[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11207-11210]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          LIFETIME CONSEQUENCES FOR SEX OFFENDERS ACT OF 2002

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4679) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide 
a maximum term of supervised release of life for child sex offenders, 
as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4679

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lifetime Consequences for 
     Sex Offenders Act of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. SUPERVISED RELEASE TERM FOR SEX OFFENDERS.

       Section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Supervised Release Terms for Sex Offenders.--
     Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized term of 
     supervised release for any offense under chapter 109A, 110, 
     117, or section 1591 is any term of years or life.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 
4679, as amended, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders 
Act of 2002, amends the current law, which grants Federal courts the 
authority to include in any sentence a term of supervised release after 
imprisonment.
  Under this legislation, a court would be authorized to impose a term 
of supervised release for any term of years or life for a number of 
serious sex offenses. These offenses include crimes of sexual abuse, 
sexual exploitation of children, transportation for illegal sexual 
activity, sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion. 
Under current law, a term of supervised release for any of these crimes 
is limited to a maximum term of between 1 and 5 years.
  This legislation will provide judges with greater discretion in 
dealing with sex offenders. The court imposing the sentence is in the 
best possible position to determine if an extended period of 
supervision is necessary, based on that court's knowledge of the facts 
of the case and the defendant's criminal history.
  The court is also in the best position to determine what conditions 
of release are necessary to ensure the defendant will not reoffend and 
the public will be safe.
  There is no requirement in this bill that a judge impose any term of 
supervised release if the court feels that it is not necessary. The 
court may also revoke such supervision at any time after 1 year if the 
court decides that supervision is no longer warranted.
  Lifetime supervised release is not a novel idea. A court may 
currently impose a life term of supervised release for certain Federal 
drug and terrorism offenses. It does not make any sense to tie the 
hands of the court in the case of a sex offender if that court knows 
that there is a greater possibility that a defendant will victimize 
another person if they are not subject to the conditions of supervised 
release.
  Study after study has shown extremely high recidivism rates for sex 
offenders. The lifelong harm that they cause to their victims far 
outweighs any inconvenience they may suffer as a result of lifetime 
supervision. This legislation will give the courts the ability to 
permanently monitor those individuals who have demonstrated a higher 
risk to society.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4679. Mr. Speaker, this 
bill lacks any standard for application of lifetime supervision and 
would make subject to lifetime supervision those who may be involved 
only in misdemeanors and in cases involving consensual acts, including 
consensual touching between teenagers still in high school. There may 
be

[[Page 11208]]

cases for which consideration of such treatment is warranted, but 
certainly not in misdemeanors and consensual sex acts.
  During the committee consideration of the bill, I offered amendments 
aimed at focusing the bill on the types of cases that might warrant 
consideration of lifetime supervision by eliminating misdemeanors and 
consensual acts for first-time offenders, but these amendments were 
rejected and were on a procedure that does not allow amendments on the 
floor.

                              {time}  1245

  Although judges have the discretion to impose lifetime supervision or 
not, a judge must consider that if Congress authorizes lifetime 
supervision for first-time misdemeanors or consensual acts between 
adults or between high school students, with no indication of how it 
should be applied in these cases, it must be that Congress intends for 
it to apply in such cases. In this overzealous context of 
indiscriminately ferreting out sex offenders for harsher treatment, 
there are likely to be judges who, like the lawmakers promoting such 
policies, who will prefer to err on the side of harsh treatments to 
avoid the possible criticism that they were not as tough as they could 
have been should an offender actually recidivate.
  We have plenty of evidence as to how this harsh treatment is applied 
in our criminal justice system and that it is minorities that will be 
at the receiving end. That is because this bill will only apply to 
cases of Federal jurisdiction, and we know that the Federal 
jurisdiction crimes fall disproportionately on Native Americans who 
comprise about 75 to 80 percent of all cases involving Federal 
jurisdiction. And even if the clear racially disparate unfairness is 
not there, it is also unfair for offenders in the same State to face 
vastly differing harshness and treatments just because they were either 
right on the reservation or across the road outside of the reservation.
  For many crimes covered by this lifetime supervision provision, the 
situation will be more about enforcing the conditions of supervision 
than about preventing additional sex offenses. That is because the 
supervision will take place when the defendant is out in the community 
and just checks in occasionally for supervision. Offenders will be in 
and out of prison not for new sexual offenses but for technical 
violations of their conditions of supervision. This is not only unfair 
to what may be a very minor offender but it is actually a waste of the 
taxpayers' resources.
  There were no hearings on the bill and no showing that there is any 
problem with the length of supervision period now available for the 
courts and certainly no hearing to see why this should apply 
disproportionately to Native Americans, as to whether or not there is 
any special problem in the Native American community. This suggests 
something to make it look like we are doing something about crime when 
in reality we are not doing anything but imposing unnecessarily harsh 
and unfair policies on Native Americans. I, therefore, urge the defeat 
of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the author of the bill.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, 
and I thank everyone concerned.
  This legislation was not born of a whim or out of reason of trying to 
fill a day of litigation where other things could not have been 
accomplished. This came about as a result of a Federal judge who was 
shocked by the fact that on certain cases involving sex offenders that 
the Federal judge was unable to put onto the offenders' sentence a 
supervised release for more than 5 years, in some cases for no more 
than 1 year.
  So in discussions I had with the Federal judge, he proposed and I 
accepted the proposition that, because a sex offender in front of a 
judge is subject to the scrutiny of the entire background of this 
offender to the extent of previous offenses, ages and names of people 
who were harmed, the whole aspect of the offender who happens to be in 
front of judge, coupled with the felony fact that recidivism among sex 
offenders, particularly those who would harm young children, the 
pedophiles, that that rate of recidivism is so high that we cannot as a 
society gamble that after a short period of supervision that this 
individual will not harm another youngster, and so we are here at the 
well of the House proposing that we allow these Federal judges in front 
of whom these sex offenders will appear to a lifetime maximum of 
supervision.
  It night not be that many years. It might be 10 years. It might be 
five. And the judge at any time during this period can change it, can 
change it back, all subject to the discretion of the judge pursuant to 
the circumstances that obtain with regard to this particular sex 
offender.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) opines that this is specially 
hard on Indian tribes. But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) outlined that one of the patterns on which this sex 
offender extended supervision period was based was for the drug 
offenses and the terroristic offenses that already are on the books in 
which lifetime supervision is part of the sentencing option. So they 
were not fashioned at any cost to the Federal jurisdiction over Indian 
tribes. Drug offenses among Indians or terrorists offenses among 
Indians are treated equitably as the law provides. So it will be for 
the sex offenders who have this high rate of recidivism which we wish 
to curtail.
  Mr. Speaker, I have introduced H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences 
for Sex Offenders Act of 2002 to give our Federal judges the power they 
need to properly ensure that sex offenders pay for their crimes, and 
that our legal system remains appropriately accountable for a sex 
offender when they are released into the public. As you know, Federal 
judges currently have the power under 18 U.S.C. 3583 to order mandatory 
periods of post-release supervision for Federal felons. The law 
provides that Class A and B felons may be ordered into mandatory 
supervision for a period of up to 5 years. Class C and D felons may be 
ordered into mandatory supervision for up to 3 years. Furthermore, 
lesser felons and misdemeanants may receive no more than a maximum 
sentence of 1 year post-release supervision.
  Importantly, Congress has created several important exceptions to the 
three tiers of supervised release just described. Federal judges may 
sanction many Title 21 Federal drug offenses by imposing conditions of 
supervised release lasting up to a lifetime in length. Additionally, as 
we all remember well, President bush signed into law the USA-PATRIOT 
Act several months ago. That bill provided Federal judges with the 
discretion of ordering long-term supervision of periods ranging up to a 
lifetime for those guilty of many terrorism offenses.
  Long-term supervision for Federal drug offenders and those who 
attempt terroristic acts will help to ensure the future safety of our 
citizens. It will clearly help to make sure our government can account 
for those felons who are released from prison as they reintegrate with 
society. This Congress recognized the severe nature of these crimes and 
found wanting a system that hamstrung Federal judges from meting out 
justice by severally limiting their options when it came to post 
release mandatory supervision.
  If Federal judges can impose lifetime supervision for drug offenses, 
they should be able to provide a similar sanction for sex offenders. I 
know very well that many Federal judges feel strongly that they are not 
able to truly protect the citizenry from sex offenders without the 
ability to escalate supervision requirements beyond the arbitrary 5 
year limit. I recently spoke with Judge F.S. Van Antwerpen of the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania about his experiences in sentencing 
felons engaged in Internet child pornography crimes. The destructive 
and harmful crimes engaged in by some of the felons he sentenced left 
him with little hope that these child predators would truly reform 
after release from prison. Without the sanction of long-term, and 
possibly life-long supervision, these dangerous predators may relapse 
back into their obscene habits later in life.
  The sexual offenses covered under my bill, H.R. 4679, range from the 
interstate coercion and enticement of minors into sexual activity, to 
the transportation of individuals across state lines with the intent of 
engaging in prostitution or other illegal sexual conduct. Longer 
periods of supervision are available in many State legal systems. Why 
should a sex offender who

[[Page 11209]]

happened to cross State lines to sexually abuse a child, receive a 
lighter sentence than one who engages in the same acts with a child 
within a single State? How many of America's parents realize that when 
a sex offender leaves the prison system, the Federal legal system they 
rely upon to keep their children safe from predators maintains no 
supervision of that sex offender after a few short years? How many 
serious sex offenders have no one to help brake them when they begin to 
slide into their old destructive ways?
  I am very concerned about recidivism rates for sexual offenders. 
Studies have shown recidivism rates varying from 15% to nearly 75% for 
sex offenders, depending on the type of sex offense and the length of 
the study. And these numbers do not tell the whole story: as much as 
80% of sex offenses go unreported! Regardless of the numbers, any 
repeat of these especially heinous crimes simply are not acceptable, 
especially when the legal system can do more. There is reason for 
optimism--if we take the right steps. Statistics suggest that people 
are much more likely to engage in repeat victimization before they are 
caught. Regardless of their inclinations, sex offenders are likely to 
restrain themselves if they know they are being watched.
  Mandatory supervision in no way implies 24 hour monitoring or 
surveillance of individuals. Consistent and periodic contact with 
Federal probation officers, however, makes sense. These Federal 
officials are able to gauge the on-going efforts of released felons to 
reintegrate into society. They can spot trouble before it becomes 
destructive to the individual under supervision, or worse, to innocent 
third parties. Additionally, Federal judges can add ``reasonable'' 
additional stipulations to the terms of release for Federal criminals 
including mandatory counseling, thereby affording released felons the 
safety net of counseling services for durations beyond a handful of 
years.
  My fellow colleagues, we all deplore the destructive and revolting 
nature of sex crimes. Our Federal law enforcement agencies, our 
prosecutors, and our judges want and need tools like the one I propose 
today, to help combat these vile crimes. Let us take a positive step 
today for America's families and our children. I ask that you vote for 
H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2002.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that some of the cases, some of 
the situations that would be covered by this would be crossing State 
lines from Washington, D.C., to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the 
purposes of committing fornication. That would be a crime for which, 
that is, two consenting adults, that would be a crime for which you 
could be subjected to lifetime supervision and a violation of which 
could put you in jail for violating the provision of your supervision.
  The bill needs to be narrowed to cover the kind of cases we are 
talking about; and for that reason the bill should be opposed, the 
motion to suspend the rules should be opposed so that we could have a 
situation where we could actually amend the bill to cover those acts 
which we are actually trying to cover.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4679, The Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders 
Act of 2002, was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Gekas) and allows Federal judges to include, as part of the sentence of 
a convicted sex offender, a term of supervised release for any period 
of time. The court can end the term of supervised release and discharge 
the defendant at any time after 1 year if the court is satisfied that 
such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and serves the 
interest of justice.
  Studies have shown that sex offenders are four times more likely than 
other violent criminals to recommit their crimes. Moreover, recidivism 
rates do not appreciably decline as the offender ages.
  According to the United States Department of Justice's Bureau of 
Justice Statistics, since 1980 the number of prisoners sentenced for 
violent sexual assault other than rape has increased 15 percent each 
year, faster than any other category of violent crime.
  National data also indicates that sex offenders are apprehended for 
only a fraction of the crimes they actually commit. In fact, in some 
estimates only one in five serious sex offenses are reported to 
authorities and only 3 percent of such crimes result in the 
apprehension of an offender.
  By passing this legislation, we will give judges the discretion 
necessary to impose a term of supervised release that is appropriate 
for each defendant. Authorities will be able to monitor those sex 
offenders who pose the greatest threat to our society for as long as 
the court feels they are a danger to society.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing mandatory about this bill. If a judge 
decides that supervision is not necessary, then there is no requirement 
to impose any term of supervised release. But it is mandatory that 
Congress pass this legislation if we are to deter criminals from 
committing these terrifying crimes.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think the definition and the 
explanation of this bill has been well made by the previous speakers. I 
would like to focus on I think a singular and important point that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has made.
  There is no doubt in my continued support on the floor of the House 
for legislation that deals with penalizing, if you will, those who 
would prey upon children and those who would act criminally with 
respect to sex acts as it impacts the victims, both women and children 
and others.
  I have always been one that believes that there is more work to be 
done in protecting the public from those that would be predators as it 
relates to sexual offenses and, as well, crimes against children. We 
have to look no further than our television screen right now and the 
debate or the information coming out of Utah on the missing young Smart 
girl as well as the long list of missing children and exploited 
children to know that this is the work we should be doing. But I 
believe the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has a 
very valid point, and it should be addressed, and I really wish we had 
the opportunity to have had this legislation go through the Committee 
on Rules.
  There is no emergency that would not have allowed us, again, to look 
at this legislation for its best effectiveness. There is no reason to 
not provide guidelines so that we can be assured that the legislation 
attacks the problem that we want it to attack, and that is the violent 
and, if you will, repeat and vicious offenders, sex offenders who would 
go after and prey upon innocent victims.
  It means that there should be a sense of tolerance, however, for 
those who otherwise could be rehabilitated or that the offenses do not 
meet the test. We are simply asking that you allow guidelines to be 
utilized so that you can distinguish between potential for 
misdemeanors, consensual sexual conduct or if something occurred 
between two teenagers in the course of their interaction. This is what 
I believe, Mr. Speaker, the key is on this legislation, to be able to 
have a guideline to make this better legislation.
  I would hope the gentleman would have the opportunity to have this 
legislation assessed and that our colleagues would look at putting an 
amendment in that deals with putting in guidelines for this 
legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would just again state that someone in 
Washington, D.C., crossing the line to go to the Commonwealth of 
Virginia to commit fornication, two consenting adults, if caught, could 
be subjected to lifetime supervision. I do not think that is the kind 
of case the supporters of the bill were talking about.
  We ought to bring this bill up in a forum where one could amend it to

[[Page 11210]]

take those kind of situations out, and for that reason the motion to 
suspend the rules ought to be defeated.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the policy behind H.R. 4679, the Lifetime 
Consequences for Sex Offenders Act, is unobjectionable. Given the high 
rates of recidivism among sex criminals, it is certainly legitimate to 
take steps to reduce the likelihood that a paroled sex criminal will 
commit further crimes. In fact, given the likelihood that a sex 
offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to 
ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?
  However, Mr. Speaker, questions of the proper punishment for sexual 
crimes are not issues properly under federal jurisdiction. The 
Constitution grants the federal government jurisdiction over only three 
crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. It is hard to stretch the 
definition of treason, counterfeiting, or piracy to include sex crimes. 
Therefore, even though I agree with the policy behind H.R. 4679, I must 
remind my colleagues that the responsibility for investigating, 
prosecuting and punishing sex crimes is solely that of state and local 
governments.
  We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and 
former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while 
they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor 
prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes 
that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to 
change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that 
Congress' tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of 
offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous 
implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the 
principle that states are something more than mere administrative 
districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I am in fundamental agreement with 
the policies expressed in H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex 
Offenders Act, I must remind my colleagues that this is an area over 
which Congress has no constitutional responsibility. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in restoring state and local government's 
constitutional authority over criminal activities not related to 
treason, piracy, and counterfeiting.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4679 , as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________