U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–658 PDF 2005

PROTECTING OUR NATION’S CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL PREDATORS AND VIOLENT CRIMINALS:

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 9, 2005

Serial No. 109–31

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida

PHILIP G. KIKO, General Counsel-Chief of Staff 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Special Counsel for Intelligence 

and Homeland Security 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Deputy Chief Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 9, 2005

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Mark Green, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin [presiding] and Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES 

Ms. Tracy Henke, Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

Mr. Ernie Allen, President & CEO, National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15

Ms. Amie Zyla, Student, Waukesha, Wisconsin 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

Mr. Fred Berlin, M.D., Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................................... 35

Letters submitted by the Honorable Mark Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin and Member of the Subcommittee on 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on behalf of Allsion Gullick, 

Marc Klaas, and Eric and Michelle Wilkinson .................................................. 36

(1)

PROTECTING OUR NATION’S CHILDREN FROM 

SEXUAL PREDATORS AND VIOLENT CRIMINALS: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? 

THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:05 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Mark Green 

presiding. 

Mr. GREEN. [Presiding.] Good afternoon. I want to welcome everyone to the third in a series of important hearings held by this 

Subcommittee addressing the problem of sexual predators and violent criminals who attack our Nation’s children. 

The first two hearings this week have shown once again the devastating tragedy of crimes against children. We’ve heard testimony—and I expect to hear more at this hearing—that paints a 

grim picture. The threat to our children is real, and it is growing. 

And it is time for us to act. 

No longer can we simply urge and rely on others to do what 

needs to be done. Congress must take steps to provide greater safety for our most vulnerable, our children. When considering what 

needs to be done, we must be mindful that Congress has to provide 

needed resources to the States. We must ensure that Federal actors 

have the ability to provide necessary protections and assistance to 

the States. 

Some might say that we need to treat sex offenders and to rehabilitate them; that we must address the problem by throwing 

money at sex offenders to break their silence and perverse behavior, to stop them from attacking again and again, from molesting 

again and again. 

My view is quite the opposite. One victim, one child harmed, one 

child raped, one child molested, is one crime too many. I’m not willing to cross my fingers and hope the problem does not occur again 

and again. To me, a sex offender who commits one of these heinous 

offenses has forfeited the right to live with the freedoms enjoyed 

by law-abiding citizens. The sex offender has forfeited the right to 

move without compliance with registration requirements; whether 

it be for a job, for school, or simply to live. 

If the sex offender violates the terms of supervision, the terms 

of probation and parole, or registration requirements, the sex ofVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\060905B\21658.000 HJUD2 PsN: 21658
2

fender must be swiftly and effectively locked up, so that he cannot 

touch one more innocent child. 

The fact is that right now in our country there are at least 

100,000 sex offenders roaming our communities—communities 

where law-abiding citizens are raising their families without any 

knowledge of the risk that these offenders pose to their children. 

So as I see the problem, Congress must act now, must act quickly, and must act with a comprehensive plan aimed at accomplishing the following: 

First, redoubling our efforts to register each and every sex offender in this country; 

Second, adopting new and stiff criminal penalties against sex offenders who fail to comply with registry laws, probation requirements, or other laws; 

Third, providing States with the infrastructure necessary to use 

new technology, such as the Internet, tracking devices, and other 

mechanisms, to protect our communities from these predators; 

Fourth, giving States resources needed to apprehend sex offenders or those that cross State lines to work, live, or go to school; 

Fifth, ensuring that State registries cover all classes of sexual offenders who pose a serious risk of harm to children, including juvenile predators who are not covered by the existing Jacob Wetterling 

Law; 

Sixth, promoting proactive notification systems for States to use 

to inform law enforcement, schools, public housing agencies, and 

others when sex offenders move into their communities to live, 

work, or attend school; 

Seventh, ensuring that the Justice Department and other Federal agencies support the States and provide technical assistance 

for national efforts to assist the States and the public; 

Eighth, providing law enforcement with the tools, DNA collection, and testing resources needed to identify and prosecute sex offenders who have escaped prosecution but now may be caught with 

powerful forensic evidence; 

And ninth, provide new civil procedures to incapacitate Federal 

sex offenders who suffer from mental abnormalities and pose a serious risk of harm to our communities. 

I, along with many others, will aggressively seek to enact legislation following such broad principles. We do so because we remember the suffering caused by crimes committed against Jessica 

Lunsford, Jetseta Gage, Sarah Lunde, and from my home State of 

Wisconsin, Amie Zyla, who courageously agreed to testify here 

today. 

I’m anxious to hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses. 

And I now yield time to the Ranking Minority Member of this Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding 

this hearing on what we can do to protect children from sexual 

predators and other violent criminals. It’s good actually to hold the 

hearing. Usually, we pass the bills and then hold the hearing. In 

this case, we’re actually considering the bills. At such a time, we 

can actually consider the research to make sure we’re doing the 

right thing. 

3

Child deaths as a result of sexual abuse or other violence is so 

tragic as to shock the conscience, and our reaction will be to strike 

back with all the punitive weight of government. As policymakers, 

it’s also incumbent upon us not to simply strike back after the 

events have happened, but to see what we can do to reduce the incidence to begin with. 

We know that the vast majority of abusers are either relatives, 

friends or individuals known to the child and family—90 to 95 percent, according to ‘‘Be a Child’s Hero Network.’’ Most of the cases 

of abuse are never reported to authorities or ever dealt with in an 

official manner. 

Furthermore, we know that some child offenders are predatory, 

and repeat their crimes. The vast majority do not, after conviction, 

create other similar crimes. Studies by the Department of Justice 

indicate that less than 5 percent after conviction are found guilty 

of other sexual crimes against children. 

So any repeat offense against children is horrible, but we have 

to consider what we can do in the most cost-effective way, most 

cost-effective strategies, to reduce the chance that it might happen 

again. 

Mr. Chairman, most of the bills we’re going to consider are the 

public notification bills. I want to make it clear that having police 

and supervision authorities aware of all location and identification 

information about child offenders is not subject to debate. They 

need to know this information and have this information available. 

The question before us is whether or not this information ought 

to be available on the Internet, and whether that’s productive or 

counterproductive in reducing the incidence of child sexual abuse. 

We have limited amounts of money, and we ought to make sure 

that that money is used as strategically as possible to reduce the 

incidence of child sexual abuse. Some of these bills cost a lot of 

money to implement, and we have to consider whether or not it 

could have been used more effectively other ways to reduce child 

sexual abuse. 

So Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on what we can do to actually address the problem. And I 

thank you for convening the hearing. 

Mr. GREEN. I thank the Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

Witnesses, it is the practice of the Subcommittee to swear in all 

witnesses appearing before it. If you would, please stand and raise 

your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GREEN. Let the record show that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Please be seated. 

We have four distinguished witnesses with us today. Our first 

witness is Ms. Tracy Henke, Acting Assistant Attorney General 

and Deputy Associate Attorney General for the Office of Justice 

Programs for the Department of Justice. In this role, Ms. Henke is 

responsible for the overall management and oversight of the Office 

of Justice Programs, guides the development of policy and priorities, and promotes coordination among OJP bureaus and support 

offices. 

4

Additionally, she serves as the national Amber Alert coordinator, 

responsible for encouraging coordination of regional, State, and 

local efforts to establish Amber Alert plans to aid in recovering abducted children. Ms. Henke is a graduate of the University of Missouri, Columbia. 

Our second witness is well known to most of us here, Mr. Ernie 

Allen, President and CEO of the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children, which has helped to recover more than 92,000 

children, at a 96 percent recovery rate. Mr. Allen has spearheaded 

efforts to launch a new international center and build a global network to track missing children in 16 nations. 

Previously, he held several positions in public service, including 

chief administrative officer of Jefferson County, director of public 

health and safety, and director of the Louisville-Jefferson County 

Crime Commission. He is a graduate of the University of Louisville. 

Our third witness is Amie Zyla. Amie is a junior at Sussex Hamilton High School in Waukesha, Wisconsin. She hopes to one day 

become a hairdresser and own her own salon. She is here today to 

recount her personal story of abuse at the hand of a convicted sex 

offender. We look forward to Amie’s testimony of this horrific experience. 

Our final witness today is Dr. Fred Berlin, Associate Professor in 

the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University 

School of Medicine. Dr. Berlin is the founder of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention, and Treatment of Sexual Trauma, 

where he currently serves as the director. 

He is the author of numerous publications, including ‘‘The Impact of Surgical Castration on Sexual Recidivism,’’ ‘‘Risk Among 

Civilly Committed Sexual Offenders,’’ and ‘‘Sex Offender Treatment 

and Legislation.’’ Dr. Berlin was named Distinguished Fellow in 

2003 by the American Psychiatric Association. He earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Pittsburgh, and his M.D. and 

PhD. from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. 

I welcome all the witnesses. And now, Ms. Henke, welcome. We 

look forward to your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF TRACY HENKE, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. HENKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott. I am Tracy 

Henke, and I’m the Deputy Associate Attorney General for the 

United States Department of Justice, as well as the current Acting 

Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. 

I want to thank you all for having this hearing. I’m pleased to 

be here on behalf of the Department of Justice to discuss the steps 

we are taking on this issue. Specifically, I want to explain the implementation of the new National Sex Offender Public Registry. 

As you might know, the Attorney General directed the Office of 

Justice Programs to expedite the design and delivery of a National 

Public Registry website, which he announced on May 20th. The 

public registry will use Internet technologies and the Department 

of Justice’s Global Justice Extensible Markup Language—or what 

we like to call XML—to find and display information from a State’s 

existing online public sex offender registry. The search will deliver 

5

results based on a name, zip code, geographical area, or other 

query. 

While citizens can already search existing public State offender 

registries, that search must be conducted on a State by State basis; 

a cumbersome and time-consuming process. Limited for-profit sites 

also offer information from various States by data mining their 

public registries, often without the States’ knowledge. However, no 

government system currently exists to link these public registries. 

In contrast, the National Public Registry creates a single focal 

point for citizens to search public sex offender information nationwide, providing timely and accurate information to the public. It is 

a partnership effort between the Department of Justice and the 

States to offer secure, reliable, and free-of-charge public sex offender information to citizens nationwide. 

The National Sex Offender Public Registry will not collect or retain control over any State data, and there will be no cost to the 

State or territory to link to the national search site. States and territories need not change or alter the design or functionality of their 

existing sex offender registries in order to participate. 

It is important to note that by allowing States to maintain control over their own data they can remain consistent with their own 

State laws regarding release of offender information. In addition, 

because data is maintained under State control, it can be more 

closely monitored and validated between the States and the local 

law enforcement agencies providing the information. 

I stress that the public registry can be implemented quickly. The 

Attorney General has challenged us to have at least 20 States participating and a site available for public searches in just 60 days 

from May 20th, with additional States linked in the following 

months. 

The Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance has 

already developed a working prototype with Maryland, New Jersey, 

Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Since the Attorney General announced 

this initiative nearly 3 weeks ago, States have been calling to find 

out how they can be in the first 20 participating. 

The key advantages of this registry are that it promotes public 

safety by using already existing public State and territory sex offender data. It is cost-free to both the States and the citizens. And 

it requires no special certification or training, and provides an additional resource for effective sex offender management. 

In addition to the implementation of the public registry, the Bureau of Justice Statistics provides NCHIP funds to States that can 

be used to improve their own sex offender registries. Since 1998, 

States have used over $37 million in Federal funding for this purpose. 

The Bureau of Justice Assistance manages the Comprehensive 

Approaches to Sex Offender Management Program, which provides 

funding to help jurisdictions implement sound approaches to managing sex offenders in the community, while keeping citizens safe. 

In fiscal year 2004, jurisdictions in 12 States received a total of 

more than $2.8 million for these projects. An additional $2.3 million should be awarded this fiscal year. 

While these OJP programs are useful, and the National Public 

Sex Offender Registry is an immediate contribution in helping proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\060905B\21658.000 HJUD2 PsN: 21658
6

tect our Nation’s children, we recognize that citizens need more 

than just a search site to help protect their children from sex offenders. We are committed to a comprehensive effort that includes 

providing a wide range of training and technical assistance and 

technology to help States and communities address this complex 

crime problem. 

We will also continue to take an active role in the Federal Agency Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children, which promotes 

a coordinated Federal response to these issues. 

We pledge to work with the Congress to address the issue of how 

best to protect the public from dangerous sex offenders, including 

through the public availability of sex offender registration information. 

As the Attorney General has said in announcing the registry, 

‘‘We must fight violent crimes, especially crimes that steal the future from our children. Names like Jessica Lunsford and Megan 

Kanka highlight the importance of this new technology. Their 

smiles, wiped away forever by sex offenders, are a constant reminder that we must keep parents and communities informed and 

engaged.’’

I’m pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Henke follows:]

7

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRACY A. HENKE


TAH0001.eps
8


TAH0002.eps
9


TAH0003.eps
10


TAH0004.eps
11


TAH0005.eps
12


TAH0006.eps
13


TAH0007.eps
14

Mr. GREEN. Thank you; appreciate the testimony. 

Mr. Allen. 

TESTIMONY OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT & CEO, NATIONAL 

CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, we are 

honored to be included in the hearing today. And thank you for 

your long-time leadership on this issue. 

Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge. Most of their victims 

are children. Most of those children are not members of their own 

family. Most of these offenders are not in prison. And those that 

are, tend to serve limited sentences. 

While most sex offenders are in the community, historically their 

presence has largely been unknown to the citizens of that community. Sex offenders represent the highest risk of re-offense. And 

while community supervision and oversight is essential, the system 

for providing such supervision is overwhelmed. 

There’s strong empirical data that address this issue. According 

to the Department of Justice, 67 percent of reported sexual assault 

victims in this country are children; one out of three under the age 

of 12. 

In 1997, the Congress mandated the National Center to create a 

CyberTipline, a national resource for reporting child sexual exploitation. Since 1998, we’ve handled more than 325,000 reports, resulting in hundreds of arrests and prosecutions; 112,000 reports 

last year alone. 

In 1994, Congress passed the ‘‘Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against 

Children and Sexually Violent Predators Act.’’ As a result, today all 

50 States and the District of Columbia have sex offender registries. 

This was groundbreaking child protection legislation. However, 11 

years later, there are problems in the State programs that we believe thwart the original congressional intent. 

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned it in your opening remarks. 

Today, there are 550,000 registered sex offenders in the United 

States, but at least 100,000 of those offenders are non-compliant—

literally, missing. 

A great deal of discretion is left to the States—appropriately—

in how they implement their registration programs. But the result 

is that there is a significant lack of consistency and uniformity 

from State to State. There are loopholes that permit sex offenders 

to cross State lines and remain undetected. We know that registered sex offenders often forum shop in order to achieve anonymity. 

Let me just cite a few examples of the discrepancies we believe 

exist. In eight States, the burden to notify authorities in the new 

State to which the offender is moving is solely attached to that offender. So only he has the obligation to tell the State to which he’s 

moving. In two States, neither the offender nor the State authorities are required to notify authorities in the new State. In another 

three States, this issue is not even addressed in the law. 

There are only five States in which probation and parole must 

be revoked when an offender fails to comply with registration responsibilities. There are only eight States in which an offender’s 

15

probation or parole may be revoked for failure to comply with registration. 

In 31 States, the penalty for failure to register is just a misdemeanor. In three States, offenders have more than 10 days to notify authorities when they change their address. 

We suspect that those who represent the greatest threat to children are also the least likely to be compliant. There are at least 

100,000 non-compliant offenders; people like the killer of Jessica 

Lunsford, who was not where he was supposed to be and whose 

presence was unknown to police or Jessica’s family, even though he 

lived 150 yards down the street from her and had worked construction at her elementary school. 

We need to do a better job of identifying those who represent the 

greatest risk, and those whose criminal histories should forfeit any 

right to be on the streets and close to innocent children. But at a 

minimum, we must know where all of these convicted sex offenders 

are, and what they’re doing. 

Yet the challenge to do that is daunting. We recently surveyed 

the State registration agencies, and heard almost universally about 

a lack of funding, a lack of personnel, outdated technology, lack of 

centralized communication systems. In many instances, registration verification is by mail, and not in person. 

Tracking the location of these offenders is only part of the challenge. Equally important is community notification. In 1996, Congress amended the Jacob Wetterling Act to include a Federal 

Megan’s Law, mandating State community notification programs. 

States are given broad discretion, but in practice, that notification 

is either passive, requiring the public to initiate contact to get information, or active, by which law enforcement officers initiate contact themselves through community meetings or posting fliers or 

visits to residences within a radius of the offender’s address. Today, 

in 17 States that notification is passive only. Thus, it’s up to the 

public to continually seek out this information on their own initiative. 

We commend the Attorney General for his recent initiative in 

creating a nationwide sex offender database. Public access to this 

information is vital to preventing sexual crimes against children. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the Wetterling Act and Megan’s 

Law represented a giant step forward a decade ago. We believe 

that Congress needs to preserve that foundation. But America has 

changed. Today, there are more offenders; there are new technologies; and there are more, and younger, victims. 

We understand that resources are scarce and that there are 

many competing demands. However, it’s hard to imagine a greater 

or more pressing priority. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNIE ALLEN

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I welcome this 

opportunity to appear before you to discuss crimes against children. Chairman 

Coble, you are a tireless advocate for child protection and I commend you and your 

colleagues for your leadership and initiative. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (‘‘NCMEC’’) joins you in your concern for the safety of the most vulnerable members of our society and thanks you for bringing attention to this serious 

problem facing America’s communities. 

16

Let me first provide you with some background information about the National 

Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). NCMEC is a not-for-profit corporation, mandated by Congress and working in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice as the national resource center and clearinghouse on missing and 

exploited children. NCMEC is a true public-private partnership, funded in part by 

Congress and in part by the private sector. Our federal funding supports specific 

operational functions mandated by Congress, including a national 24-hour toll-free 

hotline; a distribution system for missing-child photos; a system of case management and technical assistance to law enforcement and families; training programs 

for federal, state and local law enforcement; and our programs designed to help stop 

the sexual exploitation of children. 

These programs include the CyberTipline, the ‘‘9-1-1 for the Internet,’’ which 

serves as the national clearinghouse for investigative leads and tips regarding 

crimes against children on the Internet. The Internet has become a primary tool to 

victimize children today, due to its widespread use and the relative anonymity that 

it offers child predators. Our CyberTipline is operated in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘‘FBI’’), the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘‘ICE’’), the U.S. Postal Inspection 

Service, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Child Exploitation 

and Obscenity Section and the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, as 

well as state and local law enforcement. Leads are received in seven categories of 

crimes:

• possession, manufacture and distribution of child pornography;

• online enticement of children for sexual acts;

• child prostitution;

• child-sex tourism;

• child sexual molestation (not in the family);

• unsolicited obscene material sent to a child; and

• misleading domain names.

This last category was added as a result of enactment of the PROTECT Act in 

2003. 

These leads are reviewed by NCMEC analysts, who visit the reported sites, examine and evaluate the content, use search tools to try to identify perpetrators, and 

provide all lead information to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The FBI, 

ICE and Postal Inspection Service have ‘‘real time’’ access to the leads, and all three 

agencies assign agents and analysts to work directly out of NCMEC and review the 

reports. The results: in the 7 years since the CyberTipline began operation, NCMEC 

has received and processed more than 325,000 leads, resulting in hundreds of arrests and successful prosecutions. 

Another one of our programs to prevent child exploitation is our partnership with 

the Department of Homeland Security’s Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘‘ICE’’). This initiative, called ‘‘Operation Predator,’’ is the hallmark of 

the Department’s efforts to protect children from pornographers, child prostitution 

rings, Internet predators, alien smugglers, human traffickers and other criminals. 

NCMEC’s alliance with ICE is designed to facilitate the exchange of information on 

missing children, as well as investigative and intelligence leads. An ICE Senior Special Agent has been assigned to NCMEC to coordinate leads developed by NCMEC 

that require ICE law enforcement capabilities. This alliance has proved enormously 

successful: more than 5,000 individuals have been arrested nationwide. More than 

85% of these arrests are of sex offenders who are foreign nationals living in this 

country and who have been deported. In addition, more than 1,000 arrests based 

on ICE leads have been made in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Japan, the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. 

However, despite our progress the victimization of children continues and there 

is evidence that it is increasing. The number of reports of child pornography to the 

CyberTipline increased 39 percent in 2004. Our records show a significant and 

steady increase in these reports over the years. This upward trend is very disturbing and shows the seriousness of this issue. But this is not the only evidence. 

Recently, we consulted with some of the leading scholars and researchers in the 

field. There has been much attention to the question of how many children are actual victims of sexual offenders, including retrospective studies of adults. The researchers with whom we spoke agreed that on the most conservative basis there 

was general agreement that at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually 

victimized in some way before they reach adulthood, and just 1 in 3 will tell anybody about it. Clearly, those numbers represent a broad spectrum of victimizations 

17

1Snyder, Howard N., Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, July 2000, page 2. 2 1999 National Report Series: Children as Victims, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, May 2000, Page 7. 3 Id. 

4 In May 2005 NCMEC contacted the registering agencies for all 50 states and the District 

of Columbia. The total number of sex offenders reported for all jurisdictions is 549,038. 

from very minor to very severe. Nonetheless, the numbers are powerful testimony 

to the fact that children are at risk and that we must do more. 

There are strong empirical data as well. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 67 percent of reported sexual assault victims are children 1—more than twothirds. And these are only the ones that law enforcement knows about. Most crimes 

against children are not reported to the police.2 This means that there are many, 

many more victims of these heinous crimes than the statistics show. 

In addition, these children are being victimized at increasingly younger ages. One 

out of every three victims of sexual assault is under age 12.3 Reports to the 

CyberTipline include images of brutal sexual assaults of toddlers and infants. These 

are images that no one here could previously even imagine. But they have become 

all-too-common in the new world of child pornography and child sexual exploitation. 

Today, children of all ages are potential victims. 

In recent months, millions of Americans have followed with horror the devastating 

stories of Jessica Lundsford, Sarah Lunde, Jetseta Gage and others. These tragic 

cases have generated anger and indignation nationwide, and epitomize what has 

been an increasing area of concern for NCMEC in recent years: the challenge of 

tracking, registering and managing the nation’s convicted sex offenders effectively. 

Sex offenders pose an enormous challenge for policy makers. They evoke unparalleled fear among citizens. Their offenses are associated with the greatest risk of psychological harm. Most of their victims are children and youth. As policy makers address the issue of sex offenders, they are confronted with some basic realities:

1. Most sex offenders are not in prison, and those that are tend to serve limited 

sentences;

2. While most sex offenders are in the community, historically their presence 

was largely unknown to citizens;

3. Sex offenders represent the highest risk of reoffense; and

4. While community supervision and oversight is widely recognized as essential, 

the system for providing such supervision is overwhelmed.

Currently, there are nearly 550,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S.4 At least 

100,000 of these are non-compliant, in most cases literally ‘‘missing.’’ They moved 

and failed to register their new address with law enforcement, or they provided the 

wrong address or some similar variation. The number of offenders required to register is only going to increase as new cases work their way through the criminal 

justice system. This problem is not going to go away. These offenders will be in our 

communities. The question is: what more can we do? 

We commend Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his bold and decisive new initiative in creating a nationwide sex offender database. Public access to this information is vital to preventing sexual crimes against children. We are grateful to the 

many Members of the United States Congress for their leadership on this issue as 

well. The dedication of two branches of government to this problem gives us confidence that real progress will be made toward making our communities safer. 

In 1994 Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Predators Act. As a result, all 50 states and the District of Columbia 

have sex offender registries. This was groundbreaking child protection legislation. 

However, 11 years later there are many problems in the state programs that thwart 

the original Congressional intent in passing the Act. The federal scheme leaves a 

great deal of discretion to the states in how they implement their individual registration programs. As a result, there is a significant lack of consistency and uniformity from state to state. There are also serious discrepancies among the states, 

creating loopholes in the laws that permit sex offenders to cross state lines and remain undetected. We know that registered sex offenders often ‘‘forum-shop’’ in order 

to achieve anonymity. Some examples of the discrepancies in the state statutes are 

the following:

• in 8 states the offender alone has the burden to notify the authorities in a 

new state when moving into that state

18

5 Child Sexual Molestation: Research Issues, National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, June 1997. 

• in 2 states neither the offender nor the state authorities are required to notify 

the authorities in a new state—in another 3 states this issue is not even addressed

• in only 5 states probation or parole must be revoked when an offender fails 

to comply with registration duties

• in only 8 states an offender’s probation or parole may be revoked for failure 

to comply with registration duties

• in 31 states the penalty for failure to comply with registration duties is only 

a misdemeanor

• in 3 states offenders have more than 10 days to notify the authorities when 

they change their address

The challenges are basic. We must assume that those who represent the greatest 

threat are those least likely to be compliant. They are the most likely offenders to 

attempt to disappear. There are at least 100,000+ non-compliant offenders, people 

like the killer of Jessica Lundsford, who was not where he was supposed to be. 

We need to do a better job as a nation of identifying those who represent the 

greatest risk, those whose criminal history forfeits any right to be on the streets and 

close to innocent children. But at a minimum, we must know where all of the convicted sex offenders are and what they are doing. 

Yet, the challenge of doing that is daunting and is compounded by the increasing 

burden on law enforcement to track offenders throughout their period of registration, in many cases for the offender’s lifetime. A recent survey by NCMEC of state 

registering agencies revealed the following problems:

• lack of sufficient funding

• lack of personnel

• lack of law enforcement personnel dedicated solely to sex offender issues

• outdated computer hardware and software

• lack of centralized communication systems between jurisdictions for tracking 

offenders

• registrants’ verification is by mail and not in person

• lack of funding to conduct community notification of sex offenders

• lack of technology to easily identify fake addresses

• lack of clarity regarding law enforcement authority across jurisdictions, including tribal lands

• lack of legal requirement to keep registry information current

• lack of a national registry of sex offenders

• inability to track homeless registrants

• lack of notice by jails of offenders’ release

Tracking the location of these offenders is only part of the challenge. Equally important is the issue of notifying the public about the location of these offenders. According to the National Institute of Justice, child abusers have been known to reoffend as late as 20 years following release into the community.5 In 1996 Congress 

amended the Jacob Wetterling Act to include a federal Megan’s Law, mandating 

state community notification programs. This was named after 7-year-old Megan 

Kanka of New Jersey, who was killed by her neighbor, a convicted sex offender 

whose presence in her neighborhood was unknown to her parents. 

The Megan’s Law section of the Wetterling Act requires all states to conduct community notification but does not set out specific forms and methods, other than to 

require the creation of internet sites containing state sex offender information. 

States are given broad discretion in creating their own policies. In practice, community notification methods are either

(1) passive notification, requiring the public to initiate contact with law enforcement, such as publicly-accessible websites; or

(2) active notification, by which law enforcement officers initiate contact with 

the public, such as community meetings, posting flyers, or visits to individual residences within a radius of the offender’s address.

Because the federal law leaves it up to the states to create their own programs 

of community notification, current state programs vary widely. In 17 states law enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\060905B\21658.000 HJUD2 PsN: 21658
19

forcement is authorized by statute to conduct only passive notification to the public 

about the presence of sex offenders in their communities—it is up to the public to 

continually seek out this information on their own initiative in order to protect 

themselves. Furthermore, many states do not provide information about their entire 

registry of sex offenders, only a portion of them, usually those designated as posing 

a high risk of reoffense, which can also vary widely between states. The public has 

a right to know about all registered sex offenders living in our communities. The 

amount of protection a child is given shouldn’t depend on the state in which that 

child lives. There is clearly a need for more uniformity among state programs of 

community notification of sex offenders. 

The Jacob Wetterling Act and Megan’s Law represented a giant step forward a 

decade ago. We must preserve that foundation. But America has changed. Today, 

there are more offenders to register and manage, there are new technologies, and 

there are more and younger victims. We understand that resources are scarce and 

that are many competing demands. However, it is hard to imagine a greater or more 

pressing priority. 

NCMEC urges lawmakers, law enforcement and the public to take a serious look 

at the dangers threatening our children today, and to move decisively at the federal 

level and the state level to create a seamless, coordinated, uniform system that 

works. Now is the time to act. 

Thank you.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Allen. 

And now, Amie, welcome. We look forward to hearing from you. 

TESTIMONY OF AMIE ZYLA, STUDENT, WAUKESHA, WISCONSIN 

Ms. ZYLA. Thank you. My name is Amie Lee Zyla. I’m here to tell 

you my story, and ask you to change the law to prevent any future 

victims. I relived my nightmare because the law gave my abuser, 

Josh Wade, a free ticket to continue abusing children, and as a result so many more kids and their families have been hurt. 

Nine years ago, I was sexually assaulted at the age of eight. My 

abuser hurt me in my own home, where he had gained a level of 

trust—and then so brutally violated it. He stole my self-esteem, 

and made me feel so afraid—so afraid that I almost did not go to 

my parents, because I thought he would hurt me again. After I was 

able to fend him off, I then had to watch him assault my little 

friend, and endure a threat to my life, until he was put away. 

While it was a very difficult time, I came forward when it happened, to stop him from hurting anyone else ever again. I also expected to never have to deal with my abuser again. 

Then, one day about 9 years later, Josh Wade walked back into 

our lives. I saw him on TV, and was stunned to see that he was 

not only out in the community again, but that he had done it 

again. 

When I first saw him, I was so disappointed. I was scared, and 

couldn’t believe he was out. All those old feelings returned, and I 

was so sad for all the new victims. I couldn’t believe there were so 

many new victims. How and why were there so many more victims? Why wasn’t he caught earlier? And how did the system break 

down? 

The more I thought about it, the more upset I became. I was so 

mad that what happened to me seemed like it didn’t matter. It just 

didn’t count. I didn’t count, and the new victims didn’t count. 

It was wrong that my parents and I did not know he was out. 

He hurt me, he hurt my friend, and threatened my life. On top of 

that, no one could tell the community what he was capable of, because his rights were considered more important than my safety. 

My right to safety came second, in fact, to the fact that he hurt me 

20

when he was a juvenile—a fact that didn’t seem to stop him from 

hurting anyone else; but it did allow so many more other children 

to be assaulted. 

Isn’t it so very obvious this has to change? I decided my anger, 

and that of my family, needed to be expressed in a positive way. 

We decided to contact our government officials and change the law 

to protect our communities. No matter how old an offender is, Josh 

Wade proves that sexual predators will continue seeking out new 

victims, and hurt more people. 

In Wisconsin, the community and government agreed with us, 

and enacted Amie’s Law. But that is not enough. We cannot sit 

back and allow kids to continue to be hurt. The simple truth is that 

juvenile sex offenders turn into adult predators. Kids all over the 

country need the same kind of protection as in Wisconsin. 

I pray that by coming forward again sexual abuse victims who 

can hear the sound of my voice understand that it is not their 

fault; that they must come forward and find healing and purpose. 

Stand up to your abusers, and help law enforcement stop them 

from hurting anyone else. Abuse does not have to affect your whole 

life. If I can overcome the hurt and trauma, then so can you. 

That began to make my attacker pay for his actions. Unfortunately, that was not the end of my journey. I had to come back and 

work to change the law to prevent juvenile offenders from getting 

the chance to harm other victims. 

At this very moment, somewhere in this country a child’s heart 

is being stolen. He or she is young, afraid, confused, and feeling 

dirty. That child is being terrorized by the most horrible kind of 

criminal. It happens every day, and it still hurts me deeply to hear 

another kid is experiencing that same kind of pain I did at 8 years 

old. 

I want to challenge you to look deep down inside. Isn’t it time 

to put our kids’ safety before the rights of the sexual offender, 

adult or juvenile? When is enough going to be enough? Must we 

have even one more Jessica Lunsford, or one more Sarah Lunde, 

or even one more kid like me who must keep reliving the nightmare? 

We need a national sex offender registry that includes juvenile 

sex offenders. Mr. Green has introduced a bill that will do just 

that; a bill that will ensure all offenders, regardless of their age, 

will be on the registry, and not able to work with children or hurt 

anyone else. I ask you to support Mr. Green’s bill and the many 

other proposals you have heard about today. I ask you to help protect kids—kids like me. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Zyla follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMIE LEE ZYLA

Hello Everyone, 

My name is Amie Lee Zyla. I am here to tell you my story and ask you to change 

the law to prevent any future victims. I re-lived my nightmare because the law gave 

my abuser, Joshua Wade, a free ticket to continue abusing children and as a result 

so many more kids and their families have been hurt. 

Nine years ago I was sexually assaulted at the age of eight. My abuser hurt me 

in my own home where he had gained a level of trust—and then so brutally violated 

it. He stole my self-esteem and made me so afraid. So afraid that I almost didn’t 

go to my parents because I thought he would hurt me again. After I was able to 

21

fend him off I then had to watch him assault my little girlfriend and endured a 

threat to my life until he was put away. 

While it was a very difficult time, I came forward when it happened to stop him 

from hurting anyone else ever again. I also expected to never have to deal with my 

abuser again. 

Then one day, about nine years later, Josh Wade walked back into our lives. I 

saw him on TV and was stunned to see that not only was he out in the community 

again, but that he had done it again. When I first saw him I was so disappointed. 

I was scared and couldn’t believe he was out. All those old feelings returned and 

I was so sad for all the new victims—I couldn’t believe there were so many new 

victims. How and why were there so many more victims? Why wasn’t he caught earlier? How did the system break down? 

The more I thought about it, the more upset I became. I was so mad that what 

happened to me seemed like it didn’t matter. It just didn’t count. I didn’t count and 

the new kids didn’t count. 

It was wrong that my parents and I didn’t know he was out. He hurt me, he hurt 

my friend and he threatened my life. On top of that no one could tell the community 

what he was capable of because his rights were considered more important than my 

safety. My right to safety came second to the fact that he hurt me when he was 

juvenile—a fact that didn’t seem to stop him from hurting anyone else, but it did 

allow so many more children to be assaulted. 

Isn’t it so very obvious this has to change? I decided my anger, and that of my 

family, needed to be expressed in a positive way. We decided to contact our government officials and change the law to protect our communities—no matter how old 

an offender is Josh Wade proves that sexual predators will continue to seek out new 

victims and hurt more people. 

In Wisconsin the community and government agreed with us and Amie’s Law. But 

that is not enough, we can not sit back and allow kids to continue to be hurt. The 

simple truth is that juvenile sex offenders turn into adult predators. Kids all over 

the country need the same kind of protection as in Wisconsin. 

I pray that by coming forward again sexual abuse victims who can hear the sound 

of my voice understand that it’s not their fault. That they must come forward and 

find healing and purpose. Stand up to your abusers, help law enforcement stop them 

from hurting anyone else. Abuse does not have to affect your whole life, if I can 

overcome the hurt and trauma then so can you. That began by making my attacker 

pay for his actions. Unfortunately that was not the end of my journey. I had to come 

back and work to change the law to prevent juvenile offenders from getting the 

chance to harm other victims. 

At this very moment some where in this country, a child’s heart is being stolen. 

He or she is young, afraid, confused, and feeling dirty. That child is being terrorized 

by the most horrible kind of criminal. It happens everyday and it still hurts me 

deeply to hear another kid is experiencing that same kind of pain I did at eight 

years old. I want to challenge you to look deep down inside. Isn’t it time to put our 

kid’s safety before the rights of secrecy of sexual offenders—adult or juvenile? When 

is enough going to be enough? Must we have even one more Jessica Lundsford or 

one more Sarah Lunde or even one more kid like me who must keep re-living the 

nightmare? We need a national sex offender registry that includes juvenile sexual 

offenders. Mr. Green has introduced a bill that will do just that. A bill that will ensure all offenders, regardless of their age, will be on the registry and not able to 

work with children or hurt anyone else. I ask you to support Mr. Green’s bill and 

the many other proposals you have heard about today. I ask you help protect kids—

kids like me. 

Thank you for you time.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Amie. Very well done. Nice job. 

Dr. Berlin. 

TESTIMONY OF FRED BERLIN, M.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, 

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 

Dr. BERLIN. Thanks for inviting me. I appreciate that very much. 

Let me make it clear that I’m not here to support or oppose any 

particular legislation today; but I hope to provide some information 

that may be of some help. 

I want to make it clear that I do support fully the registration 

of sex offenders. That means having lists available to proper legal 

22

authorities, names that can be distributed to people that need to 

know, and so on. But I do want to talk about concerns about two 

things. One is community notification; and the second, I want to 

make a couple of comments about the role of punishment. 

First of all, with respect to community notification, I want to 

make it clear that the verdict is not yet in on whether or not that 

is proving to be successful. The State that’s probably had it in effect for the longest is Washington State. I did a follow-up study, 

looking at what had happened in that State. There was no evidence 

that it reduced criminal recidivism. 

Secondly, speaking out of my own personal clinical experience 

and research background, it is a sad fact that there are persons out 

there who want to offend. And if they are on a registry and listed 

in a community as being present, if they’re listed in community ‘‘A’’ as being present, those people are simply going to go to community 

‘‘B,’’ where they’re a lot less known, and still commit an offense. 

On the other hand, there are a lot of offenders out there who are 

trying to succeed. I can tell you that out of personal experience. 

We, for example, published a large study on over 600 men in treatment. Over 400 had a history of pedophilic behavior. The recidivism rate was less than 8 percent. 

The reason I believe that many of those men succeeded in treatment is they were able to get a fresh start. They could get jobs. 

They weren’t feeling disenfranchised, angry at the community. 

They succeeded, I believe, in part because they were able to do 

those things. It begs the question whether, if we drive these people 

underground, are we actually making the community safer? Again, 

I think it’s something we simply have to take a look at. 

In terms of sex offender recidivism, just a couple of points that 

I think are important. The U.S. Department of Justice, through the 

Office of Justice Programs, took a look at sex offender recidivism. 

Surprised me. I worked in this area for many years. As a group, 

sex offenders have a lower rate—lower rate—of recidivism than 

people who commit other kinds of serious criminal acts. 

Asking about the recidivism rate of sex offenders is like asking 

about the recidivism rate of drunk drivers. In other words, there 

is no one right answer. There’s a tremendous spectrum. 

At one end of the spectrum are people who really are going to 

continue to get back in trouble; at the other end, those who won’t; 

and then there’s the entire group in between. If you get an overzealous therapist here who says that most, if not all, sex offenders 

will not recidivate, that’s an extreme statement that is not in keeping with the facts. Similarly, if you get someone who comes in, who 

says, ‘‘Once an offender, always an offender’’—and you will hear 

that—that’s also an extreme statement. It’s simply not in keeping 

with the facts. 

In looking at community notification, we also have to ask whether it could be harmful. Keep in mind, when we identify the offender, we identify his address. Much of offending has to do with 

things, unfortunately, that go on within the family. There is the 

risk of inadvertently identifying victims. There is now concern that 

some victims of incest may be deterred from coming forward. 

I can give you a brief anecdote of a child that I was aware of, 

where the teacher, meaning well, read out a sex offender registry 

23

in school. The peers of this child looked over at him and said, ‘‘Hey, 

isn’t that your dad? And by the way, were you his victim?’’ It’s not 

clear how that was helping to make the community safer. And 

these are not anecdotes that are simply isolated examples. The verdict is not yet in. 

In terms of the role of punishment, pedophilia is a condition, to 

give an example, in which persons are sexually attracted to young 

children. If the only thing we do is punish these individuals, there’s 

nothing about being in prison that can either erase those attractions or enhance their capacity to successfully resist acting upon 

them. 

We need both the Attorney General and the Surgeon General involved in this, if we’re going to adequately protect community safety. Let me make it clear, I very firmly support the criminal justice 

stance. But what is often given very meager attention in all of 

these discussions is the public health side of this. 

In terms of harsh mandatory punishments, again, people can do 

that if they want to. But much of what goes on is within the families. Many victims, in spite of the victimization, are struggling to 

put their family back together. They are hoping that the person 

who’s done wrong can have a chance to succeed. There are numerous instances of families doing well after these kinds of tragedies 

have occurred. 

Are we going to get to the position where we were when we first 

started the war on drugs, where having an ounce of marijuana led 

to mandatory sentences of an extreme length? Many victims don’t 

want their victimizer to go away for a long period of time. That’s 

simply a fact. 

To finish up, if I may—and I may be using my time, so very 

quickly—four points that I think need to be made, that are often 

missing in these discussions: 

Number one, what I’ll call ‘‘truth in language.’’ We used to talk 

about truth in sentencing. The word ‘‘violent,’’ in terms of its everyday meaning, is clearly not what is being used in many of the legislative bills that are out there. Attempted touching can mean ‘‘violent.’’ The word ‘‘predator’’ often does not have its everyday meaning. Someone who’s exposed himself to a child who’s 13 can be labeled a predator in many of these statutes. Somebody who’s been 

involved statutorily—a 17-year-old who was involved with a 14-

year-old—can be labeled a predator. Let’s have truth in language, 

so we know what we’re really dealing with. 

We don’t have much discussion about what can help these people 

succeed. Most of them, like it or not, are in the community. We try 

to help bank robbers; we try to help murderers, even. It’s in all of 

our best interests to help these people succeed. 

There should be some discussion of public policy based on the exception rather than the rule. We’ve heard a lot about Jessica 

Lunsford. It is horrible. But kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder is a fraction of a percent of the big problem. Do we want to 

base public policy on the exception rather than the rule? Is that 

likely to be the most effective public policy? 

Finally—and I thank you; I may have gone over. I’m close to 

going over—the last point I want to make is that in almost all legislation that we get involved with, and that you folks get involved 

24

with, there is a system of checks and balances. And that often, in 

my judgment, leads us to a consensus, which often has as the result effective legislation. 

As you all know, there’s not really much of a balance of advocacy 

when we come to these issues. We can ask two kinds of questions. 

We can ask, ‘‘How can society be made safe?’’ All of us want an answer to that question. And the point I would make here today is, 

if we’re asking how to make society safe, let’s make sure that what 

we’re proposing has evidence that it’s really going to do that. That’s 

the first point. 

A second question we can ask is not exactly the same question. 

That is, ‘‘How, in the context of being safe, can we also be just and 

fair?’’ Now, when we’re in this area, there are people who are going 

to say, ‘‘Why the heck should we be just and fair?’’ Well, I’ll give 

you the answer to that. What makes this country—or one of the 

things that makes this country so great is, not only are we interested in being safe, but we are also interested in being just and 

fair. That’s what this country is all about. 

We need to do something for people like Amie. There isn’t a decent human being who doesn’t want to do that. But we owe it to 

her to get it right. And I hope some of the conversation that I presented to you today will stimulate some thought and help in this 

effort to get it right. We all want to do good things for those who 

are victimized. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Berlin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED S. BERLIN

My name is Fred Berlin, and I am an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at The 

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. For your convenience, I am enclosing 

a brief professional biography as well as a copy of my full Academic Vitae. My area 

of specialization within Psychiatry is sexual disorders, a spectrum of conditions 

which includes within it pedophilia. Therefore, I am also enclosing the draft of a 

recent paper, soon to be published, regarding that topic. I have become involved in 

this work, in part, out of the belief that doing so contributes to the effort to protect 

the public by decreasing victimization. 

The primary focus of my current concerns will relate to two issues: (1) the usefulness of community notification as a means of enhancing public safety, and (2) the 

likelihood that enhanced punishments will better protect the public from sexually 

disordered sexual offenders. 

I have no problem with the notion that sexual offenders should register, thereby 

making information about them available to legitimate criminal justice authorities. 

However, it appears that at this point in our history, lists of registered offenders 

can quickly be accessed through the Internet, thereby, in many instances, making 

such registration synonymous with community notification. 

A number of horrible cases involving kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder have 

recently been highly publicized, even though such cases represent a fraction of one 

percent of the big picture when it comes to the issue of criminal sexual offenses. 

Instead, the overwhelming majority of sexual offenses are initiated by a family 

member, a close friend, or an acquaintance whose prior background is, in many instances, well known to both the victim, as well as to his, or her, family. 

It is important to appreciate that when community notification occurs, in those 

cases involving incest, the identity of the victim, or victims, may at the same time 

be revealed, even if he or she is not mentioned specifically by name. I am aware 

of a recent incident in which a teacher was reading out in class for educational purposes the names of registered sexual offenders. That led one child to ask a classmate whether it was his father on that list, and whether in fact it had been he who 

had been a victim. As can be imagined, that child felt traumatized by the experience. 

There is currently emerging anecdotal evidence suggesting that incest victims, 

and their families, may become less willing to come forward because of the multitude of problems associated with their home becoming a listed address on a regVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:26 Aug 09, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\CRIME\060905B\21658.000 HJUD2 PsN: 21658
25

istry of sexual offenders. The only systematic study conducted so far regarding the 

effectiveness of community notification has been done in Washington State. It failed 

to find any reduction in sexual offender recidivism as a consequence of such notification. 

Sex offenders who are trying to reside safely in the community, and there are 

many of them, can clearly be hurt by community notification statutes. I was the senior author of a published study on over 400 men with pedophilia treated in the community, which documented a 5-year sexual recidivism rate of less than 8%. For 

those men who had been fully compliant with treatment, the recidivism rate 

dropped to less than 3%. In my judgment, many of these men had succeeded in 

treatment because they were able to get a fresh start; they could obtain gainful employment; the property value of their residences remained uncompromised; and they 

were not feeling disenfranchised and publicly stigmatized. 

On the other hand, persons who want to commit a sexual offense, who have been 

identified in community ‘‘A’’ can simply go to community ‘‘B,’’ where they are likely 

less well known, and do so there. That doesn’t solve the problem. It simply moves 

it to another location. In my judgment, it is only those who are trying hard to live 

safely in the community whose efforts, in many instances, may be compromised by 

such legislation. That does little to make the community safer. If there is to be community notification, much more information about level of risk to the community 

must be given, along with the information about what citizens should and should 

not be doing with that information. In my judgment, all of this needs to be carefully 

considered before enacting any further legislation. 

Recently, a fully voluntary patient in our treatment program, who was residing 

in a structured group home, under close supervision, was forced to leave that home, 

after an individual who had seen his name (and picture) on a list of registered sexual offenders threatened both he and the home in question. It is difficult to see how 

such an act did anything to make the community safer. Yet, acts of that nature have 

reportedly occurred with some regularity. 

Much of the recent legislation involving sexual offenders has been based upon the 

assumption that they are at an inordinately high risk of re-offending. Data gathered 

by the United States Department of Justice has documented that, as a group, sex 

offenders have a lower rate of criminal recidivism than persons who commit other 

sorts of serious criminal acts. Asking about the recidivism rate of sex offenders is 

analogous to asking about the recidivism rate of drunk drivers. There is no one answer to that question. The overzealous therapist who argues that the recidivism rate 

of all sex offenders is invariably low is presenting an extreme point of view that 

is not in keeping with the facts. On the other hand, the individual who argues ‘‘once an offender, always an offender’’ is similarly presenting an extreme viewpoint. Significant numbers of sexual offenders can, and do, go on to become productive and 

safe members of society. 

With respect to the issue of solving the problem of sexual offenders by means of 

more stern punishments, I would want to point out the following. If a man goes to 

prison sexually attracted to children, incarceration alone can neither erase his 

pedophilic cravings, nor can it enhance his capacity to resist succumbing to such desires. Furthermore, sooner or later, like it or not, even in the face of current proposed legislation, most sex offenders will be in the community. As with drug addiction and alcoholism, pedophilia, and a number of other sexual disorders, are both 

a criminal justice matter and a public health problem. In that sense, both the Attorney General and the Surgeon General must be involved. Psychiatric disorders, such 

as pedophilia, can neither be legislated nor punished away. 

All of us are victim advocates, and public safety must come first. However, within 

the context of doing everything within our power to ensure the common good, ours 

is a nation that still tries to remain both fair and just. In most instances, when new 

legislation is proposed, there is a system of checks and balances involving competing 

advocacy groups. That frequently leads to an outcome involving balance and consensus. For obvious reasons, such checks and balances are often missing when discussing legislation involving sexual offenders. 

No one would propose legislation to deal with the problem of alcoholism based primarily upon looking at the recalcitrant alcoholic who continues to drive drunk. To 

do so would be to propose legislation based upon the exception rather than the rule. 

On the other hand, even though only a fraction of 1% of sexual offenses involve kidnapping, sexual assault and murder, much of the recent legislation in this area has 

been based upon the exception rather than the rule. That begs the question as to 

whether this represents effective and optimal public policy. In addition, when it 

comes to issues of punishment, there needs to be proportionality. That is, the punishment should be proportional to the crime committed by a specific individual, 

rather than a mandate driven by the much more serious criminal acts of someone 

26

else. Many families in which incest has occurred still struggle to remain intact, and 

they do not want their loved one, in spite of his offense, to serve a sentence of 25 

years to life. In my judgment, such legislation may, in some instances at least, simply drive the problem underground, hurting families, and leading some victims to 

be reluctant to report offenses. 

In my judgment, the most crucial question to ask regarding any newly proposed 

legislation in this area is whether there is any evidence that it is likely to make 

the community safer. In many instances, for the reasons noted above, the answer 

to that questions when looked at objectively would appear to be no. 

Finally, although community safety must absolutely come first, it is still appropriate to appreciate the inherent humanity of many of those who have acted improperly. That is of particular importance in these instances because, as noted, the ordinary checks and balances affecting most legislation are often absent in these cases. 

Someone once said that the moral fiber of a nation can often be gauged by how 

it treats those citizens whom it could easily cast aside. In my judgement, current 

legislation in this area calls upon each of us, as concerned Americans, to face up 

to that challenge.

Mr. GREEN. I thank you for your testimony, and all the panelists. 

I was following you, Dr. Berlin, in most of your testimony; although 

toward the end you said a few things that I just wanted to touch 

upon, that I think were perhaps unfortunate. 

You seemed to compare—you made reference to one ounce of 

marijuana. You’re not seriously suggesting that pedophilia is the 

equivalent of possession of one ounce of marijuana——

Dr. BERLIN. What I’m suggesting——

Mr. GREEN.—in terms of the great scheme of moral behavior? 

Dr. BERLIN. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I apologize. 

What I’m suggesting is, just as we know when it comes to drug 

addiction there is a spectrum—there’s a big difference between the 

drug dealer and the kid who is experimenting and has a little bit 

of marijuana, and we don’t want to have comparable punishments. 

When we first started the war on crime, there were a number of 

jurisdictions in which the user who was experimenting had these 

horrific sentences. 

The point I’m making is that, when it comes to sex offenders, 

there’s this same spectrum. We believe in proportionality. The punishment should suit the crime, should fit the crime. 

I am concerned. And again, I’m not trying to take sides on specific bills, but I’m concerned, as a citizen now, that I would not necessarily want to be part of supporting a system in which individuals are punished not in proportion to their own crime, but where 

the punishments are driven by the crimes of others who’ve done 

things that are far more serious. 

Mr. GREEN. But again, in that analogy, you’re not suggesting 

that someone who experiments with marijuana in his or her room 

is the equivalent of someone who victimizes a young child? 

Dr. BERLIN. Absolutely not. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. I just wanted to make sure, as you made your 

references here. 

You have in your testimony, I thought, a good point; hopefully, 

one that we’re addressing. You said the persons who want to commit a sexual offense, who have been identified in community ‘‘A,’’ can simply go to community ‘‘B,’’ where they are less likely wellknown. Well, isn’t one of the answers to that to make sure that in 

community ‘‘B’’ they can get that same information; so that you 

don’t have the problem of the only knowledge of a person’s offenses 

is a restricted area where that person first emerged? 

27

Dr. BERLIN. The problem is, I don’t see how to make that work. 

And again, if I can be persuaded that this makes the community 

safer, we need to do it. But the person who is wanting to commit 

an offense, and driving off to community ‘‘B,’’ isn’t going over there 

to identify himself. He’s getting out of an area where people know 

him. 

None of us can be aware of the identities of offenders in every 

jurisdiction. So in real life, he’s going to go someplace where the 

odds are, in spite of the notification—— Mr. GREEN. Well, wouldn’t one of the answers to that be—in fairness to you, you obviously weren’t here for the previous hearing, 

when a number of bills were brought forward that would talk about 

this national database that would be accessible online; so that in 

fact we wouldn’t have to rely upon solely the offender to go and 

make himself known. I mean, wouldn’t that provide greater safety 

for that community? 

Dr. BERLIN. Well, again—and I’m not trying to be argumentative—if this is an offender who wants to offend, and he’s known 

in his own community where nobody is going to tolerate him hanging around areas where there are children, he gets in his car, he 

drives to another community. People don’t know who he is. There’s 

no red flag going up. It’s just not clear to me how that’s going to 

work. 

Mr. GREEN. Of course, one of the answers would be—in the bills 

we’ve taken up—would be to keep that person behind bars. If a 

person is going to be likely to re-offend, as you’ve just set out, we 

actually can prevent that crime. That person behind bars is not 

likely to offend. 

Dr. BERLIN. Well, look, we’ve got to deal with reality. Sooner or 

later, like it or not, even with new legislation, the fact is there are 

hundreds of thousands of offenders out on the streets. If there are 

some we can keep behind bars, and it’s legitimate to do so, fine. 

But that’s not what we’re talking about here. 

Mr. GREEN. I think it is, actually. 

Dr. BERLIN. Community notification about people behind bars? 

As long as they’re behind bars, what do we need community notification for? 

Mr. GREEN. We are talking about a series of bills, including mandatory minimums, which will keep persons like that behind bars 

for a longer period of time, and give families the tools, the knowledge-based tools about who is in their midst. 

And I think in the case of Amie’s Law, we’re also talking about 

making sure that these individuals don’t get into positions of authority, where they have contact and can prey upon young people. 

You know, I think that’s the difference that we’re talking about 

here. 

Obviously, when we’re talking about national statistics it’s almost impossible to say with firm proof what will bring crime rates 

down. There is a lag time, obviously, cause and effect. But obviously, I think you would agree, if a person is behind bars, they 

can’t recommit. 

And if a family knows that the person who has moved in next 

door, who is applying for that job at a non-profit or at a camp, is 

someone who has committed a serious sex crime against kids in the 

28

past, doesn’t that give us pretty good tools for preventing the reoffense? I mean, wouldn’t that logically have a positive effect in 

bringing down, at least in that community, the possibility that person is going to re-offend? 

Dr. BERLIN. Well, certainly, I think it probably does in that community. But we’re here, you know, in terms of policy planning, not 

simply to move the problem, but to solve the problem. That’s what 

I think we really need to come up with. 

Mr. GREEN. I think that we are talking about both. I think we’re 

talking about trying to give tools to parents, to give them the tools 

to protect their kids. 

Dr. BERLIN. The other thing, if I may, and I don’t want to take 

up——

Mr. GREEN. Sure. 

Dr. BERLIN. As I said, if I can be persuaded this works, I would 

want to be for it. I’m simply suggesting——

Mr. GREEN. We’ll work on that. 

Dr. BERLIN. Right. But I wanted to make the point that if there 

is to be notification, then I think you need to both present people 

with enough information to get a true sense of what the risk may 

not be, and some guidance about what they should do with that information, so they can deal with it in a positive fashion. 

Mr. GREEN. And actually, I will say that one of the Members in 

the previous hearing brought that up and actually made some suggestions. So that is something, I think, that we’ll certainly be looking at. 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Dr. Berlin, let me follow up on that. If 

you’ve got these registries and they work well for the neighborhood, 

and someone moves—drives across town or across 50, 75 miles, to 

commit crimes, the parents might know that there is a problem, 

who are the people in the area, but they wouldn’t know who’s coming into the area because they’ve driven from their own neighborhood. Is that the point you were making? 

Dr. BERLIN. Yes, that was one of the points I was making. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Henke, you indicated in your written testimony 

that statistics have shown that recidivism rates for these offenders 

is extremely high? That was in your written testimony? 

Ms. HENKE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Were you referring to the 1994 study that’s on the 

Department of Justice website? 

Ms. HENKE. That’s part of it, as well as other information from 

the National Center and other organizations. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does the Department of Justice website say, ‘‘Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prison, sex offenders 

had a lower overall rearrest rate, when the rearrests of any type 

of crime, not just sex crimes, were counted. The study found that 

43 percent of released sex offenders were rearrested. The overall 

rearrest rate for those released for non-sex offenders was higher; 

68 percent’’? 

Ms. HENKE. Yes, it does. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does it say that, ‘‘Of the released sex offenders, 3.5 

percent were reconvicted of a sex crime within the 3-year followup period?’’

29

Ms. HENKE. Yes, it does. 

Mr. SCOTT. Dr. Berlin, can you describe the Washington study 

that you referred to? 

Dr. BERLIN. Well, it’s been a while since I’ve read it, so I want 

to be careful. But it is available; it’s been published. 

They found two things. They found that after a crime had been 

committed, there was a more rapid identification of the offender. 

Now, I think registration itself will accomplish that, and I certainly 

support registration. So they did find that it helped law enforcement apprehend after the fact. 

What I think we all also want very desperately to do is to intercede before the fact. And what the study did not find is that, in 

comparing arrests before that had been—the community notification went into effect, and afterwards, that there had been a reduction in recidivism of sex offenders. 

Now, there needs to be more research. You make a good point. 

It’s early on. I just want people to think about these things, because sometimes I worry there’s a rush to judgment here. And I 

think this is so important. We want to try to get as objective a 

sense of the facts as we possibly can; at least, in my judgment. 

Mr. SCOTT. Of all child abuse cases, do you have any information 

as to how many of the children victims of child abuse were victimized by convicted—those who had previously been convicted of a 

child sexual offense? 

Dr. BERLIN. I don’t know that. What I do know is that many victimizers are former victims. So that one of the other things we 

need to do is target those, particularly boys who’ve been victimized; 

try to provide them with services earlier on. That may be something that will also help to prevent victimization. But I don’t know 

the answer to your original question. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you think it would be very small, the portion 

of children who have been victimized—of all of them, the portion 

who have been victimized by those caught and convicted and on a 

registry? 

Dr. BERLIN. Well, again, I don’t want to go beyond my expertise. 

I don’t know. What I do know is that, if you’ve committed a serious 

sex offender more than once, as things exist today, you’re likely not 

going to be out there in the community. I’m not opposing that. 

What we’re talking about is people who aren’t in that position. 

You know, nobody needs to figure out what to do about the guy 

that killed Jessica Lunsford. We all know what to do about that. 

The issue is the guy who’s involved incestuously with his daughter. 

Are we going to treat him in exactly the same way? 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you mentioned some things that you can do to 

actually reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse. Do you have 

other initiatives that we ought to be looking at? 

Dr. BERLIN. Well, we ought to look at everything. I mean, I think 

parole and probation—the Justice Department set up an entity 

called CSOM, Center for Sex Offender Management. They’re working on helping parole and probation officers know how to do a better job in monitoring these people. Supporting that, I think, is extremely important. 

30

Many of these parole and probation people are stretched very 

thin. I think we want to be able to have them have smaller caseloads. 

We work collaboratively in our program with parole and probation. For example, Federal probation often actually goes out and 

surveils people. But they need more help to be able to do that. You 

know, frankly, if somebody came to me and said, ‘‘There’s a person 

in your community, he’s dangerous,’’ I’d kind of throw up my hands 

and say, you know, ‘‘I’m not sure what I should do about it. Is 

somebody out there watching him?’’ I think we can do more to be sure—if we think he’s that dangerous, and we can’t get him off the streets, to make certain someone’s out there watching him. That’s why I say we shouldn’t look 

at this in a vacuum. How can we best spend our money, use our 

resources, for the common good? 

Mr. SCOTT. And Ms. Henke, as I understand it, there are about 

500,000 people who are supposed to be registered, and 100,000 we 

don’t know about? 

Ms. HENKE. That’s correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Who is going to pay for the follow-up to make sure 

people are in compliance? 

Ms. HENKE. Well, one of the things, that does fall on State and 

local entities, predominantly, as well as the registered sex offender. 

You have communities, counties, States across the country, that 

are putting in place some interesting—I’ll call them pilot programs, 

on trying to track down offenders who are not living at their registered address. 

For instance, there is a county in Florida who literally has put 

those pictures of those offenders up throughout the community and 

through other places, saying, ‘‘Have you seen this individual?’’ Because they’ve gone to those homes; they’re not living where they’re 

registered. So activities like that are going on. 

Also, through our Center for Sex Offender Management, as was 

mentioned, we are providing training and technical assistance to 

State and local authorities on ways to better track offenders. 

Mr. SCOTT. But—just a quick follow-up—but in the various 

pieces of legislation, that will still be the State and local problem, 

not the Department of Justice? 

Ms. HENKE. Most of these crimes are—yes, sir, it would be. 

Mr. GREEN. Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. Let me again thank 

the Chairman and the Ranking Member for holding what I think 

is an enormously important hearing. And I’ll restate my position 

that I made earlier today, that we need a national comprehensive 

statement that parallels, Mr. Allen, with what you all have been 

doing for a number of years. 

Amie, I want to thank you. I have an enormous debt of gratitude 

to extend to you for your courage, for your strength of character, 

and for your can-do attitude. And I’m going to tell you, you’re going 

to beat this. And as you do this, you’re going to help educate and 

encourage and embrace children and young people around the Nation and the world. We applaud you for what you have done. 

And I want you to know, as I listen to Dr. Berlin, let me say this. 

We can do both. We can find a balance that recognizes where there 

31

is an opportunity for rehabilitation, for the lowering of recidivism, 

for the protection of privacy rights. If we’ve been able to go into 

space, and if we are headed to Mars over the next couple of months 

and years, I can’t imagine that we as a country cannot provide that 

balance. 

I would refer you to a section in H.R. 244, which is legislation 

that I wrote, that provides for incentives to States as they work toward programs dealing with recidivism. Which may mean a myriad 

of things. It may mean treatment, it may mean other kinds of deterrence factors that would encourage. 

I would appreciate you just commenting on the aspect of States 

not only looking for some of the criminal penalties, but also addressing these questions, whether it’s through the mental health 

system or not; but to really go head-on on the question of recidivism. 

I happen to think, let me just say very clearly, one violent predator, one child sexual predator, is one too many for me. I mean, 

plain and simple. I can’t even tolerate the existence of one. I do 

hope people can rehabilitate their lives. But I would think that 

Amie, who sits next to you, would agree that one is one too many. 

So I’d appreciate your comment on the idea of a State looking to 

enhance programs dealing with recidivism. 

Dr. BERLIN. Well, if I may—and if it’s off-topic, you can correct 

me—but I think society in general needs to try to figure out how 

we conceptualize these problems. To give you an example, several 

States, as you know, now have civil commitment of sex offenders. 

What happens is, in practice, that a number of these men come 

into prison initially. They say they’re sick, they need help, they 

need treatment. The attitude is, ‘‘You’re just trying to beat the rap. 

Let’s get you off to prison where you belong. We’ll punish you.’’

They spend 20 years in prison with virtually no help, no effort to 

rehabilitate them. Then, they’re ready to leave. Suddenly, the rules 

change: ‘‘We realize what’s going on here is you’re sick, you need 

treatment. We’re going to go and put you someplace where you can 

get that help.’’

Are these people ill, or are they bad? I think there are some people out there that are simply bad, and I have no problem saying 

that, but I think there’s others——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I may, because my time is short, I would 

assume, then, that you would look favorably at an approach where 

States have to look at programs, however they deal—may approach 

the mental health, the treatment beforehand, the treatment after—

but that they approach it from the perspective, ‘‘What can we do 

to avoid the recidivism?’’

Which is, I think, Amie’s point; which is the predator that she 

experienced came back even as a juvenile, and continued to act out 

in this horrible, negative way. 

Dr. BERLIN. Absolutely. We should expect prisons to rehabilitate. 

Right now, we hold them accountable, ‘‘Don’t escape, don’t have a 

riot,’’ and so on. They should rehabilitate. People that have come 

out should have a transition. Someone should be following them. If 

we see they’re headed for trouble, we should have a way of pulling 

them back in. 

32

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you would be supportive of States giving 

incentives that devise programs dealing with recidivism? 

Dr. BERLIN. Absolutely. Start right up-front when somebody’s arrested, particularly if they’re going to come back out, and do it from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘Z.’’ Ms. JACKSON LEE. I appreciate it. Mr. Allen, let me first of all 

thank you for your work, and ask you on this question of—and I 

hope Ms. Henke can answer, as well. I’ve looked at and heard your 

testimony that the Department of Justice, General Gonzales, is 

looking at refining your registry list and working with States. 

Do you think, as we’ve looked at the number of legislative initiatives—and I’d appreciate if you’d comment on something that is a 

little separate and apart, which is the idea of a DNA database on 

convicted sex offenders; which is a little different from the registry. 

But do we need legislative intervention? We’ve had it, where you’ve 

advocated for it before, and it’s worked. 

Again, does that tie into the National Government making a Federal statement, a national statement, when you intervene legislatively? Whether it be on the registry, or whether it be in particular 

on the DNA registration on convicted predators? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, Congresswoman, first, as it relates to the registry, we think Congress made a strong, loud national statement in 

1994 with the passage of the Wetterling Act and with the Federal 

Megan’s Law. 

We think this is an issue where there is huge opportunity for 

greater Federal leadership. We believe in federalism. We know the 

States have a role, but we think the Congress can play a key role 

in filling some of these gaps and addressing some of these problems. And we think that’s a process that the Committee is looking 

at and we certainly support. 

Secondly, as it relates to DNA, as you know, we are strong advocates of a national DNA database. In fact, efforts—you know, there 

is a process in place that goes beyond sex offenders. The big challenge there has been compatibility between State databases and 

the FBI’s CODIS database. We think that’s a problem that needs 

to be fixed. 

Congress, I think last year, took steps to set up four regional centers. The University of North Texas, in fact, is the first such center 

which is basically handling State DNA samples and translating 

them or adapting them into the CODIS system. The big challenge 

is the FBI standards are higher than many of the states’. Much of 

that may be because of resources. 

But DNA is important not only to convict people, but to exonerate those who have been accused unfairly. So we support it very 

much. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. I’m not sure if we have an additional round. Would you indulge me, and let Ms. Henke answer the 

question that I raised, and Amie? 

Mr. GREEN. By all means. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I assume, Mr. Allen, you’re talking about this 

very important system. 

Ms. Henke, I’m just wondering, are you here explaining, or is 

there any opposition now with the Department of Justice that we 

do as Mr. Allen has asked us to do and Amie has noted, to enhance 

33

what we have; even though it looks administratively that the Department of Justice is consistent with our national statement? Can 

we enhance what we’re doing legislatively; and in particular, a 

DNA bank that is directly related to convicted sexual predators? 

Ms. HENKE. As you know, the Department, and the Administration overall, understands and is looking forward to continuing to 

work with Congress on the different bills and legislation that has 

been introduced. 

When it comes to DNA, the President has stated clearly he understands the importance of DNA in convicting offenders, as well 

as, as correctly pointed out by Mr. Allen, identifying the innocent 

as well, making certain that those individuals are served and protected as well. That is why he has committed over a billion dollars 

right now to reduce the backlog that exists in crime labs across the 

country, through the Office of Justice Programs. We’re the ones 

who oversee those resources. 

The Attorney General stated clearly, when he announced the 

public registry, the need for that information. The idea that information—to use almost a cliche, information is power. Information 

can serve as a preventative mechanism for communities, for parents, for grandparents. That is why he challenged us to use the 

technology that we have to establish this national registry. 

We think this national registry will also serve as a tool for States 

to look at what each other is doing, and for them to say, ‘‘You know 

what? We can improve upon what we are doing in our own State.’’ This provides them that opportunity to look at how their registries 

work, and how they don’t work; what information is available, 

what information is not. 

As you know, State law is just that, and it’s different in every 

single State. And so this registry we believe not only will provide 

information to the public, but will also help us work with the 

States in potentially addressing some of the issues administratively, and potentially get that done quicker. 

The Attorney General is committed to working with the Congress 

on this issue and on a variety of bills because, as he has pointed 

out—and in reference to Mr. Scott’s statistics and in reference to 

your statement earlier—yes, it might appear that the recidivism 

rate is not high, when you’re talking about the statistics, when you 

look at it in just that way. However, when you look at the fact that 

the recidivism rate was 5.3 percent overall, that was 514 additional 

sex offenses that occurred in those 3 years—515. And the majority 

of those against children under the age of 13. So the Department 

of Justice is committed to working with you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I hear you saying that you’re certainly 

not suggesting that we cannot work together on enhancing what we 

have through legislative initiatives, and that the Department of 

Justice will work with us? 

Ms. HENKE. Yes, we will. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Chairman, if I may finish by raising this point 

with Amie, I think that Amie has exhibited the importance of both 

outreach and education. 

Mr. GREEN. Right. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And as well, courage, as I said. It might be 

worthy—and I’m not sure if any of our legislative initiatives has 

34

the idea of a massive—and I know Missing and Exploited Children’s Center has done so—public campaign that would utilize 

those who would be willing to be utilized, on just speaking directly 

to children on some of the do’s and don’ts. 

But Amie, let me say to you that you’re here before us today, and 

I simply asked the question whether you would welcome the opportunity, in your own time, to teach other children or to make sure 

that they knew about some of the things that they should not do. 

And also, that would give us some ability to learn from you as well. 

Would you work with us? 

Ms. ZYLA. Uh-huh. 

Mr. GREEN. In fact, if I can interject, I think that’s what she’s 

done back in Wisconsin. And obviously, her presence here—Amie, 

as you can tell, we’re all very impressed with your courage, with 

your story. And we’re going to make sure that we put it to good 

use. So I want to thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Amie, very much. 

Mr. GREEN. I want to thank all the witnesses for coming today. 

We appreciate it very much. We’ve had several hearings on the 

subject of crimes against children, and we will produce good legislation and results. I want to thank all of you. Keep up the great 

work. 

In order to ensure a full record and adequate consideration of 

this important issue, the record on this hearing will be left open 

for additional submissions for 7 days. Also, any written questions 

that a Member wants to submit should be submitted within that 

same 7-day period. 

This concludes the oversight hearing on ‘‘Protecting Our Nation’s 

Children From Sexual Predators and Violent Criminals: What 

Needs To Be Done?’’ Thanks to everyone here for their cooperation. 

The Subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the ubcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on what’s needed to protect 

children from sexual predators and other violent criminals. It is interested that we 

held the hearing on the legislation that has already been drafted to purport to that, 

but since it has not been enacted, it is clear that we are still open to hear what 

are the best approaches, and can adjust the legislation, or craft new legislation, to 

reflect the advice we receive. Unfortunately, our tendency as policy makers is to respond to what’s in the media with what sounds good politically without ever considering what research, evidence and mature reflection might suggest. 

Child deaths as a result of sexual abuse or other violence is so tragic as to shock 

the conscious. The visceral reaction we all have is to simply strike back with all the 

punitive weight of the government. As policy makers, it is incumbent upon us to 

not simply do what our emotions or politics command, but to do something that will 

actually reduce the incidences of these crimes. We know that many more children 

die as a result of child abuse than is reflected by the tragic cases of child sexual 

abuse and murder that have been in the news, and we know that the vast majority 

of child abusers, including child sex offenders, were abused themselves as children. 

We also know that the vast majority of abusers are relatives and other individuals 

well known to the child and family, 90 - 95% according to BACHNET (Be a Child’s 

Hero Network), and that most cases of abuse are never reported to authorities or 

ever dealt with in an official manner. Further we know that while some child sex 

offenders are predatory and repeat their crimes many times, the vast majority do 

not recidivate. Extensive studies by DOJ and other entities indicate that less than 

5% repeat their offenses. Any repeat sex offense against a child is horrible, but 

wehave to consider whether the cost benefit of treating 100% of known offenders the 

same is cost effective aainst the other vast needs for preventing abuse of children. 

It would be nice to think that we can legislate away the possibility of such horrific 

crimes, but it is not realistic to believe we can and we should certainly seek to avoid 

enacting legislation that expends scarce resources in a manner that is not cost effective or that exacerbates the problem. While it is clear that having police and supervision authorities aware of all location and identification information about child sex 

offenders, it is not clear that making that information indiscriminately available to 

the public, with no guidance or restriction on what they can do with, or in response 

to, such information, is helpful to children. There have been incidences of vigilante 

and other activities which have driven offenders underground. And, again, the vast 

majority of offenders are family members or associates known to the victim; so we 

don’t want to make the victims reluctant to come forward because their home and 

family will be exposed by a registry. 

Moreover, some of the bills that have been proposed have elaborate procedures 

and requirements of that will cost a lot of money to implement. We should assure 

there is a cost benefit analysis of what would be the most productive use of such 

money rather than simply impose the requirements without references to effectiveness or cost/benefit. 

So, Mr. Chairman I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses for insight on 

the question of what approaches are most promising in helping to reduce the 

scourge of sexual and other abuse of children. With the vast majority of child sexual 

and other abuse cases going unreported, the notion that we can address the issue 

by punishment and law enforcement approaches alone sounds hollow. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman.

36

LETTERS SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE MARK GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN AND MEMBER OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON

CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY ON BEHALF OF ALLISON GULLICK, 

MARC KLAAS, AND ERIC AND MICHELLE WILKINSON


green1.eps
37


green2.eps
38


green3.eps
39


green4.eps
40


green5.eps
41


green6.eps
42


green7.eps
43

Æ


green8.eps