Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ADAM WALSH ACT</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



	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

	----------
	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

	64-584 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011

	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

















	COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

	LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
	F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
	Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
	HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
	ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
	BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
	DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
	STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
	DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
	MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
	J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
	STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
	TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
	LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
	JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
	TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
	JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
	TOM REED, New York LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
	TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
	TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania
	TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
	DENNIS ROSS, Florida
	SANDY ADAMS, Florida
	BEN QUAYLE, Arizona

	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 ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
	DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California Virginia
	J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
	TED POE, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
	JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah Georgia
	TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
	TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania JUDY CHU, California
	TREY GOWDY, South Carolina TED DEUTCH, Florida
	SANDY ADAMS, Florida DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
	BEN QUAYLE, Arizona SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
	MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

	Caroline Lynch, Chief Counsel

	Bobby Vassar, Minority Counsel

















	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


	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 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.
	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 4\1/2\ 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 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.
	[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 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.
	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
	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 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--

	<bullet> How effective are sex offender registries?

	<bullet> Are states getting the most bang for their buck,
	particularly in this time where most states are suffering
	significant budget short falls?

	<bullet> Do these registries really make us safer?

	<bullet> 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.

	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 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:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________

	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 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, coordinating 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:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________
	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.
	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:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________
	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.
	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:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________

	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?
	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 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?
	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 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 registry. 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.
	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?
	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?
	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?
	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.
	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.
	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.
	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 registration 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 understanding 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 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 understand, 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 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 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:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

	__________

	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 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:]

	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
	__________

	Mr. Sensenbrenner. And, without objection, this hearing is
	adjourned.
	[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

	<all>

	</pre></body></html>