[House Report 112-637]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-637

======================================================================



 
                 ADAM WALSH REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012

                                _______
                                

 July 31, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3796]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 3796) to reauthorize certain programs established by 
the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

The Amendment....................................................     2

Purpose and Summary..............................................     3

Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     3

Hearings.........................................................     5

Committee Consideration..........................................     5

Committee Votes..................................................     5

Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     6

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     6

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     6

Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     7

Advisory on Earmarks.............................................     8

Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     8

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     8

Additional Views.................................................    12

                             The Amendment

    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 
2012''.

SEC. 2. SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (SOMA) PROGRAM 
                    REAUTHORIZATION.

  Section 126(d) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 
2006 (42 U.S.C. 16926(d)) is amended to read as follows:
  ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated to the Attorney General $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
years 2013 through 2017, to be available only for--
          ``(1) the SOMA program; and
          ``(2) the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program 
        established under section 631.''.

SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO 
                    VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

  Section 142(b) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 
2006 (42 U.S.C. 16941(b)) is amended by striking ``such sums as may be 
necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2009'' and inserting 
``$46,200,000 for each of the fiscal years 2013 through 2017''.

SEC. 4. DURATION OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN 
                    JUVENILES.

  Subparagraph (B) of section 115(b)(2) of the Adam Walsh Child 
Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16915(b)(2)) is amended by 
striking ``25 years'' and inserting ``15 years''.

SEC. 5. PUBLIC ACCESS TO JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION.

  Section 118(c) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 
2006 (42 U.S.C. 16918(c)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph (3);
          (2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
          (3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
          ``(4) any information about a sex offender for whom the 
        offense giving rise to the duty to register was an offense for 
        which the offender was adjudicated delinquent (or otherwise 
        convicted) as a juvenile; and''.

SEC. 6. PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM STATE NONCOMPLIANCE 
                    PENALTY UNDER SORNA.

  Section 125(a) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 
2006 (42 U.S.C. 16925(a)) is amended by striking ``shall not receive'' 
and all that follows and inserting ``shall return to the Attorney 
General (for reallocation in accordance with subsection (c)), from the 
funds allocated to the jurisdiction for that fiscal year under 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.), 10 percent of the amount the 
jurisdiction may retain under paragraph (1) of section 505(c) of such 
Act (42 U.S.C. 3755(c)).''.

SEC. 7. COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF SEX OFFENDER ISSUES.

  Section 634(c) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 
2006 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
          ``(3) Additional report.--Not later than one year after the 
        date of enactment of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 
        2012, the National Institute of Justice shall submit to 
        Congress a report on the public safety impact, recidivism, and 
        collateral consequences of long-term registration of juvenile 
        sex offenders, based on the information collected for the study 
        under subsection (a) and any other information the National 
        Institute of Justice determines necessary for such report.''.

SEC. 8. JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT GRANTS REAUTHORIZATION.

  Section 3012(c) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797ee-1(c)) is amended by striking 
``$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2009 to carry out 
this part'' and inserting ``$2,979,000 for each of the fiscal years 
2013 through 2017 to carry out this section''.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 3796 reauthorizes two key programs of the Adam Walsh 
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (``Adam Walsh Act''), 
P.L. 109-248, including funding for the U.S. Marshals' fugitive 
apprehension program, and grants to help the states and other 
jurisdictions come into compliance with the national sex 
offender registry requirements of the Act. The bill also lowers 
the age after which certain juveniles adjudicated delinquent 
can apply for removal from the sex offender registry for a 
clean record from 25 to 15 years.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    The Adam Walsh Act was signed into law on July 27, 2006. 
The Act is intended to protect children and the public at large 
from sexual exploitation and other violent crime. The Act also 
aims to prevent child abuse and child pornography, promote 
Internet safety, and honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other 
crime victims.

                                 SORNA

    Title I of the Adam Walsh Act, the Sex Offender 
Registration and Notification Act (``SORNA''), 42 U.S.C. 
Sec. 16901 et seq., was enacted to protect the public from 
convicted sex offenders by establishing a comprehensive 
national system for the registration and notification to the 
public and law enforcement officers of those offenders. SORNA 
sought to create a consistent and uniform system of sex 
offender registries throughout the country that would enable 
law enforcement officials and the public to track sex offenders 
and to prevent offenders from eluding the authorities--
particularly when they move out of state. To achieve this goal, 
SORNA 1) expanded the jurisdictions required to register sex 
offenders to include Indian tribes, U.S. territories, and the 
District of Columbia; 2) set forth minimum uniform standards 
for sex offender registries; 3) required the registration of a 
broader class of offenders; 4) required sex offenders to 
register and renew in person their registration in every 
jurisdiction where they live, work, or attend school; 5) 
changed the minimum length of registration for sex offenders; 
and 6) expanded the information made available to the public.
    The Department of Justice's Sex Offender Sentencing, 
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (``SMART'') 
Office, which administers SORNA, issued guidelines for minimum 
compliance with SORNA in 2008,\1\ and more recently issued 
supplemental guidelines in January 2011 that were intended to 
address certain concerns among the jurisdictions.\2\ The 
minimum SORNA registry requirements include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Department of the Justice, Office of the Attorney General; The 
National Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, 
Docket No. OAG 121, AG Order No. 2978-2008.
    \2\Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, 
Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, 
Docket No. OAG 134, AG Order No. 3241-2011.

         LClassification of offenders based on their 
        crime of conviction, instead of using a risk-assessment 
        system. Under SORNA, jurisdictions are required to put 
        offenders into three different tiers based on 
        convictions. These tiers determine the length of 
        registry and how often an offender must renew 
        registration each year. The jurisdictions, however, are 
        free to use risk assessments to place offenders in 
        higher tiers. This provision was included in the Act to 
        address the wide-range of risk assessment systems among 
        the states, which led to much less uniform enforcement 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        of the registry laws.

         LRegistration of both newly-convicted sex 
        offenders, as well as past offenders. The states are 
        only required to register sex offenders who are 
        currently in the criminal justice program as prisoners 
        or supervisees, or those who reenter the system through 
        a subsequent criminal conviction. This retroactive 
        application of the law has been upheld as 
        constitutional by several Federal courts.\3\ The U.S. 
        Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of 
        SORNA's retroactivity, but has upheld a similar state 
        law on the basis that the sex offender registration and 
        notification statute was a civil regulatory, rather 
        than a penal, statute.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2011) 
(finding that SORNA does not violate the ex post facto clause and 
citing cases with similar outcomes from nine other circuits); but see 
United States v. Juvenile Male, 581 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding 
that SORNA violated the ex post facto clause) vacated 131 S.Ct. 2860 
(2011).
    \4\See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003).

         LRegistration of a small subset of juveniles 
        who are adjudicated delinquent for committing violent 
        sex crimes. Under the SORNA guidelines, the only 
        juveniles who must be added to the registries are those 
        who were at least 14 years old at the time of an 
        offense and are adjudicated delinquent for committing 
        (or attempting or conspiring to commit) a sexual act 
        with another by force, by the threat of serious 
        violence, or by rendering unconscious or drugging the 
        victim. In other words, only the most serious juvenile 
        offenders are required to register. The guidelines also 
        exempt publication of these juveniles on the public 
        registry--instead, only law enforcement will see the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        fact that they are registered sex offenders.

         LPeriodic in-person registry throughout the 
        year. Depending on which tier an offender falls in, 
        they must register once a year (Tier 1), twice a year 
        (Tier 2), or quarterly (Tier 3). The SMART Office has, 
        however, provided some flexibility regarding how these 
        renewals can take place.

    The states were initially given until July 27, 2009, to 
comply with the SORNA provisions or face a potential 10-percent 
reduction to the state portion of the Federal Edward Byrne 
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (``Byrne JAG'') funding. Any 
state that demonstrates reasonable progress toward compliance 
with SORNA, however, can petition the Department of Justice to 
have the 10-percent reduction credited back, provided that the 
state agrees to spend the money on SORNA implementation.
    The Attorney General exercised his discretion to grant two 
1-year extensions to the jurisdictions. Accordingly, the final 
deadline for the states and territories to comply with SONA and 
avoid a penalty was July 27, 2011.\5\ To date, 39 jurisdictions 
have been deemed in substantial compliance with SORNA, 
including 15 states, 22 Indian tribes, the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and Guam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Failure to comply with SORNA does not generate a one-time 
penalty. Instead, the Justice Department will consider SORNA compliance 
each year prior to determining Byrne JAG distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Indian tribes generally did not face the same deadline 
as the states, and instead are required to implement SORNA in a 
``reasonable'' time, as determined by the Department of 
Justice. The Indian tribes also generally do not face the same 
10-percent reduction in Byrne JAG funding. However, tribes that 
are determined unlikely to come into compliance with SORNA face 
having the responsibility for doing so delegated to the state 
in which they reside.
    The Adam Walsh Act also made it a Federal felony to fail to 
re-register as a sex offender after moving to another state, 
and required states to toughen their penalties, now often 
misdemeanors, for failing to register at all. The U.S. Marshals 
were tasked under the Act with apprehending both state and 
Federal fugitive sex offenders, investigating violations of the 
Act's sex offender registration requirements, and identifying 
and locating sex offenders who are relocated as the result of a 
major disaster.

                             AUTHORIZATIONS

    The Adam Walsh Act created or reauthorized more than 20 
Federal spending and grant programs devoted to SORNA, sex 
offender management, and child safety. The majority of these 
grants are no longer authorized, and the majority of them have 
never received an appropriation from Congress.
    The original Adam Walsh Act was estimated by CBO to cost 
$1.5 billion over 5 years. By contrast, this bill reauthorizes 
just two programs at levels commensurate with the FY 2012 
appropriation levels, for a total of approximately $330 million 
in spending over 5 years.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 
Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings on the Adam Walsh Act 
on February 15, 2011. Testimony was received from: Ms. Dawn 
Doran, Deputy Director, SMART Office, U.S. Department of 
Justice; Ms. Stacia Hylton, Director, U.S. Marshals Service, 
U.S. Department of Justice; Mr. Ernie Allen, President and CEO, 
the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children; and 
Representative Patricia Colloton, Chair, Corrections and 
Juvenile Justice Committee, Kansas House of Representatives.

                        Committee Consideration

    On July 18, 2012, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered the bill H.R.3796 favorably reported with an amendment, 
by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                            Committee Votes

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there 
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of 
H.R. 3796. The Committee approved by voice vote four amendments 
offered by Mr. Scott.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 3796, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, July 30, 2012.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3796, the ``Adam 
Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012.''
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                  Director.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member



           H.R. 3796--Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012.

      As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 
                           on July 18, 2012.




                                SUMMARY

    H.R. 3796 would authorize the appropriation of about $69 
million annually over the 2013-2017 period mostly for 
Department of Justice programs to assist State and local 
governments to manage and track sex offenders. The Congress 
appropriated about $20 million for fiscal year 2012 for similar 
activities.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing H.R. 3796 would cost $298 million 
over the 2013-2017 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not 
apply to this legislation because it would not affect direct 
spending or revenues.
    H.R. 3796 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3796 is shown in the 
following table. CBO assumes that the authorized amounts will 
be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that 
outlays will follow the historical rate of spending for similar 
activities. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
function 750 (administration of justice).

                                     By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     2013   2014   2015   2016   2017  2013-2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level                                                    69     69     69     69     69       345

Estimated Outlays                                                      42     58     63     66     69       298
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS:

    None.

              INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

    H.R. 3796 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA. Assuming appropriation of 
authorized amounts, State, local, and tribal governments would 
receive about $77 million of the $298 million that would be 
spent over the 2013-2017 period for the treatment and tracking 
of sex offenders. Any costs to those governments would be 
incurred voluntarily as a condition of receiving Federal 
assistance.

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell
Impact on the Private Sector: Marin Randall

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Theresa Gullo
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 
3796, reauthorizes funding for the U.S. Marshals' fugitive 
apprehension program and grants to help jurisdictions come into 
compliance with the Adam Walsh Act's national sex offender 
registry requirements, and lowers the age after which juveniles 
adjudicated delinquent can apply for removal from the sex 
offender registry for a clean record from 25 to 15 years.

                          Advisory on Earmarks

    In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, H.R. 3796 does not contain any 
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    The following discussion describes the bill as reported by 
the Committee.
    Sec. 1. Short title. This section cites the short title of 
the bill as the ``Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012.''
    Section 2. Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) 
Program Reauthorization. This section reauthorizes the SOMA 
program at $20 million a year for 5 years, which reflects the 
FY 2012 appropriation level. The SOMA program provides funding 
to the states, tribes and other jurisdictions to offset the 
costs of implementing and enhancing SORNA. Section 2 also 
clarifies that SOMA grant funds can be used to verify the 
addresses of registered sex offenders, as initially authorized 
under the Adam Walsh Act's Jessica Lunsford Address 
Verification Grant Program. SOMA was initially authorized as 
``such sums as necessary.''
    Section 3. Reauthorization of Federal Assistance with 
Respect to Violations of Registration Requirements. This 
section reauthorizes $46.2 million a year for 5 years for the 
U.S. Marshals Service (``USMS''), and other DOJ law enforcement 
agencies, to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending 
sex offenders who violate registration requirements. The USMS 
is the primary Federal agency responsible for enforcing the 
registration requirements of the Adam Walsh Act and 
apprehending Federal and state fugitive sex offenders. This 
program was initially authorized as ``such sums as necessary.''
    Section 4. Duration of Sex Offender Registration 
Requirements for Certain Juveniles. This section changes the 
period of time after which juveniles adjudicated delinquent can 
apply to be removed from the sex offender registry for keeping 
a clean record from 25 years to 15 years

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

ADAM WALSH CHILD PROTECTION AND SAFETY ACT OF 2006

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE I--SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle A--Sex Offender Registration and Notification

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 115. DURATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Reduced Period for Clean Record.--
          (1) * * *
          (2) Period.--In the case of--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) a tier III sex offender adjudicated 
                delinquent for the offense which required 
                registration in a sex registry under this 
                title, the period during which the clean record 
                shall be maintained is [25 years] 15 years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 118. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION THROUGH THE 
                    INTERNET.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Optional Exemptions.--A jurisdiction may exempt from 
disclosure--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) the name of an educational institution where the 
        sex offender is a student; [and]
          (4) any information about a sex offender for whom the 
        offense giving rise to the duty to register was an 
        offense for which the offender was adjudicated 
        delinquent (or otherwise convicted) as a juvenile; and
          [(4)] (5) any other information exempted from 
        disclosure by the Attorney General.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 125. FAILURE OF JURISDICTION TO COMPLY.

  (a) In General.--For any fiscal year after the end of the 
period for implementation, a jurisdiction that fails, as 
determined by the Attorney General, to substantially implement 
this title [shall not receive 10 percent of the funds that 
would otherwise be allocated for that fiscal year to the 
jurisdiction under 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.).] shall return to the Attorney General (for 
reallocation in accordance with subsection (c)), from the funds 
allocated to the jurisdiction for that fiscal year under 
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.), 10 percent 
of the amount the jurisdiction may retain under paragraph (1) 
of section 505(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3755(c)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 126. SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (SOMA) PROGRAM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(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 2007 through 2009.]
  (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated to the Attorney General $20,000,000 for each of 
the fiscal years 2013 through 2017, to be available only for--
          (1) the SOMA program; and
          (2) the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant 
        Program established under section 631.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 Subtitle B--Improving Federal Criminal Law Enforcement To Ensure Sex 
Offender Compliance With Registration and Notification Requirements and 
Protection of Children From Violent Predators

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 142. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION 
                    REQUIREMENTS.

  (a) * * *
  (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated [such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
2007 through 2009] $46,200,000 for each of the fiscal years 
2013 through 2017 to implement this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  TITLE VI--GRANTS, STUDIES, AND PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN AND COMMUNITY 
SAFETY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Grants, Studies, and Other Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 634. COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF SEX OFFENDER ISSUES.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Reports.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) Additional report.--Not later than one year after 
        the date of enactment of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization 
        Act of 2012, the National Institute of Justice shall 
        submit to Congress a report on the public safety 
        impact, recidivism, and collateral consequences of 
        long-term registration of juvenile sex offenders, based 
        on the information collected for the study under 
        subsection (a) and any other information the National 
        Institute of Justice determines necessary for such 
        report.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 1968

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE I--JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   PART KK--SEX OFFENDER APPREHENSION GRANTS; JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER 
TREATMENT GRANTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3012. JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT GRANTS.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to 
be appropriated [$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 
through 2009 to carry out this part] $2,979,000 for each of the 
fiscal years 2013 through 2017 to carry out this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            Additional Views

                              INTRODUCTION

    H.R. 3796, the ``Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012,'' 
reauthorizes programs of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 
Safety Act of 2006 (``Adam Walsh Act'').\1\ Reauthorizing 
funding for law enforcement operations that are already law is 
not controversial. The problem with H.R. 3796 is not what is in 
it, but what is missing. The bill fails to address the many 
problems that the states and tribes have encountered in 
implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act 
(``SORNA''), which is one of the provisions of the Adam Walsh 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Pub. L. No. 109-248 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

    Out of 248 jurisdictions required to comply, only 15 
states, 2 territories, and 33 tribes have been found by the 
Attorney General to be in compliance with SORNA.\2\ Last year, 
the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing on reauthorization of the 
Adam Walsh Act, during which we learned about numerous problems 
that states and tribes have encountered in implementing 
SORNA.\3\ H.R. 3796 fails to effectively address many of these 
problems with SORNA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Office of Justice Programs, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, 
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, ``Jurisdictions 
that have substantially implemented SORNA,'' available at http://
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/newsroom.htm.
    \3\The Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act: Hearing Before the 
Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on 
the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        CONCERNS WITH H.R. 3796

    Years before SORNA was enacted, many states developed sex 
offender registries and dedicated substantial resources to 
identify ways to effectively manage sex offenders. It would be 
inefficient as well as adversely affect public safety to make 
states disregard all of these efforts in favor of a 
prescriptive, ``one size fits all'' system, which is what SORNA 
currently is. The states that have been unable to comply with 
SORNA will soon suffer a 10 percent reduction in their Byrne-
JAG awards for not doing so. Particularly during this economic 
climate, this is a harsh penalty to the states that will 
undermine not only their ability to manage sex offenders, but 
also the other public safety goals that the funds are now 
supporting.
    Representative Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (D-VA) offered ten 
amendments to address these shortcomings in the bill. The 
amendments sought to give discretion to the states (and to the 
Attorney General) to make critical decisions about how to most 
effectively and safely manage sex offenders. Fortunately, four 
of these amendments passed by voice vote. Those amendments: 1) 
give states the flexibility to put juveniles on a law 
enforcement-only registry, not on a public registry; 2) 
reauthorize funding under the Adam Walsh Act for the treatment 
of juvenile sex offenders; 3) require the study of the public 
safety impact of long term or lifetime registration on juvenile 
registrants, and 4) ensure that portions of the Byrne-JAG grant 
funding intended for distribution to local governments and 
entities are not penalized by a state's non-compliance with 
SORNA.
    The six other amendments offered by Representative Scott, 
however, failed by voice vote. A summary of these amendments 
follows.
    One of these amendments would have allowed tribes to elect 
to either carry out the requirements of SORNA or delegate the 
requirements to another jurisdiction. By requiring that states 
take on the responsibility for sex offender registration on 
tribal lands if a tribe fails to comply, SORNA merges state and 
tribal law enforcement responsibilities in a manner that 
threatens tribal sovereignty and shifts the cost of tribal 
compliance to the states. This amendment would have clarified 
that tribal sovereignty should be respected and states may not 
be penalized for lack of tribal cooperation or compliance.
    Another amendment offered by Representative Scott would 
have clarified that tribes in Public Law 83-280 (PL 280) states 
have the option of becoming registration and notification 
jurisdictions. As currently written, SORNA strips a subset of 
tribes that are subject to state criminal jurisdiction under PL 
280 of exclusive civil regulatory authority over their members 
without any justification. This amendment would have given 
tribes the ability to have their own registries rather than 
relying upon the state.
    Representative Scott also offered an amendment that would 
have given each jurisdiction the discretion as to whether to 
apply SORNA retroactively. Applying SORNA retroactively is one 
of the obstacles preventing jurisdictions from complying with 
SORNA and is one of the most controversial aspects of the Adam 
Walsh Act. Several states have had to incur the expense and 
engagement of trials and appeals challenging their retroactive 
application of SORNA requirements in which the states lost and 
other such challenges are pending. This amendment would have 
clarified that states have the discretion to decide whether and 
how to retroactively manage the registry regarding individuals 
whose convictions preceded the enactment of the Act, because 
they have to bear the expense of challenges.
    With respect to the treatment of juveniles under the 
legislation, Representative Scott offered an amendment to allow 
states to decide whether to include juveniles who have been 
adjudicated as juveniles on their sex offender registries. 
Adolescent sex offenders are considered to be much more 
responsive to treatment than adult sex offenders and very 
rarely re-offend, especially when provided with appropriate 
treatment.\4\ This amendment would have provided states the 
flexibility to decide whether to include juveniles on their sex 
offender registries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\See Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), The 
effective legal management of juvenile sex offender, Mar. 11, 2000, 
available at http://www.atsa.com/ppjuvenile.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, Representative Scott offered an amendment to 
provide states the flexibility to amend registry and 
notification requirements of offenders, in consultation with 
law enforcement. This amendment would provide each jurisdiction 
flexibility with respect to the manner and frequency with which 
a sex offender must report changes in name, residence, 
employment, or student status. This approach assists local law 
enforcement because these agencies are overwhelmed trying to 
keep up with this aspect of SORNA's requirements with no or 
limited financial ability to add more staff to do more 
monitoring. Clearly, not all sex offenders pose the same risk, 
and just as states now determine how to supervise murderers, 
malicious wounders, drug kingpins, gang leaders and other 
dangerous offenders, it makes sense to let them decide, in 
consultation with their law enforcement and corrections 
officials, how often they need to see each sex offender, and 
essentially, how best to manage each.
    Finally, Representative Scott offered an amendment to allow 
jurisdictions to be found in compliance with SORNA if they have 
developed a three-tier system of classification that is 
comparable to SORNA and link it to the national system, or if 
they use a validated risk assessment system. The manner in 
which sex offenders are classified is another significant 
barrier states have faced in implementating SORNA. This 
amendment would have allowed states greater flexibility in 
classifying their offenders, as long as they use a system 
comparable to SORNA and inter-face with SORNA in a way that 
would enable information-sharing about offenders, or a 
validated, risk assessment tool in doing so.

                               CONCLUSION

    Unfortunately, the failure to pass amendments that would 
allow states the flexibility to meet more of SORNA's 
requirements in a more cost-effective respect means that these 
jurisdictions will continue to remain non-compliant and to 
incur loses of Byrne-JAG funds through penalties.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.
                                   Judy Chu.

                                  
