[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 50 (Thursday, March 27, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H2405-H2438]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Pursuant to House Resolution 160
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 1104.
{time} 1021
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1104) to prevent child abduction, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Upton in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 22\1/2\
minutes; and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller) each will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, sexual predators target America's children every day in
large cities, small towns, and even in cyberspace. Sexual exploitation
of children, a prime motive for kidnapping, is on the rise. When it
comes to abduction, rape, and murder of children, the United States
must have a zero tolerance policy.
H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act, is comprehensive
legislation that directly and forcefully addresses these heinous
crimes. The bill is virtually identical to H.R. 5422, which
overwhelmingly passed the House last October by a vote of 390 to 24.
Like so many other meritorious bills sent to the other body in the last
Congress, this legislation was allowed to die by the Democrat
leadership.
An abducted child is a parent's worst nightmare. We must ensure that
law enforcement has every possible tool necessary to try to recover a
missing child quickly and safely. H.R. 1104 not only gets the word out
after a kidnapping, but it also takes strong steps to prevent them from
occurring in the first place. The bill strengthens penalties against
kidnapping and aids law enforcement agencies to effectively prevent,
investigate, and prosecute crimes against children.
Prompt public alerts of an abducted child could be the difference
between life and death for that innocent victim. Recognizing this, the
bill codifies the AMBER Alert program currently in place in the
Departments of Justice and Transportation and authorizes increased
funding to help States deploy child abduction communications warning
networks.
For those individuals that would harm a child, we must ensure that
punishment is severe, and that sexual predators are not allowed to slip
through the cracks of a system and harm other children.
To this end, this legislation provides a 20-year mandatory minimum
sentence of imprisonment for nonfamilial abductions of a child under
the age of 18, lifetime supervision for sex offenders, and mandatory
life imprisonment for second-time offenders. Furthermore, H.R. 1104
removes any statute of limitations and opportunity for pretrial release
for crimes of child abduction and sex offenses.
Those who abduct children are often serial offenders who have already
been convicted of similar offenses. Sex offenders and child molesters
are four times more likely than other violent criminals to recommit
their crimes. This number demands attention, especially in light of the
fact that a single child molester, on average, destroys the lives of
over 100 children. In response, H.R. 1104 provides judges with the
discretion to impose lifetime supervision upon such offenders.
The bill also fights against an industry supporting one of the
fastest growing areas of international criminal activity. The sex
tourism industry obtains its victims through kidnapping and trafficking
of women and children. These women and children are then
[[Page H2406]]
forced into prostitution. H.R. 1104 works to end this.
This legislation also authorizes increased support through the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Nation's
resource center for child protection. The center assists in the
recovery of missing children and raises public awareness about ways to
protect children from abduction, molestation, and sexual exploitation.
Some have called for a stand-alone AMBER bill instead of the
comprehensive approach we have taken to address the problem of child
abductions in this country. I note with interest that the DCCC, the
political wing of the House Democrats, have labeled provisions of the
bill I have just outlined as controversial.
I do not think these provisions are controversial. Neither do the
Department of Justice, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, or the 390 Members of Congress that voted for this bill last
year. Mark Klaas, father of kidnap and murder victim Polly Klaas,
supports us. Mr. Klaas said, ``I'm behind what Mr. Sensenbrenner's
doing. I like the idea of a 2-strike law for people who are committing
sexual offenses against children. And what it says is that if somebody
does that, they are going to spend the rest of their miserable life in
prison if they are convicted a second time. I see no problem with
putting it out on the floor and seeing where people fall on it.''
Those who say we need a stand-alone AMBER bill on the President's
desk today do not understand the actual impact of such a bill. The fact
is that much of the stand-alone AMBER bill has already been implemented
and is in place right now.
The stand-alone AMBER bill calls for a national coordinator. On
October 2, 2002, President Bush directed the Attorney General to
designate a Justice Department officer to serve as AMBER Alert
coordinator to help expand the AMBER Alert system nationwide. Assistant
Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels was designated as that coordinator
and for almost 6 months has been working to assist State and local
officials with developing and enhancing AMBER plans and promoting
statewide and regional AMBER coordination programs ever since.
The Departments of Justice and Transportation already have $12.5
million in the bank today, ready to respond and spend on AMBER
programs.
Furthermore, in a March 18, 2003, letter to me, the Department of
Justice stated that it has not been hampered in its efforts to
implement an AMBER Alert program because of any legislation that has
yet to be signed into law. Stand-alone AMBER legislation, in the words
of the Department of Justice and their statement of administration
policy, merely codifies current practice.
{time} 1030
This Congress must do better than codifying current practice, and
this bill does that. Let us be clear, if a stand-alone AMBER Alert were
enacted into law today, nothing that is already being done would
change. This bill merely supplants the Department of Justice general
authorization with a specific authorization. It may make some feel
good, but it will not help protect America's children from kidnapping
and sexual abuse in the first place.
Federal money is in the pipeline for AMBER programs and is ready to
be spent. A national coordinator has already been appointed. What we
need now is a comprehensive legislative package that will crack down on
child abductors, build and expand on the work of the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children, and give Federal authorities
additional tools to prevent and to solve these horrific crimes.
I urge my colleagues to ignore the political rhetoric and to protect
America's children by supporting this bipartisan and noncontroversial
child protection legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1104. I would like to be
able to support the AMBER Alert part of the bill, but that bipartisan,
noncontroversial part of the bill has been buried behind literally a
host of controversial sound-bite-based provisions which have passed the
House several times, only to die in the Senate.
The AMBER Alert portion of the bill would codify a program of grants
and assistance to States and localities to establish a nationwide
system of communications and alerts to assist in locating and returning
missing and abducted children. The system has proven itself on the
State level and would help save lives and additional heartache on a
national basis.
The AMBER Alert bill has already passed the Senate unanimously and
could pass unanimously in the House, I believe, absent the
controversial sound bites that have been tacked on.
Last Congress, many of us warned the majority that coupling the AMBER
Alert bill with controversial sound bites would mean that neither the
AMBER Alert nor the sound bites would be passed, but the House passed
the same kind of omnibus bill anyway; and, as expected, the whole thing
died in the Senate. Yet, here we are again facing the same misguided
strategy and this time again with even more reasons for the Senate to
reject the bill which the AMBER Alert bill is buried in. Again, we have
to protest the strategy that will again defeat the AMBER Alert system
and again defeat the sound bites as well.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Senate has chosen not to consider many of
the controversial items hitchhiking on the AMBER Alert bill for good
reasons: more death penalties, at a time when we know the death penalty
has problems; more mandatory minimums, two strikes and you are out. We
are authorizing FBI wiretaps for behavior that is not even a crime;
pretrial detention, lifetime supervision, and removing the statute of
limitations on crimes such as adults crossing State lines to engage in
consensual sex that would be a crime in the home State. I would just
remind Members that any kind of sex outside of marriage is a crime in
Virginia.
Virtually all of the crimes described in the bill are already crimes
with significant penalties. Others have already passed the House in
separate bills and are still pending in the Senate, as they have been
for the last 6 years.
It is wrong to hijack the AMBER Alert bill to try to pass these
things again. It will not help AMBER Alert, and it will not help pass
the extraneous provisions.
It is true that the President has not waited for Congress to pass an
AMBER Alert bill and has, by executive order, implemented many of the
provisions of the bill. But the passage of AMBER Alert is still
necessary to make the program permanent and to increase the funding of
the program.
Mr. Chairman, we have letters from the National Association of Police
Organizations, and I will just read two paragraphs from it:
``On behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations,
representing 230,000 rank and file police officers from across the
United States, I would applaud your valiant efforts in calling for an
immediate passage of stand-alone AMBER Alert legislation. The recent
successful recovery of Elizabeth Smart exemplifies the power of an
informed public.
``In this light, legislation that will greatly enhance recovery
abilities should not be tied down with additional controversial
provisions and political wrangling. The Senate quickly passed S. 221 92
to nothing. Like other child abduction bills, H.R. 412 and S. 121 enjoy
broad bipartisan support.''
We have other letters asking for passage of a stand-alone AMBER Alert
bill from the Edward, Lois and Elizabeth Smart family and from the
Polly Klaas Foundation. I would ask that we defeat the bill and take up
H.R. 412, the stand-alone AMBER Alert bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Washington (Ms. Dunn), the author of the stand-alone AMBER Alert
bill on the House side.
Ms. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Smart family, the Polly
Klaas Foundation, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, and the thousands of families still searching for their
missing children, I rise today to join our chairman in offering hope
that we will establish a voluntary, nationwide AMBER Alert system to
find children.
[[Page H2407]]
I want to compliment the chairman for moving this bill so speedily
through the House of Representatives.
The AMBER Alert was named after a little girl named Amber Hagerman
who was kidnapped and killed by her abductor. The community rallied
around her family to begin a search that resulted in the AMBER Alert
program.
In 1997, a Washington State child homicide study, which examined over
600 child abduction murder cases from all over the country, found that
the first 3 hours of a child's abduction are critical to bringing this
child home safely. This is the reason that we are seeking an AMBER
Alert program.
To date, AMBER has been credited with the safe recovery of 52
children, including, very recently, a 12-year-old California girl
reunited with her family after a witness saw the car described in AMBER
Alert messages transmitted across the State.
We know the AMBER Alert system works by allowing communities to tap
into the resources of an educated public, prepare law enforcement and
engage the media in reuniting children with their family. The media and
an educated public were absolutely critical in the safe return of
Elizabeth Smart.
President Bush and his administration showed strong and early support
for our legislation last year and took the first steps by providing
grants to States and localities to help establish AMBER Alert programs.
It is now time for Congress to codify AMBER Alert and provide
additional funding to power all communities with the tools and
resources to react quickly to child abductions and bring these children
home safely to the arms of their parents.
We witnessed a very joyful reunion of Elizabeth Smart and her family
2 weeks ago. I know that President Bush is committed to signing AMBER
Alert into law very soon. I also know that our leadership will keep its
commitment not to allow it to languish in a conference committee.
Mr. Chairman, would it not be wonderful never again to have to name
another piece of legislation after a little child who died? I urge our
opponents and supporters everywhere to get together with us on AMBER
Alert. It is a wonderful opportunity to establish a great system. Let
us support this legislation today.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
(Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
The gentleman from Wisconsin has pretty thoroughly examined this
bill. I just want to reiterate that this legislation is good policy. It
has the potential to protect and save lives, the lives of the most
innocent among us.
H.R. 1104 is divided into three titles to improve the law related to
child abductions by addressing sanctions and offenses, investigation
and prosecution, and public outreach. The legislation sends a clear
message that child abductors will not escape justice.
Title I, ``Sanctions and offenses,'' strengthens the penalties
against kidnapping by providing for a 20-year mandatory minimum
sentence of imprisonment for nonfamily abductions of a child under the
age of 18. This title also requires lifetime supervision for sex
offenders, which is similar to a bill that passed the House last year
409 to 3.
Also included is a provision that requires mandatory life
imprisonment for second-time sex offenders that also passed this body
382 to 34 last Congress. In addition, this title directs the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to increase offense levels for crimes of
kidnapping and adds child abuse that results in death as a predicate
for first degree murder.
Title II, ``Effective investigation and prosecution,'' gives law
enforcement agencies the tools they need to enforce the laws against
child abduction. This title adds four new wiretap predicates that
relate to sexual exploitation crimes against children which previously
passed the House 396 to 11 last Congress. The title also provides that
child abductions and felony sex offenses can be prosecuted without
limitation of time and provides a rebuttal presumption that child
rapists and kidnappers should not get pretrial release.
Title III, ``Public outreach,'' establishes a national Amber Alert
program based on the bill of the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn)
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) to codify the AMBER Alert
program currently in place. This is a voluntary partnership between law
enforcement agencies and broadcasters to activate an urgent alert
bulletin in serious child-abduction cases. The goal of the AMBER Alert,
as has been explained, is to have the assistance of millions of people
in the search for an abducted child.
This title also increases support for the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, the Nation's resource center for child
protection, by doubling its authorization to $20 million.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the title authorizes COPS funding for
local law enforcement agencies to establish sex offender apprehension
programs within their States.
Mr. Chairman, the recent wave of high-profile child abductions
illustrates the tremendous need for this legislation in this area. The
criminals breach the security of our homes to steal, molest, rape and
kill our children. Immediate action is necessary.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia for yielding time to me, and I particularly
thank him for his very thoughtful remarks on a very important
legislative initiative.
I would like to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost), and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) for
their insight and leadership on an AMBER Alert national bill and my
colleague and friend in the other body from the State of Texas,
likewise, for the leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to eventually vote for final passage. I
think it is important to get that on the record. But I also believe it
is important to acknowledge the fine analysis the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has given to this legislation and to be able to
share with my colleagues why it is extremely important that we use a
different approach in this House.
Many times we are viewed as both partisan and singular in perspective
as it is directed to the two bodies that are called Congress. Many
times our legislative tactics are perceived as one-upsmanship, or ``got
you.'' I believe it is important in the instance of this legislation as
it initially started out, the AMBER Alert bill, to really be both
bipartisan, bicameral, and to respect the underpinnings and the
importance, if you will, of passing a clean AMBER Alert bill.
I was disappointed in the Committee on Rules, in the typical response
that one receives, in not having an amendment that had to do with added
funding for our Juvenile Division in the Department of Justice.
As the war is raging in Iraq, we find there are troubling times in
many of our cities as it relates to gang warfare. Many of us thought
that we had overcome that over the past years, but in Los Angeles in
particular I have had a number of colleagues indicate the tragedies
that are going on with the intense gang wars. I believe the more monies
that we can invest in rehabilitating our youth, in providing mentoring
programs for our youth, that is a good investment. That amendment was
not accepted.
But since the process was opened, the amendment was offered. I would
have been willing, Mr. Chairman, to have eliminated all efforts at
amendment so that a freestanding AMBER Alert bill could be passed. What
does that mean? It does not mean that the viable provisions that have
been added to this legislation do not have merit. I believe they
sufficiently have enough merit that we could proceed with them
independently in a separate bill.
My understanding is that the other body is not going to take this
bill as it is. There may be the thought that we will go into
conference, and what that will do is to cause a delay. I believe
[[Page H2408]]
that, in formulating legislation, we should be listening to those that
we represent.
I would like to share the words of the Polly Klaas Foundation that
urges Congress to pass immediately H.R. 412, a freestanding bill.
``H.R. 412 is a popular bipartisan bill from Martin Frost and
Jennifer Dunn that would establish a national AMBER Alert network.''
{time} 1045
The bill needs to stand as it is, as a Senate-passed stand-alone
AMBER bill months ago, and the House should do the same. Every day that
the AMBER Alert bill languishes, so does the safety of our children.
As one who can see the AMBER Alert system working in Texas, Mr.
Chairman, I can tell my colleagues that it has amazing results when the
flashing lights on freeways show that those who are traveling those
freeways can immediately respond to local law enforcement. That is what
the AMBER Alert does.
Clearly I would say that in the Elizabeth Smart case, her father
indicated his desire to see a freestanding AMBER Alert bill passed, and
he indicated that the community was largely, in part, the result or the
basis upon which Elizabeth Smart was found.
This bill has an expansion of the death penalty. They may be
valuable, but we should have separate hearings on that.
This bill increases mandatory sentences. They could be valuable, but
we should have separate hearings on that.
This bill expands wiretap authority; and even though I believe child
predators are the worst, we should have separate proceedings on that
and separate freestanding bills.
The fact that this bill eliminates the statute of limitations is a
problem. Eliminating pretrial release should be addressed, although I
wholly agree with the idea that we should separate predators from our
community. But all of these matters, Mr. Chairman, I believe require an
independent assessment and would do well in this body and the Senate if
they were freestanding.
The only thing we do today is to get probably an enormous vote in
favor, and that will probably occur; but what we do is we stall the
process of a legislative initiative that could move quickly through
both bodies, and I believe that is not the task of legislators who are
sincere about their work on behalf of constituents. I think it is
important, Mr. Chairman, that we bifurcate our work, move a
freestanding AMBER Alert bill along and begin to assess these very
reasonable additions in a freestanding bill so that we can have finally
signed by the President of the United States the AMBER National Alert
System that so many cities and counties and States need and the funding
that goes with it and, might I add, the additional funding that might
come as it relates to other entities that we are interested in.
I would ask my colleagues to speak to the issue of a freestanding
AMBER Alert bill and bring this bill back. I wish we could have a
motion to recommit to bring it back.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to
point out that neither the Senate-passed stand-alone AMBER Alert bill
nor its companions in the House establish a mandatory national AMBER
system. All of the bills are voluntary. The States can apply for
grants. It is my hope that they will do so.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I have been tracking the progress of this
bill for some time now, and I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. My
district had a young girl missing for most of this month, a 14-year-old
girl by the name of Lindsay Ryan. It was alleged that she was, in fact,
abducted by a convicted murderer, and Michigan's AMBER Alert was
initiated.
I called the county sheriff, Joe Underwood, a fine professional, as I
tried to lend him my moral support. As I talked with him, I asked him
the question of what could I do to help. He shared his frustration that
other States did not have a system like we have in Michigan. He felt
that, in fact, if other States, and there are 12 that have no AMBER
Alert system at all, but if other States had a system like Michigan,
the word would have gotten out right away. My district is right along
the Indiana border, very close to Illinois.
After our conversation, I called the Committee on the Judiciary; and
in fact, they told me about this piece of legislation which I
cosponsor. I am delighted to say that it is on the House floor today,
and there is good news.
Just like there was good news with Elizabeth Smart last week, there
was good news this week with Lindsay Ryan. She was found alive, alive
because California had a system. It was probably the good work of a
Frito-Lay truck driver that, in fact, spotted the vehicle, and the
police were able to get to the scene and rescue Lindsay Ryan, who is
now with her family alive and hopefully well.
We want to prevent this tragedy for other families, whether they be
in Michigan or North Carolina, Wisconsin or any other State. An AMBER
Alert system nationwide is needed, for this family, for every family;
and I would urge my colleagues to pass this legislation so that, in
fact, we can use the eyes and ears of millions of Americans looking to
prevent a nightmare that no family ever wants to have happen in their
community or certainly in their family.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair advise us as to
the amount of time remaining on both sides?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hoekstra). The gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 8\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding time; and I hate to disappoint my good friend, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Upton), to advise him that our fear is that by
burdening this bill down with various provisions, other than the AMBER
Alert provisions, it will follow the same route that it has followed in
the past.
It will be passed here in the House, it will go to the Senate, and it
will not receive action because the AMBER Alert part of this bill is
burdened with other bills which we have passed many times on this side,
but have never been taken up, and the Senate has refused to take them
up on the other side. So while I applaud his efforts to support the
AMBER Alert part of this bill, doing it in the way that we are doing it
is probably the kiss of death for the bill.
Before I go on that, I want to take a moment to praise the efforts of
my good friend and colleague from Virginia who for the last 11 years
has been the voice of sanity in the criminal law area. He has sat in
hearing after hearing after hearing and taken politically difficult
positions on bills, trying to reinforce to us that everything that
sounds good, that may be politically popular, is not an effective crime
tool; and he has done it at a time, on a sustained basis, when many of
my colleagues have used as their spring, summer, fall and winter
exercises the politically popular exercise of beating on their chest
and saying I am hard on crime, without considering the consequences of
what they are voting for.
Again, parts of this bill today do exactly the same. I am struck by
the argument that the chairman of our committee has put forward to us.
On the one hand, he says the AMBER Alert part of this bill really does
nothing that is not already able to be done, and then I scratch my head
and I said, well, if that is the case, why are we even here doing the
AMBER Alert part of this? Is the AMBER Alert part of this bill, which
all of us feel so strongly about, which all of us would vote for in a
heartbeat if it were a stand-alone bill, is it being used as a bus to
load on all of these other controversial provisions that otherwise
would not be considered?
If these other provisions have merit, let them be considered as
separate stand-alone bills, let us evaluate them, let us evaluate their
impact on reducing crime and addressing the problems that exist in our
Nation, and let the
[[Page H2409]]
Senate and the House vote on those things separately.
What we appeal to the leadership to do and have been for the last 3,
4, 5 weeks is to give us an AMBER Alert bill that is a stand-alone
bill, that could pass this House by unanimous consent. There would not
be one dissenting vote. And not only would it pass this House by
unanimous consent; it would go to the Senate, and the Senate would pass
it immediately, probably this week; and it would go to the President's
desk and be signed into law probably early next week.
Instead, what we have done is used the AMBER Alert part of the bill
as a vehicle to bring other more controversial provisions into a
debate; many of those provisions have already been passed by this House
and sent to the Senate and have languished there in the past. We have
done this before.
The question is why are we doing it again? Is there some real
motivation that is different than the one we understand or is there a
real desire to pass the AMBER Alert part of the bill? If there is, I
would appeal to my colleagues to let that bill, release it, do not hold
it as a hostage. Release that bill, and let it stand on its own. Let us
vote on it. Let us send it to the Senate; let them vote on it. Let it
be sent to the President for signature, and then we would have a
national AMBER Alert bill that does and gives us the benefit of that
system for the States that wish to use it.
I appreciate the gentleman yielding time; but more importantly, I
appreciate him standing and fighting for things that make sense in the
criminal justice context, rather than just things that are politically
popular, that allow us to beat on our chest and say we are hard on
crime regardless of the impact on reducing crime.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. GINGREY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1104, the Child
Abduction Prevention Act, which provides for the national coordination
of the AMBER Alert communications network and strengthens criminal
penalties for kidnappers, child molesters, and the sexual exploitation
of children.
This legislation also provides double, double the current
authorization funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, which serves as the Nation's resource center to aid in
finding and rescuing missing and exploited children and helping their
families in their time of need.
In section 305 of H.R. 1104, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, of which I am a member, authorizes $20 million for the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for fiscal years
2004 and 2005. Again, this is double the current level of funding.
As the Nation's resource center for missing and exploited children,
the center carries out many important responsibilities that provide
assistance to families and law enforcement agencies in locating and
recovering missing and exploited children. The center is active both
nationally and internationally.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to note the center does not investigate
abducted, runaway or cases involving sexually exploited youth, but
receives leads and relays them to various investigative law enforcement
units.
In an effort to assist law enforcement, the center offers both
technical assistance, information dissemination, and advice. It also
offers a free consulting service to agencies by expert retired law
enforcement officers who are skilled in investigating cases involving
sexual abuse of children and child abduction.
{time} 1100
Mr. Chairman, I could continue on about the need for the Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, but in the interest of progressing this
debate, I would like to urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield
the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for
purposes of control.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to be associated with the comments that
were just made by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey). I rise in
strong support of the AMBER Alert provisions of this bill to prevent
child abduction and to then do all we can in finding the child. A
nationwide AMBER Alert would allow all of America to have the
information to assist the family, the community, and the local police
in finding a missing child. If already in place, the two Bradley
sisters from Chicago would have been located.
Like most stories of missing children, 10-year-old Tionda and 3-year-
old Diamond disappeared without a trace, without anyone seeing where
they went or who they went with. On Friday, July 6, 2001, Tionda had
left a note telling their mother that she and her sister were going to
go to the store and then go to the school playground. Several
neighborhood children have told police that they did see the sisters
playing outside their complex around noon that day. Sadly, no one has
seen them since.
The neighborhood surrounding their home and even Lake Michigan has
been searched with only disappointing news. No clues, no evidence has
been found to place either child. It has been 659 days since this
mother has seen her two daughters. I urge America to go to the
Bradley's Web site and see if you have seen either one of them.
Mr. Chairman, all of America would be benefited by the AMBER Alert
system put in place now.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select
Education.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1104, the Child
Abduction Prevention Act, which strengthens the punishment and
consequences of criminals who dare to harm our children. An important
provision of H.R. 1104 doubles the authorization level for the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which serves as the national
resource center and clearinghouse to aid missing and exploited children
and their families.
The Center is a private, nonprofit organization, mandated by
Congress, working in cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention within the Department of Justice. It is a
critical resource for aiding the over 18,000 law enforcement agencies
throughout the Nation in their search for missing children.
According to statistical data from the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, from its inception in 1984 through the end of
2002, the Center handled 1,718,784 telephone calls through its national
Hotline 1-800-THE-LOST. It trained 179,685 police and other
professionals and distributed over 27 million issue-based publications.
The Center has also worked with law enforcement on 87,513 missing child
cases, resulting in the recovery of over 71,000 children, an incredible
success rate of more than 80 percent.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is uniquely
positioned to access vital information to aid in the search and
recovery of missing kids. It is the only child protection nonprofit
organization with access to the FBI's National Crime Information Center
Missing Person, Wanted Person and Unidentified Person Files, the
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, and the Federal
Parent Locator Services. Additionally, it is the only organization
operating a 24-hour, toll-free Hotline for the recovery of missing
children in cooperation with the U.S. Justice Department. It is also
the sole organization operating a 24-hour, toll-free child pornography
tip line in cooperation with the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service.
Please join me in voting for and supporting H.R. 1104.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1104. While I am happy to have this time
to speak on the floor, I am very disappointed that the Committee on
Education and the Workforce did not debate this issue before it came to
the
[[Page H2410]]
floor. Members on the Committee on Education and the Workforce wanted
to review the provisions in the bill that are under our committee's
jurisdiction.
It is clear that the AMBER Alert system is highly effective and
should be made available nationwide. However, I believe we need a clean
AMBER Alert bill; and, once again, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have failed to bring forth a clean bill. Instead, they have
opted to load it up with extra provisions that they know will not be
accepted by the other body.
This important legislation could have been passed 6 months ago, but
instead today we are considering legislation that is broad and
controversial. The controversial provisions include the expansion of
the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, criminalization of
traveling with a criminal intent, the two-strikes-and-you-are-out
provision, the expansion of wiretap authority, the eliminations of the
statute of limitations on sexual abuse cases, and eliminating pretrial
release.
Mr. Chairman, are all these provisions really necessary to help find
and protect missing children?
That is why I have supported and will continue to support the
bipartisan Frost-Dunn AMBER Alert Act which will strengthen the AMBER
Alert program immediately. The Frost-Dunn bill provides $25 million in
grants and works to build a seamless network of local AMBER plans. What
our local communities really need is more resources to increase highway
signs, to educate and train law enforcement, and to gain additional
equipment. This bill is the clean legislation that we should be
considering today.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1104, and I
demand that we look at a clean AMBER Alert bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has
8\1/4\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) has 6
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey)
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce), who is a cosponsor of this very important piece
of legislation.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation, which, of course, includes the AMBER Alert bill.
Last September, President George Bush took immediate action to help
expand and improve the AMBER Alert system; and he provided a total of
$10 million from existing funds in order to expand and develop the
AMBER training and education programs and in order to upgrade the
emergency alert system. I support President Bush's efforts, and I urge
Congress to pass this important bill so that we can continue our
efforts to ensure that an AMBER Alert system will be there for all of
our Nation's children.
As we witnessed, AMBER plans have worked to bring home children
safely; and I wanted to share one particular story about a 10-year-old
girl from Riverside, California, named Nicole Timmons. We have the
system in California, but, luckily, neighboring Nevada also picked up
this alert; and on the Nevada radio stations they reported that Nicole
had just been kidnapped by an individual and gave a certain amount of
information. Luckily, a very alert citizen in Nevada was listening to
this broadcast as he was driving next to the vehicle that Nicole was
being transported in, being abducted in. He noticed that the driver was
behaving rather suspiciously, and he noticed this 10-year-old girl. As
a consequence, he immediately notified law enforcement. They moved in,
and they rescued Nicole.
What is important here is in 75 percent of the cases where a young
child is killed by an abductor, that murder occurs within the first 3
hours. That is why it is necessary that these alerts go up immediately
to give other citizens a chance to help apprehend, to help report
suspicious behavior, to help look for that abductor.
Of course, we have to ask ourselves, what if Nevada had not picked up
the California alert? That is why we want to expand it across the
Nation.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that we will delay the opportunity to
find Tionda and to find Diamond. We will delay the opportunity because,
instead of having a simple, clean AMBER Alert bill that could be passed
immediately in both Houses, we have a complex, complicated, bogged-down
bill with all kinds of impediments and extraneous items in it that
makes it very difficult for individuals to support if they also want to
support a judicial system that deals in a rational, logical, sane,
sensible, less-than-punitive way.
I do not know if it is going to be possible to change that, but I
would certainly hope there would be some way to extricate, to take out
those onerous portions of the bill so that we can move ahead and find
missing children, find children who are away from their parents, find
children that we do not know where they are. So I would hope when the
end comes, we will come to an alert system that puts us on the track to
find missing children.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Burns) a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for H.R. 1104, the Child
Abuse Prevention Act. This legislation is critical for the protection
of the greatest resource in America, our children. The bill increases
the authorization funding for the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children. It serves as a resource Center and a national
clearinghouse to aid missing and exploited children and their families.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children operates a 24-
hour Hotline to report information on missing children; and, through
that Center, the information is sent out to law enforcement agencies
both here and abroad. The Center verifies information on missing
children entered in the FBI's National Crime Information System and
instructs law enforcement in the proper handling of these cases.
The act also provides national coordination of the AMBER Alert
system, which has already proven successful in multiple States by
allowing law enforcement to put out an immediate bulletin when a child
has been reported missing.
Finally, and most importantly, this bill dramatically increases the
penalties for people who would harm children or use them in
pornography. These penalties should be the most severe that society can
deliver for such disgusting crimes against our children.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman and founder of the
Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, I am proud to
be part of this overall issue of child abduction. Missing and exploited
children is an issue that I became critically aware of within a few
months after coming to Congress when, in 1997, Laura Kate Smither was
abducted from her neighborhood, and 2\1/2\ weeks later her body was
found in a drainage ditch.
Following that, I came back here and met with my staff, and one of my
staff had been a volunteer with an organization called the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children during high school.
{time} 1115
I quickly went over to the center and met Ernie Allen and have become
a good friend of Mr. Allen, who is the president and CEO of that
wonderful organization. I think I have found more in that organization
than what I ever dreamed of being able to find. It does some amazing
work. They have helped raise the overall level of awareness, which is
the goal of the congressional caucus since we have formed it in 1997,
now with about 150 members.
I am proud of the fact that there are bills, many different bills,
plural, that are up on the floor and that are being discussed.
Obviously, I too wish that we could take some of them separately. I
think the AMBER Alert would instantly become law. We have had that
debate; and now we are debating H.R. 1104, of which I am a cosponsor.
And I
[[Page H2411]]
do ask and urge the passage of H.R. 1104.
The national center does so much varied work in providing their
hotline, in providing assistance to communities, to families, to law
enforcement, the magnificent work that it has done through its image
enhancement activities that have helped find children years later after
they were taken. There are a significant number of extremely dedicated,
powerful people that they have put together and formed efforts to get
information into our schools with curricula that will change the lives
of children, with the law enforcement training through the Jimmy Ryce
Law Enforcement Center, which offers free training activity to any
chief executive of any law enforcement agency in the United States, a
powerful organization. The $20 million that we are asking for in fiscal
years 2004 and 2005 will be some of the best money that this Congress
can possibly spend. I urge the passage of H.R. 1104.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Child
Abduction Protection Act and thank my California colleague for yielding
me this time. I am a proud supporter of the AMBER program, which was
created in Arlington, Texas. Everyone knows the history of the AMBER
program, named for Amber Hagerman; but I am particularly proud that
about 3 years ago our office in Houston started working on getting our
radio network and the law enforcement in Houston, Texas, together.
I have a former staff member who now works for our leader, Nancy
Pelosi, Cindy Jimenez, who was instrumental in this. And now in Houston
not only this week was the AMBER Alert activated in Houston and a 14-
year-old girl returned safely yesterday, but we have used it well over
a half a dozen times in my community. My community, I say. We share
eight Members of Congress, so it is a large community.
The sooner the word gets out that children are abducted, the better
the chances of them being brought home. Particularly in my area we made
sure we did it in both Spanish and English. We have had some tragedies
in my area that are predominantly Hispanic, so it has to be in both
languages, or any language that is available in the community.
H.R. 1104 makes grants to States. Again, we need it for the State of
Texas as a whole. I express my disappointment that it has been bogged
down, but I intend to support the full bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Child
Abduction Protection Act, which includes language to improve the Amber
program.
I am proud supporter of the AMBER program, which was created in
Arlington, Texas. The AMBER Plan is named in memory of nine-year-old
Amber Hagerman. In 1996, Amber was abducted while playing near her
Arlington, Texas home. She was later found murdered.
In response to community concern, the Association of Radio Managers,
with the assistance of area law enforcement, created the AMBER Plan to
give listeners timely information about area child abductions. The plan
calls for law enforcement agencies to provide radio stations with an
alert upon the immediate confirmation of a child's abduction. All
participating radio stations will break programming to broadcast the
alert and any subsequent information provided by police. This program
has blossomed into a nationwide effort where 39 states have adopted a
statewide AMBER plan. To day the AMBER Plan has been credited with
recovering 51 children!
Just this week, the police in my hometown of Houston, Texas,
activated the AMBER system when a 14-year-old girl went missing from
her middle school. Fortunately, the young lady was returned safely to
her home.
The AMBER alert has been successful in Houston, Texas many times and
I am proud our office played a part in organizing the Houston effort
almost 3 years ago. Ms. Cindy Jimenez, my former staff member now with
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, worked successfully to coordinate the
cooperation between news media and law enforcement.
This kind of success story highlights the needs to ensure that states
have the resources they need to set up AMBER plans. Seventy-four
percent of abducted children who are murdered are dead within three
hours of the abduction. The sooner word gets out that these children
have been abducted, the better the chances that they will be brought
home safely.
H.R. 1104 makes grants available to the states for them to set up
AMBER alert plans, and also creates an Amber alert coordinator within
the Department of Justice. I strongly support this provision.
I would like to express my disappointment, however, that this
legislation has been weighted down with controversial issues. Issues
such as mandatory minimum sentencing and making certain crimes
punishable by the death penalty are matters for another day.
These issues are sure to slow down this important legislation. I urge
the sponsors of this legislation to remove the controversial provisions
so that the AMBER plan legislation can be enacted quickly.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) is recognized
for 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the debate and
as I listened to the virtues of the proposed legislation and as I
listened to those who expressed opposition, it would seem to me that
there ought to be a middle ground, that there ought to be a point where
the children come first, where finding them, making sure that their
parents can wake up and see their children that they have not seen.
That often requires a bit of give and take.
I think that there could be other opportunities to debate and discuss
criminal justice punishment, to discuss what it is that you do as
individuals have committed a crime. It would serve us well if we could
arrive at the point where today we are simply talking about finding
missing children, not punishing perpetrators, not putting people in
jail, but finding missing children.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is
recognized for 2 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, citizens in my district have a special
desire to see clean AMBER Alert legislation passed because of a
beautiful teenaged girl named Polly Klaas. Polly resided in my hometown
of Petaluma, California. She was kidnapped from her home and murdered
in 1993. It was because of failed communication in the early part of
the search that ruined our chances, or any chances, of an early and
potentially successful resolution to her kidnapping.
Since then, organizations in my district, namely, the Polly Klaas
Foundation and BeyondMissing, have worked to ensure that more is done
for missing children. These organizations both advocate a national
AMBER Alert system that will define how seriously Americans support
child safety and saving lives. But they want a clean AMBER Alert
system. That is why it is crucial that we pass a clean bill today, not
one that will be filled with extra add-ons, unrelated provisions,
provisions not acceptable to the other body, hindering the ultimate
goal of creating a system where we can find the children who are lost
in this country.
So I ask, please vote for a clean AMBER Alert system, one that will
be able to do the job, do it immediately, and not get bogged down in
the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, as the Nation's resource center for child protection,
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children spends 94
percent of its revenue directly on programs and services. Due to their
commitment to spend their resources on helping children, the center
received an A+ rating in the Winter 2003 American Institute of
Philanthropy Charity Rating Guide. This rating is used to recommend
charities based on percentage of money spent on charitable purposes
versus administrative expenses.
There were an estimated total of 58,200 children abducted by
nonfamily members in 1999. Mr. Chairman, that is 160 abductions a day.
To reduce this number, we must pass H.R. 1104. I would again urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
[[Page H2412]]
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I have to admit some disappointment in the debate that we are having
today. There are those who want to focus on process and the structure
of legislation, and there are those who want to get at the serious
problem of child molesters and abductors and removing them from the
streets. Mr. Chairman, we have been fighting this battle against child
abduction and molesting for a long time. We have been fighting it a
long time because it is a battle that we dare not lose.
I do not have much time to speak, but let me give Members three quick
facts that I think point out the scope of this problem. Mr. Chairman,
the average child molester in America will commit crimes for 16 years
before he is caught. So when we see on television or when we read in
the newspaper about someone who is caught, a child molester who is
caught, an abductor who is caught, remember that the chances are that
they have been doing this for years before they were caught.
Fact number two. According to former Attorney General Janet Reno, the
recidivism rate for child molesters is 75 percent. That is on the low
side of the estimates that I have seen. When we find someone, when we
catch someone who has molested our young children, the chances are that
they have done it before and the chances are that they will do it again
unless we stop them.
My final fact is one that I find devastating. According to a number
of surveys, the average child molester will commit 511 crimes in his
lifetime. The number of repeat child molesters fortunately is
relatively small, but the damage and the destruction that they do in
America today is incredible. It is outrageous. Every child molester
that we put away is a life saved, is a family rescued.
Mr. Chairman, today is a good day. I want to thank the chairman for
leading us to this point. Today we fight back against child
molestation. Today we fight back against those monsters who would prey
upon our kids.
I would like to speak quickly to one provision in here because it is
one of these provisions that is, quote-unquote, ``bogging down this
bill.'' It is called two strikes. It says that if you have been
arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against our kids and
after you are released you do it yet again, you are going to go to
prison for the rest of your life, no questions, no parole. We will stop
this terrible, terrible scourge. This is not a controversial provision.
It had 382 votes last session.
The speaker before me referred to BeyondMissing, an organization I
helped launch. I have a letter here that I will place into the Record
from BeyondMissing asking us to pass this bill with two strikes in it.
They want the bill as has been presented. AMBER Alert after we pass
this bill will become the law of the land very quickly, but we must not
back down. For the sake of the crimes that we can prevent, for the sake
of the innocents we can protect, let us pass this bill as it is
constituted, let us get it over to the President's desk, and let us
make this the law of the land.
Beyond Missing, Inc.,
Sausalito, CA, March 26, 2003.
Re HR 1104 Child Abduction Prevention Act.
Members of the House of Representatives,
107th Congress (2001-2002), Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: As the father of a child kidnapped
and murdered by a recidivist violent offender I understand
the need to do what ever is necessary to protect America's
children from abuse, abduction and neglect. That is why I
implore you to vote aye on HR 1104 the ``Child Abduction
Prevention Act''.
Although there is a groundswell of support for a National
Amber Alert, this important tool to assist in the recovery of
kidnapped children is but one piece in a very complex puzzle
that must be assembled if we are to truly protect America's
children from victimization.
Strict, mandated prison sentences for those who would
kidnap children; denial of pretrial release for child rapists
or kidnappers; a ``Two Strike'' law for sexual predators and
COPS funding for a sex offender apprehension program are
equally important pieces of the same child protection puzzle.
HR 1104 can deliver the message that America will no longer
tolerate those who would terrorize innocent citizens through
the exploitation and victimization of our children. Although
America's focus is currently on foreign terrorists, it is the
domestic variety that truly threatens our safety. We should
never forget that homeland security begins at home.
I join Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Mark Green
in asking you to vote aye on HR 1104 the ``Child Abduction
Prevention Act''. With the unprecedented attention that has
been afforded child abduction in the past year you are in a
position to memorialize America's recent child victims in
accomplishment. If you fail to do so, they will be remembered
only as statistics and surely they deserve better than that.
Please take advantage of this opportunity to send a loud and
clear message that we will no longer tolerate the abduction
and abuse of America's children.
Sincerely,
Marc Klaas,
President, Beyond Missing, Inc.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
(Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction
Prevention Act. I would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for
crafting such thoughtful and meaningful legislation to help protect our
children from the sick people who would do them harm. It is essential
that we enact legislation to help prevent kidnapping and recover
abducted children. Over 70 percent of abducted children who are
murdered are killed within the first 3 hours after they are taken, and
almost two-thirds of the killers have had prior records of violent
crimes. This legislation goes a long way toward providing protections
by establishing the means to help prevent abductions and to aid in the
quick return of children who have been kidnapped.
With this bill, we enhance the operation of the AMBER Alert
communications network to facilitate the recovery of abducted children.
As it now stands, AMBER Alert is in place in 38 States. I hope that
every State will implement this program. We are all aware of the
important role that the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children has played in the search for abducted children for nearly 20
years. This bill helps ensure it will continue to play a crucial role
by reauthorizing and doubling its annual grant to $20 million each
year.
Another important provision of this legislation will help prevent
repeat offenses by child abductors. In addition to mandating a minimum
20-year sentence for kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of
18 years, it contains a ``two strikes and you're out'' provision that
requires a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for twice-convicted
child offenders.
I would like to say once again how blessed we are for the return of
Elizabeth Smart in my home State of Utah. Many prayers were answered,
including those of my 5-year-old daughter. It is a miracle. We are all
thrilled and grateful with this wonderful news. Yesterday, I had the
pleasure of speaking with Elizabeth's father, Ed Smart, about the
importance of this legislation. He is supportive and appreciative of
the work Chairman Sensenbrenner and the House have done to protect our
children. Ed hopes, as I do, that today's child protection legislation
will be sent to the President's desk and signed into law as soon as
possible.
Mr. Chairman, I support all of the provisions of this bill. I urge my
colleagues to join with us in voting for it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) is
recognized for 3\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, on the other side of the aisle some
Members have come up and stated that we ought to bust this bill apart
and strip out all of the non-AMBER Alert-related issues. That would be
a big mistake. It would be a huge mistake because most of these
provisions are designed to prevent kidnappings and molestations from
happening in the first place.
I support AMBER Alert. It is important once a kidnapping takes place
that the police and the public and the news media know about that
kidnapping so that an alert public can hopefully spot the abducted
child and return the child to his or her parents.
[[Page H2413]]
{time} 1130
But even more important in my opinion is to prevent the kidnappings
and the molestations in the first place because if that ever happens,
those people's lives are scorched for life.
In H.R. 1104 there are a number of provisions. I do not think they
are controversial, but let me enumerate them. It provides the judge
with the discretion to extend the supervision of a released child sex
offender up to a maximum of life, eliminates the statute of limitations
for child abductions and sex crimes, denies pretrial release for child
rapists and child abductors, requires a mandatory sentence of life
imprisonment for twice-convicted child sex offenders, reauthorizes and
doubles the annual grant to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children to $20 million a year through fiscal 2005, mandates
a minimum 20-year prison sentence for the kidnapping of a person under
the age of 18 by a nonfamily member, authorizes COPS funding for a sex
offender apprehension program, adds four new wiretap predicates that
relate to sexual exploitation crimes against children.
We give these predicates so that the police will have the same
authority to seek court wiretap authority when someone is using the
Internet to try to entice children that the police presently have in
cases of organized crime, international terrorism, or drug trafficking.
The bill facilitates the prevention of international parental
kidnapping by adding an attempt to liability to the statute defining
that offense, and it punishes persons who travel to foreign countries
to engage in illegal sexual relations with minors and criminalizes the
actions of sex tourism operators.
These are provisions that the opponents of this bill want to strip
out. They are important provisions. They ought to be the law of the
land, and we ought to pass H.R. 1104 intact today to make them the law
of the land.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant support of
H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. While there are some
provisions in this bill which I oppose, I feel it is crucial that the
House pass legislation as soon as possible that would help foster the
establishment of a coordinated, national AMBER Alert system.
I believe that the government must do all it can to facilitate the
expansion of the AMBER Alert program which has been credited with
recovering at least 27 children. I am proud to say that Illinois has a
statewide AMBER Alert program. However, I am disappointed that the
House leadership did not give us the opportunity to vote on a stand-
alone AMBER Alert bill, H.R. 412, of which I am a cosponsor, and
instead forced us to vote on a bill that includes controversial
provisions.
Specifically, this bill expands cases in which the death penalty can
be imposed. I strongly oppose capital punishment, and therefore oppose
this provision. In addition, this bill includes an amendment which I
voted against which turns the Sentencing guidelines into little more
than mandatory minimum sentencing laws by revising the standards and
procedures under which a judge can depart from sentencing guidelines in
order to account for specific circumstances. I oppose this provision
because I strongly oppose mandatory minimum sentencing laws. This
provision not only overturns an important Supreme Court decision which
left some room for judicial discretion in sentencing, but, like other
mandatory minimum sentencing laws, it takes away a judge's ability to
be fair and exacts a one-size-fits-all standard on our judicial system.
It is my hope that this bill will move to Conference with the Senate
and that the majority of these controversial provisions will be
stripped out in order to pass a clean AMBER Alert bill. We should not
be tainting a bill that is intended to help recover missing children
with provisions that threaten the fairness and justice of our judicial
system. I urge my colleagues to put aside their own agendas to ensure
that all states have the ability to start their own AMBER Alert
programs and work together so that families of abducted children will
have some hope of the real possibility that their child could soon be
returned to them.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my serious
reservations with the Child Abduction Prevention Act. Although these
reservations were not sufficient enough to compel me to vote against
it, I want to make it clear that I am not pleased with the tactics
employed by the House leadership that brought this bill to the Floor.
By introducing the Child Abduction Prevention Act today and passing a
rule to prevent the clean Frost-Dunn AMBER Alert Network Act from
coming to a vote, this House Leadership has imperiled chances for the
AMBER Alert to become law in the near-term. In fact, AMBER Alert could
have become law this week if the leadership so willed it. The House
Leadership, however, has chosen repeatedly to undermine all heartfelt
attempts by me and many of my colleagues to make the AMBER Alert
national law right now. Today's vote is only another indication of the
Leadership's willful intransigence. This bill was supposed to be about
protecting our nation's children. It was supposed to be about
supporting a National AMBER Alert Network. Sadly, this bill was really
about politics.
I ran for Congress more than four years ago because I wanted to
restore the trust of the American people in our system of self-
government. I wanted to break through the cynicism that had poisoned
the people's faith in our democracy and in our elected representatives.
The cynical tactics employed by the House Leadership today on the AMBER
Alert are exactly what I came here to Congress to fight.
Last October, this same House Leadership had the opportunity to make
the AMBER Alert national law. The Senate had passed an AMBER Alert
bill. The House had an opportunity to pass it quickly into law, but the
Leadership decided to play politics with the bill and added a list of
other provisions. At the time I took a stand against the Leadership and
opposed their political games, and I took on the nay-sayers back home
who said I should have backed down. The facts are the same today as
they were then: these tactics are designed to prevent AMBER Alert from
becoming law. As a result, six months have passed and we still don't
have AMBER Alert.
I wanted to bring a clean AMBER Alert bill to the House floor
identical to the one passed twice now by the Senate. I am an original
cosponsor of the Frost-Dunn National AMBER Alert bill and I have tried
to convince the Leadership to bring it to the Floor for a vote.
I voted for this version of the Child Abduction Act today because I
support AMBER Alert, but it was not an easy vote. I voted for this bill
despite the fact that I know there is a better way to turn AMBER Alert
into national Law. I voted for this bill, despite the fact that I have
serious reservations about provisions that would impose the death
penalty for certain crimes where it does not now apply, increase
mandatory sentences for certain offenses, and expand the wiretapping
authority of the federal government.
In the end, however, I voted for this bill because I am now convinced
after months of struggle that neither the principle of my protest nor
the strength of my argument will change the collectively obstinate mind
of the House Leadership. If even the personal pleas of Elizabeth Smart
and her family cannot influence the House Leadership to bring a clean
AMBER Alert bill to a vote, then I must conclude that neither can mine.
I am now convinced that the only way AMBER will become law is by the
overwhelming force of conscience--from the public, from Congress, and
from me personally--to communicate in no uncertain terms that AMBER
Alert will not be stopped by cynical political games. The only true
loser today are America's children who will now have to wait even
longer for Congress and the President to strengthen our national AMBER
Alert system.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support
of H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. Last Congress the
House of Representatives passed parts of this bill, unfortunately these
reforms were never taken up by the other body.
Mr. Chairman, the longer I work with this issue of the vulnerability
of children to sexual molestation and exploitation, the starker the
picture becomes. According to the United States Department of Justice,
the number of missing persons reported to law enforcement increased 468
percent in the past 20 years. And every year 3,000 to 5,000 children
are kidnapped by sexual predators.
Mr. Chairman, right now while we debate this bill sexual predators
are trolling the internet looking for potential victims. They
manipulate children, convince them they are a friend, and force the
child to not trust anyone else. These predators are serial offenders
who often travel to conduct multiple sexual offenses against multiple
children.
We need to stop these sexual predators before they can lay a hand on
a child, because once a child comes into contact with a predator it is
often too late. 3 out of 4 children who are kidnapped and murdered are
killed within three hours of their abduction.
Mr. Chairman, the average victim is an 11-year-old-girl with a stable
family relationship who has initial contact with the abductor within a
quarter mile of her home. Our law enforcement officers are fighting a
difficult battle, and this legislation acknowledges that technological
advances have fundamentally changed the method through which a sex
predator lures a child into an exploitive relationship.
When Detective James Wardwell, from my hometown of New Britain,
Connecticut, testified before the Crime Subcommittee on this very issue
he told us that as a matter of
[[Page H2414]]
course, sex predators want to know who they are communicating with.
Invariable, sex predators move their conversations off-line and onto
the telephone, especially when they are preparing to meet the child.
The authorities need the ability to track these conversations, if we
are to effectively protect our children.
In addition to fighting the sexual exploitation of children in the
United States, this bill also helps the FBI and the Customs service
fight the growing sex tourism industry. More and more Americans are
traveling overseas to nations that have limited child prostitution laws
or enforcement. Travel agencies have sprung up that cater to these
pedophiles, and so called ``situation abusers.'' Just because their
intended victims are not American citizens does not absolve us of the
need to capture dangerous criminals. These people do not only act on
their predatory impulses overseas. They return to the United States
emboldened by their experiences. They are often people who commit
multiple offenses, with multiple victims. Capturing these dangerous
criminals at the earliest opportunity can prevent the needless
destruction of the life of any number of children. This bill focuses on
the reprehensible agencies which facilitate this travel and makes it
easier for law enforcement to track them and their rogue clientele.
We must modernize our laws because sex predators no longer lurk at
the school yard. Today they lurk in Internet chatrooms. Today our
children are under attack on the Internet, and under siege in chat
rooms. Sex predators seek out children on-line, manipulate, meet,
molest and murder them. We must act to give our law enforcement
agencies all the tools necessary to stop sexual predators before they
can strike.
Wiretapping is an effective tool that will prove especially useful in
dealing with sex predators and persons involved in the sex tourism
industry. Law enforcement officers will still have to present their
case to a judge to authorize the use of the wiretap. Wiretapping
provides the best physical evidence to secure a conviction and get
pedophiles off the street, especially when the child victims are unable
to cooperate with authorities. Also, it is worth noting that wiretap
transcripts can be used in lieu of a child's testimony when prosecuting
these sexual predators.
I urge my colleagues to support the Child Abduction Prevention Act.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1104, the
Child Abduction Prevention Act. This bill is important to ensure that
there are enough resources dedicated to the recovery of missing and
abducted children.
I am proud to have associated myself as an original cosponsor of H.R.
412, the AMBER Alert Network Act, a bill introduced by my colleague
from Texas, Mr. Frost, and my colleague from Washington, Ms. Dunn.
This AMBER bill strengthens missing child alerts by providing state
and local plans with grants to fund communications improvements like
highway signs so an abductor can't escape simply by traveling outside
the reach of radio and TV broadcasts. It also formally establishes a
national AMBER coordinator office at the Justice Department to
establish voluntary standards, provide training and help states
coordinate their AMBER plans.
I am deeply disappointed that the Republican Leadership has failed to
see the importance of the expeditious review of this bill. By bringing
to the floor the Senate-passed bill identical to the Frost/Dunn AMBER
Bill, resources could have been made available to our state and local
governments more quickly. Instead the decision of the Republican
Leadership will only serve to further delay these valuable resources
for months.
Mr. Chairman, our children deserve better. It was my hope, that given
the recent high-profile abductions, the Leadership of this House would
put partisanship aside and focus on the lives of our children before
anything else.
Regardless of this, I support this bill brought before us today.
Although I am disappointed with the way this issue has come to surface,
my support for the legislation remains the same.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a moment to commend Mr. Frost and Ms.
Dunn for their continued pursuit to help our children and families.
I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and
to continue to work on behalf of our nation's children.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to opposition to H.R. 1104, the
Child Abduction Prevention Act. I am greatly troubled by this vote.
I support the AMBER Alert program as a vital means to prevent child
abduction and track down those who prey upon our children. I am a
cosponsor of the bipartisan Frost-Dunn AMBER Alert Network Act that
would help all states implement this vital program. It would ensure
that a strong nation-wide network exists to protect our children from
these horrific crimes.
Yet, Republicans have never allowed a clean vote on this legislation.
They have decided once again to include this legislation within a
larger criminal justice bill that includes new, draconian sentencing
guidelines and abuses to our basic Constitutional rights. I cannot in
good conscience support these provisions. They will ultimately doom
this bill when it comes before the Senate, just like last year.
Just as with the child abduction bill brought to the House floor last
October, I object to allowing the government to abuse fundamental
privacy rights as this bill does. The Republicans continue to push
provisions giving the FBI unprecedented wiretap authority to engage in
secret surveillance of our homes. This is unconstitutional and I will
support it.
Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Republican Leadership again insisted
on including a ``2 strikes and you're out'' sentencing provision. This
type of mandatory minimum sentence is not only draconian, it is
ineffective in deterring these types of crimes.
This bill again will expand the number of crimes punishable under the
death penalty. This is done despite evidence that many Americans have
been wrongly sentenced to death. This is wrong and I will not support
it.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting again against this
legislation. Lets send a message to the House Republicans to stop
putting their blind allegiance to right wing politics ahead of the
safety of our kids. Let's get the national AMBER Alert network off the
ground once and for all--for the sake of all America's families and
their children.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, today the House will consider the ``Child
Abduction Prevention Act'' sponsored by Chairman Sensenbrenner.
This bill, H.R. 1104, is drafted to do two important things: increase
the communication systems to locate a missing child and put in place
stronger penalties to prevent child abductions and sexual exploitation.
Both things are needed to make our children safer.
Support of the AMBER Alert communications plans is a key component of
this legislation. AMBER Alert is used by state and local enforcement
agencies to search for abducted children. Currently there are 87 AMBER
plans across the country with 38 of them statewide. Forty seven
children have been recovered as a direct result of AMBER.
AMBER Alert systems must be coordinated and funded to increase
communication when a child is a abducted or reported missing. This bill
increases AMBER funding and puts in law the national coordinator
already in place at the Department of Justice.
But increasing communication alone will not deter child abductors or
child predators from abusing children. It will take the strong
penalties contained in this legislation to prevent child abductions and
child exploitation.
This legislation puts in place the necessary enforcement tools to
assure that child abductors and child predators will not escape
justice.
This bill offers a comprehensive package of child abduction
prevention tools that make severe child abuse and torture a capital
crime; provide stronger penalties against kidnapping and sexual
trafficking; keep child kidnappers behind bars until trial; and put a
``two strikes you're out'' law in place.
After all, how many children's lives do you have to ruin before you
should be locked up for life?
Additionally, this legislation keeps all the safeguards in place for
wiretapping, but creates 4 new circumstances to allow better monitoring
of criminals' abuse of children's chat rooms.
We used to be able to keep an eye on our children at the playground
in order to keep them safe. Chat rooms pose a dangerous new challenge
that we must confront.
I believe that H.R. 1104 shows the American people that communication
and prevention are necessary to protect our children and keep them
safe.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I speak in support of H.R. 1104, the Child
Abduction Prevention Act, which strengthens the punishment and
consequences of those criminals who would dare to harm our children, as
well as provides for the national coordination of the AMBER Alert
communications network. This legislation also increases the
authorization for the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children (NCMEC), which serves as the national resource center and
clearinghouse to aid missing and exploited children and their families.
H.R. 1104 includes Section 305, which increases the authorization
level of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to
$20,000,000 for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. As the nation's resource
center and clearinghouse for missing and exploited children, the Center
carries out many important responsibilities that provide assistance to
families and law enforcement agencies in locating and recovering
missing and exploited children, both nationally and internationally.
In order to do this, the Center operates a national 24-hour toll-free
telephone line for individuals to report information regarding the
location of any missing child. A call to NCMEC's
[[Page H2415]]
Hotline sets into motion the Missing Children's Division where Case
Management staff:
Disseminate lead information to the investigating agency in charge of
a missing or sexually exploited child's case;
Assist citizens and law enforcement in filing missing person reports;
Verify information on missing children entered into the FBI's
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) computer system and instruct
law enforcement in the proper handling of these cases;
Offer resources and information to assist in local, regional,
national, or international searches;
Coordinate with and send publications to enhance the investigative
skills of law enforcement officers handling these cases; and
Work in conjunction with INTERPOL, the U.S. Department of State, FBI,
and the U.S. Customs Service.
And on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, NCMEC handles cases
coming into the United States arising from the Hague Convention on
International Child Abduction.
This worthwhile organization deserves our support. I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 1104.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong
disappointment in the House Leadership's politics-as-usual tactics that
effectively continue to hold the AMBER bill hostage, a word I do not
use lightly considering the gravity of this important legislation.
Yesterday, the House had yet another opportunity to expedite the
enactment of a national AMBER Alert System. The AMBER bill has had
strong bipartisan support for several months now. The national alert
system would be law today but for Leadership's permitting Judiciary
Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner to hinder passage of a widely
supported stands alone AMBER bill. Instead of a simple House bill
narrowly tailored to address the abduction of missing children in the
United States, the Chairman instead presented for a vote a broader and
more complicated bill riddled with controversial provisions. Yet as a
result of yesterday's vote on the rule for the Sensenbrenner bill, the
national AMBER Alert System faces further delay and an uncertain
outcome due to the impending conference with the Senate.
The Senate first passed a clean AMBER bill six months ago, and did so
again this past January, both times by unanimous consent. H.R. 412, the
popular bipartisan bill that I proudly and fervently cosponsored in the
House that same month, contains the same language as the
uncontroversial Senate bill. However, Chairman Sensenbrenner has
refused to allow his committee to consider H.R. 412 as a freestanding
bill and instead insists on pushing his version containing unrelated
provisions that the Senate has previously contested. As such, the
debate of what should be a simple, common sense proposal must continue.
Prolonging the debate on this important legislation is outrageous and
unnecessary. The AMBER Alert System is a proven and invaluable tool for
aiding the recovery of abducted children. Sadly though, children
continue to go missing in this country every day. How many of these
will be affected by the failure to enact a national AMBER Alert bill in
a timely manner?
The Congress needed to enact this critically important legislation
sooner rather than later. Accordingly, I reiterate my disappointment in
the political wrangling that continues to prolong this bill's eventual
presentation to the President.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, as we debate H.R. 1104, the Child
Abduction Prevention Act of 2003, it is important to talk about not
only the AMBER Alert provision in the bill, but to also praise
additional measures of the legislation that serve and protect our
Nation's children. Certainly the AMBER Alert system has helped to find
missing children throughout the nation and in my home state of
Tennessee, but this bill has a wider scope by working to stop
abductions before they occur.
H.R. 1104 gives us the ability to provide stronger penalties against
kidnappers, sex offenders and child abductors. It aids law enforcement
by giving them the ability to prosecute the criminals responsible for
these crimes. For example, it requires a minimum 20-year sentence for
criminals that kidnap or abduct a child under the age of 18.
Of great importance, it denies pretrial release for child kidnappers
or child rapists and eliminates the statute of limitations for child
kidnapping or sex crimes.
Further, it gives a judge the discretion to rule that a released sex
offender's supervision be extended up to a maximum of life. It also
requires a mandatory life in prison sentence to twice convicted child
sex offenders. These two provisions may give parents a small sense of
relief that a sex offender will not move into their neighborhood and
prey on their children.
Each of these measures will work to enhance the good work being done
at the local level by our child advocacy centers and organizations.
In addition, the Child Abduction and Prevention Act of 2003 provides
extra money for the Missing and Exploited Youth Program--an essential
element to both finding missing children and preventing child
abductions. It reauthorizes the annual grant to the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Youth and doubles the funding level to $20
million each year through 2005.
Unquestionably, the AMBER Alert provision in this bill is an
essential one. But it is also imperative that we act to stop abductions
before they happen. The Child Prevention Act of 2003 does just that.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1104,
the Child Abduction Prevention Act. This important legislation cracks
down on child predators and provides the resources to help ensure that
abducted children are safely returned home.
Specifically, H.R. 1104 increases the minimum and maximum penalties
for the sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of children. It also
directs the Sentencing Commission to increase the base offense level
for kidnapping.
Furthermore, it removes the statute of limitations for child
abductions and for many felony sex offenses. This provision will be
particularly helpful in situations where DNA evidence conclusively
proves the identity of a perpetrator years after the crime was
committed.
In addition to increasing criminal penalties for child predators,
H.R. 1104 also establishes and funds an AMBER alert coordination
program. To accomplish this, the bill first establishes an AMBER alert
coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist States with
developing, enhancing, and coordinating their AMBER alert plans.
Second, the bill authorizes $5 million to be distributed to the
Department of Justice to award grants to encourage the development of
AMBER alert activities. The establishment of this AMBER alert
coordination program is a crucial step toward bringing missing and
abducted children home safely.
As a member of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's
Caucus, I have long been concerned about the safety of children, the
most vulnerable members of our society. The caucus has worked to build
awareness about missing children, and to create a cohesive voice in
Congress so that we might introduce and pass legislation that will
strengthen law enforcement and community mobilization efforts to combat
child abduction. H.R. 1104 achieves both of these goals and I encourage
each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
1104, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. This important legislation
has several provisions that go a long way toward securing the safety of
our Nation's children.
H.R. 1104 allows judges to extend supervision of released sex
offenders for the rest of their life. This bill will eliminate the
statute of limitations for child abductions and sex crimes so that we
can prosecute these criminals whenever and wherever we find them. The
clock will never run out and these criminals will not get away with
their despicable crimes. H.R. 1104 will deny pre-trial release for
child rapists or child abductors so they cannot flee this country and
escape prosecution. This bill establishes a mandatory two-strikes-
you're-out sentence for twice-convicted child sex offenders. H.R. 1104
will also mandate a minimum 20-year prison sentence for kidnaping of a
minor non-family member.
Another important part of this legislation is the re-authorization
and doubling of the annual grant to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children. H.R. 1104 also allows the COPS program to use
federal funds for a sex offender apprehension program to track sex
offenders that violate the terms of their release. Finally, Mr.
Chairman this bill establishes a national AMBER Alert program to
facilitate the recovery of abducted children.
On this final point Mr. Chairman I would like to take a minute to
discuss the importance of this program. Many people in both chambers of
Congress have worked long and hard to create the AMBER Alert program on
a national level. I was the first member of this Congress to introduce
legislation in the House that would establish a national AMBER Alert
program because I feel very strongly that our Nation's youth need to be
protected. As many of you are aware, the AMBER Alert program would
require the Attorney General to assign a national coordinator for the
AMBER Alert communications network. This coordinator would be
responsible for (1) eliminating the gaps in this network; (2) working
with the States to develop additional networks and ensure regional
coordination; (3) act as the nationwide point of contact for network
development for regional coordination. The AMBER Alert coordinator
would notify the FBI concerning each child abduction for which the
AMBER Alert network is activated and establish minimum standards for
issuing and disseminating alerts.
[[Page H2416]]
The AMBER Alert legislation would require the Secretary of
Transportation to provide grants to the States for the development and
enhancement of the communications system along highways for the AMBER
Alert network. These grants will improve the development or enhancement
of electronic message boards and placement of additional signs along
highways.
Finally this legislation will direct the Attorney General to provide
grants to States for the development of programs and activities for the
support of the AMBER Alert communications plans.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank all the members who have worked
so hard on this legislation. This is a vital piece of legislation that,
when enacted, will go a long way toward securing this country's youth.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1104, the
Child Abduction Prevention Act.
Our nation rejoiced with the family of Elizabeth Smart when she was
recovered safely after spending nine months at the mercy of her
kidnapper. We will always remember her courage in the face of terror,
the steadfastness of her family, the determination of law enforcement
officers, and the life-saving help of the two couples who alerted
police to her abductor. The remarkable conclusion to this kidnapping
has inspired our nation and drawn further attention to the plight of
missing children and their families.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there were 58,200
children abducted by non-family members in 1999. Nearly half of these
children were sexually assaulted, and about 100 were murdered. The
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that ``74
percent of abducted children who are murdered are dead within three
hours of the abduction.''
H.R. 1104 will help recover children in these first crucial hours by
aiding more states with setting up AMBER alert systems to utilize the
eyes and ears of the public. This legislation will also help to keep
career child rapists and killers off our streets by establishing a
mandatory lifetime prison sentence for twice-convicted child molesters,
and a 20-year sentence for non-family child abductors. These critical
steps will help more families with missing children experience the joy
of having their child come back home.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
legislation to help save the lives of kidnapped children and prevent
future abductions. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). All time for general debate
has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered
read.
The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is
as follows:
H.R. 1104
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Child Abduction Prevention
Act''.
TITLE I--SANCTIONS AND OFFENSES
SEC. 101. SUPERVISED RELEASE TERM FOR SEX OFFENDERS.
Section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(3), by inserting ``on any such
revocation'' after ``required to serve'';
(2) in subsection (h), by striking ``that is less than the
maximum term of imprisonment authorized under subsection
(e)(3)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Notwithstanding subsection (b), the authorized term
of supervised release for any offense under section 1201
involving a minor victim, and for any offense under section
1591, 2241, 2242, 2244(a)(1), 2244(a)(2), 2251, 2251A, 2252,
2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425, is any term of years
or life, and the sentence for any such offense that is a
felony shall include a term of supervised release of at least
5 years.''.
SEC. 102. FIRST DEGREE MURDER FOR CHILD ABUSE AND CHILD
TORTURE MURDERS.
Section 1111 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``child abuse,'' after ``sexual abuse,'';
and
(B) by inserting ``or perpetrated as part of a pattern or
practice of assault or torture against a child or children;''
after ``robbery;''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following:
``(c) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `assault' has the same meaning as given that
term in section 113;
``(2) the term `child' means a person who has not attained
the age of 18 years and is--
``(A) under the perpetrator's care or control; or
``(B) at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
``(3) the term `child abuse' means intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly causing death or serious bodily
injury to a child;
``(4) the term `pattern or practice of assault or torture'
means assault or torture engaged in on at least two
occasions;
``(5) the term `recklessly' with respect to causing death
or serious bodily injury--
``(A) means causing death or serious bodily injury under
circumstances in which the perpetrator is aware of and
disregards a grave risk of death or serious bodily injury;
and
``(B) such recklessness can be inferred from the character,
manner, and circumstances of the perpetrator's conduct;
``(6) the term `serious bodily injury' has the meaning set
forth in section 1365; and
``(7) the term `torture' means conduct, whether or not
committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies
the definition set forth in section 2340(1).''.
SEC. 103. SEXUAL ABUSE PENALTIES.
(a) Maximum Penalty Increases.--(1) Chapter 110 of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in section 2251(d)--
(i) by striking ``20'' and inserting ``30''; and
(ii) by striking ``30'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``50'';
(B) in section 2252(b)(1)--
(i) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20''; and
(ii) by striking ``30'' and inserting ``40'';
(C) in section 2252(b)(2)--
(i) by striking ``5'' and inserting ``10''; and
(ii) by striking ``10'' and inserting ``20'';
(D) in section 2252A(b)(1)--
(i) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``20''; and
(ii) by striking ``30'' and inserting ``40''; and
(E) in section 2252A(b)(2)--
(i) by striking ``5'' and inserting ``10''; and
(ii) by striking ``10'' and inserting ``20''.
(2) Chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in section 2422(a), by striking ``10'' and inserting
``20'';
(B) in section 2422(b), by striking ``15'' and inserting
``30''; and
(C) in section 2423(a), by striking ``15'' and inserting
``30''.
(3) Section 1591(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by striking ``20'' and inserting ``40''.
(b) Minimum Penalty Increases.--(1) Chapter 110 of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in section 2251(d)--
(i) by striking ``or imprisoned not less than 10'' and
inserting ``and imprisoned not less than 15'';
(ii) by striking ``and both,'';
(iii) by striking ``15'' and inserting ``25''; and
(iv) by striking ``30'' the second place it appears and
inserting ``35'';
(B) in section 2251A(a) and (b), by striking ``20'' and
inserting ``30'';
(C) in section 2252(b)(1)--
(i) by striking ``or imprisoned'' and inserting ``and
imprisoned not less than 10 years and'';
(ii) by striking ``or both,''; and
(iii) by striking ``5'' and inserting ``15'';
(D) in section 2252(b)(2)--
(i) by striking ``or imprisoned'' and inserting ``and
imprisoned not less than 5 years and'';
(ii) by striking ``or both,''; and
(iii) by striking ``2'' and inserting ``10'';
(E) in section 2252A(b)(1)--
(i) by striking ``or imprisoned'' and inserting ``and
imprisoned not less than 10 years and'';
(ii) by striking ``or both,''; and
(iii) by striking ``5'' and inserting ``15''; and
(F) in section 2252A(b)(2)--
(i) by striking ``or imprisoned'' and inserting ``and
imprisoned not less than 5 years and'';
(ii) by striking ``or both,''; and
(iii) by striking ``2'' and inserting ``10''.
(2) Chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) in section 2422(a)--
(i) by striking ``or imprisoned'' and inserting ``and
imprisoned not less than 2 years and''; and
(ii) by striking ``, or both'';
(B) in section 2422(b)--
(i) by striking ``, imprisoned'' and inserting ``and
imprisoned not less than 5 years and''; and
(ii) by striking ``, or both''; and
(C) in section 2423(a)--
(i) by striking ``, imprisoned'' and inserting ``and
imprisoned not less than 5 years and''; and
(ii) by striking ``, or both''.
SEC. 104. STRONGER PENALTIES AGAINST KIDNAPPING.
(a) Sentencing Guidelines.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law regarding the amendment of Sentencing
Guidelines, the United States Sentencing Commission is
directed to amend the Sentencing Guidelines, to take effect
on the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act--
(1) so that the base level for kidnapping in section
2A4.1(a) is increased from level 24 to level 32 (121-151
months);
(2) so as to delete section 2A4.1(b)(4)(C); and
(3) so that the increase provided by section 2A4.1(b)(5) is
6 levels instead of 3.
(b) Minimum Mandatory Sentence.--Section 1201(g) of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``shall be
subject to paragraph (2)'' in paragraph (1) and all that
follows through paragraph (2) and inserting ``shall include
imprisonment for not less than 20 years.''.
SEC. 105. PENALTIES AGAINST SEX TOURISM.
(a) In General.--Section 2423 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the
following:
``(b) Travel With Intent To Engage in Illicit Sexual
Conduct.--A person who travels in interstate commerce or
travels into the United
[[Page H2417]]
States, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for
permanent residence in the United States who travels in
foreign commerce, for the purpose of engaging in any illicit
sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
``(c) Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in Foreign
Places.--Any United States citizen or alien admitted for
permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and
engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
30 years, or both.
``(d) Ancillary Offenses.--Whoever arranges, induces,
procures, or facilitates the travel of a person knowing that
such a person is traveling in interstate commerce or foreign
commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual
conduct shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 30 years, or both.
``(e) Attempt and Conspiracy.--Whoever attempts or
conspires to violate subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) shall
be punishable in the same manner as a completed violation of
that subsection.
``(f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
`illicit sexual conduct' means (1) a sexual act (as defined
in section 2246) with a person that would be in violation of
chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States;
or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591)
with a person who has not attained the age of 18 years.
``(g) Defense.--In a prosecution under this section based
on illicit sexual conduct as defined in subsection (f)(2), it
is a defense, which the defendant must establish by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant reasonably
believed that the person with whom the defendant engaged in
the commercial sex act had attained the age of 18 years.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2423(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or attempts to
do so,''.
SEC. 106. TWO STRIKES YOU'RE OUT.
(a) In General.--Section 3559 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(e) Mandatory Life Imprisonment for Repeated Sex Offenses
Against Children.--
``(1) In general.--A person who is convicted of a Federal
sex offense in which a minor is the victim shall be sentenced
to life imprisonment if the person has a prior sex conviction
in which a minor was the victim, unless the sentence of death
is imposed.
``(2) Definitions.--For the purposes of this subsection--
``(A) the term `Federal sex offense' means--
``(i) an offense under section 2241 (relating to aggravated
sexual abuse), 2242 (relating to sexual abuse), 2244(a)(1) or
(2) (relating to abusive sexual contact), 2245 (relating to
sexual abuse resulting in death), 2251 (relating to sexual
exploitation of children), 2251A (relating to selling or
buying of children), or 2422(b) (relating to coercion and
enticement of a minor into prostitution); or
``(ii) an offense under section 2423(a) (relating to
transportation of minors) involving prostitution or sexual
activity constituting a State sex offense;
``(B) the term `State sex offense' means an offense under
State law that consists of conduct that would be a Federal
sex offense if, to the extent or in the manner specified in
the applicable provision of this title--
``(i) the offense involved interstate or foreign commerce,
or the use of the mails; or
``(ii) the conduct occurred in any commonwealth, territory,
or possession of the United States, within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
in a Federal prison, on any land or building owned by, leased
to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the
Government of the United States, or in the Indian country (as
defined in section 1151);
``(C) the term `prior sex conviction' means a conviction
for which the sentence was imposed before the conduct
occurred constituting the subsequent Federal sex offense, and
which was for a Federal sex offense or a State sex offense;
``(D) the term `minor' means an individual who has not
attained the age of 17 years; and
``(E) the term `State' has the meaning given that term in
subsection (c)(2).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Sections 2247(a) and 2426(a) of
title 18, United States Code, are each amended by inserting
``, unless section 3559(e) applies'' before the final period.
SEC. 107. ATTEMPT LIABILITY FOR INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL
KIDNAPPING.
Section 1204 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or attempts to do
so,'' before ``or retains''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or the Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act'' before ``and
was''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon.
TITLE II--INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS
Subtitle A--Law Enforcement Tools To Protect Children
SEC. 201. INTERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS IN INVESTIGATIONS
OF SEX OFFENSES.
(a) In General.--Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (a), by inserting after ``chapter 37
(relating to espionage),'' the following: ``chapter 55
(relating to kidnapping),''; and
(2) in paragraph (c)--
(A) by inserting ``1591 (sex trafficking),'' before
``section 1751'';
(B) by striking ``2251 and 2252 (sexual exploitation of
children)'' and inserting ``2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, and
2260 (sexual exploitation of children)''; and
(C) by inserting ``sections 2421, 2422, 2423, and 2425
(transportation for illegal sexual activity and related
crimes),'' before ``section 1029''.
(b) Transportation for Illegal Sexual Activity.--Section
2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (q);
(2) by inserting after paragraph (q) the following:
``(r) a violation of section 2422 (relating to coercion and
enticement) and section 2423(a) (relating to transportation
of minors) of this title, if, in connection with that
violation, the intended sexual activity would constitute a
felony violation of chapter 109A or 110, including a felony
violation of chapter 109A or 110 if the sexual activity
occurred, or was intended to occur, within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
regardless of where it actually occurred or was intended to
occur; or''; and
(3) by redesignating paragraph (r) as paragraph (s).
SEC. 202. NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CHILD ABDUCTION AND
SEX CRIMES.
(a) In General.--(1) Chapter 213 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``Sec. 3297. Child abduction and sex offenses
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an indictment
may be found or an information instituted at any time without
limitation for any offense under section 1201 involving a
minor victim, and for any felony under section 1591, 2241,
2242, 2244(a)(1), 2244(a)(2), 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260,
2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter
is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``3297. Child abduction and sex offenses.''.
(b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to the prosecution of any offense committed before, on,
or after the date of the enactment of this section.
Subtitle B--No Pretrial Release for Those Who Rape or Kidnap Children
SEC. 221. NO PRETRIAL RELEASE FOR THOSE WHO RAPE OR KIDNAP
CHILDREN.
Section 3142(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``or 2332b'' and inserting ``1201, 1591, 2241,
2242, 2244(a)(1), 2242(a)(2), 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260,
2332b, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425''.
Subtitle C--No Waiting Period To Report Missing Children ``Suzanne's
Law''
SEC. 241. AMENDMENT.
Section 3701(a) of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
5779(a)) is amended by striking ``age of 18'' and inserting
``age of 21''.
TITLE III--PUBLIC OUTREACH
SEC. 301. NATIONAL COORDINATION OF AMBER ALERT COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK.
(a) Coordination Within Department of Justice.--The
Attorney General shall assign an officer of the Department of
Justice to act as the national coordinator of the AMBER Alert
communications network regarding abducted children. The
officer so designated shall be known as the AMBER Alert
Coordinator of the Department of Justice.
(b) Duties.--In acting as the national coordinator of the
AMBER Alert communications network, the Coordinator shall--
(1) seek to eliminate gaps in the network, including gaps
in areas of interstate travel;
(2) work with States to encourage the development of
additional elements (known as local AMBER plans) in the
network;
(3) work with States to ensure appropriate regional
coordination of various elements of the network; and
(4) act as the nationwide point of contact for--
(A) the development of the network; and
(B) regional coordination of alerts on abducted children
through the network.
(c) Consultation With Federal Bureau of Investigation.--In
carrying out duties under subsection (b), the Coordinator
shall notify and consult with the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation concerning each child abduction for
which an alert is issued through the AMBER Alert
communications network.
(d) Cooperation.--The Coordinator shall cooperate with the
Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Communications
Commission in carrying out activities under this section.
SEC. 302. MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE AND DISSEMINATION OF
ALERTS THROUGH AMBER ALERT COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORK.
(a) Establishment of Minimum Standards.--Subject to
subsection (b), the AMBER Alert Coordinator of the Department
of Justice shall establish minimum standards for--
(1) the issuance of alerts through the AMBER Alert
communications network; and
(2) the extent of the dissemination of alerts issued
through the network.
(b) Limitations.--(1) The minimum standards established
under subsection (a) shall be adoptable on a voluntary basis
only.
(2) The minimum standards shall, to the maximum extent
practicable (as determined by the Coordinator in consultation
with State and local law enforcement agencies), provide that
appropriate information relating to the special needs of an
abducted child (including health care needs) are disseminated
to the appropriate law enforcement, public health, and other
public officials.
(3) The minimum standards shall, to the maximum extent
practicable (as determined by the Coordinator in consultation
with State and local law enforcement agencies), provide that
the dissemination of an alert through the
[[Page H2418]]
AMBER Alert communications network be limited to the
geographic areas most likely to facilitate the recovery of
the abducted child concerned.
(4) In carrying out activities under subsection (a), the
Coordinator may not interfere with the current system of
voluntary coordination between local broadcasters and State
and local law enforcement agencies for purposes of the AMBER
Alert communications network.
(c) Cooperation.--(1) The Coordinator shall cooperate with
the Secretary of Transportation and the Federal
Communications Commission in carrying out activities under
this section.
(2) The Coordinator shall also cooperate with local
broadcasters and State and local law enforcement agencies in
establishing minimum standards under this section.
SEC. 303. GRANT PROGRAM FOR NOTIFICATION AND COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS ALONG HIGHWAYS FOR RECOVERY OF ABDUCTED
CHILDREN.
(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Transportation
shall carry out a program to provide grants to States for the
development or enhancement of notification or communications
systems along highways for alerts and other information for
the recovery of abducted children.
(b) Development Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant to a State
under this subsection for the development of a State program
for the use of changeable message signs or other motorist
information systems to notify motorists about abductions of
children. The State program shall provide for the planning,
coordination, and design of systems, protocols, and message
sets that support the coordination and communication
necessary to notify motorists about abductions of children.
(2) Eligible activities.--A grant under this subsection may
be used by a State for the following purposes:
(A) To develop general policies and procedures to guide the
use of changeable message signs or other motorist information
systems to notify motorists about abductions of children.
(B) To develop guidance or policies on the content and
format of alert messages to be conveyed on changeable message
signs or other traveler information systems.
(C) To coordinate State, regional, and local plans for the
use of changeable message signs or other transportation
related issues.
(D) To plan secure and reliable communications systems and
protocols among public safety and transportation agencies or
modify existing communications systems to support the
notification of motorists about abductions of children.
(E) To plan and design improved systems for communicating
with motorists, including the capability for issuing wide
area alerts to motorists.
(F) To plan systems and protocols to facilitate the
efficient issuance of child abduction notification and other
key information to motorists during off-hours.
(G) To provide training and guidance to transportation
authorities to facilitate appropriate use of changeable
message signs and other traveler information systems for the
notification of motorists about abductions of children.
(c) Implementation Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant to a State
under this subsection for the implementation of a program for
the use of changeable message signs or other motorist
information systems to notify motorists about abductions of
children. A State shall be eligible for a grant under this
subsection if the Secretary determines that the State has
developed a State program in accordance with subsection (b).
(2) Eligible activities.--A grant under this subsection may
be used by a State to support the implementation of systems
that use changeable message signs or other motorist
information systems to notify motorists about abductions of
children. Such support may include the purchase and
installation of changeable message signs or other motorist
information systems to notify motorists about abductions of
children.
(d) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activities funded by a grant under this section may not
exceed 80 percent.
(e) Distribution of Grant Amounts.--The Secretary shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, distribute grants under this
section equally among the States that apply for a grant under
this section within the time period prescribed by the
Secretary.
(f) Administration.--The Secretary shall prescribe
requirements, including application requirements, for the
receipt of grants under this section.
(g) Definition.--In this section, the term ``State'' means
any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or Puerto
Rico.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2004. Such amounts shall remain
available until expended.
(i) Study of State Programs.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to examine
State barriers to the adoption and implementation of State
programs for the use of communications systems along highways
for alerts and other information for the recovery of abducted
children.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to
Congress a report on the results of the study, together with
any recommendations the Secretary determines appropriate.
SEC. 304. GRANT PROGRAM FOR SUPPORT OF AMBER ALERT
COMMUNICATIONS PLANS.
(a) Program Required.--The Attorney General shall carry out
a program to provide grants to States for the development or
enhancement of programs and activities for the support of
AMBER Alert communications plans.
(b) Activities.--Activities funded by grants under the
program under subsection (a) may include--
(1) the development and implementation of education and
training programs, and associated materials, relating to
AMBER Alert communications plans;
(2) the development and implementation of law enforcement
programs, and associated equipment, relating to AMBER Alert
communications plans; and
(3) such other activities as the Attorney General considers
appropriate for supporting the AMBER Alert communications
program.
(c) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of any
activities funded by a grant under the program under
subsection (a) may not exceed 50 percent.
(d) Distribution of Grant Amounts on Geographic Basis.--The
Attorney General shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
ensure the distribution of grants under the program under
subsection (a) on an equitable basis throughout the various
regions of the United States.
(e) Administration.--The Attorney General shall prescribe
requirements, including application requirements, for grants
under the program under subsection (a).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--(1) There is
authorized to be appropriated for the Department of Justice
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 to carry out this section.
(2) Amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain available until
expended.
SEC. 305. INCREASED SUPPORT.
Section 404(b)(2) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(2)) is amended by
inserting ``and $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 and
2005'' after ``and 2003''.
SEC. 306. SEX OFFENDER APPREHENSION PROGRAM.
Section 1701(d) of part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(d)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (10) and (11) as (11) and
(12), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10) assist a State in enforcing a law throughout the
State which requires that a convicted sex offender register
his or her address with a State or local law enforcement
agency and be subject to criminal prosecution for failure to
comply;''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to the committee amendment in
the nature of a substitute is in order except those printed in House
Report 108-48. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed
in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the
report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 108-48.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pence
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Pence:
At the end of title I (page ____, after line ____), insert
the following:
SEC. 108. MISLEADING DOMAIN NAMES ON THE INTERNET.
(a) In General.--Chapter 110 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 2252A the
following:
``Sec. 2252B. Misleading domain names on the Internet
``(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with
the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the
Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 2 years, or both.
``(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with
the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is
harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both.
``(c) For the purposes of this section, a domain name that
includes a word or words to indicate the sexual content of
the site, such as `sex' or `porn', is not misleading.
``(d) For the purposes of this section, the term `material
that is harmful to minors' means any communication that--
``(1) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals
to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
``(2) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently
offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an
actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or
simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd
exhibition of the genitals; and
``(3) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value as to minors.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the time relating to section 2252A
the following new item:
``2252B. False or misleading domain names on the Internet.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) and a
[[Page H2419]]
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the author of the Pence amendment, the
Truth in Domain Names Act, as a legislator, as a member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, its Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property; but also, most importantly, Mr. Chairman, I
rise today as a dad who loves to sit my 9-year-old daughter or my 11-
year-old son on my knee and help them with their homework on the
Internet. It was the experience of doing that that inspired me in the
last Congress to author the Truth in Domain Names Act, and it has
inspired me to bring this amendment to the underlying bill, the Child
Abduction Prevention Act, today.
Thanks to the extraordinary leadership of the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), we are considering a bill today
that will make measurable progress in protecting our children from
child predators. I would offer humbly today, Mr. Chairman, that the
Pence amendment is just such a bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman's amendment
is a very constructive amendment. I urge the committee to adopt it.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. The Pence amendment
will make it a criminal act to knowingly use a misleading domain name
with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the
Internet; and, most especially, it would make it a criminal act to
knowingly use a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a
minor into viewing material on the Internet that is harmful.
Like many of the Members, I believe the Internet should remain free
of regulation, Mr. Chairman. The Pence amendment is not regulation of
the Internet. It is an anti-fraud bill. It does not prevent any
material from being displayed on the Internet. In fact, a domain name
that includes word or words to indicate sexual content on the site like
the word ``sex'' or ``porn'' is by definition in this law not
considered misleading. The amendment simply requires Web site owners to
be honest about the content of their site, preventing families just
like mine from surfing the Internet as their children do homework and
all of a sudden finding themselves in a place of prurient and
pornographic material.
I am not the only one with this problem. A recent survey conducted in
the year 2000 by the Crimes Against Children Research Center found that
71 percent of teens had accidentally come across inappropriate sexual
material on the Internet. Another study conducted by the Berkeman
Center at Harvard Law School reviewed 5,000 domain names that were just
slight misspellings of existing Web sites and found, and I am quoting,
``A majority of these domain names are variations on sites frequently
used by children; and although their domain names do not suggest the
presence of sexually explicit content, more than 89 percent of the Web
sites examined contained sexually explicit material.''
The Pence amendment is endorsed by leading organizations of a child
advocate nature, and I urge its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there any Member seeking time in
opposition?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to consider
legislation on the floor that had not been considered by committee.
Reading the legislation, it appears that they have defined things that
are obscene and, if that is the case, the whole site can be busted for
obscenity. If it is not obscene, I am not sure that the amendment even
applies. Adding ``misleading'' will just add complications to the
prosecution because if we can prosecute for the obscenity, we do not
have to get into the question of whether the title was misleading or
not. We have constitutional implications with this because
``misleading'' may apply to adults as well as children.
There have been no hearings on this to my knowledge and certainly no
committee consideration of this. I would point out that if the
exemption on the bill, if we have a sexual implication in the name of
the Web site, that might cause as many problems as it does solutions
because it would make it easier to find the pornographic and obscene
sites.
The AMBER alert bill ought to be passed by itself. We ought not be
complicated with amendments such as this that have not been considered
on the floor. So I would hope we would defeat the amendment, take the
AMBER alert portion of the bill by itself so that that could be passed
and considered, and deal with this kind of a measure in committee where
we can deliberate and get all the fact and implications.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), a distinguished member of the
Committee on Appropriations, one of the leading advocates of pro-family
issues in Congress.
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the full
committee Chair for his support for this amendment. We think this is
certainly important, and it speaks well of him and his committee for
accepting this amendment, support of it.
I am proud to stand here today in strong support of this amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), my good friend and
colleague. Passage of this legislation represents a positive step
towards protecting our children from pornographic Web sites.
As the dad of a 3-year-old, I know personally that there is no
substitute for parental supervision when it comes to the safety of our
children. This bill does not assume to be the solution to parents who
make the Internet a baby-sitter for their kids. Instead, this is meant
to be a tool in the arsenal of responsible parenting. I believe this is
why the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is
supporting this amendment.
The purpose of this bill is to punish those who use misleading domain
names to attract children to pornographic Web sites. These sites use
legitimate-sounding names to lure children to view pornographic
material. This amendment, as has been cited, would authorize punishment
of up to a quarter million dollars and imprisonment to 4 years. I would
urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support final passage.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I have one remaining speaker on this
amendment and would reserve the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman in opposition has the right
to close.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), probably one of the leading congressional
advocates for youth issues, the gentleman from the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Pence) for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his support of this amendment.
A year ago, my staff brought to my attention the fact that my name
uses a search word that brought up a porn site so that meant that
anyone in my District who was doing research on their Congressman was
subject to a porn site and anyone doing research on athletics or
football quite often would be subjected to the same pornographic
material. I have grandchildren who are ages 6, 7, and 10, who all use
the computer much better than I do, and it really concerns me that
innocent words like ``Barbie'' or ``Disneyland'' can bring up graphic
pornographic material or invite them into chat rooms that are
frequented by pedophiles. So this is an issue that is very personal
with me.
[[Page H2420]]
Of course, we are concerned about first amendment rights, but what
about the rights of children who grow up in a wholesome environment to
maintain some innocence, to not be exploited? The Pence amendment makes
the use of domain names to deliberately mislead children viewing
pornography to be a criminal activity. I urge support of the Pence
amendment.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
In closing, I would like to say that this bill has significant
constitutional implications. I include for the Record a letter from
Artist Empowerment Coalition in opposition to the amendment.
Artist Empowerment Coalition,
New York, NY, March 26, 2003.
Honorable Member,
House Committee on Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member: The Artist Empowerment Coalition (AEC)
strongly opposes the language in Section 108 of the Amber
Bill, which refers to MISLEADING DOMAIN NAMES ON THE
INTERNET. The AEC represents a nationwide coalition of
artists, songwriters, producers and industry executives. On
behalf of the coalition, we ask that you oppose this
amendment and prevent its inclusion in the legislation. The
impact of its passage would be much broader and more harmful
than the intent in our view, for the following reasons:
1. It is the artists' 1st Amendment right to express
themselves creatively on the web or otherwise.
2. Recording artists of all genres have website domain
names, which vary in origin and may reflect simply their
names, titles, who they are and/or what they represent
musically.
3. In some instances, an artists website content can
include language and lyrics which are part of their overall
body of work.
4. The content of the website and their creative expression
is not and cannot always be reflected within the domain name.
5. Under Section 108 of this proposed amendment, content of
an artists' website, judged subjectively, may be deemed
``obscene'' and therefore, based upon absence of labeling to
that effect, exposes an artist to punishment under the law
which can include, but is not limited to imprisonment.
6. The domain name selection, and its use on the part of an
artist, is not, in this case, ``knowingly misleading,''
rather it is selected based upon an artists rights under the
1st Amendment of the Constitution.
Further, the AEC believes artists should have the right to
use domain names, which are not subject to ``labeling'' and
third party interpretations. We believe it is wrong to imply
that an artist intends to ``knowingly deceive'' a person or
persons simply by using his or her name, for instance, as the
domain name rather than a description of the website
contents.
While the AEC supports efforts to protect children from
kidnapping and efforts to apprehend criminals, we oppose this
and any measure, which wrongly makes criminals of the
creative community, hinders the creative process and violates
creative rights under the law. Please vote ``NO'' on this
bill as amended.
Sincerely,
Tracey Walker,
Director of Public Affairs.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 2 printed in House Report 108-48.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Feeney
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Feeney:
At the end of title I (page , after line ), insert the
following:
SEC. . SENTENCING REFORM.
(a) Requirement To Specify in the Guidelines the Grounds
Upon Which Downward Departures May Be Granted.--Section
3553(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read
as follows:
``(b) Application of Guidelines in Imposing a Sentence.--
The court shall impose a sentence of the kind, and within the
range, referred to in subsection (a)(4) unless the court
finds that--
``(1) there exists an aggravating circumstance of a kind,
or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by
the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that
should result in a sentence different from that described; or
``(2) there exists a mitigating circumstance of a kind, or
to a degree, that--
``(A) has been affirmatively and specifically identified as
a permissible ground of downward departure in the sentencing
guidelines or policy statements issued under section 994(a)
of title 28, United States Code, taking account of any
amendments to such sentencing guidelines or policy statements
by act of Congress;
``(B) has not adequately been taken into consideration by
the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines; and
``(C) should result in a sentence different from that
described.
In determining whether a circumstance was adequately taken
into consideration, the court shall consider only the
sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and official
commentary of the Sentencing Commission, together with any
amendments thereto by act of Congress. In the absence of an
applicable sentencing guideline, the court shall impose an
appropriate sentence, having due regard for the purposes set
forth in subsection (a)(2). In the absence of an applicable
sentencing guideline in the case of an offense other than a
petty offense, the court shall also have due regard for the
relationship of the sentence imposed to sentences prescribed
by guidelines applicable to similar offenses and offenders,
and to the applicable policy statements of the Sentencing
Commission, together with any amendments to such guidelines
or policy statements by act of Congress.''.
(b) Reform of Existing Permissible Grounds of Downward
Departures.--Subject to subsection (j), the Guidelines Manual
promulgated by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section
994(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended as
follows:
(1) Section 5K2.0 is amended as follows:
(A) Strike the first and second paragraphs of the
Commentary to section 5K2.0 in their entireties.
(B) Strike ``departure'' every place it appears and insert
``upward departure''.
(C) Strike ``depart'' every place it appears and insert
``depart upward''.
(D) In the first sentence of section 5K2.0--
(i) strike ``outside'' and insert ``above'';
(ii) strike ``or mitigating''; and
(iii) strike ``Under'' and insert:
``(a) Upward Departures.--Under''.
(E) In the last sentence of the first paragraph of section
5K2.0, strike ``or excessive''.
(F) Immediately before the Commentary to section 5K2.0,
insert the following:
``(b) Downward Departures.--
``Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b)(2), the sentencing court may
impose a sentence below the range established by the
applicable guidelines only if the court finds that there
exists a mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree,
that--
``(1) has been affirmatively and specifically identified as
a permissible ground of downward departure in the sentencing
guidelines or policy statements issued under section 994(a)
of title 28, United States Code, taking account of any
amendments to such sentencing guidelines or policy statements
by act of Congress;
``(2) has not adequately been taken into consideration by
the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines; and
``(C) should result in a sentence different from that
described.
``The grounds enumerated in this Part K of chapter 5 are the
sole grounds that have been affirmatively and specifically
identified as a permissible ground of downward departure in
these sentencing guidelines and policy statements. Thus,
notwithstanding any other reference to authority to depart
downward elsewhere in this Sentencing Manual, a ground of
downward departure has not been affirmatively and
specifically identified as a permissible ground of downward
departure within the meaning of section 3553(b)(2) unless it
is expressly enumerated in this Part K as a ground upon which
a downward departure may be granted.''.
(2) At the end of part K of chapter 5, add the following
new sections:
``Sec. 5K2.22 Specific Offender Characteristics as Grounds
for Downward Departure (Policy Statement)
``Age may be a reason to impose a sentence below the
applicable guideline range only if and to the extent
permitted by Sec. 5H1.1.
``An extraordinary physical impairment may be a reason to
impose a sentence below the applicable guideline range only
if and to the extent permitted by Sec. 5H1.4. Drug, alcohol,
or gambling dependence or abuse is not a reason for imposing
a sentence below the guidelines.
``Sec. 5K2.23 Early Disposition Programs as a Ground for
Downward Departure (Policy Statement)
``Upon motion of the government stating that:
``(1) due to extraordinary resource constraints, not
typical of most districts, associated with the
disproportionately high incidence of illegal reentry or other
specific offenses within a particular district, the Attorney
General has formally certified that the district is
authorized to implement an early disposition program with
respect to those specific categories of offenses;
``(2) pursuant to such specific authorization, the United
States Attorney for the district has implemented such an
early disposition program with respect to the category of
offense for which the defendant has been convicted;
``(3) pursuant to such an early disposition program, the
defendant, within 30 days of his or her first appearance
before a judicial officer in connection with such a charge,
entered into a plea agreement whereby he or she agrees, inter
alia--
``(A) not to file any of the motions described in Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3);
[[Page H2421]]
``(B) to waive appeal;
``(C) to waive the opportunity to pursue collateral relief
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2254 and 2555, including
ineffective assistance of counsel claims; and
``(D) if an alien, to submit to uncontested removal from
the United States upon completion of any sentence of
imprisonment;
``(4) the plea agreement contemplates that the government
will move for a downward departure based on the defendant's
prompt agreement to enter into such an early disposition
plea agreement; and ``(5) the defendant has fully
satisfied the conditions of such plea agreement,
then, if the court finds that these conditions have been met
and also finds that the defendant has received the maximum
adjustment for which he is eligible (given his offense level)
under Sec. 3E1.1, the court may depart downward from the
guidelines under this section only to the extent agreed to by
the parties in the plea agreement, which in no event shall
exceed 4 levels.
``Commentary
``Several districts, particularly on the southwest border,
have early disposition programs that allow them to process
very large numbers of cases with relatively limited
resources. Such programs are based on the premise that a
defendant who promptly agrees to participate in such a
program has saved the government significant and scarce
resources that can be used in prosecuting other defendants
and has demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility above
and beyond what is already taken into account by the
adjustments contained in Sec. 3E1.1. This section preserves
the authority to grant limited departures pursuant to such
programs. In order to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities within a given district, any departure under this
section must be pursuant to a formal program that is approved
by the United States Attorney and that applies generally to a
specified class of offenders. Authorization for the district
to establish an early disposition program must also have been
specifically conferred by the Attorney General, and may be
granted only with respect to those particular classes of
offenses (such as illegal reentry) whose high incidence
within the district has imposed an extraordinary strain on
the resources of that district as compared to other
districts. To be eligible for the departure, the plea
agreement under the program must reflect that the defendant
has agreed to an expeditious plea, as described. A defendant
who has not received any adjustment for acceptance of
responsibility under Sec. 3E1.1 cannot receive a departure
under this provision. A defendant whose offense level makes
him eligible for the additional adjustment under
Sec. 3E1.1(b), but who fails to satisfy the requirements for
such an adjustment, is likewise ineligible for a departure
under this provision. This section does not confer authority
to depart downward on an ad hoc basis in individual cases.
Moreover, because the Government's affirmative acquiescence
is essential to the fair and efficient operation of an early
disposition program, a departure under this section may only
be granted upon a formal motion by the Government at the time
of sentencing. Nothing in this section authorizes a sentence
below a statutory mandatory minimum.''.
(3) Section 5K2.20 is deleted.
(4) Section 5H1.6 and section 5H1.11 are each amended by
striking ``ordinarily'' every place it appears.
(5) Section 5K2.13 is amended by--
(A) striking ``or'' before ``(3)''; and
(B) replacing ``public'' with ``public; or (4) the
defendant has been convicted of an offense under chapter 71,
109A, 1110, or 117 of title 18, United States Code.''.
(c) Statement of Reasons for Imposing a Sentence.--Section
3553(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``described.'' and inserting ``described,
which reasons must also be stated with specificity in the
written order of judgment and commitment, except to the
extent that the court relies upon statements received in
camera in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
32. In the event that the court relies upon statements
received in camera in accordance with Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 32 the court shall state that
such statements were so received and that it relied upon
the content of such statements.'';
(2) by inserting ``, together with the order of judgment
and commitment,'' after ``the court's statement of reasons'';
and
(3) by inserting ``and to the Sentencing Commission,''
after ``to the Probation System''.
(d) Review of a Sentence.--
(1) Review of departures.--Section 3742(e)(3) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(3) is outside the applicable guideline range, and
``(A) the district court failed to provide the written
statement of reasons required by section 3553(c);
``(B) the sentence departs from the applicable guideline
range based on a factor that--
``(i) does not advance the objectives set forth in section
3553(a)(2); or
``(ii) is not authorized under section 3553(b); or
``(iii) is not justified by the facts of the case; or
``(C) the sentence departs to an unreasonable degree from
the applicable guidelines range, having regard for the
factors to be considered in imposing a sentence, as set forth
in section 3553(a) of this title and the reasons for the
imposition of the particular sentence, as stated by the
district court pursuant to the provisions of section 3553(c);
or''.
(2) Standard of review.--The last paragraph of section
3742(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``shall give due deference to the district court's
application of the guidelines to the facts'' and inserting
``, except with respect to determinations under subsection
(3)(A) or (3)(B), shall give due deference to the district
court's application of the guidelines to the facts. With
respect to determinations under subsection (3)(A) or (3)(B),
the court of appeals shall review de novo the district
court's application of the guidelines to the facts''.
(3) Decision and disposition.--
(A) The first paragraph of section 3742(f) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``the sentence'';
(B) Section 3742(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``the sentence'' before ``was imposed'';
(C) Section 3742(f)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) the sentence is outside the applicable guideline
range and the district court failed to provide the required
statement of reasons in the order of judgment and commitment,
or the departure is based on an impermissible factor, or is
to an unreasonable degree, or the sentence was imposed for an
offense for which there is no applicable sentencing guideline
and is plainly unreasonable, it shall state specific reasons
for its conclusions and--
``(A) if it determines that the sentence is too high and
the appeal has been filed under subsection (a), it shall set
aside the sentence and remand the case for further sentencing
proceedings with such instructions as the court considers
appropriate, subject to subsection (g);
``(B) if it determines that the sentence is too low and the
appeal has been filed under subsection (b), it shall set
aside the sentence and remand the case for further sentencing
proceedings with such instructions as the court considers
appropriate, subject to subsection (g);''; and
(D) Section 3742(f)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``the sentence'' before ``is not
described''.
(e) Imposition of Sentence Upon Remand.--Section 3742 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by redesignating
subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (h) and (i) and by
inserting the following after subsection (f):
``(g) Sentencing Upon Remand.--A district court to which a
case is remanded pursuant to subsection (f)(1) or (f)(2)
shall resentence a defendant in accordance with section 3553
and with such instructions as may have been given by the
court of appeals, except that--
``(1) In determining the range referred to in subsection
3553(a)(4), the court shall apply the guidelines issued by
the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(1) of
title 28, United States Code, and that were in effect on the
date of the previous sentencing of the defendant prior to the
appeal, together with any amendments thereto by any act of
Congress that was in effect on such date; and
``(2) The court shall not impose a sentence outside the
applicable guidelines range except upon a ground that--
``(A) was specifically and affirmatively included in the
written statement of reasons required by section 3553(c)in
connection with the previous sentencing of the defendant
prior to the appeal; and
``(B) was held by the court of appeals, in remanding the
case, to be a permissible ground of departure.''.
(f) Definitions.--Section 3742 of title 18, United States
Code, as amended by subsection (e), is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) a factor is a `permissible' ground of departure if
it--
``(A) advances the objectives set forth in section
3553(a)(2); and
``(B) is authorized under section 3553(b); and
``(C) is justified by the facts of the case; and
``(2) a factor is an `impermissible' ground of departure if
it is not a permissible factor within the meaning of
subsection (j)(1).''.
(g) Reform of Guidelines Governing Acceptance of
Responsibility.--Subject to subsection (j), the Guidelines
Manual promulgated by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to
section 994(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in section 3E1.1(b)--
(A) by inserting ``upon motion of the government stating
that'' immediately before ``the defendant has assisted
authorities''; and
(B) by striking ``taking one or more'' and all that follows
through and including ``additional level'' and insert
``timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a
plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid
preparing for trial and permitting the government and the
court to allocate their resources efficiently, decrease the
offense level by 1 additional level'';
(1) in the Application Notes to the Commentary to section
3E1.1, by amending Application Note 6--
(A) by striking ``one or both of''; and
(B) by adding the following new sentence at the end:
``Because the Government is in the best position to determine
whether the defendant has assisted authorities in a manner
that avoids preparing for trial, an adjustment under
subsection (b)(2) may only be
[[Page H2422]]
granted upon a formal motion by the Government at the time of
sentencing.''; and
(3) in the Background to section 3E1.1, by striking ``one
or more of''.
(h) Improved Data Collection.--Section 994(w) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(w)(1) The Chief Judge of each district court shall
ensure that, within 30 days following entry of judgment in
every criminal case, the sentencing court submits to the
Commission a written report of the sentence, the offense for
which it is imposed, the age, race, sex of the offender, and
information regarding factors made relevant by the
guidelines. The report shall also include--
``(A) the judgment and commitment order;
``(B) the statement of reasons for the sentence imposed
(which shall include the reason for any departure from the
otherwise applicable guideline range);
``(C) any plea agreement;
``(D) the indictment or other charging document;
``(E) the presentence report; and
``(F) any other information as the Commission finds
appropriate.
``(2) The Commission shall, upon request, make available to
the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, the written
reports and all underlying records accompanying those reports
described in this section, as well as other records received
from courts.
``(3) The Commission shall submit to Congress at least
annually an analysis of these documents, any recommendations
for legislation that the Commission concludes is warranted by
that analysis, and an accounting of those districts that the
Commission believes have not submitted the appropriate
information and documents required by this section.''.
(i) Sentencing Guidelines Amendments.--(1) Subject to
subsection (j), the Guidelines Manual promulgated by the
Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(A) Application Note 4(b)(i) to section 4B1.5 is amended to
read as follows:
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b), the
defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving
prohibited sexual conduct if on at least two separate
occasions, the defendant engaged in prohibited sexual conduct
with a minor.''.
(B) Section 2G2.4(b) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(4) If the offense involved material that portrays
sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of
violence, increase by 4 levels.
``(5) If the offense involved--
``(A) at least 10 images, but fewer than 150, increase by 2
levels;
``(B) at least 150 images, but fewer than 300, increase by
3 levels;
``(C) at least 300 images, but fewer than 600, increase by
4 levels; and
``(D) 600 or more images, increase by 5 levels.''.
(C) Section 2G2.2(b) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) If the offense involved--
``(A) at least 10 images, but fewer than 150, increase by 2
levels;
``(B) at least 150 images, but fewer than 300, increase by
3 levels;
``(C) at least 300 images, but fewer than 600, increase by
4 levels; and
``(D) 600 or more images, increase by 5 levels''.
(2) The Sentencing Commission shall amend the Sentencing
Guidelines to ensure that the Guidelines adequately reflect
the seriousness of the offenses under sections 2243(b),
2244(a)(4), and 2244(b) of title 18, United States Code.
(j) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Upon enactment of this Act, the Sentencing Commission
shall forthwith distribute to all courts of the United States
and to the United States Probation System the amendments made
by subsections (b), (g), and (i) of this section to the
sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and official
commentary of the Sentencing Commission. These amendments
shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this Act, in
accordance with paragraph (5).
(2) On or before May 1, 2005, the Sentencing Commission
shall not promulgate any amendment to the sentencing
guidelines, policy statements, or official commentary of the
Sentencing Commission that is inconsistent with any amendment
made by subsection (b) or that adds any new grounds of
downward departure to Part K of chapter 5. At no time may the
Commission promulgate any amendment that would alter or
repeal section 5K2.23 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
Manual, as added by subsection (b).
(3) With respect to cases covered by the amendments made by
subsection (i) of this section, the Sentencing Commission may
make further amendments to the sentencing guidelines, policy
statements, or official commentary of the Sentencing
Commission, except the Commission shall not promulgate any
amendments that, with respect to such cases, would result in
sentencing ranges that are lower than those that would have
applied under such subsections.
(4) At no time may the Commission promulgate any amendment
that would alter or repeal the amendments made by subsection
(g) of this section.
(5) Section 3553(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by amending paragraph (4)(A) to read as follows:
``(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the
applicable category of defendant as set forth in the
guidelines--
``(i) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to
section 994(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, subject to
any amendments made to such guidelines by act of Congress
(regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be
incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments
issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and
``(ii) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), are in
effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; or'';
(B) in paragraph (4)(B), by inserting ``, taking into
account any amendments made to such guidelines or policy
statements by act of Congress (regardless of whether such
amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing
Commission into amendments issued under section 994(p) of
title 28)'' after ``Code'';
(C) by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:
``(5) any pertinent policy statement--
``(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to
section 994(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, subject to
any amendments made to such policy statement by act of
Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to
be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments
issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and
``(B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), is in
effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.''.
(k) Compliance With Statute.--Section 994(a) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``consistent with
all provisions of this title and title 18, United States
Code,'' and inserting ``consistent with all pertinent
provisions of any Federal statute''.
(l) Report by the Attorney General.--
(1) Not later than 15 days after a district court's grant
of a downward departure in any case, other than a case
involving a downward departure for substantial assistance to
authorities pursuant to section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing
Guidelines, the Attorney General shall report to the House
and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, setting forth the
case, the facts involved, the identity of the district court
judge, the district court's stated reasons, whether or not
the court provided the United States with advance notice of
its intention to depart, the position of the parties with
respect to the downward departure, whether or not the United
States has filed, or intends to file, a motion for
reconsideration; whether or not the defendant has filed a
notice of appeal concerning any aspect of the case, and
whether or not the United States has filed, or intends to
file, a notice of appeal of the departure pursuant to section
3742 of the title 18, United States Code.
(2) In any such case, the Attorney General shall thereafter
report to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary
not later than 5 days after a decision by the Solicitor
General whether or not to authorize an appeal of the
departure, informing the committees of the decision and the
basis for it.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses long-standing and increasing
problems of downward departures from the Federal sentencing guidelines.
According to the testimony of the Department of Justice, this is
especially a problem in child pornography cases.
Although the guidelines continue to state that departures should be
very rare occurrences, they have in fact proved to be anything but. The
Department of Justice testified before the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security that the rate of downward departures
on grounds other than substantial assistance to the government has
climbed steadily every year for many years. In fact, the rate of such
departures for nonimmigration cases has climbed to 50 percent in the
last 4 years from 9.6 percent in fiscal year 1996 to 14.7 percent in
fiscal year 2001.
{time} 1145
Increasingly, the exceptions are overriding the rule.
By contrast, Mr. Chairman, upward departures are virtually
nonexistent. During the same period of time, from fiscal year 1996 to
fiscal year 2001, the upward departure rate has held steady at 0.6
percent. That means that judges, by a 33 to 1 ratio, are deviating from
the guidelines in order to basically help convicted defendants.
The Department of Justice believes that much of this damage is
traceable to the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Koon versus the
United States. In the Koon case, the court held that any factor not
explicitly disapproved by the
[[Page H2423]]
sentencing commission or by statute could serve as grounds for
departure. So judges can make up exceptions as they go along. This has
led to an accelerated rate of downward departures.
Judges who dislike the Sentencing Reform Act and the sentencing
guidelines now have significant discretion to avoid applying a sentence
within the range established by the commission, and it is difficult for
government to effectively appeal such cases.
The amendment I offer today contains a number of provisions designed
to ensure more faithful adherence to the guidelines so defendants in
cases involving child pornography and sexual abuse receive the
sentences that Congress intended.
Specifically, this amendment would put strict limitations on
departures by allowing sentences outside the guidelines range only upon
grounds specifically enumerated in the guidelines as proper for
departure. This would eliminate ad hoc departures based on vague
grounds, such as ``general mitigating circumstances.'' This amendment
would also reform the existing grounds of departure set forth in the
current guidelines by eliminating those that have been most frequently
abused, such as ``aberrant behavior,'' which is already taken into
account in a person's past criminal history.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would require courts to
give specific responses for any departure from the guidelines. It would
change the standard of review for appellate courts to a de novo review,
which would be more effective to review illegal and inappropriate
downward departures. It would prevent sentencing courts upon remand
from imposing the same illegal departure on some different theory and
only allow courts to reduce a person's sentence for acceptance of
responsibility when the government agrees with that finding.
Additionally, the definition of ``pattern of activity involving
prohibited sexual conduct'' in the sentencing guidelines is hereby
broadened. Currently, the guideline provides that such a pattern exists
only where the defendant engaged in prohibited sexual contact on at
least two separate occasions with at least two different minor victims.
This definition does not adequately take account of the frequent
occurrence where repeated sexual abuse against a single child occurs
and the severity of the harm to such victims from such repeated abuse.
The amendment would broaden the definition to include repeated abuse of
the same victim on separate occasions.
Mr. Chairman, finally, the guidelines are remanded with regard to
penalties for the possession of child pornography in two ways. First,
penalties are increased if the offense involved material that portrays
sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence; and,
second, penalties are increased based on the amount of child
pornography involved in the offense.
The famous philosopher and statesman Cicero said that justice is the
set and constant purpose which gives every man his due. Unfortunately,
judges in our country all too often are arbitrarily deviating from the
sentencing guidelines enacted by the United States Congress based on
their personal biases and prejudices, resulting in wide disparity in
sentencing.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I
want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for
his great work on the bill, H.R. 1104, in protecting children and for
his support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Does the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) claim the time in opposition?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would have the effect of turning the
sentencing guidelines into mandatory sentences in the cases it affects.
We have not had hearings or markups on this matter; and this is not the
way we should amend the sentencing guidelines, without thought or
consideration.
The purpose of the sentencing guidelines is to provide intelligent
consistency in sentencing, considering each sentence within the overall
framework of other sentences, and ensuring that more serious crimes get
more serious punishment. That is impossible when you just take one
crime at a time outside of that context with a floor amendment such as
this.
The fact is, it makes no sense to have people with different degrees
of criminality getting equal sentences or people with equal degrees of
criminality getting vastly different sentences.
The evidence is that the guidelines are operating the way they are
supposed to. About 85 percent of the sentences are either within the
guideline range or outside of the guidelines at the request of the
prosecution.
The sentencing commission should retain the appropriate discretion,
since that discretion has been essentially taken away from judges. If
we want the commission to look at this specific problem of downward
departures in these cases, we should direct the sentencing commission
to do just that and not take it upon ourselves to do it all by
ourselves in a vacuum.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from
Florida for proposing an excellent amendment. Let me say I am really
puzzled that my friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is
opposing this amendment.
Back in 1992, there was a citizen of Los Angeles County named Rodney
King that was beaten up by a bunch of police officers. Those police
officers were tried and convicted of a civil rights violation in a
Federal Court.
The judge there had a downward departure from the sentence that
Police Officer Koon would have received, which would have been 70 to 87
months under the sentencing guidelines. The District Court said, as a
result of the widespread publicity and emotional outrage which would
have surrounded this case, the officers were particularly likely to be
targets of abuse in prison, had they been burdened by having been
subjected to successive State and Federal prosecutions. So Mr. Koon
only got 30 months in prison, when the guidelines required 70 to 87
months in prison.
Now, the Congressional Black Caucus sent a letter to Attorney General
Janet Reno; and that was reported in the August 13, 1993, edition of
the Los Angeles Times. The Black Caucus, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), and 24 other members of the CBC wrote the
Attorney General asking that this be appealed.
The government did appeal that sentence and won its case in the
Appeals Court, and the Appeals Court held that there should be a de
novo review of the sentence. Then there was an appeal to the United
States Supreme Court which reversed the Appeals Court and said that the
only time a district judge's departure from sentencing guidelines could
be reviewed and reversed was if there was an abuse of discretion.
There is a provision in the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Feeney) that does precisely what the Congressional Black
Caucus asked for almost 10 years ago, and that is to give appeals
courts de novo review over sentencing guidelines.
So I am puzzled at the gentleman from Virginia's opposition. We are
doing what he asked for, but maybe 10 years too late.
Now, I think it is outrageous that one out of every five cases of
those convicted of sexually abusing a child or sexually exploiting a
child through child pornography have received a downward departure from
the sentencing guidelines. The law says this is supposed to be rare,
but, instead, a 20 percent downward departure rate is not rare.
Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment that has been offered by the
gentleman from Florida plugs this loophole. It ought to be passed.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the August 6, 1993, letter
from
[[Page H2424]]
the Congressional Black Caucus to the Attorney General of the United
States.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, August 6, 1993.
Hon. Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Reno: As members of the Congressional
Black Caucus, we are writing to you because of our concern
about the sentencing of Officer Laurence Powell and Sergeant
Stacey Koon by Judge John Davies in the Rodney King civil
rights case.
We are troubled that the sentence for the crime was reduced
to 30 months upon the court's consideration of mitigating
facts. Such a reduction for mitigation factors may be
appropriate in other circumstances. However, we feel that the
dependents' special status as police officers, with special
duties owned to the public, should have mitigated against
such a significant reduction.
As you well know, the maximum possible penalty was ten
years and fines of up to $250,000. Your federal prosecutors
were asking for seven to nine years. Our federal sentencing
guidelines recommended minimum sentences in a range of four
to seven years in prison.
Instead, Judge John Davies made broad use of subjective
factors. He stated that he read only letters addressed to him
from the friends and families of Officer Powell and Sergeant
Koon. He argued that much of the violence visited on Rodney
King was justified by King's own actions. However, these
officers were convicted on charges of violating Rodney King's
civil rights. We believe these mitigating factors did not
justify so large a reduction given the defendant's special
responsibilities as police officers.
In addition, Judge Davies did not afford proper weight to
the racist comments made over police radio by those convicted
on the night of the beating in discounting race as a
motivation for the beating. He similarly failed to take into
account the remarkable lack of remorse shown by Officer
Powell and Sergeant Koon since their conviction.
People of good will all over this country and of all races
were heartened when Officer Powell and Sergeant Koon were
convicted by a jury of their peers, a verdict made possible
by the Justice Department's resolve to file civil rights
charges and by the phenonemal performance of federal
prosecutors. With these severely reduced sentences, however,
we are sending a mixed message. Are police officers going to
be held responsible for excessive use of force or not?
We think what has been lost, in all this, is the police
officers have an enhanced responsibility to upheld the law.
Notwithstanding Judge Davies' authority to modify the
sentencing guidelines, most experts agreed that the minimum
four to seven years sentence should have been followed in
this case.
We realize that the trial judge is afforded sufficient
latitude in sentencing, but we urge the Department of Justice
to appeal these sentences. We need to reexamine these
sentences so that justice can finally be done in this
difficult, painful case. Only then can we begin to put this
behind us.
Sincerely,
Maxine Waters, Eva M. Clayton, Sanford Bishop, Major R.
Owens, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Walter Tucker, Floyd H.
Flake, William Clay, Albert R. Wynn, Charles B. Rangel,
Carrie P. Meek, William J. Jefferson, James E. Clyburn,
Donald M. Payne, Earl Hilliard, Alcee Hastings, Bennie
M. Thompson, Kweisi Mfume, Glee Fields, Louis Stokes,
Cynthia McKinney, Melvin L. Watt, John Lewis, Ronald V.
Dellums, Corrine Brown.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time, and reserve the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it does not surprise me that the Congressional Black
Caucus long before I got here took the position that we should not have
the whims and biases and prejudices of individual judges responsible
for deviating widely in the sentencing in the same exact types of
cases. So I think the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has
done a wonderful job pointing out the problem when you allow widespread
deviation.
There really had been no standards. Why have guidelines at all, if
judges can make up ad hoc reasons to implement those guidelines?
This is an especially important problem in cases of child abuse and
in cases of sexual offenses because of the enormously high recidivism
rate. We have heard Attorney General Reno says something like 75
percent of sexual offenders are going to repeat their offenses. We know
that exhibitionists, for example, have some of the highest sex offense
recidivism rates, something like between 41 and 71 percent. The next
highest recidivism rate is found among child molesters who offend
against boys, somewhere upwards of 40 or 45 percent.
Now, it does the People's Congress no good to pass laws prohibiting
child pornography or kidnapping or sexual abuse, for example, if we are
going to have liberal judges deviate on a regular basis.
Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the endorsement of the
Congressional Black Caucus for my idea, if not my amendment
necessarily.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just say that equality in
sentencing is important for a number of reasons. Number one, we want to
send a message to criminals and would-be criminals; and, number two, we
wanted to make sure that all criminals are treated equally.
I think that is what this amendment does. I think it provides
certainty. I think it provides a very important deterrent effect. We
will have a lot less child abuse, a lot less child pornography, and
perhaps less kidnapping if we adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, when you ask for the courts to review it, that is so it
can be considered in the courts with all the evidence, not in the
political branch. It is better to leave it to the sentencing commission
and the courts than to floor amendments in the House of
Representatives.
If this is such a good idea, then let us do it through the regular
order. Let us have some hearings, subcommittee markup, committee
markup, and then we can slowly and deliberately consider such an
amendment.
The purpose of the sentencing commission is to get away from the
floor amendments and the sound bites so you can have intelligent
sentencing. We have had situations where you have had sentences that
are way out of proportion to crimes that are just as serious, or less
serious, totally out of context. That is why we try to get away from
it, so that serious crimes get serious punishment, lesser crimes get
lesser punishment.
That is the purpose of the sentencing commission. You cannot do that
with floor amendments in the House of Representatives. That is why we
would hope this amendment could be defeated. We could get a clean Amber
Alert bill passed so we can get that enacted and not have to get bogged
down in consideration of amendments such as this.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Feeney) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House
Report 108-48.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pomeroy
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Pomeroy:
At the end of subtitle B of title II (page , after line
), insert the following new section:
SEC. . INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED BY ATTORNEY
GENERAL UNDER VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE ACT OF
1990.
(a) Regional Children's Advocacy Centers.--
(1) In general.--Section 213 of the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001b) is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)(2)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) provide such information and documentation as the
Attorney General shall require on an annual basis regarding
the use of such funds for purposes of evaluation of the
effect of grants on the community response to child abuse.'';
and
(B) in subsection (d)(3)(A), by inserting after
``activities'' the following: ``or substantially fails to
provide information or documentation required by the Attorney
General''.
[[Page H2425]]
(2) Clerical amendments.--Such section is further amended--
(A) in subsection (c)(4)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B)(ii);
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(iii), by striking ``Board'' and
inserting ``board''; and
(iii) by redesignating subparagraphs (C) and (D) as clauses
(iv) and (v), respectively, of subparagraph (B), and by
realigning such clauses so as to have the same indentation as
the preceding clauses of subparagraph (B);
(B) in subsection (e), by striking ``Board'' in each of
paragraphs (1)(B)(ii), (2)(A), and (3), and inserting
``board''.
(b) Local Children's Advocacy Centers.--Section 214 of that
Act (42 U.S.C. 13002) is amended in subsection (b)(2)(J) by
inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
including such information and documentation as the Attorney
General shall require on an annual basis regarding the use of
such funds for purposes of evaluation of the effect of grants
on the community response to child abuse.''.
(c) Grants for Specialized Technical Assistance and
Training Programs.--Section 214A of such Act (42 U.S.C.
13003) is amended in subsection (c) by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(3) Any recipient of a grant under this section shall
provide such information and documentation as the Attorney
General shall require on an annual basis regarding the use of
such funds for purposes of evaluation of the effect of grants
on the community response to child abuse.''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--The text of section
214B of such Act (42 U.S.C. 13004) is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) Sections 213 and 214.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out sections 213 and 214, $15,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
``(b) Section 214A.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out section 214A, $5,000,000 for each
of fiscal years 2004 and 2005.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as we consider this bill, which will strengthen
penalties against kidnapping and aid law enforcement agencies to
effectively prevent, investigate and prosecute crimes against children,
we should also take this opportunity to reauthorize the Victims of
Child Abuse Act. This law, initially passed in 1992, supports grants
for programs to assist the victims of child abuse.
Our colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), was involved
in the original enactment of this legislation and continues to be very
active in the programs administered through this program and deserves a
great deal of credit for the activity underlying the amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is a very
good amendment. This program is a very important one. It is too
important to let go by the wayside. I believe we should take this
opportunity to reauthorize it in the context of this bill and would
urge the committee to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the chairman's
comments in that regard. They are similar to comments made by the
district attorneys in a letter from the National District Attorneys
Association citing the extraordinary value of these programs.
In the interest of time and in the interest of debate and with the
endorsement of the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, I would put
into the record the statement that I make on behalf of this amendment,
along with the letter from the National District Attorneys Association,
and urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, as we consider this bill which would strengthen
penalties against kidnapping and aid law enforcement agencies to
effectively prevent, investigate, and prosecute crimes against
children, we should also take this opportunity to reauthorize the
Victims of Child Abuse Act. This law supports grants for programs to
assist victims of child abuse.
Congress passed the Victims of Child Abuse Act in 1992. This Act
provided for the establishment of four Regional Children's Advocacy
Centers to provide information, technical assistance, and training to
assist communities in establishing programs, particularly children's
advocacy centers, that respond to child abuse. Since that time, these
local and regional centers have served and assisted victims of child
abuse heal and recover.
The need for these centers and programs in increasing. In my home
state of North Dakota, we have one Children's Advocacy Center (CAC),
located in Bismarck. It opened in 1996 and is completely funded by
grants. Since its opening, it has assessed and closed over 4,000 cases
of abuse and/or neglect. Unfortunately, over 7,000 children have been
suspected to be victims during this time. Referrals have increased by
49 percent since 2000 and 72 percent of all victims were 8 and under.
As you can see, this center serves a fragile population and addresses a
vital need. The Center serves 49 out of 53 counties and all four Native
American reservations.
Children's Advocacy Centers are important because they make the
process of reporting child abuse and receiving treatment easier on
children. They provide consistent and timely response to abuse reports;
effective medical and mental health treatment or referrals; and reduce
the number of child interviews by prosecutors and investigators,
lessening the mental impact of continued exposure to the abuser.
Nationally, there are 464 Children Advocacy Centers in the United
States that are members of the National Children's Alliance (NCA).
There are an additional 221 programs that are recognized by NCA as
being engaged in the process of creating a CAC. The National Children's
Advocacy Center (NCAC) in Hunstville, Alabama has had a significant
impact on CAC development, and I want to acknowledge Representative Bud
Cramer of his outstanding work in developing the first CAC program.
I support Representative Cramer in his work and seek to extend the
legislation that helps fund its programs. The authorization for this
funding expired in fiscal year 2000. While funding has continued
through the annual appropriations process, Congress should reauthorize
the program and demonstrate our support for its mission. The amendment
would authorize $15 million for Regional and Local Children's Advocacy
Centers through 2005, and would provide $5 million for grants for
specialized technical assistance and training programs.
This amendment also adds tools for the Department of Justice to
evaluate these grant programs to ensure that these funds are being used
to achieve the very important goals they were designed for--helping
children and families deal with the tragedy of child abuse. These tools
are to be used only to improve the current delivery of child abuse
prosecution and recovery.
Let's make sure every victim of child abuse has access to the
resources he or she may need to assist in the prosecution of their
abuser and recovery. I urge my colleagues to support this vital
amendment.
Alexandria, VA, March 27, 2003.
Hon. Jim Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the National
District Attorneys Association I want to urge the passage of
the Pomperoy amendment to H.R. 1104, the Child Abduction
Prevention Act. This amendment reauthorizes funding for the
National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, a vitally
important resource for the local prosecutors of this country.
The National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse is
dedicated to training prosecutors, police investigators,
medical personnel and social workers on the intricacies of
investigating and prosecuting cases of child abuse and
neglect. Additionally they provide on going technical
assistance to prosecutors in the field--even in the midst of
a case.
Child abuse cases are some of the most complex to
investigate and prosecute. The training and assistance that
the Center provides is crucial to fight this scourge. I urge
speedy acceptance of Mr. Pomeroy's effort to ensure that our
children are protected to the utmost extent of the law.
Sincerely,
Dan M. Alsobrooks,
President.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there any Member seeking time in
opposition?
There being none, all time for debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1200
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). It is now in order to
consider amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 108-48.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Foley
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment:
[[Page H2426]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Foley:
At the end of section 301 of the bill, insert the
following:
(e) Report.--Not later than March 1, 2005, the Coordinator
shall submit to Congress a report on the activities of the
Coordinator and the effectiveness and status of the AMBER
plans of each State that has implemented such a plan. The
Coordinator shall prepare the report in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation.
In section 304(b) of the bill, strike ``and'' at the end of
paragraph (2), redesignate paragraph (3) as paragraph (4),
and insert after paragraph (2) the following:
(3) the development and implementation of new technologies
to improve AMBER Alert communications; and
In section 304(f)(1) of the bill, strike the period at the
end insert the following:
and, in addition, $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 to carry
out subsection (b)(3).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 1104, which will help
strengthen the AMBER Alert provision being considered today.
First let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner),
the chairman of the committee, for his efforts to move this important
package through the House today. Provisions like the ``two strikes and
you're out'' for repeat child sex offenders, penalties for
international sex tourism, the doubling of funding for the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and, of course, the AMBER
Alert Act all make this legislation another nail in the coffin for
those who prey on the most innocent of our society, and that is our
children.
Last summer we were all shocked and horrified by the high-profile
abduction cases of children from all over our country. Every time there
was a new report of a missing child, one could almost feel the
collective shudder of parents from the east coast to the west. The only
comfort we had was the successful recovery of several children as a
result of the AMBER Alert system.
AMBER, which stands for America's Missing Broadcast Emergency
Response plan, is a voluntary partnership between law enforcement
agencies and broadcasters to activate an urgent bulletin in the most
serious child abduction cases. Just like with severe weather alerts,
broadcasters use the Emergency Alert System to air a description of the
missing child and suspected abductor.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is also a very good amendment.
I commend the gentleman from Florida for drafting and offering it, and
I would urge the Committee to adopt it.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the chairman of
the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the cochair of the Congressional Caucus for
Missing and Exploited Children.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding to me to speak in favor of the amendment that the gentleman is
offering.
The gentleman's amendment is designed to enhance the AMBER Alert
provisions contained in H.R. 1104. Specifically, the amendment provides
an additional $5 million in grant funding to help States implement new
technologies designed to improve the dissemination of AMBER alerts.
Though the use of highway signs and media outlets is a start, we must
begin to look at new technologies like the Internet and e-mail to get
these important alerts out.
The amendment will also require the new AMBER Alert coordinator to
submit a report by March 1, 2005, to Congress on the effectiveness and
status of the AMBER Alert plans in each State. This report will provide
the information Congress needs to determine the progress that the
national coordinator and the States are making toward statewide
integrated AMBER Alert systems.
AMBER Alert is one of the most effective tools that we have to bring
kids home. I thank the gentleman for the work that he has done on this
issue and for joining me as the cochair on the Congressional Caucus for
Missing and Exploited Children, and I hope the Congress passes the
AMBER Alert legislation immediately, and this amendment.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone seek time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 5 printed in House Report 108-48.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Carter
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Carter:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. . FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A SYSTEM OF BACKGROUND CHECKS
FOR VOLUNTEERS.
(a) Study Required.--The Attorney General shall conduct a
feasibility study within 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act. The study shall examine, to the extent
discernible, the following:
(1) The current state of fingerprint capture and processing
at the State and local level, including the current available
infrastructure, State system capacities, and the time for
each State to process a civil or volunteer print from the
time of capture to submission to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI).
(2) The intent of the States concerning participation in a
nationwide system of criminal background checks to provide
information to qualified entities.
(3) The number of volunteers, employees, and other
individuals that would require a fingerprint based criminal
background check.
(4) The impact on the FBI's Integrated Automated
Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) in terms of
capacity and impact on other users of the system, including
the effect on FBI work practices and staffing levels.
(5) The current fees charged by the FBI, States and local
agencies, and private companies to process fingerprints.
(6) The existence of ``model'' or best practice programs
which could easily be expanded and duplicated in other
States.
(7) The extent to which private companies are currently
performing background checks and the possibility of using
private companies in the future to perform any of the
background check process, including, but not limited to, the
capture and transmission of fingerprints and fitness
determinations.
(8) The cost of development and operation of the technology
and the infrastructure necessary to establish a nationwide
fingerprint based and other criminal background check system.
(9) Any other information deemed relevant by the Department
of Justice.
(b) Report.--Based on the findings of the feasibility
study, the Attorney General shall, not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to
Congress a report, including recommendations, which may
include a proposal for grants to the States to develop or
improve programs to collect fingerprints and perform
background checks on individuals that seek to volunteer with
organizations that work with children, the elderly, or the
disabled.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The National Child Protection Act was enacted in 1993. It was
followed by legislation to include this through the Volunteers for
Children Act. These acts provided a process for background checks for
volunteers to ensure that individuals who are allowed the privilege of
working with our children have nothing but good intentions. But
according to groups that depend on volunteers to work with children,
this process is not working.
No one has been able to provide an explanation as to why the process
has failed. There are a number of different factors which could be
hampering the process, including the existing capacity or
infrastructure of the FBI and the States to collect and process and
share fingerprint background information and the cost to run such a
program.
My amendment requests the Department of Justice to conduct a
feasibility study to determine the extent of the
[[Page H2427]]
problem and requests the Department of Justice to propose a solution
based on its findings.
The study will examine the current state of the fingerprint capture
and processing at the State and local level, including the current
available infrastructure, the State capacities, and time for each State
to process a civil-volunteer print from the time of capture to
submission to the FBI.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment is a very
necessary amendment, if I could just take a minute to explain why.
In 1993, the National Child Protection Act was passed to provide a
process for background checks for volunteers. It did not get up and
running.
Additional legislation to improve the process was enacted through the
Volunteers for Children Act of 1998. It still is not up and running.
What the gentleman from Texas is proposing is to tell the Justice
Department that they have 120 days to tell us why these programs are
not up and running, what is needed to fix them, and to get on with the
background check system so that those who do volunteer to work not only
with children, but also the disabled and the elderly, can be checked
out to see if altruism is not their sole motivation for working with
these groups of people.
I think that this is a very good amendment, and I hope that it would
be adopted.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this is
going in the right direction. We need to work on this as quickly as
possible, in this bill or outside of this bill. I think it is a good
idea, and I am in support of the amendment.
Mr. CARTER. In light of the support of the chairman of the committee,
I would like to conclude by saying that over the last 20 years I have
tried over 100 of these cases, and last year I had a lady come up to me
in a grocery store and told me about her child who was going to
Colorado to testify in a case against a child sex molester who had
molested him in a case that I tried back in 1985; and he was going to
testify in the case that was now pending in Colorado. If this system
had been up and in effect at that time, we would have been able to find
that predator and prevent him from doing this again.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my comments for the Record.
I rise to strongly support the Carter amendment. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Lampson) and I both were authors in 1998 for the Volunteers
for Children Act. It is working very successfully in Florida. The FDLA
has told us it is one of the most aggressive tools that they have to
protect our children. I strongly support the gentleman's inquiry to
Justice. I hope they will yield the important results that this is an
enormously helpful program. So I support the gentleman's efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my friend from Texas's
amendment.
In 1993, Congress passed a critical safeguard for children--the
National Child Protection Act, commonly known as the Oprah Winfrey Act.
The law gave groups such as schools, day care facilities and youth
volunteer organizations access to FBI fingerprinting checks to help
ensure that they weren't inadvertently hiring convicted child molesters
to tend their young charges.
But there was a hitch. Under the law, these national fingerprint-
based checks are only available if states put into place laws approved
by the U.S. Attorney General specifically allowing access to them. As a
result, while nearly all states had laws providing background checks
for various people, such as school personnel or day care workers, only
about six had laws specifically giving nonprofit youth-serving
organizations like the Boys and Girls Clubs access to do national
fingerprint checks on would-be volunteers.
In 1998, I along with Congressman Lampson and Senator Biden
introduced the Volunteers for Children Act which would allow youth-
serving nonprofit organizations to request national fingerprint
background checks in the absence of state laws providing such access.
This bill, which has since been enacted into law, has only been
followed by a few states.
The amendment my friend from Texas offers today will require the
Department of Justice to conduct a study on the implementation of the
Volunteers for Children Act by the states and to provide
recommendations to Congress on how to improve state compliance.
In encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the amendment and I
look forward to working with Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Coble
to once and for all fix this very important law.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there anyone seeking time in opposition
to the amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Carter).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 6 printed in House Report 108-48.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Lampson
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Lampson:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. . FORENSIC AND INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT OF MISSING AND
EXPLOITED CHILDREN.
Section 3056 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) Under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury,
officers and agents of the Secret Service are authorized, at
the request of any State or local law enforcement agency, or
at the request of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children, to provide forensic and investigative
assistance in support of any investigation involving missing
or exploited children.''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
For 2\1/2\ years I have stood on this floor almost every day talking
about the issue of missing and exploited children, encouraging our
colleagues to join us in developing legislation to help raise the level
of awareness of this horrendous issue across the United States of
America to higher and higher heights, and I am proud of the fact that
we are here today discussing the legislation that we are.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is also a very good amendment. It broadens the tools that law
enforcement can use to track down missing children through better
forensic investigation. I commend the gentleman from Texas for offering
this amendment, and I hope that the committee adopts it.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for his support.
It was about a decade ago, I guess, that Congress authorized the
United States Secret Service to participate in a multi-agency task
force for the purpose of providing resources, expertise, and other
assistance to local law enforcement agencies and the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children in cases involving missing and
exploited children. This began a very strong partnership between the
Secret Service and the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children and resulted in the Secret Service providing critical forensic
support, including polygraph examinations, handwriting examinations,
fingerprint research and identification, age progressions and
regressions, and audio and video enhancements to NCMEC and law
enforcement in numerous missing children's cases.
However, there is a clear need to provide explicit statutory
jurisdiction to the Secret Service to continue this forensic and
investigative support upon request from local law enforcement and from
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and this
amendment will do just that.
Ernie Allen, who is the President of the National Center, has
strongly endorsed this legislation and has said the
[[Page H2428]]
following: ``When the National Center was created, President Reagan
envisioned a national clearinghouse that worked hand in hand with
Federal and local law enforcement, the private sector, and the public,
each playing a strong, diverse role in the effort to reunite families
and better protect children. The United States Secret Service has
played a key role in this effort, and we could not be more enthusiastic
about their partnership with us.''
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment. I appreciate very
much the gentleman's speaking in favor of the amendment, the chairman
of the committee; and I urge its adoption.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to enter my comments into the Record
and commend the gentleman for this amendment. It is very, very
important work.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my friend from Texas's
amendment. For the past several years, as co-chairs of the
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, we have worked
diligently to provide the resources to law enforcement necessary to
protect our children and this amendment is further proof of Mr.
Lampson's commitment and service to that goal.
Nearly a decade ago, Congress authorized the U.S. Secret Service to
participate in a multi-agency task force with the purpose of providing
resources, expertise and other assistance to local law enforcement
agencies and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC) in cases involving missing and exploited children.
This began a strong partnership between the Secret Service and NCMEC,
and resulted in the Secret Service providing critical forensic
support--including polygraph examinations, handwriting examinations,
fingerprint research and identification, age progressions/regressions
and audio and video enhancements--to NCMEC and local law enforcement in
numerous missing children cases.
However, there is a clear need to provide explicit statutory
jurisdiction to the Secret Service to continue this forensic and
investigative support upon request from local law enforcement or NCMEC.
This amendment will do just that and I encourage all of my colleagues
today to join with me in voting for this important measure.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone rise in opposition to the
amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Lampson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 7 printed in House Report 108-48.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Acevedo-Vila
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Acevedo-Vila:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
TITLE IV--MISSING CHILDREN PROCEDURES IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS
SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Code Adam Act''.
SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Child.--The term ``child'' means an individual who is
17 years of age or younger.
(2) Code adam alert.--The term ``Code Adam alert'' means a
set of procedures used in public buildings to alert employees
and other users of the building that a child is missing.
(3) Designated authority.--The term ``designated
authority'' means--
(A) with respect to a public building owned or leased for
use by an Executive agency--
(i) except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the
Administrator of General Services;
(ii) in the case of the John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts, the Board of Trustees of the John F. Kennedy
Center for the Performing Arts;
(iii) in the case of buildings under the jurisdiction,
custody, and control of the Smithsonian Institution, the
Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; or
(iv) in the case of another public building for which an
Executive agency has, by specific or general statutory
authority, jurisdiction, custody, and control over the
building, the head of that agency;
(B) with respect to a public building owned or leased for
use by an establishment in the judicial branch of government,
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; and
(C) with respect to a public building owned or leased for
use by an establishment in the legislative branch of
government, the Capitol Police Board.
(4) Executive agency.--The term ``Executive agency'' has
the same meaning such term has under section 105 of title 5,
United States Code.
(5) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means any
Executive agency or any establishment in the legislative or
judicial branches of the Government.
(6) Public building.--The term ``public building'' means
any building (or portion thereof) owned or leased for use by
a Federal agency.
SEC. 403. PROCEDURES IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS REGARDING A MISSING
OR LOST CHILD.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the designated authority for a public
building shall establish procedures for locating a child that
is missing in the building.
(b) Notification and Search Procedures.--Procedures
established under this section shall provide, at a minimum,
for the following:
(1) Notifying security personnel that a child is missing.
(2) Obtaining a detailed description of the child,
including name, age, eye and hair color, height, weight,
clothing, and shoes.
(3) Issuing a Code Adam alert and providing a description
of the child, using a fast and effective means of
communication.
(4) Establishing a central point of contact.
(5) Monitoring all points of egress from the building while
a Code Adam alert is in effect.
(6) Conducting a thorough search of the building.
(7) Contacting local law enforcement.
(8) Documenting the incident.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-
Vila.)
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
The amendment that I am offering today requires certain procedures be
established and followed when a child is reported lost or missing in a
Federal building. The purpose of this set of procedures, called Code
Adam, is to prevent child abductions in Federal buildings. Code Adam
has proven extremely successful in thwarting many attempted abductions
through the issuance of a Code Adam Alert in commercial establishments.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I also believe that this is a very
constructive amendment, and I commend the gentleman from Puerto Rico
for offering it; and I hope that it is adopted.
Let me say that one of the first things I did when I came to Congress
was I helped pass the Missing Children's Act which was in response to
the abduction and gruesome murder of Adam Walsh, whose father, John
Walsh, has obtained quite a bit of fame in being an advocate for
missing and exploited children.
The Code Adam proposal has been very successful when privately
implemented in Wal-Mart stores around the country, and I think that
having a Code Adam alert system in place nationwide for all public
buildings will significantly improve the chance of recovering children
who might be abducted in a shopping mall or some other public building.
I think the gentleman from Puerto Rico has done the children of this
country a great service by offering this amendment, and I hope that it
is adopted.
Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I
appreciate his support for this amendment.
As the chairman said, this was created by Wal-Mart in 1994 as a
private initiative, and it has become one of the country's largest
child safety programs.
{time} 1215
With the help of the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children that also is supporting my amendment, over 36,000 stores
across the United States have already used it successfully. Code Adam,
as the chairman just mentioned, is named in memory of 6-year-old Adam
Walsh, whose abduction from a Florida shopping mall and murder in 1981
brought the horror of child abduction to national attention.
[[Page H2429]]
I ask for Members' support for this bipartisan amendment. Its
enactment will complement existing security procedures and others being
considered in this bill, including the AMBER Alert, in order to
guarantee immediate preventive action against successful child
abductions.
Effective procedures required by this amendment include notification
of security personnel that a child is missing, issuance of a Code Adam
alert, and distribution of the child's description to all employees
using fast and effective means of communication.
It also provides that all points of egress must be monitored while
the Code Adam alert is in effect and the local law enforcement be
notified if the child remains missing after all established procedures
are followed.
I am very proud to say that Puerto Rico has already enacted a law
adopting Code Adam in its government buildings. With the adoption of
this amendment, all Federal buildings will also establish Code Adam to
ensure that we are prepared to respond quickly if a child is reported
missing.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Code Adam
amendment. Let us draw from the success achieved in stores across the
country and adopt it in Federal buildings, those that belong to the
people of the United States, and where all of us, but especially our
children, should be safest.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Lampson).
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, last year I joined my colleague, the
gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila), and Senator Hillary
Rodham Clinton to introduce the Code Adam Act. Code Adam is a proven,
successful program that has saved lives in the retail environment, and
it is time that we bring that same measure of safety to children in
Federal buildings, just as we have done with the effort to put bulletin
boards throughout all Federal buildings and display the pictures of
missing children.
Code Adam was created, as we have already heard, by Wal-Mart as a
special alert through a store's customer address system when a customer
reports a missing child. Since Code Adam began in 1994, it has been a
powerful tool against child abductions and lost children in more than
25,000 stores across the Nation.
This amendment would require the implementation of this protocol in
all Federal buildings. Wal-Mart started this fantastic program in the
name of Adam Walsh, John Walsh's son, who was abducted and murdered in
Florida over 20 years ago.
Every day I see children walking through the halls of Congress and in
Federal buildings back at home in Texas. God forbid, if a child would
go missing in one of these buildings, this amendment would make sure a
plan was in place to secure that building and find the child before
something tragic occurs.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my friend from
Puerto Rico's amendment.
Code Adam, one of the country's largest child-safety programs, was
created and promoted by the Wal-Mart retail stores and named in memory
of 6-year-old Adam Walsh whose abduction from a Florida shopping mall
and murder in 1981 brought the horror of child abduction to national
attention.
When a customer reports a missing child to a store employee, a ``Code
Adam'' alert is announced over the public-address system. A brief
description of the child is obtained and provided to all designated
employees who immediately stop their normal work to search for the
child, and monitor all exits to help prevent the child from leaving the
store.
If the child is not found within 10 minutes of initiating a store-
wide search, or if the child is seen accompanied by someone other than
a parent or guardian, store personnel contact the local police
department and request assistance.
Since the Code Adam program began in 1994, it has been a powerful
preventive tool against child abductions and lost children in more than
36,000 stores across the nation.
Despite its success, however, the only jurisdiction that has adopted
Code Adam for government buildings is Puerto Rico.
This amendment will direct each federal building (including here on
Capitol Hill) to establish a Code Adam program and procedures for
locating a child who is missing in a federal building.
As co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's
Caucus, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this very important
amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of the
Government Reform Committee, which has jurisdiction over federal
buildings, including buildings owned or leased by the U.S. Postal
Service, I rise in support of the Acevedo-Vila amendment.
My Committee did not have the opportunity to examine this proposal
before its consideration here on the floor as an amendment to the Child
Abduction Prevention Act. Nevertheless, since the underlying intent of
this legislation is to not only return abducted children to their
parents, which we do through the national AMBER Alert network, but to
keep them from being abducted in the first place, I believe
establishing procedures to locate missing children in public buildings
is a positive step.
This time of year, we all see the large numbers of children that come
to our nation's capital to visit the Smithsonian Museums, the
monuments, or to see the cherry blossoms. It makes sense for our public
facilities to have an established system to help keep these children
from either wandering away on their own or being taken away by a
kidnapper.
Every parent knows the heart-stopping panic that ensues when a child
suddenly is nowhere to be found. Having a ``Code Adam alert'' system in
place gives parents the peace of mind of knowing their children can be
returned to them quickly and safely. I urge my colleagues to give it
their support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Does any Member seek time in
opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Puerto
Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 8 printed in House Report 108-48.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of amendment No. 8 is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Smith of Texas:
Add at the end the following:
TITLE --
SEC. 01. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Obscenity and child pornography are not entitled to
protection under the First Amendment under Miller v.
California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (obscenity), or New York v.
Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (child pornography) and thus may
be prohibited.
(2) The Government has a compelling state interest in
protecting children from those who sexually exploit them,
including both child molesters and child pornographers. ``The
prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children
constitutes a government objective of surpassing
importance,'' New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982),
and this interest extends to stamping out the vice of child
pornography at all levels in the distribution chain. Osborne
v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110 (1990).
(3) The Government thus has a compelling interest in
ensuring that the criminal prohibitions against child
pornography remain enforceable and effective. ``The most
expeditious if not the only practical method of law
enforcement may be to dry up the market for this material by
imposing severe criminal penalties on persons selling,
advertising, or otherwise promoting the product.'' Ferber,
458 U.S. at 760.
(4) In 1982, when the Supreme Court decided Ferber, the
technology did not exist to:
(A) computer generate depictions of children that are
indistinguishable from depictions of real children;
(B) use parts of images of real children to create a
composite image that is unidentifiable as a particular child
and in a way that prevents even an expert from concluding
that parts of images of real children were used; or
(C) disguise pictures of real children being abused by
making the image look computer-generated.
(5) Evidence submitted to the Congress, including from the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
demonstrates that technology already exists to disguise
depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable and
to make depictions of real children appear computer-
generated. The technology will soon exist, if it does not
already, to computer generate realistic images of children.
(6) The vast majority of child pornography prosecutions
today involve images contained on computer hard drives,
computer disks, and/or related media.
(7) There is no substantial evidence that any of the child
pornography images being trafficked today were made other
than by the abuse of real children. Nevertheless,
technological advances since Ferber have led many criminal
defendants to suggest that the images of child pornography
they posses are not those of real children, insisting that
the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
images are not computer-generated. Such challenges increased
significantly after the decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
[[Page H2430]]
(8) Child pornography circulating on the Internet has, by
definition, been digitally uploaded or scanned into computers
and has been transferred over the Internet, often in
different file formats, from trafficker to trafficker. An
image seized from a collector of child pornography is rarely
a first-generation product, and the retransmission of
images can alter the image so as to make it difficult for
even an expert conclusively to opine that a particular
image depicts a real child. If the original image has been
scanned from a paper version into a digital format, this
task can be even harder since proper forensic assessment
may depend on the quality of the image scanned and the
tools used to scan it.
(9) The impact of the Free Speech Coalition decision on the
Government's ability to prosecute child pornography offenders
is already evident. The Ninth Circuit has seen a significant
adverse effect on prosecutions since the 1999 Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals decision in Free Speech Coalition. After
that decision, prosecutions generally have been brought in
the Ninth Circuit only in the most clear-cut cases in which
the government can specifically identify the child in the
depiction or otherwise identify the origin of the image. This
is a fraction of meritorious child pornography cases. The
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children testified
that, in light of the Supreme Court's affirmation of the
Ninth Circuit decision, prosecutors in various parts of the
country have expressed concern about the continued viability
of previously indicted cases as well as declined potentially
meritorious prosecutions.
(10) Since the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech
Coalition, defendants in child pornography cases have almost
universally raised the contention that the images in question
could be virtual, thereby requiring the government, in nearly
every child pornography prosecution, to find proof that the
child is real. Some of these defense efforts have already
been successful. In addition, the number of prosecutions
being brought has been significantly and adversely affected
as the resources required to be dedicated to each child
pornography case now are significantly higher than ever
before.
(11) Leading experts agree that, to the extent that the
technology exists to computer generate realistic images of
child pornography, the cost in terms of time, money, and
expertise is--and for the foreseeable future will remain--
prohibitively expensive. As a result, for the foreseeable
future, it will be more cost-effective to produce child
pornography using real children. It will not, however, be
difficult or expensive to use readily available technology to
disguise those depictions of real children to make them
unidentifiable or to make them appear computer-generated.
(12) Child pornography results from the abuse of real
children by sex offenders; the production of child
pornography is a byproduct of, and not the primary reason
for, the sexual abuse of children. There is no evidence that
the future development of easy and inexpensive means of
computer generating realistic images of children would stop
or even reduce the sexual abuse of real children or the
practice of visually recording that abuse.
(13) In the absence of congressional action, the
difficulties in enforcing the child pornography laws will
continue to grow increasingly worse. The mere prospect that
the technology exists to create composite or computer-
generated depictions that are indistinguishable from
depictions of real children will allow defendants who possess
images of real children to escape prosecution; for it
threatens to create a reasonable doubt in every case of
computer images even when a real child was abused. This
threatens to render child pornography laws that protect real
children unenforceable. Moreover, imposing an additional
requirement that the Government provide beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant knew that the image was in fact a
real child--as some courts have done--threatens to result in
the de facto legalization of the possession, receipt, and
distribution of child pornography for all except the
original producers of the material.
(14) To avoid this grave threat to the Government's
unquestioned compelling interest in effective enforcement of
the child pornography laws that protect real children, a
statute must be adopted that prohibits a narrowly-defined
subcategory of images.
(15) The Supreme Court's 1982 Feber v. New York decision
holding that child pornography was not protected drove child
pornography off the shelves of adult bookstores.
Congressional action is necessary now to ensure that open and
notorious trafficking in such materials does not reappear,
and even increase, on the Internet.
SEC. 02. IMPROVEMENTS TO PROHIBITION ON VIRTUAL CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY.
(a) Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer
image, or computer-generated image that is, or in
indistinguishable (as defined in section 1466A) from, that of
a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or''.
(b) Section 2256(2) of title 19, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), `sexually
explicit conduct' means actual or simulated--
``(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-
genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons
of the same or opposite sex:
``(ii) bestiality;
``(iii) masturbation;
``(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuses; or
``(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area
of any person;
``(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section,
`sexually explicit conduct' means--
``(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-
genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether
between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious
simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or
pubic area of any person is exhibited;
``(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
``(I) bestiality;
``(II) masturbation; or EXT .068 ...HOUSE... A27MR7 PC-
\J\019060-A27MR7-068-*****-*****--Name: BARKSDALE, SHARON A -
Payroll No: 04593-Folios: 152/9-152/11-Date: 03-27-03 23:20-
Subformat:
``(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
``(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the
genitals or pubic area of any person;''.
(c) Section 2256 is amended--
(1) in paragraph 8(D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) `graphic', when used with respect to a depiction of
sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe
any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person
or animal during any part of the time that the sexually
explicit conduct is being depicted.''.
(d) Section 2252A(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be
an affirmative defense to a charge of violating this section
that the production of the alleged child pornography did not
involve the use of a minor or an attempt or conspiracy to
commit an offense under this section involving such use.
``(2) A violation of, or an attempt or conspiracy to
violate, this section which involves child pornography as
defined in section 2256(8)(A) or (C) shall be punishable
without regard to the affirmative defense set forth in
paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 03. PROHIBITION ON PANDERING MATERIALS AS CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY.
(a) Section 2256(8) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end and
inserting ``and''; and
(2) by striking subparagraph (D).
(b) Chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting after section 2252A the following:
``Sec. 2252B. Pandering and solicitation
``(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection
(d), offers, agrees, attempts, or conspires to provide or
sell a visual depiction to another, and who in connection
therewith knowingly advertises, promotes, presents, or
describes the visual depiction with the intent to cause any
person to believe that the material is, or contains, a visual
depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct shall be subject to the penalties set forth in
section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for
cases involving a prior conviction.
``(b) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection
(d), offers, agrees, attempts, or conspires to receive or
purchase from another a visual depiction that he believes to
be, or to contain, a visual depiction of an actual minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct shall be subject to the
penalties set forth in section 2252A(b)(1), including the
penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
``(c) It is not a required element of any offense under
this section that any person actually provide, sell, receive,
purchase, possess, or produce any visual depiction.
``(d) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) and
(b) is that--
``(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance
of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or
in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or
foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in
furtherance of the commission of the offense;
``(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance
of the offense contemplates the transmission or
transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in
interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer;
``(3) any person who travels or is transported in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the
commission or in furtherance of the commission of the
offense;
``(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been
mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was
produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have
been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce
by any means, including by computer; or
``(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any
territory or possession of the United States.''; and
(2) in the table of sections at the beginning of the
chapter, by inserting after the item relating to section
2252A the following:
``2252B. Pandering and solicitation.''.
SEC. 04. PROHIBITION OF OBSCENITY DEPICTING YOUNG CHILDREN.
(a) Chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
[[Page H2431]]
(1) by inserting after section 1466 the following:
``Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual depictions of young children
``(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection
(d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses
with intent to distribute a visual depiction that is, or is
indistinguishable from, that of a pre-pubescent child
engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or attempts or
conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties set
forth in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties
provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
``(b) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection
(d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction that is, or is
indistinguishable from, that of a pre-pubescent child
engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or attempts or
conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties set
forth in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties
provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
``(c) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `visual depiction' includes undeveloped film
and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by
electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual
image, and also includes any photograph, film, video,
picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture,
whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other
means;
``(2) the term `pre-pubescent child' means that (A) the
child, as depicted, is one whose physical development
indicates the child is 12 years of age or younger; or (B) the
child, as depicted, does not exhibit significant pubescent
physical or sexual maturation. Factors that may be considered
in determining significant pubescent physical maturation
include body habitus and musculature, height and weight
proportion, degree of hair distribution over the body,
extremity proportion with respect to the torso, and
dentition. Factors that may be considered in determining
significant pubescent sexual maturation include breast
development, presence of axillary hair, pubic hair
distribution, and visual growth of the sexual organs;
``(3) the term `sexually explicit conduct' has the meaning
set forth in section 2256(2); and
``(4) the term `indistinguishable' used with respect to a
depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the
depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the
depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an
actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This
definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings,
cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or
adults.
``(d) The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and
(b) is that--
``(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance
of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or
in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer, or any means of instrumentality of interstate or
foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in
furtherance of the commission of the offense;
``(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance
of the offense contemplates the transmission or
transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, on in
interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer;
``(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in
furtherance of the commission of the offense;
``(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been
mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was
produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have
been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce
by any means; include by computer; or
``(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any
territory or possession of the United States.
``(e) In a case under subsection (b), it is an affirmative
defense that the defendant--
``(1) possessed less than three such images; and
``(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or
allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to
access any image or copy thereof--
``(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
``(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and
afforded that agency access to each such image.
``Sec. 1466B. Obscene visual representations of sexual abuse
of minors
``(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection
(e), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses
with intent to distribute a visual depiction of any kind,
including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
``(1) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit
conduct; and
``(2) is obscene;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the
penalties set forth in section 2252A(b)(1), including the
penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
``(b) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection
(e), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind,
including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
``(1) depicts a minor child engaging in sexually explicit
conduct, and
``(2) is obscene,
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the
penalties set forth in section 2252A(b)(2), including the
penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
``(c) It is not a required element of any offense under
this section that the minor child depicted actually exist.
``(d) For purposes of this section, the terms `visual
depiction' has the meaning given that term in section 1466A,
and the terms `sexually explicit conduct' and `minor' have
the meanings given those terms in section 2256(2)(B).
``(e) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) and
(b) is that--
``(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance
of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or
in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or
foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in
furtherance of the commission of the offense;
``(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance
of the offense contemplates the transmission or
transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in
interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer;
``(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in
furtherance of the commission of the offense;
``(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been
mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or
foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was
produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have
been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce
by any means, including by computer; or
``(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any
territory or possession of the United States.
``(f) In a case under subsection (b), it is an affirmative
defense that the defendant--
``(1) possessed less than three such images; and
``(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or
allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to
access any image or copy thereof--
``(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
``(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and
afforded that agency access to each such image.''; and
(2) in table of sections at the beginning of the chapter,
by inserting after the item relating to section 1466 the
following new items:
``1466A. Obscene visual depictions of young children.
``1466B. Obscene visual representations of pre-pubescent sexual
abuse''.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the applicable
category of offense to be used in determining the sentencing
range referred to in section 3553(a)(4) of title 18, United
States Code, with respect to any person convicted under
section 1466A or 1466B of such title, shall be the
category of offenses described in section 2G2.2 of the
Sentencing Guidelines.
(2) The Sentencing Commission may promulgate guidelines
specifically governing offenses under sections 1466A and
1466B of title 18, United States Code, provided that such
guidelines shall not result in sentencing ranges that are
lower than those that would have applied under paragraph (1).
SEC. 05. PROHIBITION ON USE OF MATERIALS TO FACILITATE
OFFENSES AGAINST MINORS.
Chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting at the end the following:
``Sec. 1471. Use of obscene material or child pornography to
facilitate offenses against minors
``(a) Whoever, in any circumstance described in subsection
(c), knowingly--
``(1) provides or shows to a person below the age of 16
years any visual depiction that is, or is indistinguishable
from, that of a pre-pubescent child engaging in sexually
explicit conduct, any obscene matter, or any child
pornography; or
``(2) provides or shows any obscene matter or child
pornography, or any visual depiction that is, or is
indistinguishable from, that of a pre-pubescent child
engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or provides any other
material assistance to any person in connection with any
conduct, or any attempt, incitement, solicitation, or
conspiracy to engage in any conduct, that involves a minor
and that violates chapter 109A, 110, or 117, or that would
violate chapter 109A if the conduct occurred in the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section
2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases
involving a prior conviction.
``(b) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `child pornography' has the meaning set
forth in section 2256(8);
``(2) the terms `visual depiction,' `pre-pubescent child',
and `indistinguishable' have the meanings respectively set
forth for those terms in section 1466A(c); and
``(3) the term `sexually explicit conduct' has the meaning
set forth in section 2256(2).
``(c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) is
that--
``(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance
of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or
in
[[Page H2432]]
interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or
foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in
furtherance of the commission of the offense;
``(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance
of the offense contemplates the transmission or
transportation of a visual depiction or obscene matter by the
mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means,
including by computer;
``(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or
foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in
furtherance of the commission of the offense;
``(4) any visual depiction or obscene matter involved in
the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means,
including by computer, or was produced using materials that
have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by
computer; or
``(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any
territory or possession of the United States.''; and
``(2) in the table of sections at the beginning of the
chapter, by inserting at the end the following:
``1471. Use of obscene material or child pornography to facilitate
offenses against minors.''.
SEC. 06. EXTRATERRITORIAL PRODUCTION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES.
Section 2251 is amended--
(1) by striking ``subsection (d)'' each place it appears in
subsections (a), (b), and (c) and inserting ``subsection
(e)'';
``(2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d),
respectively, as subsections (d) and (e); and
``(3) by inserting after subsection (b) a new subsection
(c) as follows:
``(c)(1) Any person who, in a circumstance described in
paragraph (2), employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or
coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any
other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct
outside of the United States, its possessions and
Territories, for the purpose of producing any visual
depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided
under subsection (e).
``(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) is
that--
``(A) the person intends such visual depiction to be
transported to the United States, its possessions, or
terrorities, by any means including by computer or mail, or
``(B) the person transports such visual depiction to, or
otherwise makes it available within, the United States, its
possessions, or territories, by any means including by
computer or mail.''.
SEC. 07. STRENGTHENING ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR REPEAT
OFFENDERS.
Sections 2251(e) (as redesignated by section__ 06(2)),
2252(b), and 2252A(b) of title 18, United States Code, are
each amended--
(1) by inserting ``chapter 71,'' immediately before each
occurrence of ``chapter 109A,''; and
(2) by inserting ``or under section 920 of title 10
(article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice),''
immediately before each occurence of ``or under the laws''.
SEC. 08. SERVICE PROVIDER REPORTING OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
AND RELATED INFORMATION.
(a) Section 227 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 13032) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``2252B,'' after ``2252A,''; and
(B) by inserting ``or a violation of section 1466A or 1466B
of that title,'' after ``of that title),'';
(2) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or pursuant to''
after ``to comply with'';
(3) by amending subsection (f)(1)(D) to read as follows:
``(D) where the report discloses a violation of State
criminal law, to an appropriate official of a State or
subdivision of a State for the purpose of enforcing such
State law.'';
(4) by redesignating paragraph (3) of subsection (b) as
paragraph (4); and
(5) by inserting after paragraph (2) of subsection (b) the
following new paragraph:
``(3) In addition to forwarding such reports to those
agencies designated in subsection (b)(2), the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children is authorized to forward
any such report to an appropriate official of a state or
subdivision of a state for the purpose of enforcing state
criminal law.''.
(b) Section 2702 of title 18, United States Code is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (6)--
(i) by inserting ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A)(ii);
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B); and
(iii) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph
(B);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7);
(C) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5); and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new
paragraph:
``(6) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, in connection with a report submitted thereto under
section 227 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 13032); or''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
(C) by adding after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) to the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, in connection with a report submitted thereto under
section 227 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 13032); or''.
SEC. 09. SEVERABILITY.
If any provision of this title, or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the
remainder of this title, and the application of such
provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other
circumstances, shall not be affected by such invalidation.
SEC. 10. INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY RELATING TO CHILD
PORNOGRAPHY.
Section 3486(A)(1)(C)(i) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``the name, address'' and all that
follows through ``subscriber or customer utilized'' and
inserting ``the information specified in section
2703(c)(2)''.
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
IN THE INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL CRIMES AGAINST
CHILDREN.
Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``1466A, 1466B,'' before ``2251''.
SEC. 12. RECORDKEEPING TO DEMONSTRATE MINORS WERE NOT USED
IN PRODUCTION OF PORNOGRAPHY.
Not later than 1 year after enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report detailing
the number of times since January 1993 that the Department of
Justice has inspected the records of any producer of
materials regulated pursuant to section 2257 of title 18,
United States Code, and section 75 of title 28 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. The Attorney General shall indicate the
number of violations prosecuted as a result of those
inspections.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 160, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) and a Member opposed each will control
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment as an important step to stop
the exploitation of our children. This amendment is directly connected
to the abduction of children, since children are abducted and sold into
the sex industry for both pornography and for prostitution.
The amendment addresses growing challenges to the government's
ability to prosecute child pornographers. It also includes a provision
to address child pornography that is produced overseas to be
distributed in the United States. The exploitation of any child is
unacceptable, and the United States must take affirmative steps to
prevent this exploitation wherever it occurs.
The amendment is essentially the same as the Child Obscenity and
Pornography Prevention Act, which passed the House in the last Congress
by a vote of 413 to 8. This legislation had strong bipartisan support.
Congress understood then what has become even more clear now, that this
legislation ensures the enforceability of existing child pornography
laws.
During the 1990s, advances in computer technology threatened the
government's ability to protect real children. Congress attempted to
address this concern in 1996 with the Child Pornography Prevention Act,
parts of which were subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court in
the Free Speech Coalition decision.
Regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the court's decision,
we must now deal with its consequences. Since that decision, defendants
in child pornography cases have routinely claimed that the depictions
of child pornography could be virtual, thus requiring the government to
prove first that the depicted image is a real person.
The mere existence of computer technology that creates virtual
depictions which are indistinguishable from depictions of actual
children allows defendants who possess images of real children to
escape prosecution. This Congress has an obligation to correct this
absurd permutation in the law.
Given the prevalence of the Internet, we absolutely cannot protect
our children if prosecutors must first complete
[[Page H2433]]
the almost impossible task of identifying the children depicted in
child pornography. Unless this amendment is adopted, the Supreme
Court's decision will effectively legalize all child pornography by
throwing an insurmountable burden in the face of the prosecution.
I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is
recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed as a fix for last year's
decision in Ashcroft versus Free Speech Coalition. The problem with the
amendment is that it has the same problems as the law that was struck
down. The Ashcroft case held that sale or possession of non-obscene
computer-generated material depicting child-like characters engaged in
explicit sexual activities does not constitute a crime. This bill says
it is a crime, just like the law that was struck down.
Child pornography and object are despicable and illegal and can and
are banned and prosecuted. These crimes and their severe punishments
are left intact by the Ashcroft decision. What the court struck down
was the criminalization of computer-generated and other depictions of
children, which is not obscene, in undesirable, including sexual,
situations where no child was actually involved in making the material.
We all see pornography as despicable, period. But under our laws,
pornography that is not obscene and does not involve real children is
just that, pornography. Whether we like it or not, the Supreme Court
has told us that pornography is not illegal. It is a category of speech
that is despicable but not illegal.
While pornography is legal, child pornography is illegal. But to
constitute child pornography, the Supreme Court has told us that a
child has to be involved in the production. Virtual computer-generated
images, therefore, unless they are obscene, are not illegal.
The law called into question in Ashcroft was a law enacted in 1996.
The problem the court found with the law was that, while it prohibited
images that constituted child pornography, it also prohibited images
that did not constitute child pornography, because actual children were
not involved in the production.
The court made it clear that protected speech may not be banned as a
means to ban unprotected speech. This would turn the first amendment
upside down.
Proponents of the bill believe that the court left intact or left
open the question of whether government can establish a sufficiently
compelling State interest to justify criminalization of computer-
generated images that are not obscene and do not involve real children.
However, the court cited in its decision New York versus Ferber from
1992 when it said, virtual images record no crime and creates no
victims by its production and therefore are legal.
Proponents also argue that the court did not consider the harm to
real children which would occur when, through technological advances,
it will become difficult to tell real children from virtual children,
thereby allowing real children to be harmed because the government
cannot tell the difference for the purpose of bringing prosecution.
But the court did clearly consider that, and stated, and I quote from
the decision, ``The government next argues that its objective of
eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children
necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well. Virtual images,
the government contends, are indistinguishable from the real ones. They
are part of the same market and often exchanged. In this way, it is
said virtual images promote the trafficking in works produced through
the exploitation of real children.''
But then the court says, and I continue quoting, ``The hypothesis is
somewhat implausible. If virtual images are identical to illegal child
pornography, the illegal images will be driven from the market by
indistinguishable substitutes. Few pornographers would risk prosecution
by abusing real children if fictional computer-generated images would
suffice.''
Nor was the court persuaded by the argument that virtual images will
make it difficult for the government to prosecute cases. As to that
concern, the court said, ``Finally, the government says that the
possibility of producing images by using computer imaging makes it
difficult for it to prosecute those who produce pornography using real
children. Experts, we are told, may have difficulty in saying whether
the pictures were made using real children or by using computer
imaging. The necessary solution, the argument runs, is to prohibit both
kinds of images.
``The argument,'' the court said, ``in essence is that protected
speech may be banned as a means to ban unprotected speech. This
analysis turns the first amendment upside down. The government may not
suppress lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful speech.''
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the government suggests that because the court
determined that it did not decide whether an affirmative defense could
save an otherwise unconstitutional law, it left open that possibility.
That may be technically true, but listen to what the court said: ``In
order to force this objection, the government would have us read the
CPPA as not a measure suppressing speech but as a law shifting the
burden to the accused to prove the speech is lawful. In this
connection, the government relies on an affirmative defense under the
statute which allows a defendant to avoid conviction for nonpossession
offenses by showing that the materials were produced using only adults
and were not otherwise distributed in a manner conveying the impression
that they depicted real children.
``The government raises serious constitutional difficulties by
seeking to impose on the defendant the burden of proving his speech was
not unlawful. The affirmative defense applies only after the
prosecution has begun, and the speaker must himself prove, on the pain
of felony conviction, that his conduct falls within the affirmative
defense.
``In cases under the CPPA, the evidentiary burden is not trivial.
Where the defendant is not the producer of the work, he may have no way
of establishing the identity or even the existence of the actors. If
the evidentiary issue is a serious problem for the government, as it
asserts, it will be at least as difficult for the innocent possessor.''
This statute, however, Mr. Chairman, by its very words, makes illegal
what the court said was legal. Five Justices joined in the majority
opinion. One concurred, one concurred in part and dissented in part,
two dissented.
With five Justices, all of whom are still on the court, agreeing with
the whole decision and only three dissenting in any part at all, this
is not a close decision with wavering members.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think we should avoid the necessity of the
court's telling us again that we cannot prosecute child pornography
unless real children were, in fact, involved in the production of the
material or unless they are otherwise legally obscene.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we should note the subsequent action in the
Ashcroft case. The trial court on February 7, just a few weeks ago,
ordered attorney's fees to the plaintiff on the grounds that the
government's defense of the statute was not substantially justified.
This is essentially the same statute. It says that virtual child images
can be made illegal. The court has said that virtual images cannot be
made illegal. Those of us who are familiar with our system of
government recognize that the same ruling by the same Supreme Court
will find this bill unconstitutional and unenforceable; and, therefore,
the amendment should be opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the April 16, 2002, Supreme
Court decision in Ashcroft versus Free
[[Page H2434]]
Speech Coalition. That decision struck down in 1996 a law written to
combat computer-generated pornography because it was too broad.
{time} 1230
The overturning of this law to combat child pornography has
emboldened those who would have used children. Regrettably, the
prediction of the president of the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children has come true. He said, ``The court's decision will
result in the proliferation of child pornography in America unlike
anything we have seen in more than 20 years.''
A Government Accounting Office report just 2 weeks ago found that in
the weight of the Supreme Court decision, child pornographers now are
increasing their presence on the Internet and are engaging in their
depraved actions with relative ease. The Internet has proved a useful
tool for pedophiles and sex predators as they distribute child
pornography, engage in sexually explicit conversations with children,
and hunt for victims in chat rooms.
Every parent should know what their children see and do online.
Unfortunately, the new playground for child pornographers is the
Internet.
Our children are the most vulnerable among us, and we need to protect
them. If this amendment becomes law, child pornographers will be a mere
click away from a lengthy prison sentence. This amendment increases
penalties and provides prosecutors with the tools they need to win
convictions against child pornographers, and it responds to the Supreme
Court's constitutional concerns by narrowing the definition of child
pornography and includes an affirmative defense when real children are
not depicted.
This amendment passed the House as separate legislation last year by
a vote of 413 to 8, but the Senate failed to act. I hope my colleagues
again will support the provisions in this amendment which will reduce
child pornography on the Internet.
Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record the analysis of the
constitutionality of this legislation.
Constitutional Analysis of the Smith Amendment to H.R. 1104--the
``Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act''
On April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free
Speech Coalition, held that two of Federal definitions of
child pornography unconstitutional. Sec. 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2256(8)(B), defined child pornography to include wholly
computer generated pictures that appear to be of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Sec. 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2256(8)(D), defined child pornography to include a
visual depiction where it is advertised, promoted, or
presented, to convey the impression that the material
contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually
explicit conduct.
The Court's decision does not bar Congress from outlawing
virtual child pornography when the prohibition is narrowly-
drawn to promote a compelling government interest. In fact,
the Court in its opinion, expressly left that option open for
Congress. The Court stated: ``We need not decide, however,
whether the Government could impose this burden on a speaker.
Even if an affirmative defense can save a statute from First
Amendment challenge, here the defense is incomplete and
insufficient, even on its own terms.'' Justice Thomas,
concurring, stated that the ``Court does leave open the
possibility that a more complete affirmative defense could
save a statute's constitutionality, see ante, at 1405,
implicitly accepting that some regulation of virtual child
pornography might be constitutional.'' No member of the Court
took exception with his conclusion.
Congress clearly has a compelling interest to protect
children from sexual exploitation. That interest extends to
the prosecution of those who exploit children. These
prosecutions are seriously threatened by the mere possibility
that technology exists to create a depiction of a virtual
child. This possibility allows those who harm real children
to claim that the child pornography they possess does not
contain real children.
Computer technology already exists today to disguise
depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable and
to make depictions of real children appear computer
generated. Furthermore, evidence was presented to the
Congress that the technology may already exist to depict
virtual children to look real and completely
indistinguishable.
Compounding the problem, is the fact that the vast majority
of child pornography prosecutions today involve images
contained on computer hard drives, computer disks, or related
media and that a computer image seized from a child
pornographer is rarely a first-generation product. These
pictures are e-mailed over and over again or scanned in from
photographs of real children being abused and exploited. The
transmission of images over an e-mail system can alter the
image and make it impossible even for an expert to know
whether or not a particular image depicts a real child. If
the original image has been scanned from a paper version into
a digital format, this task can be even harder since
proper forensic delineation may depend on the quality of
the image scanned and the tools used to scan it.
To prove a child is real will require identifying the
actual child. This is usually an impossible task. The
quandary is that while there is no substantial evidence that
any of the child pornography images being trafficked today
were made in any other way than by the abuse of real
children, technological advances are leading many criminal
defendants to suggest otherwise. These defendants are
claiming that the images they possess are not those of real
children, insisting that the government prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the images are not computer-generated.
This is not a new defense, but without a narrowly drafted
statute intended to prohibit the use of virtual child
pornography that an ordinary person viewing the depiction
could not distinguish from a depiction of a real child, it
will be impossible for the government to prosecute child
pornography cases involving computer images. Some in the
Court are cognizant that technology may threaten the
Government's compelling state interest of effective
prosecution of those who sexually exploit children and thus
threaten the Government's ability to protect children.
A representative from the Department of Justice testified:
As Justice Thomas noted in his concurring opinion, ``if
technological advances thwart prosecution of `unlawful
speech,' the Government may well have a compelling interest
in barring or otherwise regulating some narrow category of
`lawful speech' in order to enforce effectively laws against
pornography made through the abuse of real children.'' 122 S.
Ct. at 1406-07 (Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment).
Similarly, Justice O'Connor noted in her opinion concurring
in part and dissenting in part that, ``given the rapid pace
of advances in computer-graphics technology, the Government's
concern is reasonable.'' Id. at 1409. Moreover, to avert
serious harms, Congress may rely on reasonable predictive
judgments, even when legislating in an area implicating
freedom of speech. See Turner Broad. Sys. Inc. v. FCC 520
U.S. 180, 210-11 (1997). We believe that Congress has a
strong basis for concluding that the very existence of
sexually explicit computer images that are virtually
indistinguishable from images of real minors engaged in
sexually explicit conduct poses a serious danger to future
prosecutions involving child pornography. Indeed, we already
have some sense of the impact of the Court's decision. The
Ninth Circuit had invalidated the same provisions of law in
1999, and all accounts indicate that the number and scope of
child pornography prosecutions brought by our prosecutors in
the Ninth Circuit has been adversely impacted.
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech
Coalition, evidence of this growing threat is clear as
defendants in almost every child pornography case contend
that the depictions could be virtual, requiring the
prosecutors to prove that the children depicted are real.
Some of the defense efforts are succeeding. For example,
after Free Speech Coalition, a court granted the defendant's
motion to withdraw a guilty plea and held that the government
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew
that the images depicted real children.
Moreover, the existence of computer generated images of
child pornography that is indistinguishable from depictions
of real children will bolster the child pornography market
and those who abuse children to produce such pictures. The
majority opinion in Free speech Coalition stated, in dicta,
that ``if virtual images were identical to illegal child
pornography, the illegal images would be driven from the
market by the indistinguishable substitutes.'' Contrary to
that belief, the President and CEO of NCMEC ``believe[s] that
the Court's decision will result in the proliferation of
child pornography in America, unlike anything we have seen in
more than twenty years.'' He concluded that ``as a result of
the Court's decision, thousands of children will be sexually
victimized, most of whom will not report the offense.''
The Court stated that ``[f]ew pornographers would risk
prosecution by abusing real children if fictional,
computerized images would suffice.'' This conclusion is
simply wrong. The individuals who produce, trade, and
exchange child pornography are rarely profit motivated.
Pictures of abuse of real children are sold, but they are
also traded and displayed--they are trophies and signs of
validation for deviant behavior.
While the Supreme Court has certainly opened the door for
the adult entertainment industry to enter the child
pornography market, legalizing virtual child pornography will
not reduce the market for real children. Rather, the result
will be a market that contains both real and virtual children
(as it does now). The only difference is that now child
molesters will be able to hide their abuse with altered or
merely e-mailed photographs of their victims and the market
will no longer be underground but will return to the public
``adult book stores.''
Child pornography--virtual or otherwise--is detrimental to
the nation's most precious and vulnerable asset, our
children. Regardless of the method of its production, child
pornography is used to promote and incite deviant and
dangerous behavior in our society. As the President and CEO
of the NCMEC
[[Page H2435]]
testified ``there is compelling evidence that visual
depictions of sexually explicit conduct involving children
cause real physical, emotional and psychological damage not
only to depicted children but also to non-depicted children.
It is just as insidious, whether it is a photographic record
of a child's actual victimization, or a photographic
depiction used as a tool or device to subsequently victimize
other children.''
Sex predators produce, trade, and use child pornography for
several insidious purposes. Pedophiles not only like to
create a permanent record for arousal and gratification, but
also like to trade these pictures with other pedophiles to
validate their actions. Additionally, sex offenders use child
pornography to lower children's inhibitions to make them
believe that such behavior is acceptable and normal. There
are also those who sell it for profit.
Prior to 1982, child pornography lined the shelves of many
``adult'' entertainment stores. This changed after the 1982
Supreme Court's New York v. Ferber decision that found child
pornography was not entitled to First Amendment protection.
In Ferber, the Court found that: ``[i]t is evident beyond the
need for elaboration that a State's interest in `safeguarding
the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is
`compelling.' '' Further the Court found that: ``[t]he
distribution of photographs and films depicting sexual
activity by juveniles is intrinsically related to the sexual
abuse of children in at least two ways. First, the material
produced are a permanent record of the children's
participation and the harm to the child is exacerbated by
their circulation. Second, the distribution network for child
pornography must be closed if the production of material
which requires the sexual exploitation of children is to be
effectively controlled.''
While child pornography disappeared from bookstores
following Ferber, it did not disappear from existence.'' The
child pornography market merely went underground, but this
underground market was spurred by the advent of the Internet.
Nevertheless, law enforcement had begun to make enormous
strides in the enforcement and prosecution of child
pornography crimes.
Again, the Government has a compelling state interest in
protecting children from those who sexually exploit them
including both child molesters and child pornographers. The
Supreme Court in New York v. Ferber, concluded that ``[t]he
prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse of children
constitutes a government objective of surpassing
importance.'' In Osborne v. Ohio, the Court recognized that
this compelling state interest extends to stamping out the
vice of child pornography ``at all levels in the distribution
chain.''
It follows that the Government has a compelling interest to
ensure that the criminal prohibitions against child
pornography remain enforceable and effective. As the Court
stated in Ferber, ``[t]he most expeditious if not the only
practical method of law enforcement may be to dry up the
market for this material by imposing severe criminal
penalties on persons selling, advertising, or otherwise
promoting the product.''
It became apparent in the 1990's that advances in
technology threatened the Government's compelling state
interest in protecting real children through the effective
prosecution of the child pornography laws that cover the
visual depictions of real children. In 1996, the Congress
attempted to address this concern with the Child Pornography
Prevention Act. The 1996 language included a prohibition of
any virtual depictions as well as pictures of youthful-
looking adults. The Supreme Court found the 1996 statutory
language overbroad, and therefore, unconstitutional.
This legislation is constitutional as it narrows the
definition in significant ways and strengthens the
affirmative defense. Furthermore, there is a compelling state
interest for the narrowly drawn prohibition. The Government's
compelling state interest is to protect children from
exploitation. And the protection includes the prosecution of
those who would or do exploit children. The Court gave the
Congress an opportunity to addresses its concerns, and the
Congress has an obligation to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I have the greatest respect for the legal skill of my friend and
colleague from Virginia. I disagree with his take on this particular
amendment, however. I am a cosponsor of the legislation represented by
the amendment and am pleased today to speak for its passage.
I want to commend, in particular, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith), who in an exemplary bipartisan manner worked to build this
legislation, crafted around a very careful reading of the Supreme Court
ruling, a reference by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and
then forged the legislative response that will withstand Supreme Court
review.
This is not an exercise of making a statement only to be followed by
the inevitable Supreme Court ruling throwing out the legislation. This
one is written to withstand review to answer the constitutional
objections raised about the earlier legislation, and it comes at a
critical point in time for our country.
The Internet, as this wonderful new technology is changing so many
things, has had the unfortunate effect of enabling child pornographers
beyond ever before, at the very time when we have computer technology
being used in the creation and dissemination of graphic, completely
unacceptable child pornography. The legislation responds to that,
includes several different components that go beyond any component of
what might be in a free-speech argument, banning the use by an adult to
a minor, the exchange of this material over the Internet, commonly used
as part of an enticement procedure by perpetrators of those who would
exploit children and lure them into contact.
It creates a per se definition that explicit sexual acts depicted
between very young children is per se obscene. I believe this will make
a very useful contribution to our judges as they evaluate the unseemly
cases brought before them.
This is an important amendment. I urge its adoption.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North
Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his remarks.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains on our side.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Smith) has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) the vice-chairman of the
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Texas for yielding me the time, and I want to commend the gentleman for
this legislation.
This is a terribly important tool for prosecutors; and it is yet
another reason why this bill, this larger legislation, is such a
historic advance in the battle against those who would prey on our
kids. I know we all recognize that technology, quite frankly, is
outpacing our ability to deal with it, ethically and legally.
The computer information revolution has created a wonderful window on
the world for our young people, but its darker shadows and darker
moments can allow monsters into our home and, quite frankly, allow
monsters closer to our children.
We cannot and must not allow the porn industry to hide behind
emerging technologies and hyperlegal nuances. I refuse to say what the
opponents imply today, that is, that somehow child pornography becomes
a victimless crime with a couple of key strokes.
It is time to chase those dark shadows away. It is time to give
prosecutors the tools to fight back. It is time to give them what they
are asking for, the ability to shine a light on child pornography, the
ability to fight back and to end this terrible scourge. This is a
critical part, in my view, to a comprehensive response of child
abduction and those who would prey on our kids.
Again, I want to compliment the gentleman. I think this is a great
addition to this legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a very active member of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) as sponsor of the amendment.
A little over a year ago, a 13-year-old girl was abducted from her
home near Pittsburgh. She was found tied to a bed in a Herndon,
Virginia, townhome. The adult male abductor had met this girl on the
Internet and had bragged to other would-be child molesters that he had
finally found a young girl to make his sex slave.
The man had a history of viewing and exchanging child pornography
over the Internet. Currently, law enforcement has little power to stop
this. The bill today, which includes the AMBER
[[Page H2436]]
Alert, which helps to locate abducted children, it also includes, most
importantly, laws to strengthen the ability to ensure children are not
abducted in the first place.
The amendment further strengthens the bill by making it illegal to
possess, distribute or create computer or computer-related images
depicting child pornography. Child pornography feeds the sick desires
of pedophiles. It entices its viewers to take advantage of real young
children.
This amendment provides another tool to get perpetrators of child
abuse and child pornography off the streets and out of Internet chat
rooms before more children are targeted.
With the Smith amendment, this bill will close the door left open by
the Supreme Court decision last April that overturned similar
provisions of a 1996 law. I encourage my colleagues to think first of
the children and the families who have been so unnecessarily harmed by
child abductors and child molesters in our Nation.
This law, with this amendment attached, will go a long way to
preventing those horrible stories that we so hate to hear on the news.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The Supreme Court told us that virtual images produced without real
children cannot be prohibited unless they are obscene. The bright line
is a person has got to use real children for it to be illegal. This
bill says that virtual images without using children are illegal. The
same Supreme Court will make the same decision.
This amendment is unconstitutional and ought to be rejected.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote; and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 2
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney), amendment No. 8
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second vote in
this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Feeney
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Feeney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 357,
noes 58, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 87]
AYES--357
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--58
Abercrombie
Allen
Baird
Becerra
Berman
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Majette
McCollum
McDermott
Meek (FL)
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Paul
Payne
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Snyder
Stark
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Woolsey
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Owens
NOT VOTING--18
Ballance
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Clay
Combest
Conyers
Cummings
Dingell
Fletcher
Gephardt
Hyde
Jefferson
McCarthy (MO)
McCotter
Miller, George
Oxley
Solis
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). The Chair advises Members there are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.
[[Page H2437]]
{time} 1302
Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. DeGETTE, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. MILLENDER-
McDONALD, Messrs. RUSH, MEEK of Florida, KUCINICH, BECERRA, Ms.
JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia and Mr. RAHALL changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. BERKLEY, Messrs. HINOJOSA, LARSON of Connecticut,
WEXLER, PETERSON of Pennsylvania and Ms. HARMAN changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. BALLANCE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 87, I was in attendance
at a meeting of the CBC Foundation at the National Press Club and did
not return in time to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``no.''
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The remaining
question in this series will be a 5-minute vote.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406,
noes 15, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 88]
AYES--406
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--15
Abercrombie
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Lee
McDermott
Nadler
Paul
Rush
Sanders
Scott (VA)
Stark
Watt
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--13
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Clay
Combest
Fletcher
Gephardt
Hyde
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
Miller, George
Rodriguez
Skelton
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1311
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 88, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 1104) to prevent child abduction, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 160, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H2438]]
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This 15-minute vote on the passage of H.R.
1104 will be followed by two 5-minute votes on postponed suspensions.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410,
noes 14, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 89]
AYES--410
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--14
Conyers
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Lee
McDermott
Mollohan
Oberstar
Paul
Sabo
Sanders
Scott (VA)
Stark
Waters
Watt
NOT VOTING--10
Brown, Corrine
Buyer
Clay
Combest
Fletcher
Gephardt
Hyde
McCarthy (MO)
McCotter
Miller, George
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1330
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. LEE and Mr. SANDERS changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________