PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 14, 2007
Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 or the KIDS Act of 2007 - Authorizes additional appropriations for FY2008-FY2013 to: (1) evaluate and purchase Internet filtering and monitoring programs and devices; (2) train probation officers in the use of such programs and devices and in the supervision of sex offenders; and (3) hire probation officers and other personnel as required to supervise convicted sex offenders effectively.
Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) include as discretionary conditions for the probation and supervised release of a convicted sex offender restricted access to the Internet and monitoring of computers used by such offender by a probation officer; (2) impose a fine and/or prison term of up to 20 years for conducting, or attempting or conspiring to conduct, a financial transaction to facilitate access to, or possession of, child pornography; and (3) include as monetary instruments for money laundering purposes electronic or digital currencies or stored value cards.
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and, if appropriate, amend its sentencing guidelines for sex offenses involving children where the crimes are committed or facilitated by use of the Internet and the offender's age is misrepresented on the Internet or the offender's status as a sex offender is not revealed.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 to revise the minimum standards, under a pilot program, for electronic monitoring of sex offenders to eliminate requirements that the tracking device: (1) contain cellular technology in a single unit; and (2) provide two- and three-way voice communication.
People & committees
Rep. Pomeroy, Earl [D-ND-At Large] · D–ND
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 0 (Roll no. 1092). (text: CR 11/13/2007 H13589-13590)
House roll call 1092 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 417 - 0 (Roll no. 1092).(text: CR 11/13/2007 H13589-13590)
House roll call 1092 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H13885)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 719.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H13589-13591)
Mr. Conyers moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.719 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.719 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.719 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.719 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.