[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.

                          ____________________