Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4472) to protect children, to secure the safety of judges,

prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and their family members, to reduce and prevent gang violence, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4472, currently under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. This legislation contains bipartisan, comprehensive proposals to better protect our children from convicted sex offenders, to enhance judicial security, and to combat violent criminal gangs that terrorize our communities. Last year, the full House overwhelmingly approved three separate bills tailored to address these critical issues.

H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act of 2005, passed the House on September 14 of last year by a vote of 371-52. H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Courthouse Protection Act, was approved by the House on November 9, 2005, by a vote of 375-45, and H.R. 1279, the Gang Prevention and Deterrence Act, passed the House on May 11, 2005, by a vote of 279-144. H.R. 4472 incorporates core provisions of each bill with some modifications and additions.

Last year our Nation was horrified by news of the sexual assault and kidnapping of Dylan and Shasta Groehne and the brutal murder of their parents and siblings. These heinous acts occurred after 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was abducted, raped and buried alive, and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde was murdered. All of these terrible crimes were committed by convicted sex offenders.

While these tragedies received the public attention and outrage they demanded, sexual predators continue to exploit current loopholes in our criminal justice system to prey on America's most vulnerable. H.R. 4472 protects America's children by making it much harder for them to do so.

When child sex offenders are brought to justice and serve time for their offenses, they are often released into unsuspecting communities to resume their sexual attacks. There are over 550,000 convicted sex offenders in the country, and it is conservatively estimated that at least 100,000 of them, 100,000, are lost in the system, meaning that nonregistered sex offenders are living in our communities, attending schools and working at locations where they can prey on our children.

The threat to our children grows each day as more unregistered sex offenders move freely within our midst. This bill reduces these unconscionable vulnerabilities by strengthening sex offender notification requirements.

The bill also addresses the problem of violence in and around our courthouses against judges, prosecutors, witnesses, law enforcement and other court personnel, as well as their immediate families. According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, Federal judges receive nearly 700 threats a year, and several Federal judges require security personnel to protect them and their families from violent gangs, drug organizations and disgruntled litigants. Judges, witnesses, and courthouse personnel and law enforcement officers must operate without fear in order to enforce and administer the law without bias.

Finally, the bill includes relevant provisions to address the growing national threat from violent and vicious gangs in our communities. According to the last National Youth Gang Survey, it is estimated that there are now between 750,000 and 850,000 gang members in our country. Every city in the country with a population of 250,000 or more has reported gang activity. There are over 25,000 gangs in more than 3,000 jurisdictions in the United States. In recent years gangs have become organized criminal syndicates with structured associations, many of which are now international in scope. State and local law enforcement have sent us a clear message: update and strengthen America's laws to combat the scourge of violence in our communities.

H.R. 4472 is strongly supported by John Walsh of America's Most Wanted, the National Center For Missing and Exploited Children, and the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and other victims and representatives of victims organizations, as well as law enforcement agencies around the country.

These tireless advocates for America's children have provided vital assistance in crafting this measure, and their calls for justice for America's children must no longer go unanswered. We must act now to ensure that the tragedy of perverse and sexual attacks on America's children is not compounded by the tragedy of congressional inaction to strengthen our laws to address this national epidemic.

I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and to speak in a clear and united voice to protect our children, to ensure a safe judiciary, and to give America's law-abiding citizens the right to live free from gang violence.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, this is not giving a pill to a dog. What this legislation does is it combines three bills that the House already debated and passed but which got stalled in the other body. What it does is it takes away the poison pills that have caused the essential legislation to be stalled in the other body. And it makes some amendments, some of which have been requested by people on the other side of the aisle such as getting rid of a certain number of mandatory minimum penalties.

The purpose of this exercise is to get legislation signed into law and it is important legislation on protecting children from pedophiles, protecting Americans from gangs, and protecting judges from kooks who want to try to do them and their families harm. That is why this procedure is being used today so that we can make a law.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

(Ms. HARRIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my Democratic friend from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include at this point in the Record a section-by- section analysis of H.R. 4472.

H.R. 4472--The Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of

2005

Sec. 101. Short Title. Short Title; Table of Contents, Sec.

102. Declaration of Purpose.

Sec. 111. This section sets forth the definitions for Title

I of the Act.

Sec. 112. This section requires each jurisdiction to

maintain a jurisdiction-wide sex offender registry conforming

to the requirements of this title and authorizes the Attorney

General to prescribe guidelines to carry out the purposes of

the title.

Sec. 113. This section requires a sex offender to register,

and maintain current information in each jurisdiction where

the sex offender was convicted, where the sex offender

resides, where the sex offender is employed and where the sex

offender attends school.

Sec. 114. This section specifies, at a minimum, what

information the registry must include.

Sec. 115. This section specifies the duration of the

registration requirement.

Sec. 116. This section requires a sex offender to appear in

person for verification of registration information.

Sec. 117. This section requires a jurisdiction official to

inform the sex offender of the registration requirements.

Sec. 118. This section establishes the Jessica Lunsford

Verification Program which requires State officials to verify

the residence of each registered sex offender.

Sec. 119. This section requires the Attorney General to

maintain a National Sex Offender Registry.

Sec. 120. This section creates the Dru Sjodin National Sex

Offender Public Website.

Sec. 121. This section requires each jurisdiction to make

available to the public through an Internet site certain

information about a sex offender.

Sec. 122. This section requires an appropriate official to

notify, within 5 days of a change in a sex offender's

information certain agencies.

Sec. 123. This section requires an appropriate official

from the State or other jurisdiction to notify the Attorney

General and appropriate State and local law enforcement

agencies to inform them of any failure by a sex offender to

comply with the registry requirements.

Sec. 124. This section provides that law enforcement

agencies, employees of law enforcement agencies, contractors

acting at the direction of law enforcement agencies, and

officials from State and other jurisdictions shall not be

held criminally or civilly liable for carrying out a duty in

good faith.

Sec. 125. This section requires the Attorney General to

develop software and make it available to States and

jurisdictions to establish, maintain, publish and share sex

offender registries.

Sec. 126. If the Attorney General determines that a

jurisdiction does not have a minimally sufficient sex

offender registry program, he is required to the extent

practicable, to carry out the obligations of the registry

program.

Sec. 127. This section requires jurisdictions to comply

with the requirements of this title within 2 years of

enactment.

Sec. 128. This section imposes a ten percent reduction in

Byrne Grant funds to any jurisdiction that fails, as

determined by the Attorney General, substantially to comply

with the requirements of this Act.

Sec. 129. This section authorizes the Sex Offender

Management Assistance Program to fund grants to jurisdictions

to implement the sex offender registry requirements.

Sec. 130. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

create a demonstration project for the electronic monitoring

of registered sex offenders.

Sec. 131. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

award grants to states that substantially implement

electronic monitoring programs for life for certain dangerous

sex offenders and for the period of court supervision for any

other case.

Sec. 132. This section provides NCMEC with access to

Interstate Identification Index data.

Sec. 133. This section provides NCMEC with limited immunity

related to its CyberTipline.

Sec. 134. This section requires that the Bureau of Prisons

make available appropriate treatment to sex offenders who are

in need of and suitable for treatment.

Sec. 135. This section requires the GAO to conduct a study

to determine the feasibility of using driver's license

registration processes as additional registration

requirements for sex offenders.

Sec. 136. This section requires the Attorney General to

provide technical assistance to jurisdictions to assist them

in the identification and location of sex offenders relocated

as a result of a major disaster.

Sec. 137. For the purposes of this Act, the term

``federally recognized Indian tribe'' does not include

within its purview Alaska Native groups or entities. In

1884 when Congress created the first civil government for

Alaska it decided that Alaska Natives should be subject at

all locations in Alaska to the same civil and criminal

jurisdiction as that to which all non-Native residents of

Alaska are subject. Alaska Natives today are subject at

all locations in Alaska, including in communities that are

``Native villages'' for the purposes of the Alaska Native

Claims Settlement Act, to the criminal statutes of the

Alaska State Legislature and are prosecuted in the Alaska

State courts for violations of those statutes. For that

reason, like all other sex offenders who are physically

present within the State of Alaska, Alaska Native sex

offenders, including offenders who reside in ``Native

villages'', are required by Alaska Statute 12.63.010 et

seq. to register as sex offenders with the Alaska

Departments of Corrections or Public Safety or with an

Alaska municipal police department, as appropriate.

Sec. 138. This section authorizes the Justice Department,

in consultation with the Secretary of State and the

Department of Homeland Security, to establish procedures to

notify relevant jurisdictions about persons entering the

United States who are required to register.

Sec. 139. This section requires the Justice Department to

study risk-based classification systems and report back to

Congress within 18 months of enactment.

Sec. 140. This section requires the Justice Department to

study the effectiveness of restrictions on recidivism rates

for sex offenders and to report back to Congress within 6

months of enactment on this issue.

Sec. 151. This section creates a new federal crime for a

Federal sex offender or offender crosses State lines.

Sec. 152. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

assist in the apprehension of sex offenders who have failed

to comply with applicable registration requirements.

Sec. 153. This section authorizes funding of such sums as

necessary for the Attorney General to provide grants to

States and other jurisdictions to apprehend sex offenders for

failure to comply.

Sec. 154. This section creates an enhanced criminal penalty

for use of a controlled substance against a victim to

facilitate the commission of a sex offense; and a new

criminal offense prohibiting Internet sales of certain

``date-rape'' drugs.

Sec. 155. This section repeals the predecessor sex offender

registry program.

Sec. 156. This section authorizes grants to train and

employ personnel to help investigate and prosecute cases

cleared through use of funds provided for DNA backlog

elimination.

Sec. 157. This section authorizes grants to law enforcement

agencies to help combat sexual abuse of children, including

additional personnel and related staff, computer hardware and

software necessary to investigate such crimes, and

apprehension of sex offenders who violate registry

requirements.

Sec. 158. This section requires the Justice Department to

expand training efforts coordination among participating

agencies to combat on-line solicitation of children by sex

offenders.

Sec. 159. This section amends the probation and supervised

release provisions to mandate revocation when a offender

commits a crime of violence or an offense to facilitate

sexual contact involving a person under 18 years old.

Sec. 161. This section establishes an Office on Sexual

Violence and Crimes Against Children.

Sec. 162. This section provides for Presidential

appointment of a Director of the Office.

Sec. 163. This section states the purpose is to administer

the sex offender registration and notification program;

administer grant programs; and to provide technical

assistance, coordination and support to other governmental

and nongovernmental entities.

Sec. 201. This section amends the DNA Analysis Backlog

Elimination Act to make a correction to ensure collection and

use of DNA profiles from convicted offenders.

Sec. 202. This section directs the Attorney General to give

appropriate consideration to the need for collection and

testing of DNA to stop violent predators against children.

Sec. 203. This section directs the GAO to conduct a study

two years after the publication of the model code on the

extent to which States have implemented.

Sec. 301. This section modifies the existing statute

and adopts new penalties for felony crimes of violence

crimes committed against children.

Sec. 302. This section restricts federal habeas review of

collateral sentencing claims relating to a state conviction.

Sec. 303. This section establishes victim rights

requirements for habeas corpus proceedings.

Sec. 304. This section requires the Attorney General to

study the implementation for a nationwide tracking system for

persons charged or investigated for child abuse.

Sec. 401. This section modifies the criminal penalties for

several existing sexual offenses

against children by amending the current law.

Sec. 402. This section expresses a sense of Congress with

respect to reversal of criminal conviction of Jan P. Helder,

Jr.

Sec. 403. This section authorizes a new grant program for

child sex abuse prevention programs, and authorizes $10

million for fiscal years 2007 to 2011.

Sec. 501. This section amends the Social Security Act to

require each State to complete background checks and abuse

registries relating to any foster parent or adoptive parent

application, before approval of such an application, and

provides access to agencies responsible for foster parent of

adoptive parent placements.

Sec. 502. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

provide fingerprint-based background checks to child welfare

agencies, private and public educational agencies, and

volunteers in order to conduct background checks for

prospective adoption or foster parents, private and public

teachers or school employees.

Sec. 503. This section amends section 2422(a) and (b) of

title 18, United States Code, to increase penalties for

coercion and enticement.

Sec. 504. This section increases mandatory-minimum

penalties for conduct relating to child prostitution ranging

from a mandatory minimum of 10 years to a mandatory minimum

of 30 years depending on the severity of the conduct.

Sec. 505. This section amends several statutes relating to

sexual abuse.

Sec. 506. This section expands the list of mandatory

conditions of probation and supervised release to include

submission by the sex offender under supervision to searches

by law enforcement and probation officers with reasonable

suspicion, and to searches by probation officers in the

lawful discharge of their supervision functions.

Sec. 507. This section expands the federal jurisdiction

nexus for kidnapping comparable to that of many other federal

crimes to include travel by the offender in interstate or

foreign commerce, or use of the mails or other means,

facilities, or instrumentalities of interstate or foreign

commerce in furtherance of the offense.

Sec. 508. This section restricts the scope of the common

law marital privileges by making them inapplicable in a

criminal child abuse case in which the abuser or his or her

spouse invokes a privilege to avoid testifying.

Sec. 509. This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1153, the

``Major Crimes Act'' for Indian country cases to add felony

child abuse or neglect to the predicate offenses.

Sec. 510. This section authorizes civil commitment of

certain sex offenders who are dangerous to others because of

serious mental illness, abnormality or disorder.

Sec. 511. This section authorizes grants to States to

operate effective civil commitment programs for sexually

dangerous programs.

Sec. 512. This section amends United States Code, to impose

a mandatory-minimum penalties when the offense involved

trafficking of a child.

Sec. 513. This section amends United States Code to

increase maximum penalties for sexual abuse of wards.

Sec. 514. This section authorizes the indictment of a

defendant at any time for a criminal offense for child

abduction and sex offenses.

Sec. 515. This section makes the failure to report child

abuse a Class A misdemeanor rather than a Class B

misdemeanor.

Sec. 601. Findings.

Sec. 602. This section improves the existing record-keeping

regulatory scheme by adding to the types of depictions

covered to include lascivious exhibition of the genitals or

pubic area of any person, and clarifying the definitions

applicable to the inspection regime so that those entities

that produce such materials comply with the record-keeping

requirements.

Sec. 603. This section adopts new record-keeping

obligations on persons who produce materials depicting

simulated sexual conduct.

Sec. 604. This section specifies that depictions of child

pornography discovered by law enforcement must be maintained

within the government's or a court's control at all times.

Sec. 605. This section amends the obscenity forfeiture

provisions to make the procedures for obscenity forfeitures

the same as they are for most other crimes.

Sec. 606. This section criminalizes the production of

obscenity as well as its transportation, distribution, and

sale, so long as the producer has the intent to transport,

distribute, or sell the material in interstate or foreign

commerce.

Sec. 607. This section authorizes compensation of court-

appointed guardians ad litem.

Sec. 701. This section requires that the Director of the

United States Marshals Service consult and coordinate with

the Administrative Office of the United States Courts

regarding the security requirements for the judicial branch.

Sec. 702. This section authorizes $20,000,000 for each of

fiscal years 2006 through 2010 for hiring additional

necessary personnel.

Sec. 703. This section would create a new Federal criminal

offense for the filing of fictitious liens against real or

personal property owned by Federal judges or attorneys.

Sec. 704. This section makes it a Federal crime to

knowingly make available otherwise restricted personal

information to be used to intimidate or facilitate the

commission of a crime of violence against covered officials

or family members of covered officials.

Sec. 705. This section requires the Attorney General to

report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the

security of Assistant United States Attorneys.

Sec. 706. This section makes it a crime punishable by fine

and imprisonment of ten years to flee prosecution for the

murder, or attempted murder, of a peace officer.

Sec. 707. This section raises sentences for those convicted

of murder, or attempted murder, and kidnapping or attempted

kidnapping.

Sec. 708. This section authorizes Federal judges and

prosecutors to carry firearms, subject to regulations

implemented by the Justice Department regarding training and

use.

Sec. 709. This section modifies the existing penalties for

assaults against a federal law enforcement officer.

Sec. 710. This section creates a new criminal offense for

the killing of, attempting to kill or conspiring to kill, any

public safety officer for a public agency that receives

Federal funding.

Sec. 711. This section raises maximum criminal penalties

for violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 relating to influencing or

injuring jurors or officers of judicial proceedings by

killing, attempting to kill, use force or threatening to kill

or harm an officer or juror.

Sec. 712. This section modifies 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1512 to

increase penalties for killing or attempting to kill a

witness, victim, or informant to obstruct justice.

Sec. 713. This section modifies 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1513 for

killing or attempting to kill a witness, victim, or an

informant in retaliation for their testifying or providing

information to law enforcement by increasing penalties for

causing bodily injury or damaging the person's property or

business or livelihood, or threatening to do so.

Sec. 714. This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1952 relating

to interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering

enterprise by expanding the prohibition against ``unlawful

activity'' to include ``intimidation of, or retaliation

against, a witness, victim, juror, or informant.''

Sec. 715. This section amends section 1513 of title 18 to

clarify proper venue for prosecutions to include the district

in which the official proceeding or conduct occurred.

Sec. 716. This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 930(e)(1) to

prohibit the possession of ``a dangerous weapon'' in a

Federal court facility.

Sec. 717. This section modifies the Federal murder and

manslaughter statutes to include new mandatory minimums.

Sec. 718. This section creates a new grant program for

States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to

create and expand witness protection programs in order to

prevent threats, intimidation and retaliation against victims

of, and witnesses to, crimes.

Sec. 719. This section authorizes grants to State courts to

conduct threat assessments and implement recommended security

changes.

Sec. 720. This section authorizes a new grant program to

provide States with funds to develop threat assessment

databases.

Sec. 721. This section amends 42 U.S.C. Sec. 13862 to

authorize grants to create and expand witness protection

programs to assist witnesses and victims of crime.

Sec. 722. This section authorizes grants for State and

local prosecutors and law enforcement agencies to provide

witnesses assistance programs for young witnesses.

Sec. 723. This section modifies the eligibility

requirements for discretionary grants to allow State court

eligibility.

Sec. 801. This section revises existing section 521 of

title 18, U.S.C., to prohibit gang crimes that are committed

in order to further the activities of a criminal street gang.

Sec. 802. This section expands existing section 1952 of

title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties and simplifies the

elements of the offense.

Sec. 803. This section amends criminal statutes relating to

definition and penalties for carjacking, illegal gun

transfers to drug traffickers or violent criminals, special

sentencing provisions, and conspiracy to defraud the United

States.

Sec. 804. This section amends existing section 1958 of

title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties for use of interstate

commerce facilities in the commission of a murder-for-hire

and other felony crimes of violence.

Sec. 805. This section amends existing section 1959(a) of

title 18, U.S.C., to increase penalties and expand the

prohibition on include aggravated sexual abuse.

Sec. 806. This section fills a gap in existing federal law

and creates a new criminal offense for violent acts committed

during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime.

Sec. 807. This section creates a new criminal offense for

traveling in or causing another to travel in interstate or

foreign commerce or to use any facility in interstate or

foreign commerce with the intent that 2 or more murders be

committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United

States.

Sec. 808. This section modifies the list of RICO predicates

to clarify applicability of predicate offense which occur on

Indian country or in any other area of exclusive Federal

jurisdiction.

Sec. 809. This section applies the rebuttable presumption

in pre-trial release detention hearings to cases in which a

defendant is charged with firearms offenses after having

previously been convicted of a prior crime of violence or a

serious drug offense.

Sec. 810. This section amends United States Code to clarify

venue in capital cases where murder, or related conduct,

occurred.

Sec. 811. This section extends the statute of limitations

for violent crime cases from 5 years to 15 years after the

offense occurred or the continuing offense was completed.

Sec. 812. This section permits admission of statements of a

murdered witness to be introduced against the defendant who

caused a witness' unavailability and the members of the

conspiracy if such actions were foreseeable to the other

members of the conspiracy.

Sec. 813. This section authorizes the Attorney General to

charge as an adult in federal court a juvenile who is 16

years or older and commits a crime of violence.

Sec. 814. This section amends title 18 to create a new

enhanced criminal penalty when an illegal alien commits a

crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense.

Sec. 815. This section requires the Department of Homeland

Security to provide to the Department of Justice information

about certain immigration violators so that such information

can be included in national criminal history databases.

Sec. 816. This section requires the Attorney General and

the Secretary of Homeland Security to jointly conduct a study

on illegal immigration and gang membership.

Sec. 901. This section authorizes use of Byrne grants to

State and local prosecutors to protect witnesses and victims

of crimes; to fund new technology, equipment and training for

prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate

identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to

facilitate coordination among law enforcement and

prosecutors.

Sec. 902. This section reauthorizes the Gang Resistance

Education and Training Program.

Sec. 903. This section authorizes the Justice Department to

provide grants to establish offender reentry courts.

Sec. 1001. This section authorizes a new grant program for

the National Crime Prevention Council.

Sec. 1002. This section requires the Justice Department to

conduct a study.

Sec. 1101. Short Title.

Sec. 1102. This section requires the Secretary of Health

and Human Services, with the Justice Department, to create a

national registry of substantiated cases of child abuse and

neglect.

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to the Wisconsin legislature in 1968, one of my mentors warned me against making the perfect the enemy of the good, because if the perfect ends up defeating the good, then bad will prevail.

What we have heard from the opponents of this motion to suspend the rules is that the bill is a good one, but it doesn't do enough, and we ought to add this and this and this and this. But we tried that last year. We passed the core bills of three separate components of this bill, and they ended up getting stuck in the other side of the Capitol Building.

Honestly, our children, our judges, and all Americans can't afford to wait any longer. The gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), I think, summed it up perfectly, that is, that the victims and their families cannot afford to wait any longer because of parliamentary objections to this, that and everything else.

Now, let us look at what this bill does. It allows a national registration of sex offenders so that we can get the over 100,000 convicted sex offenders who slipped through the registration cracks on the Internet so that people will know if they are in their neighborhood. If you defeat this bill, that is not going to happen.

This bill also prevents the sale of date-rape drugs over the Internet. If you defeat this bill, that is not going to happen.

The bill has a number of provisions to protect Federal judges and their families and courthouse personnel and buildings so that we don't have the tragedy that happened to Judge Lefkos in Chicago when two members of her family were murdered. You defeat this bill, our judges are going to be vulnerable.

Practically every community of over a quarter of a million in this country has faced the scourge of gangs. There is comprehensive gang law in this bill that will help our law enforcement get to the ringleaders of these gangs and to arrest them and throw them into jail. That is going to make all of us safer. You defeat this bill, and that is not going to happen.

I want to see a law made, and those who have spoken in support of this motion to suspend the rules want to see this bill become law as quickly as possible. We have a commitment from the majority leader on the other side of the Capitol, if this bill passes today, to schedule it quickly. In the name of our children and all Americans, vote to suspend the rules.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, March 7,

2006.

Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Workforce, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McKeon: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 4472, the ``Children's Safety

and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005,'' which is scheduled

for consideration on the House floor on Wednesday, March 8,

2006. I agree that Title XI of the manager's amendment

implicates the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and

Workforce, and appreciate your willingness to forego

consideration in order to facilitate floor consideration of

this legislation. I agree that your decision to waive

consideration of the bill should not be construed to limit

the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Workforce

over H.R. 4472 or similar legislation, or otherwise prejudice

your Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees

to this or similar legislation.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I am happy to be here today to join the debate around this bill. I am hoping that my good friend, the chairman of the committee, will somewhere in the course of this suspension explain to us why three bills were mentioned but one that was added by the majority of the House, H.R. 3132, which deals with hate crimes and is arguably one of the most notable pieces of civil rights criminal enforcement protection considered by the Congress, was inexplicably left off. This makes the process very mysterious to me, because

hate crimes is a very important part of any Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act that is before us, and I am very disappointed that somewhere in the night this bill was dropped so that we are now combining three instead of four bills.

It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile; it is a Federal crime to possess cocaine. It ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to his death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. We should, and I hope we will through some parliamentary mechanism, seize upon the historic opportunity that is before us to enact legislation that would effectively augment existing Federal law and demonstrate that this Nation will not tolerate violence directed at any individual because of their identity. But instead of supporting this principle, the measure before us takes an opposite direction. I am really, really sorry about this because it does the House an injustice.

I am also, at the same time, wishing to register notice that an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), which was adopted and would have prevented the sale of a firearm to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense, was also dropped. This is very troubling. Still others will talk about the 43 new mandatory minimum penalties and over 10 new death penalties that have become eligible by offenses in this new bill.

So I am hopeful that we can work out some kind of agreement or acknowledgment about the unusual parliamentary process by which this matter has been brought to us.

I rise in strong opposition to this legislation and the manner by which it comes before us today. Introduced just over two months ago, this legislation, all 164 pages, has managed to completely circumvent the traditional legislative process.

Without the benefit of a single hearing or committee markup, the legislation has somehow found its way here to the floor of the House of Representatives. To make matters worse, it's being considered under suspension of the rules, leaving with reasonable concerns no opportunity to offer modest amendments.

Some might suggest that hearings or markups aren't necessary under these circumstances; since this measure, in large part, is a combination of three different bills, H.R. 3132; H.R. 1279; and H.R. 1751, which have all been considered by this body in the past. But, I strongly disagree. This measure differs from those various proposals in several meaningful ways.

First and foremost, this measure fails to include the hate crimes amendment that I offered--and which was adopted by a 223-199 vote as part of H.R. 3132. My hate crimes amendment arguably is one of the most notable pieces of civil rights criminal enforcement protection considered by this Congress in the last 30 years.

The FBI has reported a dramatic increase in hate motivated violence since the September 11th terrorist attacks. While the overall crime rate has grown by approximately two percent, the number of reported hate crimes have increased dramatically from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,730 in 2001, a 20.7 percent increase. Racial bias again represented the largest percentage of bias-motivated incidents, 44.9 percent; followed by Ethnic/National Origin Bias, 21.6 percent; Religious Bias, 18.8 percent, Sexual Orientation Bias, 14.3 percent; and Disability Bias, 0.4 percent).

It's worth noting that the amendment I offered would not have created new law. It simply would have amended existing law. Namely, section 245 of title 18, passed in 1968, which allowed Federal prosecution of attacks on the Freedom Riders during their historical civil rights work in the South.

The amendment of Section 245 would make it easier for Federal authorities to prosecute racial, religious, ethnic and gender-based violence, in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson: by loosening the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law.

Current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents that occur during the exercise of federally protected activities, such as voting, and does not permit Federal involvement in a range of cases involving crimes motivated by bias against the victim's sexual orientation, gender or disability. This loophole is particularly significant given the fact that four states have no hate crime laws on the books, and another 21 states have extremely weak hate crimes laws.

It is a Federal crime to hijack an automobile or to possess cocaine, and it ought to be a Federal crime to drag a man to death because of his race or to hang a man because of his sexual orientation. We should seize upon this historic opportunity to enact legislation that would effectively augment existing Federal law and demonstrate that this Nation will not tolerate violence directed at any individual because of their identity, instead of supporting legislation, such as the measure before us today, that takes us in the opposite direction.

Second, this measure fails to include an amendment offered by Mr. Nadler--also adopted by voice-vote--which would have prevented the sale of a firearm to anyone convicted of a misdemeanor sex offense.

By now, members of this body are painfully aware of the fact that sex offenders often use firearms to prey upon their unsuspecting victims. In fact, not long ago Keith Dwayne Lyons, a high-risk sex offender, was convicted of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

According to published police reports, Mr. Lyons was aided by the use of a firearm in carrying out his crime. Unfortunately, and notwithstanding such tragedies, it appears to be the wisdom of a small minority that the bill before us is not the proper vehicle to address such matters and prevent them from reoccurring in the future.

Finally, the measure under consideration today includes a complex system of categories whereby sex offenders are classified based upon the nature of their offense. They are also routinely forced to verify the accuracy of their registry information based upon this system.

This new system of registration and registry verification has never been discussed by members of our committee. While some may certainly welcome such a system, others most likely will not. In either event, a change of this magnitude should not be undertaken without adequate thought, consideration and debate.

Setting aside these issues, I remained deeply concerned by the legislation's inclusion of at least 43 new mandatory minimum penalties and over 10 new death penalty eligible offenses. In the past, I've gone to great lengths to explain my deep opposition to mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty, so I won't repeat many of those arguments here. Except, to say that such penalties are completely arbitrary, ineffective at reducing crime and a total waste of taxpayers' money.

Thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, almost 10 percent of all inmates in state and Federal prisons are serving life sentences, a near 83 percent increase from 1992. In two states alone, New York and California, almost 20 percent of inmates are serving life sentences.

And, what do we have to show for such statistics? The answer is simple. A prison system that currently houses more than 2.1 million Americans and costs an estimated $40 billion a year to run and operate.

In the end, the list of lingering concerns associated with this bill is quite staggering.

Over 33 scientific researchers, treatment professionals and child advocates have written in to express their concerns regarding the bill's overly harsh treatment of juveniles.

Advocates from the immigration community have written in to complain about the bill's provisions which will likely encourage state and local law enforcement officials to enforce Federal immigration laws.

And, groups ranging from the Chamber of Commerce to the American Library Association have expressed serious concerns that the provisions outlined in title 6 of the bill will create criminal liability for the producers and distributors of mainstream novels, photographs, Internet content, movies, and TV shows.

With so many outstanding issues and no opportunity to offer even modest amendments, it's hard to see how anyone could lend their support to this measure.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no''.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and no one has worked harder in this area than he.

Madam Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who has worked on a number of issues connected with the measure presently being debated.

Madam Speaker, I yield 16 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what are we here for, to let the other body off the hook? Anything they do not like, we have to take out? I do not follow that reasoning at all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield the balance of our time to the Congresswoman from Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin, a former member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the Record regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on March 8, 2006.

February 23, 2006.

In New Jersey, the Office of the Public Defender represents

all indigent persons entitled to a court hearing concerning

the Megan's Law tier classification and community

notification proposed for them by the State. Over the past

ten years the Office has served as counsel for 60% of persons

challenging their tier levels in New Jersey--nearly 3000

cases in a state where approximately 5000 such cases have

been adjudicated.

Based upon our long and extensive experience with New

Jersey's system of notification and its registrants, as well

as our contact with renowned experts in the field of sex

offender recidivism, we believe we have a unique perspective

to provide the House with comments concerning H.R. 4472 (the

Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005),

currently pending a vote on the House floor.

Our comments focus on four aspects of the current bill.

First, unlike the Senate bill on the same topic (S. 1086) the

House bill will have a significantly negative impact on many

juveniles, subjecting them to notification in their

neighborhoods and via the Internet for possibly 20 years.

This would inflict undue hardship which, given the low risk

of re-offense juvenile sex offenders pose to the public and

their strong amenability to treatment, is often not justified

by a public safety need.

Second, the notification required by H.R. 4472 will apply

to thousands of persons in each state, requiring notice to

registrants' neighborhoods and around their work and school,

and via the Internet. The proposed notification would include

home addresses and places of employment. Neighborhood

notification is currently reserved only for New Jersey's

approximately 160 high risk offenders, but as proposed under

H.R. 4472 would apply to thousands of registrants. Based on

our firsthand experience this form of notification will

predictably lead to large numbers of offenders becoming

homeless and unemployed.

Because this form of notification will undermine the

ability of many registrants to maintain stable housing,

steady employment and ongoing treatment, it will have a

marked impact on registrants' risk levels and opportunities

to remain offense free, and thus will negatively affect

public safety.

Third, by impacting on registrants' abilities to provide

for their most basic needs, H.R. 4472 will severely impede

the implementation of sex offender monitoring programs like

New Jersey's Community Supervision for Life and Parole for

Life programs, which are designed to prevent future

reoffending by registrants. See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.3. As

discussed below, due to the form of neighborhood notification

proposed by H.R. 4472 parole officers will be unable to keep

registrants in jobs, maintain their stable home environments

and continue registrants' treatments as those monitoring

programs require. In this way, H.R. 4472 will frustrate New

Jersey's longstanding efforts to monitor sex offenders and

will compromise, not further, community safety.

Fourth,the bill subjects all registrants, including many

juveniles, to the identical

form of Internet and community based notification, without an

individualized risk assessment, despite vast differences

among offenders' risk-of-re-offense levels. By treating

persons with vastly different risk levels identically, H.R.

4472 creates the misimpression that all offenders pose the

same risk. Thus, the bill dilutes the value of notification

and diverts attention from those posing the greatest risk.

1. H.R. Will Inflict Undue Hardship on Juvenile Offenders

Without a Corresponding Benefit to Public Safety.

Sections 111 and 122 of the bill would provide a limited

exception from public notification for juveniles. However,

the bill would require juvenile offenders deemed a tier II to

be subject to 20 years of public notification to communities

and via the Internet. Sec. 111 (6). Some young juveniles may

even unfairly be deemed a tier III since the victim involved

would likely be less than 13 years of age. See Sec. 111 (7).

These tier determinations and the resulting public

notification would occur without any individualized

assessment of whether the juveniles involved posed anything

more than a low risk of re-offense.

Five decades of follow-up studies demonstrate that the vast

majority of juveniles will remain free of sex offense

recidivism. It is consistently found that sex offense

recidivism rates among juveniles are among the lowest of all

such offenders--less than 8% in most treatment follow-up

studies.

Moreover, studies demonstrate that the motivation and

manifestation of sexually inappropriate behaviors of

juveniles are very different than those of adult offenders.

And, children with sexual behavior problems generally respond

well to treatment interventions. If the proposed bill becomes

law, however, it will mean that children will be stigmatized

for life on the basis of their childhood behavior. Despite

the questionable public safety benefits of community

notification with juveniles, it is likely to stigmatize them

fostering peer rejection, isolation, and increased anger.

This impact can prevent juvenile offenders from realizing the

benefits of effective treatments. The proposed notification

and the ensuing stigma will also result in such persons being

denied fair opportunities for employment, education, and

housing despite the low risk of recidivism they typically

pose. Accordingly, the bill will violate the long tradition

in our country of recognizing that most youth who break the

law during childhood can and will mature out of this behavior

with appropriate guidance and treatment.

Thus, the bill would inflict undue hardship on juveniles,

impacting their entire lives, and is not justified by a

public safety need. Rather than resort to such a

counterproductive approach, as the above cited experts

recommend, treatment and supervision should be emphasized for

this group of offenders.

2. The Notification Scheme In H.R. 4472 Will Deprive Many

Registrants, Including Those Who Are a Low or Moderate Risk,

Of The Basic Means To Live Productively In Society With the

Unintended Consequence of Increasing Their Risk Of Re-

Offense.

H.R. 4472 provides that in most cases the same public

notification would be provided to registrant's neighborhoods

and in the vicinity where they work and attend school,

regardless of their danger to the public. Sec. 122(b),(c). In

addition, without determining the actual risk a registrant

poses, that notification will include both a registrant's

home address and the address of his employer. Sec.

114(a)(3),(4). Moreover, the bill applies retroactively to

all applicable offenses.

As set forth above, notification to a registrant's

immediate neighbors is currently reserved for roughly 160

high risk registrants in New Jersey. Due to the impact on an

offender's life that the notice will have, this small number

of registrants is designated ``high risk'' only after an

assessment and court hearing (if requested), showing that the

registrant's risk justifies neighborhood notification. Our

experience demonstrates that notification (whether via the

Internet or provided in a registrant's neighborhood)

containing an employer's name and address will frequently

result in the registrant's termination. This is due to

customers refusing to frequent the business, and neighbors

subjecting the employer to enormous pressure to fire the

offender.

Likewise, New Jersey registrants subject to neighborhood

notification providing their home addresses are often

uprooted from their homes, and eventually become homeless.

Typically this is due to landlords being pressured by

surrounding homeowners to evict the registrant. And in cases

where registrants own their home, significant threats and

vandalism have occurred to drive the offender away. In one

New Jersey case, following notification five bullets were

fired through the front window of a registrant's apartment by

a neighbor, nearly wounding an innocent tenant. Thus, under

H.R. 4472 it is predictable that substantial numbers of

registrants will become homeless.

Registrants pose a much higher risk of re-offense when they

have no job or stable housing. This is agreed upon by studies

in the field of sex offender recidivism, New Jersey's own

actuarial scale for determining registrant risk, as well as

our experience working with registrants over the past ten

years. Therefore, the unintended consequence of providing

many registrants' home addresses and places of employment as

required by H.R. 4472 will be that substantial numbers will

have their re-offense risk increased.

Furthermore, homeless and jobless registrants are, of

course, unable to pay for sex offender and substance abuse

treatment which have been proven to markedly reduce offense

risk. Also, we have witnessed how the desperation caused by

this homeless and jobless state has led our clients to suffer

severe stress, and relapse into substance abuse, and other

high risk behaviors for recidivism. Thus, the notification

proposed by H.R. 4472 to registrants' neighborhoods listing

their place of employment may trigger a new offense, by

removing the supportive components of a person's

rehabilitation. See R. Karl Hanson & Andrew Harris, Solicitor

General of Canada, Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Recidivism

(1998) at 2 (``recidivists showed increased anger and

subjective distress just prior to offending''); ATSA, The

Registration and Community Notification of the Adult Sexual

Offender at 3 (2005) (notification will ``ostracize[]'' sex

offenders and ``may inadvertently increase their danger.'')

Finally, H.R. 4472 would require notification to be

distributed to neighborhoods in cases involving an intra-

familial offense. As this notification will result in

victims' identities being disclosed to neighbors, the

practice will act as a significant deterrent to having

victims of familial offenses report them to police. Sec. 111

(6), (7). Thus, public notification in cases involving a

single intra-familial offense should be eliminated from the

bill.

Given the predictable consequences of the notification

proposed in H.R. 4472, we submit that notice to a

registrant's neighborhood or around his place of employment

which includes his home address, and any notification

including his place of work, should occur only for high risk

offenders, and only after an individualized risk assessment.

Otherwise, H.R. 4472 will run the danger of destabilizing

large numbers of registrants by having them lose the jobs

and housing essential to maintaining offense-free lives.

As mentioned, the notice proposed by the bill will also

discourage victims of intra-familial offenses from

contacting law enforcement.

3. The Notification Proposed in H.R. 4472 Will Undermine

the Ability of States Like New Jersey to Implement Parole for

Life Programs Which Require Law Enforcement Officers to

Monitor Registrants, and Require Registrants to Maintain

Jobs, Housing and Treatment to Reduce their Risk of Re-

Offense.

Since 1994, every adult registrant in New Jersey who

committed a sex offense has been placed on a form of close

monitoring known as community or parole supervision for life.

See N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4. The purpose of the program is to

locate and monitor adult registrants, potentially for life,

``as if on parole.'' Id. Applicable State regulations provide

that the registrant must maintain stable housing and a job,

avoid drug or alcohol use (as monitored by urine testing),

occasionally submit to random visits by their parole officer

at home, attend sex offender and/or substance abuse

treatment, as well as other requirements.

The success of this eleven-year-old program depends upon a

parole officer being able to locate the lifetime parolee in

their home, do random drug and alcohol testing, check for

other signs' of instability or loss of employment, and thus

prevent the precursors to re-offending. However, the

notification provisions of H.R. 4472 will lead to large

numbers of offenders becoming homeless and will result in

parole officers being unable to locate registrants and

provide them with the close supervision needed to reduce

recidivism rates. Thus, the State's efforts to assist

registrants in keeping stable housing or a job, basic

requirements of parole, will be frustrated.

When we explained to a New Jersey parole officer that the

proposed legislation will put the addresses of many sex

offenders' employers on the Internet, and be provided to

offenders' neighbors or to persons living around their

employers, she stated that her parolees would ``spiral

downward,'' and that they ``wouldn't care'' about trying to

keep from re-offending. She stated, ``Our job would be so

difficult . . . it's hard enough for them to get jobs.'' She

expressed the view that a significant number might re-offend

because, ``A lot of these things are due to high stress

rates.'' Finally, she expressed concern that most of them

would end up ``in homeless shelters'' where there is an

``increased risk of disappearance or committing a new offense

of some kind''--either a non-sexual criminal offense or

possibly a sexual offense.

In addition to Community and Parole Supervision for Life,

New Jersey also assigns special probation officers to

exclusively monitor sex offenders while on parole (prior to

implementation of their special sentence of community or

parole supervision for life) so they can concentrate on the

particular needs this population presents, and provide the

type of close supervision they require. (Notably, we have

observed that other states appear to be putting more and more

sex offenders on probation for life and similarly long

sentences, even for very minor offenses--so it is likely that

this legislation will strongly affect those states as well.)

When we explained the notification requirements of the bill

to a special probation officer he replied that, ``You'll end

up having many, many people re-offending--what else could

they do?'' When asked if he thought these provisions would

cause many registrants to lose their jobs, he 4 replied,

``Absolutely. I can't imagine anyone would want them.'' He

explained that without ``work,

housing, and normal responsibilities'' the registrants would

have ``no self esteem.'' He said that they ``would not listen

to me,'' and would likely ``go out and assault someone

else.''

Thus, there is serious concern that the basic purpose of

the registration provisions of Megan's law (which is to

enable law enforcement to locate registrants in the course of

investigating new offenses, monitor registrants, and explore

allegations of misconduct by such registrants), will be

substantially undermined by the notification provision of

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005. This bill updates Medicare physician reimbursement for 2006 and 2007 according to the recommendations of the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee (MedPAC). There would be a 2.7 percent increase to the physician payment schedule for 2006 and using the Medicare Economic Index update for the price of inputs, a 2.6 percent increase in 2007.

If the schedule is left alone, the consequences for physicians will be a negative. Instead of the 1.5 percent payment increase for 2004 and 2005 which I helped author in the Medicare Modernization Act, there would be a 4.3 percent decrease.

The sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula used to calculate physician payment depends on a number of factors: the number of Medicare fee-for- service beneficiaries, the volume and type of services provided, the price of services rendered, changes in regulations and laws. The formula also incorporates other factors such as prescription-drug prices and the gross domestic product. The SGR was intended to control expenditures by basing a given year's physician payment rate on the previous year's performance. Instead, it creates an arbitrary deficiency that continues to force Congress to intervene.

There is a debate going on, her CMS has the authority to alter the SGR formula by removing drugs. Setting that aside, though, the fact of the matter is that without Congress stepping in to provide for a physician payment update, it probably will not occur. My Senate colleagues and I have talked for many years about ensuring adequate physician payment because current and past administrations have failed to modify the formula. This formula is not doing what it was intended to do. Therefore, I believe we need to scrap it and start again. My bill is a starting point and proposes amounts for an update, but I would really like to see us go all the way back to the drawing board and answer the fundamental question of how to pay physicians appropriately for their services.

I want doctors to be able to continue to assist our nation's seniors, but it is unfair to expect them to practice and to have their reimbursement decrease. Practice expenses, the costs of medical technology, wages for administrative and clinical staff, and medical liability premiums are all increasing while physicians are on track to receive a payment decrease. They cannot afford to continue practicing medicine while receiving reimbursements that do not allow them to even break even. Many are retiring early or threatening to limit the number of Medicare patients they treat.

The service of physicians all across the country is vital to our seniors. Almost half a million doctors provide treatment to the 42 million people under the Medicare program. Physicians are often the gateway for access to other medical services and treatments. Not being able to consult a physician results in delayed referrals, delayed treatment and delayed care. In sum, the quality of health care continues to erode and our system does not operate efficiently.

Should the scheduled physician reimbursement cuts take effect, the result will be a $710 million decrease in payments to doctors in Arizona over 2006 through 2010. I have heard from virtually every physician with whom I have spoken about the constraints that inadequate payments are placing on their practice of medicine. While many work for hospitals and health systems, in the rural areas, a large number are solo practitioners or in small practices. For these physicians, poor payment hits their practice especially hard.

If Medicare rates for doctors are inadequate, many other health care payors will also lack for adequate reimbursement. Other payors such as Medicaid and private insurers often base their payments on Medicare rates. While this bill only addresses Medicare physician payment, the problem of access to services will be compounded if physicians receive reimbursement from other payors that is below the appropriate levels.

The cost of addressing the physician payment update is not cheap. Estimates on the cost of this bill are between $25 billion to $35 billion over five years. I await an official score from the Congressional Budget Office. But I point out, that doing nothing to solve this problem may cost us more: more money, more health and access problems, and more physicians leaving the profession. Although this legislation provides for a two year update, we must develop a long range mechanism to pay physicians appropriately.

I am grateful for the support of this legislation by my colleague, Senator

Stabenow of Michigan, and encourage my other colleagues to support the Preserving Patient Access to Physicians Act of 2005.

I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Streamlined Procedures Act. This legislation will reduce delays in federal courts' review of habeas corpus petitions filed by State prisoners.

Currently, many Federal habeas corpus cases require 10, 15, or even 20 years to complete. These delays burden the courts and deny justice to defendants with meritorious claims. They also are deeply unfair to victims of serious, violent crimes. A parent whose child has been murdered, or someone who has been the victim of a violent assault, cannot be expected to ``move on'' without knowing how the case against the attacker has been resolved. Endless litigation, and the uncertainty that it brings, is unnecessarily cruel to these victims and their families. As President Clinton noted of the 1996 habeas-corpus reforms, ``it should not take eight or nine years and three trips to the Supreme Court to finalize whether a person in fact was properly convicted or not.'' For the sake of all parties, we should minimize these delays.

The 1996 habeas corpus reforms were supposed to prevent delays in Federal collateral review. Unfortunately, as the Justice Department noted in testimony before the House Crime Subcommittee in March 2003, there still are ``significant gaps [in the habeas corpus statutes] . . . which can result in highly protracted litigation, and some of the reforms that Congress did adopt in 1996 have been substantially undermined in judicial application.''

The Streamlined Procedures Act is designed to fill some of these gaps. First, the SPA imposes reasonable but firm time limits on court of appeals' review of Federal habeas petitions. It requires a court of appeals to decide a habeas appeal within 300 days of the completion of briefing, to rule on a petition for rehearing within 90 days, and to decide a case on rehearing within 120 days before the same panel, or 180 days before an en banc court.

As generous as these time limits are, they would make a real difference in some cases. In Morales v. Woodford, 336 F.3d 1136, 9th Cir. 2003, for example, the Ninth Circuit took 3 years to decide the case after briefing was completed. And after issuing its decision, the court took another 16 months to reject a petition for rehearing. Similarly, in Williams v. Woodford, 306 F.3d 665, 9th Cir. 2002, the court waited 25 months to decide the case--and then waited another 27 months to reject a petition for rehearing, for a total delay of almost 4\1/2\ years after appellate briefing had been completed. This is too long for either defendants or victims to have to wait.

The SPA also bars courts of appeals from rehearing successive- petition applications on their own motion--current law bars petitions for rehearing or certiorari for such applications, but some courts have interpreted this restriction to not preclude rehearing by the court of appeals sua sponte. The SPA also bars Federal courts from tolling the current 1-year deadline on filing habeas claims for reasons other than those authorized by the statute, and clarifies when a State appeal is pending for purposes of tolling the deadline.

In addition, the SPA creates uniform, clear procedures for review of procedurally improper claims. Current judicial caselaw creates a series of different standards for addressing claims in a Federal petition that were not exhausted in state court, that were presented in a late amendment, or that were procedurally defaulted. The SPA sets a uniform standard, allowing procedurally improper claims to go forward only if they present meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime, with all other improper claims barred.

The SPA also expands and improves the special expedited habeas procedures authorized in chapter 154 of the United States Code. These procedures are available to States that establish a system for providing high-quality legal representation to capital defendants. Chapter 154 sets strict time limits on Federal court action and places limits on claims. Currently, however, the court that decides whether a State is eligible for chapter 154 is the same court that would be subject to its time limits. Unsurprisingly, these courts

have proven resistant to chapter 154. The SPA would place the eligibility decision in the hands of a neutral party--the U.S. Attorney General, with review of his decision in the DC Circuit, which does not hear habeas appeals. The SPA also makes chapter 154's deadlines more practical by limiting the claims that can be raised under its provisions to those presenting meaningful evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime, and by extending the time for a district court to review and rule on a chapter 154 petition from 6 months to 15 months.

The SPA also eliminates duplicative Federal review of minor sentencing errors that already have been judged by State courts to be harmless or not prejudicial. It limits Federal courts to asking only whether the type of sentencing error at issue is one that could not have been harmless.

The SPA also applies the deferential review standard enacted in the 1996 reforms to all pending cases. Remarkably, some current habeas petitions still are not governed by the 1996 reforms. The SPA corrects this oversight, ending the need to apply the pre-1996 legal regime to any cases that still are being litigated today.

And finally, the SPA limits judicial review of State clemency and pardon decisions, guaranteeing that a State won't be sued for formalizing and regularizing its pardon procedures; it limits defendants' ability to ask Federal courts for investigatory funds without allowing prosecutors to be present and rebut defense allegations; and it guarantees a crime victim's right to be notified of, to be present at, and to speak at a criminal defendant's Federal habeas hearing.

To many people, the issues addressed by the SPA--petitions for rehearing, State remedies exhaustion, procedural default, chapter 154, AEDPA deference--may seem abstract and remote. For surviving crime victims, however, these matters can be very concrete.

A case recently in the news illustrates the importance of these concerns: that of the man who murdered three member of the Ryen family and Christopher Hughes in Chino Hills, California in June 1983. The killer in that case was an escaped convict from a nearby prison. He has since admitted that he spent 2 days hiding in a vacant house next to the home of the Ryen family. After several unsuccessful telephone calls to friends asking them to give him a ride, the killer took a hatchet and buck knife from the vacant house and set out to find a vehicle. The California Supreme Court describes the rest of what occurred, 53 Cal.3d 771, 794-95:

On Saturday, June 4, 1983, the Ryens and Chris Hughes

attended a barbecue in Los Serranos, a few miles from the

Ryen home in Chino. Chris had received permission to spend

the night with the Ryens. Between 9 and 9:30 p.m., they left

to drive to the Ryen home. Except for Josh [the Ryen's 8-

year-old son], they were never seen alive again.

The next morning, June 5, Chris's mother, Mary Hughes,

became concerned when he did not come home. A number of

telephone calls to the Ryen residence received only busy

signals. [Mary's husband] William went to the Ryen home to

investigate.

William observed the Ryen truck at the home, but not the

family station wagon. Although the Ryens normally did not

lock the house when they were home, it was locked on this

occasion. William walked around the house trying to look

inside. When he reached the sliding glass doors leading to

the master bedroom, he could see inside. William saw the

bodies of his son and Doug and Peggy Ryen on the bedroom

floor. Josh was lying between Peggy and Chris. Only Josh

appeared alive.

William frantically tried to open the sliding door; in his

emotional state, he pushed against the fixed portion of the

doors, not the sliding door. He rushed to the kitchen door,

kicked it in, and entered. As he approached the master

bedroom, he found Jessica on the floor, also apparently dead.

In the bedroom, William touched the body of his son. It was

cold and stiff. William asked Josh who had done it. Josh

appeared stunned; he tried to talk but could only make

unintelligible sounds.

William tried to use a telephone in the house but it did

not work. He drove to a neighbor's house seeking help. The

police arrived shortly. Doug, Peggy, Chris, and Jessica were

dead, the first three in the master bedroom, Jessica in the

hallway leading to that bedroom. Josh was alive but in shock,

suffering from an obvious neck wound. He was flown by

helicopter to Loma Linda University Hospital.

The victims died from numerous chopping and stabbing

injuries. Doug Ryen had at least 37 separate wounds, Peggy

32, Jessica 46, and Chris 25. The chopping wounds were

inflicted by a sharp, heavy object such as a hatchet or axe,

the stabbing wounds by a weapon such as a knife.

The escaped prisoner who committed this crime was caught 2 months later. Again, he admitted that he stayed in the house next door, but denied any involvement in the murders. According to the California Supreme Court, however, the evidence of defendant's guilt was ``overwhelming.'' Not only had the defendant stayed at the vacant house right next door at the time of the murders; the hatchet used in the murders was taken from the vacant house; shoe prints in the Ryen house matched those in the vacant house and were from a type of shoe issued to prisoners; bloody items, including a prison-issue button, were found in the vacant house; prison-issue tobacco was found in the Ryen station wagon, which was recovered in Long Beach; and defendant's blood type and hair matched that found in the Ryen house. Defendant was convicted of the murders and sentenced to death in 1985, and the California Supreme Court upheld the defendant's conviction and sentence in 1991.

The defendant's Federal habeas proceedings began shortly thereafter, and they continue to this day--22 years after the murders. In 2000, the defendant asked the courts for DNA testing of a blood spot in the Ryen house, a t-shirt near the crime scene, and the tobacco found in the car. Despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, the courts allowed more testing. All three tests found that the blood and saliva matched defendant, to a degree of certainty of one in 320 billion. Blood on the t-shirt matched both the defendant and one of the victims.

One might have thought that this would end the case. Not so. In February 2004, the en banc Ninth Circuit sua sponte authorized defendant to file a second habeas petition to pursue theories that police had planted this DNA evidence. Since the evidence had been in court custody since 1983, the Ninth Circuit's theory not only required police to plan and execute a vast conspiracy to plant the evidence--it also required them to foresee the future invention of the DNA technology that would make that evidence useful in future habeas proceedings.

The Streamlined Procedures Act would have made a difference in this case. For example, it would have eliminated the need to return to state court to exhaust new claims, reducing the delay in the Federal proceedings by nearly 3 years. It would have applied the 1996 reforms to this case, allowing deferential review of state factual findings and legal analysis. It would have placed time limits on Federal appeals court decisionmaking and grants of rehearing. And it would have prevented the court of appeals from ordering rehearing of the defendant's successive-petition application on its own motion, thereby barring the current round of O.J. Simpson-style conspiracy-theory litigation. The SPA could have brought this case to closure a long time ago.

And this case deserves to be brought to closure. One cannot underestimate the grievous impact that crimes like these have on the families of the victims. Mary Hughes, the mother of 11-year-old Christopher Hughes, who was sleeping over at the Ryen house on the night of the murders, has spoken movingly of the loss of her son:

Christopher Hughes loved his bicycle, swimming and showing

off for his mom and dad.

The 11-year-old's bedroom was filled with swimming trophies

and Star Wars collectibles. He was a handsome kid who was

chased by a lot of fifth-grade girls on the playground during

recess at Our Lady of the Assumption in Claremont.

He wasn't short on friends, either.

Christopher really liked Joshua Ryen, an 8-year-old boy who

lived up the street from him. They would trick-or-treat

together on Halloween, play together, and their parents were

good friends.

On the night of June 4 1983, Christopher asked his parents

if he could spend the night at the Ryen house.

It was a decision that would change the Hughes family

forever.

[Mary Hughes'] son Christopher would have been 32 today.

She sometimes wonders who he would have been, what he

would've looked like, and even during her most solemn

moments, she wonders what life would've been like if Cooper

had never gone to the Ryens' house.

``It never really ever gets better,'' she said. ``Kevin

Cooper robbed him of the chance to be a child, to attend his

first dance, to have a girlfriend, and to one day get married

and

have kids of his own. He robbed me of my child.''

Mary Ann Hughes does have one special memory of her son she

holds close to her heart. A week before his death, she took

him to see the movie ``Return of the Jedi.''

``He was so happy. It was such a great day,'' she said.

``It seems like such a small thing, but it's the best memory

I have of both of us.'' (Sara Carter, ``He Was at the

Beginning of His Life When He Died,'' Inland Valley Daily

Bulletin, February 9, 2004.)

In light of how much the surviving family already has suffered, one might expect that all participants in the criminal proceedings would take great concern and care for the feelings of the family. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The Ninth Circuit has proved willing to turn the appeals into a three-ring circus, allowing continual pursuit of the most frivolous conspiracy theories. The impact of these now 22 years of trial and appeals on the victims' families has been predictable: they feel that they and the victims have become irrelevant to the entire process. Shortly after the Ninth Circuit authorized an additional round of appeals in this case, a local newspaper described what the families have experienced:

For nearly 20 years, since convicted murderer Kevin Cooper

was sentenced to death for the 1983 slayings of a Chino Hills

family and their young houseguest, families of the victims

have waited silently for the day the hand of justice would

grant them peace.

For those families, the last two decades have seemed like

an eternity.

``I lived through a nightmare,'' said Herbert Ryen, whose

brother Douglas Ryen was among those killed, along with

Douglas' wife Peggy, their 11-year-old daughter Jessica, and

her 10-year-old friend Christopher Hughes.

[O]n the morning of Feb. 9, [2004,] the day of Cooper's

scheduled death by lethal injection, word came down that the

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided to block the

execution.

[T]o the Ryen and Hughes families, the stay just hours

before Cooper's scheduled execution at San Quentin State

Prison was nearly incomprehensible. The indefinite delay has

left them in a sort of emotional limbo, questioning whether

the legal system had abandoned them.

``The bottom line is that this whole issue is not about

Kevin Cooper . . . it is about the death penalty,'' said Mary

Ann Hughes, the mother of Christoper Hughes. ``We're so mad--

mad because we feel as though the courts turned their back on

my son.''

``They (Court of Appeals) are holding us hostage,'' Hughes

said.

For Herbert Ryen and his wife Sue, waiting for justice has

taken an equally destructive toll on their lives. The torment

their family experienced following the murders, and the

subsequent years lost to depression, could never be replaced,

he said from his home in Arizona.

Mary Ann Hughes said the pain her family suffers is only

amplified by the seemingly continuous bombardment of

celebrities campaigning against Cooper's execution. She

wonders who will cry out in anger for the victims.

One former television star and anti-death penalty activist,

Mike Farrell of the popular series MASH, spoke of the case on

a recent news program.

``He claimed that we must feel relieved since the stay of

execution was granted,'' Hughes said. ``How can (Farrell)

have the audacity to say he knows what we are feeling?''

Farrell could not be reached for comment.

Since Christopher's death, the Hughes family has chosen to

remain out of the media spotlight. And until recently, their

efforts were successful, due largely to the support of their

surviving children, family members and a strong network of

close friends, Hughes said.

The court's decision Feb. 9 has re-opened the case, forcing

the families to re-live the nightmare they have fought so

hard to leave behind, they say.

Mary Ann Hughes is left wondering about other families who

have had loved ones taken from them, about the legal battles

they have had to endure in their own quests for justice.

She thinks of the parents of Samantha Runion, the 5-year-

old Orange County girl who was murdered in 2003, and of what

her family could face in the next 20 years.

For Bill Hughes, the anguish is intensified--he will

forever know the pain of walking into the Ryens' home the

morning after the murders, and finding his son, dead and

covered in blood near the Ryens' bedroom door. He was also

the first to discover Joshua Ryen, also drenched in blood,

clinging to life.

``It is a memory he will always have to live with,'' Mary

Ann Hughes said.

Indeed, time has been no friend to the victims' families,

as California's recent appellate court ruling has further

denied them closure, she added.

``What this decision has done to our legal system in

California is unthinkable,'' she said. ``Somewhere along the

line, the courts have got to uphold the law, and we will wait

it out until they do.'' (Sara Carter, ``Families of Murder

Victims Wait for Justice in Cooper Case,'' Inland Valley

Daily Bulletin, February 24, 2004.)

Mary Hughes' story demonstrates why the use of Federal judicial power must be measured and fair it illustrates the heavy cost imposed by judicial excess.

No statement, however, better explains the gross cruelty caused by allowing endless litigation and appeals in a case like this than that given by one of the surviving victims of the 1983 attack. Josh Ryen was 8 years old when he was stabbed in his parents' bedroom and his parents and sister were murdered. He is now 30 years old. On April 22, 2005, he gave a statement pursuant to the recently enacted Crime Victims' Rights Act in the federal habeas corpus hearing for his parents and sister's killer. I will close my remarks by asking unanimous consent that Josh Ryen's statement be printed in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Madam Speaker, this is a very difficult bill to try to debate because it includes a lot of different bills, everything except the hate crimes bill, which had broad support at least on this side. It includes a variety of slogans and sound bites, many of which have actually been shown to increase crime, disrupt orderly, proportionate, and fair sentencing, it wastes money and violates common sense.

Among these approaches are trying more juveniles as adults, the mandatory minimums, new death penalties, and habeas corpus restrictions, which is a process by which dozens of innocent people on death row have been able to show their innocence and escape the death penalty because they were innocent of the underlying charges. It also includes a national sex offender registry that includes misdemeanors and juveniles in the same kind of registration as the most serious predatory offenses.

If we are going to be serious about dealing with child sexual abuse, we ought to face the fact that virtually all of the abusers are either related to the child or at least known to the child's family. No studies have shown that these things actually reduce child abuse; and, in fact, anecdotal evidence would suggest that we might be actually increasing crime. Because the people who are the subject of these are unable to get a job, unable to live in any kind of neighborhood, have nothing to lose, the restrictive covenants now restricting where they can live, and all of these things may in fact increase crime. But there are certainly no studies to show that they have reduced by any measurable amounts the amount of child sexual abuse.

We are treating more juveniles as adults. That thing has been studied over and over again, and we know that treating more juveniles as adults will increase the crime rates. In every State, the most heinous crimes are already subject to juveniles being treated as adults. So if this passes, we are talking about those who are not now treated as adults who would be treated as adults under this bill. Those are the marginal cases.

We know that those marginal cases sent to adult court will not have education and psychological services and family services available in the juvenile court. They will either be locked up with adults or just released on probation. Whatever the adult court judge does will be more likely to have crime in the future than if the juvenile court can provide those services.

We know how to reduce juvenile crime. It is the prevention programs. And unlike many bills, there is actually some money in this bill for prevention programs. They work. So those provisions are actually meaningful. We also have reentry programs in here. They work and have been proven to reduce recidivism. So there are at least some provisions of the bill that have something to recommend them.

But the mandatory minimums in the bill have been studied. We know from all the studies that mandatory minimums have been shown to waste money, discriminate against minorities, and violate common sense. This bill includes mandatory minimums for juveniles that includes a 20-year mandatory minimum for a fistfight that results in a serious injury, and 10 years mandatory minimum if there is no serious injury; 10 years mandatory minimum for a fistfight in a school yard. This bill cannot be serious.

We have death penalties which have been proven to have no effect on crime. Innocent people are convicted. We have a habeas corpus provision that will eliminate the possibility that many of those who are innocent on death row, and we know there are many of them, will not have the opportunity to have their cases adjudicated.

We saw in the confirmation hearings for Justice Alito, when he was asked if an innocent person had a constitutional right against execution, and he didn't give a straight answer. We need to make sure people's rights are protected and that habeas corpus provisions are eliminated from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a letter that says, ``For the first time, the statute would implicate a wide array of legitimate, mainstream businesses that have never been linked in any way to the sexual exploitation of children.'' It continues, ``In some instances, the proposed amendments are vague and offer little guidance as to what is required of those needing to comply, and in others, they impose requirements that are simply impossible to meet.''

The letter is signed by the Chamber of Commerce, the American Library Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, Screen Actors Guild, American Association of Advertising Agencies, the American Association of Law Libraries and others.

February 7, 2006.

Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Hatch: We are writing to express our

continuing concern with the legislative language contained in

S. 2140, the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation of Children

Act that would significantly expand the scope of Title 18

U.S.C. Sec. 2257. As you know, we strongly support the

objective of increasing the Justice Department's ability to

combat child pornography and exploitation. The members of our

broad coalition are committed to protecting children from

exploitation. That is why we appreciate and acknowledge the

efforts of the sponsors of S. 2140 to address many of the

issues raised by prior attempts to amend Sec. 2257. However,

serious concerns remain.

S. 2140 would significantly expand the types and categories

of conduct that would trigger the requirements of Sec. 2257.

For the first time, the statute would implicate a wide array

of legitimate, mainstream businesses that have never been

linked in any way to the sexual exploitation of children. S.

2140 dramatically expands the class of persons required to

keep records and to label products under Sec. 2257. Many

affected by the proposed expansion are businesses and

individuals that have no actual contact or relationship with

the performers in question. In some instances, the proposed

amendments are vague and offer little guidance as to what is

required of those needing to comply, and in others, they

impose requirements that are simply impossible to meet.

Expansion of Sec. 2257 as envisioned by the proposed

legislation will likely divert even more resources toward

legal challenges to the statute and away from the

legislation's primary objective of prosecuting those who

sexually exploit children.

It is important to note that since Sec. 2257 was passed in

1988, the inspection regime of the law has, to our knowledge,

never been used. Rather than expanding the scope of Sec. 2257

to cover a myriad of lawful, legitimate, Main-street

businesses, we believe effective enforcement of the existing

regime is first necessary. Accordingly, any amendments to the

statute should be narrow and focused on individuals that seek

to harm young people.

Finally, from the outset of this process, we have been

prepared to discuss the serious concerns our coalition has

with the proposals to amend Sec. 2257. However, we are not

involved in the negotiation of the current bill language.

While we remain committed to working with all interested

parties, we do not believe that in its current form, S. 2140

addresses the myriad of legitimate concerns raised by our

coalition.

We applaud you for your continued leadership and dedication

to protecting children

and reiterate our commitment to work with you to address this

serious issue.

Sincerely,

United States Chamber of Commerce; Video Software Dealers

Association; Americans for Tax Reform; American Library

Association; American Conservative Union; National

Association of Broadcasters; National Cable &

Telecommunications Association; Motion Picture

Association of America; Screen Actors Guild; Media

Freedom Project; American Hotel and Lodging

Association; The American Federation of Television and

Radio Artists; Magazine Publishers of America;

Directors Guild of America; Digital Media Association;

Computer & Communications Industry Association;

Association of Research Libraries; The Creative

Coalition; Association of National Advertisers;

Association of American Publishers; American

Association of Advertising Agencies; American

Advertising Federation; American Booksellers Foundation

for Free Expression; Publishers Marketing Association;

Freedom to Read Foundation; American Association of Law

Libraries

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following items for inclusion in the Record regarding the House floor consideration of H.R. 4472 on March 8, 2006.

Oppose H.R. 4472, the Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act

of 2005

Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union, a non-partisan organization with hundreds of

thousands of activists and members and 53 affiliates nation-

wide, we write to express our opposition to H.R. 4472, the

Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005

(``Omnibus Crime''). H.R.4472 would create ten new federal

death penalties and almost 30 new discriminatory mandatory

minimums that infringe upon protected First Amendment speech,

effectively eliminate federal and state prisoners' ability to

challenge

wrongful convictions in federal court, make it more difficult

to monitor sex offenders and create more serious juvenile

offenders by incarcerating children in adult prisons. H.R.

4472 is scheduled for a vote on the House floor on Wednesday,

March 8, 2006; we strongly urge you to oppose this

legislation.

Congress Should Not Expand The Federal Death Penalty Until It Ensures

Innocent People Are Not On Death Row

The death penalty is in need of reform, not expansion.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 123

prisoners on death row have now been exonerated. Chronic

problems, including inadequate defense counsel and racial

disparities, plague the death penalty system in the United

States. The expansion of the death penalty for gang and other

crimes creates an opportunity for more arbitrary application

of the death penalty.

In addition to expanding the number of federal death

penalty crimes, this bill also expands venue in capital

cases, making any location even tangentially related to the

crime a possible site for the trial. This raises

constitutional as well as public policy concerns. The U.S.

Constitution states that ``the Trial of all Crimes . . .

shall be by Jury; and shall be held in the State where the

said Crimes shall have been committed.'' This concept is

important in order to prevent undue hardship and partiality

when an accused person is prosecuted in a place that has no

significant connection to the offense with which he is

charged. This proposed change in H.R. 4472 would increase the

inequities that already exist in the federal death penalty

system, giving prosecutors tremendous discretion to ``forum

shop'' for the most death-friendly jurisdiction in which to

try their case.

In carjacking cases, this legislation would effectively

relieve the government from having to prove that a person

intended to cause the death of a person before being subject

to the death penalty. This provision is likely

unconstitutional in the context of capital cases. In

addition, the bill would allow the death penalty for attempt

and conspiracy in carjacking cases, which we believe is

unconstitutional.

H.R. 4472 Erodes Federal Judges' Sentencing Discretion by Proposing

Harsher Mandatory Minimum Sentences

This legislation would create 29 new mandatory minimum

sentences that would result in unfair and discriminatory

prison terms. Many of the criminal penalties in this bill are

increased to mandatory minimum sentences, including the

sentence for second-degree murder that would be a mandatory

sentence of 30 years. Although, in theory, mandatory

minimums were created to address disparate sentences that

resulted from indeterminate sentencing systems, in reality

they shift discretion from the judge to the prosecutor.

Prosecutors hold all the power over whether a defendant

gets a plea bargain in order for that defendant to avoid

the mandatory sentence. This creates unfair and

inequitable sentences for people who commit similar

crimes, thus contributing to the very problem mandatory

minimums were created to address.

people could be convicted of a ``gang'' crime even if they are not

members of a gang

This legislation would impose severe penalties for a

collective group of three or more people who commit ``gang''

crimes. This bill amends the already broad definition of

``criminal street gang'' to an even more ambiguous standard

of a formal or informal group or association of three (3) or

more people who commit two (2) or more ``gang'' crimes. The

number of people required to form a gang decreases from five

(5) people in an ongoing group under current law to three (3)

people who could just be associates or casual acquaintances

under this proposed legislation. Under current law it is

essential to establish that a gang had committed a

``continuing series of offenses.'' By eliminating this

requirement, H.R. 4472 defeats the purpose of a gang law,

i.e. to target criminal activity that has some type of

connection to a tight knit group of people that exists for

the purpose of engaging in illegal activities.

H.R. 4472 Jeopardizes a Person's Right to a Fair Trial

Innocent people could be convicted of crimes they did not

commit if the statute of limitations is extended as proposed

in this legislation. The Omnibus Crime bill proposes to

extend the statute of limitations for non-capital crimes of

violence. Generally, the statute of limitations for non-

capital federal crimes is five (5) years after the offense is

committed. Fifteen years after a crime is committed, alibi

witnesses could have disappeared or died, other witnesses'

memories could have faded and evidence may be unreliable. The

use of questionable evidence could affect a person's ability

to defend him or herself against charges and to receive a

fair trial.

This legislation would also preclude defense attorneys in

child pornography cases from obtaining possession of the

alleged child pornography, possibly depriving the defendant

of a fair trial. This provision is entirely unnecessary,

since federal courts routinely issue extremely restrictive

protective orders regarding alleged child pornography. These

protective orders preclude duplication or review of the

alleged child pornography except as necessary for the

preparation of the defense. Giving the government sole

possession of the material may well harm the defendant's

case. Forensic analysis is often critical in determining

whether the material is, in fact, child pornography.

Title VI Infringes Upon Constitutionally Protected Speech Under the

First Amendment

The legislation would require record keeping for simulated

sexual conduct. Simulated sexual conduct that is not obscene

is protected under the First Amendment. ``Laws that burden

material protected by the First Amendment must be approached

from a skeptical point of view and must be given strict

scrutiny.'' The fact that those laws only burden rather than

prohibit protected material does not save them

constitutionally.

This provision of the bill infringes upon protected speech

and is not narrowly tailored to solve the problems of child

pornography. Understandably, mainstream producers will comply

with the law, but those who are intent on making child

pornography are unlikely to do so. This provision is

therefore constitutionally suspect.

Federal Courts Would Essentially Be Unable To Release Some People on

Death Row Who Were Wrongfully Convicted

Most habeas corpus petitions that challenge a person's

death or criminal sentence are brought to federal court based

on a constitutional error that under the law is considered

``harmless'' or ``non-prejudicial.'' These types of legal

errors do not involve substantial rights and do not

necessarily result in a person being released from custody.

H.R. 4472 would prevent federal courts from hearing claims in

death penalty cases that involve claims of cruel and unusual

punishment under the Eighth Amendment or whether a

defendant's lawyer was ineffective during the sentencing

phase of a capital case.

This provision of the bill has serious implications for the

independence of the federal judiciary. Congress' attempt to

strip Article III courts of their constitutional habeas

corpus jurisdiction is unconstitutional under the doctrine of

Separation of Powers. Removing jurisdiction over many habeas

claims from Federal courts ignores the Separation of Powers

doctrine by eliminating the role of the courts in upholding

constitutional rights of prisoners.

H.R. 4472 Would Result in the Routine Collection and Permanent

Retention of DNA Samples and Profiles From Innocent People

The ``Violence Against Women Act of 2005'' (VAWA) was

signed into law on January 5, 2006, (P.L. No: 109-162) and

dramatically expands the government's authority to collect

and permanently retain DNA samples. Under this law, persons

who are merely arrested or detained by federal authorities

would be forced to have their DNA collected and stored

alongside those of convicted felons in the Federal DNA

database. However, under current law, DNA samples that are

voluntarily submitted to law enforcement authorities are not

included in the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS). In

addition, DNA profiles of individuals arrested but not

convicted of crimes can be expunged from CODIS upon receipt

of a ``certified copy of a final court order establishing

that such charge has been dismissed or has resulted in an

acquittal.''

However, H.R. 4472 would permit voluntarily submitted

samples to be included in CODIS and would eliminate the

expungement provision for people whose DNA was incorporated

in the federal database based on an arrest that never

resulted in a conviction. Retaining a person's DNA in a

criminal database renders him or her an automatic suspect for

any future crime. This is problematic for any category of

tested persons, but especially for those who have been

arrested but not convicted of a crime.

In addition, the Omnibus Crime bill would allow states to

upload to CODIS DNA samples submitted voluntarily in order to

eliminate people as suspects of a crime. This will increase

the use by law enforcement of DNA ``sweeps'' and reducing the

willingness of citizens to cooperate with the police.

H.R. 4472 Will Make It More Difficult To Monitor Sex Offenders by

Simply Forcing Offenders Underground

The proposed legislation requires sex offenders to update

registry information within 5 days of a change in residence,

employment or student status. This requirement is unrealistic

and works against the goal of being able to monitor sex

offenders. If the registration requirements are unrealistic,

offenders will fail to register and end up underground, which

is contrary to the goal of tracking and locating them. Under

the Omnibus Crime bill, states will be required to verify sex

offender registry information in persons possibly as

frequently as once every three months and required to verify

their residences as often as once every month depending on

the class of offender. This will be an enormous burden on the

states to create and implement systems to track sex offenders

on a monthly basis.

The bill will also require the work addresses of sex

offenders to be available on the Internet. Publicizing

information about employers and their addresses on the

Internet could ultimately lead to employers refusing to hire

former sex offenders. Research has shown that significant

supervision upon release and involvement in productive

activities are critical to preventing sex offenders from

reoffending. Limiting the opportunities

of sex offenders to maintain gainful employment is counter-

productive to their rehabilitation as well as to keeping

communities safe.

Children Would Be Put in Federal Prison With Little Opportunity for

Education or Rehabilitation

Under the Omnibus Crime bill, more children will become

hardened criminals after being tried in Federal court and

incarcerated in adult prisons. H.R. 4472 would give

prosecutors the discretion to determine when to try a young

person in Federal court as an adult, if the juvenile is 16

years of age or older and commits a crime of violence. The

decision by a prosecutor to try a juvenile as an adult cannot

be reviewed by a judge under this legislation. This

unreviewable process of transferring youth to adult Federal

court is particularly troubling when juveniles are not

routinely prosecuted in the Federal system and there are no

resources or facilities to address the needs of youth.

For the above-mentioned reasons, we urge members to oppose

H.R. 4472 when the House votes on the bill on March 8, 2006.

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson,

Director,

Jesselyn McCurdy,

Legislative Counsel

Mr. President, I begin speaking to this legislation by thanking my buddy. And I know that is a colloquial expression in this formal place we work when I say ``my buddy,'' but Senator Hatch and I have worked together for a long time. It is hard for me to believe we have been here as long as we have. I have actually been here a couple years longer than he has. We have our differences in philosophy. We have never had any differences personally. We have never had any differences in terms of our relationship.

The two things I am proudest of that we have both done is we have both--and I say this somewhat self-serving, I acknowledge--we both always hired staff that is respected. I do not think there has ever been a time that Orrin has not had a staff and staff members who my staff completely, totally trusted. I think it is fair to say that is the case on Orrin's side as well.

That makes a gigantic difference because I think the work that Ken Valentine, the fellow sitting to Orrin's right, did--a loner, Secret Service guy from the administration, from the executive branch--and a fellow I am very proud of, whom I will mention in a moment--the work they did with John Walsh and others, to overcome the hurdles that get thrown in the way of good legislation because everybody has their own agenda.

Everybody knows that for Orrin and me--and I would add my friend from North Dakota--that some of us have had this as sort of a--I have been accused of this being a hobbyhorse for me, this, all the work we have done for so long on dealing with child predators and abused women and abused children. But what happens sometimes is that good legislation gets stuck because other Senators, who do not have that as the same priority--although they are for it--attach a lot of extraneous things because there is something they feel is even more critical than the legislation, and they see it, to use the Senate jargon, as a vehicle to get their views heard and their legislation passed.

Well, as to the work that Dave Turk of my staff did and Ken Valentine did in order to sort of clear the way for this, I think everyone who has worked on this, including John Walsh, would acknowledge is extraordinary.

So I want to personally--there are others, I am sure. There are others. I do not mean, by mentioning these two individuals, to in any way denigrate the incredible work done by so many others. But I think sometimes the public wonders why we pay staff members--all of whom can make a lot more money if they did something else--the kind of salaries they get paid, in relative terms. It is because they are so good. They are so dedicated. They are so talented.

In my experience of being here 33 years, I have found that when a staff member, no less than a Senator, has an intellectual as well as an emotional commitment to what they are doing, it is even more effective.

I know for my friend and staff member, Dave Turk, who is a father, and for Ken Valentine, whom I have only gotten to know personally recently, this is more than legislation, this is more than passing this piece of legislation. This is the stuff of which your life's work is viewed as being worthwhile.

I remember Jerry Brown, when he used to be the Governor of California, once said when he was cutting pay--I am not making a judgment of whether he should have or should not have--when cutting the pay of State employees, he made a statement only Jerry Brown could make, 20 years ago: Well, they have the psychic remuneration of living in California. I do not know about that. But I can tell you that the psychic remuneration for Orrin Hatch and Joe Biden and Ken Valentine and Dave Turk, and many others who worked on this, makes this job worthwhile.

The two things of which I am most proud that I have done in 33 years are dealing with this issue in particular and culminating in this legislation, the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act, and the Violence Against Women Act--which, I might add, one of only seven guys who jumped out front in 1994 to get that done was also Orrin Hatch.

So, Senator Hatch, I thank you. We have been in the minority, the majority, the minority; we have switched places back and forth, but it has never changed our relationship, never changed how we have worked with each other, and never changed the good work I think we and many others can say we are proud to have participated in.

Mr. President, I wish to talk a few minutes about the actual act. Congress has done a good deal over the last 25 years--and I might add, starting with, God love him, our old and deceased friend, Senator Thurmond from South Carolina--to protect kids. We created the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in 1984. We enacted the crime bill in 1994. We enacted the Amber Alert system in 2003.

But every time we have done something significant, the bad guys have figured out a way to take advantage of it, to find a loophole, to find an opening. And that is what this is about--and I wish he had floor privileges because he could speak to it better than any of us--but this is about, to paraphrase John Walsh, with whom I had dinner the other night--this is about closing the door. This is about uniting 50 States in common purpose and in league with one another to prevent these lowlifes from slipping through the cracks. So we recognize that what we have done in the past did not do all we wanted to do.

I might add one more thing. Joe Biden and Orrin Hatch come from different sides of the political spectrum on a lot of things. But I can assure you, not only is this tough, but the civil liberties of Americans are not in jeopardy with this. This is not--this is not--a case where in order to get bad guys we have had to in any way lessen the constitutional protections made available

to good guys. So I think it is a proud piece of work.

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, as Senator Hatch has indicated, estimates there are over 550,000 sex offenders nationwide, and more than 20 percent of them are unaccounted for. I would argue that there are a whole lot more than 550,000, who never get caught up in the criminal web for a thousand different reasons that I do not have time to explain. But at a minimum, this means there are as many as 150,000 of these dangerous sex offenders out there, individuals who have already committed crimes and may, unless we do something, continue to jeopardize the most vulnerable among us.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act takes direct aim at this problem. Plain and simple, this legislation, I can say with certainty, will save children's lives.

Sexual predators must be tracked, and our cops and our parents have a right to know when these criminals are in their neighborhoods. That is what we do here.

First--an important point--let's start at the beginning. This legislation requires sex offenders to register prior to their release from prison, to make sure we give them absolutely no opportunity to do what happens now: fall through the cracks between the moment the prison door opens and before they set up a residence.

We also make sure we are keeping tabs on everyone who poses a threat to our kids. Advances in technology are a great thing, but many times there is a dark side. The Internet, for example, puts the knowledge of the world at a child's fingertips, but it can also be and is abused by sexual predators causing kids harm. To steal a phrase from my son, who is a Federal prosecutor, he told me: Dad, it used to be you could lock your door or hold your child's hand at the mall and keep them out of harm's way.

But today, in my son's words, with a click of a mouse, a predator can enter your child's bedroom in a locked home and begin the pernicious road to violating that child. That is why this legislation adds the ``use of the Internet to facilitate or commit a crime against a minor'' as an offense that could trigger registration.

And once someone is on a sex offender registry, we make sure they can't go back into hiding in the shadows. Under this bill, child predators would be required to periodically and in person check in with the authorities.

They also would be required to update their photographs so law enforcement and parents will know where these folks are and what they look like now and not solely what they looked like years ago that is unrecognizable now.

And if a registered offender fails to comply with any of these requirements, he or she faces a felony of up to 10 years in prison. If an unregistered sex offender commits a crime of violence, the offender will face a 5-year mandatory prison sentence in addition to any other sentence imposed.

A noncompliant sex offender will also face U.S. Marshals who have been brought in under this bill to lend their expertise and manpower to help track down these dangerous individuals.

John and I were talking about it at dinner. These guys saddle up, to use his phrase. They are the most underrated, underestimated part of American law enforcement. They do the job incredibly well. They want to get in on this, and they are now part of this. We now have designated their expertise and manpower to track down these individuals.

One of the biggest problems in our current sex offender registry system happens when registered sex offenders travel from one State to another.

Delaware has worked hard to keep track of the 3,123 sex offenders registered to my State. But there are other States that are not so advanced and whose systems are not so sophisticated.

This bill fully integrates and expands the State systems so that communities nationwide will be warned when high-risk offenders come to live among them. And we target resources under this bill at the worst of the worst and provide Federal dollars to make sure States aren't left holding the bag.

We also require the U.S. Department of Justice to create software to share with States in order to allow for information to be shared instantly and seamlessly among them. When a sex offender moves from New Jersey to Delaware, for example, we have to be absolutely sure that Delaware authorities know about it.

This bill also mandates a national sex offender Web site so that parents can find out who is living in their neighborhoods. Parents will now be able to search for information on sex offenders by geographic radius and ZIP Code.

Do we have a silver bullet, a foolproof system here? I have been around too long to know the answer to that question is no. What we do have is a slew of commonsense ways for fixing our current problem.

As I mentioned earlier, it has taken us months and years to get to the point of enacting this important bill into law. Again, I give credit where credit is due, as has already been mentioned, to John and Reve Walsh. I know we are not supposed to--and I will not--violate Senate rules by pointing out who is where. But the fact is, if I were sitting next to them in the gallery now, I suspect if I put my hand on his arm, I would feel the tension in his arm.

This has to be a very bittersweet moment for John Walsh. For what are we doing here today? We are naming a bill that will save the lives of hopefully thousands of other young people after a beautiful young boy who was victimized and killed.

The thing I find most amazing about John and Reve is, I don't know how anybody who has lost a child can have the courage to do what they have done. I know from my own experience, which I will not speak to, there are certain circumstances I cannot walk into because it reminds me of one of my children I lost.

I could never do what John and Reve did. I could never do what they did. And we could have never done today what we are doing without them. That is not hyperbole; that is the God's truth. We could never have gotten this done without John and Reve Walsh.

It has to be one god-awful bitter moment, for the 27th of this month, if I am not mistaken, will be the 25th anniversary.

A lot of people on this floor, including one of my colleagues I am sitting with, have lost children. It doesn't matter whether it is 2 years past, 10 years, 25 years, or 50 years past. That part never passes. I thank John and Reve for their courage, courage way beyond anything I could possess.

I have known John for many years. We go way back to 1984, working together to create the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children along with Senator Hatch. He has been at it year after year, pushing the Congress to do more.

John, you have been an inspiration. You continue to be. Don't underestimate it. You have been doing it so long, don't underestimate how many thousands of people take solace from what you do and what you have done.

It has not been my style in 33 years to take the floor to speak in such personal terms, but this is ultimately personal. It is the ultimate, ultimate personal thing, your child.

Earlier this week I had a chance to sit down with Ed Smart whose daughter Elizabeth--what a magnificently beautiful, poised, gracious young woman--then 14 years, was abducted at gunpoint from her family in Salt Lake City while her parents and four brothers slept. She was found 9 months later. The strength of that family's character, its resilience is remarkable.

I have taken too much of the Senate's time. Let me again thank my colleague from Utah. I also thank our committee chairman and all the members of our committee. They also deserve a great deal of credit.

Other Senators, including my colleague on the floor, who has been relentless, absolutely relentless, Senator Dorgan; he added a major, important piece to this legislation. I thank him for that. Senator Bill Nelson, Chuck Grassley, all contributed important parts to this bill. They each took tragedies that happened in their States and used them as a call to action.

Senators Frist and Reid--our majority and minority leaders--also deserve all our thanks by ensuring that this important bill was treated with the priority it deserved.

Congressman Foley has worked tirelessly on this bill in the House for

years, and Congressman Pomeroy was by his side. And Chairman Sensenbrenner guided this bill through the House of Representatives.

I don't think there is one of us on this floor who wouldn't trade away this bill for being able to bring back to life all those innocent lives that were lost that allowed us, in a bizarre way, to produce this legislation.

We cannot redeem the dead, but we can, in fact, protect the living. I think this bill, with the many parts I didn't mention, including DNA testing and a whole range of other things, is fair, decent, and honorable. Most important, there is not a single thing we can do that is more worthy of our effort than protecting our children. That is what all of us on this floor--and many who are not--today are playing a part in doing.

Again, I close by thanking John Walsh.

I yield the floor.