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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–584 PDF 2011

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ADAM WALSH ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 2011 

Serial No. 112–12 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM REED, New York 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas, Vice-Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 15, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 7 

WITNESSES 

Dawn Doran, Deputy Director, Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking (SMART) Office, U.S. Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, on behalf of Linda Baldwin, Director, Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking 

(SMART) Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Stacia A. Hylton, Director, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 26 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29 

Ernie Allen, President and CEO, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Alexandria, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38 

The Honorable Patricia Colloton, Chair, Corrections and Juvenile Justice 

Committee, Kansas House of Representatives, Leawood, KS 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security ................................ 5 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 8 

Response from Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice, to question from the Honorable 

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, and Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security ................................................................................................................. 79 

Prepared Statement of Nicole Pittman, Esq., Juvenile Justice Policy Analyst 

Attorney, Defender Association of Philadelphia, submitted by the Honorable 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State 

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

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 81 

(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

ADAM WALSH ACT 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Sensenbrenner, Conyers, Goodlatte, 

Lungren, Gohmert, Poe, Griffin, Marino, Gowdy, Adams, Quayle, 

Scott, Jackson Lee, Johnson, Quigley, Chu, and Wasserman 

Schultz. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Caroline Lynch, Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Sam Ramer, Counsel, Lindsay Hamilton, Clerk; (Minority) 

Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Lilliana Coronado, 

Counsel; and Veronica Elligan, Professional Staff Member. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Welcome to today’s hearing on the Adam Walsh Reauthorization 

Act. I would like to especially welcome our witnesses and thank 

you for joining us today. 

I am joined today by my colleague from Virginia, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Bobby Scott, also 

the Chairman emeritus, John Conyers of Michigan. And I recognize 

myself for 5 minutes. 

Today’s hearing examines the role of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act as a law enforcement tool to apprehend sex 

offenders throughout the United States. This Act was named for 

Adam Walsh, a Florida boy who was abducted from a shopping 

mall and later found murdered. His father channeled his grief into 

assisting law enforcement with the pursuit and capture of the most 

dangerous criminals this country faces. 

As Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in the 109th 

Congress, I made the adoption of this Act a priority. President 

Bush signed it into law on July 27, 2006. As Chairman of the 

Crime Subcommittee in this Congress, I am committed to reauthorizing this important legislation and seeing that it is fully implemented. 

A primary component of the Act is the Sex Offender Registration 

and Notification Act, or SORNA. SORNA establishes a comprehensive national system for the registration and notification to the 

2 

public of sex offenders. Under SORNA, sex offenders are organized 

into three tiers, with the most serious offenders required to register 

their whereabouts every 3 months with lifetime registration. 

SORNA also establishes a national database to incorporate the 

use of DNA evidence collection and DNA registry and tracking of 

convicted sex offenders with GPS technology. The law also increased criminal penalties for child exploitation offenses and authorized additional grant money to assist State and local law enforcement, with SORNA compliance, to combat child sex abuse and 

to assist with fugitive apprehension. 

The Act also created the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, or SMART. The 

responsibilities of the SMART Office include providing jurisdictions 

with guidance regarding the implementation of the Adam Walsh 

Act and providing technical assistance to the States, territories, Indian tribes, local governments, and to public and private organizations. The SMART Office also tracks important legislative and legal 

developments relating to sex offenders and administers grant programs relating to the registration, notification, and management of 

sex offenders. 

Thanks to the Adam Walsh Act, we have begun to make progress 

against thousands of sex offenders whose whereabouts are unknown. The U.S. Marshals, who bear the primary responsibility for 

finding these offenders, have been able to clear over 6,000 cases, 

with hundreds of offenders eventually convicted of failing to register. 

I would like to remind the Committee Members that this Act has 

been challenged in court several times and has been found to be 

constitutional in every respect. Claims that the law violates due 

process and claims against retroactivity of the law have been examined in many courts and rejected. This is a fair program, and the 

goals it seeks comport with the fundamental notions of liberty and 

federalism. Yet much more remains to be done. 

I am not pleased with the rate of compliance with the SORNA 

provisions. The original compliance date was July 2009, with the 

ability of jurisdictions to receive two 1-year extensions to July of 

this year. In that time, only five States, two Indian tribes, and the 

territory of Guam have been certified to be in compliance with the 

law. The remaining States and other tribes and territories have 

had ample time to come into compliance with the Act. In fact, the 

deadline for compliance for these States has already been extended 

significantly. I have heard that many States may be close to compliance with the law, and I hope that that is the case as the deadline for compliance fast approaches. 

As law enforcement officers seek to investigate serial sex offenders, they are often frustrated to find different States have different 

ways of categorizing them. The whole purpose of the Act was to 

make it easier to track these offenders, yet many of the same problems remain because so many States have failed to fully comply 

with the law. I am eager to hear from the Justice Department why 

so many jurisdictions have not complied. 

The Adam Walsh Act is vital to apprehending sex offenders and 

to protecting our children, and I intend to see that it is fully implemented. 

3 

I wish to welcome our witnesses today and thank you for joining 

us today. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you 

for this Subcommittee hearing on the Reauthorization of the Adam 

Walsh Act. 

It has been over 41⁄2 years since the passage of the Act. And 

when it originally passed, I opposed it because it increased mandatory minimum sentences, it added creation of new Federal criminal 

offenses on top of a myriad of existing and growing State offenses, 

it criminalized probably innocuous behavior by teenagers, and it 

created a National Sex Registry, which has not shown value in its 

stated goal of reducing sexual assault. 

Since its passage, jurisdictions subject to the requirements under 

the Act have told us that there are a number of problems and challenges with implementing the Act. In particular, the Sex Offender 

Registration and Notification part of the Act, referred to as 

SORNA, has proven to be unworkable for the vast majority of these 

jurisdictions. SORNA requires that individuals convicted of sex offenses register for a period of 15 years to life for conduct ranging 

from a misdemeanor solicitation offense to felony sexual assault. 

Even among the few States that have been certified as having met 

the requirements of these provisions, we are seeing reports of problems and difficult challenges, particularly given the budgetary constraints facing all of the country at this time. 

In short, SORNA is facing a crisis. As of a few days ago, since 

nearly 5 years after the passage of the Act, I had only four States 

had been qualified, two tribes and one territory have been found 

to be in compliance with SORNA. The remaining 241 jurisdictions 

face an unjustified and harsh tax on their Byrne Grant funding, because if they don’t comply they will lose some of that funding. As 

we know, the Byrne Grant monies are used to fund essential State 

and local programs, such as law enforcement and other community 

programs. It would be a double disaster for States to lose these 

monies for not being able to afford to implement the requirements 

due to their current severe budget shortfalls. 

Instead, we should consider the feedback that we will hear today 

and that we have been provided over the past years, and that is 

to earnestly seek the legitimate concerns that have been raised. 

Some of the feedback came to us by way of previous hearings on 

SORNA. 

In March 2009, when I was Chairman of the Committee, we convened a hearing on barriers on implementing SORNA. Nearly 2 

years later, many of these barriers that we heard at that hearing 

still exist. These include the high costs associated with implementation, the challenges that require juveniles to register posts for the 

States, including pending legal challenges; and both the legal and 

practical challenges with SORNA’s retroactivity requirement, the 

whole-scale reclassification of sex offenders; and for Indian tribes, 

specific challenges, including the loss of sovereignty if the tribes do 

not comply. At that hearing, we heard testimony from various 

4 

State and local law enforcement officials addressing each of these 

challenges. Unfortunately, many of these obstacles still exist. 

One such obstacle continues to be the requirement that juveniles 

as young as 14 years of age be placed upon the registry. Despite 

that, this registration requirement is limited to the most serious 

cases, and just this year the Attorney General gave jurisdictions 

discretion to make juveniles nonpublic. Numerous States are still 

having difficulty with this component due to legal challenges, considerable pressure from advocates and child development experts, 

and State legislators’ discomfort with placing juveniles on a registry. 

Another continuing impediment to this implementation is 

SORNA’s failure to allow for an actual risk assessment component 

to State registries. SORNA does not allow States to use risk assessment tools in developing its registry, which has posed a problem 

particularly in those States that had longstanding, effective State 

registries that used risk assessment tools long before SORNA. 

These States must completely alter their systems, which is costly, 

and some will face a legal challenge in so doing. Research indicates 

that the risk assessment is an effective way to monitor offenders. 

We should all prefer a tool that helps determine who is actually at 

risk of committing another offense, rather than just telling us who 

committed one in the past. Failing to distinguish between the two 

defeats the purpose of the registry and makes us actually less safe, 

not more safe. 

Tribes continue to face unique and compelling difficulties in implementing SORNA. Out of 192 tribes who have opted into 

SORNA, only two have been found to be in compliance. As many 

of us know, tribes suffer from high poverty rates and struggle with 

budgetary issues. In addition to losing much needed Byrne Grant 

funds, tribes face even more serious penalties should they fail to 

implement SORNA. This public function will involuntarily be delegated to the State in which a tribe is located. States will then have 

to take on the additional responsibility, when they are already 

struggling to implement their own registries, without putting them 

in the difficult position of encroaching upon tribal sovereignty. In 

light of the double penalty that tribes face, the burden that SORNA 

imposes on them is onerous. 

The cost of the barrier of implementing SORNA is a major barrier. For example, California has estimated that the potential cost 

to implement SORNA will be approximately $37 million. Texas 

says $14 million will be needed to implement SORNA. These numbers do not only pose a tremendous burden on the States, but also 

ask us to inquire whether it is worth the money. Are the States 

going to get a good return on their investment? And while we will 

do whatever it takes to protect our children, we must ask ourselves, are sex offender registries effective? Available research tells 

us that sex offender registers do not actually reduce the number of 

sexual assaults. This includes a DOJ study—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman is about 1 minute over his 

time. Can he wrap up, please? 

Mr. SCOTT. This includes a DOJ study funded under Megan’s 

Law, the predecessor of SORNA. 

I will insert the rest of my statement in the record. 

5 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you for this Crime Subcommittee 

hearing on ‘‘Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act.’’ It has been over four and a 

half years since the passage of the Adam Walsh Act. I opposed the Adam Walsh 

Act for myriad reasons, including the increases in mandatory minimum sentences, 

creation of new federal criminal offenses, on top of the myriad of existing and growing state offenses, criminalization of innocuous behavior by teenagers, and the creation of an onerous national sex offender registry of questionable merit or value to 

its stated goal of reducing sexual assault. 

Since its passage, jurisdictions subject to requirements under the Act have told 

us about a number of problems and challenges with implementing the Act. In particular, the Sex Offender Notification and Registration part of the Act, referred to 

as SORNA, is proving to be unworkable for the vast majority of these jurisdictions 

(states, territories, and tribes). And even among the few who have been certified as 

having met the requirements of those provisions, we are seeing reports of problems 

and difficult challenges, particularly given the budgetary constraints facing all of 

the country at this time. 

Given these problems, I hope that we use today’s hearing to learn how we can 

best assist them in addressing the challenges they are experiencing. 

In short, the SORNA implementation process is facing a crisis. As of this hearing, 

and nearly five years since passage of the Adam Walsh Act, only seven jurisdictions—four states, two tribes, and one territory—have been found in compliance 

with SORNA. The remaining 241 jurisdictions face an unjustified and harsh tax on 

their Byrne grant funding this year, and every year that they do not comply. As 

we all know, Byrne monies are used to fund essential state and local programs, such 

as law enforcement and other community programs. It would be a double disaster 

for states to lose these monies for not being able to afford to implement the requirements due to their current severe budget shortfalls. 

Despite my opposition to the Adam Walsh Act, I believe that if we are going to 

insist on imposing requirements upon states, territories, and tribes, it is incumbent 

upon us to do more than just require them to comply. I believe that it is Congress’ 

obligation, having passed such an onerous and unfunded mandate, to help find solutions to the problems facing states trying to implement SORNA before we compound 

the problem by penalizing them monetarily. Thus, we should consider the feedback 

that we will hear today, and that we have been provided in the years since the law’s 

passage, and earnestly seek to meet the legitimate concerns. 

Some of this feedback came to us by way of a previous hearing on SORNA. In 

March 2009, under my leadership of this subcommittee, I convened a hearing on 

barriers to implementing SORNA. Nearly two years later many of these barriers 

that we heard at that hearing still exist. These include the high cost associated with 

implementation, the challenges that requiring juveniles to register pose for states, 

including pending legal challenges, both legal and practical challenges with 

SORNAs retroactivity requirement, the whole scale re-classifying of sex offenders, 

and tribe specific challenges, including the loss of sovereignty if tribes do not comply. At that hearing we heard testimony from various state and law enforcement 

officials addressing each of these challenges. Unfortunately, many of these obstacles 

still exist. 

One of the greatest difficulties with implementation of SORNA continues to be the 

requirement that juveniles as young as 14 years old be placed on the registry. Despite that this registration requirement is limited to the most serious cases, and 

that just this year the Attorney General gave jurisdictions discretion to make juveniles non-public, numerous states are still having difficulties with this component, 

due to legal challenges, considerable pressure from advocates and child development 

experts, and state legislators’ discomfort with placing juveniles on a registry. I 

would like to hear about the continuing challenges with the juvenile piece, despite 

the new guidelines. It may be time to re-visit the inclusion of juveniles in SORNA. 

Another continuing impediment to implementation is SORNA’s failure to allow for 

an actual risk assessment component to state registries. SORNA does not allow 

states to use risk assessment tools in developing its registry, which has posed a 

problem, particularly for those states that had long-standing, and effective, state 

registries that used risk assessment tools long before SORNA. These states must 

completely alter their systems, which is costly, and some have faced legal challenges 

in doing so. To be sure, research indicates that risk assessment is an effective way 

6 

to monitor offenders. We should all prefer a tool that helps us determine who is actually at risk of committing another sex offense, rather than just telling us who 

committed one in the past. Failing to distinguish between the two defeats the purpose of a registry and actually makes us less safe, not more. 

Finally, tribes continue to face unique and compelling difficulties implementing 

SORNA. Out of 192 tribes who have opted into SORNA, only two have been found 

in compliance to date. As many of us know, tribes suffer from high poverty rates 

and struggle greatly with budget issues. In addition to losing much needed Byrne 

grant funds tribes face an even more serious penalty. Should they fail to implement 

SORNA, this public function will involuntarily be delegated to the state in which 

a tribe is located. States will then have to take on this additional responsibility, 

when they are already struggling to implement their own registries without also 

putting them in the difficult position of encroaching upon tribal sovereignty. In light 

of the double penalty that tribes face, the burden that SORNA imposes on them is 

enormous. I would like to hear about the likelihood that 190 tribes will be able to 

come into compliance in five months. And what we are going to do to help them 

avoid the penalties they will be subject to if they do not. 

In light of the looming compliance deadline and that over 240 jurisdictions remain 

outstanding, it is also time for Congress to consider a statutory extension of the 

deadline. Before dismissing this as untenable or as a way to allow recalcitrant 

states to stall implementing SORNA, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 

to consider the fact that, although the Act contemplated that jurisdictions would 

have five years to implement SORNA, the Department of Justice did not issue 

guidelines until 2008, leaving them only three years to implement SORNA. Furthermore, last month the Department of Justice issued supplemental guidelines, just 

months before the final deadline. I also urge my colleagues to heed the testimony 

of the only witness representing a state here, Representative Collohon from Kansas, 

who will share her states’ experiences and challenges, trying to implement SORNA. 

In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that although this hearing is about reauthorizing the Adam Walsh Act generally, that we focus on the piece that is truly in danger of failing, SORNA, and come up with creative solutions. These may include 

amending SORNA to help facilitate compliance, with a specific eye towards fixing 

the juvenile, risk-assessment, deadline, and tribal issues. It is it not only our obligation, having imposed this mandate on jurisdictions, but it is also the right thing to 

do. Now, it is my understanding that the Majority’s preoccupation with cutting the 

federal budget will mean across the board slashes to numerous programs. But it 

would be fundamentally unfair to demand that states meet a costly mandate, while 

at the same time reducing funding opportunities to help them do so. 

Thank you for attending today’s hearing. I look forward to hearing from all the 

witnesses. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members’ opening 

statements will be made a part of the record. And also, without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare recesses during 

votes on the House floor. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce today’s witnesses. Dawn 

Doran is the Deputy Secretary of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking Office, or SMART, for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. She works to administer the standards of the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification Act, including administration of grant programs and providing technical support for SORNA. 

Prior to joining the SMART Office, she served as the Deputy Director of the National Assistant District Attorneys Association 

Child Abuse Program. She was also Assistant District Attorney 

General in Memphis, serving as co-chair of the Sexual Offenders 

Registry Violation Unit, and a member of the Child Physical and 

Sexual Abuse Warrant Review Act. She received her bachelor of 

science degree in public and business administration from the University of Tennessee at Martin, and her law degree from the University of Tennessee. 

7 

Ernie Allen is the cosponsor of the National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children and has served as its President and CEO 

for 22 years. Mr. Allen is also the founder of the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children and serves as its CEO. 

Under his tenure at NCMEC, more than 150,000 missing children 

have been recovered. He has received both his bachelor degree and 

his JD from Louisville University. 

Stacia Hylton is Director of the United States Marshals Service, 

having been appointed by President Obama as the 10th director of 

the service, and sworn in on December 31, 2010. She has over 30 

years of law enforcement and management experience within the 

Justice Department. 

Prior to her appointment as Director of the Marshals Service, she 

served as the Attorney General’s Federal Detention Trustee from 

2004 to 2010, and was the incident commander organizing the Marshals Service response for Ground Zero. She began her career in 

1980 as a Deputy U.S. Marshal and has received her bachelor of 

science in criminal justice from Northeastern University. 

Finally, Pat Colloton has served in the Kansas House of Representatives since 2004. She authored legislation on the expansion 

of DNA testing to facilitate the early detection and arrest of sexual 

predators, new approaches to community corrections, and revising 

laws regarding domestic violence and victim notification. She currently serves as Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of the Justice 

Center, a national organization under the Council of State Governments, which focuses on developing evidence-based practices and 

laws in the criminal justice system. 

Prior to her career in politics, Ms. Colloton was a small business 

owner, an attorney, who also served as a member of the Johnson 

County Public Policy Council. She received a bachelor of science in 

chemistry and psychology and a juris doctorate from the University 

of Wisconsin, and was in my law school class, so I know she got 

a very good education there. 

But before recognizing Ms. Doran, I am informed that the most 

recent Chairman emeritus of the Committee wishes to make an 

opening statement, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, earlier Chairman emeritus 

of the Committee. I am glad that you were generous enough to 

allow me just to make a small comment about the hearing today 

because—I am not sure about this—but I think with Bobby Scott 

I opposed this too a few years back, only I didn’t have the courage 

to say anything and speak up about it. He went on the floor and 

gave a—it was a heroic act by ex-chairman Scott, and I am proud 

of you for it. 

There are concerns. There are, I think, 40-some-odd States who 

are in jeopardy of losing part of their Byrne JAG grants in July, 

and that is going to be a fair amount of money for everybody. 

The second thing I don’t like about this law that we are examining is that there is a strict compliance standard that disturbs me 

a great deal, and I hope that the witnesses will comment on that. 

I think we need flexibility in compliance. 

And could some one of our distinguished witnesses, can some 

talk about the tribal sovereignty issue in this SORNA law that 

8 

seems to be pretty—it is not being worked in any way that I think 

is fair to those on reservations. 

And finally, we have this problem with juveniles. Should juveniles be treated as adults? Not a new problem. And it is so important that it is going to the Supreme Court. We are in the process 

of examining—the registration provision of SORNA may not be 

retroactively applied to delinquent individuals. The court has 

said—repeatedly almost—in focusing on juvenile adjudications, 

that we do not punish our Nation’s youth as harshly as we do our 

fellow adults. And so with those qualifications in what we are 

doing, I find myself in the position of, first, hoping someday that 

we will have a clear examination of this law and make the changes 

that importantly need to be made, but in the meantime, I don’t 

want to punish the States who are not in compliance. 

This is an unfunded mandate. Nobody has used that term this 

morning, and so I will. The States are mostly in a bind; there are 

very few that are not having incredible funding cuts. And the 

President’s budget release doesn’t help things a bit in terms of this 

and many other areas. And so I look forward to the witnesses, and 

I yield back the balance of my time and thank the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

With the enactment in 2006 of the Adam Walsh Act, a number of significant 

amendments to our federal criminal code were made and a national sex offender 

registry system was established, among other things. 

As some of you may recall, I had serious concerns about the this legislation. In 

particular, I opposed several provisions, not the least of which were those that imposed severe mandatory minimum sentences and created additional death penalties. 

No one doubts the importance of protecting our children from sex offenders and 

making our communities safer. So, despite the many problems that with the Adam 

Walsh Act, I believe the intent behind the bill was laudable, namely, to protect our 

children. 

Unfortunately, however, the Act has not accomplished its intended goals. In fact, 

it may even have made children less safe, by diluting state sex offender registries 

and making them less effective in helping us determine who is and is not dangerous. 

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

referred to as SORNA, requires states, territories, and federally-recognized tribes to 

create a sex offender registry, according to certain onerous federal specifications. 

If these entities fail to do so by July of this year, however, they will be penalized 

by losing 10% of their Byrne Grants per year. 

At the time that the Adam Walsh Act passed, we warned that this may be an 

unobtainable goal. It unfortunately now appears that our concerns were justified. 

Since 2006, only 7 jurisdictions have been able to meet this requirement. 

Worse yet, more than 240 jurisdictions are now in danger of losing significant 

amounts of federal money that they could use to fund critical law enforcement and 

other essential community programs. 

In short, SORNA is failing and Congress is now faced with the challenge of cleaning up this mess. 

Today’s hearing will help us figure out how to address this problem and to help 

those struggling with implementing SORNA before they are penalized. 

Accordingly, I would like my colleagues and the witnesses to focus on three aspects about the kind of clean-up process we should undertake. 

First, our discussion about SORNA must begin with a recognition that it imposed 

an unfunded mandate on states, territories, and tribes and the cost of this mandate 

is one of the biggest obstacles to implementing SORNA. 

The Justice Department grants that are made available to help offset the implementation costs are simply inadequate. In fact, the State of Texas—which my colleague, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, represents—has published reports 

9 

about the obstacles to implementing SORNA. They conclude that it would cost 

Texas $14 million a year to implement SORNA. 

Furthermore, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee recommended that Texas 

not implement SORNA. 

You can imagine how serious the problems are with SORNA if Texas, one of the 

toughest states on offenders, is unable to comply. 

I hope we will take particular heed of Kansas State Representative Patricia 

Collohon’s testimony describing the overwhelming cost of implementing SORNA 

that states are facing and how we can develop strategies to assist them in this monumental endeavor. 

Second, we must consider the effectiveness of these federal requirements, especially given the fact that they will obligate the states to spend millions of dollars 

to implement them. 

We must ask ourselves some hard questions, such as— 

• How effective are sex offender registries? 

• Are states getting the most bang for their buck, particularly in this time 

where most states are suffering significant budget short falls? 

• Do these registries really make us safer? 

• And, are there better ways to protect our children? 

Research does not indicate that these registries truly keep us safer, particularly 

when they lump together serious sex offenders with less serious sex offenders, like 

SORNA does. 

In fact, they give us a false sense of security and perpetuate the myth that strangers are most likely to victimize our children, which simply is not true. The sad truth 

is that most children are victimized by family members or friends of the family. 

Whether sex offender registries actually make us safer is a question that is further complicated when you consider that SORNA does not allow states to assess risk 

in their registries. 

In other words, they must register people based solely on the offense for which 

they were convicted, not on their actual risk of re-offending. This is simply nonsensical. 

The problem with SORNA’s failure to take into account risk is underscored when 

one considers that states had been registering sex offenders long before SORNA. 

Indeed, many have developed sophisticated risk assessment tools to help them 

create and maintain their registries. 

These systems were working for states, when Congress came along in the Adam 

Walsh Act and decided to impose its ideas about what works best on them. 

SORNA does not allow states to use risk assessment in registering offenders and 

so states that had been doing so and whose systems were working had to scrap 

them and start all over with none of those tools. 

In light of the research that affirms the value of risk assessment tools and given 

the significant difficulties states are having implementing SORNA, omitting risk assessment turned out to be quite an unwise idea. 

It is time to revisit the issue of risk assessment in SORNA. 

Finally, it is worth noting that imposing federal mandates—especially unfunded 

ones that then jeopardize a state’s funding—goes against one of the Majority’s fundamental principles that it frequently espouses, namely, states’ rights. 

Yet this did not stop the Majority from imposing SORNA and I am certain that 

it will not stop my colleagues on the other side from continuing to espouse the value 

of the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA. 

States have been struggling with implementing SORNA for almost 5 years and 

the overwhelming majority are making a good faith effort to comply with the law. 

Yet despite their best efforts, only 3 states have been able to comply so far. 

This statistic alone should give both sides pause and prompt us to develop real 

solutions to the problems that states, tribes, and territories have encountered in trying to implement SORNA. 

It also means we must revisit those aspects of the Adam Walsh Act and SORNA 

that have been proven unworkable since its passage. 

I thank the witnesses in advance and look forward to hearing from each of you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the Chairman emeritus. 

Ms. Doran, you are recognized for 5 minutes. And everybody’s 

full statement will be placed in the record. 

10 

TESTIMONY OF DAWN DORAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING, MONITORING, APPREHENDING, REGISTERING, AND TRACKING (SMART) OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC, ON BEHALF OF LINDA 

BALDWIN, DIRECTOR, SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING, MONITORING, APPREHENDING, REGISTERING, AND TRACKING 

(SMART) OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. DORAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the 

opportunity, on behalf of Director Baldwin, who was called away 

last night on a family emergency, to discuss the Department of 

Justice’s work to implement the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, or SORNA. 

I am Dawn Doran, Deputy Director of the Office of Sex Offender 

Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, 

or SMART, within the Department’s Office of Justice Programs. 

The SMART Office has the primary responsibility within the Department of assisting States, territories and tribes in implementing 

SORNA. The work of the SMART Office is a part of the Department’s efforts to assist in implementing the Adam Walsh Child 

Protection and Safety Act of 2006. 

I am honored to appear today with Director Hylton, our invaluable partner in this effort. Also, I want to acknowledge another invaluable partner, Ernie Allen and the National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children. 

We are pleased that Ohio, Florida, Delaware, South Dakota, 

Guam, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 

and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 

have substantially implemented SORNA. We are cautiously optimistic that many more States, territories, and tribes will follow 

suit by the implementation deadline of July 27, 2011. 

The SMART Office provides critical resources and guidance to 

the 248 SORNA States, territories, and tribes. Since fiscal year 

2007, the SORNA jurisdictions have received over $39 million in 

grants, training, and other resources under our support for the 

Adam Walsh Act Implementation Grant Program. SORNA addresses gaps in registration programs that are the result of variations 

in laws, policies, information sharing, and technology systems 

across the country. To address some of these gaps, the Act permitted for the first time 212 tribal nations to elect to become 

SORNA registration jurisdictions and, of those, 192 have chosen to 

do so. 

The SMART Office has provided numerous resources to help 

these tribes address information sharing and technology gaps. One 

example is the Tribe and Territory Sex Offender Registry System, 

or TTSORS, available free of charge to all SORNA tribes and territories. TTSORS can serve as both the administrative registry system and the public sex offender Web site system needed for tribes 

and territories to comply with SORNA. We have developed a similar system to help States, called the Sex Offender Registry Tool, or 

SORT, and another tool called the SORNA Exchange Portal to help 

all SORNA jurisdictions to share information about sex offenders 

11 

who are relocating between jurisdictions or are required to register 

in more than one jurisdiction. These are free of charge as well. 

The SMART Office also administers the Dru Sjodin National Sex 

Offender Public Web site, which is the public’s link to information 

regarding registered sex offenders across the country. All 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, three U.S. territories, and 22 tribal nations have public Web sites now linked to this site. 

Many jurisdictions that have not fully implemented SORNA have 

still made great strides. Director Linda Baldwin has submitted, 

along with her written testimony, detailed information on SORNA 

activities as reported by each State, territory, and D.C. The information submitted is based on our frequent contacts with the 

SORNA jurisdictions. To date, 47 States, the District of Columbia, 

five territories, and 41 tribes have submitted materials to the 

SMART Office for review and technical assistance. The SMART Office has reviewed and responded to all but the most recent of these 

submissions, providing specific guidance back to the jurisdictions 

regarding their current and proposed registration and notification 

systems and laws. 

Despite our best efforts, including the development of supplemental SORNA guidelines that address some of the SORNA jurisdictions’ substantive concerns, and despite the efforts of many on 

the State, local, and tribal level, some serious barriers remain. 

These barriers include, among others, opposition to SORNA requirements, such as juvenile registration, the impact of government 

turnover, and the anticipated cost of compliance. Most of the jurisdictions are in the position of having to change their existing laws 

in order to meet SORNA’s requirements. Many States have introduced bills in their legislatures that would move them toward substantial implementation of SORNA. It is difficult to predict, however, which ones will be successful in enacting legislation prior to 

the July 2011 deadline. 

One hundred and ninety-two SORNA tribes are facing barriers 

similar to those of the States, with some variations. Most tribes 

face challenges in establishing sex offender registration and notification systems and codes for the first time. Please be assured that 

the Department is committed to helping every jurisdiction meet the 

implementation deadline and that we will continue to work to develop the seamless web of public sex offender Web sites and law 

enforcement information sharing as envisioned by SORNA. 

This concludes Ms. Baldwin’s introductory statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And I will be 

glad to try to answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. The gentlewoman’s time has 

expired. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Baldwin follows:] 

12 


Baldwin-1.eps
13 


Baldwin-2.eps
14 


Baldwin-3.eps
15 


Baldwin-4.eps
16 


Baldwin-5.eps
17 


Baldwin-6.eps
18 


Baldwin-7.eps
19 


Baldwin-8.eps
20 


Baldwin-9.eps
21 


Baldwin-10.eps
22 

ATTACHMENT 


BaldwinA-1.eps
23 


BaldwinA-2.eps
24 


BaldwinA-3.eps
25 


BaldwinA-4.eps
26 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Ms. Hylton. 

TESTIMONY OF STACIA A. HYLTON, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARSHALS 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. HYLTON. Thank you, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking 

Member Conyers, Ranking Member Scott, and all Members of the 

Subcommittee for holding this hearing. 

It is an honor to be here with Deputy Director Doran from the 

Department’s SMART Office, Ernie Allen from NCMEC, and Representative Colloton from the Kansas State legislature. Thank you 


BaldwinA-5.eps
27 

for the opportunity to share the Marshals Service’s accomplishments and challenges related to this important piece of legislation. 

The Adam Walsh Act was a monumental bill, changing how this 

country addresses registering, monitoring, and apprehending sex 

offenders. This Committee, as well as the full House and Senate, 

showed tremendous leadership in drafting and passing this Act 5 

years ago. 

The Act added three new and important mandates for the Marshals Service: To assist State, local, tribal and territorial authorities in the location and apprehension of noncompliant sex offenders, to investigate violations of the criminal provisions of the Act, 

and to identify and locate sex offenders displaced by major disasters. I am proud to say the Marshals Service has made significant 

strides in each area. 

To accomplish the enforcement mission under the Act, the Marshals Service took numerous steps, including hiring and training 

deputies in sex offender investigations, designating leadership positions throughout the agency to coordinate enforcement efforts, creating the National Sex Offender Targeting Center, developing new 

partnerships with Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies to locate and apprehend offenders, and launching specific operations to 

target noncompliant sex offenders nationally. 

Our goal is to leverage our resources and partnerships to maximize noncomplying sex offender apprehensions. For instance, by 

training leaderships and field offices about our mandates under the 

Act, coupled with the training of sex offender investigators in our 

field offices, we have a more knowledgeable workforce at every 

level. We combine this effort with training for our State and local 

partners. Approximately 50 agencies have already participated, and 

we have two more training sessions for new participants scheduled 

this spring. Better training at all levels results in a greater number 

of apprehensions. 

Last July, the Marshals Service launched Operation Guardian 

with State and local agencies to target the worst of the worst sex 

offenders. As this Committee knows, the number of noncompliance 

sex offenders is staggering. The Marshals Service initiated this operation in each judicial district to target the five most dangerous 

sex offenders based on their criminal record, efforts to avoid capture or registration, and danger posed to the public. 

Let me be clear, every noncompliant sex offender is a potential 

threat. This operation is working with limited resources, with a 

focus on realizing the greatest success possible. Operation Guardian helps to ensure we find these particularly dangerous offenders 

and get them off the streets, making our communities safer with 

the resources provided to us. This targeted approach is proving successful with over half the cases closed in less than a year. 

The Marshals Service continues to be an agency which prides 

itself in the extent and quality of its partnerships. Along with the 

SMART Office, NCMEC, our Federal, State, local and tribal law 

enforcement partners, we continue to find new and innovative ways 

to strengthen our relationships. The National Sex Offender Targeting Center at the Marshals Service is a prime example of these 

partnerships in action. It is an interagency center providing intelligence and resource support to other law enforcement agencies, coVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:00 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
28 

ordinating international sex offender apprehensions, and generating new behavioral tools for use by investigators. The Targeting 

Center is an important resource to enforce the Act and to support 

our partners’ efforts to do the same. 

Our success can be seen in the numbers. Since July 2006, our 

deputy marshals have initiated almost 8,000 sex offender investigations. In addition, the Marshals Service has either directly arrested 

or assisted our State and local partners with the captures of over 

43,700 sex offenders nationwide. The Marshals Service remains a 

leader in fugitive apprehension, and the Act provided us the additional assets to take the apprehension of sex offenders to another 

level. 

This funding, provided by Congress since fiscal year 2008, directly contributed to this impressive number of noncompliant sex 

offenders brought to justice. Today, the effective and efficient use 

of these resources is more important than ever, and these numbers 

represent a significant return on the investment made by Congress 

to keep our children and our communities safe. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your ongoing 

support on this important issue. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I am pleased to 

answer any questions. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hylton follows:] 

29 


Hylton-1.eps
30 


Hylton-2.eps
31 


Hylton-3.eps
32 


Hylton-4.eps
33 


Hylton-5.eps
34 


Hylton-6.eps
35 


Hylton-7.eps
36 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Allen. 

TESTIMONY OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN, 

ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Mr ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Scott, Mr. Conyers, the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children was a fervent supporter 

of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006. We remain so today. 

As of our latest State survey in December, there are now 728,435 

offenders in the United States required to register and update their 

information as it changes. As many as 100,000 of those offenders 

are missing or noncompliant. The number of registered offenders is 

going to continue to grow, and clearly States are struggling with 

the challenge. Yet we believe that States benefit from strong Federal cooperation and leadership under the Adam Walsh Act. For example, as you have heard from Director Hylton, the U.S. Marshals 

Service is tracking down serious fugitive sex offenders. We are 

grateful for the dedication and commitment of the SMART Office 

and their support of the States and tribes as they move toward 

compliance. 

Congress also mandates that the National Center provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement in identifying and 

locating noncompliant sex offenders, and we are doing that. 

In 2006, we created a sex offender tracking team which receives 

daily requests from States and localities regarding missing sex offenders. Our analysts run searches using public record databases 

donated by private companies. We are looking for links between 

noncompliant offenders and child abductions, attempted abductions, and sexual exploitation cases. We then forward that information to the appropriate law enforcement agency in a leads package, 

which is then used to search for fugitive offenders. To date, we 

have provided more than 6,000 of those leads packages, with more 

than 1,200 fugitive sex offenders located and arrested as a result. 

And at the request of the Marshals Service, we are assigning six 

of our analysts to their Sex Offender Targeting Center to assist in 

their efforts. 

Regarding SORNA implementation, we believe that we have 

begun to see real progress. It has been a challenge, dependent upon 

both the executive and legislative branches of the States to act. 

These efforts were delayed because the guidelines on SORNA implementation were not issued until 2 years after the law was enacted, providing no clear direction until 2008. 

We are pleased that efforts are underway today in most jurisdictions to work toward compliance. According to our friends at the 

National Conference of State Legislatures, 41 States enacted 

SORNA-related legislation in 2009, 28 States enacted SORNA-related legislation in 2010, and 23 noncompliant States are currently 

working on legislation that will bring them closer to achieving substantial compliance with SORNA. And Mr. Conyers, that is the language of the statute, not ‘‘strict’’ compliance, but ‘‘substantial’’ compliance. And we think the SMART Office is working in good faith 

with these States to achieve accommodations, where appropriate, 

under the law. 

37 

We recognize that States have faced barriers. A 2009 survey responded to by 47 States indicated four primary obstacles; 23 States 

cited the juvenile registration and reporting requirements; 20 

States cited the retroactive application provisions; 7 States cited 

the tier-based system; and 7 States cited cost. 

In January, Attorney General Holder published supplemental 

guidelines that in our judgment effectively address and resolve the 

concerns of most States about juvenile registration and the retroactivity provisions. We believe that the Attorney General’s guidelines pave the way for many more jurisdictions to come into compliance with SORNA. Congress has appropriated funds for grants to 

States to help with compliance efforts and to fund the Marshals for 

their Adam Walsh Act responsibilities. We hope that Congress will 

remain committed to funding these efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, we share your frustration that just seven jurisdictions have become compliant in the 5 years after the passage of the 

Adam Walsh Act. However, we believe that today the primary obstacles have been overcome and that many more jurisdictions are 

moving toward compliance. We believe that the goal of building a 

better, more unified sex offender registration system across the Nation is within reach. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 

38 


Allen-1.eps
39 


Allen-2.eps
40 


Allen-3.eps
41 


Allen-4.eps
42 


Allen-5.eps
43 


Allen-6.eps
44 


Allen-7.eps
45 


Allen-8.eps
46 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Representative Colloton. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA COLLOTON, CHAIR, CORRECTIONS 

AND JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMITTEE, KANSAS HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, LEAWOOD, KS 

Ms. COLLOTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and Members 

of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today 

about the Adam Walsh Act and efforts by States to implement the 

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, SORNA. 

As Chair of the Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee in 

the Kansas House, I have focused my time in the legislature on 

protecting those who are vulnerable and holding offenders accountable for their crimes. I believe Kansas is one State that, like many 

others, is working diligently to walk the line between implementing 

the policies established by Walsh and policies developed within 

Kansas over many years that address our specific needs. 

Kansas has a longstanding commitment to the safety of our citizens, of course, and then particularly to our children. Seventeen 

years ago, Kansas passed its Sex Offender Registration Act which 

created a Statewide registry for specified sexual offenders available 

for law enforcement use. As of last year, over 5,000 sex offenders 

are in the Kansas registry. We include all sexually violent crimes 

and all crimes involving children under 18 years of age in our registry. We have passed Jessica’s Law, a mandatory hard 25 years 

for sex offenders, and we made failure to register for 30 consecutive 

days a prison-level felony. These policies reflect Kansas is serious 

about registration compliance. 

We have also learned that keeping Kansas safe from the threat 

posed by known sex offenders requires more than a good registry; 

it requires an entire coordinated system of assessment, management, and supervision that starts from the day the offender walks 

into the courtroom and extends through their ultimate release into 

the community. Kansas has legislation ready to proceed that would 

bring us more into line with the standards set forth in Walsh. We 

have every intention of complying with Adam Walsh by enabling 

our registry to link to the nationwide SORNA database. 

Even with our sincere commitment to comply with the Herculean 

efforts that we have taken, bringing our State into compliance is 

a time-consuming and sensitive process. We have set up a State 

working group to assist us with determining the scope of our implementation package. We set up that State working group in 2006 

and then waited for the very first regulations to come out in 2008. 

What we cannot guarantee is that the changes that we have put 

into the legislation, the bill before my Committee to be heard later 

this week, will be adopted wholesale or without change, despite the 

threat of losing that Byrne JAG money. 

So we need to applaud the SMART Office. They have worked extremely hard with Kansas and other States. They have been courteous and professional. They have gone through many different 

issues with us, and we have a package that we have worked with 

them. We just don’t know if we can whip it through the legislature 

this session. 

47 

While only seven jurisdictions have been classified as compliant 

with Walsh, there has been significant work done and progress 

that should not be overlooked. Over 250 pieces of legislation have 

been passed across the country since 2006. What you implemented 

with Walsh, Mr. Chairman, and those of you who supported it, was 

a whole bevy of pieces of legislation that enact pieces of the Walsh 

compliance picture. 

Why the delay? There are several issues. First is timing. Congress intended to give jurisdictions 5 years to come into compliance, but the implementing guidelines didn’t come out for 2 years, 

2008, leaving these jurisdictions only the 3 years to demonstrate 

substantial compliance. 

Additionally, in January of this year, significant SORNA implementation issues were finally clarified in the final supplemental 

guidelines released by the Attorney General. Now, those guidelines 

are very helpful. And I agree with what Mr. Allen just said. They 

make compliance very, very possible. But they came out in January 

of this year. States simply need more time. Even a State like Kansas that has written and introduced a bill needs more time to address the SORNA requirements in full. 

Secondly, the second issue that we have concern is that juvenile 

registration. A number of States in compliance with other requirements of SORNA are hesitant to adopt the juvenile offender notification requirements. Many lawmakers from across the country on 

both sides of the aisle oppose lifetime registration and public notification for juveniles, especially because juveniles that exhibit problem sexual behavior are less likely to re-offend and more likely to 

benefit from treatment and intervention. 

In summary—is that a hint? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes. 

Ms. COLLOTON. In summary, the costs are great, but the benefits 

of that national portal are excellent. We are working hard to comply. But given the whole process, we need more time. We consider 

the Adam Walsh a benefit to us, and we are working to get there. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Representative 

Colloton. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Colloton follows:] 

48 


Collot-1.eps
49 


Collot-2.eps
50 


Collot-3.eps
51 


Collot-4.eps
52 


Collot-5.eps
53 


Collot-6.eps
54 


Collot-7.eps
55 


Collot-8.eps
56 


Collot-9.eps
57 


Collot-10.eps
58 


Collot-11.eps
59 


Collot-12.eps
60 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair will now recognize Members for 

5 minutes apiece, alternating by sides, in the approximate order in 

which the Members appeared for the hearing, starting with me. 

Representative Colloton, if you can’t make this deadline, how 

much more time do you think Kansas will need to come into substantial compliance? 


Collot-13.eps
61 

Ms. COLLOTON. I would give us 2 more years in the sense that 

it may well be that we start to vet the policy changes contained in 

the agreement we have reached with the SMART Office, and that 

we are unable to pass it this legislative session. Remember, we are 

a 90-day citizen legislature. We do meet every year, thankfully. 

Some of the States only meet every other year. So I would say if 

you would give us next session, we may well do it. If you are including all States, I would say you need a 2-year time frame for 

those tentative agreements, particularly under the January guidelines, to come into fruition and be passed in legislation. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Do you support the carrot-and-stick approach, where the stick is reducing Byrne JAG funding? 

Ms. COLLOTON. Not fully, in this sense; that much of that money 

is used for victim treatment, for community corrections treatment 

of sex offenders when they reenter into the community. To take 

that kind of money away when it is the very money that helps us 

control, track, and monitor, to do what is smart—monitor and 

track—I think is counterproductive. But what I would see as kind 

of being fair about it might be where you give some credit for those 

States that have done at least a partial compliance with SORNA. 

Every State I think has pretty much done some of the pieces of 

SORNA. 

I mean, you have unleashed here, with the Adam Walsh Act, a 

whole variety of advances in tracking, apprehending, and then 

monitoring sex offenders. So we are well on our way, I think we 

are. And I would give partial credit—perhaps determined by the 

SMART Office—and maybe take a little away. For example, you 

are thinking 10 percent of Byrne JAG money. Maybe you would 

give 90 percent, 80 percent, 50 percent credit, and not take it all 

away. It goes for very good causes related to sex offenses. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Allen, what is your view on how States are complying and 

your response to the additional 2-year proposal that Representative 

Colloton has put on the table? 

Mr ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I think Representative Colloton makes 

a very good point. And we, too, have been concerned with the total 

loss of Byrne JAG funds for States that have really made a substantial effort and have not quite gotten there. So some proportionate allocation of that we agree makes sense. 

Our primary concern about extension is that our sense is that 

States have really worked diligently, many States have worked 

diligently to come into compliance by July of 2011. Our concern 

with an extension is that I fear if the extension is provided, States 

will just delay further in their process—which I don’t think is unheard of in these kinds of processes for a variety of issues. So I 

think there is a real balancing act here. 

We certainly agree with Representative Colloton’s point about 

the fact that effectively States have only had 3 years to come into 

compliance. And I think she makes the point—and certainly the 

data we have from the leading associations indicates—that most 

States have really made diligent efforts, including passing various 

pieces of the legislation, to try to get to compliance. So I think that 

is—not to pass the buck, but I think that is something Congress 

62 

needs to weigh; and that is, an extension may effectively reduce the 

total number of States that are compliant as of July of this year. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I believe in deadlines, and excuses 

are going to have to be valid if there is to be an extension considered. I will look at all 50 States and a good percentage of the tribes 

to make a determination on that. I really don’t think 2 years is appropriate, as I have a feeling that people won’t get worried about 

this until January of 2013. 

Mr ALLEN. That is exactly—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And Governors do like to call special sessions of legislatures upon occasion. 

My time is up. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, we just heard comments about losing all of the 

Byrne Grants. Ms. Doran, if a State is out of compliance under 

present law with no extensions, how much of the Byrne Grant 

would they lose? 

Ms. DORAN. If a State has not complied by July 26, 2011, and 

it has been determined that they have not substantially implemented, the penalty is 10 percent of their Byrne JAG funding. 

However, of course, the Act provides for a reallocation. If a State 

is continuing to work toward substantial implementation of 

SORNA, they may apply for that 10 percent back to their State toward specifically targeted SORNA implementation activities. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Hylton, Mr. Allen indicated that there are approximately 

100,000 people on the registry that are out of compliance. What do 

you do with that information? 

Ms. HYLTON. Sir, we continue to work diligently across our partnership relationships with the SMART Office, with NCMEC, and 

our State and local and Federal law enforcement partners to continue to apprehend. Again, I think that we stand in a great position with the Marshals Service to say that of those that were noncompliant, we have actually with our State and local partners either had a direct impact or assisted with the apprehension of over 

43,000 sex offenders nationwide. So we continue to work those 

numbers, and I think—— 

Mr. SCOTT. You have apprehended and incarcerated 43,000? 

Ms. HYLTON. We have assisted or had a direct apprehension of 

over 43,000 since the Act was passed in 2006. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Doran, has the Department of Justice done studies to show the recidivism rate for those States with a registry and 

those who do not have a registry? 

Ms. DORAN. Are you referring to SORNA? 

Mr. SCOTT. Right. Does the fact that somebody has to register reduce recidivism? 

Ms. DORAN. I am not aware of any studies that have been conducted yet on SORNA and its effects. 

Mr. SCOTT. What about Megan’s Law? 

Ms. DORAN. Under Megan’s law, there have been some studies 

produced under that. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what did they find? 

63 

Ms. DORAN. The main purpose of registration and notification is, 

of course, registration for law enforcement purposes and sharing of 

information, and providing information to the public. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does the fact that there is a registry reduce recidivism? 

Ms. DORAN. I would have to get back to you on those studies. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are there any studies that show whether or not 

someone who is compliant on a registry versus someone who is not 

compliant on a registry is more or less likely to offend? In other 

words, the list of 100,000 that Ms. Hylton is chasing down and incarcerated, is that list more likely to offend than those on the registry that are in compliance? 

Ms. DORAN. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. No, there is no difference? 

Ms. DORAN. That is correct. They are not showing to be more or 

less likely. 

Mr. SCOTT. The fact that you are not in compliance does not 

mean that you are any more likely to offend than if you are out 

of compliance; that is the finding of the studies. 

Ms. DORAN. That is one study, yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Colloton, the juvenile issue, why are States reluctant to have juveniles register on these public registries? 

Ms. COLLOTON. Well, there are a couple different reasons. One is 

that juveniles that exhibit problems with sexual behavior are much 

less likely to re-offend. And their brains are developing; they are 

much more susceptible to treatment. So I think to treat them and 

put them on a public registry and put them on registration creates 

issues for them that are exactly the opposite of the paternalistic juvenile system that we have created in juvenile justice. And I think 

it is counterproductive. 

There is one other thing I would like to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. When you say ‘‘counterproductive,’’ are you suggesting that putting a juvenile on the list would alter their future 

opportunities such that you are actually increasing the likelihood 

that they will get in trouble in the future? 

Ms. COLLOTON. Yes, absolutely. I think that if that registry is 

published—and just as of January now, it doesn’t have to be published. And that means States will have 6 months, if they believe 

in that policy, to comply. I believe in deadlines too, but we have 

6 months from the final regulations now to July when the penalties 

start to go into effect, 6 months. And there are still some issues 

like the juvenile where there really hasn’t been a resolution. 

The other area that there hasn’t been a resolution on that I 

would like to speak to for just a second is risk assessment. It is 

important to know that many States who have had registries for 

a long time do their tiering based on risk assessment. Because just 

because you have pled down to a low felony doesn’t mean that you 

are a lesser sex offender risk. And the one thing that is really needed here under Adam Walsh in supplemental regulations—and then 

we would need some time after that to get it done—would be that 

we allow risk assessment to be used in States as the different 

tiering. 

New Jersey did the very first sex offender act in 1992, they did 

Megan’s Law, the first registry, and they have done tiering based 

64 

on risk assessment since then. Adam Walsh is requiring them to 

change that process and not use risk assessment. That is one other 

thing that is very much needed and it is critical with regard to juveniles. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Doran, who is responsible for the 2-year lag in promulgating 

guidelines? 

Ms. DORAN. The SMART Office was stood up in 2007. The Act 

was passed in July of 2006, and the SMART Office was stood up 

in the beginning of 2007. I wasn’t there from the beginning—— 

Mr. GOWDY. The SMART Office is part of the Department of Justice? 

Ms. DORAN. Correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. The Department of Justice was around in 2006, 

right? 

Ms. DORAN. Correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. So who is responsible for the 2-year lag in promulgating guidelines? 

Ms. DORAN. The guidelines first have to be issued as proposed 

guidelines, and they went through a lengthy and extensive commenting session for that before. And then all of those comments 

from the proposed guidelines were then accumulated and reviewed. 

And based on those, they adjusted the final guidelines which were 

issued in 2008. 

Mr. GOWDY. So you think 2 years is a reasonable length of time 

to take to promulgate guidelines? 

Ms. DORAN. The initial guidelines were quite lengthy and complex because, of course, the Adam Walsh Act is quite lengthy and 

complex. And so I know that the Department of Justice took their 

time to make sure that they provided all of the information that 

they could provide to the States—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Let me rephrase the question. Do you think 2 years 

is a reasonable amount of time to promulgate guidelines? 

Ms. DORAN. I wouldn’t have a position on that one way or the 

other. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. 

Ms. Colloton—Representative Colloton, excuse me—I have been 

listening this morning, and it seems as if there are only two alternatives with respect to juvenile registration. Either we are going to 

have a public list or we are going to have a law-enforcement-only 

list. 

Ms. COLLOTON. Correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. There are other alternatives, correct? I mean, you 

can have a list where camps could—I mean, you acknowledge it is 

not just law enforcement that would want this information? 

Ms. COLLOTON. Oh, absolutely. And I note within Kansas, when 

I mentioned those 250 changes in the law and that kind of thing, 

one of the things that has happened is, of course, these registries 

are being made available to different agencies that deal with children; as you say, some private organizations that deal with children, and all of that. So yes, there are steps between complete— 

Kansas had the very first, in 1994, publicly open sex offender regVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:00 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
65 

istry. We also, by the way, had the very first, in 1997, Web site registry, but we didn’t do it for juveniles. For juveniles, we limited it 

to very serious—some agencies, some very well-known, well-regarded private institutions that dealt with children. 

Mr. GOWDY. Fourteen-year-olds can be prosecuted as adults for 

homicide, and in some instances incarcerated for up to half a century. So there is no Eighth Amendment issue with respect to public 

registration; do you agree? 

Ms. COLLOTON. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. So in the course of a minute, you and I 

have agreed the alternatives are public registration, law enforcement only, or registration where interested groups can ask whether 

or not this person, this putative employee or hiree is on a list. You 

and I did it in a minute. 

Ms. COLLOTON. That is right. 

Mr. GOWDY. Why do we need 3 years? Why 3 more years for implementation? You and I did it in a minute. 

Ms. COLLOTON. I was suggesting 2. I think with the tribes, because they don’t have the kind of digitized requirements of Adam 

Walsh, you probably need more than that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Why do we need 2? 

Ms. COLLOTON. With regard to States, we need 2, and simply for 

this reason: The final supplemental regs came out in January. 

What they did is they changed several things—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Let me stop you right there. Who is responsible for 

waiting until January to put out the final regs? 

Ms. COLLOTON. Well, they came out of the SMART Office. 

Mr. GOWDY. Which is part of the Department of Justice. 

Ms. COLLOTON. Yes. 

Mr. GOWDY. And this law was passed when? 

Ms. COLLOTON. 2006. 

Mr. GOWDY. And we waited 2 years for regulations and then we 

waited until January of which year for—— 

Ms. COLLOTON. This year, 2011. And what I am saying is the 

SMART Office has been excellent to work with. All last year they 

worked with a group very hard—and the year before as well. We 

have a working group to comply with SORNA. It was set up in 

2006. It has on it prosecutors, judges, law enforcement, community 

corrections—— 

Mr. GOWDY. You will acknowledge the difficulty in convincing 

people that 5 years is not enough time. 

Ms. COLLOTON. We agree 5 years, but it has to be 5 years from 

when we know what we are supposed to do. 

Mr. GOWDY. What is a better motive for compliance than Federal 

funding? 

Ms. COLLOTON. Oh, how about protecting our children? I mean, 

we absolutely believe that this is an excellent—the national portal 

that SORNA sets up—— 

Mr. GOWDY. When you say ‘‘protecting our children,’’ are you suggesting—are we going back to the juvenile registration argument? 

Ms. COLLOTON. No. What I am saying is—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Because when you say ‘‘protecting our children,’’ 

that argument can go both ways. I can also ask you why it has 

taken 5 years. 

66 

Ms. COLLOTON. You could also ask me—I am sorry? 

Mr. GOWDY. My time is up. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Let’s look at the tribe problem with the Indians. 

I know you are here representing someone that couldn’t be here. 

But none of you have even mentioned the 212 Indian tribes. Is it 

because you don’t know about them or you don’t care about them? 

Ms. DORAN. The tribes actually have built into the Act a reasonable amount of time after the deadline for them to be able to implement. So they already have some extra time. And the Department 

of Justice is very committed to working with the tribes to continue 

to assist them with their implementation efforts. 

Mr. CONYERS. Boy, is that standard bureaucratic rhetoric. 

Look, you must know, I found out in 5 minutes that the tribes 

don’t get out of anything. The States will reimpose their activity, 

isn’t that right, Mr. Allen, on the tribes? So they are not getting 

away with a thing. 

That is the excuse that you folks come here to the Committee 

and make us feel that the tribes are okay. The tribes are going to 

get it in the neck. And if you don’t know it, then I am glad we are 

holding this hearing. 

What do you say, Mr. Allen? 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Conyers, I think the reality is that tribal law has 

different challenges—the whole issue of tribal sovereignty. There 

were provisions written into the statute. We have met with the National Congress of American Indians on these issues. Clearly, the 

SMART Office has dedicated personnel to follow up with the tribes 

to try to address these legal issues, but there is no question they 

are going to take more time. And there is also no question that 

State compliance may effectively roll in some of these tribal governments under that. 

So I think the SMART Office has been trying to respond, but 

there is not a lot of clarity in the initial statute on tribal governance issues. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, the National Congress of American Indians 

is asking for 5 more years. Do you know that? 

Ms. DORAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, why don’t you say so? 

Ms. DORAN. I do. As I said, the Act itself builds in a reasonable 

amount of time. And I think that—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, they are asking for it. That doesn’t mean 

they get it. 

Ms. DORAN. Correct. But the Act itself builds in an extension of 

time for them. And, as I have said, the Department of Justice is 

not going to delegate their responsibilities to the State. The Department of Justice is committed to each and every tribe that is 

wishing to implement SORNA, to work with them past the deadline to continue their implementation efforts. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Now, do you know that the States take over 

when the tribes can’t meet these deadlines? 

Ms. DORAN. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question? 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you know that the States take over when they 

don’t meet these deadlines? 

67 

Ms. DORAN. If a tribe is eventually delegated over to a State for 

registration and notification, but that is our absolute last resort. 

The Department doesn’t intend to delegate any tribe that has any 

intention and wishes to work toward implementation. And most 

tribes are doing so. 

Mr. CONYERS. Most tribes are doing so? There are only two that 

are in compliance out of 212. 

Ms. DORAN. That is correct. Quite a few tribes are—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, why are you saying that? 

Ms. DORAN. Quite a few tribes are working toward implementation, just like the States are—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Look, everybody is working toward it. All of the 

States are trying. Please. 

Ms. DORAN. Also, over half the tribes are already in either the 

testing stage—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Give me a break, will you, this morning? 

Ms. DORAN [continuing]. Or in the actual stage of connecting to 

the Tribal and Territory Sex Offender Registry System and the National Sex Offender Public Website—— 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. 

Ms. DORAN [continuing]. Which is half of their requirement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Look, thank you very much. 

Mr. Allen, can you show some sympathy for the juvenile problem? It is going to the Supreme Court. And attorney Nicole Pittman, who we wanted as a witness but we only have a rule of four— 

it looks like there is a constitutional problem as big as this room 

involved in that Supreme Court case coming up. Could you show 

us a little sympathy, even just for the hearing? 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, no, Mr. Chairman. I think there has been that 

kind of sympathy. And I think it is reflected in Attorney General 

Holder’s supplemental guidelines. What the provisions—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Boy, here we go again. 

Mr. ALLEN. No, no, no. I mean—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you know, he made some changes. I am glad 

he made some changes. But that doesn’t even begin to deal with 

it. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Doran, following up on the gentleman from Michigan’s question, how many States and tribes do you expect to comply with this 

Act by the July 2011 deadline? 

Ms. DORAN. By the July 2011 deadline, we are very reasonably 

comfortable that between 10 and 15 additional States will be able 

to implement by July. In other words, they don’t have any large, 

substantive barriers or challenges, and they feel comfortable that 

their legislatures are going to be able to pass this. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And that is in addition to how many are in compliance now? 

Ms. DORAN. In addition to the four States and the two territories 

and the tribes. We think we have—we do believe that an additional 

between 25 and 30 States may or may not be able to meet the 

deadline. It is really too soon to tell. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And how about the tribes? 

68 

Ms. DORAN. These are all in session. 

The tribes are definitely not going to be in the same position. We 

have reviewed materials for about 50 tribes, at this point. And, as 

I said, as I was telling Chairman Conyers, they are all connecting 

to the sex offender registry system. But they are going to need 

more time. The Department is committed to doing that, under the 

reasonable amount of time extension under the Act. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. And, in the last 3 years, your office has 

awarded over $25 million in implementation and planning grants. 

How has this money been used by the jurisdictions? First of all, 

how has it been distributed? Are all 50 States and 212 tribes 

availing themselves of this money? 

Ms. DORAN. It is a discretionary grant program for the Adam 

Walsh Implementation—the Support for Adam Walsh Implementation Grant Program. It has been a discretionary program since 

2007. Every eligible jurisdiction, all 248, are eligible to apply. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. How many have? 

Ms. DORAN. To date—I have the information here. It has been 

submitted. To date, I would say we have, total—I would have to get 

you back the exact number. But what I can tell you is, as of last 

year, we were able to fund every jurisdiction that applied last year. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But you don’t know how many applied? 

Ms. DORAN. Oh, last year, we had 28 jurisdictions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And over 3 years, do you know how many? 

Ms. DORAN. I cannot give you an exact number right now, but 

I can get that back to you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let’s say we are three times that number, 

around 75. Is that an indication that there are 175 jurisdictions 

that think so little of complying with this law that they are not applying for the funding but they are still complaining about not 

being able to comply? What is the—— 

Ms. DORAN. No, not necessarily. Out of the seven jurisdictions 

that have implemented, four of those didn’t receive any Federal 

funding. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. Very good. 

And your office has also provided software platforms for the 

States and tribes to use to build their capacity to feed information 

into the national sex offender registry. What has been the impact 

of that software? 

Ms. DORAN. The software has been an enormous success, particularly for the tribes. I know I have talked about it a couple of times, 

but the tribe and territory sex offender registry system has been 

enormous for the tribes. Over half of them are now in the testing 

stage or using it. 

And, out of the great success from that, the States asked if they 

could also have a similar tool developed for them. And we developed the Sex Offender Registry Tool. And quite a few States, as 

many as 10 right now, are testing it or looking into it and are 

using that tool, as well, for their registry system. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Hylton, are there any additional law enforcement authorities 

that would help the Marshals Service to better investigate and 

track sex offenders? 

69 

Ms. HYLTON. Yes, there is, and thank you for that question. The 

Marshals Service would greatly benefit from documentary administrative subpoena authority. 

You know, as you can appreciate in any investigation, but one of 

so sensitive in protecting our children, the ability to immediately 

react during an investigation is critical to the apprehension of the 

fugitive or the noncompliant sex offender. And so, having the ability to have documentary administrative subpoena would allow the 

investigators real-time information that is critical to apprehending 

the individual. That would be the greatest asset we could receive 

at this point to take our Adam Walsh Act responsibilities to a higher level. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me get one more question in before my time 

runs out. 

Are there other agencies that have the ability to issue administrative subpoenas? And have they been used without overreach on 

their part? Do they have a good track record? 

Ms. HYLTON. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Yes, I believe that there are, within the Department of Justice, 

the DEA and FBI have the ability. It has proven effective. I cannot 

speak at this point to the integrity of their processes. But, certainly, if given that ability, what we are really looking for is documentary, which is an asset that would provide us limited responsibility but allow us to get what we need on the fugitive investigation. So it would serve vital to us. And we would look at the best 

practices when we implement that. And I am confident that we can 

keep the integrity of the authority intact. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. HYLTON. Thank you. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very 

important hearing, one that affects the lives of many people, many 

of them who don’t belong on a child sex registry or any sexual registry. 

And what we have here today is an act; for some reason, it is 

called the Adam Walsh Act. I don’t know if there has ever been any 

evidence uncovered that would establish the fact that this horrific 

murder of Adam Walsh had anything to do with a sex act. But, 

nevertheless, that is the name of the Act that we are dealing with 

here today. 

That act is pretty strict and pretty broad in scope. It requires 

that all persons convicted of a sex offense must be placed on sex 

offender registry. Is that correct? Is that true? 

Mr. ALLEN. Above a threshold. There is a threshold of severity 

that requires—you would have to—so very minor offenses would 

not get you on the sex offender list. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, certainly, a definition of what constitutes a 

sex offender act is any criminal offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another. So that means, 

does it not, that just simple possession of child pornography would 

require the placement automatically of a defendant or a convicted 

person on the sex offender registry? Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. DORAN. No, that is not correct. 

70 

Mr. JOHNSON. You don’t think so? 

Ms. DORAN. If it is a Tier 1—a Tier 1, they have to register for 

the law enforcement database, the national sex offender registry—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The Chair would remind members of the 

audience that they are here as guests of the Subcommittee, and expressions of support or opposition to any of the statements are specifically prohibited by House rules. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And if I might get back my 20 seconds. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You may. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. DORAN. Tier 1’s do not necessarily have to be publicly posted. 

It is up to—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. Well, now, that is fine. That may be true 

in some States. 

Ms. DORAN. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. In other States, it may not be true. 

But it is also true that just an online chat with someone—between persons talking about sex, and one person to the conversation is actually a child posing as an adult, that can be an offense 

that renders one subject to placement on that sex offender registry. 

Even sex between, say, a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old, consensual, 

requires placement on the sex offender registry. 

Now, I see you are shaking your head, but I will tell you, being 

a criminal defense lawyer for 27 years before I became a congressman, I handled many cases involving allegations of misconduct involving sex. And so I know what I am talking about in Georgia. 

Even when you are placed on this sex offender registry, you cannot live within, say, 500 feet of a child or of a school or of a playground or of your neighbor’s backyard pool, where there are children who may congregate. And so, therefore, you have to establish 

a place somewhere, 500 miles from nowhere, where there are no 

children as the only place for some people to live. 

Now, I want you to answer this question for me. Is there anybody here who has any objection to, instead of applying rigid sets 

of Federal law to an offense, compelling placement on a registry—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. That you would not support an 

amendment—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. JOHNSON.—that would enable a judge, based on the facts 

that—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman will suspend. His time has 

expired, including the extra 20 seconds. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Could they answer the question, sir? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman used up all of his time. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I yield my time at this point. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. 

71 

Back in 2005, I was one of the several that helped write the 

Adam Walsh Child Safety Act. I think it is a good piece of legislation. At that time, we were concerned about some of the horrific 

crimes that were being committed in the United States. For some 

reason, in that year and subsequent years, there was almost an 

epidemic of young children being kidnapped by sex offenders, previous sex offenders, and taken throughout the United States, and 

criminals continued their criminal ways. 

I want to thank Ed Smart for being here today, and my good 

friend, Mark Lunsford, as well. Mark, like you, I have a photograph of your daughter in my office, and I will continue to do so 

for as long as I am in Congress. 

Because of the crimes committed against the Smart family and 

Jessie Lunsford, we saw a need to try to keep up with these child 

molesters. When they commit a crime in one State, they may register in that State, and then they flee to another State to continue 

their criminal ways. That was the purpose of the Adam Walsh 

Child Safety Act. 

If it needs to be tweaked to refine it more, let’s tweak it. But let’s 

make sure that the law is enforced. 

A person who is a registered sex offender, according to our court 

system, does not have a constitutional right to be anonymous anymore. I agree with that provision. There is no one that values privacy more than me, but, in this case, a person, once they choose 

to commit a crime against America’s most innocent, we need to 

know who they are and we need to have them on a registry. If we 

need to fix it for juveniles, that is a different issue. 

I want to address some questions to Ms. Hylton and then to you, 

Ernie Allen. 

Ms. Hylton, do you think that the law, the Adam Walsh Child 

Safety Act, is a necessary tool to protect children, our society, the 

Adam Walsh Child Safety Act? 

Ms. HYLTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. POE. Why? 

Ms. HYLTON. It allows us the opportunity, within the Federal 

system, to provide our assets and our ability to reach further across 

the Nation in the apprehension of noncompliant offenders and also 

violent offenders. 

So, as you know, at the State and local level, they don’t always 

have those resources. By integrating the U.S. Marshals Service into 

the process through the Adam Walsh Act, it allows them to provide 

their information to us and us to provide our assets and our knowledge and our tracking abilities to quickly apprehend these individuals and protect our children. There is no doubt about it. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Allen, thanks for your work in missing and exploited children. It is a noble cause, to take care of America’s kids. 

What do you think about the Adam Walsh Child Safety Act and 

what Congress should be involved in, or not involved in, in this 

area? 

Mr. ALLEN. Judge Poe, we think it is incredibly important. The 

reality is, 6 years ago, 5 years ago, and today, we still face a wide 

range of disparity from State to State in terms of existing law. And 

there is no question but that the most serious offenders take advantage of those gaps. 

72 

The goal of the Adam Walsh Act was to create a system where 

there is far greater consistency from State to State and to provide 

a reasonable Federal role. We think the Marshals Service is doing 

that. You heard Director Hylton’s numbers. We are identifying 

these traveling offenders and bringing them to justice. 

I recognize—Representative Colloton made a good point—that 

there are States that have been out there doing important work in 

this space. The oldest sex offender registry in this country is California’s, which was created in 1947. This is not new law; this is not 

a new concept. The goal is simply to eliminate the gaps. 

One of the reasons we still estimate the number of noncompliant 

offenders is that many States, maybe most States, still don’t know 

how many of their registered sex offenders are noncompliant. Because what we saw was a situation in which offenders were registering by mail without that, kind of, personal presence. 

So we absolutely believe in the law. We think clearly that there 

has been a process to reach a reasonable level. We think the Attorney General’s guidelines on the juvenile provision, which eliminate 

adjudicated juveniles being on the public registries and Web sites, 

we think it is a reasonable step forward. But it doesn’t mean that 

there aren’t serious offenses being committed by juvenile sex offenders who are starting when they are very young. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you. 

The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I address this question to Ms. Doran and then to Mr. Allen. 

I do come from California, which was, indeed, the first State to 

establish the sex offender registry, back in 1947. Since then, we 

have made great advances, and we have established the California 

Sex Offender Management Board, which came from a bill that I 

wrote when I was in the State legislature. What it does is bring 

together law enforcement, judicial officers, probation officers, treatment professionals, and advocates together to fashion a comprehensive way of dealing with sex offenders and actually reducing recidivism on a more comprehensive basis. 

And these are on a variety of variables. They are basically the 

risk assessment that is done for these variables that have high correlation to sexual recidivism, such as criminal history, victim profile, and age at the time of offense, to determine an offender’s risk 

of recidivism. 

But the Adam Walsh Act bases the offender’s crime only on conviction and not on any kind of risk-assessment score. So I believe 

that we have a superior registration system in place. 

And I want to know, what are the States’ rights in a situation 

like this? We don’t want to replace our superior system with the 

Adam Walsh system. We have put a lot of time and a lot of expertise into a system that will actually reduce recidivism. 

Ms. Doran? 

Ms. DORAN. Thank you for your question. 

The California system, as with most of the States that use risk 

assessment, is not inconsistent with SORNA’s purposes. Yes, 

SORNA does require a conviction-based offense for their initial regVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:00 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
73 

istration and tiering. But risk assessment can be used and is not 

incompatible with SORNA for purposes of public notification, treatment, supervision, and the other uses that people and States use 

risk assessment for. 

There has been a lot of confusion about that among the States, 

and we did issue a clarification document entitled, ‘‘An Implementation Document on the Uses of Risk Assessment Consistent with 

SORNA.’’ And we are in contact with California and hope that we 

can move forward on some of those issues, as well as their information-sharing that they are working on. 

Ms. CHU. Well, I would like to follow up on that, because the 

California Sex Offender Management Board has recommended that 

California not come into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. And 

the reason is not only what I have just mentioned, we believe we 

have a superior system, but also the monetary situation is utterly 

ridiculous. 

The cost for implementation of the Adam Walsh Act would be $21 million to probation for conducting presentencing record 

checks, $10 million for local law enforcement agencies to conform 

with changes in frequency of registration requirements; $770,000 

in a one-time cost to the attorney general’s office to re-tier the registered offenders. 

This amounts to $32 million, and that doesn’t even calculate the 

cost of an additional incarceration. But the amount that we would 

get from the JAG Byrne funds is $2 million. So $32 million we 

would lose; $2 million we would gain. 

What is the point to this? 

Ms. DORAN. Well, I would also add that the responsibility to implement is an ongoing responsibility every year. So, unfortunately, 

that penalty will be applied each and every year that California or 

any other State doesn’t come into compliance with the Adam Walsh 

Act. 

And I am glad that you brought up the cost. There has been a 

lot of information given on cost, as well. If you would like me to 

expand a little bit on what the SMART Office has been able to 

learn about the true cost of implementation. 

Ms. CHU. Well, you are saying that California would comply and 

that there some State rights. You are saying that there was confusion and that now they will qualify. But are you saying, then, that 

they would qualify for these JAG Byrne funds? 

Ms. DORAN. If they were to substantially implement. California 

would need to work with the SMART Office and submit their legislation and their substantial implementation packet to move forward. 

And we are happy to do that with California. We have actually 

made more in-person visits to California than any other State, attempting to work with them on implementation of SORNA. And we 

look forward to continuing to do that with California. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. 

Mr. Allen, do you have any comment on this? 

Mr. ALLEN. I think the only point, Congresswoman, that I would 

raise is that, as I understood the debate at the time of the Adam 

Walsh Act, a number of States were doing some variation of risk 

assessment, but they were all over the place. And my underVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:00 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
74 

standing is that bipartisan leaders of the Congress concluded that 

the Adam Walsh Act was intended as a floor, as a minimum set 

of steps that States needed to take. And the reality is that—I think 

it was felt that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So I think that is why that was used. 

But, as Ms. Doran points out, it does not preclude States from 

applying and using risk-assessment tools as long as they are substantial and meaningful. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Adams. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Ms. Doran, I have some questions, but you wanted to expound 

on the cost, and I am curious about that. 

Ms. DORAN. Sure, absolutely. 

The cost of SORNA really, for the jurisdictions, can be divided 

into two major categories. One is their start-up costs that they will 

be required to do, mainly their information technology infrastructure and reclassification, any costs that are associated with that. 

And then they have their ongoing or their maintenance costs that 

are associated with implementation of SORNA, which is mostly in 

the category of personnel because, for many jurisdictions, depending on their reclassification, they will need additional personnel, 

additional equipment to handle additional check-ins and probation 

and supervision. 

But what we have learned so far—we have gotten actual numbers from one State that has implemented. And Ohio’s number for 

start-up costs for implementation was a little over $400,000. Now, 

that doesn’t include their ongoing maintenance costs, and Ohio is 

keeping us informed about that as they move forward. 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. 

And I have heard a lot about the risk-assessment tool and how 

it is used. How long have they been using these risk-assessment 

tools? I know California has had one for a while. But how are they 

tested? What is the research on it? 

Can anyone answer that? 

Ms. COLLOTON. Sure. The LSIR, the level of service risk assessment, is used by most States to guide who is a high risk at 

recidivating and then who isn’t, and to guide how much time you 

are going to put in monitoring them, what sort of treatment, and 

that kind of thing. And it looks at 20 different factors. It is a test. 

And it is a dynamic test, because it goes to things like what are 

their leisure activities, you know, what sort of mental health background had they had, substance abuse, et cetera. It combines that. 

And what is so misleading and a problem when we are making 

these changes for the Adam Walsh Act is that, that is how we manage offenders. We manage them based on dynamic risk factors. And 

we have very limited resources, so we use those to determine how 

much of a parole officer staff we put on it, all the rest. 

But now what we will put on the public registry will just be the 

plea bargain that they got, the offense that they got convicted of. 

So that somebody with a low-level sex offense may be a very high 

risk—may be a real danger to our children. And what Adam Walsh 

requires and where we need to change that still and give us a little 

more time then is allow those States who wish to to have their 

75 

public notification relate to the risk, the same risk that we supervise on, rather than just the name of the crime, you know, the level 

of the crime that they happened to be convicted of in the plea bargain. 

So we are absolutely on the same page with Adam Walsh on the 

public registry of these sex offenders. The national portal is critical. 

But we absolutely believe that we need at least another year and 

some supplemental change for risk assessment to make this really 

work. 

Because, just like California, most States have spent a lot of time 

on their registries. What I was trying to say to Mr. Gowdy is, we 

care about the children too. That is why most of us—maybe not as 

early as 1947, but we have put a lot of time into the whole procedures we have in our sex registries and the way that the sheriff’s 

office uses them. 

I would like to say one other thing, if I could, on the money that 

has been spent by the Justice Department. What they are doing in 

Kansas, as an example, is we have the national portal software all 

installed. That is not a problem. That is State to State. But what 

really matters is county to county, sheriff’s office to sheriff’s office, 

in the 105 counties in Kansas. 

To do that, SMART has also created a piece of software called the SORT software. But they have given us a $300,000 grant so 

that we can tie the technology at each of the sheriff’s offices together in the State, so when a sex offender changes employment 

or travels or changes jobs, we can notify. And, of course, if he absconds, we can notify. It is that money and the grant money within 

the State that becomes very important for monitoring, as well. 

I just wanted to put that in because I don’t think—— 

Mrs. ADAMS. Thank you. I am about to run out of time. 

And as someone who just came out of the Florida legislature and 

was involved as a cosponsor of the Jessica Lunsford Act and actually worked with the legislature last year in Florida to come to substantial compliance under the Adam Walsh Act, I am concerned 

that we are, you know, now getting to a level—January of this 

year, we are giving the States that information. And it seems like 

it has been a very long time coming, and the States are having a 

hard time complying. But, at the end of the day, we need to protect 

our children. 

Coming from a State where the capital is about 20 minutes from 

the State of Georgia, I recognize from law enforcement background 

that these offenders do travel across State lines. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for the hearing, and let me thank the Ranking Member. 

I remember 2006, when this bill was passed, and remember how 

hard we worked. And we all know John Walsh, and we know his 

passion. I just couldn’t fathom letting him down and disappointing 

him, not because he is a person that would not override difficulties, 

but because this is something that has been constructed with not 

only tears but concerted thought processes. 

So let me begin with the Justice Department. And I just can’t 

fathom why we took so long to get the basic information, as I unVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:00 Apr 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
76 

derstand, the regulatory scheme or structure to the States. And if 

you have already said, please just brief me as to why it took so 

long. 

Ms. DORAN. Are you referring to the supplemental guidelines 

that were just issued? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That and—yes. 

Ms. DORAN. The supplemental guidelines that were just issued in 

2011 were really the culmination of a great deal of work from the 

States, from the jurisdictions, from the SMART OFFICE. 

The SMART Office, I would say as early as 2009, did a really 

comprehensive review of what the barriers were, why States and 

tribes were having difficulty coming into compliance. And there 

were obviously a few large barriers. And we met with many of the 

national organizations—the National Criminal Justice Association, 

National Congress of American Indians, National Conference of 

State Legislators—as well as we met with Mr. Walsh himself and 

the Surviving Parents Coalition. And we really tried to work toward the issues that were causing the most difficulty for the States 

and the tribes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what did you consider were the most difficult ones? 

Ms. DORAN. We considered the most difficult ones to be the juvenile issue, the juvenile registration and notification issue. And so, 

within the supplemental guidelines, we did what we could, underneath the Attorney General’s authority and discretion, to allow 

States the discretion not to post those names publicly. 

Under the retroactivity issue—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And that is if you were a juvenile having perpetrated an act? 

Ms. DORAN. That is correct. A juvenile that would have to register under SORNA—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. 

Ms. DORAN [continuing]. Exactly—for a serious sex offense. 

And then under retroactivity, what we did was we limited the 

scope that States would have to go back to in order to recapture, 

and we limited that to felony convictions, as well as those that 

were already incarcerated or under probation or parole. So we limited that scope for the jurisdictions, as well. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And, at the time that the law was passed, do 

you know how quickly—before you found the need for resolving 

some of the most difficult questions, did you have a regulatory 

scheme after 2006 that got to the States quickly? 

Ms. DORAN. The guidelines were issued in July of 2008. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay, so it was still 2 years. 

Ms. DORAN. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And that is a challenge. 

Let me just ask, if I can, Ernie, if you would—you worked 

through this. You know the horrific circumstances that have occurred. There are some elements that I will just raise with you on 

the juvenile question. 

You know, there are some cultures where marriage occurs before 

18. And there were some issues regarding whether those juveniles—how we actually treat them if we register them and they 

77 

are, in fact, able to be rehabilitated. I just want you to reflect on 

that. 

But, more importantly, I want you to reflect upon how important 

it is to stay the line on this legislation and your sense of the plea 

by States that it is just too difficult. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, first, Congresswoman, on the juvenile provision, we are enthusiastic supporters of the Attorney General’s supplemental guidelines. I think it is infinitely reasonable for serious 

juvenile offenders over the age of 14 to be registered but not be 

subject to inclusion on the public databases. 

We believe in the rehabilitative ideal of the juvenile courts, the 

juvenile justice system. But the reality is, the evidence proves—one 

of the leading researchers talked about the myth of the dirty old 

man. The typical offender in child molestation cases starts very 

young. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. 

Mr. ALLEN. So it is important to identify, to rehabilitate, to direct 

treatment resources. But we think the Attorney General’s accommodation on that is reasonable and is going to enable a lot of 

States to become compliant. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let’s go to my next two because of the timing. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yeah, the next part is, we see real progress. States, 

I think largely because of the supplemental guidelines, our sense, 

as Ms. Doran has indicated, is that States are enacting law. They 

are moving toward compliance. And we think there is going to be 

a critical mass in a very short period of time. 

Now, Representative Colloton’s points about timing, I think, have 

real validity, and that is something Congress has to grapple with. 

But we think it is important to stay the course, to implement this. 

And we think there are going to be a significant number of States 

compliant in a very short period of time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I agree—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to recognize Ed Smart and Mark Lunsford and the 

other members of the Surviving Parents Coalition that are in the 

audience, and appreciate their advocacy. 

My question is for Dawn Doran. I appreciate your testimony on 

sex offender registration. And I am quite proud, along with my colleague, Ms. Adams, that our home State is fully compliant. But as 

we discuss the reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act, I want to 

focus on civil confinement, which is another provision of the law. 

Now, the representative from Kansas, I am sure, is familiar with 

the civil confinement provisions. They have a State statute that 

went all the way to the Supreme Court and was upheld in 1997 

and was really a model law for the rest of the country. There are 

now 19 States that have civil confinement laws on the books. And 

because these kinds of crimes are more often committed at the 

State level, that makes sense. But there is also a general consensus 

that most child sex offenders are not, quote/unquote, ‘‘curable.’’ And 

there really needs to be a priority made in ensuring that, following 

the expiration of a criminal sentence, that there is a way to keep 

78 

these individuals who are very, very likely to re-offend confined, 

with the proper review that civil confinement statutes require. 

With Chairman Sensenbrenner’s help, I was able to include in 

the Adam Walsh Act a grant program that provided for incentives 

for other States to enact civil confinement provisions under certain 

requirements. And Section 301(d)of the law required the Attorney 

General to submit a report to Congress at the end of each year, beginning in 2008, to inform us about the progress that States were 

making on adopting civil confinement statutes of their own and the 

rate of sexually violent offenses in that provision. 

Can you tell me whether that report was ever filed in any year? 

Ms. DORAN. My understanding, unfortunately, is that the civil 

commitment portion of the grant program was never appropriated 

any funding. And, therefore, OJP was not issued any grant funding 

in that area. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, let me read to you from 

the statute, which does not say anything about the report being 

contingent upon funds being appropriated. It is Section D. It says, 

‘‘Attorney General reports not later than January 31st of each year, 

beginning with 2008. The Attorney General shall submit to the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on 

the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on the 

progress of jurisdictions in this section and the rate of sexually violent offenses for each jurisdiction.’’ 

There was $87.3 million appropriated for the entire Adam Walsh 

Act over 3 years. There is nothing in the language that requires 

that report to be tied to appropriations. 

Is the Department of Justice in the habit of ignoring Congress’s 

direction? 

Ms. DORAN. Well, the civil commitment issue is outside of 

SORNA and outside the scope of the SMART Office. But I will certainly have that information given to you as soon as the hearing 

is concluded. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay, well, I mean, your answer 

speaks volumes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the information will be 

included in the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

79 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman may proceed. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I can appreciate that, in 2008, from the 2007 CR, we had 

a CR and that there were not substantial appropriations provided 

for the Adam Walsh Act in general. I was a Member of the Appropriations Committee at the time. And, to be honest with you, I lament that the Adam Walsh Act was significantly underfunded 

overall. 

But the language in the statute clearly says that the Department 

of Justice was supposed to issue a report. It should have been a 


64584A.eps
80 

priority to issue that report annually since 2008 regardless of 

whether the appropriations were made. So I look forward to hearing back from you on where you are going to go from here, because 

I would expect that reports would be generated. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I could yield to the gentlelady from 

Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. And I thank you for 

your service, as well, Congresswoman. 

Quickly, Mr. Allen, I just wanted to finish your point about your 

believability in States being able to get this done. I think what you 

were saying is, you expect that there is go to be, sort of, a synergism of everybody rushing. So, therefore, should we not keep the 

pressure on? There are so many vulnerable children. I am just trying to hear where you are on this situation. 

Mr. ALLEN. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I absolutely believe we 

need to keep the pressure on and stay the course. I think States 

have been provided the latitude to come into compliance. I am 

hopeful that there will be a significant group of States that become 

compliant quickly. And I think, once there is critical mass, there 

will be significant pressure for the rest of the States to join in. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I agree with you, and I thank you and yield 

back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida 

has expired. 

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for giving us some extremely important information as we consider reauthorization of 

the Adam Walsh Act. 

I thank my colleagues for their active participation in the hearings. 

The gentleman from Virginia has a unanimous-consent request. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent that the testimony by Nicole Pittman, 

a juvenile justice policy analyst attorney for the Defender Association of Philadelphia, be included in the record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pittman follows:] 

81 


64584B-1.eps
82 


64584B-2.eps
83 


64584B-3.eps
84 


64584B-4.eps
85 


64584B-5.eps
86 


64584B-6.eps
87 


64584B-7.eps
88 


64584B-8.eps
89 


64584B-9.eps
90 


64584B-10.eps
91 


64584B-11.eps
92 


64584B-12.eps
93 


64584B-13.eps
94 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And, without objection, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ 


64584B-14.eps