19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–637 

ADAM WALSH REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2012 

JULY 31, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3796] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 3796) to reauthorize certain programs established by the 

Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment 

and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

The Amendment 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012’’. 

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

Section 126(d) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 

U.S.C. 16926(d)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General $20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2013 

through 2017, to be available only for— 

‘‘(1) the SOMA program; and 

‘‘(2) the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program established 

under section 631.’’. 

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

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. 

Section 142(b) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 

U.S.C. 16941(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘such sums as may be necessary for fiscal 

years 2007 through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘$46,200,000 for each of the fiscal years 

2013 through 2017’’. 

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

Subparagraph (B) of section 115(b)(2) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 

Safety Act of 2006 (42 U.S.C. 16915(b)(2)) is amended by striking ‘‘25 years’’ and 

inserting ‘‘15 years’’. 

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

Section 118(c) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 

U.S.C. 16918(c)) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon in paragraph (3); 

(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: 

‘‘(4) any information about a sex offender for whom the offense giving rise to 

the duty to register was an offense for which the offender was adjudicated delinquent (or otherwise convicted) as a juvenile; and’’. 

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

UNDER SORNA. 

Section 125(a) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (42 

U.S.C. 16925(a)) is amended by striking ‘‘shall not receive’’ and all that follows and 

inserting ‘‘shall return to the Attorney General (for reallocation in accordance with 

subsection (c)), from the funds allocated to the jurisdiction for that fiscal year under 

subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 

of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), 10 percent of the amount the jurisdiction may retain under paragraph (1) of section 505(c) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 3755(c)).’’. 

SEC. 7. COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF SEX OFFENDER ISSUES. 

Section 634(c) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 is 

amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of enactment 

of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012, the National Institute of Justice shall submit to Congress a report on the public safety impact, recidivism, 

and collateral consequences of long-term registration of juvenile sex offenders, 

based on the information collected for the study under subsection (a) and any 

other information the National Institute of Justice determines necessary for 

such report.’’. 

SEC. 8. JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT GRANTS REAUTHORIZATION. 

Section 3012(c) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797ee-1(c)) is amended by striking ‘‘$10,000,000 for each of fiscal 

years 2007 through 2009 to carry out this part’’ and inserting ‘‘$2,979,000 for each 

of the fiscal years 2013 through 2017 to carry out this section’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

1Department of the Justice, Office of the Attorney General; The National Guidelines for Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification, Docket No. OAG 121, AG Order No. 2978–2008. 2Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Supplemental Guidelines for Sex Offender Registration and Notification, Docket No. OAG 134, AG Order No. 3241–2011. 

Purpose and Summary 

H.R. 3796 reauthorizes two key programs of the Adam Walsh 

Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (‘‘Adam Walsh Act’’), P.L. 

109–248, including funding for the U.S. Marshals’ fugitive apprehension program, and grants to help the states and other jurisdictions come into compliance with the national sex offender registry 

requirements of the Act. The bill also lowers the age after which 

certain juveniles adjudicated delinquent can apply for removal from 

the sex offender registry for a clean record from 25 to 15 years. 

Background and Need for the Legislation 

The Adam Walsh Act was signed into law on July 27, 2006. The 

Act is intended to protect children and the public at large from sexual exploitation and other violent crime. The Act also aims to prevent child abuse and child pornography, promote Internet safety, 

and honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other crime victims. 

SORNA

Title I of the Adam Walsh Act, the Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification Act (‘‘SORNA’’), 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq., was enacted 

to protect the public from convicted sex offenders by establishing 

a comprehensive national system for the registration and notification to the public and law enforcement officers of those offenders. 

SORNA sought to create a consistent and uniform system of sex offender registries throughout the country that would enable law enforcement officials and the public to track sex offenders and to prevent offenders from eluding the authorities—particularly when 

they move out of state. To achieve this goal, SORNA 1) expanded 

the jurisdictions required to register sex offenders to include Indian 

tribes, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia; 2) set forth 

minimum uniform standards for sex offender registries; 3) required 

the registration of a broader class of offenders; 4) required sex offenders to register and renew in person their registration in every 

jurisdiction where they live, work, or attend school; 5) changed the 

minimum length of registration for sex offenders; and 6) expanded 

the information made available to the public. 

The Department of Justice’s Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (‘‘SMART’’) Office, 

which administers SORNA, issued guidelines for minimum compliance with SORNA in 2008,1 and more recently issued supplemental 

guidelines in January 2011 that were intended to address certain 

concerns among the jurisdictions.2 The minimum SORNA registry 

requirements include: 

• Classification of offenders based on their crime of conviction, 

instead of using a risk-assessment system. Under SORNA, 

jurisdictions are required to put offenders into three different tiers based on convictions. These tiers determine the 

length of registry and how often an offender must renew registration each year. The jurisdictions, however, are free to 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

3See United States v. Leach, 639 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2011) (finding that SORNA does not violate the ex post facto clause and citing cases with similar outcomes from nine other circuits); 

but see United States v. Juvenile Male, 581 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding that SORNA violated the ex post facto clause) vacated 131 S.Ct. 2860 (2011). 4See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003). 5Failure to comply with SORNA does not generate a one-time penalty. Instead, the Justice 

Department will consider SORNA compliance each year prior to determining Byrne JAG distributions. 

use risk assessments to place offenders in higher tiers. This 

provision was included in the Act to address the wide-range 

of risk assessment systems among the states, which led to 

much less uniform enforcement of the registry laws. 

• Registration of both newly-convicted sex offenders, as well as 

past offenders. The states are only required to register sex 

offenders who are currently in the criminal justice program 

as prisoners or supervisees, or those who reenter the system 

through a subsequent criminal conviction. This retroactive 

application of the law has been upheld as constitutional by 

several Federal courts.3 The U.S. Supreme Court has not 

ruled on the constitutionality of SORNA’s retroactivity, but 

has upheld a similar state law on the basis that the sex offender registration and notification statute was a civil regulatory, rather than a penal, statute.4

• Registration of a small subset of juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent for committing violent sex crimes. Under 

the SORNA guidelines, the only juveniles who must be 

added to the registries are those who were at least 14 years 

old at the time of an offense and are adjudicated delinquent 

for committing (or attempting or conspiring to commit) a sexual act with another by force, by the threat of serious violence, or by rendering unconscious or drugging the victim. In 

other words, only the most serious juvenile offenders are required to register. The guidelines also exempt publication of 

these juveniles on the public registry—instead, only law enforcement will see the fact that they are registered sex offenders. 

• Periodic in-person registry throughout the year. Depending 

on which tier an offender falls in, they must register once a 

year (Tier 1), twice a year (Tier 2), or quarterly (Tier 3). The 

SMART Office has, however, provided some flexibility regarding how these renewals can take place. 

The states were initially given until July 27, 2009, to comply 

with the SORNA provisions or face a potential 10-percent reduction 

to the state portion of the Federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant (‘‘Byrne JAG’’) funding. Any state that demonstrates reasonable progress toward compliance with SORNA, 

however, can petition the Department of Justice to have the 10-percent reduction credited back, provided that the state agrees to 

spend the money on SORNA implementation. 

The Attorney General exercised his discretion to grant two 1-year 

extensions to the jurisdictions. Accordingly, the final deadline for 

the states and territories to comply with SONA and avoid a penalty 

was July 27, 2011.5 To date, 39 jurisdictions have been deemed in 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

substantial compliance with SORNA, including 15 states, 22 Indian 

tribes, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. 

The Indian tribes generally did not face the same deadline as the 

states, and instead are required to implement SORNA in a ‘‘reasonable’’ time, as determined by the Department of Justice. The Indian 

tribes also generally do not face the same 10-percent reduction in 

Byrne JAG funding. However, tribes that are determined unlikely 

to come into compliance with SORNA face having the responsibility 

for doing so delegated to the state in which they reside. 

The Adam Walsh Act also made it a Federal felony to fail to reregister as a sex offender after moving to another state, and required states to toughen their penalties, now often misdemeanors, 

for failing to register at all. The U.S. Marshals were tasked under 

the Act with apprehending both state and Federal fugitive sex offenders, investigating violations of the Act’s sex offender registration requirements, and identifying and locating sex offenders who 

are relocated as the result of a major disaster. 

AUTHORIZATIONS

The Adam Walsh Act created or reauthorized more than 20 Federal spending and grant programs devoted to SORNA, sex offender 

management, and child safety. The majority of these grants are no 

longer authorized, and the majority of them have never received an 

appropriation from Congress. The original Adam Walsh Act was estimated by CBO to cost $1.5 

billion over 5 years. By contrast, this bill reauthorizes just two programs at levels commensurate with the FY 2012 appropriation levels, for a total of approximately $330 million in spending over 5 

years. 

Hearings 

The Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held 1 day of hearings on the Adam Walsh Act on 

February 15, 2011. Testimony was received from: Ms. Dawn Doran, 

Deputy Director, SMART Office, U.S. Department of Justice; Ms. 

Stacia Hylton, Director, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Department of 

Justice; Mr. Ernie Allen, President and CEO, the National Center 

for Missing & Exploited Children; and Representative Patricia 

Colloton, Chair, Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee, Kansas House of Representatives. 

Committee Consideration 

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

voice vote, a quorum being present. 

Committee Votes 

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there were 

no recorded votes during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

3796. The Committee approved by voice vote four amendments offered by Mr. Scott. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Committee Oversight Findings 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures 

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 3796, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 30, 2012. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, CHAIRMAN, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3796, the ‘‘Adam Walsh 

Reauthorization Act of 2012.’’ 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz, who 

can be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS W. ELMENDORF, DIRECTOR. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

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

As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary 

on July 18, 2012. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 3796 would authorize the appropriation of about $69 million 

annually over the 2013–2017 period mostly for Department of Justice programs to assist State and local governments to manage and 

track sex offenders. The Congress appropriated about $20 million 

for fiscal year 2012 for similar activities. 

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 3796 would cost $298 million over 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

the 2013–2017 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to 

this legislation because it would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 3796 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3796 is shown in the following table. CBO assumes that the authorized amounts will be appropriated near the start of each fiscal year and that outlays will 

follow the historical rate of spending for similar activities. The 

costs of this legislation fall within budget function 750 (administration of justice). 

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2013– 

2017 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Authorization Level 69 69 69 69 69 345 

Estimated Outlays 42 58 63 66 69 298 

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS: 

None. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

H.R. 3796 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. Assuming appropriation of authorized 

amounts, State, local, and tribal governments would receive about 

$77 million of the $298 million that would be spent over the 2013– 

2017 period for the treatment and tracking of sex offenders. Any 

costs to those governments would be incurred voluntarily as a condition of receiving Federal assistance. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell 

Impact on the Private Sector: Marin Randall 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Theresa Gullo 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

Performance Goals and Objectives 

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 3796, reauthorizes funding for the U.S. Marshals’ fugitive apprehension program 

and grants to help jurisdictions come into compliance with the 

Adam Walsh Act’s national sex offender registry requirements, and 

lowers the age after which juveniles adjudicated delinquent can 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

apply for removal from the sex offender registry for a clean record 

from 25 to 15 years. 

Advisory on Earmarks 

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, H.R. 3796 does not contain any congressional 

earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 

in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI. 

Section-by-Section Analysis 

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title. This section cites the short title of the bill as 

the ‘‘Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012.’’ 

Section 2. Sex Offender Management Assistance (SOMA) Program 

Reauthorization. This section reauthorizes the SOMA program at 

$20 million a year for 5 years, which reflects the FY 2012 appropriation level. The SOMA program provides funding to the states, 

tribes and other jurisdictions to offset the costs of implementing 

and enhancing SORNA. Section 2 also clarifies that SOMA grant 

funds can be used to verify the addresses of registered sex offenders, as initially authorized under the Adam Walsh Act’s Jessica 

Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program. SOMA was initially 

authorized as ‘‘such sums as necessary.’’ 

Section 3. Reauthorization of Federal Assistance with Respect to 

Violations of Registration Requirements. This section reauthorizes 

$46.2 million a year for 5 years for the U.S. Marshals Service 

(‘‘USMS’’), and other DOJ law enforcement agencies, to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate 

registration requirements. The USMS is the primary Federal agency responsible for enforcing the registration requirements of the 

Adam Walsh Act and apprehending Federal and state fugitive sex 

offenders. This program was initially authorized as ‘‘such sums as 

necessary.’’ 

Section 4. Duration of Sex Offender Registration Requirements for 

Certain Juveniles. This section changes the period of time after 

which juveniles adjudicated delinquent can apply to be removed 

from the sex offender registry for keeping a clean record from 25 

years to 15 years 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

ADAM WALSH CHILD PROTECTION AND SAFETY ACT OF 

2006 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

TITLE I—SEX OFFENDER 

REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION ACT 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle A—Sex Offender Registration and 

Notification 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 115. DURATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT. 

(a) * * * 

(b) REDUCED PERIOD FOR CLEAN RECORD.— 

(1) * * * 

(2) PERIOD.—In the case of— 

(A) * * * 

(B) a tier III sex offender adjudicated delinquent for the 

offense which required registration in a sex registry under 

this title, the period during which the clean record shall be 

maintained is ø25 years¿ 15 years. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 118. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION 

THROUGH THE INTERNET. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) OPTIONAL EXEMPTIONS.—A jurisdiction may exempt from disclosure— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) the name of an educational institution where the sex offender is a student; øand¿ 

(4) any information about a sex offender for whom the offense 

giving rise to the duty to register was an offense for which the 

offender was adjudicated delinquent (or otherwise convicted) as 

a juvenile; and 

ø(4)¿ (5) any other information exempted from disclosure by 

the Attorney General. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 125. FAILURE OF JURISDICTION TO COMPLY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—For any fiscal year after the end of the period 

for implementation, a jurisdiction that fails, as determined by the 

Attorney General, to substantially implement this title øshall not 

receive 10 percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated 

for that fiscal year to the jurisdiction under subpart 1 of part E of 

title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 

(42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.).¿ shall return to the Attorney General (for 

reallocation in accordance with subsection (c)), from the funds allocated to the jurisdiction for that fiscal year under subpart 1 of part 

E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), 10 percent of the amount the jurisdicVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:31 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR637.XXX HR637

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

tion may retain under paragraph (1) of section 505(c) of such Act 

(42 U.S.C. 3755(c)). 

* * * * * * * 

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

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addition to any 

amounts otherwise authorized to be appropriated, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Attorney General, to be available only for the SOMA program, for fiscal years 2007 through 2009.¿ 

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated to the Attorney General $20,000,000 for each of the 

fiscal years 2013 through 2017, to be available only for— 

(1) the SOMA program; and 

(2) the Jessica Lunsford Address Verification Grant Program 

established under section 631. 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle B—Improving Federal Criminal 

Law Enforcement To Ensure Sex Offender Compliance With Registration 

and Notification Requirements and Protection of Children From Violent Predators 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 142. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO VIOLATIONS OF 

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated øsuch sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 

2007 through 2009¿ $46,200,000 for each of the fiscal years 2013 

through 2017 to implement this section. 

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle C—Grants, Studies, and Other 

Provisions 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

SEC. 634. COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF SEX OFFENDER ISSUES. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) REPORTS.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) ADDITIONAL REPORT.—Not later than one year after the 

date of enactment of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 

2012, the National Institute of Justice shall submit to Congress 

a report on the public safety impact, recidivism, and collateral 

consequences of long-term registration of juvenile sex offenders, 

based on the information collected for the study under subsection (a) and any other information the National Institute of 

Justice determines necessary for such report. 

* * * * * * * 

OMNIBUS CRIME CONTROL AND SAFE STREETS ACT OF 

1968 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE I—JUSTICE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

PART KK—SEX OFFENDER APPREHENSION 

GRANTS; JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT GRANTS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3012. JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT GRANTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated ø$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 

2009 to carry out this part¿ $2,979,000 for each of the fiscal years 

2013 through 2017 to carry out this section. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

1Pub. L. No. 109–248 (2006). 

2Office of Justice Programs, Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, 

Registering, and Tracking, ‘‘Jurisdictions that have substantially implemented SORNA,’’ available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/newsroom.htm. 3The Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong. (2011). 

Additional Views 

INTRODUCTION

H.R. 3796, the ‘‘Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2012,’’ reauthorizes programs of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety 

Act of 2006 (‘‘Adam Walsh Act’’).1 Reauthorizing funding for law 

enforcement operations that are already law is not controversial. 

The problem with H.R. 3796 is not what is in it, but what is missing. The bill fails to address the many problems that the states and 

tribes have encountered in implementing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (‘‘SORNA’’), which is one of the provisions of the Adam Walsh Act. 

DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

Out of 248 jurisdictions required to comply, only 15 states, 2 territories, and 33 tribes have been found by the Attorney General to 

be in compliance with SORNA.2 Last year, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing on reauthorization of the Adam Walsh 

Act, during which we learned about numerous problems that states 

and tribes have encountered in implementing SORNA.3 H.R. 3796 

fails to effectively address many of these problems with SORNA. 

CONCERNS WITH H.R. 3796

Years before SORNA was enacted, many states developed sex offender registries and dedicated substantial resources to identify 

ways to effectively manage sex offenders. It would be inefficient as 

well as adversely affect public safety to make states disregard all 

of these efforts in favor of a prescriptive, ‘‘one size fits all’’ system, 

which is what SORNA currently is. The states that have been unable to comply with SORNA will soon suffer a 10 percent reduction 

in their Byrne-JAG awards for not doing so. Particularly during 

this economic climate, this is a harsh penalty to the states that will 

undermine not only their ability to manage sex offenders, but also 

the other public safety goals that the funds are now supporting. 

Representative Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (D–VA) offered ten 

amendments to address these shortcomings in the bill. The amendments sought to give discretion to the states (and to the Attorney 

General) to make critical decisions about how to most effectively 

and safely manage sex offenders. Fortunately, four of these amendments passed by voice vote. Those amendments: 1) give states the 

flexibility to put juveniles on a law enforcement-only registry, not 

on a public registry; 2) reauthorize funding under the Adam Walsh 

Act for the treatment of juvenile sex offenders; 3) require the study 

of the public safety impact of long term or lifetime registration on 

juvenile registrants, and 4) ensure that portions of the Byrne-JAG 

grant funding intended for distribution to local governments and 

entities are not penalized by a state’s non-compliance with SORNA. 

The six other amendments offered by Representative Scott, however, failed by voice vote. A summary of these amendments follows. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

4See Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA), The effective legal management 

of juvenile sex offender, Mar. 11, 2000, available at http://www.atsa.com/ppjuvenile.html 

One of these amendments would have allowed tribes to elect to 

either carry out the requirements of SORNA or delegate the requirements to another jurisdiction. By requiring that states take on 

the responsibility for sex offender registration on tribal lands if a 

tribe fails to comply, SORNA merges state and tribal law enforcement responsibilities in a manner that threatens tribal sovereignty 

and shifts the cost of tribal compliance to the states. This amendment would have clarified that tribal sovereignty should be respected and states may not be penalized for lack of tribal cooperation or compliance. 

Another amendment offered by Representative Scott would have 

clarified that tribes in Public Law 83–280 (PL 280) states have the 

option of becoming registration and notification jurisdictions. As 

currently written, SORNA strips a subset of tribes that are subject 

to state criminal jurisdiction under PL 280 of exclusive civil regulatory authority over their members without any justification. This 

amendment would have given tribes the ability to have their own 

registries rather than relying upon the state. 

Representative Scott also offered an amendment that would have 

given each jurisdiction the discretion as to whether to apply 

SORNA retroactively. Applying SORNA retroactively is one of the 

obstacles preventing jurisdictions from complying with SORNA and 

is one of the most controversial aspects of the Adam Walsh Act. 

Several states have had to incur the expense and engagement of 

trials and appeals challenging their retroactive application of 

SORNA requirements in which the states lost and other such challenges are pending. This amendment would have clarified that 

states have the discretion to decide whether and how to retroactively manage the registry regarding individuals whose convictions preceded the enactment of the Act, because they have to bear 

the expense of challenges. 

With respect to the treatment of juveniles under the legislation, 

Representative Scott offered an amendment to allow states to decide whether to include juveniles who have been adjudicated as juveniles on their sex offender registries. Adolescent sex offenders are 

considered to be much more responsive to treatment than adult sex 

offenders and very rarely re-offend, especially when provided with 

appropriate treatment.4 This amendment would have provided 

states the flexibility to decide whether to include juveniles on their 

sex offender registries. 

In addition, Representative Scott offered an amendment to provide states the flexibility to amend registry and notification requirements of offenders, in consultation with law enforcement. This 

amendment would provide each jurisdiction flexibility with respect 

to the manner and frequency with which a sex offender must report changes in name, residence, employment, or student status. 

This approach assists local law enforcement because these agencies 

are overwhelmed trying to keep up with this aspect of SORNA’s requirements with no or limited financial ability to add more staff to 

do more monitoring. Clearly, not all sex offenders pose the same 

risk, and just as states now determine how to supervise murderers, 

malicious wounders, drug kingpins, gang leaders and other danVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:31 Aug 01, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR637.XXX HR637

rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

gerous offenders, it makes sense to let them decide, in consultation 

with their law enforcement and corrections officials, how often they 

need to see each sex offender, and essentially, how best to manage 

each. 

Finally, Representative Scott offered an amendment to allow jurisdictions to be found in compliance with SORNA if they have developed a three-tier system of classification that is comparable to 

SORNA and link it to the national system, or if they use a validated risk assessment system. The manner in which sex offenders 

are classified is another significant barrier states have faced in 

implementating SORNA. This amendment would have allowed 

states greater flexibility in classifying their offenders, as long as 

they use a system comparable to SORNA and inter-face with 

SORNA in a way that would enable information-sharing about offenders, or a validated, risk assessment tool in doing so. 

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, the failure to pass amendments that would allow 

states the flexibility to meet more of SORNA’s requirements in a 

more cost-effective respect means that these jurisdictions will continue to remain non-compliant and to incur loses of Byrne-JAG 

funds through penalties. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR. 

JUDY CHU. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with HEARING