[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 45 (Thursday, March 20, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E529-E530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          AMBER ALERT CONCERNS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 19, 2003

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of 
bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to 
punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard 
to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys 
on children. Therefore, I certainly support those parts of H.R. 1104 
which enhance the punishment for those convicted of federal crimes 
involving sexual assaults on children.
  I also support the provisions increasing the post-incarceration 
supervision of sex offenders. However, given the likelihood that a sex

[[Page E530]]

offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to 
ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?
  However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert 
system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor 
effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the 
demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and 
kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that 
one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is 
that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states 
and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus 
ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual 
jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all 
Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats 
instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials 
will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique 
circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this 
important program to lose some of its effectiveness.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress' constitutional 
authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a 
crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in 
activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation 
of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among 
these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel 
abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to 
prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host 
country--not the U.S. Congress--to uphold its own laws. It is a highly 
unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country 
against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United 
States Government.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a Federal crime to ``travel 
with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.'' I do not think this 
is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill 
actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel 
abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. Is 
it possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? 
And how is this to be carried out? Should Federal agents be assigned to 
each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of 
their travel?
  At a time when Federal resources are stretched to the limit, American 
troops are preparing for imminent military conflict, and when we are 
not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this 
bill would require Federal agents to not only track Americans as they 
vacation abroad, but would also require that they be able to divine the 
intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a 
tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do 
not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what 
I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. Perhaps a better approach 
would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and 
approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as 
to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the 
countries where the crime is committed.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1104 has some good provisions 
aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous 
of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by 
nationalizing it. H.R. 542 also raises serious civil liberties and 
national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating 
violations of criminal law occurring in other countries' jurisdictions 
as violations of American criminal law.

                          ____________________