribe a method for the registration of sex 
     offenders convicted before the enactment of this Act.
       (e) State Penalty for Failure to Comply.--Each jurisdiction 
     shall provide a criminal penalty, that includes a maximum 
     term of imprisonment that is greater than one year, for the 
     failure of a sex offender to comply with the requirements of 
     this title.

     SEC. 114. INFORMATION REQUIRED IN REGISTRATION.

       (a) Provided by the Offender.--The sex offender must 
     provide the following information to the appropriate official 
     for inclusion in the sex offender registry:
       (1) The name of the sex offender (including any alias used 
     by the individual).
       (2) The Social Security number of the sex offender.
       (3) The address and location of the residence at which the 
     sex offender resides or will reside.
       (4) The place where the sex offender is employed or will be 
     employed.
       (5) The place where the sex offender is a student or will 
     be a student.
       (6) The license plate number of any vehicle owned or 
     operated by the sex offender.
       (7) A photograph of the sex offender.
       (8) A set of fingerprints and palm prints of the sex 
     offender, if the appropriate official determines that the 
     jurisdiction does not already have available an accurate set.
       (9) A DNA sample of the sex offender, if the appropriate 
     official determines that the jurisdiction does not already 
     have available an appropriate DNA sample.
       (10) Any other information required by the Attorney 
     General.
       (b) Provided by the Jurisdiction.--The jurisdiction in 
     which the sex offender registers shall include the following 
     information in the registry for that sex offender:
       (1) A statement of the facts of the offense giving rise to 
     the requirement to register under this title.
       (2) The criminal history of the sex offender.
       (3) Any other information required by the Attorney General.

     SEC. 115. DURATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

       A sex offender shall keep the registration current--
       (1) for the life of the sex offender, if the offense is a 
     specified offense against a minor, a serious sex offense, or 
     a second misdemeanor sex offense against a minor; and
       (2) for a period of 20 years, in any other case.

     SEC. 116. IN PERSON VERIFICATION.

       A sex offender shall appear in person and verify the 
     information in each registry in which that offender is 
     required to be registered not less frequently than once every 
     six months.

     SEC. 117. DUTY TO NOTIFY SEX OFFENDERS OF REGISTRATION 
                   REQUIREMENTS AND TO REGISTER.

       An appropriate official shall, shortly before release from 
     custody of the sex offender, or, if the sex offender is not 
     in custody, immediately after the sentencing of the sex 
     offender, for the offense giving rise to the duty to 
     register--
       (1) inform the sex offender of the duty to register and 
     explain that duty;
       (2) require the sex offender to read and sign a form 
     stating that the duty to register has been explained and that 
     the sex offender understands the registration requirement; 
     and
       (3) ensure that the sex offender is registered.

     SEC. 118. JESSICA LUNSFORD ADDRESS VERIFICATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Jessica 
     Lunsford Address Verification Program (hereinafter in this 
     section referred to as the ``Program'').
       (b) Verification.--In the Program, an appropriate official 
     shall verify the residence of each registered sex offender 
     not less than monthly or, in the case of a sex offender 
     required to register because of a misdemeanor sex offense 
     against a minor, not less than quarterly.
       (c) Use of Mailed Form Authorized.--Such verification may 
     be achieved by mailing a nonforwardable verification form to 
     the last known address of the sex offender. The date of the 
     mailing may be selected at random. The sex offender must 
     return the form, including a notarized signature, within a 
     set period of time. A failure to return the form as required 
     may be a failure to register for the purposes of this title.

     SEC. 119. NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY.

       The Attorney General shall maintain a national database at 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation for each sex offender and 
     other person required to register in a jurisdiction's sex 
     offender registry. The database shall be known as the 
     National Sex Offender Registry.

     SEC. 120. DRU SJODIN NATIONAL SEX OFFENDER PUBLIC WEBSITE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Dru Sjodin 
     National Sex Offender Public Website (hereinafter referred to 
     as the ``Website'').
       (b) Information to Be Provided.--The Attorney General shall 
     maintain the Website as a site on the Internet which allows 
     the public to obtain relevant information for each sex 
     offender by a single query in a form established by the 
     Attorney General.
       (c) Electronic Forwarding.--The Attorney General shall 
     ensure (through the National Sex Offender Registry or 
     otherwise) that updated information about a sex offender is 
     immediately transmitted by electronic forwarding to all 
     relevant jurisdictions, unless the Attroney General 
     determines that each jurisdiction has so modified its sex 
     offender registry and notification program that there is no 
     longer a need for the Attorney General to do.

     SEC. 121. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION THROUGH 
                   THE INTERNET.

       Each jurisdiction shall make available on the Internet all 
     information about each sex offender in the registry, except 
     for the offender's Social Security number, the identity of 
     any victim, and any other information exempted from 
     disclosure by the Attorney General. The jurisdiction shall 
     provide this information in a manner that is readily 
     accessible to the public.

     SEC. 122. MEGAN NICOLE KANKA AND ALEXANDRA NICOLE ZAPP 
                   COMMUNITY NOTIFICATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--There is established the 
     Megan Nicole Kanka and Alexandra Nicole Zapp Community 
     Program (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     ``Program'').
       (b) Notification.--In the Program, as soon as possible, and 
     in any case not later than 5 days after a sex offender 
     registers or updates a registration, an appropriate official 
     in the jurisdiction shall provide the information in the 
     registry (other than information exempted from disclosure by 
     the Attorney General) about that offender to the following:
       (1) The Attorney General, who shall include that 
     information in the National Sex Offender Registry.
       (2) Appropriate law enforcement agencies (including 
     probation agencies, if appropriate), and each school and 
     public housing agency, in each area in which the individual 
     resides, is employed, or is a student.
       (3) Each jurisdiction from or to which a change of 
     residence, work, or student status occurs.
       (4) Any agency responsible for conducting employment-
     related background checks under section 3 of the National 
     Child Protection Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 5119a).
       (5) Social service entities responsible for protecting 
     minors in the child welfare system.
       (6) Volunteer organizations in which contact with minors or 
     other vulnerable individuals might occur.

     SEC. 123. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN SEX OFFENDER FAILS TO 
                   COMPLY.

       An appropriate official shall notify the Attorney General 
     and appropriate State and local law enforcement agencies of 
     any failure by a sex offender to comply with the requirements 
     of a registry. The appropriate official, the Attorney 
     General, and each such State and local law enforcment agency 
     shall take any appropriate action to ensure compliance.

     SEC. 124. IMMUNITY FOR GOOD FAITH CONDUCT.

       Law enforcement agencies, employees of law enforcement 
     agencies and independent contractors acting at the direction 
     of such agencies, and officials of jurisdictions and other 
     political subdivisions shall not be civilly or criminally 
     liable for good faith conduct under this title.

     SEC. 125. DEVELOPMENT AND AVAILABILITY OF REGISTRY MANAGEMENT 
                   SOFTWARE.

        The Attorney General shall develop and support software 
     for use to establish, maintain, publish, and share sex 
     offender registries.

     SEC. 126. FEDERAL DUTY WHEN STATE PROGRAMS NOT MINIMALLY 
                   SUFFICIENT.

       If the Attorney General determines that a jurisdiction does 
     not have a minimally sufficient sex offender registration 
     program, the Department of Justice shall, to the extent 
     practicable, carry out the duties imposed on that 
     jurisdiction by this title.

     SEC. 127. PERIOD FOR IMPLEMENTATION BY JURISDICTIONS.

       Each jurisdiction shall implement this title not later than 
     2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. However, 
     the Attorney General may authorize a one-year extension of 
     the deadline.

     SEC. 128. FAILURE TO COMPLY.

       (a) In General.--For any fiscal year after the end of the 
     period for implementation, a jurisdiction that fails to 
     implement this title shall not receive 10 percent of the 
     funds that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year 
     to the jurisdiction under each of the following programs:

[[Page H7896]]

       (1) Byrne.--Subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et 
     seq.), whether characterized as the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs, the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or 
     otherwise.
       (2) LLEBG.--The Local Government Law Enforcement Block 
     Grants program.
       (b) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a program 
     referred to in paragraph (1) to a jurisdiction for failure to 
     fully implement this title shall be reallocated under that 
     program to jurisdictions that have not failed to implement 
     this title.

     SEC. 129. SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (SOMA) PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish and 
     implement a Sex Offender Management Assistance program (in 
     this title referred to as the ``SOMA program'') under which 
     the Attorney General may award a grant to a jurisdiction to 
     offset the costs of implementing this title.
       (b) Application.--The chief executive of a jurisdiction 
     shall, on an annual basis, submit to the Attorney General an 
     application in such form and containing such information as 
     the Attorney General may require.
       (c) Bonus Payments for Prompt Compliance.--A jurisdiction 
     that, as determined by the Attorney General, has implemented 
     this title not later than two years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act is eligible for a bonus payment. Such 
     payment shall be made under the SOMA program for the first 
     fiscal year beginning after that determination. The amount of 
     the payment shall be--
       (1) 10 percent of the total received by the jurisdiction 
     under the SOMA program for the preceding fiscal year, if 
     implementation is not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) 5 percent of such total, if not later than two years 
     after that date.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any 
     amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to the Attorney General, to be available only for the SOMA 
     program, for fiscal years 2006 through 2008.

     SEC. 130. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR USE OF ELECTRONIC 
                   MONITORING DEVICES.

       (a) Project Required.--The Attorney General shall carry out 
     a demonstration project under which the Attorney General 
     makes grants to jurisdictions to demonstrate the extent to 
     which electronic monitoring devices can be used effectively 
     in a sex offender management program.
       (b) Use of Funds.--The jurisdiction may use grant amounts 
     under this section directly, or through arrangements with 
     public or private entities, to carry out programs under which 
     the whereabouts of sex offenders are monitored by electronic 
     monitoring devices.
       (c) Participants.--Not more than 10 jurisdictions may 
     participate in the demonstration project at any one time.
       (d) Factors.--In selecting jurisdictions to participate in 
     the demonstration project, the Attorney General shall 
     consider the following factors:
       (1) The total number of sex offenders in the jurisdiction.
       (2) The percentage of those sex offenders who fail to 
     comply with registration requirements.
       (3) The threat to public safety posed by those sex 
     offenders who fail to comply with registration requirements.
       (4) Any other factor the Attorney General considers 
     appropriate.
       (e) Duration.--The Attorney General shall carry out the 
     demonstration project for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009.
       (f) Reports.--The Attorney General shall submit to Congress 
     an annual report on the demonstration project. Each such 
     report shall describe the activities carried out by each 
     participant, assess the effectiveness of those activities, 
     and contain any other information or recommendations that the 
     Attorney General considers appropriate.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary.

     SEC. 131. BONUS PAYMENTS TO STATES THAT IMPLEMENT ELECTRONIC 
                   MONITORING.

       (a) In General.--A State that, within 3 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, has in effect laws and 
     policies described in subsection (b) shall be eligible for a 
     bonus payment described in subsection (c), to be paid by the 
     Attorney General from any amounts available to the Attorney 
     General for such purpose.
       (b) Electronic Monitoring Laws and Policies.--
       (1) In general.--Laws and policies referred to in 
     subsection (a) are laws and policies that ensure that 
     electronic monitoring is required of a person if that person 
     is released after being convicted of a State sex offense in 
     which an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years 
     is the victim.
       (2) Monitoring required.--The monitoring required under 
     paragraph (1) is a system that actively monitors and 
     identifies the person's location and timely reports or 
     records the person's presence near or within a crime scene or 
     in a prohibited area or the person's departure from specified 
     geographic limitations.
       (3) Duration.--The electronic monitoring required by 
     paragraph (1) shall be required of the person--
       (A) for the life of the person, if--
       (i) an individual who has not attained the age of 12 years 
     is the victim; or
       (ii) the person has a prior sex conviction (as defined in 
     section 3559(e) of title 18, United States Code); and
       (B) for the period during which the person is on probation, 
     parole, or supervised release for the offense, in any other 
     case.
       (4) State required to monitor all sex offenders residing in 
     state.--In addition, laws and policies referred to in 
     subsection (a) also includee laws and policies that ensure 
     that the State frequently monitors each person residing in 
     the State for whom electronic monitoring is required, whether 
     such monitoring is required under this section or under 
     section 3563(a)(9) of title 18, United States Code.
       (c) Bonus Payments.--The bonus payment referred to in 
     subsection (a) is a payment equal to 10 percent of the funds 
     that would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the 
     jurisdiction under each of the following programs:
       (1) Byrne.--Subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et 
     seq.), whether characterized as the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs, the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or 
     otherwise.
       (2) LLEBG.--The Local Government Law Enforcement Block 
     Grants program.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``State sex 
     offense'' means any criminal offense in a range of offenses 
     specified by State law which is comparable to or which 
     exceeds the range of offenses encompassed by the following:
       (1) A specified offense against a minor.
       (2) A serious sex offense.

     SEC. 132. NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN 
                   ACCESS TO INTERSTATE IDENTIFICATION INDEX.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Attorney General shall ensure that the National 
     Center for Missing and Exploited Children has access to the 
     Interstate Identification Index, to be used by the Center 
     only within the scope of its duties and responsibilities 
     under Federal law. The access provided under this section 
     shall be authorized only to personnel of the Center that have 
     met all the requirements for access, including training, 
     certification, and background screening.
       (b) Immunity.--Personnel of the Center shall not be civilly 
     or criminally liable for any use or misuse of information in 
     the Interstate Identification Index if in good faith.

     SEC. 133. LIMITED IMMUNITY FOR NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING 
                   AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN WITH RESPECT TO 
                   CYBERTIPLINE.

       Section 227 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 13032) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(g) Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 
     including any of its directors, officers, employees, or 
     agents, is not liable in any civil or criminal action for 
     damages directly related to the performance of its 
     CyberTipline responsibilities and functions as defined by 
     this section.
       ``(2) Intentional, reckless, or other misconduct.--
     Paragraph (1) does not apply in an action in which a party 
     proves that the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
     Children, or its officer, employee, or agent as the case may 
     be, engaged in intentional misconduct or acted, or failed to 
     act, with actual malice, with reckless disregard to a 
     substantial risk of causing injury without legal 
     justification, or for a purpose unrelated to the performance 
     of responsibilities or functions under this section.
       ``(3) Ordinary business activities.--Paragraph (1) does not 
     apply to an act or omission related to an ordinary business 
     activity, such as an activity involving general 
     administration or operations, the use of motor vehicles, or 
     personnel management.''.

   Subtitle B--Criminal Law Enforcement of Registration Requirements

     SEC. 151. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, 
                   RELATING TO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION.

       (a) Criminal Penalties for Nonregistration.--Part I of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     chapter 109A the following:

   ``CHAPTER 109B--SEX OFFENDER AND CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN REGISTRY

``Sec.
``2250. Failure to register.

     ``Sec. 2250. Failure to register

       ``Whoever receives a notice from an official that such 
     person is required to register under the Sex Offender 
     Registration and Notification Act and--
       ``(1) is a sex offender as defined for the purposes of that 
     Act by reason of a conviction under Federal law; or
       ``(2) thereafter travels in interstate or foreign commerce, 
     or enters or leaves Indian country;
     and knowingly fails to register as required shall be fined 
     under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years nor 
     more than 20 years.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 109A the following new 
     item:

``109B. Sex offender and crimes against children registry.......2250''.

       (c) False Statement Offense.--Section 1001(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``If the matter relates to an offense under 
     chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, then the term of 
     imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not less 
     than 5 years nor more than 20 years.''
       (d) Probation.--Paragraph (8) of section 3563(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) for a person required to register under the Sex 
     Offender Registration and Notification Act, that the person 
     comply with the requirements of that Act; and''.

[[Page H7897]]

       (e) Supervised Release.--Section 3583 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d), in the sentence beginning with ``The 
     court shall order, as an explicit condition of supervised 
     release for a person described in section 4042(c)(4)'', by 
     striking ``described in section 4042(c)(4)'' and all that 
     follows through the end of the sentence and inserting 
     ``required to register under the Sex Offender Registration 
     and Notification Act that the person comply with the 
     requirements of that Act.''
       (2) in subsection (k)--
       (A) by striking ``2244(a)(1), 2244(a)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``2243, 2244, 2245, 2250'';
       (B) by inserting ``not less than 5,'' after ``any term of 
     years''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``If a defendant 
     required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and 
     Notification Act violates the requirements of that Act or 
     commits any criminal offense for which imprisonment for a 
     term longer than one year can be imposed, the court shall 
     revoke the term of supervised release and require the 
     defendant to serve a term of imprisonment under subsection 
     (e)(3) without regard to the exception contained therein. 
     Such term shall be not less than 5 years, and if the offense 
     was an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, not 
     less than 10 years.'' .
       (f) Duties of Bureau of Prisons.--Paragraph (3) of section 
     4042(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(3) The Director of the Bureau of Prisons shall inform a 
     person who is released from prison and required to register 
     under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act of 
     the requirements of that Act as they apply to that person and 
     the same information shall be provided to a person sentenced 
     to probation by the probation officer responsible for 
     supervision of that person.''.
       (g) Conforming Amendment of Cross Reference.--Paragraph (1) 
     of section 4042(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``(4)'' and inserting ``(3)''.
       (h) Conforming Repeal of Deadwood.--Paragraph (4) of 
     section 4042(c) of title 18, United States Code, is repealed.

     SEC. 152. INVESTIGATION BY UNITED STATES MARSHALS OF SEX 
                   OFFENDER VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall use the 
     authority provided in section 566(e)(1)(B) of title 28, 
     United States Code, to assist States and other jurisdictions 
     in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex 
     offender registration requirements.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2008 to implement this section.

     SEC. 153. SEX OFFENDER APPREHENSION GRANTS.

       Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     part:

              ``PART JJ--SEX OFFENDER APPREHENSION GRANTS

     ``SEC. 3011. AUTHORITY TO MAKE SEX OFFENDER APPREHENSION 
                   GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--From amounts made available to carry out 
     this part, the Attorney General may make grants to States, 
     units of local government, Indian tribal governments, other 
     public and private entities, and multi-jurisdictional or 
     regional consortia thereof for activities specified in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Covered Activities.--An activity referred to in 
     subsection (a) is any program, project, or other activity to 
     assist a State in enforcing sex offender registration 
     requirements.

     ``SEC. 3012. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 to carry out 
     this part.''.

     SEC. 154. USE OF ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE TO FACILITATE SEX 
                   OFFENSE.

       (a) Increased Punishment.--Chapter 109A of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 2249. Use of any controlled substance to facilitate 
       sex offense

       ``(a) Whoever, knowingly uses a controlled substance to 
     substantially impair the ability of a person to appraise or 
     control conduct, in order to commit a sex offense, other than 
     an offense where such use is an element of the offense, 
     shall, in addition to the punishment provided for the sex 
     offense, be imprisoned for any term of years not less than 
     10, or for life.
       ``(b) As used in this section, the term `sex offense' means 
     an offense under this chapter other than an offense under 
     this section.''.
       (b) Amendment to Table.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2249. Use of any controlled substance to facilitate sex offense.''.

     SEC. 155. REPEAL OF PREDECESSOR SEX OFFENDER PROGRAM.

       Sections 170101 (42 U.S.C. 14071) and 170102 (42 U.S.C. 
     14072) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 
     of 1994, and section 8 of the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender 
     Tracking and Identification Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 14073), 
     are repealed.


             Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
       Page 11, line 2, after ``jurisdiction'' insert ``, other 
     than a Federally recognized Indian tribe''.
       Page 27, line 5, insert ``, or resides in,'' after ``enters 
     or leaves''.
       Page 6, line 22, strike ``A'' and insert ``To the extent 
     provided and subject to the requirements of section 126, a''.
       Page 6, line 19, strike ``Somoa'' and insert ``Samoa''.
       Page 6, line 20, insert ``The'' before ``Northern''.
       Page 10, line 4, strike ``and interpret''.
       Page 10, line 5, strike ``to implement the requirements and 
     purposes of'' and insert ``and regulations to interpret and 
     implement''.
       Page 12, line 23, after ``years'' insert ``(but such 20-
     year period shall not include any time the offender is in 
     custody or civilly committed)''.
       Page 16, line 15, after ``jurisdiction'' insert ``where the 
     sex offender resides, works, or attends school, and each 
     jurisdiction''.
       Strike section 124 and insert the following:

     SEC. 124. IMMUNITY FOR GOOD FAITH CONDUCT.

       The Federal Government, jurisdictions, political 
     subdivisions of jurisdictions, and their agencies, officers, 
     employees, and agents shall be immune from liability for good 
     faith conduct under this title.
       Page 18, beginning in line 7, strike ``a one-year 
     extension'' and insert ``up to two one-year extensions''.
       Page 19, line 3, after ``title'' insert ``or may be 
     reallocated to a jurisdiction from which they were withheld 
     to be used solely for the purpose of implementing this 
     title''.
       Page 25, beginning in line 14, strike ``for damages 
     directly related to'' and insert ``arising from''.
       Page 26, beginning in line 20, strike ``receives a notice 
     from an official that such person''.
       Page 27, line 16, insert ``or section 1591,'' after 
     ``117,''.
       Page 29, line 3, insert ``or section 1591,'' after 
     ``117,''.
       Page 29, strike lines 14 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (g) Conforming Amendments to Cross References.--Paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) of section 4042(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code, are each amended by striking ``(4)'' and inserting 
     ``(3)''.
       Page 10, line 26, after ``Act'' insert ``or its effective 
     date in a particular jurisdiction''.
       Page 19, after line 3, insert the following:
       (c) Rule of Construction.--The provisions of this title 
     that are cast as directions to jurisdictions or their 
     officials constitute only conditions required to avoid the 
     reduction of Federal funding under this section.
       Page 11, line 20, after ``plate number'' insert ``and 
     description''.
       Page 26, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 135. TREATMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS IN THE 
                   BUREAU OF PRISONS.

       Section 3621 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Sex Offender Management.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Bureau of Prisons shall make 
     available appropriate treatment to sex offenders who are in 
     need of and suitable for treatment, as follows:
       ``(A) Sex offender management programs.--The Bureau of 
     Prisons shall establish non-residential sex offender 
     management programs to provide appropriate treatment, 
     monitoring, and supervision of sex offenders and to provide 
     aftercare during pre-release custody.
       ``(B) Residential sex offender treatment programs.--The 
     Bureau of Prisons shall establish residential sex offender 
     treatment programs to provide treatment to sex offenders who 
     volunteer for such programs and are deemed by the Bureau of 
     Prisons to be in need of and suitable for residential 
     treatment.
       ``(2) Regions.--At least one sex offender management 
     program under paragraph (1)(A), and at least one residential 
     sex offender treatment program under paragraph (1)(B), shall 
     be established in each region within the Bureau of Prisons.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Bureau of Prisons for 
     each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this subsection.''.
       At the end of title I, insert the following:

     SEC. 155. ASSISTANCE FOR PROSECUTIONS OF CASES CLEARED 
                   THROUGH USE OF DNA BACKLOG CLEARANCE FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to 
     train and employ personnel to help investigate and prosecute 
     cases cleared through use of funds provided for DNA backlog 
     elimination.
       (b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006 
     through 2010 to carry out this section.

     SEC. 156. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS.

       In addition to any other amounts authorized by law, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated for grants to the American 
     Prosecutors Research Institute under section 214A of the 
     Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13003) 
     $7,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
       Page 15, line 13, strike ``Each'' and insert ``(a) In 
     General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), each''.
       Page 15, after line 19, insert the following:
       (b) Exception.--To the extent authorized by the Attorney 
     General, a jurisdiction need not make available on the 
     Internet information about a sex offender required to 
     register

[[Page H7898]]

     for committing a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor who 
     has attained the age of 16 years.
       Page 8, line 15, insert ``a'' before ``sexual act''.
       Page 12, line 13, insert ``, including the date of the 
     offense, and whether or not the sex offender was prosecuted 
     as a juvenile at the time of the offense'' before the period.
       Page 5, after line 23, insert the following:
       (11) Polly Klaas, who was 12 years old, was abducted, 
     sexually assaulted and murdered in 1993 by a career offender 
     in California.
       Page 24, beginning in line 7, strike ``in a range'' and all 
     that follows through ``by'' in line 9 and inserting ``that is 
     one of''.
       Page 21, after line 15, insert the following (and 
     redesignate succeeding subsections accordingly):
       (f) Innovation.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Attorney General shall ensure that different approaches to 
     monitoring are funded to allow an assessment of 
     effectiveness.
       (g) One-Time Report and Recommendations.--Not later than 
     April 1, 2008, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress 
     a report--
       (1) assessing the effectiveness and value of programs 
     funded by this section;
       (2) comparing the cost-effectiveness of the electronic 
     monitoring to reduce sex offenses compared to other 
     alternatives; and
       (3) making recommendations for continuing funding and the 
     appropriate levels for such funding.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the 
bill which makes a number of technical changes and substantive 
improvements to title I of the bill dealing with the sex offender 
registration and notification requirements and related issues. Let me 
briefly summarize some of the most important provisions.
  First, the amendment includes a requirement that the Bureau of 
Prisons provide adequate treatment programs for sex offenders in all 
six of the regions and that they have adequate access to treatment in 
both residential and nonresidential programs.
  Second, the amendment authorizes grants to States for prosecution of 
cases solved by DNA evidence. With the overwhelming passage of the 
Justice for All Act last Congress, this body recognized that DNA is a 
valuable tool for solving crimes. The amendment incorporates the 
proposal by the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) which will 
further assist States in hiring more prosecutors and investigators for 
cases solved by DNA evidence.
  Third, the amendment includes proposals contained in H.R. 3687, 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Poe), and specifically authorizes technical assistance grants to 
improve the quality of criminal investigation and prosecution of child 
abuse cases.
  Fourth, the amendment expands on the pilot program for electronic 
monitoring programs for sex offenders. As technology develops, we need 
to use tracking technologies to monitor sex offenders' locations and 
movements so that the public can be protected and law enforcement can 
intervene before another tragic attack against a child occurs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in the 
bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
       Page 26, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 136. ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION OF SEX 
                   OFFENDERS RELOCATED AS A RESULT OF HURRICANE 
                   KATRINA.

       The Attorney General shall provide technical assistance to 
     jurisdictions to assist them in the identification and 
     location of sex offenders relocated as a result of Hurricane 
     Katrina.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to 
respond to the law enforcement problems being faced by Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and other States as a result of the 
devastation from Hurricane Katrina.
  It is estimated that at least 15,000 sex offenders have been 
relocated from the affected area as a part of disaster relief efforts. 
Criminal records and sex offender information are, in many cases, not 
available to law enforcement or the community to track these offenders 
as they move to new areas. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
  It has been reported by the Texas Department of Justice, for example, 
that the State is experiencing significant increases in violent crime. 
There are 1,350 sex offenders unaccounted for in Houston alone after 
being evacuated from Louisiana. The parole department in Louisiana has 
no idea where these people are and can provide no identifying 
information, fingerprints or photos.
  Reports also indicate that crimes against children in Texas shelters 
are rising. These States are in desperate need of Federal assistance. 
My amendment does just that by directing the Justice Department to 
provide technical assistance to help law enforcement in these areas and 
to identify sex offenders who have been relocated.
  It is critical we protect our children while disaster relief is being 
provided, and I urge support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


  Permission to Offer Amendments No. 4 and 7 During Consideration of 
                               Title III

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
consider amendments No. 4 and 7, preprinted in the Congressional 
Record, when we call up title III. These amendments primarily affect 
title III. However, there is a little portion that affects title I.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Cuellar

  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Cuellar:
       Page 11, line 4, after the comma insert ``and a minimum 
     term of imprisonment that is no less than 90 days,''.

  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Children's Safety 
Act; and I offer this amendment, which I believe is acceptable to the 
Chair and which I believe also is in the best interest of our 
communities.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we consider a bill that sets serious penalties 
for sex offenders. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for bringing this bill up; and of course 
I also want to thank the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), for 
considering this bill and the amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, we all agree such offenses are tragic, with effects 
that scar victims for a lifetime. I am proud this body is considering 
tough legislation that punishes sex offenders who prey upon youth and 
innocence.
  The sex offender registry is a critical tool that helps protect our 
communities from sexual predators. It allows local law enforcement 
officers and probation and parole authorities to keep current 
information about the residence, work, and student information of a sex 
offender.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. 
I will be happy to accept his amendment. I think it makes a useful 
addition to the bill.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would incorporate by reference 
the comments I have made on mandatory minimums, and I think it would 
apply to this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Gibbons

  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Gibbons:
       Page 26, after line 7, insert the following new section 
     (and redesignate succeeding sections, and conform the table 
     of contents, accordingly):

[[Page H7899]]

     SEC. 134. GAO STUDIES ON FEASIBILITY OF USING DRIVER'S 
                   LICENSE REGISTRATION PROCESSES AS ADDITIONAL 
                   REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SEX OFFENDERS.

       For the purposes of determining the feasibility of using 
     driver's license registration processes as additional 
     registration requirements for sex offenders to improve the 
     level of compliance with sex offender registration 
     requirements for change of address upon relocation and other 
     related updates of personal information, the Congress 
     requires the following studies:
       (1) Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Government Accountability Office shall 
     complete a study for the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives to survey a majority of the States 
     to assess the relative systems capabilities to comply with a 
     Federal law that required all State driver's license systems 
     to automatically access State and national databases of 
     registered sex offenders in a form similar to the requirement 
     of the Nevada law described in paragraph (2). The Government 
     Accountability Office shall use the information drawn from 
     this survey, along with other expert sources, to determine 
     what the potential costs to the States would be if such a 
     Federal law came into effect, and what level of Federal 
     grants would be required to prevent an unfunded mandate. In 
     addition, the Government Accountability Office shall seek the 
     views of Federal and State law enforcement agencies, 
     including in particular the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
     with regard to the anticipated effects of such a national 
     requirement, including potential for undesired side effects 
     in terms of actual compliance with this Act and related laws.
       (2) Not later than October 2006, the Government 
     Accountability Office shall complete a study to evaluate the 
     provisions of Chapter 507 of Statutes of Nevada 2005 to 
     determine--
       (A) if those provisions are effective in increasing the 
     registration compliance rates of sex offenders;
       (B) the aggregate direct and indirect costs for the state 
     of Nevada to bring those provisions into effect; and
       (C) whether those provisions should be modified to improve 
     compliance by registered sex offenders.

  (Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, our Nation has a solemn responsibility to 
protect the most innocent among us, our children. The Children's Safety 
Act of 2005, introduced by our chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), will help to ensure that sex offenders are 
registered properly and that they maintain their registration wherever 
they reside.
  I originally sought to offer an amendment to this important bill that 
would have required States to ensure that sex offenders are properly 
registered before they are issued a driver's license and in doing so 
mandate that their license would have to be renewed every single year. 
The State of Nevada passed a law earlier this year that does just that.
  The purpose of such a requirement is to add another layer of 
protection for the children and families of our communities. In short, 
if a sex offender refuses to keep their registration current, which is 
now a problem facing too many States, then he would be unable to obtain 
a legal driver's license. This means that the sex offender is at risk 
at any time of being caught driving without a license and arrested.
  I think that this threat can serve as a useful deterrent and 
encourage sex offenders to maintain their registration--in fact, 
improving the registration compliance rate of these offenders.
  In a State where over 30 percent of sex offenders are non-compliant 
and lost in the system, we took these very same steps in Nevada to 
ensure a greater compliance rate.
  We simply must do everything we can to protect our children and 
prevent sexual crimes against them.
  I am proud that Nevada is a leader in this Nation in having modern, 
efficient computer systems that will allow it to implement this 
licensing procedure.
  Unfortunately, several other States have not yet fully updated their 
DMV and criminal registry systems.
  As a result, concerns have been raised regarding the cost on other 
States of such a system, and these concerns should be addressed.
  In consideration of these concerns, my amendment today will require 
the GAO to study the feasibility and costs of this driver's license 
requirement.
  This amendment also will require the GAO to study what type of 
Federal grant program may be needed to assist the States with 
implementing this requirement.
  This study will also seek the opinions and expertise of Federal and 
State law enforcement to ensure that this additional reform of our sex 
offender laws assists them in protecting our children.
  Finally, my amendment calls on the GAO to study the effectiveness of 
Nevada's State law so that Congress and this Nation can learn from my 
State how this system might work on a national level and how we can do 
a better job in monitoring sex offenders.
  Since I think that it is prudent for all States to follow Nevada's 
lead, I will also introduce stand-alone legislation today that will 
require States to begin implementing Nevada's driver's license 
requirement.
  However, I understand the importance of ensuring appropriate 
resources are provided, and will work with Mr. Sensenbrenner to study 
this issue so we can move forward in implementing these regulations to 
protect our children and prevent these horrible crimes.
  I look forward to gathering the necessary information and finding a 
legislative solution that will not put an undue burden on our States, 
but will ensure the safety of our children.
  I want to thank the chairman and his staff for working with me on 
this issue.
  Finally, I want to close by expressing my thanks to George Togliatti, 
Director of the Nevada Department of Public Safety and to Donna 
Coleman, member of Demanding Justice for America's Children.
  They both have worked tirelessly with my office to ensure that 
Nevada's children are protected.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, as with the previous amendment, I 
believe this amendment also improves the bill, and I would urge support 
of it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment and would just point out that this requirement for a driver's 
license just adds another little ``gotcha'' for which someone could be 
subjected to a 5-year mandatory minimum and, therefore, would oppose 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       At the end of title I, add the following new subtitle:

                  Subtitle C--Children's Safety Office

     SEC. 171. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is hereby established within the Department of 
     Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General, 
     a Children's Safety Office.

     SEC. 172. PURPOSE.

       The purpose of the Office is to administer the sex offender 
     registration program under subtitle A and to coordinate with 
     other departments, agencies, and offices in preventing sexual 
     abuse of children, prosecuting child sex offenders, and 
     tracking child abusers post-conviction .

     SEC. 173. DIRECTOR.

       (a) Advice and Consent.--At the head of the Office shall be 
     a Director, appointed by the President, by and with the 
     advice and consent of the Senate. The Director shall report 
     directly to the Attorney General.
       (b) Qualifications.--The Director shall be appointed from 
     among distinguished individuals who have--
       (1) proven academic, management, and leadership 
     credentials;
       (2) a superior record of achievement; and
       (3) training or expertise in criminal law or the 
     exploitation of children, or both.
       (c) Duties.--The Director shall have the following duties:
       (1) To maintain liaison with the judicial branches of the 
     Federal and State Governments on matters relating to 
     children's safety from sex offenders.
       (2) To provide information to the President, the Congress, 
     the Judiciary, State and local governments, and the general 
     public on matters relating to children's safety from sex 
     offenders.
       (3) To serve, when requested by the Attorney General, as 
     the representative of the Department of Justice on domestic 
     task forces, committees, or commissions addressing policy or 
     issues relating to children's safety from sex offenders.
       (4) To provide technical assistance, coordination, and 
     support to--
       (A) other components of the Department of Justice, in 
     efforts to develop policy and to enforce Federal laws 
     relating to sexual assaults against children, including the 
     litigation of civil and criminal actions relating to 
     enforcing such laws; and
       (B) other Federal, State, and local agencies, in efforts to 
     develop policy, provide technical assistance, and improve 
     coordination among agencies carrying out efforts to eliminate 
     sexual assaults against children.

[[Page H7900]]

       (5) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be 
     vested in the Director pursuant to this or any other Act or 
     by delegation of the Attorney General in accordance with law.
       (6) To establish such rules, regulations, guidelines, and 
     procedures as are necessary to carry out any function of the 
     Office.
       (7) To oversee--
       (A) the grant programs under subtitle A; and
       (B) any other grant programs of the Department of Justice 
     to the extent they relate to sexual assaults against 
     children.

     SEC. 174. ANNUAL REPORT.

       Not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year 
     for which grants are made under subtitle A, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary 
     of the Senate a report that includes, for each State or other 
     jurisdiction--
       (1) the number of grants made and funds distributed under 
     subtitle A;
       (2) a summary of the purposes for which those grants were 
     provided and an evaluation of their progress;
       (3) a statistical summary of persons served, detailing the 
     nature of victimization, and providing data on age, sex, 
     relationship of victim to offender, geographic distribution, 
     race, ethnicity, language, and disability, and the membership 
     of persons served in any underserved population; and
       (4) an evaluation of the effectiveness of programs funded 
     under subtitle A.

     SEC. 175. STAFF.

       The Attorney General shall ensure that the Director has 
     adequate staff to support the Director in carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Director.

     SEC. 176. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this subtitle.

     SEC. 177. NONMONETARY ASSISTANCE.

       In addition to the assistance provided under subtitle A, 
     the Attorney General may request any Federal agency to use 
     its authorities and the resources granted to it under Federal 
     law (including personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, 
     and managerial, technical, and advisory services) in support 
     of State and local assistance efforts consistent with the 
     purposes of this title.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment creates a national Office of 
Children's Safety within the Department of Justice, which would be run 
by a Presidential appointment and would report to the Attorney General. 
The director's duties would be to track State compliance with new 
registration requirements in the bill and report back to Congress on 
their progress. It would coordinate the Federal Government's response 
to the sexual abuse of minors and provide expertise and resources for 
the unique crime of child sexual abuse to States, local, and Federal 
authorities.

                              {time}  1300

  It is important that this amendment, if accepted, be run by someone 
qualified for the job. The FEMA incident illustrates this part of the 
provision.
  The large number of sexually exploited children in this country is 
certainly an emergency. That is why I ask my colleagues to support this 
amendment to ensure our Department of Justice makes combating the 
exploitation of children one of its highest priorities.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is a 
constructive addition to the bill. It might need a little fine-tuning 
regarding the structure of the office, but we can do that in 
conference. I urge the House to accept the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his acceptance 
of the amendment. I would be happy to work on any suggested 
improvements to the amendment.
  I think we have special offices in the Department of Justice 
concerning Violence Against Women and Cops on the Beat programs, and I 
think our children deserve no less.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       At the end of title I, add the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 1___. GRANTS TO COMBAT SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN.

       (a) In General.--The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall 
     make grants to law enforcement agencies for purposes of this 
     section. The Bureau shall make such a grant--
       (1) to each law enforcement agency that serves a 
     jurisdiction with 50,000 or more residents; and
       (2) to each law enforcement agency that serves a 
     jurisdiction with fewer than 50,000 residents, upon a showing 
     of need.
       (b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may be 
     used by the law enforcement agency to--
       (1) hire additional law enforcement personnel, or train 
     existing staff to combat the sexual abuse of children through 
     community education and outreach, investigation of 
     complaints, enforcement of laws relating to sex offender 
     registries, and management of released sex offenders;
       (2) investigate the use of the Internet to facilitate the 
     sexual abuse of children; and
       (3) purchase computer hardware and software necessary to 
     investigate sexual abuse of children over the Internet, 
     access local, State, and Federal databases needed to 
     apprehend sex offenders, and facilitate the creation and 
     enforcement of sex offender registries.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2008 to carry out this section.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, while there are many different grant 
programs in the Department of Justice providing resources for 
initiatives fighting violent or sexual assault, we have not found any 
that are directly and specifically at local law enforcement's ability 
to protect children from sexual predators.
  This provision takes an important step to make sure that after 
offenders are prosecuted and released, they are registered and made 
publicly known. However, it does nothing to prevent the abuse from 
happening in the first place, nor does it help officers investigate and 
track down offenders after complaints. So this amendment would not only 
help fund local sheriff and police units, implementation and 
enforcement of the registration, but would provide funds to make sure 
that local units have the resources necessary to pursue child abusers, 
including additional staff, training of existing personnel, and 
computers and software necessary to investigate predators who find 
children over the Internet.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment sounds good to me, 
and I am happy to accept this amendment as well.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) for his consideration.
  There are few needs as pressing as the importance of stopping the 
sexual abuse of children, and I appreciate the fact that we are 
providing special grant programs for prescription drug abuse, 
telemarketing fraud; and now we can find a way to fund programs to 
protect the most vulnerable in our society, our children. I urge 
support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Poe

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Poe:
       At the end of title I, add the following new section (and 
     amend the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. __. EXPANSION OF TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY EFFORTS.

       (a) Training.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 
     shall--
       (1) expand training efforts with Federal, State, and local 
     law enforcement officers and prosecutors to effectively 
     respond to the threat to children and the public posed by sex 
     offenders who use the internet and technology to solicit or 
     otherwise exploit children;
       (2) facilitate meetings, between corporations that sell 
     computer hardware and software or provide services to the 
     general public related to use of the Internet, to identify 
     problems associated with the use of technology for the 
     purpose of exploiting children;
       (3) host national conferences to train Federal, State, and 
     local law enforcement officers, probation and parole 
     officers, and prosecutors regarding pro-active approaches to 
     monitoring sex offender activity on the Internet;
       (4) develop and distribute, for personnel listed in 
     paragraph (3), information regarding multi-disciplinary 
     approaches to holding

[[Page H7901]]

     offenders accountable to the terms of their probation, 
     parole, and sex offender registration laws; and
       (5) partner with other agencies to improve the coordination 
     of joint investigations among agencies to effectively combat 
     on-line solicitation of children by sex offenders.
       (b) Technology.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 
     shall--
       (1) deploy, to all Internet Crimes Against Children Task 
     Forces and their partner agencies, technology modeled after 
     the Canadian Child Exploitation Tracking System; and
       (2) conduct training in the use of that technology.
       (c) Report.--Not later than July 1, 2006, the Attorney 
     General, in consultation with the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention, shall submit to Congress a report 
     on the activities carried out under this section. The report 
     shall include any recommendations that the Attorney General, 
     in consultation with the Office, considers appropriate.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Attorney General, for fiscal year 
     2006--
       (1) $1,000,000 to carry out subsection (a); and
       (2) $2,000,000 to carry out subsection (b).

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff), to offer this training technology 
amendment.
  The training and technology amendment addresses several key issues 
for law enforcement throughout the country when dealing with Internet 
crime against children. These crimes committed against children on the 
Internet are facilitated by the latest technologies and advances in 
computers and the Internet.
  Without properly equipping law enforcement, these cases will not be 
investigated and prosecuted effectively, allowing many predators to 
slip through the cracks in our criminal justice system. Furthermore, 
many cases involving exploitation and enticement of children on the 
Internet cross jurisdictional lines and even international boundaries. 
There is a great need for law enforcement prosecutors and investigators 
to have the ability to share information quickly as cases unfold.
  To address these needs, the training and technology amendment funds 
the Department of Justice $3 million to do two things:
  (1) Train law enforcement to use the most up to date technology while 
investigating and collecting evidence from a suspected internet 
predator--for example, recovering files from hard drives of suspected 
child pornographers.
  (2) Provide hardware and training to use software that Microsoft is 
developing and donating to the Department of Justice. A similar project 
has successfully been implemented in Canada. The software would link 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preventions' 46 regional 
Internet Crimes Against Children Units with one database. This will 
allow law enforcement across the country and even internationally to 
work together and share information on cases that cross jurisdictions.
  In order for the Child Safety Act to be successfully implemented, law 
enforcement must be equipped and trained to meet the challenges of 
investigating cases involving advanced technological tools. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman has an 
instructive amendment, and I am prepared to support it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I join in support of the amendment. It is money that will be 
extremely well spent and actually deals with the problem. I thank the 
gentleman for introducing the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina:
       Page 27, line 7, strike ``not less than 5 years nor''.
       Page 27, lines 17 through 18, strike ``not less than 5 
     years nor''.

  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
bill, but hopeful that we can make it even a little bit better. The 
thrust of the bill is clearly a good idea. We need a national 
registration for sex offenders. We need to make it with teeth, and that 
is why I support the underlying bill.
  There is, however, this issue of mandatory minimums in the bill. I am 
a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and I have said there that 
I am more uncomfortable than ever with our use of mandatory minimums. 
We have a coherent system of sentencing called the sentencing 
guidelines. We have people who thought very carefully about how it 
would be that rape, for example, would compare with bank robbery and 
how that would compare with cashing bad checks, and so they came up 
with a system.
  Into that system have come some reactions from Congress to 
particularly heinous crimes. The result is sort of a patchwork of 
mandatory minimums that disrupt the coherent system established by the 
sentencing guidelines. So here today we have a bill before us that has 
a particularly dangerous mandatory minimum when it comes to the 
situation of someone failing to register.
  Now, I think it is pretty confusing when you move from State to 
State. In fact, it is quite often the case that you send your 
possessions on ahead in a moving van; and the question is when did you 
move from California to Ohio, was it when the moving van got there, or 
was it when you took the first flight from California to Ohio, but then 
you returned to California to get the rest of your possessions and 
drove back. When did you move to Ohio?
  Under this bill as it is right now, if you fail to register, you have 
a mandatory minimum. I think the mandatory minimum in this case is 
particularly inappropriate. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is a 5-year 
mandatory minimum. So the hypothetical I just posed of somebody moving 
from California to Ohio, the moving truck is there, they fly out twice 
to Ohio, and finally they are moved, if they do not register in a 
timely fashion, and it is a very brief time they have to register, then 
what happens is they must go off to jail for 5 years. This is somebody 
who has not committed another offense. If they commit another offense, 
there are mandatory minimums that handle that.
  This is a failing to register, which is an important thing. It is 
very important that we register, but it seems to me that this is a 
classic case of where we should give judges discretion within the 
sentencing guidelines to deal with exactly the hypothetical I have just 
described. Let the judge decide, well, the person actually did move to 
Ohio on that second trip and when they moved, they failed to register. 
But maybe they had an appendectomy. If they did, give them some time, 
give them some grace because they were clearly attempting to comply 
with the law.
  On the other hand, the judge could hear this person was not 
attempting to comply with the law. They were flouting the layout; and 
if they were, he gives them some time.
  The amendment here would simply strike the 5-year minimum and make it 
so that it could be up to a maximum of 20 years. So a judge could still 
send the flagrant violator, the person who has failed to register, off 
to jail for a good long time because registration is crucial to the 
underlying nature of this bill.
  So I support the bill, and I hope that we can improve it by 
eliminating what could be manifest injustice with a mandatory minimum 
that is unchangeable by a judge, a judge who can see the circumstances. 
Of course that requires some trust in the judges, but I am thinking we 
can do that. At least in South Carolina, we have good judges, judges 
who make decisions that seem to be consistent with the spirit of this 
law.
  If jurisdictions have judges who do not do that, perhaps there should 
be some pressure brought to bear on these judges and, in fact, 
impeachments if those judges consistently violate the sentencing 
guidelines. But let us let the system work; let us let the Constitution 
work and respect the judiciary and respect the competence of the people 
that the U.S. Senate confirms. We have a confirmation hearing going on 
right now where we are confirming, I hope, somebody who is clearly a 
capable jurist. When he is on that Court, we

[[Page H7902]]

should defer to him because he is a coequal branch of the Federal 
Government.
  So my amendment is very simple. It strikes the mandatory minimum in 
the case of failing to register. I hope my colleagues will support it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deletes the 5-year mandatory minimum 
sentence for a sex offender who crosses State lines to fail to register 
in the new State and also deletes the 5-year mandatory minimum for 
making false statements in a sexual abuse investigation.
  Let me say that the whole issue of the sentencing guidelines has been 
a very vexatious one. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided two 
cases that made the sentencing guidelines only advisory, rather than 
mandatory. So if this amendment is adopted, judges will be given the 
power to place on probation those who were convicted of not registering 
in a new State or making a false statement to law enforcement relative 
to a sexual abuse investigation.
  I do not think that probation is advisable in these instances, and 
that is why this amendment should be defeated.
  The most significant enforcement issue that exists today in the sex 
offender program is that over 100,000 sex offenders, or nearly one-
fifth in the Nation, are ``missing,'' meaning they have not complied 
with the sex offender registration requirements. This typically occurs 
when the sex offenders move from one State to another.
  To ensure compliance with the registration requirements, States are 
required to inform the sex offender of his or her obligations and 
obtain a signed form indicating he or she understands those obligations 
and will comply with them. In order to address the problem of the 
missing sex offenders, that is, those who fail to comply with moving 
from one State to another, sex offenders will now face Federal 
prosecution with a mandatory minimum of 5 years.
  The combination of incentives for the sex offender to comply and 
stiff criminal penalties and additional law enforcement resources to 
focus on this problem should help address the overwhelming number of 
noncomplying or ``missing'' sex offenders in our community.
  The 5-year mandatory minimum penalty is a critical component of this 
new enforcement scheme, and this amendment punches a hole in that 
enforcement scheme and allows a loophole to have the current situation 
continue to fester. The mandatory minimum applies for a knowing 
violation that will help ensure that sex offenders comply with all 
registration requirements.

                              {time}  1315

  Never again should our communities have to suffer from the fear of 
unidentified sex offenders in their communities, their schools, and 
their youth organizations.
  Similarly, the 5-year mandatory minimum for false statements made 
during a sexual abuse investigation is critical. The facts surrounding 
the Jessica Lunsford case in Florida demonstrate that time is of the 
essence and false statements can make the difference between life and 
death of a missing child.
  In the Lunsford case, three witnesses knew that John Couey, the 
alleged rapist and murderer of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, was living 
within 150 yards of Jessica's house but failed to tell investigators. 
If they had told the truth, maybe, just maybe, Jessica Lunsford would 
be alive today.
  A 5-year mandatory minimum penalty would ensure truthful and full 
cooperation by witnesses in such investigations. It is an important 
policy goal, and these penalties send a strong deterrent message.
  I strongly urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates the 5-year mandatory minimum 
for failing to properly register and the 5-year mandatory minimum for 
falsifying registration information, with the possibility still of 20 
years.
  The amendment keeps the 20-year maximum for both crimes and leaves it 
to the Sentencing Commission and the courts to determine the gradations 
of seriousness and the punishment for violations based on the facts and 
circumstances of the violation.
  It is absurd that misdemeanants and other minor offenders who get a 
suspended sentence for a crime that was committed 15 years ago could 
get a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence for a technical violation of a 
registration requirement such as showing up at 5:30 on the last day of 
registration when the office closed at 5 o'clock or failing to register 
the fact that they are in a community college that has different sites. 
Do they have to register everywhere they might take a class or just the 
main registration place for the community college? Or if they work in 
construction, if they register at the home office of the construction 
company, do they also have to register at each location where they are 
doing construction? If they guess wrong, 5 years mandatory minimum, no 
discretion on the part of the judge.
  Are our children going to be safer or less safe if an offender knows 
that he is in technical violation? If he shows up to register after he 
has been in technical violation, he knows he is looking at a 5-year 
mandatory minimum. Is he going to show up or not?
  Mr. Chairman, it is also absurd that an offender would be sentenced 
to a minimum 5 years for giving a technically false statement regarding 
this registration when, under the same section of the law, there is a 
maximum of 8 years, no minimum sentence, for either making a false 
statement in connection with international or domestic terrorism. A 
false statement on terrorism, 8 years maximum, no minimum; technical 
violation on registration, 5 years mandatory minimum, 20 years 
possibility.
  Again, this amendment retains the 20-year maximum for cases such as 
those cited by the chairman, but it allows common sense in determining 
which offenders would get what sentence for what violations.
  We have been told by the Sentencing Commission and the Judicial 
Conference time and time again that mandatory minimum sentences violate 
common sense. For someone who deserves the time, the mandatory minimum 
has no effect because they will get the time. For those who do not 
deserve the time, that violates common sense. They will get that time 
anyway.
  In everyday experiences judges can see differences, great and small, 
in the facts and circumstances in the cases before them. The name of 
the crime is often a poor indicator of the facts and circumstances of 
the crime. So it makes sense to have a rational assessment by one who 
has heard and seen the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case 
making the appropriate decision within the guidelines set by the 
Sentencing Commission relating to the gradations in seriousness of the 
crime and the other characteristics. That is why we set up the 
Sentencing Reform Act that set up the Sentencing Commission, and these 
mandatory minimums obviously violate that entire system.
  Of course, under the Federal system, the ones who will primarily be 
affected will be Native Americans because they try all their cases in 
Federal courts; and it is unfair to them and unfair to common sense 
where identical offenses can be committed, one by a Native American, 
another a few miles away, the same crime and vastly different sentences 
because the Native American is stuck in Federal court with the 5-year 
mandatory minimum. These mandatory minimums violate common sense, and 
so I am delighted to join the gentleman from South Carolina in this 
amendment and hope our colleagues will support it.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  Sex offenders are the worst in our society. They prey on our children 
as if they were cattle. The idea that they will voluntarily register 
needs to be thrown out the window because they simply will not.
  Time and time again we have seen experiences where these people 
realize that the microscope of society is upon them. So they move and 
they try to relocate into other communities. Our States, our 50 States, 
many are border States whereby if they are in Tallahassee, Florida, it 
is very easy to go to Valdosta, Georgia, very easy to get a new job and 
a new occupation.

[[Page H7903]]

  That has been the problem with the laws. We cannot properly track 
these offenders. We cannot follow their whereabouts. And if we do not 
have a strict punishment on them, they simply will continue to move 
about the country and prey on vulnerable children in other States.
  For God's sake, if I come to Washington, D.C., and want to get a 
Blockbuster movie, I have to get a new registration card. I have to put 
down my credit card, my driver's license to rent a movie. And if I fail 
to return the movie, they charge me for the movie. There are penalties 
for violating simple rules of video rentals, and my colleagues would 
have us believe, oh, let us not be too harsh on these people.
  Jessica Lunsford was buried in a garbage bag by a known sex offender 
who failed to register. Oh, let us not give him a 5-year minimum 
mandatory. Let us not inconvenience him, John Couey. Let us not cause 
any unnecessary paperwork for John Couey, while Jessica Lunsford is in 
a plastic garbage bag.
  We have to have a driver's license in the State in which we live. We 
have to have a license tag in the State in which we reside. It takes us 
48 hours to get our cable installed. But, God, no, let us not 
inconvenience by mandatory punishment if a sex offender fails to 
report.
  They are instructed before they are released of the obligations of 
their sentencing. They are told they must report in the new State. They 
are given adequate warning. For far too long we have opened up our 
jails and said hope you are better and then lost track of them. I said 
it before, we track library books better than we do these criminals, 
and it is time we balance the scale of justice in favor of our 
children.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I agree exactly with what 
the gentleman just said, and that is why I am voting for the underlying 
bill.
  But the gentleman said earlier that this is some kind of voluntary 
registration. There is nothing voluntary about this. We, in strong 
action here, are requiring exactly the person he just described to 
register, and we say to them they must register within the prescribed 
period. There is no voluntary nature to that. That is a strong and good 
law. That is what we are doing here.
  The question is whether we can trust the sentencing guidelines and 
the Sentencing Commission and Federal judges to come up with a system 
to figure out whether that person that the gentleman is describing, 
flagrantly violating it, should go off for 20 years as opposed to the 
hypothetical that I posed as somebody in confusion about when exactly 
they moved, let us say, from California to Florida, as to whether that 
case deserves a mandatory minimum of 5 years.
  Because what we are doing here, if this amendment fails, is tying the 
hands of that judge in Ohio such that he must or she must send the 
person off for 5 years if there was confusion about when and how they 
moved to the State of Ohio. It may be somebody who did not flagrantly 
violate. It was just confusion as to when they moved. And if we have 
sentencing guidelines and judges that follow those guidelines, if they 
do not, put pressure on them and then impeach them.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wish the perpetrator 
would have thought about the penalties before they committed the crime. 
The minimum mandatory may tie the hands of judges, but it will, in 
fact, tie the hands of the predator. They know full well before they 
are released what the requirements are, and if there is confusion, it 
is the perpetrator's fault. I do not want it to be relied upon the 
victim to say the victim should have known he may have been a 
perpetrator but we were not registered.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Inglis) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to offer amendment 
No. 23 at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the consideration of the 
gentleman's amendment at this point? The amendment is in title III.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       At the end of title III insert the following:

     SEC. 304. STATISTICS.

       (a) Coverage.--Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of 
     the Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended 
     by inserting ``gender,'' before ``or ethnicity''.
       (b) Data.--Subsection (b)(5) of the first section of the 
     Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by 
     inserting ``, including data about crimes committed by and 
     directed against juveniles'' after ``data acquired under this 
     section''.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to the bill to 
address a blight on our society, the scourge of hate violence. Because, 
currently, we lack sufficient data to assist in determining how to 
address bias crime directed toward children. This amendment would 
correct that oversight.
  For the year 2003, for example, the most recent available data, the 
FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country 
identifying 7,489 criminal incidents that were motivated by an 
offender's irrational antagonism towards some personal attribute 
associated with the victim.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman 
for accepting the amendment.
  Law enforcement agencies have identified 9,100 victims arising from 
8,715 separate criminal offenses. FBI data has also revealed that a 
disproportionately high percentage of both the victims and the 
perpetrators of hate violence were children, young people under 18 
years of age.
  The FBI's annual Hate Crime Statistics Act report provides the best 
snapshot of the magnitude of the hate violence problem in America. 
However, there is a paucity of regularly published information about 
juvenile hate crime offenses because the statute does not require data 
analysis for gender or juvenile categories.
  This is an important omission, as indicated by a special DOJ report 
on the subject in 2001. This report, which carefully analyzed nearly 
3,000 of the 24,000 hate crimes to the FBI from 1997 to 1999, revealed 
that a disproportionately high percentage of both the victims and the 
perpetrators of hate violence were young people under 18 years of age. 
For example: 30 percent of all victims of bias-motivated aggravated 
assaults and 34 percent of the victims of simple assault were under 18.
  As we address legislation for the protection of children, we should 
utilize the full extent of Federal resources and data collection plays 
an important role. I hope that this amend will find broad support so 
that we can work to eliminate hate violence directed against young 
people.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title I?
  The Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:

                      TITLE II--DNA FINGERPRINTING

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``DNA Fingerprinting Act of 
     2005''.

     SEC. 202. EXPANDING USE OF DNA TO IDENTIFY AND PROSECUTE SEX 
                   OFFENDERS.

       (a) Expansion of National DNA Index System.--Section 210304 
     of the DNA Identification Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14132) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(C), by striking ``, provided'' and 
     all that follows through ``System''; and
       (2) by striking subsections (d) and (e).
       (b) DNA Sample Collection From Persons Arrested or Detained 
     Under Federal Authority.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog 
     Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a) is amended
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Director'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) The Attorney General may, as provided by the Attorney 
     General by regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals 
     who are arrested,

[[Page H7904]]

     detained, or convicted under the authority of the United 
     States. The Attorney General may delegate this function 
     within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 
     of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and 
     direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or 
     detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges 
     to carry out any function and exercise any power of the 
     Attorney General under this section.
       ``(B) The Director''; and
       (ii) in paragraphs (3) and (4), by striking ``Director of 
     the Bureau of Prisons'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``Attorney General, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons,''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``Director of the Bureau 
     of Prisons'' and inserting ``Attorney General, the Director 
     of the Bureau of Prisons,''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsections (b) and (c)(1)(A) of 
     section 3142 of title 18, United States Code, are each 
     amended by inserting ``and subject to the condition that the 
     person cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the 
     person if the collection of such a sample is authorized 
     pursuant to section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination 
     Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a)'' after ``period of release''.
       (c) Tolling of Statute of Limitations in Sexual Abuse 
     Cases.--Section 3297 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``except for a felony offense under 
     chapter 109A,''.

     SEC. 203. STOPPING VIOLENT PREDATORS AGAINST CHILDREN.

       In carrying out Acts of Congress relating to DNA databases, 
     the Attorney General shall give appropriate consideration to 
     the need for the collection and testing of DNA to stop 
     violent predators against children.

     SEC. 204. MODEL CODE ON INVESTIGATING MISSING PERSONS AND 
                   DEATHS.

       (a) Model Code Required.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall 
     publish a model code setting forth procedures to be followed 
     by law enforcement officers when investigating a missing 
     person or a death. The procedures shall include the use of 
     DNA analysis to help locate missing persons and to help 
     identify human remains.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     each State should, not later than 1 year after the date on 
     which the Attorney General publishes the model code, enact 
     laws implementing the model code.
       (c) GAO Study.--Not later than 2 years after the date on 
     which the Attorney General publishes the model code, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     extent to which States have implemented the model code. The 
     report shall, for each State--
       (1) describe the extent to which the State has implemented 
     the model code; and
       (2) to the extent the State has not implemented the model 
     code, describe the reasons why the State has not done so.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, are we in title III?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk just designated title II.
  The Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:

TITLE III--PREVENTION AND DETERRENCE OF CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN ACT OF 
                                  2005

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Prevention and Deterrence 
     of Crimes Against Children Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 302. ASSURED PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Special Sentencing Rule.--Subsection (d) of section 
     3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(d) Mandatory Minimum Terms of Imprisonment for Violent 
     Crimes Against Children.--A person who is convicted of a 
     felony crime of violence against the person of an individual 
     who has not attained the age of 18 years shall, unless a 
     greater mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment is 
     otherwise provided by law and regardless of any maximum term 
     of imprisonment otherwise provided for the offense--
       ``(1) if the crime of violence results in the death of a 
     person who has not attained the age of 18 years, be sentenced 
     to death or life in prison;
       ``(2) if the crime of violence is kidnapping, aggravated 
     sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or maiming, or results in serious 
     bodily injury (as defined in section 2119(2)) be imprisoned 
     for life or any term of years not less than 30;
       ``(3) if the crime of violence results in bodily injury (as 
     defined in section 1365) or is an offense under paragraphs 
     (1), (2), or (5) of section 2244(a), be imprisoned for life 
     or for any term of years not less than 20;
       ``(4) if a dangerous weapon was used during and in relation 
     to the crime of violence, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 15; and
       ``(5) in any other case, be imprisoned for life or for any 
     term of years not less than 10.''.

     SEC. 303. ENSURING FAIR AND EXPEDITIOUS FEDERAL COLLATERAL 
                   REVIEW OF CONVICTIONS FOR KILLING A CHILD.

       (a) Limits on Cases.--Section 2254 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j)(1) A court, justice, or judge shall not have 
     jurisdiction to consider any claim relating to the judgment 
     or sentence in an application described under paragraph (2), 
     unless the applicant shows that the claim qualifies for 
     consideration on the grounds described in subsection (e)(2). 
     Any such application that is presented to a court, justice, 
     or judge other than a district court shall be transferred to 
     the appropriate district court for consideration or dismissal 
     in conformity with this subsection, except that a court of 
     appeals panel must authorize any second or successive 
     application in conformity with section 2244 before any 
     consideration by the district court.
       ``(2) This subsection applies to an application for a writ 
     of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to 
     the judgment of a State court for a crime that involved the 
     killing of a individual who has not attained the age of 18 
     years.
       ``(3) For an application described in paragraph (2), the 
     following requirements shall apply in the district court:
       ``(A) Any motion by either party for an evidentiary hearing 
     shall be filed and served not later than 90 days after the 
     State files its answer or, if no timely answer is filed, the 
     date on which such answer is due.
       ``(B) Any motion for an evidentiary hearing shall be 
     granted or denied not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which the party opposing such motion files a pleading in 
     opposition to such motion or, if no timely pleading in 
     opposition is filed, the date on which such pleading in 
     opposition is due.
       ``(C) Any evidentiary hearing shall be--
       ``(i) convened not less than 60 days after the order 
     granting such hearing; and
       ``(ii) completed not more than 150 days after the order 
     granting such hearing.
       ``(D) A district court shall enter a final order, granting 
     or denying the application for a writ of habeas corpus, not 
     later than 15 months after the date on which the State files 
     its answer or, if no timely answer is filed, the date on 
     which such answer is due, or not later than 60 days after the 
     case is submitted for decision, whichever is earlier.
       ``(E) If the district court fails to comply with the 
     requirements of this paragraph, the State may petition the 
     court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to enforce the 
     requirements. The court of appeals shall grant or deny the 
     petition for a writ of mandamus not later than 30 days after 
     such petition is filed with the court.
       ``(4) For an application described in paragraph (2), the 
     following requirements shall apply in the court of appeals:
       ``(A) A timely filed notice of appeal from an order issuing 
     a writ of habeas corpus shall operate as a stay of that order 
     pending final disposition of the appeal.
       ``(B) The court of appeals shall decide the appeal from an 
     order granting or denying a writ of habeas corpus--
       ``(i) not later than 120 days after the date on which the 
     brief of the appellee is filed or, if no timely brief is 
     filed, the date on which such brief is due; or
       ``(ii) if a cross-appeal is filed, not later than 120 days 
     after the date on which the appellant files a brief in 
     response to the issues presented by the cross-appeal or, if 
     no timely brief is filed, the date on which such brief is 
     due.
       ``(C)(i) Following a decision by a panel of the court of 
     appeals under subparagraph (B), a petition for panel 
     rehearing is not allowed, but rehearing by the court of 
     appeals en banc may be requested. The court of appeals shall 
     decide whether to grant a petition for rehearing en banc not 
     later than 30 days after the date on which the petition is 
     filed, unless a response is required, in which case the court 
     shall decide whether to grant the petition not later than 30 
     days after the date on which the response is filed or, if no 
     timely response is filed, the date on which the response is 
     due.
       ``(ii) If rehearing en banc is granted, the court of 
     appeals shall make a final determination of the appeal not 
     later than 120 days after the date on which the order 
     granting rehearing en banc is entered.
       ``(D) If the court of appeals fails to comply with the 
     requirements of this paragraph, the State may petition the 
     Supreme Court or a justice thereof for a writ of mandamus to 
     enforce the requirements.
       ``(5)(A) The time limitations under paragraphs (3) and (4) 
     shall apply to an initial application described in paragraph 
     (2), any second or successive application described in 
     paragraph (2), and any redetermination of an application 
     described in paragraph (2) or related appeal following a 
     remand by the court of appeals or the Supreme Court for 
     further proceedings.
       ``(B) In proceedings following remand in the district 
     court, time limits running from the time the State files its 
     answer under paragraph (3) shall run from the date the remand 
     is ordered if further briefing is not required in the 
     district court. If there is further briefing following remand 
     in the district court, such time limits shall run from the 
     date on which a responsive brief is filed or, if no timely 
     responsive brief is filed, the date on which such brief is 
     due.
       ``(C) In proceedings following remand in the court of 
     appeals, the time limit specified in paragraph (4)(B) shall 
     run from the date the remand is ordered if further briefing 
     is not required in the court of appeals. If there is further 
     briefing in the court of appeals, the time limit specified in 
     paragraph (4)(B) shall run from the date on which a 
     responsive brief is filed or, if no timely responsive brief 
     is filed, from the date on which such brief is due.
       ``(6) The failure of a court to meet or comply with a time 
     limitation under this subsection shall not be a ground for 
     granting relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence, 
     nor shall the time limitations under this subsection be 
     construed to entitle a capital applicant to a stay of 
     execution, to which the applicant would otherwise not be 
     entitled, for the purpose of litigating any application or 
     appeal.''.
       (b) Victims' Rights in Habeas Cases.--Section 3771(b) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is

[[Page H7905]]

     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The rights 
     established for crime victims by this section shall also be 
     extended in a Federal habeas corpus proceeding arising out of 
     a State conviction to victims of the State offense at 
     issue.''.
       (c) Application to Pending Cases.--
       (1) In general.--The amendment made by this section apply 
     to cases pending on the date of the enactment of this Act as 
     well as to cases commenced on and after that date.
       (2) Special rule for time limits.--In a case pending on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, if the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) provides that a time limit runs from an event 
     or time that has occurred before that date, the time limit 
     shall instead run from that date.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Baird

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Baird:
       Add at the end of title III the following:

     SEC. 304. STUDY OF INTERSTATE TRACKING OF PERSONS CONVICTED 
                   OF OR UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR CHILD ABUSE.

       (a) Study.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall study the 
     establishment of a nationwide interstate tracking system of 
     persons convicted of, or under investigation for, child 
     abuse. The study shall include an analysis, along with the 
     costs and benefits, of various mechanisms for establishing an 
     interstate tracking system, and include the extent to which 
     existing registries could be used.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to the 
     Congress the results of the study under this section.

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, this is a commonsense amendment designed to 
address a problem that most people are unaware of but I believe 
adversely affects thousands of children across this country.
  Every week, child protective agencies throughout the U.S. receive 
more than 50,000 reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. A total 
of 2.6 million reports were filed in 2002. In approximately two-thirds 
of these cases there is sufficient evidence to prompt an assessment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I think this study is a good idea. I 
believe that child abusers should be tracked the same way as sex 
offenders.
  If the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I will be happy to accept 
his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Porter

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Porter:
       At the end of title III of the bill, insert the following 
     (and make such conforming changes to the table of contents as 
     may be necessary):

     SEC. 304. ACCESS TO FEDERAL CRIME INFORMATION DATABASES BY 
                   EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General of the United States 
     shall, upon request of the chief executive officer of a 
     State, conduct fingerprint-based checks of the national crime 
     information databases (as defined in section 534(e)(3)(A) of 
     title 28, United States Code), pursuant to a request 
     submitted by a local educational agency or State educational 
     agency in that State, on individuals under consideration for 
     employment by the agency in a position in which the 
     individual would work with or around children. Where 
     possible, the check shall include a fingerprint-based check 
     of State criminal history databases. The Attorney General and 
     the States may charge any applicable fees for these checks.
       (b) Protection of Information.--An individual having 
     information derived as a result of a check under subsection 
     (a) may release that information only to an appropriate 
     officer of a local educational agency or State educational 
     agency, or to another person authorized by law to receive 
     that information.
       (c) Criminal Penalties.--An individual who knowingly 
     exceeds the authority in subsection (a), or knowingly 
     releases information in violation of subsection (b), shall be 
     imprisoned not more than 10 years or fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, or both.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the terms ``local 
     educational agency'' and ``State educational agency'' have 
     the meanings given to those terms in section 9101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801).

  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak on this great bill today, but I think we can add a few things.
  We send our children off to school every day and we trust that our 
teachers are the best and the safest and the best trained in the 
country. Unfortunately, there are a small few, a number of teachers 
across this country who are slipping between the cracks. In the State 
of Nevada, we hire about 1,400 to 2,000 new teachers a year. 
Unfortunately, some States are not able to share information regarding 
the criminal activity of these particular teachers.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will make the same offer I have 
made to others. This is a great amendment, and we are happy to accept 
it.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendments No. 4 and 7 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments 4 and 7, 
which unanimous consent was granted to consider at this point.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       Page 31, line 17, strike ``not less than 10''.
       Page 43, line 10, strike paragraph (1) and redesignate 
     succeeding paragraphs accordingly.
       Page 44, beginning on line 5, strike ``not less than 10 
     years and''.
       Page 45, line 8, strike subparagraph (A) and redesignate 
     succeeding subparagraphs accordingly.
       Page 45, line 11, strike the semicolon and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 45, line 18, strike the semicolon and insert a period.
       Page 45, strike line 19 through line 6 on page 46.
       Page 46, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 8 
     on page 47.
       Page 47, line 4, strike the semicolon and insert ``; and''.
       Page 47, line 5, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Page 47, starting on line 6, strike clause (iii) and all 
     that follows through line 13 on page 49.
       Page 55, strike section 504 and all that follows through 
     line 22 on page 57, and redesignate succeeding sections 
     accordingly.
       Page 68, line 21, strike the semicolon and insert ``; 
     and''.
       Page 68, strike lines 22 through 23.
       Page 69, strike lines 8 through 11.
       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       Amendment No. 7: Strike section 302. Redesignate any 
     succeeding sections accordingly.
       Page 44, strike line 10 and all that follows through line 2 
     on page 11.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, these amendments eliminate 
section 302 from the bill. Section 302 is extremely problematic.
  First of all, it includes a death penalty that applies to 
unintentional deaths. That raises severe constitutional problems that 
you could be put to death for an unintentional act. We already have 
penalties for the death penalty for intentional acts. This would add 
unintentional acts.
  Over 100 people have been totally exonerated or otherwise released 
from death row due to erroneous death penalties, and one study showed 
that 68 of death penalties were overturned as illegal. That does not 
include the ones where mistakes were made for which the error was so-
called ``harmless.'' Other studies have shown that death penalties have 
been discriminatory against minorities, either affecting the 
consideration, undue consideration of the race of the defendant or the 
race of the victim.
  We, a few years ago, passed the Innocence Protection Act, which 
provides for effective counsel and case development to be well-funded, 
but we have not fully funded that Innocence Protection Act, so until it 
is fully funded, we should not be passing more death penalties.
  In addition, section 302 includes mandatory minimums. Let us see what

[[Page H7906]]

these mandatory minimums are for. Any felonious attack on someone under 
18 years of age. That would include a schoolyard brawl which gets bad 
enough when they start throwing chairs at each other or something like 
that. If there is no injury in that situation, that is a 10-year 
mandatory minimum. If a dangerous weapon, whatever that means, is used, 
then you get 15 years, if there is no injury. Now, if there is actually 
an injury, then the mandatory minimum for this brawl for teenagers 
fighting teenagers would be 20 years; and if the crime of violence is a 
more serious offense, then 30 years mandatory minimum.
  Starting with 10 years mandatory minimum for a schoolyard brawl, Mr. 
Chairman, is why these mandatory minimums make no sense. If the felony 
has been committed, maybe they should be sentenced to 10 years, maybe 
20 years. This says no less than 10 years, even if there is no injury.
  I would hope, Mr. Chairman, as we consider mandatory minimums that we 
would look at this as being excessive. Give the judge the discretion to 
apply a sentence that makes sense. But to have a mandatory minimum to 
apply in situations where no injury has occurred, no dangerous weapon 
was involved, 10 years mandatory minimum for teenagers having a fight, 
this just does not make any sense at all. If an injury actually occurs, 
it is actually 20 years mandatory minimum.
  I would hope we would eliminate the entire section 302 to eliminate 
those mandatory minimums. There are plenty of provisions throughout 
this bill and throughout the Criminal Code to deal with people who 
deserve this kind of time, but to have a mandatory minimum in cases 
where no injury occurred is clearly excessive to be applied in all 
cases without discretion, whether it makes any sense or not.
  We need to remove this section, and I hope that is what we do by 
adopting the amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia's opposition to both 
mandatory minimum penalties and the death penalty is well-known and 
respected. I believe in this case he is wrong.
  First of all, we do need to have a swift and effective death penalty 
in the case of violent offenders who murder children. There have been 
several scientifically balanced, statistical studies that consistently 
show that the death penalty is a deterrent; and I think that if it is 
just a little bit of a deterrent when we are dealing with our kids, 
that is enough to say that the amendment should be defeated.
  Secondly, we have talked quite a bit about mandatory minimum 
penalties in the context of the previous amendment that was offered by 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis). Let me say that if all 
mandatory minimum penalties contained in this bill for sexual abuse and 
exploitation of children are eliminated, it does allow judges to send 
out into society on probation people who have been convicted of sex 
offenses for or against children. When I think of anybody who does 
something like that, we should tell society and those who might be 
thinking of committing such a crime that if you do the crime, you are 
sure to do some time.
  I kind of listened with interest and with respect to the argument of 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) on mandatory minimums in 
the previously debated amendment. He says that if judges do not comply 
with sentencing guidelines, then maybe what Congress should do is 
impeach them.
  Impeachment is a severe penalty, and if you look at the 17 
impeachments that the House of Representatives has voted on in its 
history, the only time where there has been an impeachment voted is 
when a Federal civilian official ends up conducting himself or herself 
in a manner that obstructs the functioning of government, whether it is 
the branch that that official serves in or the other two equal and 
separate branches.
  Simply saying that if a judge makes a discretionary call to give a 
child sex offender probation even when the crime is terrible is an 
impeachable offense I do not think comports with the history of 
impeachment, because it is within the discretion of the court.
  I am saying that, in this case, the discretion of the court should be 
eliminated and those who are convicted should go to jail, and that is 
why the mandatory minimums ought to stay in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the amendments 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The amendments were rejected.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 42, line 6, strike the close quotation mark and the 
     period that follows.
       Page 42, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(k) Sentencing Claims.--A court, justice, or judge shall 
     not have jurisdiction to consider an application with respect 
     to an error relating to the applicant's sentence or 
     sentencing that has been found to be harmless or not 
     prejudicial in State court proceedings, or that was found by 
     a State court to be procedurally barred, unless a 
     determination that the error is not structural is contrary to 
     clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme 
     Court of the United States.''.

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will reduce the backlog and 
delay of the Federal courts' dockets by limiting harmless error 
sentencing claims. These are claims in which the Federal court is asked 
to review alleged errors in death penalty cases in State court that 
were either procedurally defaulted, in which the defendant failed to 
present the claim in State court; or, two, that already have been 
reviewed by the State courts and have been determined to be harmless 
and that only relate to the prisoner's sentencing, not the portion of 
the trial that determines guilt or innocence.
  Under this amendment, fact-intensive and time-consuming ``harmless 
error sentencing claims'' will be reviewed again in Federal court only 
if the State court erred in determining that the claim was subject to 
harmless review.
  An example of how this impacts victims of child abusers was raised at 
the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime hearing by 
Ms. Carol Fornoff, whose 13-year-old daughter was raped and murdered in 
Tempe, Arizona, in 1984. The evidence of the guilt of the man convicted 
in killing her daughter was overwhelming. Yet, today, 21 years after 
Christy Ann Fornoff was murdered, the gentleman is still litigating his 
habeas appeals.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will reduce the backlog and delay of the 
Federal courts' dockets by limiting harmless-error sentencing claims.
  These are claims in which the Federal court is asked to review 
alleged errors in death penalty cases in State court that were either 
(1) procedurally defaulted--in which the defendant failed to present 
the claim in state court, or (2) that already have been reviewed by 
State courts and have been determined to be harmless, and (3) that only 
relate to the prisoner's sentencing--not to the portion of the trial 
that determines guilt or innocence.
  Under this amendment, fact-intensive and time-consuming ``harmless-
error sentencing claims'' will be reviewed again in Federal court only 
if the State court erred in determining that the claim was subject to 
harmlessness review.
  An example of how this impacts victims of child abusers was raised at 
a House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee hearing by Mrs. Carol Fornoff, 
whose 13-year-old daughter was raped and murdered in Tempe, Arizona in 
1984.
  The evidence of the guilt of the man convicted of killing her 
daughter is overwhelming, yet today--21 years after Christy Ann Fornoff 
was murdered--the defendant still is litigating his habeas appeals in 
the Federal courts.
  Mrs. Fornoff's testimony raised important questions. There needs to 
be some limit, some end to the process in these cases.
  After 9 years under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty 
Act of 1996 or ``AEDPA'' (Ay-Depa), it is clear that the Act did not 
eliminate or even reduce the problem of delay in the Federal habeas 
process.
  As evidenced by testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee, in my 
home state of Arizona, 63 capital cases have been filed and remain 
pending since the effective date of the AEDPA (Ay-Depa).
  Of those cases, only one has advanced to the Ninth Circuit, where it 
has remained pending for the past 5 years.

[[Page H7907]]

  Thirteen pre-AEDPA (Ay-Depa) cases remain pending in Federal court; 
five of those cases have been in Federal court longer than 15 years; 
the others range in time from 9 years to 14 years. This is 
unacceptable.
  The current system is grossly unfair to crime victims and their 
families. While defendants always should be allowed to litigate 
meaningful evidence of their innocence, we also should not allow 
endless appeals to become routine.
  We need to protect innocent defendants, and we also need to allow 
victims and their families closure on these crimes.
  Let me be clear that fundamental sentencing errors, and all guilt-
phase errors, still would be subject to a second round of review in 
Federal court under this amendment.
  Also, this amendment does not in any way limit the State courts' 
review of State criminal convictions, nor does it affect the U.S. 
Supreme Court's review of either a defendant's direct appeals or State-
habeas petitions.
  The amendment only limits the Federal habeas review that begins in 
the lower Federal courts after all State appeals and U.S. Supreme Court 
certiorari review are completed. Congress unquestionably has the 
authority to limit such review.
  Deference to State courts is appropriate in this context, since these 
courts are closer to the trial and will have a better sense of what 
facts are likely to influence local juries.
  This section merely precludes a repeat of this process at the Federal 
level for minor errors that are not related to guilt of the underlying 
offense, and that already have had an opportunity for review in State 
courts.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will make the same offer on this 
amendment. I am prepared to accept it if the gentleman will yield back 
his time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, that is too good an offer to turn down.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the language in the bill is bad enough. This just makes 
it worse. We should eliminate the section of the bill where the bill 
already severely restricts the right of those convicted of sex offenses 
from their access to appeal.
  Many who have been exonerated through DNA or other evidence have been 
exonerated and released due to their access to habeas corpus petitions. 
Restricting access to habeas will result in more innocent people being 
put to death or languishing in jail for crimes they did not commit.
  We have a serious question, Mr. Chairman, as to whether guilty people 
are entitled a fair trial. If you have a person who is not suggesting 
that they are actually innocent, but they just did not get a fair 
trial, they do not have access to habeas corpus anyway. An allegation 
of innocence is a prerequisite to getting into habeas corpus petitions 
anyway. This is just going to make it worse, and more innocent people 
will be in jail. I would hope we would not adopt the amendment to make 
it worse.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that this applies 
only to the sentencing portion of the hearing or the sentencing portion 
of the trial, not the guilt or innocent phase. We are not limiting 
habeas corpus at all on that phase.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, if you are going to have any 
review, I think it ought to be a full review: sentencing, conviction, 
and otherwise. I would hope that we would not make the bill any worse 
than it is, and the underlying provision is bad enough.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title III?
  The Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:

  TITLE IV--PROTECTION AGAINST SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 
                                  2005

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Protection Against Sexual 
     Exploitation of Children Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 402. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR SEXUAL OFFENSES AGAINST 
                   CHILDREN.

       (a) Sexual Abuse and Contact.--
       (1) Aggravated sexual abuse of children.--Section 2241(c) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, 
     imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.'' and 
     inserting ``and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for 
     life.''.
       (2) Abusive sexual contact with children.--Section 2244 of 
     chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``subsection (a) or (b) 
     of'' before ``section 2241'';
       (ii) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (iii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (iv) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
       ``(5) subsection (c) of section 2241 of this title had the 
     sexual contact been a sexual act, shall be fined under this 
     title and imprisoned for not less than 10 years and not more 
     than 25 years.''; and
       (B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``(other than 
     subsection (a)(5))'' after ``violates this section''.
       (3) Sexual abuse of children resulting in death.--Section 
     2245 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``, chapter 110, chapter 117, or section 
     1591'' after ``this chapter'';
       (B) by striking ``A person'' and inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--A person''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Offenses Involving Young Children.--A person who, in 
     the course of an offense under this chapter, chapter 110, 
     chapter 117, or section 1591 engages in conduct that results 
     in the death of a person who has not attained the age of 12 
     years, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for not less 
     than 30 years or for life.''.
       (4) Death penalty aggravating factor.--Section 3592(c)(1) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``section 2245 (sexual abuse resulting in death),'' after 
     ``(wrecking trains),''.
       (b) Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children.--
       (1) Sexual exploitation of children.--Section 2251(e) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``15 years nor more than 30 years'' and 
     inserting ``25 years or for life'';
       (B) by inserting ``section 1591,'' after ``this chapter,'' 
     the first place it appears;
       (C) by striking ``the sexual exploitation of children'' the 
     first place it appears and inserting ``aggravated sexual 
     abuse, sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact involving a minor 
     or ward, or sex trafficking of children, or the production, 
     possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, 
     or transportation of child pornography'';
       (D) by striking ``not less than 25 years nor more than 50 
     years, but if such person has 2 or more prior convictions 
     under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, 
     or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State 
     relating to the sexual exploitation of children, such person 
     shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 
     35 years nor more than life.'' and inserting ``life.''; and
       (E) by striking ``any term of years or for life'' and 
     inserting ``not less than 30 years or for life''.
       (2) Activities relating to material involving the sexual 
     exploitation of children.--Section 2252(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``paragraphs (1)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (1)'';
       (ii) by inserting ``section 1591,'' after ``this 
     chapter,'';
       (iii) by inserting ``, or sex trafficking of children'' 
     after ``pornography'';
       (iv) by striking ``5 years and not more than 20 years'' and 
     inserting ``25 years or for life''; and
       (v) by striking ``not less than 15 years nor more than 40 
     years.'' and inserting ``life.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than 10 years'' 
     and inserting ``and imprisoned for not less than 10 nor more 
     than 30 years'';
       (ii) by striking ``, or both''; and
       (iii) by striking ``10 years nor more than 20 years.'' and 
     inserting ``30 years or for life.''.
       (3) Activities relating to material constituting or 
     containing child pornography.--Section 2252A(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``section 1591,'' after ``this chapter,'';
       (ii) by inserting ``, or sex trafficking of children'' 
     after ``pornography'';
       (iii) by striking ``5 years and not more than 20 years'' 
     and inserting ``25 years or for life''; and
       (iv) by striking ``not less than 15 years nor more than 40 
     years'' and inserting ``life''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or 
     both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for not less than 10 
     nor more than 30 years''; and
       (ii) by striking ``10 years nor more than 20 years'' and 
     inserting ``30 years or for life''.
       (4) Using misleading domain names to direct children to 
     harmful material on the internet.--Section 2252B(b) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 
     imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both'' and inserting `` 
     and imprisoned not less than 10 nor more than 30 years''.
       (5) Production of sexually explicit depictions of 
     children.--Section 2260(c) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for 
     any term or years not less than 25 or for life; and

[[Page H7908]]

       ``(2) if the person has a prior conviction under this 
     chapter, section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 
     117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the 
     Uniform Code of Military Justice), shall be fined under this 
     title and imprisoned for life.''.
       (c) Mandatory Life Imprisonment for Certain Repeated Sex 
     Offenses Against Children.--Section 3559(e)(2)(A) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2423(a)'' and inserting ``2423(a)''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``, 2423(b) (relating to travel with 
     intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct), 2423(c) 
     (relating to illicit sexual conduct in foreign places), or 
     2425 (relating to use of interstate facilities to transmit 
     information about a minor)'' after ``minors)''.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas:
       At the end of title IV add the following:

     SEC. 403. SENSE OF CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO PROSECUTIONS 
                   UNDER SECTION 2422(B) OF TITLE 18, UNITED 
                   STATES CODE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) a jury convicted Jan P. Helder, Jr., of using a 
     computer to attempt to entice an individual who had not 
     attained the age of 18 years to engage in unlawful sexual 
     activity;
       (2) during the trial, evidence showed that Jan Helder had 
     engaged in an online chat with an individual posing as a 
     minor, who unbeknownst to him, was an undercover law 
     enforcement officer;
       (3) notwithstanding, Dean Whipple, District Judge for the 
     Western District of Missouri, acquitted Jan Helder, ruling 
     that because he did not, in fact, communicate with a minor, 
     he did not commit a crime;
       (4) the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. 
     Jeffrey Meek, specifically addressed the question facing 
     Judge Whipple and concurred with the 5th and 11th Circuit 
     Courts in finding that ``an actual minor victim is not 
     required for an attempt conviction under 18 U.S.C. Sec.  
     2422(b).'';
       (5) the Department of Justice has successfully used 
     evidence obtained through undercover law enforcement to 
     prosecute and convict perpetrators who attempted to solicit 
     children on the Internet; and
       (6) the Department of Justice states, ``Online child 
     pornography/child sexual exploitation is the most significant 
     cyber crime problem confronting the FBI that involves crimes 
     against children''.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) it is a crime under section 2422(b) of title 18, United 
     States Code, to use a facility of interstate commerce to 
     attempt to entice an individual who has not attained the age 
     of 18 years into unlawful sexual activity, even if the 
     perpetrator incorrectly believes that the individual has not 
     attained the age of 18 years;
       (2) well-established caselaw has established that section 
     2422(b) of title 18, United States Code, criminalizes any 
     attempt to entice a minor into unlawful sexual activity, even 
     if the perpetrator incorrectly believes that the individual 
     has not attained the age of 18 years;
       (3) the Department of Justice should appeal Judge Whipple's 
     decision in United States v. Helder, Jr. and aggressively 
     continue to track down and prosecute sex offenders on the 
     Internet; and
       (4) Judge Whipple's decision in United States v. Helder, 
     Jr. should be overturned in light of the law as it is 
     written, the intent of Congress, and well-established 
     caselaw.

  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment to 
restate Congress's commitment to protecting children on the Internet 
and to condemn a recent judicial decision that, if left standing, would 
impede the work of law enforcement in tracking down pedophiles on the 
Internet.
  Recently, Jan Helder, a resident of Mission Hills, Kansas, was 
convicted by a jury for attempting to solicit a minor over the 
Internet. Notwithstanding the jury's verdict, the U.S. District Judge, 
Dean Whipple, acquitted Jan Helder, saying that he did not commit a 
crime because he was not communicating with a minor but, in fact, was 
communicating with an undercover agent posing as a minor.
  Judge Whipple clearly ignored the law's intent and contradicted well-
established case law addressing the issue.
  In United States v. Jeffrey Meek, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
specifically addressed the question of whether a crime of attempting to 
solicit a minor on the Internet applies when the actual victim is an 
adult rather than a minor. In this case, the Court concurred with the 
decisions of the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts in finding that an 
actual minor victim is not required for an attempted conviction under 
this section.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this sounds like a good amendment, 
and I would be happy to accept it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1345

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). Are there any further amendments 
to title IV?
  The Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:

 TITLE V--FOSTER CHILD PROTECTION AND CHILD SEXUAL PREDATOR DETERRENCE

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Foster Child Protection 
     and Child Sexual Predator Sentencing Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 502. REQUIREMENT TO COMPLETE BACKGROUND CHECKS BEFORE 
                   APPROVAL OF ANY FOSTER OR ADOPTIVE PLACEMENT 
                   AND TO CHECK NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION 
                   DATABASES AND STATE CHILD ABUSE REGISTRIES; 
                   SUSPENSION AND SUBSEQUENT ELIMINATION OF OPT-
                   OUT.

       (a) Requirement to Complete Background Checks Before 
     Approval of Any Foster or Adoptive Placement and to Check 
     National Crime Information Databases and State Child Abuse 
     Registries; Suspension of Opt-out.--
       (1) Requirement to check national crime information 
     databases and state child abuse registries.--Section 
     471(a)(20) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i)--

       (I) by inserting ``, including checks of national crime 
     information databases (as defined in section 534(e)(3)(A) of 
     title 28, United States Code),'' after ``criminal records 
     checks''; and
       (II) by striking ``on whose behalf foster care maintenance 
     payments or adoption assistance payments are to be made'' and 
     inserting ``regardless of whether foster care maintenance 
     payments or adoption assistance payments are to be made on 
     behalf of the child''; and

       (ii) in each of clauses (i) and (ii), by inserting 
     ``involving a child on whose behalf such payments are to be 
     so made'' after ``in any case''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) provides that the State shall--
       ``(i) check any child abuse and neglect registry maintained 
     by the State for information on any prospective foster or 
     adoptive parent and on any other adult living in the home of 
     such a prospective parent, and request any other State in 
     which any such prospective parent or other adult has resided 
     in the preceding 5 years, to enable the State to check any 
     child abuse and neglect registry maintained by such other 
     State for such information, before the prospective foster or 
     adoptive parent may be finally approved for placement of a 
     child, regardless of whether foster care maintenance payments 
     or adoption assistance payments are to be made on behalf of 
     the child under the State plan under this part;
       ``(ii) comply with any request described in clause (i) that 
     is received from another State; and
       ``(iii) have in place safeguards to prevent the 
     unauthorized disclosure of information in any child abuse and 
     neglect registry maintained by the State, and to prevent any 
     such information obtained pursuant to this subparagraph from 
     being used for a purpose other than the conducting of 
     background checks in foster or adoptive placement cases;''.
       (2) Suspension of opt-out.--Section 471(a)(20)(B) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)(B)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``, on or before September 30, 2005,'' 
     after ``plan if''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, on or before such date,'' after ``or 
     if''.
       (b) Elimination of Opt-Out.--Section 471(a)(20) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)), as amended by subsection (a) of this 
     section, is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by striking ``unless an election provided for in 
     subparagraph (B) is made with respect to the State,''; and
       (2) by striking subparagraph (B) and redesignating 
     subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2005, and shall apply with 
     respect to payments under part E of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act for calendar quarters beginning on or after such 
     date, without regard to whether regulations to implement the 
     amendments are promulgated by such date.
       (2) Elimination of opt-out.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (b) shall take effect on October 1, 2007, and 
     shall apply with respect to payments under part E of title IV 
     of the Social Security Act for calendar quarters beginning on 
     or after such date, without regard to whether regulations to 
     implement the amendments are promulgated by such date.
       (3) Delay permitted if state legislation required.--If the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services determines that State 
     legislation (other than legislation appropriating funds) is 
     required in order for a State plan under section 471 of the 
     Social Security Act to meet the additional requirements 
     imposed by the

[[Page H7909]]

     amendments made by a subsection of this section, the plan 
     shall not be regarded as failing to meet any of the 
     additional requirements before the first day of the first 
     calendar quarter beginning after the first regular session of 
     the State legislature that begins after the otherwise 
     applicable effective date of the amendments. If the State has 
     a 2-year legislative session, each year of the session is 
     deemed to be a separate regular session of the State 
     legislature.

     SEC. 503. ACCESS TO FEDERAL CRIME INFORMATION DATABASES BY 
                   CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, upon request 
     of the chief executive of a State, ensure that appropriate 
     officers of child welfare agencies have the authority for 
     ``read only'' online access to the databases of the national 
     crime information databases (as defined in section 534 of 
     title 28, United States Code) to carry out criminal history 
     records checks, subject to subsection (b).
       (b) Limitation.--An officer may use the authority under 
     subsection (a) only in furtherance of the purposes of the 
     agency and only on an individual relevant to casework of the 
     agency.
       (c) Protection of Information.--An individual having 
     information derived as a result of a check under subsection 
     (a) may release that information only to appropriate officers 
     of child welfare agencies or another person authorized by law 
     to receive that information.
       (d) Criminal Penalties.--An individual who knowingly 
     exceeds the authority in subsection (a), or knowingly 
     releases information in violation of subsection (c), shall be 
     imprisoned not more than 10 years or fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, or both.
       (e) Child Welfare Agency Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``child welfare agency'' means--
       (1) the State or local agency responsible for administering 
     the plan under part B or part E of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act; and
       (2) any other public agency, or any other private agency 
     under contract with the State or local agency responsible for 
     administering the plan under part B or part E of title IV of 
     the Social Security Act, that is responsible for the 
     placement of foster or adoptive children.

     SEC. 504. PENALTIES FOR COERCION AND ENTICEMENT BY SEX 
                   OFFENDERS.

       Section 2422(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both'' 
     and inserting ``and imprisoned not less than 10 years nor 
     more than 30 years''.

     SEC. 505. PENALTIES FOR CONDUCT RELATING TO CHILD 
                   PROSTITUTION.

       Section 2423 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``5 years and not more 
     than 30 years'' and inserting ``30 years or for life'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``or imprisoned not more 
     than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 
     not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years'';
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``or imprisoned not more 
     than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 
     not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (d), by striking ``imprisoned not more 
     than 30 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 
     not less than 10 nor more than 30 years''.

     SEC. 506. PENALTIES FOR SEXUAL ABUSE.

       (a) Aggravated Sexual Abuse.--Section 2241 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``, imprisoned for any 
     term of years or life, or both'' and inserting ``and 
     imprisoned for any term of years not less than 30 or for 
     life''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``, imprisoned for any 
     term of years or life, or both'' and inserting ``and 
     imprisoned for any term of years not less than 25 or for 
     life''.
       (b) Sexual Abuse.--Section 2242 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``, imprisoned not more than 20 
     years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned not less than 
     15 years nor more than 40 years''.
       (c) Abusive Sexual Contact.--Section 2244(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, imprisoned not more 
     than three years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned 
     not less than 5 years nor more than 30 years'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, imprisoned not more 
     than two years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned not 
     less than 4 years nor more than 20 years''; and
       (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``, imprisoned not more 
     than six months, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned not 
     less than 2 years nor more than 10 years''.

     SEC. 507. SEX OFFENDER SUBMISSION TO SEARCH AS CONDITION OF 
                   RELEASE.

       (a) Conditions of Probation.--Section 3563(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended----
       (1) in paragraph (9), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) for a person who is a felon or required to register 
     under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 
     that the person submit his person, and any property, house, 
     residence, vehicle, papers, computer, other electronic 
     communication or data storage devices or media, and effects 
     to search at any time, with or without a warrant, by any law 
     enforcement or probation officer with reasonable suspicion 
     concerning a violation of a condition of probation or 
     unlawful conduct by the person, and by any probation officer 
     in the lawful discharge of the officer's supervision 
     functions.''.
       (b) Supervised Release.--Section 3583(d) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The court may order, as an explicit condition of 
     supervised release for a person who is a felon or required to 
     register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification 
     Act, that the person submit his person, and any property, 
     house, residence, vehicle, papers, computer, other electronic 
     communications or data storage devices or media, and effects 
     to search at any time, with or without a warrant, by any law 
     enforcement or probation officer with reasonable suspicion 
     concerning a violation of a condition of supervised release 
     or unlawful conduct by the person, and by any probation 
     officer in the lawful discharge of the officer's supervision 
     functions.''

     SEC. 508. KIDNAPPING PENALTIES AND JURISDICTION.

       Section 1201 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``if the person was 
     alive when the transportation began'' and inserting ``, or 
     the offender travels in interstate or foreign commerce or 
     uses the mail or any means, facility, or instrumentality of 
     interstate or foreign commerce in committing or in 
     furtherance of the commission of the offense''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``to interstate'' and 
     inserting ``in interstate''.

     SEC. 509. MARITAL COMMUNICATION AND ADVERSE SPOUSAL 
                   PRIVILEGE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 119 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 1826 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 1826A. Marital communications and adverse spousal 
       privilege

       ``The confidential marital communication privilege and the 
     adverse spousal privilege shall be inapplicable in any 
     Federal proceeding in which a spouse is charged with a crime 
     against--
       ``(1) a child of either spouse; or
       ``(2) a child under the custody or control of either 
     spouse.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 119 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1826 
     the following:

``1826A. Marital communications and adverse spousal privilege.''.

     SEC. 510. ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF INDIAN CHILDREN.

       Section 1153(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``felony child abuse or neglect,'' after 
     ``years,''.

     SEC. 511. CIVIL COMMITMENT.

       Chapter 313 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the chapter analysis--
       (A) in the item relating to section 4241, by inserting ``or 
     to undergo postrelease proceedings'' after ``trial''; and
       (B) by inserting at the end the following:

``4248. Civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person.'';

       (2) in section 4241--
       (A) in the heading, by inserting ``or to undergo 
     postrelease proceedings'' after ``trial'';
       (B) in the first sentence of subsection (a), by inserting 
     ``or at any time after the commencement of probation or 
     supervised release and prior to the completion of the 
     sentence,'' after ``defendant,'';
       (C) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking ``trial to proceed'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``proceedings to go forward''; and
       (ii) by striking ``section 4246'' and inserting ``sections 
     4246 and 4248''; and
       (D) in subsection (e)--
       (i) by inserting ``or other proceedings'' after ``trial''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``chapter 207'' and inserting ``chapters 
     207 and 227'';
       (3) in section 4247--
       (A) by striking ``, or 4246'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``, 4246, or 4248'';
       (B) in subsections (g) and (i), by striking ``4243 or 
     4246'' each place it appears and inserting ``4243, 4246, or 
     4248'';
       (C) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by amending subparagraph (1)(C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) drug, alcohol, and sex offender treatment programs, 
     and other treatment programs that will assist the individual 
     in overcoming a psychological or physical dependence or any 
     condition that makes the individual dangerous to others; 
     and'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (iv) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(4) `bodily injury' includes sexual abuse;
       ``(5) `sexually dangerous person' means a person who has 
     engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or 
     child molestation and who is sexually dangerous to others; 
     and
       ``(6) `sexually dangerous to others' means that a person 
     suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or 
     disorder as a result of which he would have serious 
     difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or 
     child molestation if released.'';
       (D) in subsection (b), by striking ``4245 or 4246'' and 
     inserting ``4245, 4246, or 4248''; and
       (E) in subsection (c)(4)--
       (i) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as 
     subparagraphs (E) and (F) respectively; and
       (ii) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) if the examination is ordered under section 4248, 
     whether the person is a sexually dangerous person;''; and
       (4) by inserting at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 4248. Civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person

       ``(a) Institution of Proceedings.--In relation to a person 
     who is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, or who has 
     been committed to

[[Page H7910]]

     the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to section 
     4241(d), or against whom all criminal charges have been 
     dismissed solely for reasons relating to the mental condition 
     of the person, the Attorney General or any individual 
     authorized by the Attorney General or the Director of the 
     Bureau of Prisons may certify that the person is a sexually 
     dangerous person, and transmit the certificate to the clerk 
     of the court for the district in which the person is 
     confined. The clerk shall send a copy of the certificate to 
     the person, and to the attorney for the Government, and, if 
     the person was committed pursuant to section 4241(d), to the 
     clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The court 
     shall order a hearing to determine whether the person is a 
     sexually dangerous person. A certificate filed under this 
     subsection shall stay the release of the person pending 
     completion of procedures contained in this section.
       ``(b) Psychiatric or Psychological Examination and 
     Report.--Prior to the date of the hearing, the court may 
     order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the 
     defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or 
     psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the 
     provisions of section 4247(b) and (c).
       ``(c) Hearing.--The hearing shall be conducted pursuant to 
     the provisions of section 4247(d).
       ``(d) Determination and Disposition.--If, after the 
     hearing, the court finds by clear and convincing evidence 
     that the person is a sexually dangerous person, the court 
     shall commit the person to the custody of the Attorney 
     General. The Attorney General shall release the person to the 
     appropriate official of the State in which the person is 
     domiciled or was tried if such State will assume 
     responsibility for his custody, care, and treatment. The 
     Attorney General shall make all reasonable efforts to cause 
     such a State to assume such responsibility. If, 
     notwithstanding such efforts, neither such State will assume 
     such responsibility, the Attorney General shall place the 
     person for treatment in a suitable facility, until--
       ``(1) such a State will assume such responsibility; or
       ``(2) the person's condition is such that he is no longer 
     sexually dangerous to others, or will not be sexually 
     dangerous to others if released under a prescribed regimen of 
     medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment;

     whichever is earlier. The Attorney General shall make all 
     reasonable efforts to have a State to assume such 
     responsibility for the person's custody, care, and treatment.
       ``(e) Discharge.--When the Director of the facility in 
     which a person is placed pursuant to subsection (d) 
     determines that the person's condition is such that he is no 
     longer sexually dangerous to others, or will not be sexually 
     dangerous to others if released under a prescribed regimen of 
     medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, he 
     shall promptly file a certificate to that effect with the 
     clerk of the court that ordered the commitment. The clerk 
     shall send a copy of the certificate to the person's counsel 
     and to the attorney for the Government. The court shall order 
     the discharge of the person or, on motion of the attorney for 
     the Government or on its own motion, shall hold a hearing, 
     conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d), to 
     determine whether he should be released. If, after the 
     hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence 
     that the person's condition is such that--
       ``(1) he will not be sexually dangerous to others if 
     released unconditionally, the court shall order that he be 
     immediately discharged; or
       ``(2) he will not be sexually dangerous to others if 
     released under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, 
     or psychological care or treatment, the court shall--
       ``(A) order that he be conditionally discharged under a 
     prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological 
     care or treatment that has been prepared for him, that has 
     been certified to the court as appropriate by the Director of 
     the facility in which he is committed, and that has been 
     found by the court to be appropriate; and
       ``(B) order, as an explicit condition of release, that he 
     comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, 
     or psychological care or treatment.

     The court at any time may, after a hearing employing the same 
     criteria, modify or eliminate the regimen of medical, 
     psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.
       ``(f) Revocation of Conditional Discharge.--The director of 
     a facility responsible for administering a regimen imposed on 
     a person conditionally discharged under subsection (e) shall 
     notify the Attorney General and the court having jurisdiction 
     over the person of any failure of the person to comply with 
     the regimen. Upon such notice, or upon other probable cause 
     to believe that the person has failed to comply with the 
     prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological 
     care or treatment, the person may be arrested, and, upon 
     arrest, shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the 
     court having jurisdiction over him. The court shall, after a 
     hearing, determine whether the person should be remanded to a 
     suitable facility on the ground that he is sexually dangerous 
     to others in light of his failure to comply with the 
     prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological 
     care or treatment.
       ``(g) Release to State of Certain Other Persons.--If the 
     director of the facility in which a person is hospitalized or 
     placed pursuant to this chapter certifies to the Attorney 
     General that a person, against him all charges have been 
     dismissed for reasons not related to the mental condition of 
     the person, is a sexually dangerous person, the Attorney 
     General shall release the person to the appropriate official 
     of the State in which the person is domiciled or was tried 
     for the purpose of institution of State proceedings for civil 
     commitment. If neither such State will assume such 
     responsibility, the Attorney General shall release the person 
     upon receipt of notice from the State that it will not assume 
     such responsibility, but not later than 10 days after 
     certification by the director of the facility.''.

     SEC. 512. MANDATORY PENALTIES FOR SEX-TRAFFICKING OF 
                   CHILDREN.

       Section 1591(b) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``or imprisonment'' and inserting ``and 
     imprisonment'';
       (B) by inserting ``not less than 20'' after ``any term of 
     years''; and
       (C) by striking ``, or both''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``or imprisonment for not'' and inserting 
     ``and imprisonment for not less than 10 years nor''; and
       (B) by striking ``, or both''.

     SEC. 513. SEXUAL ABUSE OF WARDS.

       Chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in section 2243(b), by striking ``one year'' and 
     inserting ``five years'';
       (2) in section 2244(b), by striking ``six months'' and 
     inserting ``two years''; and
       (3) by inserting after ``Federal prison,'' each place it 
     appears, other than the second sentence of section 2241(c), 
     the following: ``or being in the custody of the Attorney 
     General or the Bureau of Prisons or confined in any 
     institution or facility by direction of the Attorney General 
     or the Bureau of Prisons,''.


             Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
       Page 69, after line 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 514. NO LIMITATION FOR PROSECUTION OF FELONY SEX 
                   OFFENSES.

       Chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3298. Child abduction and sex offenses.

       ``Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found 
     or an information instituted at any time without limitation 
     for any offense under section 1201 involving a minor victim, 
     and for any felony under chapter 109A, 110, or 117, or 
     section 1591.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end of the table of sections at the 
     beginning of the chapter the following new item:

``3298. Child abduction and sex offenses.''.

     SEC. 515. CHILD ABUSE REPORTING.

       Section 2258 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``Class B misdemeanor'' and inserting ``Class A 
     misdemeanor''.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering 
contains two provisions. The first would amend title XVIII to eliminate 
any statute of limitations on criminal prosecutions for kidnapping a 
child, committing a felony sex offense, or a human trafficking 
violation.
  Eliminating these statutes for these crimes reflects the increased 
use of the success of DNA in solving decade-old crimes. We have all 
heard about individuals who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. 
However, there are even more reports of unsolved cases that have been 
solved and a perpetrator identified by DNA evidence years after the 
crime was committed.
  This provision reflects this new reality and allows Federal 
prosecutors to prosecute sex offenders and child abusers who have 
escaped apprehension because of the statute of limitations.
  I would note that this same provision was passed by the House in the 
108th Congress as a part of the Child Abduction Prevention Act by the 
overwhelming vote of 410 to 4. It was modified in conference with the 
Senate as a part of the Protect Act.
  The second provision in this amendment raises the class on the 
existing misdemeanor for failure to report child abuse, thereby raising 
the maximum penalty for such an offense from 6 months' imprisonment to 
a year imprisonment.
  I strongly urge support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:

[[Page H7911]]

       Page 54, strike line 10 and all that follows through line 
     19 on page 55 and insert the following:

     SEC. 503. ACCESS TO FEDERAL CRIME INFORMATION DATABASES BY 
                   CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall, upon request 
     of the chief executive of a State, conduct fingerprint-based 
     checks of the national crime information databases (as 
     defined in section 534(e)(3)(A) of title 28, United States 
     Code) submitted by a local welfare agency for conducting a 
     background check required under section 471(a)(20) of the 
     Social Security Act on individuals under consideration as 
     foster or adoptive parents. Where possible, the check shall 
     include a fingerprint-based check of state criminal history 
     databases. The Attorney General and the States may charge any 
     applicable fees for the checks.
       (b) Limitation.--An officer may use the authority under 
     subsection (a) only for the purpose of conducting the 
     background checks required under section 471(a)(20) of the 
     Social Security Act.
       (c) Protection of Information.--An individual having 
     information derived as a result of a check under subsection 
     (a) may release that information only to appropriate officers 
     of child welfare agencies or another person authorized by law 
     to receive that information.
       (d) Criminal Penalties.--An individual who knowingly 
     exceeds the authority in subsection (a), or knowingly 
     releases information in violation of subsection (c), shall be 
     imprisoned not more than 10 years or fined under title 18, 
     United States Code, or both.
       (e) Child Welfare Agency Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``child welfare agency'' means--
       (1) the State or local agency responsible for administering 
     the plan under part B or part E of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act; and
       (2) any other public agency, or any other private agency 
     under contract with the State or local agency responsible for 
     administering the plan under part B or part E of title IV of 
     the Social Security Act, that is responsible for the 
     licensing or approval of foster or adoptive parents.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes technical 
changes to section 503 of the bill relating to access to Federal crime 
information databases by child welfare agencies.
  The amendment requires fingerprint-based checks when conducting 
background checks for a limited purpose, to verify that a prospective 
adoptive or foster parent does not have a criminal record.
  Before we allow foster or adoptive parents to take children into 
their homes, we must ensure that these applicants do not have prior 
convictions, let alone prior sex offense convictions. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
  At the end of the Title V, add the following new section:

     SEC. __. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that background checks 
     conducted as a precondition to approval of any foster or 
     adoptive placement of children affected by a natural disaster 
     or terrorist attack should be expedited in order to ensure 
     that such children do not become subjected to the offenses 
     enumerated in this act.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there is not a time that in 
the backdrop of the tragedy of Katrina that I cannot rise and thank the 
many volunteers and supporters around the Nation and particularly my 
home town of Houston and the State of Texas.
  With that in mind, as I watched the evacuees come into the Houston 
Astrodome and the George R. Brown Convention Center, Mr. Chairman, one 
of the striking aspects of it was the enormous number of children, 
thousands of children. In fact, it is calculated that 300,000 to 
400,000 children will be homeless and will be impacted by this tragedy.
  This very bill impacts our children by seeking to protect them. So I 
raise an amendment and a cause of concern that I would like to include 
and the specific language involved, making sure that the process of 
adoption and foster care can be expedited through the language of a 
sense of Congress, that background checks conducted as a precondition 
to approval of any foster or adoptive placement of children, affected 
by a natural disaster or terrorist act should be expedited in order to 
ensure that such children do not become subjected to the offenses 
enumerated in the Children's Safety Act.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to accept this 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman's 
generosity. I understand his generosity and if he would allow me to 
conclude two or three comments about what I saw, I would be happy to 
accept a voice vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to put in the Record, why, if you are 
kind enough to accept this, this is so very important. As I spoke to 
the evacuees, what they said to me was that in the Superdome there were 
outright examples of rape and abuse of children. They may not have been 
the family members; but in that instance, if the family members are 
lost, an expedited foster care and an expedited adoption would be 
relevant.
  If in this instance of this law we can expedite those background 
checks and have this language in this bill, I certainly know that it 
would help the thousands of children that may be impacted.
  Let me conclude by saying that I hope, as I indicated before, that we 
will initiate a children's initiative to address the concerns of these 
children. But if this language is placed in this bill, at least they 
will have a placeholder that their cases will be expedited so that 
their lives can be put back in place and so that sex offenders will not 
be the ones to be adopting and/or have foster care of these vulnerable 
children.
  As was the case with September 11, Hurricane Katrina has left many 
children without their natural parents. Many kids are now wondering who 
will care for them and how their needs will be met. Not only is this 
enormous pressure on a child but it greatly diminishes the joys of 
childhood. My amendment would set forth a sense of Congress that 
background checks conducted as a precondition to approval of any foster 
or adoptive placement of children affected by a natural disaster or 
terrorist attack should be expedited in order to ensure that such 
children do not become subjected to the offenses enumerated in this 
act. While family members often step in to take care of children who 
have lost their natural parents, these family members usually only have 
limited resources and as a result, the child may be passed from family 
member to family member. As we all know, this can be a very unstable 
environment for a child. This amendment attempts to move the background 
check process along in a timely manner so these displaced children can 
enter a loving and caring family and get back to a normal life.
  As we all watched the devastating stories of Hurricane Katrina 
unfold, it was very disturbing to me to learn that several minors were 
raped while waiting to be rescued from the New Orleans Superdome. This 
is a prime example of the many negative situations that can arise as a 
result of a natural disaster which displaces children from their 
parents, or even causes the parents lives to be lost. As a parent and 
Chair of the Children's Caucus, I am very concerned with the well being 
of our nation's children. As natural disasters seem to be more 
prevalent in our society, we must begin to think about how we care for 
those children who lose their natural parents. This amendment is not 
intended to circumvent the precondition background check for approval 
of any foster or adoptive placement; it is only intended to speed the 
process up so we can get these displaced children with loving and 
caring families.
  In closing, just like most other States, Louisiana has an open and 
searchable sex offender registry. The primary party responsible in most 
communities for checking up on the status of sex offenders who have 
served their sentences but must register is the local police. However, 
the police and local law officials are swamped with the task of 
rescuing survivors and ensuring that every one gets out of the city. 
This makes it difficult to monitor the moves and whereabouts of 
registered sex offenders. In addition, as the citizens of New Orleans 
and other states wait for assistance in cities around the country, sex 
offenders are among innocent children who have lost their natural 
parents and are vulnerable. In these troubled times, let us not leave 
our children helpless.

[[Page H7912]]

                          [September 4, 2005]

       I have a feeling I could be accused of a kind of 
     insensitivity, or at worst a sort of obsessiveness by 
     bringing this up now, but after reading about some of the 
     terrible things that have been said to have happened in New 
     Orleans after the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina on 
     August 29, 2005, this idea occurred to me in a kind of 
     lightbulb moment.
       Sex crimes are part of war. War produces an anarchic 
     mindset. So does a disaster on the scale of what we have seen 
     in Louisiana and Southern Mississippi. Just as invading 
     soldiers from various countries in the past have made sexual 
     assault a part of their subjugating of a native population, 
     so the criminals loose on the streets in New Orleans and even 
     inside the SuperDome have made sexual assault another part of 
     their overall orgy of violence. In the entry I wrote earlier 
     today I wrote briefly of the horrific story coming out of the 
     SuperDome of the rape and murder of a little girl, followed 
     by the beating death at the hands of 10 men of the 
     perpetrator.
       I began thinking about how many people must be unaccounted 
     for in New Orleans and the surrounding region devastated by 
     the storm. The number must be astonishing, just as we keep 
     hearing the final death toll will be. Of the survivors who 
     have made it this long and perhaps been able to get to refuge 
     in other states, whatever procedures officials who run 
     shelters in these states have in place for registering who 
     stays there must certainly take into account the fact that 
     many people left their homes so quickly and under such duress 
     that they may have only the clothes on their backs--no 
     identification, money, etc.
       Registered sex offenders, of course, are more closely 
     accounted for than other citizens. Louisiana has an open and 
     searchable sex offender registry just like many other states 
     across the U.S. The primary party responsible in most 
     communities for checking up on the status of sex offenders 
     who have served their sentences but must register are the 
     local police. As we know, it is all the New Orleans P.D. can 
     do at the moment to maintain their number and keep cops from 
     walking off or getting killed themselves. Just like everyone 
     else, the cops have lost family, homes, in a sense, their 
     lives.
       We can surmise that if the death toll from Katrina in 
     Louisiana alone is as high as 10,000, as has been reported in 
     the mainstream media, a number of sex offenders will have 
     succumbed to the storm and its aftermath.
       We can also guess that if the larger portion of the 
     population of New Orleans was able to leave before the storm, 
     or has now been taken to refugee centers in surrounding 
     states, a larger number of sex offenders are now not just out 
     of the residence registered in the Louisiana offender 
     database, but quite possibly off the grid completely and free 
     to throw off what many of them surely must view as the 
     shackles of having to register and have their faces placed on 
     the internet next to a summary of whatever crimes they were 
     convicted of committing.
       Of that number, a percentage will be considered what many 
     states refer to as level III sex offender. The most likely to 
     use violence in the commission of their crimes, and the most 
     likely to re-offend.
       Click on the thumbnail inserted into the first paragraph of 
     this blog entry to see a screen capture of a map I made at 
     mapsexoffenders.com, the service that matches up sex offender 
     databases with maps and satellite photos and marks the 
     registered offenders' homes with a red balloon.
       The blue balloon on the large map you see when you look at 
     the screen cap I made represents the city center of New 
     Orleans. The red balloons, which you will see are numerous, 
     represent all the registered offenders' addresses.
       As I said, some of those offenders are likely victims of 
     this epochal storm just like many other residents of the Big 
     Easy. But a larger number of them probably survived. Of those 
     who survived, there will be some who truly are trying to live 
     the `straight' life, and they will likely be dutiful in 
     reporting their identities and true status as a registered 
     sex offender. But there may even be a larger number who 
     realize that a remarkable opportunity has presented itself.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 5__. DEFENDANTS IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL CASES TO BE TESTED 
                   FOR HIV.

       (a) In General.--A jurisdiction shall have in effect laws 
     or regulations with respect to a defendant against whom an 
     information or indictment is presented for a crime in which 
     by force or threat of force the perpetrator compels the 
     victim to engage in sexual activity that require as follows:
       (1) That the defendant be tested for HIV disease if--
       (A) the nature of the alleged crime is such that the sexual 
     activity would have placed the victim at risk of becoming 
     infected with HIV; or
       (B) the victim requests that the defendant be so tested.
       (2) That if the conditions specified in paragraph (1) are 
     met, the defendant undergo the test not later than 48 hours 
     after the date on which the information or indictment is 
     presented, and that as soon thereafter as is practicable the 
     results of the test be made available to--
       (A) the victim;
       (B) the defendant (or if the defendant is a minor, to the 
     legal guardian of the defendant);
       (C) the attorneys of the victim;
       (D) the attorneys of the defendant;
       (E) the prosecuting attorneys; and
       (F) the judge presiding at the trial, if any.
       (3) That if the defendant has been tested pursuant to 
     paragraph (2), the defendant, upon request of the victim, 
     undergo such follow-up tests for HIV as may be medically 
     appropriate, and that as soon as is practicable after each 
     such test the results of the test be made available in 
     accordance with paragraph (1) (except that this paragraph 
     applies only to the extent that the individual involved 
     continues to be a defendant in the judicial proceedings 
     involved, or is convicted in the proceedings).
       (4) That, if the results of a test conducted pursuant to 
     paragraph (2) or (3) indicate that the defendant has HIV 
     disease, such fact may, as relevant, be considered in the 
     judicial proceedings conducted with respect to the alleged 
     crime.
       (b) Failure to Comply.--
       (1) In general.--For any fiscal year beginning 2 or more 
     years after the date of the enactment of this Act, a 
     jurisdiction that fails to implement this section shall not 
     receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be 
     allocated for that fiscal year to the jurisdiction under each 
     of the following programs:
       (A) Byrne.--Subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et 
     seq.), whether characterized as the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs, the 
     Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or 
     otherwise.
       (B) LLEBG.--The Local Government Law Enforcement Block 
     Grants program.
       (2) Reallocation.--Amounts not allocated under a program 
     referred to in paragraph (1) to a jurisdiction for failure to 
     fully implement this section shall be reallocated under that 
     program to jurisdictions that have not failed to implement 
     this section.

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for my colleagues this amendment 
specifically deals with the issue where you have a situation of a 
sexual assault and a victim is trying to determine the HIV status of 
the perpetrator.
  Many States have taken action on this issue. But there are several 
States that have yet to do so. Why am I offering this? Well, we had a 
case in Alabama of a 41-year-old man, HIV positive, transmitting HIV to 
a 4-year-old girl that he had raped. A 35-year-old man in Iowa raped a 
15-year-old girl and her 69-year-old grandmother. He was infected with 
HIV.
  Under the laws of that State, they had no right to obtain the HIV 
status of this rapist. He was HIV positive. And as many people may note 
today, if you are exposed to HIV, it is possible to take a 1-month long 
course of medication and dramatically reduce the likelihood of 
contracting human immunodeficiency disease.
  I think this is an excellent amendment. This body passed this by 
large vote years ago.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to accept this amendment. 
I would point out that this is nearly identical to H.R. 3088, which 
passed the House 380 to 19 in October of 2000.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz:
       Insert after section 511 the following new section (and 
     redesignate succeeding sections accordingly):

     SEC. 512. STATE CIVIL COMMITMENT PROGRAMS FOR SEXUALLY 
                   DANGEROUS PERSONS.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--The Attorney General shall make 
     grants to jurisdictions

[[Page H7913]]

     for the purpose of establishing, enhancing, or operating 
     effective civil commitment programs for sexually dangerous 
     persons.
       (b) Eligibility.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, a jurisdiction must, before the expiration of 
     the compliance period--
       (A) have established a civil commitment program for 
     sexually dangerous persons that is consistent with guidelines 
     issued by the Attorney General; or
       (B) submit a plan for the establishment of such a program.
       (2) Compliance period.--The compliance period referred to 
     in paragraph (1) expires on the date that is 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act. However, the Attorney 
     General may, on a case-by-case basis, extend the compliance 
     period that applies to a jurisdiction if the Attorney General 
     considers such an extension to be appropriate.
       (c) Attorney General Reports.--Not later than January 31 of 
     each year, beginning with 2008, the Attorney General shall 
     submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
     the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the progress of jurisdictions in 
     implementing this section and the rate of sexually violent 
     offenses for each jurisdiction.
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) The term ``civil commitment program'' means a program 
     that involves--
       (A) secure civil confinement, including appropriate 
     control, care, and treatment during such confinement; and
       (B) appropriate supervision, care, and treatment for 
     individuals released following such confinement.
       (2) The term ``sexually dangerous person'' means an 
     individual who is dangerous to others because of a mental 
     illness, abnormality, or disorder that creates a risk that 
     the individual will engage in sexually violent conduct or 
     child molestation.
       (3) The term ``jurisdiction'' has the meaning given such 
     term in section 111.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, today I offer an amendment to 
provide guidelines and incentives for States to civilly confine violent 
sexual predators.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
his staff for this support in working with my office on this provision. 
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
for his support as well.
  Most criminals deemed as sexually violent have broken State, as 
opposed to Federal, laws. This amendment would incentivize States to 
implement civil confinement programs. This is not a new or radical 
idea. As of 2002, 16 States and the District of Columbia have 
implemented some form of a civil confinement law. Under this amendment, 
civil confinement would encompass those who admit their illness, as 
well as those who are deemed too dangerous to return to society without 
proper treatment and rehabilitation.
  Texas prisoner Larry Don McQuay is an example of the kind of person 
who would merit civil confinement. He is a convicted child molester who 
describes himself alternatively as scum of the Earth and a monster.
  He is currently serving a 20-year sentence for molesting three 
children.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is also a good amendment. I 
would just point out that it has been carefully drafted to ensure 
compliance with the Supreme Court decisions approving of such laws in 
Kansas v. Hendrick 1997, and Kansas v. Crane in 2002.
  I am happy to accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. McDermott

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. McDermott:
       Page 69, after line 17, insert the following:

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 601. FOSTER CHILDREN IN AREAS AFFECTED BY HURRICANE 
                   KATRINA DEEMED ELIGIBLE FOR FOSTER CARE 
                   MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--As a condition of eligibility for payments 
     under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act, each 
     State with a plan approved under such part shall, during the 
     12-month period that begins with September 2005, make foster 
     care maintenance payments (as defined in section 475(4) of 
     such Act) in accordance with such part on behalf of each 
     child who is in foster care under the responsibility of the 
     State, and who resides or, just before August 28, 2005, had 
     resided in an area for which a major disaster has been 
     declared under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) as a result 
     of Hurricane Katrina.
       (b) Payments to States.--In lieu of any entitlement to 
     payment under section 474 of the Social Security Act with 
     respect to any child described in subsection (a) of this 
     section, each State with such a plan shall be entitled to a 
     payment for each quarter in which there is month in which the 
     State has made a foster care maintenance payment pursuant to 
     such subsection (a), in an amount equal to the sum of--
       (1) the total of the amounts expended by the State during 
     the quarter pursuant to such subsection (a) for children 
     described in such subsection (a) who are in foster family 
     homes (as defined in section 472(c)(1) of such Act) or child-
     care institutions (as defined in section 472(c)(2) of such 
     Act); and
       (2) the total of the amounts expended by the State during 
     the quarter as found necessary by the Secretary for the 
     provision of child placement services for such children, for 
     the proper and efficient administration of the plan with 
     respect to such children, or for the provision of services 
     which seek to improve the well-being of such children.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of children. While I 
stand alone at the podium, I wish we were all standing together on 
behalf of foster children created by Katrina.
  The other day I introduced the Emergency Action for Vulnerable 
Children Act, H.R. 3711. Today I offer 3711 as an amendment to the 
Child Safety Act of 2005.
  There is really not a moment to lose. We must accept responsibility 
for the safety and welfare of foster children affected in this crisis. 
When Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, thousands of foster children 
were separated from foster families in shelters, and they will fall 
through the social safety net unless we act.
  In drafting this legislation, I worked closely with organizations 
like the National Foster Parent Association and the Child Welfare 
League of America. These organizations are working directly with others 
on the ground in the affected region, and they said what we needed to 
hear: the Federal Government must become an immediate and reliable 
partner for States trying to cope with the human needs that are 
outstripping their individual ability to effectively respond.
  Late yesterday the Child Welfare League, which represents 900 public 
and private caregivers across the country, endorsed the Emergency 
Action for Vulnerable Children.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote from their letter: ``Many Child 
Welfare League of America member agencies are working in the disaster 
area to connect children with their families and to continue to provide 
services to those children in care.''
  They report to us directly about their struggles in attempting to 
meet the needs of children and families devastated by the disaster.
  H.R. 3711 begins to address these issues. It is clear that it will 
take a sustained effort on the part of volunteers and local, State and 
Federal governments, to help these children and families, quote, and 
continuing to quote, ``this legislation provides an assurance that the 
Federal Government stands as a partner with State and local governments 
to meet the needs of these children.''
  Mr. Chairman, there are no gotchas in this amendment. Its intent is 
clear, and will focus much more needed Federal resources on foster 
children affected by the hurricane.

                              {time}  1400

  The legislation is bipartisan in spirit and humanitarian in fact. The 
current child welfare program simply cannot handle a crisis of this 
magnitude. Rules of eligibility vary from State to State. In many 
cases, vulnerable children may not be receiving mental health treatment 
or family counseling.
  We must change that, and we can. Because H.R. 3711 cuts through the 
red tape and makes the Federal Government, appropriately in a national 
crisis, responsible for paying for urgently

[[Page H7914]]

needed care. This is no time to have a boatload of rules and 
regulations. This is a time to provide a boatload of help.
  With one vote, we can demonstrate our leadership in this time of 
national crisis. With one vote, we can make every foster child entitled 
to immediate Federal help. There is no reason to wait. There is no 
justification to wait.
  Katrina is a natural disaster and a national crisis. This act is a 
rescue mission, plain and simple.
  Mr. Chairman, given the magnitude of the crisis and the urgency of 
the need, I urge my colleagues to allow my amendment to be voted on. If 
there was an alternative before us, I could accept that as a price of 
speaking for the minority party, but no such legislation exists.
  Mr. Chairman, the question really is, if not now, when? If not us, 
who will defend and save these children?
  We witnessed the horror and the tragedy on TV. Thousands of foster 
children lived through that. The image in their minds, the insecurity 
in their hearts is real and overwhelming. We cannot leave them alone.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Human Resources, this 
committee is responsible for protecting these children. We cannot turn 
our backs and hope that somehow, some way, someone somewhere will 
respond to the needs of these children.
  Across this country, Americans are responding to the crisis the only 
way they know how, by stepping up with a big heart and an open wallet 
to help their fellow Americans in need. They are looking to us to lead 
the Nation through this crisis. We did it once together. We can do it 
again. Let us prove it by saving the children, today.

                              Child Welfare League of America,

                               Washington, DC, September 13, 2005.
     Hon. Jim McDermott,
     House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman McDermott: The Child Welfare League of 
     America (CWLA), with our 900 public and private child-serving 
     member agencies, endorses H.R. 3711, the Emergency Action for 
     Vulnerable Children Act. We applaud your leadership in 
     highlighting the needs of vulnerable foster children and 
     families affected by Hurricane Katrina.
       Many CWLA member agencies are working in the disaster area 
     to connect children with their families and to continue to 
     provide services to those children in care. They report to us 
     directly about their struggles in attempting to meet the 
     needs of children and families devastated by this disaster.
       H.R. 3711 begins to address these issues by providing 
     federal assistance to ensure that foster children receive the 
     supports and services they need, including mental health 
     treatment. H.R. 3711 allows the kind of broad and flexible 
     funding that will assist Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, 
     as well as help other states that are extending their hands 
     in support of the relief efforts.
       It is clear that it will take a sustained effort on the 
     part of volunteers and local, state, and federal governments 
     to help these children and families cope. This legislation 
     provides an assurance that the federal government stands as a 
     partner with state and local governments to meet the needs of 
     these children.
       Thank you again for your continued leadership on behalf of 
     children and families. Count on CWLA to work with you in any 
     way possible to help the children and families affected by 
     this disaster.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Shay Bilchik,
                                                    President/CEO.


                             Point of Order

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). Does the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) insist on his point of order?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. This amendment would provide new 
budget authority in excess of the allocation made under section 302(a) 
of the Committee on the Judiciary and thus is not permitted under 
section 302(f) of the Act.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on 
the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin raises a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington violates section 
302(f) of the Budget Act.
  Section 302(f) of the Budget Act provides a point of order against 
any amendment providing new budget authority that would cause a breach 
of the relevant allocation of budget authority under section 302(a) of 
the Budget Act.
  The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget 
Act by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that the new 
mandatory budget authority provided by this amendment would cause a 
breach of the allocation of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington would increase 
the level of new mandatory budget authority in the bill above the 
allocation made under section 302(a). As such, the amendment violates 
section 302(f) of the Budget Act. The point of order is sustained.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Nadler:
       Page 4, before line 1, at the end of the table of contents, 
     add the following:

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION

Sec. 601. Ban on firearm for person convicted of a misdemeanor sex 
              offense against a minor.
       Page 69, after line 17, insert the following:

                   TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION

     SEC. 601. BAN ON FIREARM FOR PERSON CONVICTED OF A 
                   MISDEMEANOR SEX OFFENSE AGAINST A MINOR.

       (a) Disposition of Firearm.--Section 922(d) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting ``; or'' ; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor sex 
     offense against a minor.''.
       (b) Possession of Firearm.--Section 922(g) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting ``; or'' ; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor 
     sex offense against a minor,''.
       (c) Misdemeanor Sex Offense Against a Minor Defined.--
     Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(36)(A) The term `misdemeanor sex offense against a 
     minor' means a sex offense against a minor punishable by 
     imprisonment for not more than one year.
       ``(B) The term `sex offense' means a criminal offense that 
     has, as an element, a sexual act or sexual contact with 
     another, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such an 
     offense.
       ``(C) The term `minor' means an individual who has not 
     attained 18 years of age.''.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. I believe the 
Chair has not called for further amendments to title V, and the 
proposed amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is to 
title VI. I do not think title V has been closed out yet.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The amendment of the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) proposes to add a new title after title V. The gentleman 
is correct that the adoption of such an amendment would close title V 
to further amendment. But the Chair is unaware of any further amendment 
to title V.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the transfer to or 
possession of a firearm by any individual convicted of committing a sex 
offense against the minor.
  Under current law, it is illegal to transfer or sell a gun to anyone 
convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in jail. It is also 
illegal for any individual convicted of such a crime to possess a gun. 
For some misdemeanor offenses that, although punishable by less than a 
year in jail, are of a particular serious nature, we currently prohibit 
all transfers of guns or possession of guns by individuals convicted of 
such crimes.
  For example, we prohibit anyone convicted of a crime of domestic 
violence, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, from purchasing or 
possessing a gun. Shockingly, we do not prohibit the sale or possession 
of guns to people convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes against

[[Page H7915]]

a minor. We should not treat child sex offenders any more leniently 
with respect to possessing guns than we do domestic abusers.
  If Congress is prepared in the underlying bill to require rigorous, 
severe and intrusive registration for 20 years from persons convicted 
of a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor, and is prepared to 
require States to verify this information four times a year, then the 
offense is indeed of such a serious nature that a convicted sex 
offender against a child must not be allowed possession of a firearm.
  A criminal convicted of indecent exposure, lewd conduct or 
molestation against a minor should not have access to a gun. These are 
misdemeanor offenses, but dangerous criminals convicted of committing a 
sexual crime against a child, even when such offense carries a penalty 
of less than a year, pose too great a danger to society if in 
possession of a firearm.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to close this 
loophole.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment bans possession and 
transfer of firearms by a convicted misdemeanor sex offender against a 
minor, and I am happy to accept the amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mrs. Kelly

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 26 offered by Mrs. Kelly:
       At the end of the bill add the following (and amend the 
     table of contents accordingly):

     TITLE VI--NATIONAL REGISTER OF CASES OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT

     SEC. 601. NATIONAL REGISTER OF CASES OF CHILD ABUSE OR 
                   NEGLECT.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall create a 
     national register of cases of child abuse or neglect. The 
     information in such register shall be supplied by States, or, 
     at the option of a State, by political subdivisions of such 
     State.
       (b) Information.--The register described in subsection (a) 
     shall collect in a central electronic database information on 
     children reported to a State, or a political subdivision of a 
     State, as abused or neglected.
       (c) Scope of Information.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Treatment of reports.--The information to be provided 
     to the Secretary of Health and Human Services under this 
     section shall relate to substantiated reports of child abuse 
     or neglect. Except as provided in subparagraph (B), each 
     State, or, at the option of a State, each political 
     subdivision of such State, shall determine whether the 
     information to be provided to the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services under this section shall also relate to 
     reports of suspected instances of child abuse or neglect that 
     were unsubstantiated or determined to be unfounded.
       (B) Exception.--If a State or political subdivision of a 
     State has an equivalent electronic register of cases of child 
     abuse or neglect that it maintains pursuant to a requirement 
     or authorization under any other provision of law, the 
     information provided to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services under this section shall be coextensive with that in 
     such register.
       (2) Form.--Information provided to the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services under this section--
       (A) shall be in a standardized electronic form determined 
     by the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
       (B) shall contain case-specific identifying information, 
     except that, at the option of the entity supplying the 
     information, the confidentiality of identifying information 
     concerning an individual initiating a report or complaint 
     regarding a suspected or known instance of child abuse or 
     neglect may be maintained.
       (d) Construction.--This section shall not be construed to 
     require a State or political subdivision of a State to 
     modify--
       (1) an equivalent register of cases of child abuse or 
     neglect that it maintains pursuant to a requirement or 
     authorization under any other provision of law; or
       (2) any other record relating to child abuse or neglect, 
     regardless of whether the report of abuse or neglect was 
     substantiated, unsubstantiated, or determined to be 
     unfounded.
       (e) Dissemination.--The Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall 
     establish standards for the dissemination of information in 
     the national register of cases of child abuse or neglect. 
     Such standards shall preserve the confidentiality of records 
     in order to protect the rights of the child and the child's 
     parents or guardians while also ensuring that Federal, State, 
     and local government entities have access to such information 
     in order to carry out their responsibilities under law to 
     protect children from abuse and neglect.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal year 2006 and succeeding fiscal 
     years.

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act, is a 
good, commonsense bill. It seeks to protect our children from sex 
offenders and increase the tools for law enforcement and help defend 
the innocence of our children.
  My amendment would strengthen this bill by adding an additional tool 
for our State and local child protection services and by eliminating 
the loophole in our local laws which allow child adjudicated abusers to 
find sanctuary by merely crossing a State's borders. This amendment is 
similar to legislation I have introduced in the House, H.R. 764, which 
has strong bipartisan support.
  Child abuse and neglect is an issue that crosses jurisdictions. It 
is, therefore, vital for Federal and local officials to work together 
to ensure necessary laws and resources to fight child abusers are in 
place at every level of the government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague points out, under current 
law what does this mean? Let me offer an example.
  If there is a child abuser in California who has been proven through 
the courts to have a history of child abuse, that history is on record 
in the State of California. But should that abuser decide to move to my 
State of Arizona, there is no documented history of his record of abuse 
in California that exists in Arizona. Currently, there is no national 
child abuse registry to show that this is a child abuser, no easy way, 
therefore, for localities to know this is a child abuser who is unfit 
to have children in their care.
  This is the problem that our local governments currently encounter. 
Nothing is in place nationally that provides one State a direct way to 
report to other States that someone has an established history of child 
abuse, making the job for our local and State child advocacy services 
much more difficult.
  Children are being placed in danger when child abuse offenders move 
to a State where their history is unknown. This national registry would 
be a commonsense and a necessary step in the fight against child abuse. 
Local authorities need a more certain way to uncover an individual's 
history of child abuse in another State, and this amendment will allow 
the Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS to work together to 
create this database that can be updated by data from the several 
States and utilized by States to keep children safe.
  Child abusers can run, but they cannot hide. We will not let them 
hide. This amendment makes it possible to deal with this effectively. I 
congratulate my co-sponsor, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly); 
and I ask the House to move forward on this favorably.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I will make the gentlewoman an offer 
she cannot refuse. I am happy to accept the amendment if the 
gentlewoman will yield back the balance of her time.
  Mrs. KELLY. That is an offer I will not refuse.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pence

  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Pence:
       Add at the end the following new title:

           TITLE VI--CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT OF 2005

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Child Pornography 
     Prevention Act of 2005''.

[[Page H7916]]

     SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The effect of the intrastate production, 
     transportation, distribution, receipt, advertising, and 
     possession of child pornography on interstate market in child 
     pornography.
       (A) The illegal production, transportation, distribution, 
     receipt, advertising and possession of child pornography, as 
     defined in section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code, 
     as well as the transfer of custody of children for the 
     production of child pornography, is harmful to the 
     physiological, emotional, and mental health of the children 
     depicted in child pornography and has a substantial and 
     detrimental effect on society as a whole.
       (B) A substantial interstate market in child pornography 
     exists, including not only a multimillion dollar industry, 
     but also a nationwide network of individuals openly 
     advertising their desire to exploit children and to traffic 
     in child pornography. Many of these individuals distribute 
     child pornography with the expectation of receiving other 
     child pornography in return.
       (C) The interstate market in child pornography is carried 
     on to a substantial extent through the mails and other 
     instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce, such as 
     the Internet. The advent of the Internet has greatly 
     increased the ease of transporting, distributing, receiving, 
     and advertising child pornography in interstate commerce. The 
     advent of digital cameras and digital video cameras, as well 
     as videotape cameras, has greatly increased the ease of 
     producing child pornography. The advent of inexpensive 
     computer equipment with the capacity to store large numbers 
     of digital images of child pornography has greatly increased 
     the ease of possessing child pornography. Taken together, 
     these technological advances have had the unfortunate result 
     of greatly increasing the interstate market in child 
     pornography.
       (D) Intrastate incidents of production, transportation, 
     distribution, receipt, advertising, and possession of child 
     pornography, as well as the transfer of custody of children 
     for the production of child pornography, have a substantial 
     and direct effect upon interstate commerce because:
       (i) Some persons engaged in the production, transportation, 
     distribution, receipt, advertising, and possession of child 
     pornography conduct such activities entirely within the 
     boundaries of one state. These persons are unlikely to be 
     content with the amount of child pornography they produce, 
     transport, distribute, receive, advertise, or possess. These 
     persons are therefore likely to enter the interstate market 
     in child pornography in search of additional child 
     pornography, thereby stimulating demand in the interstate 
     market in child pornography.
       (ii) When the persons described in subparagraph (D)(i) 
     enter the interstate market in search of additional child 
     pornography, they are likely to distribute the child 
     pornography they already produce, transport, distribute, 
     receive, advertise, or possess to persons who will distribute 
     additional child pornography to them, thereby stimulating 
     supply in the interstate market in child pornography.
       (iii) Much of the child pornography that supplies the 
     interstate market in child pornography is produced entirely 
     within the boundaries of one state, is not traceable, and 
     enters the interstate market surreptitiously. This child 
     pornography supports demand in the interstate market in child 
     pornography and is essential to its existence.
       (E) Prohibiting the intrastate production, transportation, 
     distribution, receipt, advertising, and possession of child 
     pornography, as well as the intrastate transfer of custody of 
     children for the production of child pornography, will cause 
     some persons engaged in such intrastate activities to cease 
     all such activities, thereby reducing both supply and demand 
     in the interstate market for child pornography.
       (F) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the 
     production, transportation, distribution, receipt, 
     advertising, and possession of child pornography, as well as 
     the intrastate transfer of children for the production of 
     child pornography, is essential to the effective control of 
     the interstate market in child pornography.
       (2) The importance of protecting children from repeat 
     exploitation in child pornography:
       (A) The vast majority of child pornography prosecutions 
     today involve images contained on computer hard drives, 
     computer disks, and related media.
       (B) Child pornography is not entitled to protection under 
     the First Amendment and thus may be prohibited.
       (C) The government has a compelling state interest in 
     protecting children from those who sexually exploit them, and 
     this interest extends to stamping out the vice of child 
     pornography at all levels in the distribution chain.
       (D) Every instance of viewing images of child pornography 
     represents a renewed violation of the privacy of the victims 
     and a repetition of their abuse.
       (E) Child pornography constitutes prima facie contraband, 
     and as such should not be distributed to, or copied by, child 
     pornography defendants or their attorneys.
       (F) It is imperative to prohibit the reproduction of child 
     pornography in criminal cases so as to avoid repeated 
     violation and abuse of victims, so long as the government 
     makes reasonable accommodations for the inspection, viewing, 
     and examination of such material for the purposes of mounting 
     a criminal defense.

     SEC. 603. STRENGTHENING SECTION 2257 TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN 
                   ARE NOT EXPLOITED IN THE PRODUCTION OF 
                   PORNOGRAPHY.

       Section 2257 of title 18 of the United States Code is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(l), by striking ``actual'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``actual'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(4)(A), by striking ``actual'';
       (4) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (h) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) the term `sexually explicit conduct' has the meaning 
     set forth in subparagraphs (A)(i) through (v) of paragraph 
     (2) of section 2256 of this title;'';
       (5) in subsection (h)(4), by striking ``actual.'';
       (6) in subsection (f)--
       (A) at the end of paragraph (3), by striking ``and'';
       (B) at the end of paragraph (4)(B), by striking the period 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (4)(B) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to 
     refuse to permit the Attorney General or his or her delegee 
     to conduct an inspection under subsection (c).''.
       (7) in subsection (h)(3), by striking ``to produce, 
     manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, 
     video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or 
     picture, or other similar matter and includes the 
     duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, 
     but does not include mere distribution or any other activity 
     which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing or 
     otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers 
     depicted'' and inserting ``actually filming, videotaping, 
     photographing; creating a picture, digital image, or 
     digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human 
     being; or digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of 
     sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, 
     publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, 
     magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or 
     picture, or other matter intended for commercial 
     distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually 
     explicit conduct; or, inserting on a computer site or service 
     a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually 
     explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains 
     a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct'';
       (8) in subsection (a), by inserting after ``videotape,'' 
     the following: ``digital image, digitally- or computer-
     manipulated image of an actual human being, or picture,''; 
     and
       (9) in subsection (f)(4), by inserting after ``video'' the 
     following: ``digital image, digitally- or computer-
     manipulated image of an actual human being, or picture,''.

     SEC. 604. PREVENTION OF DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY 
                   USED AS EVIDENCE IN PROSECUTIONS.

       Section 3509 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Prohibition on Reproduction of Child Pornography.--
       ``(1) In any criminal proceeding, any property or material 
     that constitutes child pornography (as defined by section 
     2256 of this title) must remain in the care, custody, and 
     control of either the Government or the court.
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of 
     Criminal Procedure, a court shall deny, in any criminal 
     proceeding, any request by the defendant to copy, photograph, 
     duplicate, or otherwise reproduce any property or material 
     that constitutes child pornography (as defined by section 
     2256 of this title), so long as the Government makes the 
     property or material reasonably available to the defendant.
       ``(B) For the purposes of subparagraph (A), property or 
     material shall be deemed to be reasonably available to the 
     defendant if the Government provides ample opportunity for 
     inspection, viewing, and examination at a Government facility 
     of the property or material by the defendant, his or her 
     attorney, aid any individual the defendant may seek to 
     qualify to furnish expert testimony at trial.''.

     SEC. 605. AUTHORIZING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ASSET FORFEITURE IN 
                   CHILD EXPLOITATION AND OBSCENITY CASES.

       (a) Conforming Forfeiture Procedures for Obscenity 
     Offenses.--Section 1467 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting a period after ``of 
     such offense'' and striking all that follows; and
       (2) by striking subsections (b) through (n) and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(b) The provisions of section 413 of the Controlled 
     Substance Act (21 U.S.C. 853) with the exception of 
     subsection (d), shall apply to the criminal forfeiture of 
     property pursuant to subsection (a).
       ``(c) Any property subject to forfeiture pursuant to 
     subjection (a) may be forfeited to the United States in a 
     civil case in accordance with the procedures set forth in 
     chapter 46 of this title.''.
       (b) Amendments to Child Exploitation Forfeiture 
     Provisions.--
       (1) Criminal forfeiture.--Section 2253(a) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by--
       (i) inserting ``or who is convicted of an offense under 
     sections 2252B or 2257 of this chapter,'' after ``2260 of 
     this chapter'';
       (ii) inserting ``, or 2425'' after ``2423'' and striking 
     ``or'' before ``2423''; and

[[Page H7917]]

       (iii) inserting ``or an offense under chapter 109A'' after 
     ``of chapter 117''; and
       (B) in paragraph (I), by inserting ``, 2252A, 2252B or 
     2257'' after ``2252''.
       (2) Civil forfeiture.--Section 2254(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, 2252A, 2252B, or 
     2257'' after ``2252'';
       (B) in paragraph (2) --
       (i) by striking ``or'' and inserting ``of'' before 
     ``chapter 117'';
       (ii) by inserting ``, or an offense under section 2252B or 
     2257 of this chapter,'' after ``Chapter 117,'' and
       (iii) by inserting ``, or an offense under chapter 109A'' 
     before the period; and
       (C) in paragraph (3) by--
       (i) inserting ``, or 2425'' after ``2423'' and striking 
     ``or'' before ``2423''; and
       (ii) inserting ``, a violation of section 2252B or 2257 of 
     this chapter, or a violation of chapter 109A'' before the 
     period.
       (c) Amendments to RICO.--Section 1961(1)(B) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``2252A, 2252B,'' 
     after ``2252''.

     SEC. 606. PROHIBITING THE PRODUCTION OF OBSCENITY AS WELL AS 
                   TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE.

       (a) Section 1465.--Section 1465 of title 18 of the United 
     States Code is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Production and'' before 
     ``Transportation'' in the heading of the section;
       (2) by inserting ``produces with the intent to transport, 
     distribute, or transmit in interstate or foreign commerce, or 
     whoever knowingly'' after ``whoever knowingly'' and before 
     ``transports or travels in''; and
       (3) by inserting a comma after ``in or affecting such 
     commerce''.
       (b) Section 1466.--Section 1466 of title 18 of the United 
     States Code is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``producing with intent 
     to distribute or sell, or'' before ``selling or transferring 
     obscene matter,'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by inserting, ``produces'' before 
     ``sells or transfers or offers to sell or transfer obscene 
     matter''; and
       (3) in subsection (b) by inserting ``production,'' before 
     ``selling or transferring or offering to sell or transfer 
     such material.''.

  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of both the 
Pence amendment and the Child Safety Act of 2005. I want to commend the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his tireless advocacy 
of families and children.
  While this legislation today is very much about using the force of 
Federal law to confront child predators, we know that the fuel that 
fires the wicked hearts of child predators is child pornography; and my 
amendment, which is drawn from the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 
2005, is designed to give law enforcement the tools to stop child 
pornography at the source.
  It will fix a glaring loophole in the current law by requiring 
pornographers to keep records of the names and ages of their subject, 
proof of identification. This requirement, we believe, will deter the 
use of underage children in pornography.
  Additionally, pornographers will be required to allow law enforcement 
to inspect their records. Failure to do so will be a criminal offense.
  We also in this legislation extend Federal jurisdiction to so-called 
``home pornographers'' that use downloading on the Internet and digital 
and Polaroid photography to essentially create an at-home cottage 
industry for child pornography.
  It is time to protect our children. It is time to enact the Pence 
amendment, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 2005 and make it a 
part of this truly landmark legislation, the Children's Safety Act of 
2005.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add my words of 
support for the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). I 
think it makes a very important addition to this bill.
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the chairman for his endorsement.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in the recent case of Free Speech Coalition v. 
Ashcroft, the Supreme Court indicated that if the material is not 
obscene it cannot be prohibited unless real children are involved. This 
amendment prohibits simulated conduct, digital images that may have 
been produced without real children being involved. If real children 
are not involved, the material has to be technically obscene to be 
prohibited.
  The Supreme Court indicated in the decision that the fact that this 
material may whet someone's appetite or the nature of the case caused 
problems for law enforcement, those could not be the grounds for 
violating the Constitution in having material that is not obscene being 
prohibited.
  The case, whether you like it or not, and bringing it up as a floor 
amendment means we cannot try to conform the language to the Supreme 
Court decision, so the only thing we can do is to vote against it if we 
believe in the Constitution and if we read Free Speech Coalition v. 
Ashcroft.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Add at the end the following new title:

                  TITLE VI--PERSONAL DATA OF CHILDREN

     SEC. 601. MISAPPROPRIATION OF DATA.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 88 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1802. Misappropriation of personal data of children

       ``Whoever, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, 
     knowingly misappropriates the personally identifiable 
     information of a person who has not attained the age of 18 
     years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more 
     than 10 years, or both.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 88 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``1802. Misappropriation of personal data of children.''.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this question of the well-being of our 
Nation's children is a result of the fact that children have 
increasingly become targets for identity theft. There have been sharp 
rises in incidents of fraud involving children's Social Security 
numbers which have been documented. Crimes using the stolen data are 
typically credit card frauds or the issuance of fraudulent driver's 
licenses. However, it is not too farfetched to think that the 
misappropriations of the personally identifiable information of a 
person who has not attained the age of 18 could be used in a way that 
could bring about many of the offenses set forth in this Act.

                              {time}  1415

  So the objective of the amendment crafted by the gentlewoman from 
Texas is to protect our children at all costs, and this amendment would 
do this by making it a crime to knowingly misappropriate the personal 
identification information of a minor in interstate or foreign 
commerce. The offense would be punishable by fines or imprisonment not 
to exceed 10 years.
  Identity thieves often target children for these type of crimes 
because they are much less likely to notice that someone else is using 
their identity.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this 
amendment, but I think it needs a little bit of work on it. I am 
concerned about the drafting and application of the provision and am 
concerned about what might be construed as, quote, personally 
identifiable information of a person who is under age 18.
  The amendment requires clarification of these issues, but I am 
willing to work with my colleague on this amendment to possibly modify 
or clarify the language at a conference later on. So I am prepared to 
accept the amendment and hope that it passes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be able to 
cosponsor this amendment, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Michigan for presenting this amendment on identity theft, and I thank 
the chairman.
  I think the key element of the purpose of this amendment which we 
present today is to realize that children are vulnerable. Documents 
have

[[Page H7918]]

been lost, and now that we know that identity theft is as prolific, 
unfortunately, as Katrina was and the rain and the floods, these 
children need protecting.
  So I would hope we could work together. I would like to work with the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) if this amendment could be 
accepted.
  As chair and founder of the Children's Caucus, I am very concerned 
with the well being of our Nation's children. Unfortunately, children 
have increasingly become targets for identity theft. Sharp rises in 
incidents of fraud involving children's Social Security numbers have 
been documented. Crimes using this stolen data are typically credit 
card fraud or the issuance of fraudulent driver's licenses. However, it 
is not too far fetched to think that the misappropriation of the 
personally identifiable information of a person who has not attained 
the age of 18 years could be used in a way that could bring about many 
of the offenses set forth in this act. The objective is to protect our 
children at all costs. My amendment would do just that by making it a 
crime to knowingly misappropriate the personal identification 
information of a minor in interstate or foreign commerce. The offense 
will be punishable by fines or imprisonment for not more than 10 years.
  Identity thieves often target children for these types of crimes 
because they are much less likely to notice that someone else is using 
their identity. Even infants have had their identities stolen by 
identity thieves. These crimes may be discovered only when bewildered 
parents get the bill. Some children never learn that fraudulent 
activity has taken place in their name until they are refused a 
driver's license because one has already been issued to their Social 
Security number. Worse still, some apply for student loans only to 
learn that their credit has been ruined.
  Sadly, the Federal Trade Commission estimates that 9 percent of 
children in this situation learn that a member of their own family had 
actually perpetrated this fraud. Fixing these credit reports can be 
very time-consuming and particularly expensive for young adults just 
entering the job market. Victims now spend an average of 600 hours 
recovering from this crime, often over a period of years, at an average 
cost of $1,400.
  These crimes against unsuspecting and defenseless children are among 
the most insidious that can be committed because they rob children of 
opportunity. Instead, their entry to adulthood is a setback with 
massive debt, legal bills, and an extraordinary battle just to get a 
fair chance in life.
  This amendment provides stiff penalties to criminals who prey on a 
child's future. I would like to thank Mr. Conyers for offering my 
amendment and therefore I join him as a cosponsor of this amendment. 
After being detained in a meeting on Hurricane Katrina, I was grateful 
that my amendment was able to be offered by Mr. Conyers, the ranking 
member.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, and I think that 
covers it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Conyers:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

         TITLE VI--LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION

     SECTION 601. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Local Law Enforcement Hate 
     Crimes Prevention Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 602. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the 
     victim poses a serious national problem.
       (2) Such violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of 
     communities and is deeply divisive.
       (3) State and local authorities are now and will continue 
     to be responsible for prosecuting the overwhelming majority 
     of violent crimes in the United States, including violent 
     crimes motivated by bias. These authorities can carry out 
     their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal 
     assistance.
       (4) Existing Federal law is inadequate to address this 
     problem.
       (5) The prominent characteristic of a violent crime 
     motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual 
     victim and the family and friends of the victim, but 
     frequently savages the community sharing the traits that 
     caused the victim to be selected.
       (6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce 
     in many ways, including--
       (A) by impeding the movement of members of targeted groups 
     and forcing such members to move across State lines to escape 
     the incidence or risk of such violence; and
       (B) by preventing members of targeted groups from 
     purchasing goods and services, obtaining or sustaining 
     employment, or participating in other commercial activity.
       (7) Perpetrators cross State lines to commit such violence.
       (8) Channels, facilities, and instrumentalities of 
     interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of 
     such violence.
       (9) Such violence is committed using articles that have 
     traveled in interstate commerce.
       (10) For generations, the institutions of slavery and 
     involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color, and 
     ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and involuntary 
     servitude were enforced, both prior to and after the adoption 
     of the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United 
     States, through widespread public and private violence 
     directed at persons because of their race, color, or 
     ancestry, or perceived race, color, or ancestry. Accordingly, 
     eliminating racially motivated violence is an important means 
     of eliminating, to the extent possible, the badges, 
     incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.
       (11) Both at the time when the 13th, 14th, and 15th 
     amendments to the Constitution of the United States were 
     adopted, and continuing to date, members of certain religious 
     and national origin groups were and are perceived to be 
     distinct ``races''. Thus, in order to eliminate, to the 
     extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of 
     slavery, it is necessary to prohibit assaults on the basis of 
     real or perceived religions or national origins, at least to 
     the extent such religions or national origins were regarded 
     as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 
     15th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
       (12) Federal jurisdiction over certain violent crimes 
     motivated by bias enables Federal, State, and local 
     authorities to work together as partners in the investigation 
     and prosecution of such crimes.
       (13) The problem of crimes motivated by bias is 
     sufficiently serious, widespread, and interstate in nature as 
     to warrant Federal assistance to States and local 
     jurisdictions.

     SEC. 603. DEFINITION OF HATE CRIME.

       In this title, the term ``hate crime'' has the same meaning 
     as in section 280003(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

     SEC. 604. SUPPORT FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND 
                   PROSECUTIONS BY STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICIALS.

       (a) Assistance Other Than Financial Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--At the request of a law enforcement 
     official of a State or Indian tribe, the Attorney General may 
     provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial, or any other form 
     of assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of 
     any crime that--
       (A) constitutes a crime of violence (as defined in section 
     16 of title 18, United States Code);
       (B) constitutes a felony under the laws of the State or 
     Indian tribe; and
       (C) is motivated by prejudice based on the actual or 
     perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, 
     sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the 
     victim, or is a violation of the hate crime laws of the State 
     or Indian tribe.
       (2) Priority.--In providing assistance under paragraph (1), 
     the Attorney General shall give priority to crimes committed 
     by offenders who have committed crimes in more than 1 State 
     and to rural jurisdictions that have difficulty covering the 
     extraordinary expenses relating to the investigation or 
     prosecution of the crime.
       (b) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to 
     assist State, local, and Indian law enforcement officials 
     with the extraordinary expenses associated with the 
     investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.
       (2) Office of justice programs.--In implementing the grant 
     program, the Office of Justice Programs shall work closely 
     with the funded jurisdictions to ensure that the concerns and 
     needs of all affected parties, including community groups and 
     schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed through 
     the local infrastructure developed under the grants.
       (3) Application.--
       (A) In general.--Each State that desires a grant under this 
     subsection shall submit an application to the Attorney 
     General at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by or 
     containing such information as the Attorney General shall 
     reasonably require.
       (B) Date for submission.--Applications submitted pursuant 
     to subparagraph (A) shall be submitted during the 60-day 
     period beginning on a date that the Attorney General shall 
     prescribe.
       (C) Requirements.--A State or political subdivision of a 
     State or tribal official applying for assistance under this 
     subsection shall--
       (i) describe the extraordinary purposes for which the grant 
     is needed;
       (ii) certify that the State, political subdivision, or 
     Indian tribe lacks the resources necessary to investigate or 
     prosecute the hate crime;

[[Page H7919]]

       (iii) demonstrate that, in developing a plan to implement 
     the grant, the State, political subdivision, or tribal 
     official has consulted and coordinated with nonprofit, 
     nongovernmental victim services programs that have experience 
     in providing services to victims of hate crimes; and
       (iv) certify that any Federal funds received under this 
     subsection will be used to supplement, not supplant, non-
     Federal funds that would otherwise be available for 
     activities funded under this subsection.
       (4) Deadline.--An application for a grant under this 
     subsection shall be approved or disapproved by the Attorney 
     General not later than 30 business days after the date on 
     which the Attorney General receives the application.
       (5) Grant amount.--A grant under this subsection shall not 
     exceed $100,000 for any single jurisdiction within a 1 year 
     period.
       (6) Report.--Not later than December 31, 2006, the Attorney 
     General shall submit to Congress a report describing the 
     applications submitted for grants under this subsection, the 
     award of such grants, and the purposes for which the grant 
     amounts were expended.
       (7) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.

     SEC. 605. GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Authority to Make Grants.--The Office of Justice 
     Programs of the Department of Justice shall award grants, in 
     accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may 
     prescribe, to State and local programs designed to combat 
     hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to 
     train local law enforcement officers in identifying, 
     investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

     SEC. 606. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO ASSIST 
                   STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Justice, including the Community Relations Service, for 
     fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 such sums as are necessary 
     to increase the number of personnel to prevent and respond to 
     alleged violations of section 249 of title 18, United States 
     Code, as added by section 607.

     SEC. 607. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 13 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 249. Hate crime acts

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, 
     religion, or national origin.--Whoever, whether or not acting 
     under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any 
     person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an 
     explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily 
     injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived 
     race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
       ``(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in 
     accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
       ``(i) death results from the offense; or
       ``(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to 
     kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit 
     aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
       ``(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, 
     national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 
     or disability.--
       ``(A) In general.--Whoever, whether or not acting under 
     color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph 
     (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through 
     the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary 
     device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, 
     because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, 
     gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of 
     any person--
       ``(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in 
     accordance with this title, or both; and
       ``(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for 
     life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--

       ``(I) death results from the offense; or
       ``(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to 
     kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit 
     aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

       ``(B) Circumstances described.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this 
     subparagraph are that--
       ``(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs 
     during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the 
     defendant or the victim--

       ``(I) across a State line or national border; or
       ``(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of 
     interstate or foreign commerce;

       ``(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or 
     instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in 
     connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
       ``(iii) in connection with the conduct described in 
     subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive 
     or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in 
     interstate or foreign commerce; or
       ``(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--

       ``(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity 
     in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
       ``(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.

       ``(b) Certification Requirement.--No prosecution of any 
     offense described in this subsection may be undertaken by the 
     United States, except under the certification in writing of 
     the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the 
     Associate Attorney General, or any Assistant Attorney General 
     specially designated by the Attorney General that--
       ``(1) he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the 
     actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, 
     gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of 
     any person was a motivating factor underlying the alleged 
     conduct of the defendant; and
       ``(2) he or his designee or she or her designee has 
     consulted with State or local law enforcement officials 
     regarding the prosecution and determined that--
       ``(A) the State does not have jurisdiction or does not 
     intend to exercise jurisdiction;
       ``(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government 
     assume jurisdiction;
       ``(C) the State does not object to the Federal Government 
     assuming jurisdiction; or
       ``(D) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State 
     charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal 
     interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `explosive or incendiary device' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 232 of this title;
       ``(2) the term `firearm' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 921(a) of this title; and
       ``(3) the term `gender identity' for the purposes of this 
     chapter means actual or perceived gender-related 
     characteristics.
       ``(d) Rule of Evidence.--In a prosecution for an offense 
     under this section, evidence of expression or associations of 
     the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence 
     at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that 
     offense. However, nothing in this section affects the rules 
     of evidence governing impeachment of a witness.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for 
     chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

``249. Hate crime acts.''.

     SEC. 608. STATISTICS.

       Subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate Crimes 
     Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note) is amended by inserting 
     ``gender and gender identity,'' after ``race,''.

     SEC. 609. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this title, an amendment made by this 
     title, or the application of such provision or amendment to 
     any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, 
     the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, 
     and the application of the provisions of such to any person 
     or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important consideration; 
and I offer this amendment to address a problem, the scourge of hate 
violence, and hope that my colleagues will carefully consider the 
merits of the proposal.
  The larger measure before us, H.R. 3132, finally gives us an 
opportunity to pass a hate crimes legislation that has been supported 
by a majority of the House and the Senate for three Congresses. 
Regularly, on motions to instruct, this House voted 232 to 192 in 
support of hate crimes legislation. Clearly, after a series of 
procedural votes in favor of the bill, the time has come for us to act 
on the substance; and this is what brings me to the well today.
  In 2003, for the most available data, the FBI compiled reports from 
law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,489 criminal 
incidents that were motivated by an offender's irrational antagonism 
towards some personal attribute associated with the victim. Law 
enforcement agencies have identified 9,100 victims arising from 8,715 
separate criminal offenses. While every State reported at least a small 
number of incidents, it is important to note that the reporting by law 
enforcement is voluntary, and it is widely believed that hate crimes 
are seriously underreported.
  Children are not immune from this violence. The FBI data has revealed 
that a disproportionately high percentage of both victims and 
perpetrators of hate violence were children, young people under 18 
years of age. A Department of Justice report, a special one on the 
subject, in 2001 carefully analyzed nearly 3,000 of the 24,000 hate 
crimes reported and revealed 30 percent of all victims of bias-
motivated aggravated assaults, and 34 percent of the victims of simple 
assault were under 18.
  So that is the problem. Despite the pervasiveness of the problem, 
current

[[Page H7920]]

law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents against 
protected classes that occur only during the exercise of federally 
protected activities such as voting. Further, the statutes do not 
permit Federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are 
motivated by bias against the victims' perceived sexual orientation, 
gender disability, or gender identity.
  This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four 
States have no hate crime laws on the books and 21 others have weak 
hate crime laws.
  So the amendment will make it easier for the Federal authorities to 
prosecute bias crimes, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention 
Act helped Federal prosecutors combat church arsonists, that is, by 
loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal 
law.
  State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming 
majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this 
legislation with the enhanced support of the Federal Government. 
Through an intergovernmental assistance program created by this 
legislation, the Department of Justice will provide technical, 
forensic, or prosecutorial assistance to State and local law officials 
in cases of bias crime.
  The proposal also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to 
State and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred 
extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and 
prosecution of hate crimes.
  I hope in supporting H.R. 3132 we can also move forward in this 
important area of hate crimes with reference to protecting children.
  Behind each of the statistics cited above lies an individual or 
community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, 
religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender 
identity. Let us be clear that a significant number of children lie 
within these statistics.
  These discrete communities have learned the hard way that a failure 
to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated 
incident to fester into wide spread tension that can damage the social 
fabric of the wider community. This amendment is a constructive and 
measured response to a problem that continues to plague our nation. 
These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and they 
should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance 
and prosecution.
  I hope that in supporting H.R. 3132 we can also move forward in this 
area, hate crimes, that is equally important to protecting children.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a poison pill to a very good and strongly 
supported bill; and regardless of whether or not one favors or opposes 
the Federal hate crimes law, I would ask the membership not to put 
highly controversial legislation of this nature on a bill that has 
attracted such strong and bipartisan support.
  Earlier today, when we were considering the bill granting immunity 
from civil liability to Good Samaritans who are going down to help the 
victims of Hurricane Katrina, the Members of the minority party 
complained about the fact that there had been no hearings, there had 
been no committee consideration of this legislation, which is arguably 
of an emergency nature.
  There have been no hearings. There have been no markups to this 
legislation, and we are talking about a major amendment to the Federal 
Criminal Code, one that poses constitutional problems of double 
jeopardy and whether Congress is exceeding its constitutional 
authority, which is something that should go through the regular order. 
I do not think the changes to the criminal code should be taken 
lightly.
  Statistics on hate crimes prosecution should be fully considered in a 
very thoughtful way, including testimony that scholars have presented 
that says that hate crimes legislation actually increases those types 
of crimes, rather than decreases them.
  We also should consider the case of United States v. Morrison, where 
the Supreme Court considered whether or not section 8 of the Commerce 
Clause or section 5 of the 14th amendment would allow Congress to enact 
a Federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence. There 
the Supreme Court said the Congress did not have the constitutional 
authority to do that.
  I think both on the merits and on the process and on the 
practicalities of putting a controversial piece of legislation such as 
this amendment on a bill that has attracted broad and bipartisan 
support, this amendment should be strongly rejected. Do not kill the 
bill with this amendment. Vote it down.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill that we are dealing with today is 
about safety and protection, and so is the Conyers amendment, which is 
why I rise in strong support of it.
  It is tragic when hate crimes occur, but they do. It is irresponsible 
and naive to deny that there are people out there who seek to commit 
violence against others because they are gay, lesbian or transgender or 
because they are female or because they have a disability. It happens 
far too often, and we must not be silent about it.
  The FBI collects statistics on these crimes; and for the past 10 
years, violent hate crimes committed on the basis of sexual orientation 
have been the third highest number of hate crimes committed. The 
problem is real, and people are dying solely because of who they are.
  Enactment of Federal hate crimes protections is important for both 
substantive and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential 
to our system of ordered justice; but on a symbolic basis, it is 
important that Congress enunciate clearly that hate-motivated violence 
based on gender-sexual orientation or disability is wrong, because, 
quite frankly, too much of what we do in this Chamber conveys the 
message that we really do not believe in equality for all, and that is 
sort of like a wink and a nod, that a little discrimination is okay.
  I want to speak briefly about why hate crimes differ from other 
violent crimes. A senior Republican Member of the other body said a few 
years ago: ``A crime committed not just to harm an individual, but out 
of motive of sending a message of hatred to an entire community is 
appropriately punished more harshly, or in a different manner, than 
other crimes.''
  Hate crimes are different than other violent crimes because they seek 
to instill fear and terror throughout a whole community, be it burning 
a cross in someone's yard, the burning of a synagogue, a rash of 
physical assaults in a gay community center. This sort of domestic 
terrorism demands a strong Federal response because this country was 
founded on the premise that persons should be free to be whoever they 
are, without fear of violence.
  Both in the 107th and 108th Congresses, the House of Representatives 
voted in favor of motions to instruct conferees to retain the Local Law 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act as part of the Department of 
Defense authorization bill. Unfortunately, despite the support of a 
solid bipartisan majority in both this body and the other body, the 
provisions were dropped in conference.
  The urgency to pass hate crimes legislation and protections is as 
great as ever. Just last year, in separate instances, two men in 
Mississippi were brutally murdered based on their sexual orientation.

                              {time}  1430

  Scotty Joe Weaver was strangled, beaten, and stabbed before his body 
was carried to a wooded area and set on fire. The following week, 
Roderick George was shot in the forehead. Authorities have concluded 
that anti-gay animus was a motivating factor in both cases.
  All Americans, regardless of their race, gender, disability, or 
sexual orientation, have a right to feel safe in their communities. 
Gays and lesbians should not have to live in fear anywhere in the 
United States of America.
  For far too long this body has failed to act to prevent or respond to 
hate crimes. We have the opportunity to do so today. I urge my 
colleagues to recognize that both the underlying bill and this 
amendment are about safety and protection of our citizens. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers),

[[Page H7921]]

the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
his generosity in yielding to me.
  Members of the Committee, there is an historical underlying 
importance about what we are discussing here. I mention its importance. 
We have never had on the Federal books, in Federal law, a prohibition 
against killing someone because of their race. Dr. E.B. DuBois and the 
NAACP brought this up in the 1930s. It was debated even further back 
during Reconstruction. We are at a very critical, important point.
  This House has approved this, but we have never dealt with it 
substantively before this afternoon. So I urge the Members to seriously 
consider the historical nature of what it is we are considering here. 
This is the first substantive consideration of a hate crimes measure 
that makes it a Federal violation of criminal law to kill a person 
because of their race. It is exceedingly important from that point of 
view.
  As I said, it has been debated down from Reconstruction times. It was 
debated during the 1930s. It has been dealt with indirectly here on the 
floor. The majority of the Members have concurred with it through other 
procedures. But today, for the very first time, we are now considering 
this matter.
  I commend this to the careful attention of all of my colleagues in 
this 109th Congress. We have a tremendous opportunity of an historical 
nature before us, and I hope that we will successfully move this part 
of the bill forward with this amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the hate crimes prevention 
amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary, and I 
thank him for his strong leadership on this subject.
  I disagree with the distinguished chairman of the committee. This is 
not a poison pill. This amendment does nothing to weaken the underlying 
bill. We all agree we must take strong measures to protect our children 
from sexual predators. As a mother of five and grandmother of five, I 
appreciate fully the underlying bill and intend to vote for it.
  This is, Mr. Chairman, another issue; and it relates to hate crimes. 
This vehicle is one that gives Congress the opportunity to go on 
record, and hopefully in the majority, to reject hate crimes in our 
country. Hate crimes prevention is long overdue. Hate crimes have no 
place in America. All Americans have a fundamental right to feel safe 
in their communities. Federal hate crimes prevention legislation is the 
right thing to do, and we must do it now. We have waited far too long.
  A year ago, a majority of this House voted to support including hate 
crimes prevention legislation in the Department of Defense 
authorization bill, on the heels of a strong vote in the Senate. 
Similarly, the House acted in September of 2000. Twice, the Republican 
leadership defied the will of the majority of the House and stripped 
these essential provisions out in conference. Today, we should not be 
denied. We will have a vote that counts.
  Our Nation was founded on the principle that all are created equal, 
all are entitled to the protections of the laws, and all are entitled 
to justice. It violates this principle to have individuals in our 
country targeted for violence because of who they are, the color of 
their skin, how they worship, and who they love. The perpetrators of 
violence intend to send a message to certain members of our community 
that they are not welcome.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is based on H.R. 2662, the Local 
Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005, introduced by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and joined by 142 Members as 
cosponsors, of which I am proud to be one. It will help prevent 
violence visited upon individuals because of their race, sexual 
orientation, sexual identity, religion, national origin, gender, or 
disability.
  As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) explained, these 
protections are necessary and must be enacted into law. Who can ever 
forget the brutal murders of James Byrd in Texas, Matthew Shepard in 
Wyoming, Waqar Hasan in Texas, Gwen Araujo in California, and so many 
others who have died because of ignorance and intolerance. This 
legislation would increase the ability of local, State and Federal law 
enforcement agencies to solve and prevent a wide range of violent hate 
crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, I call this very specifically to your attention and to 
that of our colleagues, that numerous law enforcement organizations, 
including the International Association of Chiefs of Police support the 
need for Federal hate crimes legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, as we deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we 
must remember that we are one America, a Nation that must be united not 
just in common purpose but in common effort and common community. We 
must work to end false distinctions among us.
  In the words of my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis), who I consider to be the conscience of this House, we must 
strive towards our ``Beloved Community.'' ``We must move our resources 
to build and not to tear down, to reconcile and not to divide, to love 
and not to hate.''
  Let that be our call. Let us live up to the ideals of equality and 
opportunity that are both our hope and our future. Let us pass this 
amendment to secure justice for all. We must continue to vote for 
justice, for hope, and for freedom by ensuring that hate crimes 
prevention provisions are enacted into law. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this important amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to commend the minority 
leader on the legislative history she has recounted for the benefit of 
us who have dealt with this across the years and add that this is a 
bipartisan measure. I only wish that all of our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle who support this measure would also join with their 
voices and their votes with us on this very important day.
  We can track back a record that goes back to reconstruction where we 
have been trying to attempt to successfully pass this measure. So I 
congratulate the gentlewoman on her explanation of why we are here.
  Ms. PELOSI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the 
gentleman that we passed this legislation, as I mentioned, at least two 
times on the floor with Republican votes. As the gentleman knows, we do 
not have the majority on the Democratic side, so it was with Republican 
votes that we passed it before.
  I, too, hope those votes will be here today because we do have an 
historic opportunity to pass the underlying bill but, more importantly 
in terms of this historical opportunity that is presented to us, to 
pass this amendment as well.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to address some of the misconceptions that arise 
when we deal with this legislation. I and many of the strongest 
proponents of hate crimes legislation are also among the strongest 
proponents of free expression in this House, and I want to be very 
clear. A belief in free expression means the belief in the right of 
obnoxious people to say hateful things. This is not an effort to 
prevent people from engaging in racist or homophobic or sexist insults. 
I regard that to be a very unpleasant but fully constitutionally 
protected practice, and there have been mistaken assertions in this.
  There was in fact a case in Philadelphia which lent itself to the 
interpretation that unpleasant speech was being prosecuted. That case 
was thrown out of court, and it was wrong. Nothing in this law in any 
way, this amendment that the gentleman from Michigan, who happens to be 
one of the greatest defenders of freedom of expression in the history 
of Congress, nothing in this amendment impinges in any way on anybody's 
right to say or write anything they want.
  What it says is that if you commit an act which is otherwise a crime, 
because the predicate for this is that you have to commit a physical 
act which would be a crime against a person or property, but generally 
against a person, that it becomes an aggravating factor

[[Page H7922]]

if it is demonstrated to be motivated, and the courts have made it 
clear that you have to demonstrate this is an element of the crime in 
some way, you must demonstrate that it was motivated by prejudice.
  Now the argument is, well, why is one kind of crime worse than any 
other? Well, in fact, of course, our laws, State and Federal, are 
replete with examples where the exact same act is treated more harshly 
depending on the motivation. We have laws that particularly single out 
crimes against the elderly. We have laws that say if you desecrate one 
kind of property it is worse than if you desecrate another.
  Here is the rationale for this. If an individual is assaulted and the 
individual chosen for the assault was chosen randomly, that is a very 
serious problem for that individual, and the crime ought to be punished 
and the individual protected. But where individuals are singled out for 
assault because of their race, because of their sexual orientation, 
because of their gender or identity, and transgendered people are among 
those who have been most recently viciously and violently attacked, it 
is not simply the victim of the violent assault who is assaulted. Other 
people in that vicinity, in that area, who share those characteristics, 
are also put in fear. And it is legitimate for us to say that when you 
have individuals being singled out because of a certain characteristic, 
this becomes a crime that transcends the assault against the 
individual. It does not mean we do not protect the individual. It means 
that we go beyond that.
  Now there are people who say, look, if you hit anybody, it is exactly 
the same thing. I doubt their sincerity, Mr. Chairman. Because, as I 
understand it, under Federal law, if one of us were to be walking out 
in the street with a private citizen and we were both assaulted, the 
individual assaulting us has committed a greater crime than the 
individual assaulting a private citizen. That is, we have one category 
of hate crimes in that it is a more serious crime to assault a Member 
of Congress.
  Now, by the way, it is obviously not in any way constitutionally 
inappropriate to denounce Members of Congress. We all know that. So 
anyone who thinks that when you have enhanced a sentencing by singling 
out an individual you have immunized him or her from criticism, just 
look at us. I do not know anybody who is proposing that we get rid of 
that.
  So here is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with a law which 
in no way impinges on anyone's freedom of expression and says that when 
individuals are physically harmed in part because of who they are that 
others who share that characteristic are also put in fear, and that is 
a way to try to diminish that form of activity.
  I should add, too, that we have recently seen more of an outbreak of 
this sort of violence against people who are transgendered, and it is 
important for us to come to people's aid.
  Of course, when people say, oh, well, this whole new thing is here, 
of course, the parent of hate crimes legislation is the anti-lynch laws 
of the 1930s. We tried in the 1930s to pass laws which were Federal 
hate crimes. The lynch laws were laws that said murder is murder, but 
where people are murdered for racial reasons in parts of the country 
where the individuals may not be protected, where law enforcement might 
be complicit, that is a Federal law.
  Now it is true that while this House continuously passed such 
legislation, the Senate never did because of other things.

                              {time}  1445

  But the fact is that the principle of Federal intervention to protect 
individuals against crimes of violence that are ordinarily State 
crimes, in those cases where there is a pattern of nonenforcement, 
which is a predicate again for activity in this bill, goes back to 
anti-lynch laws, and I think many of us regret that those laws have not 
been passed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 9 offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis) and amendment No. 25 offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


        Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Inglis of South Carolina

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Inglis) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106, 
noes 316, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               AYES--106

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dingell
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--316

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach

[[Page H7923]]


     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Clyburn
     Gilchrest
     Harman
     Hoekstra
     Melancon
     Payne
     Royce
     Walsh
     Weiner

                              {time}  1510

  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mrs. CUBIN, Messrs. BOYD, GREEN of 
Wisconsin, NUSSLE, WICKER, WILSON of South Carolina, DAVIS of Florida, 
RENZI, KINGSTON, EMANUEL, BACA, BARTLETT of Maryland, LARSON of 
Connecticut, HOBSON, COOPER, and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BROWN of Ohio, SMITH of Washington, and McDERMOTT changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223, 
noes 199, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 469]

                               AYES--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Clyburn
     Gilchrest
     Harman
     Hoekstra
     Melancon
     Payne
     Royce
     Walsh
     Weiner


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). Members are 
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. NUSSLE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gutknecht) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sweeney, Acting Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
3132) to make improvements to the national sex offender registration 
program, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution

[[Page H7924]]

436, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 371, 
nays 52, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 470]

                               YEAS--371

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--52

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Buyer
     Conaway
     Davis (IL)
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Flake
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Shadegg
     Souder
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Camp
     Clyburn
     Gilchrest
     Melancon
     Payne
     Royce
     Walsh
     Weiner

                              {time}  1541

  Messrs. FLAKE, WAMP and DUNCAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana and Mr. MANZULLO changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for the vote 
on passage of H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005. If I had 
been present for this vote, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________