Dru's Law

I rise today to describe S. 792, a bipartisan piece of legislation called ``Dru's Law,'' which I introduced in the Senate yesterday.

This bill seeks to fill some gaping holes in our criminal justice system, made tragically evident by a recent tragedy in North Dakota.

In November 2003, Dru Sjodin, a student at the University of North Dakota, was abducted in the parking lot of a Grand Forks shopping mall. She was found in a ditch in Minnesota some 6 months later.

A suspect was eventually arrested and is awaiting trial. There is abundant evidence that he was responsible for Dru's abduction. The alleged assailant, Alfonso Rodriguez, Jr., had been released from prison only 6 months earlier, having served a 23-year sentence for rape in Minnesota. And what's more, Minnesota authorities had known that he was at high risk of committing another sexual assault if released.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections had rated Rodriguez as a ``type 3'' offender--meaning that he was at the highest risk for reoffending. In an evaluation conducted in January 2003, a prison psychiatrist wrote that Rodriguez had demonstrated ``a willingness to use substantial force, including the use of a weapon, in order to gain compliance from his victims.''

Despite this determination, the Minnesota Department of Corrections released Rodriguez in May 2003, and essentially washed its hands of the case. Since Rodriguez had served the full term of his sentence, the Department of Corrections imposed no further supervision on him at all.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections could have recommended that the State Attorney General seek what is known as a ``civil commitment.'' Under this procedure, a State court would have required Rodriguez to be confined as long as he posed a sufficient threat to the public, even if he had served his original sentence. But the State Attorney General was never notified that Rodriguez was getting out, and there was no chance for the Minnesota courts to consider the case.

So upon his release, Mr. Rodriguez went to live in Crookston, MN, completely unsupervised, a short distance from the Grand Forks shopping mall where Dru Sjodin was abducted.

To make matters worse, while Mr. Rodriguez registered as a sex offender in Minnesota, there was no indication of his release for nearby North Dakota communities. I suspect that most Americans would be surprised to learn that there is currently no national sex offender registry available to the public. So sex offender registries currently stop at State lines. Each State has its own sex offender registry, which tracks only its own residents.

For all intents and purposes, Rodriguez was free to prey on nearby communities in North Dakota, without fear of recognition.

This situation is simply unacceptable. We must do better. A recent study found that 72 percent of ``highest risk'' sexual offenders reoffend within 6 years of being released. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics has determined that sex offenders released from prison are over ten times more likely to be arrested for a sexual crime than individuals who have no record of sexual assault. We cannot just release such individuals with no supervision whatsoever, and let them prey upon an unsuspecting public.

Today, I am reintroducing legislation that will hopefully help to prevent such breakdowns in our criminal justice system, and that will give our citizens the tools to better protect themselves from sexual offenders.

This bill is cosponsored by Senator Specter, the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It also has a growing list of bipartisan cosponsors, which currently includes Senators Conrad, Dayton, Coleman, Lugar, Johnson, and Durbin.

The bill does the following three things:

First, it requires the Justice Department to create a national sex offender database accessible to the public through the Internet--with data drawn from the FBI's existing National Sex Offender Registry. This public website would allow users to specify a search radius across State lines, providing much more complete information on nearby sex offenders.

Second, it requires State prisons to notify States attorneys whenever ``high risk'' offenders are about to be released, so that States attorneys can consider petitioning the courts for continued confinement of the offender. The ``civil commitment'' option is available under the law in many States, if an individual is deemed a continuing threat to the public safety. In the Dru Sjodin case, prison officials did not alert the States attorney of Rodriguez' impending release. If they had done so, this tragedy might have been avoided.

Third, it requires states to monitor ``high-risk'' offenders who are released after serving their full sentence--and

are otherwise not subject to probation or other supervision--for a period of no less than 1 year.

The cost of these steps would be shared by the Federal Government and the States. The Federal Government would bear the cost of maintaining the national sex offender registry, and the States would bear the cost of supervising high risk offenders upon their release from prison.

To ensure compliance with these measures, the legislation would reduce Federal funding for prison construction by 25 percent for those States that did not comply, and would reallocate such funds to States that do comply with those provisions. This will be the ``stick'' that some States may need to ensure that they comply with these important protections.

I should note that this identical legislation was passed in the Senate toward the conclusion of the 108th Congress. It passed by unanimous consent, with the support of Senator Hatch, who was then the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and also with the support of Senator Leahy, who was--and remains--the ranking member of the committee.

Regrettably, the House of Representatives did not act on Dru's Law before adjourning in the last Congress, and so we must start the legislative process on this bill again in the 109th Congress. But I am committed to getting this done, and I expect that the House will pass Dru's Law in this Congress.

Our thoughts and prayers go to Dru Sjodin's family. I cannot guarantee that that passage of the legislation we are introducing today will prevent such tragedies from ever occurring again. But I believe that it will be a significant step toward making our neighborhoods safer for our loved ones.

In recent weeks, we have had some very sad reminders of the need for such legislation. In February, 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford was abducted and murdered in Florida by a previously convicted sexual offender. The offender fled across State lines to Georgia, where he was apprehended. He has now confessed to this brutal crime. Had he not been arrested, he might well have offended again. This was, again, a reminder that while sex offender registries currently stop at State lines, sex offenders do not.

Mark Lunsford, Jessica's father, has written in strong support of this bill.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to secure passage of this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, my agreement with the majority leader was that we would pass by consent S. 792 which the Senate passed by consent last year. We are now passing it once again to go to the House. This deals with sexual predators. This legislation is called ``Dru's Law.''

My colleagues and I who have joined together to pass this legislation tonight do so in honor of this wonderful young woman who was tragically murdered in a parking lot in Grand Forks, ND. The man accused of murdering Dru Sjodin spent 23 years in prison. He was a violent sexual predator who was let of prison with a wave. So long. Check in now and then. Compare that, for example, to Martha Stewart, who was let out of prison but had to wear an electronic ankle bracelet.

Violent sexual predators judged to be at high risk for committing another violent sexual act are let out of prison with a wave. As a result, this young woman, Dru Sjodin, was tragically murdered. This is the man who spent 23 years behind bars. The psychiatrists said before he was released that he was a high risk for committing another violent sexual act. Within 6 months, he is now accused of murdering this young woman.

It is not only this man. It is Mr. Duncan. Remember the last couple of weeks, the two young children kidnapped, one murdered. The other is still alive, with her family dead. We know about this man. He raped a 16-year-old boy at gunpoint, a violent sexual predator. Last April, he was put in the arms of law enforcement and let out on $15,000 bail. More Americans are dead because of it.

This is not some mysterious illness for which we don't know the cure. We know what causes it and we know how to stop it. Again, if Martha Stewart has to wear an electronic ankle bracelet ordered by a judge, then surely violent sexual predators, when and if released, can be highly monitored by local governments. Surely, we ought to decide that if violent sexual predators are a high risk for reoffending, then the local State's attorney ought to be notified in case they want to seek a civil commitment to protect the public at large.

This bill does three things: One, create a national sex offender registry; No. 2, if a violent offender judged to be at high-risk is to be released from prison, the local State's attorney must first be notified so they can seek additional civil commitment; No. 3, if a high-risk sexual predator is released, then there must be maintenance and monitoring of that sex offender. No more ``so long, see you at the prison door,'' for a violent sexual predator.

We must stop this. How many more Americans will lose their lives? How many kids are going to be killed before we do the right thing?

Tonight the Senate takes an important step in the right direction. Senator Specter and I and others who have authored this legislation-- Senators Dayton, Clinton, and others--have decided that enough is enough. It is long past time to do what is right with respect to dealing with sexual predators and protecting the American people. We do this in the name of and in honor of Dru Sjodin, a young woman who tragically lost her life.

Perhaps in her name, with this legislation, we can save other lives. I feel good about what we do tonight in passing Dru's Law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 3045, the House-passed CAFTA legislation. I further ask consent that the statutory debate time be reduced to 20 minutes, equally divided, and that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on the measure without intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, that is correct. I have two unanimous consent requests. One is on S. 792, and one is on the energy report.

Mr. President, I will go through the whole schedule shortly, if I can get through the unanimous consent request. Very briefly, we will have a rollcall vote on CAFTA in about 30 minutes, 25 minutes. Whenever we finish that, it would be the last rollcall vote tonight. We will begin voting again tomorrow.

I have two further unanimous consent requests, and then we can review everything.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I appreciate everyone's patience and courtesy this afternoon as we worked through this matter that led to our agreeing to this agreement just a minute ago. It has been very difficult. It is a very contentious issue. Feelings are high on both sides. Everyone acted like ladies and gentlemen. We worked it out, and I think it speaks well of the Senate.

I would ask the distinguished majority leader, having reserved the right to object on his latest request, it is my understanding that immediately upon this request being adopted, we will go to S. 792; is that right?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 792 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Dorgan substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.