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. 11212

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
WASHINGTON

64584 PDF

2011

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.,
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
Wisconsin
JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ROBERT C. BOBBY SCOTT, Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
ZOE LOFGREN, California
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
HENRY C. HANK JOHNSON, JR.,
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
Georgia
STEVE KING, Iowa
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio
TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas
NCHEZ, California
LINDA T. SA
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
TOM REED, New York
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
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, Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HENRY C. HANK JOHNSON, JR.,
Georgia
TED POE, Texas
PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
JUDY CHU, California
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
TED DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
CAROLINE LYNCH, Chief Counsel
BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel

(II)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 0486

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

CONTENTS
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 ..........................................................................
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 ..........................................................................
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary .........

1
3
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 .....................................................................................................
Prepared Statement .............................................................................................
Stacia A. Hylton, Director, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Oral Testimony .....................................................................................................
Prepared Statement .............................................................................................
Ernie Allen, President and CEO, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Alexandria, VA
Oral Testimony .....................................................................................................
Prepared Statement .............................................................................................
The Honorable Patricia Colloton, Chair, Corrections and Juvenile Justice
Committee, Kansas House of Representatives, Leawood, KS
Oral Testimony .....................................................................................................
Prepared Statement .............................................................................................

10
12
26
29
36
38
46
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 ................................
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary ...................................................................................................
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 .................................................................................................................
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 .......................................................................................

5
8

79

81

(III)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

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 todays 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.
Todays 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
(1)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

2
public of sex offenders. Under SORNA, sex offenders are organized
into three tiers, with the most serious offenders required to register
their whereabouts every 3 months with lifetime registration.
SORNA also establishes a national database to incorporate the
use of DNA evidence collection and DNA registry and tracking of
convicted sex offenders with GPS technology. The law also increased criminal penalties for child exploitation offenses and authorized additional grant money to assist State and local law enforcement, with SORNA compliance, to combat child sex abuse and
to assist with fugitive apprehension.
The Act also created the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, or SMART. The
responsibilities of the SMART Office include providing jurisdictions
with guidance regarding the implementation of the Adam Walsh
Act and providing technical assistance to the States, territories, Indian tribes, local governments, and to public and private organizations. The SMART Office also tracks important legislative and legal
developments relating to sex offenders and administers grant programs relating to the registration, notification, and management of
sex offenders.
Thanks to the Adam Walsh Act, we have begun to make progress
against thousands of sex offenders whose whereabouts are unknown. The U.S. Marshals, who bear the primary responsibility for
finding these offenders, have been able to clear over 6,000 cases,
with hundreds of offenders eventually convicted of failing to register.
I would like to remind the Committee Members that this Act has
been challenged in court several times and has been found to be
constitutional in every respect. Claims that the law violates due
process and claims against retroactivity of the law have been examined in many courts and rejected. This is a fair program, and the
goals it seeks comport with the fundamental notions of liberty and
federalism. Yet much more remains to be done.
I am not pleased with the rate of compliance with the SORNA
provisions. The original compliance date was July 2009, with the
ability of jurisdictions to receive two 1-year extensions to July of
this year. In that time, only five States, two Indian tribes, and the
territory of Guam have been certified to be in compliance with the
law. The remaining States and other tribes and territories have
had ample time to come into compliance with the Act. In fact, the
deadline for compliance for these States has already been extended
significantly. I have heard that many States may be close to compliance with the law, and I hope that that is the case as the deadline for compliance fast approaches.
As law enforcement officers seek to investigate serial sex offenders, they are often frustrated to find different States have different
ways of categorizing them. The whole purpose of the Act was to
make it easier to track these offenders, yet many of the same problems remain because so many States have failed to fully comply
with the law. I am eager to hear from the Justice Department why
so many jurisdictions have not complied.
The Adam Walsh Act is vital to apprehending sex offenders and
to protecting our children, and I intend to see that it is fully implemented.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

3
I wish to welcome our witnesses today and thank you for joining
us today.
It is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement the
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you
for this Subcommittee hearing on the Reauthorization of the Adam
Walsh Act.
It has been over 412 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 dont 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 SORNAs 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

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

4
State and local law enforcement officials addressing each of these
challenges. Unfortunately, many of these obstacles still exist.
One such obstacle continues to be the requirement that juveniles
as young as 14 years of age be placed upon the registry. Despite
that, this registration requirement is limited to the most serious
cases, and just this year the Attorney General gave jurisdictions
discretion to make juveniles nonpublic. Numerous States are still
having difficulty with this component due to legal challenges, considerable pressure from advocates and child development experts,
and State legislators discomfort with placing juveniles on a registry.
Another continuing impediment to this implementation is
SORNAs 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 Megans
Law, the predecessor of SORNA.
I will insert the rest of my statement in the record.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

5
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Robert C. Bobby Scott, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you for this Crime Subcommittee
hearing on Reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act. It has been over four and a
half years since the passage of the Adam Walsh Act. I opposed the Adam Walsh
Act for myriad reasons, including the increases in mandatory minimum sentences,
creation of new federal criminal offenses, on top of the myriad of existing and growing state offenses, criminalization of innocuous behavior by teenagers, and the creation of an onerous national sex offender registry of questionable merit or value to
its stated goal of reducing sexual assault.
Since its passage, jurisdictions subject to requirements under the Act have told
us about a number of problems and challenges with implementing the Act. In particular, the Sex Offender Notification and Registration part of the Act, referred to
as SORNA, is proving to be unworkable for the vast majority of these jurisdictions
(states, territories, and tribes). And even among the few who have been certified as
having met the requirements of those provisions, we are seeing reports of problems
and difficult challenges, particularly given the budgetary constraints facing all of
the country at this time.
Given these problems, I hope that we use todays 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 jurisdictionsfour states, two tribes, and one territoryhave 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 laws
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 SORNAs 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

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

6
to monitor offenders. We should all prefer a tool that helps us determine who is actually at risk of committing another sex offense, rather than just telling us who
committed one in the past. Failing to distinguish between the two defeats the purpose of a registry and actually makes us less safe, not more.
Finally, tribes continue to face unique and compelling difficulties implementing
SORNA. Out of 192 tribes who have opted into SORNA, only two have been found
in compliance to date. As many of us know, tribes suffer from high poverty rates
and struggle greatly with budget issues. In addition to losing much needed Byrne
grant funds tribes face an even more serious penalty. Should they fail to implement
SORNA, this public function will involuntarily be delegated to the state in which
a tribe is located. States will then have to take on this additional responsibility,
when they are already struggling to implement their own registries without also
putting them in the difficult position of encroaching upon tribal sovereignty. In light
of the double penalty that tribes face, the burden that SORNA imposes on them is
enormous. I would like to hear about the likelihood that 190 tribes will be able to
come into compliance in five months. And what we are going to do to help them
avoid the penalties they will be subject to if they do not.
In light of the looming compliance deadline and that over 240 jurisdictions remain
outstanding, it is also time for Congress to consider a statutory extension of the
deadline. Before dismissing this as untenable or as a way to allow recalcitrant
states to stall implementing SORNA, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to consider the fact that, although the Act contemplated that jurisdictions would
have five years to implement SORNA, the Department of Justice did not issue
guidelines until 2008, leaving them only three years to implement SORNA. Furthermore, last month the Department of Justice issued supplemental guidelines, just
months before the final deadline. I also urge my colleagues to heed the testimony
of the only witness representing a state here, Representative Collohon from Kansas,
who will share her states experiences and challenges, trying to implement SORNA.
In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that although this hearing is about reauthorizing the Adam Walsh Act generally, that we focus on the piece that is truly in danger of failing, SORNA, and come up with creative solutions. These may include
amending SORNA to help facilitate compliance, with a specific eye towards fixing
the juvenile, risk-assessment, deadline, and tribal issues. It is it not only our obligation, having imposed this mandate on jurisdictions, but it is also the right thing to
do. Now, it is my understanding that the Majoritys 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 todays 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 todays 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.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

7
Ernie Allen is the cosponsor of the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children and has served as its President and CEO
for 22 years. Mr. Allen is also the founder of the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children and serves as its CEO.
Under his tenure at NCMEC, more than 150,000 missing children
have been recovered. He has received both his bachelor degree and
his JD from Louisville University.
Stacia Hylton is Director of the United States Marshals Service,
having been appointed by President Obama as the 10th director of
the service, and sworn in on December 31, 2010. She has over 30
years of law enforcement and management experience within the
Justice Department.
Prior to her appointment as Director of the Marshals Service, she
served as the Attorney Generals 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
becauseI am not sure about thisbut I think with Bobby Scott
I opposed this too a few years back, only I didnt have the courage
to say anything and speak up about it. He went on the floor and
gave ait 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 dont 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

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

8
seems to be prettyit 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 examiningthe registration provision of SORNA may not be
retroactively applied to delinquent individuals. The court has
saidrepeatedly almostin focusing on juvenile adjudications,
that we do not punish our Nations 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 dont
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
Presidents budget release doesnt 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.
Todays 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 Texaswhich my colleague, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, representshas published reports

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

9
about the obstacles to implementing SORNA. They conclude that it would cost
Texas $14 million a year to implement SORNA.
Furthermore, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee recommended that Texas
not implement SORNA.
You can imagine how serious the problems are with SORNA if Texas, one of the
toughest states on offenders, is unable to comply.
I hope we will take particular heed of Kansas State Representative Patricia
Collohons testimony describing the overwhelming cost of implementing SORNA
that states are facing and how we can develop strategies to assist them in this monumental endeavor.
Second, we must consider the effectiveness of these federal requirements, especially given the fact that they will obligate the states to spend millions of dollars
to implement them.
We must ask ourselves some hard questions, such as
How effective are sex offender registries?
Are states getting the most bang for their buck, particularly in this time
where most states are suffering significant budget short falls?
Do these registries really make us safer?
And, are there better ways to protect our children?
Research does not indicate that these registries truly keep us safer, particularly
when they lump together serious sex offenders with less serious sex offenders, like
SORNA does.
In fact, they give us a false sense of security and perpetuate the myth that strangers are most likely to victimize our children, which simply is not true. The sad truth
is that most children are victimized by family members or friends of the family.
Whether sex offender registries actually make us safer is a question that is further complicated when you consider that SORNA does not allow states to assess risk
in their registries.
In other words, they must register people based solely on the offense for which
they were convicted, not on their actual risk of re-offending. This is simply nonsensical.
The problem with SORNAs 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 mandatesespecially unfunded
ones that then jeopardize a states fundinggoes against one of the Majoritys 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 everybodys
full statement will be placed in the record.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

10
TESTIMONY OF DAWN DORAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING, MONITORING, APPREHENDING, REGISTERING, AND TRACKING (SMART) OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC, ON BEHALF OF LINDA
BALDWIN, DIRECTOR, SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING, MONITORING, APPREHENDING, REGISTERING, AND TRACKING
(SMART) OFFICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC

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

Scott, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to have the
opportunity, on behalf of Director Baldwin, who was called away
last night on a family emergency, to discuss the Department of
Justices 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 Departments 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 Departments 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

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

11
who are relocating between jurisdictions or are required to register
in more than one jurisdiction. These are free of charge as well.
The SMART Office also administers the Dru Sjodin National Sex
Offender Public Web site, which is the publics 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 SORNAs 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. Baldwins 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 gentlewomans time has
expired.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Baldwin follows:]

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-1.eps

12

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-2.eps

13

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-3.eps

14

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-4.eps

15

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-5.eps

16

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-6.eps

17

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-7.eps

18

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-8.eps

19

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-9.eps

20

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Baldwin-10.eps

21

22

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

BaldwinA-1.eps

ATTACHMENT

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

BaldwinA-2.eps

23

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

BaldwinA-3.eps

24

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

BaldwinA-4.eps

25

26

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Ms. Hylton.

TESTIMONY OF STACIA A. HYLTON, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARSHALS
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

BaldwinA-5.eps

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

27
for the opportunity to share the Marshals Services 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, co-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

28
ordinating international sex offender apprehensions, and generating new behavioral tools for use by investigators. The Targeting
Center is an important resource to enforce the Act and to support
our partners efforts to do the same.
Our success can be seen in the numbers. Since July 2006, our
deputy marshals have initiated almost 8,000 sex offender investigations. In addition, the Marshals Service has either directly arrested
or assisted our State and local partners with the captures of over
43,700 sex offenders nationwide. The Marshals Service remains a
leader in fugitive apprehension, and the Act provided us the additional assets to take the apprehension of sex offenders to another
level.
This funding, provided by Congress since fiscal year 2008, directly contributed to this impressive number of noncompliant sex
offenders brought to justice. Today, the effective and efficient use
of these resources is more important than ever, and these numbers
represent a significant return on the investment made by Congress
to keep our children and our communities safe.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your ongoing
support on this important issue.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks, and I am pleased to
answer any questions.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hylton follows:]

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Hylton-1.eps

29

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Hylton-2.eps

30

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Hylton-3.eps

31

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Hylton-4.eps

32

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Hylton-5.eps

33

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Hylton-6.eps

34

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Hylton-7.eps

35

36
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Allen.
TESTIMONY OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN,
ALEXANDRIA, VA

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

Center for Missing and Exploited Children was a fervent supporter
of the Adam Walsh Act in 2006. We remain so today.
As of our latest State survey in December, there are now 728,435
offenders in the United States required to register and update their
information as it changes. As many as 100,000 of those offenders
are missing or noncompliant. The number of registered offenders is
going to continue to grow, and clearly States are struggling with
the challenge. Yet we believe that States benefit from strong Federal cooperation and leadership under the Adam Walsh Act. For example, as you have heard from Director Hylton, the U.S. Marshals
Service is tracking down serious fugitive sex offenders. We are
grateful for the dedication and commitment of the SMART Office
and their support of the States and tribes as they move toward
compliance.
Congress also mandates that the National Center provide training and technical assistance to law enforcement in identifying and
locating noncompliant sex offenders, and we are doing that.
In 2006, we created a sex offender tracking team which receives
daily requests from States and localities regarding missing sex offenders. Our analysts run searches using public record databases
donated by private companies. We are looking for links between
noncompliant offenders and child abductions, attempted abductions, and sexual exploitation cases. We then forward that information to the appropriate law enforcement agency in a leads package,
which is then used to search for fugitive offenders. To date, we
have provided more than 6,000 of those leads packages, with more
than 1,200 fugitive sex offenders located and arrested as a result.
And at the request of the Marshals Service, we are assigning six
of our analysts to their Sex Offender Targeting Center to assist in
their efforts.
Regarding SORNA implementation, we believe that we have
begun to see real progress. It has been a challenge, dependent upon
both the executive and legislative branches of the States to act.
These efforts were delayed because the guidelines on SORNA implementation were not issued until 2 years after the law was enacted, providing no clear direction until 2008.
We are pleased that efforts are underway today in most jurisdictions to work toward compliance. According to our friends at the
National Conference of State Legislatures, 41 States enacted
SORNA-related legislation in 2009, 28 States enacted SORNA-related legislation in 2010, and 23 noncompliant States are currently
working on legislation that will bring them closer to achieving substantial compliance with SORNA. And Mr. Conyers, that is the language of the statute, not strict compliance, but substantial compliance. And we think the SMART Office is working in good faith
with these States to achieve accommodations, where appropriate,
under the law.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

37
We recognize that States have faced barriers. A 2009 survey responded to by 47 States indicated four primary obstacles; 23 States
cited the juvenile registration and reporting requirements; 20
States cited the retroactive application provisions; 7 States cited
the tier-based system; and 7 States cited cost.
In January, Attorney General Holder published supplemental
guidelines that in our judgment effectively address and resolve the
concerns of most States about juvenile registration and the retroactivity provisions. We believe that the Attorney Generals 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:]

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Allen-1.eps

38

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Allen-2.eps

39

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Allen-3.eps

40

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Allen-4.eps

41

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Allen-5.eps

42

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Allen-6.eps

43

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Allen-7.eps

44

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Allen-8.eps

45

46
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Representative Colloton.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICIA COLLOTON, CHAIR, CORRECTIONS
AND JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMITTEE, KANSAS HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, LEAWOOD, KS

Ms. COLLOTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Sensenbrenner, Ranking Member Scott, and Members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today
about the Adam Walsh Act and efforts by States to implement the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, SORNA.
As Chair of the Corrections and Juvenile Justice Committee in
the Kansas House, I have focused my time in the legislature on
protecting those who are vulnerable and holding offenders accountable for their crimes. I believe Kansas is one State that, like many
others, is working diligently to walk the line between implementing
the policies established by Walsh and policies developed within
Kansas over many years that address our specific needs.
Kansas has a longstanding commitment to the safety of our citizens, of course, and then particularly to our children. Seventeen
years ago, Kansas passed its Sex Offender Registration Act which
created a Statewide registry for specified sexual offenders available
for law enforcement use. As of last year, over 5,000 sex offenders
are in the Kansas registry. We include all sexually violent crimes
and all crimes involving children under 18 years of age in our registry. We have passed Jessicas 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 dont know if we can whip it through the legislature
this session.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

47
While only seven jurisdictions have been classified as compliant
with Walsh, there has been significant work done and progress
that should not be overlooked. Over 250 pieces of legislation have
been passed across the country since 2006. What you implemented
with Walsh, Mr. Chairman, and those of you who supported it, was
a whole bevy of pieces of legislation that enact pieces of the Walsh
compliance picture.
Why the delay? There are several issues. First is timing. Congress intended to give jurisdictions 5 years to come into compliance, but the implementing guidelines didnt 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 summaryis 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:]

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-1.eps

48

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-2.eps

49

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-3.eps

50

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-4.eps

51

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-5.eps

52

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-6.eps

53

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-7.eps

54

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-8.eps

55

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-9.eps

56

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-10.eps

57

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-11.eps

58

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-12.eps

59

60

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

Collot-13.eps

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 cant make this deadline, how
much more time do you think Kansas will need to come into substantial compliance?

61
Ms. COLLOTON. I would give us 2 more years in the sense that
it may well be that we start to vet the policy changes contained in
the agreement we have reached with the SMART Office, and that
we are unable to pass it this legislative session. Remember, we are
a 90-day citizen legislature. We do meet every year, thankfully.
Some of the States only meet every other year. So I would say if
you would give us next session, we may well do it. If you are including all States, I would say you need a 2-year time frame for
those tentative agreements, particularly under the January guidelines, to come into fruition and be passed in legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Do you support the carrot-and-stick approach, where the stick is reducing Byrne JAG funding?
Ms. COLLOTON. Not fully, in this sense; that much of that money
is used for victim treatment, for community corrections treatment
of sex offenders when they reenter into the community. To take
that kind of money away when it is the very money that helps us
control, track, and monitor, to do what is smartmonitor and
trackI 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 creditperhaps determined by the
SMART Officeand 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 processwhich I dont 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 Collotons point about
the fact that effectively States have only had 3 years to come into
compliance. And I think she makes the pointand certainly the
data we have from the leading associations indicatesthat most
States have really made diligent efforts, including passing various
pieces of the legislation, to try to get to compliance. So I think that
isnot to pass the buck, but I think that is something Congress

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

62
needs to weigh; and that is, an extension may effectively reduce the
total number of States that are compliant as of July of this year.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I believe in deadlines, and excuses
are going to have to be valid if there is to be an extension considered. I will look at all 50 States and a good percentage of the tribes
to make a determination on that. I really dont think 2 years is appropriate, as I have a feeling that people wont 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 Megans Law?
Ms. DORAN. Under Megans law, there have been some studies
produced under that.
Mr. SCOTT. And what did they find?

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

63
Ms. DORAN. The main purpose of registration and notification is,
of course, registration for law enforcement purposes and sharing of
information, and providing information to the public.
Mr. SCOTT. Does the fact that there is a registry reduce recidivism?
Ms. DORAN. I would have to get back to you on those studies.
Mr. SCOTT. Are there any studies that show whether or not
someone who is compliant on a registry versus someone who is not
compliant on a registry is more or less likely to offend? In other
words, the list of 100,000 that Ms. Hylton is chasing down and incarcerated, is that list more likely to offend than those on the registry that are in compliance?
Ms. DORAN. No.
Mr. SCOTT. No, there is no difference?
Ms. DORAN. That is correct. They are not showing to be more or
less likely.
Mr. SCOTT. The fact that you are not in compliance does not
mean that you are any more likely to offend than if you are out
of compliance; that is the finding of the studies.
Ms. DORAN. That is one study, yes, sir.
Mr. SCOTT. Ms. Colloton, the juvenile issue, why are States reluctant to have juveniles register on these public registries?
Ms. COLLOTON. Well, there are a couple different reasons. One is
that juveniles that exhibit problems with sexual behavior are much
less likely to re-offend. And their brains are developing; they are
much more susceptible to treatment. So I think to treat them and
put them on a public registry and put them on registration creates
issues for them that are exactly the opposite of the paternalistic juvenile system that we have created in juvenile justice. And I think
it is counterproductive.
There is one other thing I would like to
Mr. SCOTT. When you say counterproductive, are you suggesting that putting a juvenile on the list would alter their future
opportunities such that you are actually increasing the likelihood
that they will get in trouble in the future?
Ms. COLLOTON. Yes, absolutely. I think that if that registry is
publishedand just as of January now, it doesnt 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 hasnt been a resolution.
The other area that there hasnt 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 doesnt mean that you
are a lesser sex offender risk. And the one thing that is really needed here under Adam Walsh in supplemental regulationsand then
we would need some time after that to get it donewould 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
Megans Law, the first registry, and they have done tiering based

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64
on risk assessment since then. Adam Walsh is requiring them to
change that process and not use risk assessment. That is one other
thing that is very much needed and it is critical with regard to juveniles.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlemans 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 wasnt 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 wouldnt have a position on that one way or the
other.
Mr. GOWDY. All right.
Ms. CollotonRepresentative Colloton, excuse meI 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 couldI 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 reg-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

65
istry. We also, by the way, had the very first, in 1997, Web site registry, but we didnt do it for juveniles. For juveniles, we limited it
to very serioussome 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 dont 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 hardand 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 excellentthe national portal
that SORNA sets up
Mr. GOWDY. When you say protecting our children, are you suggestingare 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.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

66
Ms. COLLOTON. You could also ask meI am sorry?
Mr. GOWDY. My time is up.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Lets look at the tribe problem with the Indians.
I know you are here representing someone that couldnt be here.
But none of you have even mentioned the 212 Indian tribes. Is it
because you dont know about them or you dont 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
dont get out of anything. The States will reimpose their activity,
isnt 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 dont 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 challengesthe 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 dont 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 doesnt 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 cant 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
dont meet these deadlines?

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

67
Ms. DORAN. If a tribe is eventually delegated over to a State for
registration and notification, but that is our absolute last resort.
The Department doesnt 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
Holders 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 doesnt 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 Michigans 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 dont 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 havewe 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?

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

68
Ms. DORAN. These are all in session.
The tribes are definitely not going to be in the same position. We
have reviewed materials for about 50 tribes, at this point. And, as
I said, as I was telling Chairman Conyers, they are all connecting
to the sex offender registry system. But they are going to need
more time. The Department is committed to doing that, under the
reasonable amount of time extension under the Act.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. And, in the last 3 years, your office has
awarded over $25 million in implementation and planning grants.
How has this money been used by the jurisdictions? First of all,
how has it been distributed? Are all 50 States and 212 tribes
availing themselves of this money?
Ms. DORAN. It is a discretionary grant program for the Adam
Walsh Implementationthe 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 dateI have the information here. It has been
submitted. To date, I would say we have, totalI 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 dont 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. Lets 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 didnt 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?

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

69
Ms. HYLTON. Yes, there is, and thank you for that question. The
Marshals Service would greatly benefit from documentary administrative subpoena authority.
You know, as you can appreciate in any investigation, but one of
so sensitive in protecting our children, the ability to immediately
react during an investigation is critical to the apprehension of the
fugitive or the noncompliant sex offender. And so, having the ability to have documentary administrative subpoena would allow the
investigators real-time information that is critical to apprehending
the individual. That would be the greatest asset we could receive
at this point to take our Adam Walsh Act responsibilities to a higher level.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Let me get one more question in before my time
runs out.
Are there other agencies that have the ability to issue administrative subpoenas? And have they been used without overreach on
their part? Do they have a good track record?
Ms. HYLTON. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Yes, I believe that there are, within the Department of Justice,
the DEA and FBI have the ability. It has proven effective. I cannot
speak at this point to the integrity of their processes. But, certainly, if given that ability, what we are really looking for is documentary, which is an asset that would provide us limited responsibility but allow us to get what we need on the fugitive investigation. So it would serve vital to us. And we would look at the best
practices when we implement that. And I am confident that we can
keep the integrity of the authority intact.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. HYLTON. Thank you.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very
important hearing, one that affects the lives of many people, many
of them who dont 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 dont 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 requiresyou would have toso 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? Isnt that correct?
Ms. DORAN. No, that is not correct.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

70
Mr. JOHNSON. You dont think so?
Ms. DORAN. If it is a Tier 1a 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 1s 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 someonebetween 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 neighbors 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 gentlemans time has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. That you would not support an
amendment
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The gentlemans 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.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00074

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

71
Back in 2005, I was one of the several that helped write the
Adam Walsh Child Safety Act. I think it is a good piece of legislation. At that time, we were concerned about some of the horrific
crimes that were being committed in the United States. For some
reason, in that year and subsequent years, there was almost an
epidemic of young children being kidnapped by sex offenders, previous sex offenders, and taken throughout the United States, and
criminals continued their criminal ways.
I want to thank Ed Smart for being here today, and my good
friend, Mark Lunsford, as well. Mark, like you, I have a photograph of your daughter in my office, and I will continue to do so
for as long as I am in Congress.
Because of the crimes committed against the Smart family and
Jessie Lunsford, we saw a need to try to keep up with these child
molesters. When they commit a crime in one State, they may register in that State, and then they flee to another State to continue
their criminal ways. That was the purpose of the Adam Walsh
Child Safety Act.
If it needs to be tweaked to refine it more, lets tweak it. But lets
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 Americas 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 dont 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 Americas 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.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00075

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

72
The goal of the Adam Walsh Act was to create a system where
there is far greater consistency from State to State and to provide
a reasonable Federal role. We think the Marshals Service is doing
that. You heard Director Hyltons numbers. We are identifying
these traveling offenders and bringing them to justice.
I recognizeRepresentative Colloton made a good pointthat
there are States that have been out there doing important work in
this space. The oldest sex offender registry in this country is Californias, 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 dont 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 Generals 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 doesnt mean that
there arent 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 offenders risk
of recidivism.
But the Adam Walsh Act bases the offenders 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 dont 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 SORNAs purposes. Yes,
SORNA does require a conviction-based offense for their initial reg-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00076

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

73
istration and tiering. But risk assessment can be used and is not
incompatible with SORNA for purposes of public notification, treatment, supervision, and the other uses that people and States use
risk assessment for.
There has been a lot of confusion about that among the States,
and we did issue a clarification document entitled, An Implementation Document on the Uses of Risk Assessment Consistent with
SORNA. And we are in contact with California and hope that we
can move forward on some of those issues, as well as their information-sharing that they are working on.
Ms. CHU. Well, I would like to follow up on that, because the
California Sex Offender Management Board has recommended that
California not come into compliance with the Adam Walsh Act. And
the reason is not only what I have just mentioned, we believe we
have a superior system, but also the monetary situation is utterly
ridiculous.
The cost for implementation of the Adam Walsh Act would be
$21 million to probation for conducting presentencing record
checks, $10 million for local law enforcement agencies to conform
with changes in frequency of registration requirements; $770,000
in a one-time cost to the attorney generals office to re-tier the registered offenders.
This amounts to $32 million, and that doesnt 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 doesnt 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 under-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00077

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

74
standing is that bipartisan leaders of the Congress concluded that
the Adam Walsh Act was intended as a floor, as a minimum set
of steps that States needed to take. And the reality is thatI 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 gentlewomans 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 farwe have gotten actual numbers from one State that has implemented. And Ohios number for
start-up costs for implementation was a little over $400,000. Now,
that doesnt 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 isnt, 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
riskmay 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

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00078

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

75
public notification relate to the risk, the same risk that we supervise on, rather than just the name of the crime, you know, the level
of the crime that they happened to be convicted of in the plea bargain.
So we are absolutely on the same page with Adam Walsh on the
public registry of these sex offenders. The national portal is critical.
But we absolutely believe that we need at least another year and
some supplemental change for risk assessment to make this really
work.
Because, just like California, most States have spent a lot of time
on their registries. What I was trying to say to Mr. Gowdy is, we
care about the children too. That is why most of usmaybe 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 sheriffs
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, sheriffs office to sheriffs 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 sheriffs 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 dont 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 levelJanuary 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 gentlewomans 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 couldnt 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 cant
fathom why we took so long to get the basic information, as I un-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00079

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

76
derstand, the regulatory scheme or structure to the States. And if
you have already said, please just brief me as to why it took so
long.
Ms. DORAN. Are you referring to the supplemental guidelines
that were just issued?
Ms. JACKSON LEE. That andyes.
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 organizationsthe National Criminal Justice Association,
National Congress of American Indians, National Conference of
State Legislatorsas 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 Generals 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]. Exactlyfor 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 quicklybefore 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 wouldyou 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 juvenileshow we actually treat them if we register them and they

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00080

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

77
are, in fact, able to be rehabilitated. I just want you to reflect on
that.
But, more importantly, I want you to reflect upon how important
it is to stay the line on this legislation and your sense of the plea
by States that it is just too difficult.
Mr. ALLEN. Well, first, Congresswoman, on the juvenile provision, we are enthusiastic supporters of the Attorney Generals 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 provesone
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 Generals accommodation on that is reasonable and is going to enable a lot of
States to become compliant.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Lets 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 Collotons 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 gentlewomans 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

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00081

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

78
these individuals who are very, very likely to re-offend confined,
with the proper review that civil confinement statutes require.
With Chairman Sensenbrenners 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 Congresss
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:]

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00082

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

79

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00083

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584A.eps

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

80
priority to issue that report annually since 2008 regardless of
whether the appropriations were made. So I look forward to hearing back from you on where you are going to go from here, because
I would expect that reports would be generated.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I could yield to the gentlelady from
Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. And I thank you for
your service, as well, Congresswoman.
Quickly, Mr. Allen, I just wanted to finish your point about your
believability in States being able to get this done. I think what you
were saying is, you expect that there is go to be, sort of, a synergism of everybody rushing. So, therefore, should we not keep the
pressure on? There are so many vulnerable children. I am just trying to hear where you are on this situation.
Mr. ALLEN. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I absolutely believe we
need to keep the pressure on and stay the course. I think States
have been provided the latitude to come into compliance. I am
hopeful that there will be a significant group of States that become
compliant quickly. And I think, once there is critical mass, there
will be significant pressure for the rest of the States to join in.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I agree with you, and I thank you and yield
back.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida
has expired.
I would like to thank all of the witnesses for giving us some extremely important information as we consider reauthorization of
the Adam Walsh Act.
I thank my colleagues for their active participation in the hearings.
The gentleman from Virginia has a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask unanimous consent that the testimony by Nicole Pittman,
a juvenile justice policy analyst attorney for the Defender Association of Philadelphia, be included in the record.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Pittman follows:]

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00084

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6601

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00085

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-1.eps

81

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00086

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-2.eps

82

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00087

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-3.eps

83

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00088

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-4.eps

84

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00089

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-5.eps

85

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00090

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-6.eps

86

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00091

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-7.eps

87

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00092

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-8.eps

88

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00093

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-9.eps

89

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00094

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-10.eps

90

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00095

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-11.eps

91

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00096

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-12.eps

92

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00097

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-13.eps

93

94

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. And, without objection, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

VerDate Aug 31 2005

11:00 Apr 14, 2011

Jkt 000000

PO 00000

Frm 00098

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6011

H:\WORK\CRIME\021511\64584.000

HJUD1

PsN: DOUGA

64584B-14.eps