On September 14, the House approved, 371-52, a legislative package (H.R. 3132) that includes a number of proposals aimed at protecting children from sexual predators. The House Judiciary Committee approved the measure on July 27 (see The Source, 7/29/05).
Rep. Mark Green (R-WI) called the Children’s Safety Act “a great stride towards doing what we can and what we must do to protect our kids from those who would prey upon them,” adding, “First off, it has tough penalties. It does have tough penalties. It does have mandatory minimums because I believe and so many people believe that we have to send a clear, unmistakable signal that those who prey upon our kids will not be tolerated. Secondly, we increased the size of the DNA database, which means that we give to law enforcement professionals the tools they need to track down these [sex offenders] and to put them away, to put them behind bars. And, third, and I believe most importantly, we expand the use of the sex offender registry and increase notification requirements. We take the registry system nationwide, we make it accessible online, and we close up some of the loopholes that, sadly, have led to some of the crimes that we have all heard about.”
Expressing his concern that the bill would actually increase sex crimes against children, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) stated, “We should certainly seek to avoid enacting legislation that expends scarce resources in a manner that is not cost effective or that exacerbates the problem. It is clear that having police supervision and police awareness of the location and identification information about sex offenders is appropriate and helpful. But it is not clear that putting that information indiscriminately on the Internet, regardless of the dangerousness of the individual, with no guidance or restriction [to] what people should do with the information, it is unclear whether that is helpful or harmful.” He added, “Research shows that 90 percent of sex offenses against children involve either family members or someone well-known to the victim. So when you put names and addresses on the Internet, 90 percent of the offenses are not even covered. We also have the situation where those on the Internet are ostracized and subjected to public notoriety, embarrassment, ridicule, and harassment…This victimizes the victim twice and may well discourage offense reporting that is already considered very low in these situations.”
During consideration of the bill, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) offered an amendment based on the text of the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (H.R. 2662) that would expand federal hate crimes to include gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Specifically, the amendment would authorize federal technical, forensic, and prosecutorial assistance to states in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Under the amendment, the federal government could not prosecute a case unless the attorney general certifies that there is reasonable cause that the crime was motivated by hate and that the state either does not have jurisdiction over the crime, has requested federal assistance, or does not object to federal prosecution. Individuals found guilty of a federal hate crime would be subject to life in prison if death results from the offense. The amendment was adopted, 223-199.
Voicing her support for the amendment, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) said that “it is irresponsible and naïve to deny that there are people out there who seek to commit violence against others because they are gay, lesbian or transgender or because they are female or because they have a disability. It happens far too often, and we must not be silent about it.” She added, “Enactment of Federal hate crimes protections is important for both substantive and symbolic reasons. The legal protections are essential to our system of ordered justice; but on a symbolic basis, it is important that Congress enunciate clearly that hate-motivated violence based on gender, sexual orientation or disability is wrong, because, quite frankly, too much of what we do in this Chamber conveys the message that we really do not believe in equality for all, and that is sort of like a wink and a nod that a little discrimination is okay.”
Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) called the amendment “a poison pill to a very good and strongly supported bill,” adding, “There have been no hearings. There have been no markups to this legislation, and we are talking about a major amendment to the Federal Criminal Code, one that poses constitutional problems of double jeopardy and whether Congress is exceeding its constitutional authority, which is something that should go through the regular order. I do not think that changes to the criminal code should be taken lightly. Statistics on hate crimes prosecution should be fully considered in a very thoughtful way, including testimony that scholars have presented that says that hate crimes legislation actually increases those types of crimes, rather than decreases them. We also should consider the case of United States v. Morrison, where the Supreme Court considered whether or not section 8 of the Commerce Clause or section 5 of the 14th amendment would allow Congress to enact a Federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence. There the Supreme Court said that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to do that.”
The House also approved the following amendments by voice vote:
The House rejected the following amendments:
In addition, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) offered an amendment that would have allowed states to receive federal assistance for one year to provide foster care services for children affected by Hurricane Katrina. Because the amendment would have provided new budget authority, a point of order was raised against the amendment and the Chair sustained the point of order.
