House Report 107-527 - LIFETIME CONSEQUENCES FOR SEX OFFENDERS ACT OF 2002

[House Report 107-527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-527

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

LIFETIME CONSEQUENCES FOR SEX OFFENDERS ACT OF 2002

_______

June 24, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following

R E P O R T

together with

DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 4679]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 4679) To amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide a maximum term of supervised release of life for child
sex offenders, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended
do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Vote of the Committee............................................ 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
Markup Transcript................................................ 6
Dissenting Views................................................. 29
The amendments are as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. SUPERVISED RELEASE TERM FOR SEX OFFENDERS.

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

Amend the title so as to read:

A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide
a maximum term of supervised release of life for sex offenders.

Purpose and Summary

H.R. 4679, the ``Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders
Act of 2002'' would allow Federal judges to include, as part of
any sentence of a convicted sex offender, a term of supervised
release for any term of years or life. The court may terminate
the term of supervised release and discharge the defendant at
any time after 1 year if the court is satisfied that such
action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the
interest of justice. This will provide judges with more
discretion in dealing with sex offenders since such offenses
presently carry a maximum of one to 5 years of supervision. The
law currently allows for lifetime supervision of certain
Federal drug and terrorism offenses.

Background and Need for the Legislation

Studies have shown that sex offenders are four times more
likely than other violent criminals to recommit their crimes.
Moreover, the recidivism rates do not appreciably decline as
offenders age. According to the United States Department of
Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, since 1980, the number
of prisoners sentenced for violent sexual assault other than
rape increased by an annual average of nearly 15 percent--
faster than any other category of violent crime.
Another factor that makes these numbers disturbing is that
many serious sex crimes are never even reported to authorities.
National data and criminal justice experts indicate that sex
offenders are apprehended for a fraction of the crimes they
actually commit. By some estimates, only one in every three to
five serious sex offenses are reported to authorities and only
3 percent of such crimes ever result in the apprehension of an
offender.
While any criminal's subsequent re-offending is of public
concern, preventing sexual offenders from re-offending is
particularly important, given the irrefutable and irreparable
harm that these offenses cause victims and the fear they
generate in the community. Sexual assault is a terrifying crime
which leaves its victims with physical, emotional, and
psychological scars and affects everyone around them.
This legislation will give Judges the discretion necessary
to impose a term of supervised release that is appropriate for
each defendant. Authorities will be able to monitor those sex
offenders that pose the greatest threat to our society for as
long as the court feels they are a danger. It is important to
note that there are no mandatory requirements contained in this
bill. If a Judge decides that supervision is not necessary,
then there is no requirement to impose any term of supervised
release.

Hearings

There were no hearings held on H.R. 4679.

Committee Consideration

On June 19, 2002, the Committee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4679, with amendment,
by voice vote, a quorum being present.

Vote of the Committee

1. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott. The amendment
would have limited a court's ability to impose a term of
supervised release for any term of years or life to only felony
offenses under chapters 109A, 110, 117, or section 1591 of
title 18, not misdemeanors. The amendment was defeated by
rollcall vote of 5 to 17.

ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Gekas....................................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Barr........................................................
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon......................................................
Mr. Graham...................................................... X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Ms. Hart........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................
Mr. Frank....................................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan......................................................
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin..................................................... X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff...................................................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 5 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Oversight Findings

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

Performance Goals and Objectives

H.R. 4679 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
is inapplicable.

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

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

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 4679, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 24, 2002.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4679, the Lifetime
Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2002.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J.
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.

Enclosure

cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 4679--Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2002.
H.R. 4679 would amend the Federal criminal code to provide
that the maximum term of supervised release for sex offenders
would be for life. Supervised release is a period of court-
ordered monitoring following release from incarceration. CBO
estimates that implementing H.R. 4679 would have a negligible
effect on the Federal budget over the 2003-2007 period.
Because the bill would not affect direct spending or
receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. The bill
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no
direct costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
Based on information from the U.S. Sentencing Commission
and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts on
the number of sex offenders and the costs of supervised
release, CBO expects that most of the convicted sex offenders
who would receive longer supervised release sentences as a
result of implementing the bill would be those who also receive
prison sentences longer than 5 years. Therefore, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 4679 would have a negligible effect on
the cost of supervised release over the next 5 years. The cost
of providing supervised release could increase after several
years if sex offenders are sentenced to longer periods of
supervised release.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J.
Walker, who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was
approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.

Constitutional Authority Statement

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, section 8 of the Constitution.

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

The short title of the bill is the ``Lifetime Consequences
for Sex Offenders Act of 2002.''

SECTION 2. SUPERVISED RELEASE TERM FOR SEX OFFENDERS

Section 2 of the bill amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583 which
grants Federal courts the authority to include a term of
supervised release after imprisonment. Under this section, a
court would be authorized to impose a term of supervised
release of any terms of years or life for any offense under
chapters 109A (Sexual abuse), 110 (Sexual exploitation and
other abuse of children), 117 (Transportation for illegal
sexual activity and related crimes), or section 1591 (Sex
trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion) of title
18. Under current law, a term of supervised release for any of
these crimes would be limited to a maximum term of between one
and 5 years. The only crimes for which a court may currently
impose a life term of supervised release are certain Federal
drug and terrorism offenses.

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

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

SECTION 3583 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 3583. Inclusion of a term of supervised release after imprisonment

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(k) Supervised Release Terms for Sex Offenders.--
Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized term of
supervised release for any offense under chapter 109A, 110,
117, or section 1591 is any term of years or life.

Markup Transcript

BUSINESS MEETING

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2002

House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:29 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A
working quorum is present.
[Intervening business.]
Pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill H.R. 4679, the
``Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2002,'' for
purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the
House. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read
and open for amendment at any point.
[The bill, H.R. 4679, follows:]

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Smith, the Subcommittee Chairman, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4679, the ``Lifetime Consequences for
Sex Offenders Act of 2002,'' was introduced by Representative
George Gekas, and it would allow Federal judges to include, as
part of any sentence of a convicted sex offender, a term of
supervised release. The court would end the term of supervised
release and discharge the defendant at any time after 1 year,
if the court is satisfied that such action is warranted by the
conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice.
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and will yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Gekas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman from Texas has adequately described the
boundaries of our piece of legislation. What we want to
emphasize for the Members is that what we do here is reposit
discretion in the judge to deal with each sex offense that
comes before him with a wider latitude of supervised release
that might be appropriate for a given case.
We have in this Committee fashioned legislation previously,
for drug offenses and for terrorism cases, a zero to lifetime
ability of judges to order and direct supervised release. And
as I say, that could last for a lifetime, depending on the
circumstances of the case, for which we allow the judge to
exercise discretion.
Well, everybody knows that in sex cases, particularly
pedophile, those sick kind of cases about which we read too
much these days, that the proclivity for recidivism is higher
than in any other kind of case. So what do we have? We have a
situation where the most that supervised release can be
obtained for such a case under the current law is 5 years, if
it's a serious enough felony, and only 3 years if it's a lesser
categorized sex offense. What we do here now is match the drug
offender and the terrorism offender with the sex offender,
where we know recidivism is a constant element of this kind of
offense, and we allow the judge to impose higher than the 5
years or the 3 years of supervised release. And that
discretion, I have to remind the Members, also allows a
reduction after a certain number of years or a total ending of
the supervision.
So, again, we rely on the judge who has the sex offender in
front of him to be able to determine under the facts of that
case how much supervised release there ought to be and how much
punishment should follow a breach of such supervision.
With that, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Smith. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to this bill absent any standard
for application of lifetime supervision. This bill would make
subject to lifetime supervision misdemeanors and cases
involving consensual acts, including consensual touching
between high school students who are still teenagers.
There may be cases for which consideration for such
treatment is warranted but not all of the cases falling under
this bill. Although judges have the discretion to impose
lifetime supervision or not, the tendency is likely to see it
as safer to impose it whether it's needed or not.
And because it deals with cases in Federal jurisdiction, it
will have a disparate racial impact on Native Americans, which
will comprise about 75 percent of the cases in Federal
jurisdiction. This bill was on the calendar for a Subcommittee
hearing and markup, where we could have addressed these issues
and concerns. But for some reason, it was taken off the
calendar and brought directly to the full Committee. In an
effort to improve the bill, I'll offer amendments aimed at
focusing the bill on the type of cases that might warrant
considerations of lifetime supervision.
I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, all Members may
insert opening statements at this point in the record.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there any amendments?
The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. I have an amendment at the desk, number 1.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott 1.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4679, offered by Mr. Scott. On
page 2, line 4, after chapter 109A, insert ``excluding section
2243(a), section 2244(a)(2), (3), (4), and section 2244(b).''
On page 2, line 4----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this would eliminate misdemeanors and
consensual sexual activities, including touching between high
school students and sex crimes between consenting adults.
Perhaps some sex crimes warrant lifetime supervision of
offenders, but without requiring any guidelines or reviews, we
are unnecessarily subjecting misdemeanor offenders and other
minor offenders to life sentences. In overzealous context of
indiscriminately ferreting out sex offenders for harsher
treatment, there are likely to be judges who, like lawmakers
promoting such policies, prefer to err on the side of harsh
treatment in order to avoid possible criticism they were not as
tough as they could have been should the offender recidivate.
Now, for many of the crimes covered under this provision,
lifetime supervision would be a lot more about enforcing
conditions of supervision than about preventing additional sex
crimes. Offenders will be in and out of prison not for new
offenses but for violations of the conditions of supervision.
This will not only be unfair to what may be a very minor
offender but a waste of taxpayer resources.
I urge the adoption of the amendment as some limitation on
potential abuses of discretion due to overzealous attention to
a volatile issue.
The provision is rife with the prospects for unfairness in
its application for another reason. The Sentencing Commission
data reflects that if we pass Federal laws such as this--the
Sentencing Commission data reflects that when we pass Federal
laws such as this, they only apply in Federal jurisdictions,
and 75 percent or more of those affected would be Native
Americans on reservations. It is unfair for offenders in the
same State to face vastly differing harshness in treatment for
the same offense simply because of where the crime within the
State was committed.
I urge my colleagues to pass the amendment. I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Gekas.
Mr. Gekas. Yes, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gekas. I thank the Chair.
What I said in the opening statement applies to my position
in opposition to the Scott amendment. The key element to the
entire piece of legislation that we have before us is the
discretion of the judge. And this matches that same discretion
that applies to drug offenses and to terrorism offenses as
outlined in our PATRIOT Act.
Giving the judge discretion on these matters is one in
which that judge can take into account all the factors to which
the gentleman from Virginia refers. And if it's a case that is
out of bounds in his or her mind, the judge's, as to lifetime
supervision, he can order 1 year of supervision or he can order
10 years of supervision, and then when the offender comes back
with some kind of application for modification of that
supervision, he can lower it, the judge can.
And so this discretion in an area where proclivity for
recidivism is the highest among any of the offenses that we can
conjure up, then to allow a judge this discretion is very
necessary.
I talked with two Federal judges on this very same matter.
As a matter of fact, the matter was brought to my attention by
a Federal judge who is frustrated by the fact that the
supervision ends after 5 years in a case which he thought would
be one which merited lifetime supervision.
There is a body of study results which indicates that when
supervision is a part of a sex offender's life, that recidivism
is prevented or at least set back for a number of years.
Therefore, I ask for a rejection of the Scott amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the
gentlewoman from California seek recognition?
Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Waters. I would like to support Representative Scott.
This bill is an example of the kind of piecemeal legislation in
the criminal justice area that we really should not support.
We have many sex crimes that are being committed where the
States have the jurisdiction. All of the sex offenses we are
seeing that have occurred in the Catholic Church, where priests
have committed sex crimes over and over again against children,
would not be covered by this. This is just for a narrow
category of sex offenders that fall under Federal law and, as
Representative Scott said, mostly on Native Americans.
This is not a good piece of legislation. It's not a wise
piece of legislation. And I think it attempts to send a signal
that we are getting tough on crime and tough on sex offenses,
and we're going to give the judge the ability to monitor these
criminals for life, et cetera, et cetera.
It may have the appearance of that, but it does nothing to
deal with the large majority of sex offenders who are punished
under State law.
I would ask my colleagues not to support this very narrowly
drawn bill that would simply single out a small segment of our
society for lifelong supervision. It just really does not make
good sense.
I would yield back the balance----
Mr. Issa. Will the gentlelady yield? Would the gentlelady
yield?
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Perhaps I could ask just a quick question. If
this is so narrow, and there is clearly a need for a national
supervision policy, then would you support, in the alternative,
if this is voted down, and in the future after reasonable
study, a national sex offender policy that would take those
people guilty of Federal and State offenses and, once they are
released from State jurisdiction, that they would fall under a
national review policy?
Would you support that, in order to broaden this, assuming
that we have appropriate hearings?
Ms. Waters. Yes, I absolutely would. And let me tell you
something else I'd put into a law like that: I would
particularly target individuals, adults, who have jobs and
careers that bring them in contact with children, because we
have discovered that people who commit sex offenses against
children over and over again seek opportunities to work with
children. And I think those who place themselves in some
responsible role, supervising and working with children, should
certainly have the harshest penalties and lifelong supervision.
I certainly would.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman yield back?
Ms. Waters. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Green. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Green, seek recognition?
Mr. Green. Move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment. What I find so
interesting in this Committee, as we try to deal with the very
serious problem of sex crimes against kids, we are first
criticized for being overly broad, and then we're criticized
for being overly narrow. It's tough for us to figure out just
what it is that we should be doing here.
Let me criticize the Scott amendment from a slightly
different standpoint than my friend and colleague, Mr. Gekas,
the author of the underlying bill.
Mr. Gekas has pointed out the great discretion the judges
have here. I would almost wish they didn't have as much
discretion. I would rather see mandatory lifetime monitoring.
This isn't about being tough on crime. This isn't posturing
for being tough on crime. This is giving judges the tools to
prevent sex crimes against kids, because we know that sex
crimes against kids--those monsters who perpetrate sex crimes
against kids have among the highest recidivism rates of any
type of offender.
What we're trying to do here is to give judges the ability
to intervene and to stop it from happening again. That's why we
have lifetime supervision, because we want to stop these crimes
from occurring over and over again.
The gentlelady is right; too many times these crimes occur
over and over again. And we've seen the scandal in the Catholic
Church. And as a good Catholic myself, I look at it as
monstrosity and atrocity and tragedy.
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Green. No, let me finish my statement if I can.
The key is, I think, when we find someone who does
perpetrate a crime, a sex crime against kids, that I think we
need to intervene immediately. With first-time offenders, I
think a judge should have the ability for lifetime monitoring.
If a judge has before him an adult and looks at this person as
being a genuine risk, I think the judge should have every right
to impose lifetime supervision. To me, that only makes sense.
The judge--this legislation comes because Congressman Gekas
was contacted by a Federal judge who said he or she needed
additional tools to prevent sex crimes against kids. What we
have in this legislation, in my view, is a very modest approach
to doing just that. And yet, we see with the Scott amendment an
effort to pull certain crimes out, to narrow the scope of much
of this as possible.
Please, when the Federal judiciary comes to us, looking for
help, asking for tools to deal with what is a very serious
crime, a crime that tears communities and families apart, that
destroys the future of children, robs them of their innocence,
let's try to give these judges the tools they need to do the
job.
Please reject the Scott----
Ms. Waters. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Green.--amendment, and let's support the underlying
bill.
And with the time I have left, I'd be happy to yield to the
gentlelady.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Issa asked me a question about whether or
not I would support lifetime monitoring if in fact it covered
State sex offenses, and I'm going to ask you the same thing.
And would you also support legislation such as I've alluded to,
where we would especially make it even harsher for adults who
are in supervisory roles over children, and particularly the
church and the Catholic Church, as we have seen these abuses
now? Would you do that?
Mr. Green. I am the author of the Two Strikes and You're
Out for those who commit sex crimes against kids, so I'm on
record on saying I'll be pretty harsh toward those who do
commit these crimes.
Ms. Waters. That's not my question, though.
Mr. Green. It was one of your questions.
And with respect to State supervision, in my home State, we
already do provide for much greater supervision than is current
law on the Federal law. So, yes, I do support the idea of
enhanced long-term supervision of sex offenders. I think that
is part of the answer without what we need to do.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Watt.
Mr. Watt. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I confess that I don't know a lot about supervised release.
I guess when I was practicing law it was in the era before--it
was in the era of when you got convicted and sentenced and went
to jail and served your time. And when you got out, that was
kind of--you had paid your debt to society. And then we got to
things like Megan's Law. We started making lists of people and
keeping a register of people.
We now have supervised release, which is really a term that
I am not even familiar with. So can I--maybe I can get Mr.
Scott to clarify.
How does this differ from probation, the good, old-
fashioned probation that we used to think about?
Mr. Scott. I think it's pretty much the same. You're
released on conditions, and they set the conditions any kind of
way they want. You violate the conditions, you go back to jail.
Mr. Watt. And the conditions are set at the initial
sentencing for the rest of a person's life, or is there
periodic review of this? What happens?
Mr. Scott. It can be they tell you to report to the
probation/parole department, and then they say, ``You are
released. Here are the conditions. And do this and do that.
We're going to supervise you. If you don't show up on time, you
can go back to jail.''
And that's one of the problems. If you violate the
conditions of your release under supervision, that's a
violation and they'll send you back to prison. And we're
talking about misdemeanor, consensual acts.
I mean, all these things--you're talking about touching,
fully clothed. You touch someone on certain parts of their
body----
Mr. Watt. Let me reclaim my time----
Mr. Scott.--through the clothing----
Mr. Watt.--just to ask, in the absence of your amendment,
basically then a judge with unlimited discretion, no guidance,
has the authority to basically set whatever terms he wants for
the rest of somebody's life for a consensual act?
Mr. Scott. According to the bill, misdemeanors and
consensual activities--and not talking about--you know, if a
19-year-old and a 15-year-old are on a date, things that
routinely happen in the movies. I mean, people watching the
movies touch certain parts of the body, consensual.
Mr. Watt. I wouldn't know anything about that. [Laughter.]
Mr. Scott. Well, take my word for it.
You can be convicted of a crime and then subjected to
lifetime supervision.
So if you violate--8 years from now, if you violate the
conditions of your release, you're back in jail.
Mr. Watt. Mr. Chairman, I guess this just seems very
troubling to me. And I confess that I am not convinced that
this is a good idea, simply because we did it in the terrorism
bill. Maybe there would be the rationale in that kind of
context. I'm certainly not convinced that it's a good idea
because we did it at some point on drug offenses. I suspect I
probably voted against that, if I had the opportunity to vote
against it.
I just think there is something inherently unfair about,
number one, not allowing somebody to serve their time and come
to grips with what they've done in the past and put it behind
them; and, number two, not giving judges some guidelines about
how they will exercise this discretion.
And, you know, my experience really is that when that kind
of unfettered discretion is given to judges, the result
typically is that it falls more harshly on various groups that
come into those courts and----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Watt. So I encourage a vote for Mr. Scott's amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Scott
amendment.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment
is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Number 3, I have an amendment at the desk,
number 3.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report Scott 3.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4679, offered by Mr. Scott. On
page 2, line 3, after the word ``any,'' insert the word
``felony.''
[The amendment follows:]

Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate
misdemeanors from the coverage of this bill for reasons I've
already stated. There is no justification for turning a
misdemeanor into a life sentence.
And I just want to point out one of the things--one of the
offenses that's covered by bill, section 2422: Whoever
knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any
individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce or in
any territory or possession of the United States to engage in
prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a criminal offense or attempts to do so shall be
fined under this title and imprisoned no more than 10 years or
both.
Now, that means that if you're crossing State lines to go
to Virginia, where fornication is a crime, and you've crossed
from D.C. to go to a Virginia hotel to engage in that activity,
you can get lifetime supervision. I hope we'd at least confine
it to felonies.
I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Gekas.
Mr. Gekas. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gekas. And I ask the Members to vote against this
particular Scott amendment.
We keep returning to the precept of discretion in the
judge. When he or she sees some sex offender in front of him,
even if it's a misdemeanor, where perhaps in the past of this
sex offender, there was a previous case of a felony or some sex
offense that--on which society requires retaliation or
supervision, that even if it's not a felony, the case that's
before that judge, that judge should have the discretion for an
elongated period of supervision. It might not be lifetime with
respect to one who has committed a misdemeanor, but it may also
be appropriate when you look at the background, or the judge
does, of this individual who is now before that judge even on a
crime less than a felony.
In further response to the gentleman from North Carolina,
the title 18-relevant sections are full of factors and
guidelines for the sentencing judge and for the judge who
orders supervision, factors to be considered in including a
term of supervised release, two pages of factors and guidelines
that would help a judge outline what kind of supervision and
for how long it should last. This is a simple question of----
Mr. Watt. Would the gentleman yield just long enough to
give me a citation to what he is referring to?
Mr. Gekas. Title 18, 3583 and subsection--well, you'll see
the subsections that go all the way to the next subsection.
But anyway, what I'm saying to the Members of the Committee
is, this is a problem for our age, to deal with sex offenders.
It's for our era to take steps to prevent the kind of horrible
acts that we see daily in the newspaper. So if a sex offender
appears before a judge, shouldn't that judge have the
discretion in seeing the age of the victim, the circumstances
of the health--the health condition, the physical condition of
that victim as a result of that act, the psychological damage
that might have been caused to that child, the anguish of the
parents of a victim, the circumstances of the neighborhood in
which this occurred?
All of these factors go into not just adjudication of guilt
or innocence of the crime, but that's, most of the time, in
these kinds of cases, on a plea of guilty, it remains now for
the judge to apply all these factors to a release and how much
supervision there should be during the release of this
individual. To put this predator--convicted, acknowledged
predator--out into the neighborhood again, without supervision
or without adequate supervision, is a crime that we're
perpetrating, if we allow it to occur.
This is all a question of a defendant in front of a judge
where the judge has just heard the horrible circumstances of a
predatory act and who looks this defendant squarely in the eyes
and determines that this individual has to be supervised for
months and years. Or he may determine, from that same look into
the eyes of the defendant, that a short period of supervised
release will do very well to try to prevent a repetition of the
kind of offense.
I ask for rejection of the Scott amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the
gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, seek recognition?
Ms. Waters. Yes, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Waters. I rise in support of Mr. Scott's amendment. It
is sensible. It is the most logical amendment that could be
offered to try to make this a better piece of legislation.
I don't know if the Members were listening when Mr. Scott
described that a 16-year-old and a 19-year-old could become--
well, a 19-year-old, say, male could become the victim in this
case, and be relegated to supervision for the rest of his life
because he was in a movie with a 16-year-old and they were
petting and touching and feeling, and that they could end up
coming up under this act even though it was consensual.
Now, I know that oftentimes we do things for various
reasons, as public policymakers and elected officials.
Oftentimes, we forget about what society is really like. You
forget about your sons. You forget about your daughters.
And then when you find that you've got a 19- or a 20-year-
old son who ends up with a record because they were petting in
a movie and is under lifetime supervision, and that's a part of
his record, and he'll never ever be able to get a job again,
because he's under the supervision of the Federal court for
having petted when he was 19 years old, then you look to
liberals to change the law, to do something about those
situations.
This doesn't make good sense. This is a perfectly sensible
amendment. Even if you believe there should be lifetime
supervision for every sex offender, certainly you can
distinguish between a misdemeanor and a felony. This amendment
simply says: Confine it to felonies.
And again, Mr. Gekas, I must say to you, who said in your
remarks that the time has come when we do something about sex
offenders, we are all repelled by sex offenses, and
particularly sex offenses against children. We don't like it.
We want to do more about it.
I wish you would use some of your energy to do something
about these pedophile priests, who are abusing these children
over and over again and protected by the Catholic Church. And
there has not been a word on the floor from Catholics. There's
not been a word on the floor from the leadership. There's not
been a word on the floor from Republicans about dealing with
this issue.
And I wish, if you really believe that the time has come
that the Republicans use their leadership in this House to deal
with the fact that many, many, many children have been abused
in the Catholic Church, have been protected at the highest
levels of the Catholic Church, and they're still running around
and going to some conference that says, ``Maybe it's all right
if you offend one time. But if you offend two times''----
Ms. Hart. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Waters.--``then you should be apprehended.''
And I believe, Mr. Gekas, if you really do believe----
Ms. Hart. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Waters. I beg your pardon?
I beg your pardon?
Mr. Issa. The gentlelady wanted to make a point of order.
Ms. Waters. There is no point of order.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A point of order is not in order at
this time.
Ms. Waters. There is no point of order.
I believe, Mr. Gekas, if you're serious about doing
something about sex offenses, and particularly those committed
against children, we will undertake some real legislation to
deal with the issue and not simply talk about tying up
someone's life with supervision for a misdemeanor perhaps that
was committed when one was 19 years old in a consensual
setting.
I think that it's unwise to proceed with this legislation,
with misdemeanors included. I think, again, the request to
confine it felonies makes good sense. And I would ask the
Members to just be sensible in the way that they treat this
legislation.
Mr. Scott. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Waters. I yield.
Mr. Scott. The gentlelady used an example of two teenagers.
This covers consensual acts of adults going across State lines.
So if two adults in Washington, D.C., agree to cross State
lines to go to Virginia to commit fornication, that would be
covered by this bill.
Ms. Waters. That's even worse.
I hope that you're listening to Mr. Scott. I hope that
you're not allowing the fact that this is an election year to
color and cloud your----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair moves to strike the last
word and recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
When this Committee has had before it mandatory sentencing
legislation, we have heard from many of the people who are
complaining about this bill that we should not tie the hands of
judges, that mandatory sentences are bad, that the judge should
not base the sentence--based upon the Sentencing Guidelines and
upon the evidence as well as any right of allocution that is
given to the victims or the victims' families.
Now what this bill proposes to do is to give the judges
discretion to have supervision last for a longer period of
time. It empowers the judges to apply the facts and the
evidence and whatever testimony was given during allocution in
determining what the proper period of supervision should be.
And this is a particularly sensitive area, given the fact
that the recidivism rate for people who are convicted of
pedophilia is close to 100 percent. There is little or no
rehabilitation involved in pedophiles. And I think that that's
been quite plain.
Now, on the issue of pedophiles and the Roman Catholic
clergy, the criminal law applies to them just as it applies to
everybody else. And it is up to the prosecuting authorities,
whether it be at the State or the Federal level, to determine
whether or not to commence prosecution against a priest who is
accused of a crime, whether it is a sex crime or anything else.
The issue of the continued membership of these people in
the priesthood is a condition of employment. It is not a
condition of the criminal code. And this Committee does not
have jurisdiction over conditions of employment. That
legislation is done by another Committee in the House of
Representatives.
But it seems to me that we as a State should tread very
carefully when we get involved in conditions of employment of
members of the clergy of any religious denomination. I think
the conditions of employment are going to have to be decided by
the churches themselves, pursuant to their own church law and
their own church employment policy, rather than having a
Federal Government pass a one-size-fits-all policy.
So if the churches make mistakes, then they're going to
have to suffer from that as a result of a reaction of the
membership of the church both in terms of church attendance as
well as in terms of contributions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Waters. Will the gentleman yield?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the
last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank Mr. Gekas. Contrary to
probably popular opinion, I do try to listen to what people say
during the course of this debate. And he has directed me to the
statute that has some guidelines in it, which actually makes me
feel a little bit better--not enough to support the bill or not
enough to vote against Mr. Scott's amendment. But there are
some guidelines, some of which are very troubling, I would
point out.
The first one says that the court, in determining the
particular sentence to be imposed, and that now includes this
supervised release shall consider----
Ms. Lofgren. I'm sorry.
Mr. Watt. You're trying to censor me? [Laughter.]
Ms. Lofgren. I wasn't. It was a mistake.
Mr. Watt.--shall consider ``the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of the
defendant.''
You know, there are some people on this Committee who have
gone--and this debate points it up. The Chairman's remarks put
this in perspective.
Twenty, 25 years ago, a number of us started to advocate
for mandatory minimum sentences to take discretion away from
judges because they were using that discretion in ways that
took into account things that we thought ought not to have been
taken into account. We were guilty of buying into mandatory
minimums for that reason, only to find that the mandatory
minimums had a substantially disproportionate impact in our
communities because the decisions about prosecution--who was
getting prosecuted and charged with crimes that required
mandatory minimums, as opposed to those that didn't require
mandatory minimums--were being made by people who were taking
considerations into account that we thought were inappropriate.
And the decisions about sentencing under those mandatory
minimums were being made inappropriately. And the decisions
about arrests in the communities were being made, oftentimes,
on factors that were inappropriate.
So forgive us if we have some uneasiness about these kinds
of general standards that in this case talk about the
``characteristics'' of the defendant. That does not set some of
us at ease for historical reasons, for the same reasons that
some of us are not set at ease to go back to a day in the FBI
when people can start to spy, when the FBI can start to spy on
whoever they want to and show up at any meeting, because we
know that that was applied in ways that it was never intended
to be applied.
So we've got a problem here. And I'm laying this out on the
table. We get really concerned about how these things will play
themselves out. And in this context, we know going in that
because this applies only in Federal statutes, you're going to
have an immediate disproportionate impact on Native Americans
because they're the ones who are always covered under the
Federal statutes, and we know that there is going to be an
immediate disproportionate impact.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman's time has expired.
For what purpose does the gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa, seek----
Mr. Issa. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Issa. To my colleague Mr. Watt, I would mention that
although I have the same concerns about our scope being narrow
and perhaps this not being a perfect bill, that no one else has
jurisdiction on a reservation other than us. So if we don't
move to deal with that, then we would leave a group who, if
they commit crimes on the reservation, might not be available
at all----
Mr. Watt. Will the gentleman yield just briefly on that
point?
Mr. Issa. Yes.
Mr. Watt. I'm sure he's aware that the tribes have
jurisdiction over their own criminal justice system. So just
because you don't control it, doesn't mean nobody's
controlling--just because we don't control it, it doesn't mean
nobody's controlling it.
Mr. Issa. Reclaiming my time, I think Mr. Scott's amendment
has great potential value. But in fairness to the author, Mr.
Gekas, I think that the two need to be merged. And I would ask
if the gentleman would allow for a technical correction to be
done by staff on his word ``felony'' to make sure that it
includes both a felony being looked at that time and a record
of felony, so that Mr. Gekas' concern over someone who may be
in front of the judge on a misdemeanor, or may even plead to a
lesser offense being a misdemeanor, is covered by his history
of sex felonies.
Is that something that Mr. Scott would accept?
Mr. Scott. I would accept that as a technical amendment.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Issa. I would yield.
Ms. Lofgren. At the risk of disrupting a potential
compromise, I would argue against the proposal.
Mr. Issa. Reclaiming my time then, Mr. Gekas, would you
accept that to meet your concerns?
Mr. Gekas. I believe that those concerns, all of them, are
met by the fact that the offender in front of the judge is
subject to the discretion of that same judge. And all the
factors that you can name, any of them, are to be considered at
that time and a proper exercised discretion allows for dealing
with these sex offenders.
I also should add that if there is a disproportionate
supervised release imposed by the judge, that too is subject to
attack by the offender's attorneys, appellate jurisdiction,
modification of sentencing and all of that.
I'm very happy and satisfied with the ability of a judge to
look at the scenario in front of him and apply proper
supervisory release.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Reclaiming my time, if Mr. Scott is still willing to allow
that amendment or that revision, I would support his amendment,
in spite of perhaps other objections, because I do believe that
there is opening for abuse that, unless you're well-to-do, you
would not be able to overcome. And so as much as I appreciate
that there are two dissenting votes, Mr. Scott--have we met our
requirement to have that technical amendment done? Mr.
Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. It's not a technical amendment.
It's a substantive amendment.
Mr. Issa. Okay.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. You'd have to amend the amendment.
Mr. Issa. Then I guess I offer to amend that. Can that be
done----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Is the amendment in writing?
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, no, it is not.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, then the clerk has nothing to
report.
Mr. Issa. Well, then I find myself at a disadvantage at
this point.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that
Mr. Issa be allowed to offer that amendment orally.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then that, in a form of
a substitution, is offered.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. What is the amendment?
Mr. Issa. The amendment would be to have the word
``felony'' in Mr. Scott's amendment--it would remain the same--
include both felonies in front of the judge at that time and a
record of sex felonies under the same statutes. So any
defendant or any criminal who came before a judge----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Again, that is not in the proper
form. You have to submit the amendment in the proper form. You
cannot submit an idea and have it voted upon.
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I will
reluctantly, then, withdraw it. And I also reluctantly support
this bill in this----
Mr. Scott. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Issa. I will yield.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, if the amendment doesn't pass,
we're talking about, again, misdemeanor offenses getting life
supervision for which the person will be in and out of jail
simply for failing to show up, you know, just rinky-dink kind
of offenses for the rest of their life. I think that is
woefully overbroad, and I would hope the amendment would be
adopted.
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman from
California has expired.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek
recognition?
Ms. Lofgren. To strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. I believe that the amendment offered by Mr.
Scott, although obviously well-intended, might have an effect
that is opposite to what he might intend. And I'll give you an
example. It's under State law, but it could easily--this
situation could be exactly the same under the Federal statute.
In my own community, where an individual who is well-known
in our community was charged with molesting his stepdaughters--
it was a very high-profile trial. The girls were young. The
events happened some years ago. And the individual was
convicted by a jury but of a misdemeanor. The individual spent
his 1 year in the county jail and was required under California
law to register as a sex offender, which he failed to do. The
failure to register is a misdemeanor as well.
The daughters have testified and have said publicly they
are terrified that he is going to come after them again. And
the judge is now faced with either the ability to put this
individual, who apparently does pose a continuing threat, with
one conviction of a misdemeanor and a potential second
misdemeanor conviction, either in jail as a felon, because it's
a second misdemeanor with a prior, or unsupervised parole. And
in fact, the supervised parole might be the less severe
approach to this situation.
I'm not saying what the judge should do in this case.
That's up to judicial discretion, which is the point. The judge
needs to make a determination about public safety and the
protection of the public and the victims in these cases.
I am aware of the comments made by Mr. Watt that are
enormously important about disproportionate and racially biased
prosecutions that are the legacy of the criminal justice system
in this country. It's wrong, and it's outrageous. But the
amazing thing is that molesting children is the exception to
that general rule; it's an equal opportunity offense. And it's
one of the things that crosses economic and ethnic lines.
And I actually think that the bill that's been brought
forward is sensible. I'm glad to see that it vests judicial
discretion with judges in these cases, because the
characteristics that need to be considered by the judges relate
to the nature of the threat posed by the individual. I mean,
there are situations where you have a molester who has become
so aged that they may not pose the threat that they did at one
time. All of those factors need to be brought into play. And I
think that this gives a tool to a judge that is an alternative
to long-term incarceration. And that is something that we
should welcome to give to the judiciary.
So I understand that people have honest viewpoints that
differ, but I thought that this perspective might be worth
considering, and I offer that.
And I yield to Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. And I thank the gentlelady for
yielding.
The situation that the gentlelady has suggested is really
part of the problem. You have a situation where a person could
not be convicted of a felony. The evidence----
Ms. Lofgren. He could of, but he wasn't.
Mr. Scott. Well, the jury decided misdemeanor. And you're
going to convert the misdemeanor into a life sentence. That's
the----
Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, under California law, the
misdemeanor following the prior misdemeanor can be--it's a
wobbler and can be charged as a felony under California law or
as a misdemeanor.
The point I'm trying to make is that by giving discretion
to the judge, you have to give an alternative to a long-term
incarceration in appropriate cases. Instead, you can do a
parole or a supervised parole. And especially in the case of
child molesting, where the recidivism rate is almost 100
percent, I think just releasing a child molester is a very
dangerous thing to do. And to provide for tools to law
enforcement for individuals to be supervised and not
incarcerated for the rest of their lives or for 20 years is
something that we ought to give the judiciary to use in their
sound discretion.
And I would yield further to Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. I'll just point out that, again, is convicted of
a misdemeanor and, as you've said, you could convert it into a
life sentence, for which he'll be in and out of prison for the
rest of his life based on technical violations. If you've got
somebody who has committed a felony, convict them of the
felony.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, reclaiming my time, I think giving the
discretion is a sound thing to do.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Ms. Lofgren. And I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on Scott Amendment
3.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The noes appear to have it. The noes have it, and----
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, recorded vote?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A recorded vote is requested. Those
in favor of Scott amendment 3 will, as your names are called,
answer aye. Those opposed, no.
And the clerk will call the role.
The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Gekas?
Mr. Gekas. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gekas, no.
Mr. Coble?
Mr. Coble. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Coble, no.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no.
Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no.
Mr. Barr?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Graham?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no.
Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no.
Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no.
Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Hart?
Ms. Hart. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Hart, no.
Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no.
Mr. Forbes?
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no.
Mr. Conyers?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Frank?
Mr. Frank. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Frank, aye.
Mr. Berman?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Nadler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Scott?
Mr. Scott. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Scott, aye.
Mr. Watt?
Mr. Watt. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Watt, aye.
Ms. Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren, no.
Ms. Jackson Lee?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye.
Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin, aye.
Mr. Weiner?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
Mr. Schiff. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Schiff, no.
Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members in the
chamber who wish to cast or change their vote?
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Graham.
Mr. Graham. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Graham, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa.
Mr. Issa. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their vote?
If not, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 5 ayes and 17 nays.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
Mr. Gekas. I ask unanimous consent it be considered as
read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No, the clerk will report the
amendment.
Mr. Gekas. Yes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. We'll pass it out first so folks
can see it.
Mr. Gekas. Yes.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 4679, offered by Mr. Gekas. On
the first page, line 6, strike ``child'' in the section
heading. Amend the title so as to----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]

Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gekas. These are technical amendments, Mr. Chairman,
that I ask the Members to adopt. They have to do with removing
the word ``child'' so that we don't give a misimpression as to
the total purview of the statute that includes other than child
offensives. And the technical amendment at the bottom of our
recommended amendment strikes a redundancy, with those sections
2421, 2422, 2423, and 2425, are already included in the basic
legislation that we have proposed.
These are recommended by the staff. I ask the Members to
approve the amendment.
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Scott, seek recognition?
Mr. Scott. I'll defer to----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from California,
Ms. Waters?
Ms. Waters. I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Waters. On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I think, so
that it is absolutely clear what this bill is, I would like to
ask the gentleman if he would consider adding the word
``Federal.'' ``To provide a maximum term of supervised release
of life for Federal sex offenders.'' Would he add the word
``Federal'' in between ``for'' and ``sex''?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from
Pennsylvania want to answer that?
Mr. Gekas. Yes. The legislation we propose modifies Federal
law. It's in the Federal body of statutes. It is a Federal
attempt--an attempt to give Federal judges discretion. And it's
just redundant to say ``Federal.'' It is federal.
Ms. Waters. Reclaiming my time, the reason I ask for this
is because the press have a very difficult time, oftentimes,
reporting on what we do. If it appears that it is reported
incorrectly and people think we've made some change that will
take care of all sex offenders, we will be misleading the
public. And even though it may appear redundant to you, Mr.
Gekas, I think it will be clarifying, and it will be accurate
in its description. So I would respectfully ask the gentleman
if he would add the word ``Federal'' in between ``for'' and
``sex offenders.''
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentlewoman
from California.
Mr. Gekas. Are you yielding?
Ms. Waters. Yes, I'll yield.
Mr. Gekas. I thank the lady for yielding.
I've answered it. I believe that because we're dealing with
a Federal statute, it's understood to be a Federal law, giving
power to a Federal judge to act in a Federal matter. I think
it's redundant to do anything more.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Waters. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes
redundancies are not wrong. And I support the bill, but I would
urge the Chairman to consider this, since it doesn't do any
harm, and I think it adds to the general bipartisan comity on
the measure.
And I yield back to the lady.
Ms. Waters. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on----
Ms. Waters. I yield to the gentleman, Congressman Scott.
Were you trying----
Mr. Scott. Yes, thank you. I appreciate the lady yielding.
I'd like to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for truth in legislating. By crossing out the word ``child'' in
the title of the bill, because it says ``Supervised release for
life for child sex offenders.'' He crossed out ``child.'' That
means any kind of offenders. That means adults, grown people
who cross State lines to do anything that they can get charged
with. Two adults crossing State lines, going from Washington,
D.C., to Virginia to do anything that they could be charged
with, without being graphic, which is about anything.
And so I want to congratulate the gentleman for exposing
the bill for what it is. I have been talking about section
2422, which the cite--I've been saying, where if you cross
State lines to engage in any activity for which you can be
charged with a criminal offense, that's the cite. And you cross
that out. But that's only technical, because the 117 includes
2422, so you really haven't crossed out anything. That part is
technical.
But it is substantive to cross out the word ``child,''
because that exposes the bill and is truth in legislating. And
for that, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentlewoman from
California yield back?
Ms. Waters. Mr. Chairman, yes, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the Gekas
amendment.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
If not, the Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum.
The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 4679
favorably as amended.
Those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
motion to report favorably is adopted.
Without objection, the bill will be report favorably to the
House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a
substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go
conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes.
And all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House
rules, in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental,
or minority views.
Dissenting Views

By allowing a judge to impose lifetime supervision for any
Federal sex offense, H.R. 4679 would allow what is, in effect,
a life sentence for misdemeanors and consensual sexual crimes
between consenting adults, as well as such crimes as
``touching'' between high school students. Perhaps, some sex
crimes warrant lifetime supervision of offenders, but without
requiring any guidelines or reviews, we are unnecessarily
subjecting misdemeanants and other minor offenders to life
sentences.
Proponents of the bill suggest that it is ok to provide for
lifetime supervision of all offenses, regardless of the
circumstances, because judges will use their discretion to
avoid putting minor offenders under such supervision. However,
in the overzealous context of indiscriminately ferreting out
sex offenders for harsher treatment, there are likely to be
judges who, like the lawmakers promoting such policies, prefer
to ere on the side of harsh treatment to avoid the possible
criticism that they were not as tough as they could have been,
should an offender recidivate.
For many of the crimes covered under this provision,
lifetime supervision will be a lot more about enforcing
conditions of supervision than about preventing additional sex
offenses. Offenders will be in and out of prison not for new or
attempted sexual offenses, but for violations of the conditions
of supervision. This is not only unfair to what may be a very
minor offender, but a waste of taxpayer resources.
The provision is rife with the prospects for unfairness in
its application for another reason, as well. Sentencing
Commission data reflects that when we pass Federal laws such as
this since they only apply in Federal jurisdiction, about 80%
of those affected will be Native Americans on reservations. It
is unfair for an offenders in the same state to face vastly
differing harshness in treatment for the same offense simply
because of where the crime is committed. At Committee markup of
the bill, Rep. Scott offered amendments aimed at removing
misdemeanor and consensual crimes from the prospects of life
sentences, but the amendments were not accepted.

Robert C. Scott.
Melvin L. Watt.