[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.
____________________