[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 26, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2319-H2325]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1104, CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION 
                                  ACT

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 160 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 160

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1104) to prevent child abduction, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour, with 45 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary and 15 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each amendment may be offered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order

[[Page H2320]]

     against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 1104, it shall be in order to 
     consider in the House S. 151. All points of order against the 
     Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It 
     shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting 
     clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of H.R. 1104 as passed by the House. All points of 
     order against that motion are waived. If the motion is 
     adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it 
     shall be in order to move that the House insist on its 
     amendments to S. 151 and request a conference with the Senate 
     thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate 
only.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule 
for H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. This fair rule also 
facilitates resolving the differences between the two bodies by making 
in order the motion requesting a conference with the Senate after the 
passage of H.R. 1104.
  The Child Abduction Prevention Act sends a clear message to those 
that prey upon children that, should they commit these crimes, they 
will be punished. This legislation provides stronger penalties against 
kidnapping, ensures lifetime supervision of sexual offenders and 
kidnappers of children, gives law enforcement the tools it needs to 
effectively prosecute these crimes, and provides assistance to the 
community when a child is abducted.
  It is hard for me to understand how someone could prey on a 
defenseless child. It is the worst nightmare a parent has to hear, that 
his or her child has been taken by a stranger and that they do not know 
what has happened. The agony that they must go through every day is 
something that no parent should have to endure.
  Unfortunately, a family in my area has been living with this agony 
since Valentine's Day of 2000. Asha Degree has been missing since she 
left her Fallston, North Carolina, home in the early hours of the 
morning with a book bag and other items. She was only 9 years old at 
the time.
  It has been quite a while; and, after time, there are torn and 
damaged billboards seeking information about Asha, and faded yellow 
ribbons still around town. If this legislation had been enacted 
earlier, her story may have been very different.
  This is a bill that will make a difference. We know that if we can 
find a missing child within 24 hours after they are abducted, we have 
the best chance for a safe recovery. To accomplish this, H.R. 1104 
authorizes increased funding for a National AMBER Alert Program.
  AMBER is an acronym for America's Missing Broadcast Emergency 
Response. The AMBER program was created in 1996 as a legacy to 9-year-
old Amber Hagerman, who was kidnapped and murdered in Arlington, Texas.
  States can apply for grants so that information can be broadcast on 
radio and television. Outdoor boards can be posted; and, in some 
States, the electronic highway message boards are used so that license 
plates or vehicles or a description of the child can actually be 
displayed along the highway. The purpose is to provide a rapid response 
to the most serious child abduction cases.
  Doing this bill will enable all 50 States to implement this life-
saving program, and we have seen several examples of it very recently 
working and saving children's lives.
  For the individuals who would harm a child we can ensure that the 
punishment is severe and that sexual predators are not allowed to slip 
through the cracks of the system to harm other children. We all know 
that the recidivism rate of sexual offense is about 70 percent. No 
excuse for that.
  To this end, this legislation provides a 20-year mandatory minimum 
sentence of imprisonment for stranger abductions of a child under the 
age of 18, lifetime supervision of sex offenders and mandatory life 
imprisonment for second-time offenders. We know that, as I said before, 
that most of them are repeat offenders.
  Furthermore, this bill removes any statute of limitations and 
opportunity for pretrial release for crimes of child abduction and sex 
offenses. Often times it is years later that the sex offense comes to 
light out of fear. The child is very afraid to tell.
  That is why this bill is so important. Not only does it come to the 
aid of children after the abduction with the AMBER alert, but it aims 
to prevent the abduction with the provisions that I just mentioned.
  I would also like to note that these provisions have overwhelmingly 
passed the House in the previous Congress. So there is no reason not to 
support this overall bill. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and to support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a lengthy statement in just a moment, 
but I think it should be made clear to people who may be watching this 
on television, listening to this, Members listening to this in their 
offices or watching it, what is really going on here today. We have a 
noncontroversial bill, the AMBER alert bill, that was passed 
unanimously by the Senate both last year and this year; and we have an 
omnibus bill with all kinds of provisions, the AMBER alert provision 
being one of those that has now been reported out of the committee.
  While this omnibus bill passed the House in the last session, it did 
not pass the Senate because there are a number of provisions that the 
Senate finds objectionable. So what we are doing is we are holding 
hostage the AMBER bill, the stand-alone AMBER bill, because some 
Members in the other party want an omnibus crime bill with 
controversial provisions.
  If the leadership on the other side would simply let us have a 
separate vote on the AMBER provisions that have already passed the 
Senate unanimously this year, those would be passed by this House 
immediately and then could be sent to the President for his signature, 
but that is not what is being done today.
  What we are doing is considering an omnibus bill with AMBER as one 
part of it, an omnibus bill that contains some very controversial 
provisions that indications are the Senate will not accept.
  I would paraphrase something that is often said in criminal court: 
Justice delayed is justice denied. That is basically what is happening 
here today, is that we are packaging something that we know probably 
will not be accepted by the Senate, and even if it is accepted, it 
would be after a long and lengthy discussion and perhaps a conference 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of this House for 25 years, and 
over that time I have been disappointed with the majority leadership on 
more than one occasion, but I cannot recall anything as utterly 
indefensible as the fact that the House leadership, Republican 
leadership, continues to block a very simple, very noncontroversial 
legislation, to set up a nationwide network of AMBER alerts to help 
save abducted children. If that sort of obstructionism is not out of 
touch, then I do not know what is.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule for the Child Abduction Prevention Act is fine 
enough, fine enough that is if one is okay with politics as usual, fine 
enough if one is okay with delaying help to abducted children. 
America's children desperately need a nationwide system of AMBER 
alerts, and passing the Child Abduction Prevention Act through the 
House will not provide that anytime soon, if ever, and abducted 
children do not have time to wait any longer for politics as usual.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, House Republican leaders have blocked the simple AMBER 
Alert bill for 6 long months, and I am confident they have carefully 
constructed talking points to confuse the issue even further today.

[[Page H2321]]

  So I want to be very clear about what the House is doing. We will be 
debating in a little bit two separate bills. One is the large, 
complicated and somewhat controversial bill this rule makes in order, 
the Child Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104, of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). The other bill this bill does not make 
in order is the simple, noncontroversial AMBER Alert Network, S. 121, 
which has already passed the Senate unanimously and which could become 
law tomorrow if Republican leaders would only allow us to vote on it 
today.
  I am not here to oppose the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner). I am not trying to defeat it. That is why Democrats did 
not offer a substitute yesterday in the Committee on Rules. All I am 
asking, as I and others like Ed Smart and Marc Klass have asked for the 
past 6 months, is for a separate vote on a separate bill, the AMBER 
Alert Network Act. Why? Because the Senate has passed the simple AMBER 
bill unanimously; because it has 220 cosponsors in the House, a clear 
majority; because the President supports it; and because if Republican 
leaders allow the House to pass it, then it will become law and 
communities across the Nation will get desperately needed resources to 
set up and/or strengthen the AMBER Alert systems that save children's 
lives.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no valid reason that the House could not easily 
pass both bills, the simple AMBER Alert bill and the larger bill of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) today, but the rule only 
allows a vote on the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), and passing it through the House will not send 
immediate help to AMBER Alerts any more than passing bankruptcy reform 
last week did.
  Mr. Speaker, that is because the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) is a large and complicated piece of legislation. It 
has not even been introduced in the Senate, much less passed by the 
Senate Judiciary Committee or the full Senate, or reconciled with the 
House bill in a conference committee. No one knows whether it will ever 
become law. That is why I tried to bring up the simple AMBER bill by 
unanimous consent last week, but the Republican leadership refused to 
allow it, and that is why I tried to amend the rule last night in the 
Committee on Rules to bring up both bills today on the floor, but 
Republicans blocked the AMBER bill as a stand-alone bill in a party-
line vote last night.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about protecting our children. It is not about 
party politics; so I cannot understand why Republican leaders insist on 
blocking the simple, stand-alone AMBER bill passed by the Senate. But 
they have been doing it for 6 months, and they make plenty of 
arguments. Last night in the Committee on Rules, one Republican member, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), called it a feel-good, do-
nothing piece of legislation. Like me, he is from North Texas where the 
AMBER Alert was invented, so I was surprised to hear him say that. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said that those of us 
arguing for a simple, stand-alone vote on the simple AMBER bill are 
misinformed about the impacts such a bill would have.
  Mr. Speaker, with due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the family of Elizabeth Smart is not misinformed. That 
is why they wrote an open letter to the House last week stating, ``As 
you know, I can't express enough how our children can't wait another 
day for the National AMBER Alert to be signed into law by President 
Bush. Please, please, please, pass the stand-alone AMBER Alert 
legislation now. You cannot comprehend the joy and adulation of having 
your child return. The AMBER Alert will make this a reality for 
countless families. Please don't underestimate the immediacy and power 
of this legislation.''
  Similarly, Mr. Speaker, Marc Klass, the father of Polly Klass, was 
not misinformed when he wrote a letter expressing support for a 
nationwide network of AMBER Alerts.
  And several Republican Members of the other body, including the 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, were not misinformed when 
they urged the House to pass the simple stand-alone AMBER bill. 
Finally, the President of the United States was not misinformed when he 
said passing the AMBER bill is critical. All of these people are 
advocates for passing the simple AMBER legislation. Why? Because they 
understand that the AMBER Alert system works.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would ask the 
gentleman to refrain from quoting Senators unless the quotations are 
from Senate proceedings.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I did not mention them by name, but I thank 
the Chair.
  Mr. Speaker, they understand that the AMBER system works. It has 
helped to recover 52 abducted children, five of them in the month of 
March alone; but it does not work where it does not exist, and the 
AMBER Alert Network Act will help set up a nationwide network of AMBER 
Alerts. It provides 10 times the resources to communities that the 
President has requested for next year.
  But the AMBER Alert bill will never become law as long as House 
Republican leaders are holding it hostage. Over the past 6 months, they 
have proven their willingness to do just that. As a result, Mr. 
Speaker, there is only one way to pass the AMBER Alert Network Act 
through this House, by defeating the previous question today. If we 
defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to 
bring up S. 121, the Senate-passed stand-alone AMBER bill immediately 
after the House passes H.R. 1104, the Sensenbrenner bill. That way the 
AMBER bill can become law and we can immediately begin strengthening 
AMBER Alerts around the country to save abducted children. The larger 
bill by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) can continue 
through the legislative process, hopefully through the Senate, through 
a conference committee, and back to the House and Senate as a 
conference report, and maybe one day become law. But abducted children 
cannot wait that long.
  I urge Members, especially the 220 who have cosponsored the AMBER 
Alert Network Act, to defeat the previous question so we can vote on 
this bill today and begin helping abducted children.
  Mr. Speaker, defeating the previous question will not stop the Child 
Abduction Prevention Act, but it is the only way to immediately 
strengthen AMBER Alerts around the country.
  In closing, let me quote from a letter that the family of Elizabeth 
Smart sent to all Members of the House this morning. They write: 
``Chairman Sensenbrenner's efforts on this issue are greatly 
appreciated, and his bill contains several worthy measures. But there 
is no reason the House can't vote on this bill while also passing the 
AMBER Alert Network Act that has been delayed for over 6 months.
  ``So we urge Members of the House who want to strengthen the AMBER 
Alert to vote `no' on the previous question today. That is the only way 
for the House to pass the National AMBER Alert to help protect 
America's children immediately.
  ``Our children can't afford to wait another day for the National 
AMBER Alert so we urge the House not to waste this opportunity to act 
on the legislation that has already passed the Senate twice.''
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the Smart family has stated the case very 
clearly, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) is aware, there 
are technical problems with the stand-alone Senate bill that need to be 
corrected and that is being done so it can come to the House floor.
  My second point is some have suggested that this stand-alone AMBER 
bill would implement the system. That is erroneous information. It is 
very misleading because this legislation provides for grants to the 
States, and the States can apply for that money and then implement the 
program if they wish to do so. Currently, 38 States have done it, but 
there is nothing in this bill that says that the other 12 States will 
be required to implement it

[[Page H2322]]

if they chose not to. That is their choice.
  I find it difficult to understand how these following things are 
controversial. We are talking about a 20-year mandatory minimum 
sentence of imprisonment for abduction of a child under the age of 18, 
for lifetime supervision of child abductors and sex offenders, for 
mandatory life imprisonment for second-time offenders. It also removes 
any statute of limitations for child abduction and sex offenders. It 
denies pretrial release for those who rape or kidnap children, and it 
allows local law enforcement agencies to receive funding to establish 
sex offender apprehension programs, and it doubles the authorization 
for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to $20 
million a year.
  I would think that any parent who has a child abducted not only wants 
to find that child, but wants to be sure when that happens the maximum 
punishment is given to the person who did that horrible thing. That is 
what this omnibus bill does. Again, I recommend that Members support 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder), another member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation, H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003.
  H. Res. 160 is a structured, but fair, rule designed to ensure that 
the whole House has the opportunity to consider a number of substantive 
amendments to improve upon the underlying legislation. The Committee on 
Rules has worked to be as evenhanded as possible and has permitted the 
overwhelming majority of amendments that were submitted for review last 
evening.
  Mr. Speaker, it is disheartening to know that the youth of this 
country are exposed to the harsh realities of life earlier in their 
lives than ever before. This does not mean, however, that they are 
better prepared to face those realities. We must do everything possible 
to protect those who cannot defend themselves.
  During this debate, it will be argued that we should simply take up a 
more limited bill that would be acceptable to the other body. Mr. 
Speaker, I do not believe that we serve in this House simply to pass 
legislation acceptable to the other body. We are elected to pass 
effective legislation that will have the optimum benefits for the 
people we represent. In this case, we have the opportunity to enact 
effective legislation that will prevent crimes against children and 
save lives.
  The Committee on Rules heard compelling testimony from the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who stated that he wanted to enact 
the AMBER Alert legislation into law as soon as possible to assist in 
finding those children who have been taken. But he continued to state 
that we have a duty not only to pass legislation to find those who have 
been abducted, but we have an obligation to ensure that this 
legislation does everything possible to prevent children from being 
abducted in the first place. H.R. 1104 will achieve this goal by 
deterring crimes and providing a necessary line of defense. This bill 
does not impose excessive fines or punishment on convicted individuals; 
rather, this bill imposes reasonable, bottom-line standards of 
intolerance for the violation of our laws. I cannot possibly think of a 
more appropriate situation where strong punishment is warranted.
  The desire to protect our children originates not from the mortal law 
of man, but rather the rules and state of affairs governed by the laws 
of nature. As a father and grandfather myself, I fully support any 
reasonable efforts that prevent harm from befalling our children or 
grandchildren and that punish those who would commit the crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that the House pass this rule and pass the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, Members watching this must be scratching their heads and 
saying what are they talking about. The stand-alone AMBER bill has 
already passed the Senate 92-0. It would pass this House probably 
unanimously. They should just have a vote on it. Why do we just not 
have a vote on it; they will not let us have a vote on it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Last night in the Committee on Rules I put the question to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner): Is it correct that all of 
the Members of the House of Representatives want an AMBER Alert bill? 
The gentleman concurred.
  Additionally, I asked the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner): Is it not true that the Senate has passed this measure 
unanimously on two occasions? The gentleman concurred.
  Now what is happening here today is a whole lot of measures have been 
added to the AMBER bill that are in some respects going to slow this 
process down. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), well-
intentioned though he may be, is mindful that the matters that are 
brought in the legislation that he offers will muddy up the clean AMBER 
bill passed by the Senate that we could pass here in the House of 
Representatives and the United States President would sign.
  I am asking Members to vote ``no,'' not to stop consideration of the 
Sensenbrenner bill; but so we can receive our own vote on a clean AMBER 
Alert.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let us be clear what is going on here. I may have misunderstood my 
colleague from Georgia, a member of the Committee on Rules. I think he 
said that I did not support the larger bill. That is not the case. I 
support the larger bill, the Sensenbrenner bill; and I intend to vote 
for it. I just want a separate vote on the stand-alone AMBER provisions 
so that we can do that today rather than 6 months ago, 6 months later 
or a year later.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
leadership on this issue; and I want to strongly associate myself with 
and endorse all the remarks he has made in this debate today. I, too, 
will vote for the underlying bill, the omnibus bill, but I cannot 
believe that we are in the circumstance we are in right now.
  I come from Salt Lake City. The Smarts are my constituents. We had a 
miracle occur in Utah a couple of weeks ago. It happened based on the 
principles of AMBER Alert, where information was disseminated to the 
public, and the public was looking for the perpetrators, and they were 
found.
  How can we let this delay any longer? Every day we delay is another 
opportunity lost, perhaps; and how do we place the value of even one, 
just one time when we could find a child after being abducted before 
that child was harmed?
  I think that, as we look at this debate, it is important to note that 
the Senate passed this bill unanimously. A majority of the House of 
Representatives in both parties has signed on as cosponsors to the 
comparable legislation in the House. If it comes up for a vote, I 
cannot imagine anyone not supporting this. We are getting caught up in 
another important piece of legislation that, as I said, I would 
support, but it is going to take time for that legislation to become 
law. That is the fact. If we separate out a stand-alone AMBER Alert 
vote in the House, that can become law very quickly. That is the issue 
at hand today. That is why I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question. Let us get this bill out on the House floor.
  I cannot understand why this has become partisan. This should not be 
a partisan issue, but the leadership seems to not want to allow a vote 
on this. It happened in the last session of Congress after the Senate 
passed it unanimously. It is happening again now. It is time for us to 
put that aside. This is too important of an issue. We all care about 
this so much. Again, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H2323]]

  I would like to note that there currently is $12.5 million in the 
system already for States who wish to implement AMBER Alert systems.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I thank the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina for pointing out that, on an 
administrative basis, there is $12 million that has been set aside. Of 
course, this or some subsequent administration could withdraw that 
money, could terminate the program if it does not become permanent 
statutory law. We know this administration is under great budgetary 
pressures because of the large deficit that they have run up, and we do 
not want to risk someone in the administration waking up tomorrow and 
deciding that they cannot afford to spend this money for the AMBER 
Alert. So we want to put it in statutory law where they will have to 
spend it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar).
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. A ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker, on the previous question 
will allow the House to vote on both the bill reported by the committee 
and the clean AMBER Alert bill passed by the Senate which can then go 
immediately to the President for his signature.
  I have heard the claim that the amendment on AMBER Alert developed by 
our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure shows that there 
are, quote, serious flaws in the AMBER Alert provision in the Senate 
bill. That is simply not the case. I support our committee's amendment, 
but I believe the original provision is workable and could be the basis 
for prompt implementation of AMBER Alert as it has been initiated by 
the U.S. Department of Transportation.
  The original AMBER Alert provision in the House and Senate bills 
authorized the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to develop a 
program in general terms. The amendment our committee adopted made two 
changes: First, it described the concepts of the program and the 
purposes for which grants would be made in very specific terms to track 
the criteria included in the DOT announcement of its AMBER Alert grants 
issued February 12 of this year. Secondly, the amendment changed the 
Federal share.
  These are good changes, a good provision in the amendment, but I also 
believe that if the original language is adopted, DOT could go ahead 
with the program announced on February 12 because the specific criteria 
for DOT's program fall within the general criteria of the Senate bill. 
DOT would not have to redo its criteria. I would be supportive of 
prompt passage of the Senate bill followed by further proceedings on 
the House bill, to include the technical changes in the AMBER Alert. We 
can do that at some other time. It is not necessary now. We do not have 
to gild the lily, if you will.
  A ``no'' vote on the previous question will allow consideration of 
both the committee bill and the Senate-passed bill. Let us get on with 
the substance of this issue.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just make the comment, Mr. Speaker, that there is also an 
additional $2.5 million in the 2004 budget that just passed the House 
for AMBER Alert.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I call on the House to immediately turn to 
what we know as the Frost-Dunn National AMBER Alert Network Act. This 
legislation would make $25 million available to State and local 
entities for highway signage, for education, for training programs. It 
would make AMBER Alert a national program. AMBER Alert works. It should 
be a national program.
  This legislation has 220 cosponsors. We are all influenced by the 
evidence that this works with more than 52 abducted children recovered 
through AMBER Alert-like processes, five here in the month of March 
alone.
  As my colleague from Texas said, anyone who is watching this debate 
must wonder what in the world is going on. We have the opportunity to 
pass a clean bill for AMBER Alert to become law. We had this 
opportunity last fall. At the time I got in some political trouble in 
my home State for saying this bill is designed to prevent AMBER Alert 
from becoming law, and it is not very constructive to say I told you 
so, but in fact 6 months have passed and when AMBER Alert could have 
been law on a national scale last fall, it still is not.
  The reason is, the other side here insists on putting other things 
into the bill. These might be controversial. At least they are 
complicated and serious issues that deserve to be aired and debated, 
such things as expanding the death penalty, increasing mandatory 
sentences, criminalizing traveling with a criminal intent or a 
perceived intent, two strikes and you're out for certain kinds of 
legislation, expanding wiretap authority, eliminating the statute of 
limitations in some circumstances, eliminating pretrial release in some 
circumstances.
  I think any Member of the House, if they would speak objectively, 
would have to say that some or all of these provisions deserve thorough 
airing. They are serious matters. They should not just be stuck into 
another bill, and they certainly should not be put into this bill that 
is urgent that we pass now.
  We all celebrated with the Smart family, Edward and Lois Smart, when 
their daughter Elizabeth was returned to them. Just a few days ago, the 
Smart family wrote to Members of Congress and said:
  ``As you know, we can't express enough how our children can't wait 
another day for the national AMBER Alert to be signed into law. Please, 
please, please, please, pass the stand-alone AMBER Alert legislation 
now.''
  I could not agree more with the Smart family, Edward, Lois and 
Elizabeth. We have the opportunity to do it. We can do it today. The 
President will sign it in a matter of days, I am certain.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to remind people that on these bills that are so 
controversial, they have been vetted, because on the lifetime 
supervision for sex offenders, the vote was 409-3; on the two strikes 
and you're out, the vote was 382-34; on the Child Sex Crime Wiretapping 
Act, it was 396-11; on the sex tourism bill, it was 418-8; and the 
Child Abduction Prevention Act was 390-24. Hardly controversial.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It was once observed many years ago in the pre-television age that 
there are two things that you do not want to see happen. One is the 
making of sausage and the other is the making of legislation. But, of 
course, now we see the making of legislation on television; and I would 
suggest that what the other side is doing today is giving sausage-
making a bad name.
  It is very clear that this legislation could become law in the next 
couple of days if they would just let it go, just let us have a 
separate vote on it. But they are not willing to do so.
  My colleague from North Carolina cited the votes in the House for 
various provisions in this bill, other provisions. Of course those are 
all true, but the point is that they did not pass the Senate. They did 
not pass the other body. While they may be very popular in the House, 
that does not mean that the other body is going to take them all in one 
package with a little bow around them. They would not do it in the last 
Congress, and there is no real reason to believe they would do it 
anytime soon in this Congress. So all we are asking is a vote separate, 
a stand-alone vote just on the national AMBER network provisions which 
the other side, unfortunately, in this rule does not give us.
  Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that, immediately 
after the House passes the Child Abduction Prevention Act, it will take 
up the Senate-passed version of the AMBER Alert legislation. The Senate 
bill is identical to its House counterpart, H.R. 412, which has over 
220 cosponsors.
  The Senate passed S. 121 by a unanimous vote of 92-0 on January 21 of 
this

[[Page H2324]]

year. All that stands in the way of a presidential signature on this 
legislation is a clean vote by the House. That is what my amendment 
will allow us to do.
  I am sure most of us cannot imagine the horror of having a child 
kidnapped. Research has shown that most kidnapped children are killed 
within 3 hours of their abduction. In these terrible, terrible 
instances, it is absolutely crucial that information be disseminated 
immediately so that these children can be rescued. AMBER programs in 39 
States have already been credited with saving 31 lives.
  It is hard to put into words the collective joy that this Nation felt 
2 weeks ago when Elizabeth Smart was found alive and returned to her 
loving family. Let us help more families celebrate the joy of the safe 
return of a kidnapped child and not the sorrow of a tragic ending. Let 
us pass the Senate AMBER bill now and send it to the White House 
immediately.
  Let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question 
will not stop consideration of the Child Abduction Prevention Act. A 
``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on H.R. 1104 and on S. 121 as 
well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the 
House from passing the clean AMBER bill and getting it to the 
President's desk as soon as possible. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
that I would offer be printed in the Record immediately before the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, again, I have been in this House for 25 
years, and I simply do not understand what the other side is doing 
today. It makes no sense. It is indefensible. Let this legislation come 
to a vote and let it come to a vote today and be sent to the President.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I also agree AMBER Alert needs to be passed, but I think it is just 
as important that there be punishment for the abductors of these 
children. Because any parent is thankful to get their child back, but 
they do not want that person out on the street so they can do it again, 
and 70 percent of these people do it again.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:
       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       Sec.__. Immediately after disposition of the bill H.R. 
     1104, it shall be in order without intervention of any point 
     of order to consider in the House the bill (S. 121) to 
     enhance the operation of the AMBER Alert communications 
     network in order to facilitate the recovery of abducted 
     children, to provide for enhanced notification on highways of 
     alerts and information on such children, and for other 
     purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
     one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     Chairman and ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.

                              {time}  1130

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 198, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 86]

                               YEAS--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--198

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Buyer
     Davis (FL)
     Emanuel
     Frank (MA)
     Gephardt
     Hall
     Harris
     Hyde
     McCarthy (MO)

[[Page H2325]]


     Miller, George
     Moore
     Pitts
     Putnam
     Wamp
     Young (FL)


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining to vote.

                              {time}  1151

  Mr. FORD, Mr. BECERRA and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. PETRI changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 86, I was 
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________