Federal legislation named for Fishers teenager Hailey Buzbee has support from Indiana’s entire House delegation. It has yet to receive a vote.

The federal indictment of the man accused of sexually exploiting and killing 17-year-old Hailey Buzbee marks another development in the criminal case. A separate effort to change how authorities alert the public when children disappear remains unfinished in Washington.

The HAILEY Act, named for the Fishers teenager, would broaden federal AMBER Alert standards to include children considered high-risk missing persons, even when an abduction cannot immediately be established.

U.S. Rep. Rudy Yakym, R-Indiana, introduced H.R. 9236 on June 10. As of Sept. 24, its latest recorded legislative action remained its referral that day to the House Judiciary Committee. Congress.gov lists no subsequent committee action or passage by either chamber.

The proposal addresses a concern raised by Hailey’s disappearance: a child who appears to have left home voluntarily may nevertheless be in serious danger from an adult who has cultivated a relationship online.

Hailey was initially classified as a runaway, and neither an AMBER Alert nor a Silver Alert was issued, according to WFYI’s reporting. Her family subsequently advocated for changes to alert systems and stronger protections against online exploitation.

On Sept. 23, a federal grand jury indicted a 39-year-old Columbus, Ohio, man on nine counts, including kidnapping resulting in death. Prosecutors allege he met Hailey through online games, attempted to entice her into sexual activity beginning when she was 15, and later transported her from Indiana to Ohio and killed her.

Some charges carry potential penalties of life imprisonment or death. That does not establish that prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty. The accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

The indictment follows federal charges announced through a criminal complaint in February. The criminal prosecution and the legislation are separate proceedings.

The bill’s full name is the High-risk Alert Improvement for Locating Endangered Youth Act of 2026.

Its operative provision would amend the PROTECT Act to require federal minimum standards addressing AMBER Alerts for people younger than 18 whom law enforcement reasonably believes are high-risk missing persons.

The legislation is brief. It does not define “high-risk missing person,” establish a new Pink Alert system, mandate school lessons, create criminal penalties or provide a specific appropriation. It also does not set a deadline for implementing the new standards. Those limits distinguish the federal measure from broader proposals advanced in Hailey’s name.

Yakym’s office describes the objective as giving police greater ability to issue alerts when a missing child faces serious danger but an abduction cannot immediately be confirmed. In the announcement introducing the proposal, the Buzbee family expressed support and urged the House to pass it.

An important qualification lies in the law the bill would amend. Existing federal AMBER Alert standards are adoptable voluntarily, and H.R. 9236 leaves that provision intact.

That means the proposal would change the federal standards framework, while practical implementation would still involve federal guidance and state and local alert plans. It would not automatically require an alert whenever any child is reported missing.

Current Justice Department recommendations call for a reasonable belief that an abduction occurred, imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, enough descriptive information to make an alert useful, and entry of the child’s information into the national crime-information system.

The guidance permits police to make a prompt judgment based on available evidence. The standard should not be confused with requiring a conviction or eyewitness proof of a physical abduction.

Indiana’s published AMBER Alert plan similarly requires a child under 18 who is believed abducted and in danger of serious harm or death, along with sufficient descriptive information and a recommendation from the responsible law-enforcement agency.

The broader concern about missing teenagers extends beyond this case. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children describes children who leave on their own as potentially highly vulnerable and identifies online enticement among the risk factors associated with running away. A runaway classification does not establish that a child is safe.

Support for the federal bill has grown since its introduction.

Congress.gov lists 10 cosponsors: eight Republicans and two Democrats. Eight represent Indiana, covering every Indiana House district other than Yakym’s own. Together with Yakym, that means all nine members of Indiana’s House delegation have formally supported the proposal.

Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Indiana, whose district includes Fishers, joined June 22. The most recent additions, on Sept. 16, were Indiana Democrat André Carson, New Jersey Republican Christopher Smith and Mississippi Republican Mike Ezell. The other cosponsors are Indiana Reps. Jefferson Shreve, Erin Houchin, Mark Messmer, James Baird, Frank Mrvan and Marlin Stutzman.

That record supports the three-state sponsorship map appearing in advocacy materials. It represents support from individual House members, rather than approval by the states themselves.

Why, then, has Congress not passed the bill?

The available record establishes the procedural answer: it has not advanced beyond introduction and referral to Judiciary. It does not establish the reason for the committee’s lack of further action.

A review of public legislative records, sponsor materials and published reporting did not identify a bill-specific explanation from committee leaders. There is no recorded vote showing lawmakers rejected it. Nor does the record establish that a particular party, lobbying organization or senator blocked it.

Cosponsorship signals support but does not itself schedule committee consideration or a floor vote. Congress.gov also lists no related bill; no Senate companion has been identified.

The usual committee process allows lawmakers to hear testimony, consider amendments and decide whether to recommend a bill to the full House. A session to consider changes is known as a markup. The House and Senate ultimately must approve the same legislative language before it can be presented to the president.

There are policy questions worth examining as the proposal moves forward: how authorities would determine high risk, what information would justify an alert, and how broader eligibility would affect alert volume and public response. The bill does not resolve those questions in detail.

The Justice Department’s existing guidance warns that overuse or inadequately supported activations can weaken an alert system’s effectiveness. That is relevant background, but it is not evidence that those concerns explain Congress’s handling of the HAILEY Act.

Indiana has already enacted related changes.

House Enrolled Act 1303 expanded the state’s missing-child and Silver Alert framework and addressed other child-safety and sex-crime provisions. Gov. Mike Braun signed that measure on March 4; an April 1 ceremony brought the family and lawmakers together to recognize it and another measure, HEA 1408. Those state laws did not enact the federal HAILEY Act.

The broader “Hailey’s Law” campaign also seeks a Pink Alert system and recurring education about online grooming. Those goals appear in the advocacy petition but are not provisions of H.R. 9236.

Behind those efforts is a teenager remembered for more than the circumstances of her death. An advocacy remembrance describes Hailey as a Hamilton Southeastern High School student who loved music and books, worked at The Kitchen on Main in Fortville and hoped to pursue journalism.

Her family’s push for reform has secured state changes and a federal proposal backed by Indiana’s entire House delegation. The next unresolved question in Washington is when — and whether — that support will translate into legislative action.