Minor and miscellaneous bills : hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1241, H.R. 1533, H.R. 1552, H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2360, September 28, 1995 (Volume Pt. 2) online

tion regarding a dangerous sexual predator, states have adopted different commu-
nity notification standards.



100

New York, Pennsylvania and my home state of New Jersey, for instance, have
community notification laws that require citizens to be notified when a sex offender
living in their community poses a danger. But our neighbors, Connecticut and Dela-
ware, offer registry information only to law enforcement agencies, employers con-
ducting background checks, and others at the discretion of law enforcement agen-
cies. It is my fear that sexual predators will begin to move from state to state, set-
tling in jurisdictions where they are able to assure their anonjnmity. As a result,
critical information will not necessarily get into the hands of those who need it
most — parents — in order to take common-sense steps to protect their children. Be-
cause of this very real possibility, Mr. Chairman, I believe we must strengthen the
1994 law so there will be a community notification standard in all 50 states.

My bill would ensure that local law enforcement agencies "shall release relevant
information that is necessary to protect the public* This change to the law would
guarantee appropriate dissemination of information so that parents, school officials
and community groups can responsibly use the information in order to protect their
children.

Mandatory community notification has been held to be constitutional by New Jer-
sey's Supreme Court, a court considered to be one of the most liberal in America.
With only one dissenting vote, it ruled that the rights of parents have priority over
the rights of convicted sex offenders.

My legislation has the support of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children and is strongly backed by Maureen and Richard Kanka, the parents of lit-
tle Megan. At this time I would like to submit testimony from each to be inserted
into the committee record and read an excerpt from Maureen Kanka's testimony.
"There is a need for mandatory community notification across this country. If
pedophiles are going to be out on the street where they can accost our children, then
parents have the right to know if they live on their streets. My daughter Megan
would be alive today if I had known that my neighbor was a twice-convicted
pedophile. I had the responsibility to protect my daughter. I have always told my
children that I would never let anything happen to them. But I guess I lied. I could
not protect my Megan as she was being raped and murdered across the street from
my home. I have to live with the fact that she screamed out my name as she was
being murdered. We as parents had a responsibility to Megan. You as our govern-
ment have a responsibility to all the other Megan's in our country today. Please sup-
port H.R. 2137 introduced by Congressman Dick Zimmer. We have to start putting
our children above their offenders."

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we do have to put the safety of
our children first. Our communities have the right to know if there is a potential
threat to their children's safety. But that safety is jeopardized if every state has dif-
ferent notification procedures. We must strengthen the existing law and ensure that
a strong, uniform Megan's Law is in effect in eveiy state. I ui;ge your support for
this and I urge swift passage of H.R. 2137.

Thank you.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Mr. Zimmer, as you know, I support this legisla-
tion that you have

Mr. ZiMMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCoLLUM [continuing]. But I do have questions that have
been asked of me as to why that it's necessary to mandate this and
why wouldn't local law enforcement be voluntarily doing this and
making that decision? Is there any evidence that they are not doing
it? That type of question has come up to me, and I just thought
I would ask you if you could respond to that.

Mr. Zimmer. In some States, it has been the rule. For instance,
in Washington State, which was one of the very first to have com-
munity notification provisions, the requirement is permissive but
still, as a rule, the community is notified.

I can't give you. State by State, the practice in some of the States
that have recently enacted the notification laws, but I believe, for
instance, in Connecticut and Delaware the community notification
is much less practiced than it is in States where it is mandatory
according to law.



101

The experience in the State of New Jersey and the law that was
created there in response to the tremendous public demand indi-
cates to me that the mandatory law is the best way to go. Obvi-
ously, if a State is already doing this properly, there would be no
change in its procedures. But I do believe that there are a number
of States that simply will not uniformly notify neighborhoods when
there is a danger unless there is this Federal standard.

I want to emphasize that we are only talking about notification
in the case where it is necessary to protect the public. Neither in
New Jersey nor in any other State are the names of all sex offend-
ers routinely made public. It is only to the extent that it is nec-
essary, and I believe that that is a good — a sound protection
and

Mr. McCoLLUM. Who makes the judgment?

Mr. ZiMMER. Well, in New Jersey, the judgment is initially made
by the prosecutor, and then it is reviewed in a judicial proceeding.
That was a modification of the New Jersey statute that was in-
sisted on by the State supreme court. It is not a full-blown judicial
process, and it has worked very well.

We have had several dozen of such cases where the law as inter-
preted by the supreme court has worked. The only time that it
failed and that there was a serious problem was when a Federal
district court judge, stayed the provisions of Megan's law. It re-
sulted in the Guardian Angels leafletting downtown Englewood,
NJ, in a much broader dissemination of this information than
would otherwise be the case.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you.

Anyone else have a question? Ms. Lofgren.

Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with you that when balancing the privacy rights of f^on-
victedf child molesters and the rights of children and parents to be
safe from them, you have got to come down on the side of the par-
ents and children. I don't nave any disagreement with that at all.
Until we come to our senses and sentence pedophiles to life impris-
onment, we will continue to have people out, and parents and chil-
dren need to be protected. So these questions are not hostile to
what you are trying to achieve but really exploratory to what they
might mean for my State of California.

As you are aware, California has recently gone into this whole
field. What we have done is establish a hotline for parents to call
or anyone else who has got a good reason. We also have books that
are available down at your local police department, not only with
names but with pictures of people who parents ought to be alerted
to. You have to provide some justification other than I just want
to see, but it is not a very high standard for someone to meet. I
mean, if you come in and say, I am a parent, I want to look, that
is good enough.

I think although we have just gotten into that and we will see
how it works, the sense in my community is that that probably is
going to work pretty well. I want to make sure that as we mandate
this, as I believe we should, that we also allow for some variations
as States proceed, because we don't know what's going to be the
best way to help parents protect their children.



102

Mr. ZiMMER. We do not spell out in this legislation the method
of the community notification.

Now I think the proposals that are reflected in the California law
are very good ones. They are different from what we do in New Jer-
sey, but in some cases they may be superior. In New Jersey, there
are some cases where law enforcement officials in the most serious
cases go door to door and notify the immediate neighbors.

But in the interests and spirit of federalism we don't want to
micromfuiage what the States do. We do, however, want to estab-
lish a clear standard in principle that notification will be done in
the manner that each State deems most effective when the public
needs to be protected.

Ms. LoFGREN. So, basically, we are saying we have considered
the balance of rights, and we have come to a conclusion on the part
of the country. We are telling States they need to do this but we
are giving them discretion on how best to meet their commimity
needs?

Mr. ZiMMER. That is correct.

Ms. LoFGREN. That is exactly what I think we ought to do.

One final question: The Justice Department, in reviewing the
bill, made one additional suggestion, something that, frankly, I was
not aware of until I read their analysis, that in the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 there is a section that
basically indicates that this sentencing data is — shall be treated as
private data, which is really inconsistent with what we are trying
to accomplish here.

The Justice Department has recommended some language that
would make clear that this information really isn't to be treated as
private data, and I don't think it is at all at odds with what we
are trying to achieve. I would recommend, Mr. Chairman, the staff
take a look at that and add it to the bill.

Mr. McCoLLUM. We will take a look at it.

Mr. ZiMMER. In fact, most of this information is public data, and
it is of public record. That is one reason why our State Supreme
Court has held it to be constitutional when it is disclosed.

Ms. LoFGREN. But, apparently, there is some that were not
aware of it.

Mr. ZiMMER. Yes. Certainly I would be very sympathetic to that
legislation.

Mr. Barr. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. Yes, Mr. Barr.

Mr. Barr. If I could ask one quick question of Representative
Zimmer?

Mr. McCoLLUM. Sure.

Mr. Barr. Just to clarify for the record. Congressman, the people
that we are requiring to register here are people who have already
been convicted of a crime, is that accurate?

Mr. Zimmer. Without exception, that is correct.

Mr. Barr. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Zimmer. Thank you.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Any other questions for Mr. Zimmer?

If not, thank you very much, Dick, for appearing today.

Mr. Zimmer. Thank you.



103

Mr. McCoLLUM. Our next witness is the Honorable Walter
Jones, the Congressman from the Third District of North Carolina.
You have a bill in, and we will be happy to hear from you. Walter,
please proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, JR., A REPRESENTA-
TIVE JN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the com-
mittee.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the House Judici-
ary Committee on an important measure that I feel deserves the
committee's strong support, H.R. 2587, the War Crimes Act of
1995.

As a member of the National Security Committee, I was aston-
ished to learn that there is no current law that provides the means
for prosecution of crimes committed by foreign nationals against
men and women who serve in our military. Moreover, no protection
exists against these types of crimes for any American citizen in
harm's way while overseas, not even to the American Red Cross
workers who attempt to bring humanitarian relief to war-torn
countries.

The Geneva Convention of 1949 provides the United States the
legal authority to prosecute war crimes but not — but not the en-
forcement mechanism. The enforcement is left up to our judicial
system. Unfortunately, the United States has yet to pass a law en-
titling U.S. prosecutors the authority to apprehend and put on trial
foreign nationals accused of war crimes.

I believe this gap in Federal law is unacceptable. Our men and
women in uniform are called upon to serve in hostile lands now
more than ever. The specter of war crimes looms in almost every
U.S. military action abroad, whether peacekeeping in Somalia as
part of a United Nations force or peacekeeping in Bosnia under
NATO. No guarantees exist for U.S. service personnel that they
will not be the victims of a grave breach of the Geneva Convention.

Anyone who believes this legislation is unnecessary should recall
the horror of the American Blackhawk pilot as he was taken pris-
oner in Mogadishu after his helicopter was shot down. For that
matter, consider the American men and women taken prisoner by
Iraq during the Gulf War.

As Americans, we have a long and cherished sense of justice. No
matter where or when an atrocity may occur against an American
citizen, we should empower Federal prosecutors to track down and
try any known violators of the Greneva Convention.

Again, I thank Chairman McCollum and the committee for this
opportunity to speak on behalf of H.R. 2587, which I believe to be
important legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairmsm.

[The prepared statement Mr, Jones follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Walter B. Jones, Jr., a Representative in
Congress From the State of North Carolina

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify before the House Judiciary Committee on an important measure that I feel
deserves the Committee's strong support — the War Crimes Act of 1995.



104

As a member of the National Security Committee, I was astonished to leani that
there is no current law that provides the means for prosecuting e^p%gious crimes
committed by foreign nationals against men and women who serve m our military.

Moreover, no protections exist against these types of crimes for any American citi-
zen in harm's way while overseas — not even to the American Red Cross workers
who attempt to bring humaintarian relief to w- r-tom countries.

TTie Geneva Convention of 1949 provides th: United States the legal authority to
prosecute war crimes, but not the enforcemert mechanism. The enforcement is left
up to our judicial system. Unfortunately, the United States has yet to pass a law
entitling U.S. prosecutors the right to appreb .nd and put on trial foreign nationals
accused of war crimes.

I believe this gap in Federal law is unaccej: able. Our men and women in uniform
are called upon to serve in hostile lands now more than ever. The specter of war
crimes looms over almost every U.S. military action abroad — whether peacekeeping
in Somalia as part of a United Nations forc.2 or peacemaking in Bosnia under a
NATO command. No guarantees exist for U.S. service personnel that they wUl not
be the victim of a "grove breach" of the Geneva Convention.

Anyone who believes this legislation is unnecessary should recall the horror of the
American Blackhawk pUot as he was taken prisoner in Mogadishu after his heli-
copter was show down. For that matter, consider the American men and women
taken prisoner by Iraq during the Gulf War.

As Americans, we have a long and cherished sense of ^justice. No matter where
or when an atrocity may occur against an American citizen, we should empower
Federal prosecutors to track down and try any known violators of the Geneva Con-
vention.

Again, I thank Chairman McCollum for this opportunity to speetk on behalf of this
important legislation.

Mr. Heineman [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Jones.

Don't military courts or international tribunals have authority to
deal with these crimes?

Mr. Jones. Well, the international courts do have, as it relates
to war criminals. But let me very quickly, and this will answer
your question, maybe give additional information.

This legislation was brought to my attention by a Navy pilot who
was shot down over Vietnam, spent 7 years in a POW camp in a
cage. He pointed out to me that after being released, he came back
to America. He went to Georgetown University to get his law de-
gree. And this was an area of concern and interest to him. And
what has happened is that we did not follow the 1949 Geneva Con-
vention when they gave us the authority to pass Federal legislation
within our country, which other countries have done so, that
should a war criminal come to this country that he or she, a known
war criminal, could be prosecuted.

From this gentleman giving me that information and my concern
for our military men and women, we took the opportunity then to

Eursue this a little bit further. As you know, I am not an attorney,
ut I believe that we should give our men and women who serve
our Nation every opportunity should they become a prisoner of war,
and that person who has been designated as a war criminal comes
back to this country, or should be in another country, that our
prosecutors, our Federal prosecutors, if they wish and see the jus-
tification, can prosecute.

Mr. Heineman. Thank you.

Would this bill make it easier for the United States to extradite
persons who have committed war crimes against American troops
or civilians?

Mr. Jones. Absolutely, which we now do not have this on the
books.

Mr. Heineman. OK.



105

Isn't it true that countries who are a party to the Greneva Con-
vention of 1949, such as the United States, are to search out per-
sons who commit grave breaches of the conventions and bring them
before the courts of those nations?

Mr. Jones. Well, again, you can with the — we don't have — in our
country we could not bring a war criminal, who has either killed
or mistreated or injured an American soldier, to this country for
prosecution. And that is what we are trying to get on the books in
this country, is that it is — to me, it is something that is extremely
important that Congress should have passed years ago, but they
did not. And I think as we can see what is happening in the world
today, we are going to have — put more of our soldiers in harm's
way, and I think we need this on the Federal books.

Mr. Heineman. Thank you.

Any member of the committee wish to make comment on this or
ask questions?

Mr. Barr.

Mr. Barr. No thanks.

Mr. Heineman. Thank you, Mr. Jones. I appreciate that. And as
a fellow North Carolinian and colleague, I commend you for this
bill.

Thank you.

Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Heineman. Mrs. Lowey from New York, from Westchester
County, NY.

STATEMENT OF HON. NITA M. LOWEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mrs. Lowey. Correct.

Mr. McCoLLUM. Scarsdale.

Mrs. Lowey. And the Bronx and Queens County.

Mr. Heineman. You have got a lot of people there.

Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you members
of the committee.

I want to thank you for allowing me to testify today on behalf
of H.R. 2607, the Veterans Memorials Protection Act, which I intro-
duced. On October 18, 1995, a plaque containing the names of 53
residents of Yonkers, NY, who were killed in the Vietnam War was
stolen from its place of honor.

The people listed on this memorial made the ultimate sacrifice
for America and as Americans we have a responsibility to remem-
ber their lives and remember their sacrifices so their deeds can be
passed on to future generations. Although the plaque was replaced
several weeks later through the generosity of several local organi-
zations, the community reacted with disgust and outrage that
someone would show such a lack of respect for our Nation's veter-
ans.

Last year, there were hundreds of acts of vandalism committed
against veterans' memorials in this country. Over 50 were commit-
ted against memorials run by the National Park Service alone. The
defacing of the Park Service monuments are Federal offenses with
very severe penalties.



106

However, there are thousands of memorials in communities all
over the Nation, like the one in Yonkers, that do not receive the
same protection. Our Nation's veterans deserve better.

Every offense committed against a .iiemorial commemorating the
services of anyone in the ^med Forces of the United States of
America is an affront to our national heritage and that is why I
introduced the Veterans Memorials Protection Act. My bill would
make it a Federal crime to commit acts of vandalism against me-
morials to our veterans.

Under H.R. 2607, if the damage to the memorial is over $100,
the perpetrator could be fined and face a prison term. This will
serve as a significant deterrent, I believe, to anyone contemplating
such a crime.

The bill renews our commitment to preserving the sacred mem-
ory of those who died so that we may live in peace. Elevating this
crime to a Federal offense will provide additional resources to local
law enforcement officials to combat th ase crimes.

In fact, the bill would bring the resources of the FBI to bear on
those who vandalize memorials to our veterans. These vandals
must be subject to appropriate sentences. This legislation is also in-
tended to send a very clear message. The bill makes clear that
plaques like the one in Yonkers, NY, are just as important to our
local communities as the Lincoln, Jefferson, and Vietnam Memori-
als are to our Nation.

It is a Federal crime to deface any of those national treasures.
So it is also appropriate that it be a Federal crime to deface these
local treasures. As of this morning, H.R. 2607 has 23 cosponsors,
including the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee.

It is an important bill that fills a void in the protection of memo-
rials to our veterans, and I thank Chairman McCollum and Mr.
Schumer, the ranking minority member, for calling this hearing
and giving me the opportunity to testify.

I thank all the members of the committee, and I hope that we
can swiftly move this bill to passage.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lowey follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Nita M. Lowey, a Representative in Congress
From the State ok New York

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, members of the Subcommittee, I want to
thank you for allowing me to testify today on behalf of H.R. 2607, the "Veterans'
Memorials Protection Act," which I introduced.

On October 18, 1995, a plaque, containing the names of 53 residents of Yonkers,
New York, who were killed in the Vietnam war was stolen from its place of honor.
The people listed on this memorial made the ultimate sacrifice for America, and as
Americans we have a responsibility to remembi:r their lives and remember their sac-
rifices, so that their deeds can be passed on to future generations. Although the
plaque was replaced several weeks later throu^ the generosity of several local or-
ganizations, the community reacted with disgust and outrage that someone would
show such a lack of respect for our nation's veterans.

Last year, there were hundreds of acts of vandalism committed against veterans
memorials in this country. Over 50 were committed against memorials run by the
National Park Service alone. The defacing of the Park Service monuments aire fed-
eral offenses with very severe penalties. However, there are thousands of memorials
in conmiunities all over this nation, like the one in Yonkers, that do not receive the
same protection. Our nation's veterans deserve better. Every offense committed
against a memorial commemorating the service of anyone in the Armed Forces of
the United States of America is an affront to our national heritage.



107

That is why I introduced the "Veterans Memorials Protection Act." My bOl would
make it a federal crime to commit acts of vandalism against memorials to our veter-
ans. Under H.R. 2607, if the damage to the memorial is over $100, the perpetrator
could be fined and face a prison term. This will serve as a significant deterrent to
anyone contemplating such a crime.

This bill renews our conmaitment to preserving the sacred memory of those who
died so that we may live in peace. Elevating this crime to a federal ofiense will pro-
vide additional resources to local law enforcement officials to combat these crimes.
In fact, this bill would bring the resources of the FBI to bear on those who vandalize
memorials to our veterans.

These vandals must be subject to appropriate sentences. This legislation is also
intended to send a message. This bill makes clear that plaques like the one in Yon-
kers are just as important to our local communities as the Lincoln, Jefferson and
Vietnam memorials are to our nation. It is a federal crime to deface any of those
national treasures, so it is only appropriate that it be a federal crime to deface these
local treasures.

As of this morning, H.R. 2607 has 23 cosponsors, including the distinguished
Chairman of this subcommittee. It is an important bill fills a void in the protection
of memorials to our veterans. I thank Chairman McCollum and Mr. Schumer, the
Ranking Member, for calling this hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify,