[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6659-6660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               DRU'S LAW

  Mr. DORGAN. I rise today to describe S. 792, a bipartisan piece of 
legislation called ``Dru's Law,'' which I introduced in the Senate 
yesterday.
  This bill seeks to fill some gaping holes in our criminal justice 
system, made tragically evident by a recent tragedy in North Dakota.
  In November 2003, Dru Sjodin, a student at the University of North 
Dakota, was abducted in the parking lot of a Grand Forks shopping mall. 
She was found in a ditch in Minnesota some 6 months later.
  A suspect was eventually arrested and is awaiting trial. There is 
abundant evidence that he was responsible for Dru's abduction. The 
alleged assailant, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., had been released from 
prison only 6 months earlier, having served a 23-year sentence for rape 
in Minnesota. And what's more, Minnesota authorities had known that he 
was at high risk of committing another sexual assault if released.
  The Minnesota Department of Corrections had rated Rodriguez as a 
``type 3'' offender--meaning that he was at the highest risk for 
reoffending. In an evaluation conducted in January 2003, a prison 
psychiatrist wrote that Rodriguez had demonstrated ``a willingness to 
use substantial force, including the use of a weapon, in order to gain 
compliance from his victims.''
  Despite this determination, the Minnesota Department of Corrections 
released Rodriguez in May 2003, and essentially washed its hands of the 
case. Since Rodriguez had served the full term of his sentence, the 
Department of Corrections imposed no further supervision on him at all.
  The Minnesota Department of Corrections could have recommended that 
the State Attorney General seek what is known as a ``civil 
commitment.'' Under this procedure, a State court would have required 
Rodriguez to be confined as long as he posed a sufficient threat to the 
public, even if he had served his original sentence. But the State 
Attorney General was never notified that Rodriguez was getting out, and 
there was no chance for the Minnesota courts to consider the case.
  So upon his release, Mr. Rodriguez went to live in Crookston, MN, 
completely unsupervised, a short distance from the Grand Forks shopping 
mall where Dru Sjodin was abducted.
  To make matters worse, while Mr. Rodriguez registered as a sex 
offender in Minnesota, there was no indication of his release for 
nearby North Dakota communities. I suspect that most Americans would be 
surprised to learn that there is currently no national sex offender 
registry available to the public. So sex offender registries currently 
stop at State lines. Each State has its own sex offender registry, 
which tracks only its own residents.
  For all intents and purposes, Rodriguez was free to prey on nearby 
communities in North Dakota, without fear of recognition.
  This situation is simply unacceptable. We must do better. A recent 
study found that 72 percent of ``highest risk'' sexual offenders 
reoffend within 6 years of being released. And the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics has determined that sex offenders released from prison are 
over ten times more likely to be arrested for a sexual crime than 
individuals who have no record of sexual assault. We cannot just 
release such individuals with no supervision whatsoever, and let them 
prey upon an unsuspecting public.
  Today, I am reintroducing legislation that will hopefully help to 
prevent such breakdowns in our criminal justice system, and that will 
give our citizens the tools to better protect themselves from sexual 
offenders.
  This bill is cosponsored by Senator Specter, the new chairman of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee. It also has a growing list of bipartisan 
cosponsors, which currently includes Senators Conrad, Dayton, Coleman, 
Lugar, Johnson, and Durbin.
  The bill does the following three things:
  First, it requires the Justice Department to create a national sex 
offender database accessible to the public through the Internet--with 
data drawn from the FBI's existing National Sex Offender Registry. This 
public website would allow users to specify a search radius across 
State lines, providing much more complete information on nearby sex 
offenders.
  Second, it requires State prisons to notify States attorneys whenever 
``high risk'' offenders are about to be released, so that States 
attorneys can consider petitioning the courts for continued confinement 
of the offender. The ``civil commitment'' option is available under the 
law in many States, if an individual is deemed a continuing threat to 
the public safety. In the Dru Sjodin case, prison officials did not 
alert the States attorney of Rodriguez' impending release. If they had 
done so, this tragedy might have been avoided.
  Third, it requires states to monitor ``high-risk'' offenders who are 
released after serving their full sentence--and are otherwise not 
subject to probation or other supervision--for a period of no less than 
1 year.
  The cost of these steps would be shared by the Federal Government and 
the States. The Federal Government would bear the cost of maintaining 
the national sex offender registry, and the States would bear the cost 
of supervising high risk offenders upon their release from prison.
  To ensure compliance with these measures, the legislation would 
reduce Federal funding for prison construction by 25 percent for those 
States that did not comply, and would reallocate such funds to States 
that do comply with those provisions. This will be the ``stick'' that 
some States may need to ensure that they comply with these important 
protections.
  I should note that this identical legislation was passed in the 
Senate toward the conclusion of the 108th Congress. It passed by 
unanimous consent,

[[Page 6660]]

with the support of Senator Hatch, who was then the Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, and also with the support of Senator Leahy, who 
was--and remains--the ranking member of the committee.
  Regrettably, the House of Representatives did not act on Dru's Law 
before adjourning in the last Congress, and so we must start the 
legislative process on this bill again in the 109th Congress. But I am 
committed to getting this done, and I expect that the House will pass 
Dru's Law in this Congress.
  Our thoughts and prayers go to Dru Sjodin's family. I cannot 
guarantee that that passage of the legislation we are introducing today 
will prevent such tragedies from ever occurring again. But I believe 
that it will be a significant step toward making our neighborhoods 
safer for our loved ones.
  In recent weeks, we have had some very sad reminders of the need for 
such legislation. In February, 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was abducted 
and murdered in Florida by a previously convicted sexual offender. The 
offender fled across State lines to Georgia, where he was apprehended. 
He has now confessed to this brutal crime. Had he not been arrested, he 
might well have offended again. This was, again, a reminder that while 
sex offender registries currently stop at State lines, sex offenders do 
not.
  Mark Lunsford, Jessica's father, has written in strong support of 
this bill.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, 
to secure passage of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 792

       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 ``Dru Sjodin National Sex 
     Offender Public Database Act of 2005'' or ``Dru's Law''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       In this Act:
       (1) Criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.--The 
     term ``criminal offense against a victim who is a minor'' has 
     the same meaning as in section 170101(a)(3) of the Jacob 
     Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent 
     Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(3)).
       (2) Minimally sufficient sexual offender registration 
     program.--The term ``minimally sufficient sexual offender 
     registration program'' has the same meaning as in section 
     170102(a) of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 
     Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 
     14072(a)).
       (3) Sexually violent offense.--The term ``sexually violent 
     offense'' has the same meaning as in section 170101(a)(3) of 
     the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14071(a)(3)).
       (4) Sexually violent predator.--The term ``sexually violent 
     predator'' has the same meaning as in section 170102(a) of 
     the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually 
     Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 14072(a)).

     SEC. 3. AVAILABILITY OF THE NSOR DATABASE TO THE PUBLIC.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General shall--
       (1) make publicly available in a registry (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``public registry'') from information 
     contained in the National Sex Offender Registry, via the 
     Internet, all information described in subsection (b); and
       (2) allow for users of the public registry to determine 
     which registered sex offenders are currently residing within 
     a radius, as specified by the user of the public registry, of 
     the location indicated by the user of the public registry.
       (b) Information Available in Public Registry.--With respect 
     to any person convicted of a criminal offense against a 
     victim who is a minor or a sexually violent offense, or any 
     sexually violent predator, required to register with a 
     minimally sufficient sexual offender registration program 
     within a State, including a program established under section 
     170101 of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and 
     Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act (42 U.S.C. 
     14071(b)), the public registry shall provide, to the extent 
     available in the National Sex Offender Registry--
       (1) the name and any known aliases of the person;
       (2) the date of birth of the person;
       (3) the current address of the person and any subsequent 
     changes of that address;
       (4) a physical description and current photograph of the 
     person;
       (5) the nature of and date of commission of the offense by 
     the person;
       (6) the date on which the person is released from prison, 
     or placed on parole, supervised release, or probation; and
       (7) any other information the Attorney General considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 4. RELEASE OF HIGH RISK INMATES.

       (a) Civil Commitment Proceedings.--
       (1) In general.--Any State that provides for a civil 
     commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding, shall 
     issue timely notice to the attorney general of that State of 
     the impending release of any person incarcerated by the State 
     who--
       (A) is a sexually violent predator; or
       (B) has been deemed by the State to be at high-risk for 
     recommitting any sexually violent offense or criminal offense 
     against a victim who is a minor.
       (2) Review.--Upon receiving notice under paragraph (1), the 
     State attorney general shall consider whether or not to 
     institute a civil commitment proceeding, or any equivalent 
     proceeding required under State law.
       (b) Monitoring of Released Persons.--
       (1) In general.--Each State shall intensively monitor, for 
     not less than 1 year, any person described under paragraph 
     (2) who--
       (A) has been unconditionally released from incarceration by 
     the State; and
       (B) has not been civilly committed pursuant to a civil 
     commitment proceeding, or any equivalent proceeding under 
     State law.
       (2) Applicability.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to--
       (A) any sexually violent predator; or
       (B) any person who has been deemed by the State to be at 
     high-risk for recommitting any sexually violent offense or 
     criminal offense against a victim who is a minor.
       (c) Compliance.--
       (1) Compliance date.--Each State shall have not more than 3 
     years from the date of enactment of this Act in which to 
     implement the requirements of this section.
       (2) Ineligibility for funds.--A State that fails to 
     implement the requirements of this section, shall not receive 
     25 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to 
     the State under section 20106(b) of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13706(b)).
       (3) Reallocation of funds.--Any funds that are not 
     allocated for failure to comply with this section shall be 
     reallocated to States that comply with this section.

                          ____________________