[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 58 (Thursday, April 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3059-H3076]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 151, PROSECUTORIAL REMEDIES AND TOOLS AGAINST 
             THE EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN TODAY ACT OF 2003

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 188

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (S. 151) to amend title 18, United States Code, with 
     respect to the sexual exploitation of children. All points of 
     order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a ``normal'' 
conference report rule for S. 151, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other 
Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, or the 
PROTECT Act.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a 
controversial rule. It is the type of rule that we grant for every 
conference report that we consider in the House.
  The PROTECT Act sends a clear message to those who prey upon children 
that if they commit these crimes, they will be punished. This 
legislation provides stronger penalties against kidnapping, ensures 
lifetime supervision of sexual offenders and kidnappers of children, 
gives law enforcement the tools it needs to effectively prosecute these 
crimes, and provides assistance to the community when a child is 
abducted.
  To accomplish this, S. 151 establishes an AMBER Alert coordinator 
within the Department of Justice to assist States with their AMBER 
Alert plans. This coordination will eliminate gaps in the network, 
including gaps in interstate travel, work with States to encourage 
development of additional AMBER plans, and serve as a nationwide point 
of contact.
  The AMBER program 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 is to 
instantly galvanize the entire community to assist in the search for, 
and the safe return of, that child.
  I am pleased that this legislation also authorizes $20 million for 
fiscal year 2004 for the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to 
States for the development or enhancement of notification or 
communication systems along the highways. I am sure Members have seen 
those reader board signs. These signs are for alerts and other 
information for the recovery of abducted children. Doing this will 
enable all 50 States to implement this life-saving program, and we have 
seen several examples of it working lately to literally save children's 
lives.
  For those individuals who would harm a child, we must ensure that 
punishment is severe and that sexual predators are not allowed to slip 
through the cracks of the system to harm other children. To this end, 
this legislation provides a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence of 
imprisonment for stranger abductions of a child under the age of 18, 
lifetime supervision for sex offenders and mandatory life imprisonment 
for second-time offenders; and we all know that is a very common 
occurrence.
  This responds to the long-standing concerns of Federal judges and 
prosecutors regarding the inadequacy of the existing supervision period 
for sex offenders, particularly for the perpetrators of child sexual 
abuse crimes, whose criminal conduct may reflect deep-seated deviant 
sexual disorders, and they are not likely to disappear within a few 
years of release from prison.
  Furthermore, S. 151 removes any statute of limitation and opportunity 
for pretrial release for crimes of child abduction and sex offenses. 
Oftentimes it is years later that sex offenses come to light because a 
child is afraid to speak out. That is why this conference report is so 
important. Not only does it come to the aid of the children after the 
abduction with the AMBER Alert, it aims to prevent the abduction with 
the provisions I just mentioned.
  I also want to applaud the conferees for including legislation 
authored by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) that would punish 
those who use misleading domain names to attract children to sexually 
explicit Internet sites. It accomplishes this goal by increasing the 
penalties and provides prosecutors with enhanced tools to prosecute 
those seeking to lure children to porn Web sites. As a mother and 
grandmother, it is hard for me to understand how anyone can prey on a 
defenseless child.

[[Page H3060]]

  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the 
underlying bill. It is imperative for our Nation to protect our most 
valuable resource, our children.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by passing this conference report today, 
Congress can finally end the 6 months of political maneuvering that 
have delayed my legislation to help set up a nationwide network of 
AMBER Alerts. The AMBER plan was named for a young girl, Amber 
Hagerman, who was kidnapped and murdered in Arlington, Texas, in my 
congressional district.
  Make no mistake, this conference report is not perfect. It contains 
some needlessly controversial provisions dealing with our criminal 
laws. For that reason, some Members will oppose it.
  The AMBER Alert Network Act, which I first introduced in the House of 
Representatives with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) last 
year, should have been law long, long ago. It passed the Senate 
unanimously twice. The President made clear his support for it, and 230 
Democrats and Republicans cosponsored it in the House, a clear 
majority. But for more than 6 months now, House Republican leaders 
refused to allow the House to vote on this bipartisan bill to protect 
America's children. And 2 weeks ago, 218 House Republicans ignored a 
last minute letter from the family of Elizabeth Smart and voted to 
support their leadership and block consideration of the stand-alone 
AMBER bill.
  Mr. Speaker, it should not have been this hard; but we can now see an 
end to this matter. We now are about to finally enact this very 
important legislation.
  We know the AMBER Alert system works. Since it was created in north 
Texas in 1997, it has helped recover 53 abducted children, five of them 
in the month of March alone. But it does not work where it does not 
exist. That is why the AMBER Alert Network Act, which this conference 
report includes, is so important because it will help set up a 
nationwide network of AMBER Alerts.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a long road, and a lot of dedicated 
Americans have worked very hard to pass this bill. In the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Holt), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson), who represents the family of Elizabeth Smart, have 
worked very hard. I wanted to thank the Democratic members of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, especially the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the Subcommittee on Crime 
ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who have been 
extraordinarily helpful throughout this process. I also thank my friend 
and colleague, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), who joined 
with me to introduce the AMBER bill in the House, and of course 
Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, Diane Feinstein, and Hillary Rodham 
Clinton have done a marvelous job leading the effort in the Senate.
  Outside of the Congress, much credit goes to the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children, to the National Association of Police 
Organizations, to Marc Klaas and the Polly Klaas Foundation, and to all 
of the organizations and individuals who worked to expand AMBER Alerts 
nationwide.
  Finally, I want to personally thank Ed Smart, who in an extraordinary 
statement on the eve of the safe recovery of his daughter, Elizabeth 
Smart, spoke directly to the American public and this Congress and 
urged the prompt enactment of the AMBER Alert bill.
  Mr. Speaker, this is long overdue. This will save children throughout 
the United States. I commend this legislation to this House and to the 
President.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on 
this rule, and I rise in support of the rule for S. 151, which is aimed 
at combating child exploitation and abuse. As co-chair of the 
Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), I know full well the need for new 
and increased penalties and the need to expend more resources to 
enforce current law.
  I would like to commend the work of both the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the conference committee for bringing this 
outstanding package to the floor today. With provisions like 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, expanding the relationship 
between the United States Secret Service and the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children, and of course the AMBER Alert Act, all 
make this legislation another nail in the coffin of those who prey on 
the most innocent in our society, our children.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will help bring pedophiles and others who 
intend to do children harm to justice. I would, however, like to take a 
moment to express some concern I have about one of the provisions that 
was put into the final package relating to the Volunteers for Children 
Act. This law, which the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and I 
championed, was designed to provide further protection for our Nation's 
children by allowing youth-serving nonprofit organizations such as the 
Boys and Girls Club, the National Council for Youth Sports, and the 
National Mentoring Group to request national fingerprint background 
checks in the absence of State laws providing such access.
  However, since the Volunteers for Children Act was enacted in 1998, 
only a very few States have complied with this law.

                              {time}  1045

  As a result, for the past year, I have been working towards a 
permanent solution with the Senate and the chairman to correct this 
problem once and for all.
  Though I applaud both the chairman and the conference committee on 
recognizing the need to address this longstanding problem, the efforts 
to correct it leave much to be done. I hope that we can work with the 
chairman to provide the necessary protection to millions of children 
participating in both the local and nationwide after-school and 
volunteer-run programs by giving these groups the access they need to 
criminal background checks of their volunteers.
  We have tried it in Florida. It has been immensely successful. It has 
been applauded by child advocate groups. It has been applauded by the 
FDLE, Florida Department of Law Enforcement's head, Tim Moore. We have 
used it extensively to provide protection for our children and 
volunteer organizations.
  The fingerprint check is the only absolute way we can ensure that 
those working with our children are, in fact, clean of past histories 
that would cause them to come into difficult situations with our 
children.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I do offer my full support for the overall 
package and encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule and, of 
course, for the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is well known that in the time that I have 
spent as a Member of this Congress, I have consistently supported 
legislation that will enhance the protection of our children. This 
year, we received an enormous shot in the arm when Elizabeth Smart was 
returned to her family, and I am reminded of the very potent words of 
her father in the early hours after her return, pass a straight up-or-
down AMBER Alert bill, and that it was the community, including of 
course his wonderful young daughter, who really helped bring Elizabeth 
home. It was

[[Page H3061]]

the community who began to hear the announcements and various citizens 
throughout his great State began to call in various information in 
order to help the police locate Elizabeth.
  And so, legislation that this was supposed to be is a good effort. 
The AMBER Alert, nationalizing it, is a good effort.
  It concerns me that there would be those who would undermine or 
diminish the importance of having a national AMBER Alert by suggesting 
that it was not enough, that there are many rural and urban communities 
and States that do not have the system and that this bill will help.
  By and large, reluctantly I will ultimately be supporting the final 
passage of this legislation, but not the rule. I thought, when the 
conference met that we would reasonably understand that certain aspects 
this legislation are, in fact, destructive of our civil liberties and 
civil justice and criminal justice systems.
  For example, I abhor pornography. I am reminded of the Supreme Court 
statement: I will know it when I see it. But there is certainly a 
question of the first amendment as it relates to virtual pornography, 
meaning that it is not an actual child; and clearly, under the rights 
of privacy, although I abhor it, though I hope no one is doing it on 
their jobs or in places that are inappropriate, virtual pornography is 
what it is, Mr. Speaker. It is clearly pictures depicted, and not of 
real and actual children, which would be absolutely intolerable.
  Then we go to the next, I believe, offensive provision of this 
legislation which will cause me to vote against the rule, be it called 
for in a roll call or verbally, and that is the complete disrespect and 
insult to Article III, Federal courts, courts that have the oversight 
and affirmational confirmation process of the United States Senate and 
nomination by the President of the United States; the recognition that 
there are three branches of government; the three branches of 
government are administrative, executive, and legislative.
  In this bill designed to ensure that our children can be found, we 
have taken the liberty of undermining and putting a spear, if the 
Members will, in the jurisdiction and discretion of our Federal courts, 
our Federal judges, by in fact requiring a mandatory directive as to 
what they should do with respect to child sex offense pornography and 
other sex offenses.
  We are not in the courtroom, Mr. Speaker. We are not hearing the 
testimony.
  As I indicated, I abhor violations against children and it is our 
responsibility to ensure their safety. Parts of this bill will do that. 
But to intrude upon Article III courts, I would say to my colleagues is 
dancing on very troubling ground and as we begin to undermine the 
court's jurisdiction here, the question is, what next, to the Federal 
courts whose lips are silenced because they are on the Federal bench?
  I would encourage my colleagues to discuss this in their judicial 
conference and begin to assess what this Congress is doing, which is 
undermining the Federal judiciary.
  It is my hope that someone somewhere, Mr. Speaker, will find a way to 
undo this legislation as it relates to the intrusion upon our Federal 
courts and the complete imploding of the separation of these powers and 
the disrespect that is being given to these courts not to allow them to 
have the discretion to make the appropriate decision for the defendant 
and the plaintiff and the State that is in the courtroom.
  I ask my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the rule. The rule was actually necessitated 
over a debate about what this bill should include.
  Some of the opponents of the rule suggested it should include just 
the AMBER Alert system, and as they well know, actually the AMBER Alert 
system has already been instituted by Bush administration. It reminds 
me of an experience that Adlai Stevenson shared when he was running for 
President in 1956. At the end of what he thought was a great speech of 
about 40 or 45 minutes, a woman from the audience came up and said, Mr. 
Stevenson, I thought your speech was simply superfluous. To which he 
responded, to test whether she really had a full grasp of the English 
language, Thank you, Madam; I am thinking of having it published 
posthumously, to which she replied, Wonderful, the sooner, the better.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) in his effort to make sure that what we are doing today 
is not superfluous. The AMBER Alert system is wonderful at attempting 
to retrieve children that are kidnapped and transported over State 
borders, but it is already in effect.
  What we have tried to do in the committee under the leadership of the 
chairman is to deter and punish people and put them behind bars for a 
long time, who are actually about to kidnap, abuse, or sexually offend 
against minors. That is what this bill ultimately did, thanks to the 
leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner).
  One of the provisions that has been added, I have a particular 
interest in. It has been referred to as the Feeney amendment. This bill 
with the amendment in it, as it has been modified in conference, 
addresses a serious problem of downward departures from the Federal 
Sentencing Guidelines by judges across the country. Although the 
guidelines continue to state that departures should be rare 
occurrences, they have actually proven to have been 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 is up by an overwhelming 50 percent in just the last 5 years 
alone. And by the way, the rate of departures downwards is 33 times 
higher than the rate the Federal judges depart upwards from the 
sentencing guidelines.
  The Department of Justice believes that much of the damage is 
traceable to the Supreme Court decision in King v. United States. 
Actually, that decision has led to an accelerated rate of downward 
departures by judges.
  What this bill now does is to contain a number of provisions designed 
to ensure a more faithful adherence to the laws of the United States, 
as passed by this Congress. Specifically, the amendment, as it was 
adjusted in conference, would put strict limits on departures for child 
crimes and sex offenders by allowing sentences outside the guideline 
only upon grounds that are specifically enumerated by the judge. This 
is important because it limits the judge's discretion, forces the judge 
to explain what he has done, and provides an opportunity for the 
prosecutors to appeal if the judge has been completely unfaithful.
  There are a number of other reported provisions that are contained in 
the Feeney amendment. It calls for the Sentencing Commission to review 
and revise the departures from guidelines for all other cases that do 
not involve offenses against children, provides for the Department of 
Justice to have access to existing judge-identifying database 
maintained by the Commission, and it does also provide there will be a 
report to Congress every year by the Department of Justice reflecting 
the reforms of internal appellate review practices for these downward 
departures.
  Finally, it provides that no more than three of the commissioners to 
the Sentencing Guideline Commission can come from the ranks of the 
Federal judiciary.
  This is a great victory today. It is a great victory for children. It 
is a great victory for those of us who do not want to just retake 
possession of children that have been kidnapped or abused, but those of 
us who want to prevent the abuse and the kidnapping to begin with.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I would like to engage my colleague from Florida in a colloquy if he 
would be so inclined. I ask my colleague his understanding of the 
modifications that took place in conference, because Members have come 
to several of us

[[Page H3062]]

asking us our understanding; and quite frankly, I am not clear and 
perhaps he can help us to understand whether or not it, in fact, was 
modified as it pertains to all sex crimes or was it modified to include 
just sexually exploited situations as it pertains to children.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say to my good friend in that, 
in the first place, the primary source rule probably ought to be in 
effect here. I was not part of the conference committee, and what I 
have is a review of that.
  I do note that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) 
is on the floor, paying close attention; so at a minimum, I hope he 
will correct me for any deficiencies.
  As I understand it, with respect to being more restrictive in terms 
of when Federal judges can depart downward from the guidelines, the 
original Feeney amendment actually applied to all Federal offenses. 
With respect to that downward departure restriction that we are doing 
now, it only applies to offenses against children, sex offenses, 
kidnapping, abuse, pornography. It does not apply to offenses outside 
that specific realm.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, so the antiquated sexual 
offenses are not contemplated under the gentleman's amendment as he 
understands it?
  Mr. FEENEY. As I understand what the conference committee report did, 
it is actually Hatch-Sensenbrenner-Graham, referring to Senator Bob 
Graham, who is a colleague of ours from Florida. I am sorry, Lindsey 
Graham; it is tough when we have got too many Grahams running around.
  In fairness to the gentleman, I should suggest that with respect to 
providing for de novo reviews of downward departures, that will apply 
to all Federal offenses, and the gentleman will remember the King v. 
United States case, the Rodney King incident where, for example, the 
Congressional Black Caucus was very concerned and issued a letter 
suggesting that we provide this de novo review; so I think we have got 
the best of both worlds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my good friend 
from Florida, and he is my good friend, to take into consideration when 
we decry downward departures that the people that are on the firing 
line, the Article III judges, make those departures after very careful 
consideration.

                              {time}  1100

  Having served in that branch of government at one point and being an 
opponent, as almost universally the Federal judges were, of mandatory 
sentencing and sentencing guidelines, it is not to be taken lightly.
  I agree with the gentleman that the appellate review is more than 
necessary and reporting regarding same should be important. But please 
do not take the downward departures to mean that the judges did not see 
something that we do not have an opportunity, when we make these laws, 
to clearly understand what the judge in fact saw and heard in the 
sentencing provision, or even in the trial.
  I could cite numerous examples where downward departures have saved 
families and lives. I would hope my friend would understand that.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me. I am grateful to the gentlewoman.
  In the first place, the honorable gentleman has me at a disadvantage 
because he has been a member of the other part of our government, and I 
am respectful of the fact that he has some wisdom and insights that I 
do not.
  I would suggest, however, that what we are doing here is not 
eliminating the ability of judges to depart from the sentencing 
guidelines; we are preserving their right and asking them to explain 
why they did so.
  Finally, I would make the point to the gentleman that if the 
departure ratio was 33 times higher than sentencing guidelines, for 
every time that there is one below the guidelines, I would suggest to 
him that we might be hearing from the American Civil Liberties Union, 
the Criminal Defense Association, and the American Bar Association with 
a sense of outrage that people with disparate treatment are being 
abused by having too much sentences imposed on them.
  By the way, historically in America there have been suggestions, and 
I do not have any studies to back it up, that racial and ethnic 
minorities have been particularly abused along those lines.
  I would suggest we have struck a balance here.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would make the comment that the hope would be that we do not chill 
the Federal judiciary with departure restrictions. I think it would be 
a mistake on our behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), a gentleman who has been and 
continues to be a stalwart in the way of providing for the AMBER Alert, 
a leader in this regard.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to rise in support of this conference report, and certainly to 
thank all of the people who have worked on it: the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), for bringing the legislation; the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Dunn) on the AMBER Alert itself; and looking into the overall 
larger bill, which I became a cosponsor of early on, the work that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) has done on the Congressional Caucus 
on Missing and Exploited Children, along with me and about 150 other 
Members of the House of Representatives, as we have worked diligently 
to try to make a difference in this issue that deals with child 
protection.
  I have spoken for 2 years on this issue and am thrilled to see the 
kind of interest that this has brought right now and the support it has 
brought from across our House of Representatives and the Senate.
  We all know about the AMBER Alert and what it is and why it is such a 
good thing. So right now I really do not want to talk so much about it, 
but to talk about the larger role of who is playing a role in this 
overall effort: the Members of the House, the Senate, their staffs. The 
work that has been done in the last several months, I think, is 
extremely impressive.
  Certainly, I would mention the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children and what they have done since their involvement in 
this issue for the last more than 20 years. There is the FBI, the 
Customs Service, and local law enforcement officials, as well as the 
media who also are a big part of the AMBER Alert.
  I want to thank the families and friends of Laura Kate Smither, the 
little girl who was abducted and murdered in 1997, who actually was the 
inspiration for the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited 
Children. I stand here today in honor of Laura and with the hopes that 
this important piece of legislation will prevent the abduction and 
exploitation of children across America.
  I also rise in support of this conference report, because it helps 
the Secret Service continue its work on behalf of missing children. 
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 in 
cases involving missing and exploited children.
  This began a 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 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
and to local law enforcement in numerous missing children's cases. They 
have indeed made significant differences.
  However, there is a clear need to provide explicit statutory 
jurisdiction to the Secret Service to continue this forensic and 
investigative support upon

[[Page H3063]]

request of local law enforcement or the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children. The Secret Service amendment, which was adopted and 
is part of the S. 151 conference report, will do just that.
  I want to conclude and say, support the conference report. With the 
help of the Secret Service, these organizations will be able to 
continue their work.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record two letters, one from the 
National Mentoring Partnership and the other from the National Council 
of Youth Sports, in support of this bill.
  The letters referred to are as follows:
                                                   MENTOR/NATIONAL


                                        Mentoring Partnership,

                                   Alexandria, VA, April 10, 2003.
     Hon. Jim Sensenbrenner,
     House Committee on the Judiciary, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: MENTOR/National Mentoring 
     Partnership is pleased to note that the Conference report of 
     the ``Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the 
     Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003'' includes 
     provisions to improve volunteer organizations' access to 
     criminal background checks on prospective volunteers. MENTOR 
     commends the Conferees for including these critical 
     provisions, which are a step towards helping mentoring and 
     other volunteer organizations effectively screen out those 
     individuals who may harm rather than help a child.
       Volunteer organizations that serve vulnerable populations--
     namely children, the elderly, and individuals with 
     disabilities--require access to accurate, timely, and 
     complete criminal background checks. If a background check 
     does not meet these criteria, a human service organization 
     could unwittingly hire or engage as a volunteer a person with 
     a dangerous criminal past--such as child or elder abuse, 
     molestation or rape, or a host of other offenses--to care for 
     their clientele. That puts children and other vulnerable 
     people needlessly at risk.
       This is a vital issue for mentoring programs throughout the 
     nation because the current system is simply not functioning. 
     To get a nationwide check under current law, a volunteer 
     organization must apply through their state agency. While a 
     few states are responsive to these requests, in the majority 
     of the states it is exceedingly difficult and often 
     impossible to obtain a nationwide check. Many states have not 
     authorized an agency to handle background check requests, or 
     interpret federal law so narrowly that very few human service 
     organizations are deemed eligible to apply for the checks. 
     When a nationwide check can be performed, it is often 
     prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.
       The Conference report for the PROTECT Act includes a study 
     that will assess the nationwide and state criminal background 
     check system, and make recommendations on how to ensure that 
     human service organizations can promptly and affordably 
     conduct these important checks. The Conference report also 
     establishes a pilot program to test out two possible methods 
     of streamlining access to nationwide criminal record checks. 
     The pilot program will enable mentoring organizations to 
     receive nationwide checks and protect children while a 
     reliable solution to this problem is found.
       MENTOR, which serves over 4,000 mentoring programs 
     throughout the country, believes that these provisions are an 
     important step towards reliable, accurate, and timely 
     criminal record checks for volunteer organizations. MENTOR 
     urges Congress to support and promptly enact the criminal 
     background check provisions included in the PROTECT Act 
     Conference report.
           Yours truly,
                                                       Gail Manza,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               National Council of


                                                 Youth Sports,

                                        Stuart, FL, April 8, 2003.
       Dear Congressman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the 38,000,000 
     boys and girls the National Council of Youth Sports (NCYS) 
     membership represents, we extend a sincere thank you for your 
     commanding efforts to press forward on the issue of 
     background checks for volunteers. The NCYS proudly accepts 
     being one of three organizations that will participate in the 
     eighteen-month pilot project, within the Amber Alert bill, 
     whereby 100,000 background checks (33,000 each) will be 
     performed by the FBI.
       We are grateful to each and every one of you for taking the 
     first step in this vital child safety initiative. This is 
     just the beginning, there is so much more that needs to be 
     done. As we move forward we will want to work together to 
     better understand some of the concerns. For example, while an 
     $18 fee for a background check may sound reasonable and be 
     acceptable in more affluent communities, an $18 fee in the 
     economically disadvantaged areas is unaffordable and will 
     leave our children unprotected from convicted sexual abusers. 
     The underprivileged economic areas are often our most 
     vulnerable programs allowing the predators to prey on the 
     weakest. Therefore, it is not only our desire but also our 
     fundamental responsibility to realize out determined goal for 
     free, easily acceptable background checks regardless of one's 
     economic circumstances.
       The NCYS is a very strong and powerful group. A sampling of 
     our membership consists of the national organizations of 
     Little League Baseball, Pop Warner Football/Little Scholars, 
     American Youth Soccer Organizations, Boys & Girls Clubs of 
     America, Amateur Athletic Union, etc. We are prepared to 
     mobilize our grassroots millions and move our public 
     relations vehicles forward to secure a meaningful, sound and 
     effective piece of child safety legislation for reliable and 
     rapid background checks with one national database that is 
     federally funded so that our innocent children will be 
     protected from abuse and sexual victimization.
       In the meantime, we are very anxious to begin the process 
     through this pilot project. We look forward to working 
     closely together as we all engage in a conscientious manner 
     to provide our children the protection they deserve while 
     living in America's neighborhoods that are safe and secure 
     from convicted predators.
           Respectfully,
                                              Sally S. Cunningham,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Dunn), the author of the AMBER Alert system.
  Ms. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  On behalf of The Ed 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 
express my gratitude to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner), to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, to 
the House leadership, and to my coauthor of the AMBER Alert, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for working together, for joining 
together to make our work on AMBER Alert a reality.
  The AMBER Alert program will contribute hugely to the safety and the 
well-being of our Nation's children. As a mother of two sons and soon-
to-be grandmother, I join with all the parents and the grandparents in 
appreciating how critical it is to have all communities have the access 
and the full ability to protect their children from kidnappers who seek 
to harm our little ones.
  To date, AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe recovery of 53 
children. We know the AMBER Alert system works by allowing communities 
to tap into the resources of an educated public, to prepare local law 
enforcement, and engage the media in reuniting children with their 
loving families.
  The media and an educated public, for example, were absolutely 
critical in the safe return of Elizabeth Smart to her family a few 
weeks ago. President Bush showed very strong and early support for our 
bill last year; and thanks to his good sense, he took the first steps 
by providing grants to States and localities to help establish local 
AMBER Alert programs.
  It is now time for Congress to codify the AMBER Alert. We need to 
provide additional funding. We need to provide additional oversight to 
empower every single State and community with the tools and the 
resources to react quickly to child abductions and bring these children 
safely home to the arms of their parents.
  I applaud the leadership and the commitment of both the House and 
Senate conferees for moving this bill through the legislative process 
so quickly so that it can arrive on the President's desk before the 
Easter break. All of us should be proud for enacting a law that will 
help prevent crimes against our most vulnerable citizens, our children. 
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who 
was formerly a member of the Ohio judiciary.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman 
for yielding time to me.
  It is not often that we have the opportunity to use our prior 
experience to discuss a piece of legislation. For those who are not 
aware, I was a judge for 10 years in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, handling 
cases not only dealing with civil matters but also cases where the 
death penalty could in fact be imposed.
  I am the former district attorney for Cuyahoga County, Ohio, where I 
prosecuted cases with a staff of 180 lawyers for 8 years, and now I get 
to the third branch of government, the legislative.
  I recognize that often in response to incidents or occurrences we 
want to

[[Page H3064]]

jump up and pass legislation that we think will have a deterrent 
impact. But I say to Members, as one who has not only enforced the law 
but has been required to impose sentences, that a response of placing 
another mandatory sentence on the books of these United States is not 
the appropriate response. Judges need discretion. Judges need the 
opportunity to assess the facts, look at the law, and impose the 
appropriate sentence.
  I support AMBER Alert. I wish that in the many cases that I had and I 
prosecuted for 8 years that we had an AMBER Alert system; and I am 
confident that many more young people across the country would have in 
fact been returned to their families had we had the system. I am 100 
percent in support. I speak out in favor of it.
  Let me talk about something else: eliminating pretrial release. There 
is in our country a presumption of innocence. Most recently, we have 
seen so many people who as a result of DNA examination have been taken 
out of prisons across this country. To eliminate a pretrial release 
again takes away the discretion of a judge who has an opportunity to 
look at the facts and circumstances and ought to be able to determine 
whether or not a person should be released on pretrial release.
  Finally, let me speak on the Three Strikes and You are Out. The fact 
is, in many instances across this country where we have imposed Three 
Strikes and You are Out, we have young men and women who are imprisoned 
on offenses, and the third strike may have been the least serious of 
the three, or two, and they are in jail for life.
  I do not take lightly offenses that people commit, and I have imposed 
as a judge punishment on some of the most serious offenses. But we have 
to keep in mind the need to have judicial discretion, the need to look 
across the country at families whose lives have been destroyed forever 
because people are placed in jail.
  Most recently, there was a study that was released that talks about 
the significant number of African Americans in prison across the 
country, and in addition, the significant number of Americans, 
regardless of their race or color, that are in jail. Let us think about 
mandatory sentences. Let us support AMBER Alert, but keep in mind, we 
all believe in rights.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that this conference report for this 
crime bill came back to the floor so quickly. Let me say as a cosponsor 
of this legislation that this bill includes some very important 
provisions that will help States and will help the Bush administration 
to continue their efforts to expand and improve the AMBER Alert system.
  As we know, last fall the President provided a total of $10 million 
to develop AMBER training and to develop education programs to upgrade 
the emergency alert system. As we have witnessed, AMBER Alert has 
worked to bring children home safely.
  I wanted to share one example of where this alert has worked well. 
That is the case with Nicole Timmons of Riverside, California, in my 
State. The alert was not only delivered throughout California, but 
luckily, the neighboring State of Nevada also ran the alert. As a 
consequence, an alert driver noticed that Nicole matched the 
description. He thus, within the first few hours, contacted 
authorities. She was returned safely to her parents.
  The point here is that they say three out of every four children who 
are murdered by their abductors are killed in the first 3 hours. That 
is why speed is of the essence. That is why a nationwide system is 
needed to ensure that neighboring States and communities will be able 
to coordinate when an abductor is traveling with a child to other parts 
of the country.
  We need an organized national effort so abducted children transported 
across State lines can be returned to their parents, to their families, 
as 53 have been safely in California and other States that have now 
adopted the AMBER Alert system.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all of those who have worked to make certain 
that this legislation becomes law.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one particular provision that 
I am very pleased to say has been included in this conference report, 
though there are several others I strongly support and others about 
which I have already expressed my concern.
  Section 611 establishes a program for transitional housing assistance 
for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. My colleague from 
the other body, the senior Senator from Vermont, and I have introduced 
companion legislation establishing a transitional housing grant 
program. Today, I want to acknowledge and thank the Senator for working 
so hard to successfully get the language from these bills included in 
the conference report.
  We are trying to protect children from violence. The AMBER Alert 
system is certainly one way to do it, but unfortunately, children are 
exposed to violence in their own homes. The transitional housing 
program is often the link between emergency housing and a victim's 
ability to become self-sufficient.
  Transitional housing not only provides a roof and a bed, but it 
offers supportive services, such as counseling, job training, access to 
education, and child care. These tools are critical to allowing women 
to get back on their feet and to be able to support their children in a 
home that is free from violence. And we are also then able to get 
children out of homes where they may have been the victims and or 
witnesses of abuse.
  Now, it is essential that we not only pass this bill, but that we 
have appropriate the $30 million provided in this legislation for 
transitional housing. The women and children of this country deserve 
nothing less, and I urge my colleagues to votes ``yes'' on this 
conference report.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains several important 
provisions that protect the most vulnerable among us, that is, our 
children.
  One of those provisions is an amendment I offered to the bill, which 
was approved by a vote of 406 to 15. That provision addresses the 
Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which held 
that the Federal law to combat computer-generated pornography was too 
broad.
  The overturning of this law to combat child pornography has 
emboldened those who abuse children. A General Accounting Office report 
just 2 weeks ago found that in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, 
child pornographers are now 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 
chatrooms. Unfortunately, the new playground for child pornographers is 
the Internet.
  Mr. Speaker, every parent should be concerned about what their 
children see and do on line. We need to protect our children. If this 
legislation becomes law, child pornographers will be deterred or 
prosecuted. I hope my colleagues will again vote to reduce child 
pornography on the Internet and support this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, several measures are brought to the attention of the 
body, and specifically they are now known as the Feeney amendment. I 
may be able to add a little clarity by putting forward that the bill, 
the bill as it is presently before us, that this particular rule is 
contemplating, establishes de novo appellate review of departures, 
prohibits downward departure on remands based on new grounds, requires 
government motion for extra one-level

[[Page H3065]]

adjustment based on extraordinary acceptance of responsibility, and 
prohibits the Commission from ever altering this amendment.
  It chills departure by imposing more burdensome reporting 
requirements on judges who depart, and gives the Department of Justice 
access to Commission data files that identify each judge's departure 
practices. And it requires the Department of Justice to report downward 
departures to Judiciary Committees, unless within 90 days the Attorney 
General reports to Congress on new regulations for opposing and 
appealing downward departures.
  Our colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), as well as our colleague on the other 
side of the aisle, the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), and many 
Members of this body have worked very hard to ensure that we have the 
AMBER Alert, which has proved itself to be more than useful in our 
society for a very, very important and worthy cause.
  That said, it is unfortunate that in this particular measure for 
AMBER Alert, some ill-conceived, maybe unconstitutional, very 
restrictive measures have been put forward in the substantive bill.
  With that, I would urge Members to pay particular caution to the rule 
itself, and when they examine voting for AMBER Alert, to be mindful 
that there are a number of provisions that they are voting for that are 
not just covered by the headline, but are covered by the rights of 
individuals in our society and the rights of the members of the 
judiciary who have a firsthand opportunity to make a determination as 
to what should be done in the way of sentencing.
  When I served in the judiciary, one of the things that I was proud of 
was exercising discretion in a meaningful manner, and I always tried to 
err on the side of reconstructing families. I think this legislation is 
prohibitive in many respects. And I think no less an authority than 
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, in his remarks very recently, said to 
us that mandatory sentencing can and, in fact, has led to an increase 
in the significant number of persons in our society, 2 million now in 
America, that are in prison.
  We make these laws and we talk all the time about unfunded mandates, 
and we make these laws without fully realizing the implications as to 
what may transpire once they are made. The Federal judiciary will be 
impacted by what we do in the name of something that is the right thing 
to do, AMBER Alert.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the conference report 
on the PROTECT Act of 2003. It contains the best ideas to prevent and 
punish sexual predation against our American children.
  First and foremost, it establishes that nationwide AMBER Alert system 
to help States deploy child abduction warning networks all across this 
country. But rather than simply helping local authorities rescue 
abducted children, this legislation will toughen the law to make 
abductions and abuse less common in the first place.
  It establishes a two-strikes-and-you're-out policy for child sex 
offenders, ensuring habitual predators will not be tolerated in our 
communities. It allows judges to extend court-supervised release for 
sex offenders, so after they have finished their time in prison, 
authorities will be able to keep close tabs on these dangerous 
individuals. This bill will add child abuse and child torture to the 
legal predicate for first degree murder. It increases the penalty for 
sexual exploitation and trafficking of children for kidnapping and 
other related atrocities.
  In addition to supporting this landmark legislation, Mr. Speaker, I 
also rise to commend my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for 
his determination to do this job right. This is the most comprehensive 
child protection legislation the House has ever considered, and we have 
one man to thank for it, and that is the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Thanks to the gentleman, in the face of a sensational public debate 
that demanded immediate action, House Republicans stood up for 
America's kids, not the television cameras. He knew that this 
legislation must be based on good ideas and good law, not P.R. He knew 
that we needed to reform the criminal code and send a very clear 
message that the United States will not tolerate the abuse of our 
children.
  His bill takes crimes against children very seriously. It will 
prevent crimes against children and punish those who commit them. So, 
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has stood like a rock in the middle of a 
political and media storm. America's children will be safer when this 
bill becomes law and thousands of them whose names we will never know 
will owe their lives to the gentleman.
  I thank the gentleman, and I urge our colleagues to support the 
conference report and this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, most respectfully, the majority leader's comments are 
taken not lightly by any of us. But I would urge that we understand 
that this law that we are passing establishes new separate departure 
procedures and standards for child-related offenses and sex offenses. 
Permissible departures are those that the Commission specifically 
enumerates. It limits age and physical impairment departures in child 
and sex cases. It prohibits gambling dependence in child and sex cases. 
It prohibits aberrant behavior departures in child and sex cases. It 
prohibits family ties departures in child and sex cases. And one that 
is particularly troubling, because I saw this case in my past 
responsibilities, it prohibits diminished capacity departures in child 
and sex cases.
  Everything is not as cut and dried as we would have it be, and I urge 
Members, while supporting AMBER Alert, to be mindful that we are 
supporting a number of provisions that would be addressed by the court 
system for some time to come.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. 
Res. 188, the Rule governing debate on S. 151, the Prosecutorial 
Remedies and Other Tools to end the exploitation of Children Today Act 
of 2003, also known as the PROTECT Act.
  I oppose this rule because this should be a clean AMBER Alert bill, 
and I oppose the extraneous provisions in the Conference Report. The 
unnecessary provisions do more than delay the passage of an AMBER Alert 
bill. Many of the provisions violate the Constitutional principles that 
are the backbone of our government. Provisions like the Feeney 
provisions that establish rigid sentencing guidelines and strips 
federal judges of their discretion to make fair sentencing 
determinations.
  The Feeney provisions establish separate departure standards for 
child-related offenses and sex offenses that must be followed by 
district courts. The provisions also prohibit sentencing departures for 
gambling dependence, aberrant behavior, family ties, and diminished 
capacity in child and sex cases. The provisions limit age and physical 
impairment departures in child and sex cases.
  These provisions are a slap in the face to Article III, which grants 
federal judges, not Members of Congress, the power of the judiciary. 
This is another example of the Congress inappropriately attempting to 
interfere in the operation of our judicial system. Congress should 
legislate and leave judicial decision making, like prison sentences to 
the courts.
  Also troubling is the ``virtual'' child pornography provision that 
labels, ``a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image 
that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in 
sexually explicit conduct.'' This provision contradicts the Majority 
opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, who found that 
legislative attempts to include computer-generated images involving no 
real children in the definition of pornography are overboard, a 
violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, and therefore, 
unconstitutional.
  These provisions violate the Constitution and distract our attention 
from the most important element of the Conference Report: the AMBER 
Alert System. The AMBER Alert system is a program supported by members 
of both parties in both Chambers of Congress, not to mention every 
American citizen. Despite this almost universal support of AMBER Alert, 
the Conference Report has been bogged down with extraneous, 
unconstitutional amendments.
  I am stunned that so many members of Congress have stubbornly 
demanded Amendments to what should be a clean AMBER Alert bill. By so 
doing they postpone the establishment of a national AMBER Alert system 
and put the lives of America's children at risk.

[[Page H3066]]

  For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose H. Res. 188.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid upon the table.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 188, I 
call up the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 151) to amend 
title 18, United States Code, with respect to the sexual exploitation 
of children, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 186, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
April 9, 2003, at page H2950.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report 
for S. 151.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains provisions of H.R. 1104, 
the Child Abduction Protection Act, which overwhelmingly passed the 
House 410 to 14 less than 2 weeks ago, and the provisions of S. 151, 
the PROTECT Act of 2003, which passed the other body 84 to nothing on 
February 24.

                              {time}  1130

  Over the last several days, during the course of lengthy staff 
meetings and an open, working meeting of conferees, we have worked 
diligently to resolve differences between the House and the Senate. I 
believe we were successful in crafting a bipartisan conference report 
that recognizes a comprehensive effort is needed to better protect 
children. In order to accomplish this, the legislation includes 
provisions to help prevent crimes against children, to assist in the 
safe recovery of abducted children, to enhance the investigations and 
prosecutions of these crimes, and to ensure that the offenders are held 
accountable and unable to repeat these crimes.
  An abducted child is a parent's worst nightmare. We must assure that 
law enforcement in our communities have every possible tool to prevent 
abductions in the first place, and when an abduction occurs, to recover 
a missing child quickly and safely, and to ensure that the criminal 
receives sure and swift justice, including an appropriate sentence in 
prison.
  The overarching goal of this comprehensive package is to stop those 
who prey on children before they can harm children. This is 
accomplished by destroying the illicit markets that encourage 
exploitation and abduction of children, strengthening penalties to 
reflect the seriousness of these crimes, halting repeat offenders, and 
enhancing law enforcement agencies to effectively prevent, investigate 
and prosecute crimes against children.
  For instance, this legislation responds to the April 16, 2002, 
Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition that 
struck down a 1996 law written to combat computer-generated 
pornography. As the president for the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children stated, ``The Court's decision will result in the 
proliferation of child pornography in America unlike anything we have 
seen in more than 20 years.''
  Congress has an obligation to prevent the resurgence of the child 
pornography market. This conference report will help do so by amending 
the definition of computer-generated child pornography so that it will 
withstand a constitutional challenge.
  Additionally, the conference report provides strong support to 
recover abducted children quickly and safely through a prompt and 
effective public alert system. Such a system can be the difference 
between the life and death for that child.
  To accomplish this, the conference report codifies the AMBER Alert 
program currently in place in the Departments of Justice and 
Transportation, and authorizes increased funding to help States deploy 
a child abduction communication warning network. While our goal must 
always be to prevent the abduction of the child before it occurs, our 
communities should also have an effective and responsive AMBER Alert 
system to assist in the quick and safe return of the kidnapped child.
  I am happy to report that this compromise legislation doubles the 
authorized funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children, the Nation's resource center for child protection, to $20 
million a year through 2005. The center assists in the recovery of 
missing children and raises public awareness of ways to protect 
children from abduction, molestation, and sexual exploitation.
  Another vital component in the effort to protect children are strong 
laws that hold the criminal accountable. 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 any other violent criminal to repeat their offenses against 
children. This number demands attention, especially in light of the 
fact that a single child molester on average shatters the lives of over 
100 children.
  Under this legislation, sexual predators will no longer slip through 
the cracks of the system and harm other children. To this end, the 
legislation provides a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence of 
imprisonment for non-familial abductions of a child under the age of 
18, lifetime supervision for sex offenders, and mandatory life 
imprisonment for second-time offenders. The compromise legislation 
restricts the opportunity for pretrial release for crimes of child 
abduction and sex offenses and extends the statutes of limitation.
  Finally, this conference report contains provisions to address the 
long-standing and growing problem of downward departures from the 
Federal sentencing guidelines. Outrageously, between 1996 and 2001, 
U.S. courts have lowered the sentences of one out of every five of 
those convicted of sexually abusing a child or sexually exploiting a 
child through child pornography.
  Strong sentencing is an essential component in any effort to fight 
crimes against children. All of our efforts in this bill and in 
previous anticrime measures are fruitless if, at the end of the day, 
judges are permitted to give offenders a slap on the wrist, which is 
exactly what is happening today with increased frequency.
  I am proud of the efforts of the conferees to quickly send this 
legislation to the President. It was a fair and open process, and the 
exhaustive negotiations yielded extensive changes to the base text of 
the legislation that passed the House. Most of these changes were made 
to accommodate the concerns of my colleagues in the minority party, 
both in the Senate and in the House.
  I am extremely proud of the extraordinary effort my now-weary staff 
expended to help craft this conference report and to get to it the 
floor today. I would like to extend special thanks to Sean McLaughlin, 
Will Moschella, Beth Sokul, Jay Apperson and Katy Crooks of the 
Committee on the Judiciary staff. Their dedication is greatly 
appreciated.
  The bottom line is that this comprehensive legislative package will 
crack down on child abductors, build and expand on the work of the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, give Federal 
authorities additional tools to prevent and solve these horrific 
crimes, and provide meaningful sentencing reform for all crimes. I urge 
my colleagues to protect America's children from the worst predators in 
our society by supporting this bipartisan child protection legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H3067]]

  (Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us 
started out as an effort to quickly pass AMBER Alert, a bipartisan 
noncontroversial provision which had already passed the Senate. I am a 
cosponsor of the House version of the AMBER Alert so I am anxious to 
see that it be passed because it has been actually shown to help 
children. It will codify a program of grants and assistance to States 
and localities to establish a national communications system so that 
abducted children can be saved. As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed 
out, that system works.
  However, the bill now before us is loaded down with an array of crime 
sound-bite provisions that make the AMBER Alert bill just an 
afterthought in the legislation. The bill that has gone through the 
conference process, some provisions have been improved, some have been 
made worse; but I am unable to support the conference report at this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill retains egregious provisions that expand the 
Federal criminal laws into areas traditionally left to State criminal 
laws. It expands the death penalty, despite the fact that almost 70 
percent of death penalties imposed in the United States are found to be 
erroneous and the fact that over 100 people sentenced to death in the 
last 10 years have been subsequently shown to be innocent.
  250 Members of the House, many supportive of the death penalty, have 
sponsored the Innocence Protection Act to provide reasonable assurances 
that fewer innocent people will be put to death. So we should certainly 
not be adding more death penalties before this act passes.
  There are numerous provisions in the bill that create new mandatory 
minimum sentences, including the baseball-based sound byte, ``two 
strikes and you're out,'' which mandates life without parole for a 
second-offense requirement involving a minor. The offenses covered by 
that provision fortunately have been limited through the conference 
report process by eliminating some of the minor offenses involving a 
minor child, but it still includes as a child sex offense some 
consensual acts between teenagers.
  The bill also adds a 5-year mandatory minimum for first offense 
crimes that are Federal crimes only because a person crosses State 
lines, such as when an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old conspire to cross 
State lines from Washington, D.C., to Virginia to have consensual sex. 
Just to show my colleagues how bizarre that provision is, if children 
are conspiring to cross from Virginia to Washington, D.C., to have sex, 
it would not be a child sex offense, and that is because consensual sex 
outside of marriage is not a crime in Washington, D.C., while it is in 
Virginia.
  The bill also provides for a new wiretap authority in many of these 
cases including consensual sex and including some of the activities 
that do not even constitute a crime, and in some of those crime cases, 
bail may be denied during trial.
  Of course, we are supposed to expect that prosecutors will ignore the 
law to carry mandatory minimum terms and not bring those cases. The 
reason we have mandatory minimums in the first place is because judges 
cannot be trusted to determine who should be sentenced to life and who 
should be sentenced to less, so we give everybody a life sentence. So 
our prisons are filled with people today who are serving time because 
they were convicted of just tangential involvement in somebody else's 
drug trade and end up serving more time than bank robbers.
  We should let the sentencing commission and judges determine the 
appropriate sentences. Mandatory sentences have been criticized because 
they often require sentences which violate common sense in some cases, 
and that is why the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a frequent 
critic. Not only do we mandate numerous mandatory minimums without 
regard to what the individual circumstances of the case might be, but 
one amendment, the Feeney amendment, reduces the discretion of the 
sentencing commission and judges to robot-like conformity without 
regard to how the sentence compares to equally serious offenses, nor 
does it recognize that circumstances can vary from one case to another.
  There was a dramatic effort to fix that amendment, representing a 
brand-new version at the conference committee meeting, but it was 
ineffectual, as well as rife with errors. In just a cursory reading of 
that amendment, which was first seen by some of us at the meeting 
itself, it became clear that it had several major unintended effects. 
For example, it removed consideration in sentencing for exemplary 
military service. Another bizarre exchange occurred in which we were 
told that the word ``and'' actually meant ``or'' and it did not matter 
whether you had ``and'' or ``or.'' I do not know when the change took 
place, but the version before us now has the word ``or'' instead of 
``and.'' Nevertheless the amendment still reduces the judge's ability 
to make the punishment fit the crime.
  Most cases are sentenced within the sentencing guidelines range; and 
according to the American Bar Association, 79 percent of the departures 
from the guidelines are agreed to by the prosecution. I would like to 
insert the letter from the ABA into the Record at this point.

                                     American Bar Association,

                                       Chicago, IL, April 9, 2003.
       Dear Senator: I write on behalf of the American Bar 
     Association to express deep concern about the Feeney 
     amendment, which has been incorporated in the conference 
     report to accompany S. 151, legislation to ban ``virtual'' 
     child pornography. Although we are pleased to see that some 
     of the more offensive provisions of this amendment were 
     modified in conference, we continue to believe that this 
     provision would fundamentally alter the carefully crafted and 
     balanced system established by the Sentencing Reform Act, 
     without any of the customary safeguards of the legislative 
     process. Indeed, to the extent the amendment would give 
     prosecutors a unique and absolute power to check the 
     discretion of sentencing judges, it would have an unsettling 
     effect on the constitutional balance of power.
       The Feeney amendment would legislatively overrule a 
     decision of the United States Supreme Court, United States v. 
     Koon, 518 U.S. 81 (1996), and amend central provisions of the 
     Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. It would void numerous 
     sections of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and, for the 
     first time, amend the Guidelines by direct legislation. It 
     would preclude the exercise of judicial discretion in certain 
     cases, and make judicial departures in all cases subject to 
     de novo appellate review. It would impose very troublesome 
     reporting and oversight requirements on judges that will 
     certainly have a chilling effect on judicial independence, 
     and discourage the imposition of just sentences in many 
     cases.
       Should Congress enact the Feeney amendment, all these 
     dramatic changes would be accomplished through a House floor 
     amendment to an unrelated bill, adopted without committee 
     hearings by either the House or the Senate, or the benefit of 
     consultation with the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the federal 
     judiciary, or the organized Bar.
       The Feeney amendment is evidently a response to the 
     perception that judges have engaged in widespread abuses of 
     their departure power following the Supreme Court's Koon 
     decision in 1996. Based on the Sentencing Commission's 
     statistics, I believe there are reasons to doubt the accuracy 
     of this portrayal.
       Although sentences below the guideline range are now more 
     common that in the early days of guidelines sentencing, the 
     primary responsibility for this result lies with the 
     Department of Justice. In FY 2001, of 19,416 downward 
     departures awarded federal defendants, approximately 15,318 
     came on government motion. Put another way, in 2001, 79 
     percent of downward departures in the United States were 
     requested by the Government.
       Similarly, although the rate of non-substantial assistance 
     departures has increased since the Koon decision, the vast 
     majority of that increase is attributable to the fact that 
     the number of departures in the five `'fast-track'' border 
     districts more than tripled, from 1871 to 1996, to 5928 in 
     2001. In short, the increased rate of non-substantial 
     assistance departures since Koon is due primarily to requests 
     for such departures by the Department of Justice.
       The foregoing figures do not, of course, present the whole 
     picture. The percentage of judicially initiated departures 
     has increased somewhat since Koon. It may well be that some 
     judicially initiated departures are inappropriate and that 
     some action to curb inappropriate judicial departures should 
     be considered. However, it would seem advisable to determine 
     the nature and extent of any problem with judicial departure 
     power before legislating a virtual end to that power. As 
     Senator Hatch wisely observed some years ago: 
     ``[C]ongressional policy makers must take advantage of the 
     most current and complete information available when making 
     legislative decisions. Whenever possible, Congress should 
     call upon those with relevant empirical research, encouraging 
     those most knowledgeable of and most

[[Page H3068]]

     involved with the guidelines--judges, prosecutors, 
     practitioners and the Commission--to express their views.''
       I am informed that the U.S. Sentencing Commission is even 
     now in the midst of a study of judicial departures in white-
     collar crime. Would it not be prudent to direct the 
     Commission to extend that study to departures generally and 
     report promptly to Congress on its results? (I understand 
     that the General Accounting Office has also undertaken a 
     study of departures, at the request of the House Judiciary 
     Committee.) Such a congressional directive could also 
     instruct the Commission to develop proposals to address any 
     deficiencies revealed by the study. Once armed with full 
     information, Congress could determine the true nature and 
     extent of any problem, and could, if necessary, craft an 
     appropriate, measured legislative response to any 
     deficiencies in departure practice left unaddressed by the 
     Commission.
       The American Bar Association is confident that a period for 
     study of current departure practice would not only yield a 
     more accurate picture of any problems that may exist, but 
     could not fail to produce a better solution than the Feeney 
     Amendment.
       The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created a system of 
     distributed authority that was designed to ensure fair, 
     predictable sentences for defendants convicted in 
     federal court. As contemplated by the Act itself, the 
     Guidelines drafted by the Sentencing Commission and 
     approved by Congress channel judicial sentencing 
     discretion, but they do not eliminate it. This system 
     reflects two truths about the process of making sentencing 
     rules. First, no set of rules can anticipate the 
     circumstances of every individual defendant. Accordingly, 
     if justice is to be done, judges must retain the 
     flexibility to determine that some defendants do not fit 
     the mold envisioned by the Commission. Second, the 
     departure power is a means of providing feedback from 
     judges to the Sentencing Commission and Congress. By 
     studying departure patterns, the Commission can identify 
     those guideline rules that judges are consistently finding 
     to be inappropriate for certain classes of defendants.
       In the Sentencing Reform Act, Congress conferred upon 
     Federal judges the power to depart whenever ``there exists an 
     aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a 
     degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the 
     Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines'' in the 
     enabling legislation that created the U.S. Sentencing 
     Commission, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3553(b). The Feeney Amendment is 
     inconsistent with the original judgment of Congress about the 
     necessity and value of a guided departure power and the 
     important role of judges in Federal sentencing. If passed, 
     the Amendment would severely compromise critical 
     institutional features of the Federal sentencing system.
       By curtailing and burdening judicial departure authority, 
     the Feeney Amendment strikes a blow at judicial independence 
     and sends an unmistakable message that Congress does not 
     trust the judgment of the judges it has confirmed to office.
       By overriding the Sentencing Commission and legislatively 
     rewriting the Guidelines, the Feeney Amendment threatens the 
     legitimacy of the Commission. The Commission was created by 
     Congress to ensure that important decisions about Federal 
     sentencing were made intelligently, dispassionately, and, so 
     far as possible, uninfluenced by transient political 
     considerations. Congress should accord the Commission and its 
     processes some deference unless and until the Commission has 
     demonstrably failed in its duties.
       By bypassing the deliberative processes of Congress itself, 
     the Feeney Amendment reflects a profoundly troubling 
     disregard of the legislature's role in establishing Federal 
     sentencing policy. If passed, the Feeney Amendment would 
     alter core features of Federal criminal sentencing and 
     appellate practice. Yet the Amendment has never been the 
     subject of a hearing in either the House or Senate, and 
     neither house has had the benefit of meaningful consultation 
     with any of the institutions most affected by the Amendment.
       The American Bar Association is firmly committed to the 
     maintenance of a just and effective Federal sentencing 
     system. I am confident that you and your colleagues will give 
     the Feeney Amendment the careful scrutiny it requires. I am 
     hopeful that such scrutiny will lead you to oppose the Feeney 
     Amendment and to support a careful study of judicial 
     departures by the Sentencing Commission. . . .

  The bill before us defiantly enacts laws prohibiting such acts as 
what is called ``virtual child pornography.'' The United States Supreme 
Court gave us a bright-line test to determine whether or not computer-
generated images can constitute illegal child pornography. The Court 
said that if the image is not otherwise obscene it must involve real 
children in the production to be illegal. Pornography which was 
produced without real children under the Ashcroft case is not illegal.
  In a direct violation of that case, this bill prohibits such images, 
whether or not it was produced with real children, unless the defendant 
can prove his innocence.
  The Court, of course, dealt with that issue and said that we could 
not require a defendant in an American judicial court to prove his 
innocence, so that provision is clearly unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a number of problems with this case, including 
the mandatory minimums. I just want to point out that the Chief Justice 
of the United States Supreme Court, United States Judicial Conference, 
the Sentencing Commission, the American Bar Association, the Federal 
Bar Association, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the 
Washington Legal Foundation, the CATO Institute, and a host of other 
sentencing and judicial system experts have pleaded with Congress not 
to impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible 
sentences.
  I would ask also that a letter from the NAACP also be inserted into 
the Record at this point.

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                                   Washington, DC, April 10, 2003.
     Re NAACP opposition to S. 151, the ``Child Abduction 
         Prevention Act of 2003.''

     Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association 
     for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grass roots civil 
     rights organization, I am writing to urge you to oppose the 
     conference report to S. 151, the ``Child Abduction Prevention 
     Act of 2003'' in its current form.
       While the issue of child abduction is a serious, heart-
     wrenching and too often tragic issue that deserves to be 
     dealt with aggressively at a federal level, Title IV of the 
     final bill would radically limit federal judicial discretion 
     to impose just sentences for almost all federal offenses; not 
     just those relating to child abduction. Because this 
     provision overrules a key Supreme Court decision and 
     constitutes a dramatic encroachment on the judiciary, it is 
     opposed not only by civil rights organizations across the 
     board, but also by Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist, the 
     Federal Judicial Conference, the Federal Sentencing 
     Commission, the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar 
     Association as well as countless law professors, prosecutors 
     and public defenders.
       The potential impact of this provision on the African 
     American community and on ethnic minority American 
     communities throughout the nation is almost incomprehensible. 
     Racial bias in our nation's criminal justice system is 
     widespread and well documented. For example, according to 
     reports from the US Department of Justice and the US 
     Department of Health and Human Services, people of color 
     commit drug offenses at a rate proportional to our percentage 
     of the US population, roughly 25% for African Americans and 
     Hispanic Americans combined. Yet almost 75% of the people 
     charged in this nation with a drug offense are either 
     Hispanic or African American.
       The impact this racial bias has on our communities is 
     devastating. According to the US Department of Justice report 
     issued just last week, an alarming 12% of all African 
     American men between the ages of 20 and 34 are in jail or in 
     prison. One out of every three black men born in the United 
     States will spend time behind bars in their lifetime.
       The federal prison system now holds over 160,000 inmates, 
     more than any single state prison system. Furthermore, the 
     federal prison population has more than quadrupled in the 
     last 20 years for mostly non-violent offenses even while the 
     rate of incarceration has actually slowed in many states. 
     Under Title IV, the growth rate is predicted to be 
     staggering.
       I hope that you will consider the far-reaching impact this 
     legislation will have on individual lives as well as whole 
     communities and even our nation. I urge you again to oppose 
     the final conference report unless Title IV is eliminated or 
     at least amended to address only child abduction cases.
       Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. If 
     you have any questions, I hope that you will feel free to 
     contact me at (202) 638-2269.
           Sincerely,
                                                Hilary O. Shelton,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. Speaker, for those reasons we should vote against this report and 
send the measure back to committee for serious consideration. Many of 
the problems can be fixed if we would seriously consider the bill in a 
regular deliberative legislative process.
  So I urge my colleagues not to vote on the conference report, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  The gentleman from Virginia and I must be looking at different 
legislation. In my view, this is a proud moment for the House.

                              {time}  1145

  It is a proud moment for the Committee on the Judiciary. I know it is 
a

[[Page H3069]]

proud moment for me personally. I came to Congress with the hope of 
having moments like this.
  There are so many great provisions and parts to this comprehensive 
legislation. I will focus on just three, the three that I was most 
involved with, number one, what is the so-called the ``two strikes and 
you're out'' for child molesters provision. With respect to Federal sex 
crimes against kids, it says very simply that if you have been arrested 
and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids, and when you get 
out, you do it yet again, you are going to go to prison for the rest of 
your life. No more chances, no more questions and, Lord willing, no 
more victims.
  Secondly, it contains lifetime supervision for Federal sex offenders. 
We hear from judges again and again that there are criminals that go 
through their courts that they believe should have supervision for a 
long time. They are dangerous. They will do it again. Current law only 
allows them to order 5 years. This gives them the discretion, it does 
not mandate it, it givers them the discretion for lifetime monitoring.
  And third, there are some provisions from the Debbie Smith Act, which 
I have authored, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) and Senator Biden from the other body. This allows Federal 
prosecutors to issue indictments against sex criminals based upon DNA 
gathered at the crime scene.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an institution which all too often uses 
superlatives and all too often overstates the value of legislation, but 
this bill, with its AMBER Alert provisions with respect to responding 
to crimes and bringing back victims safe and sound, is a wonderful 
thing.
  With respect to the DNA-John Doe indictment provisions, which will 
allow us to prosecute crimes more efficiently, more quickly, to get 
these guys off the street, it is a better bill for that reason. For its 
``two strikes and you're out'' provisions, which will allow us to lock 
up predators once and for all, so they cannot do it yet again and 
again, for those reasons, it is a wonderful, historic bill.
  We are taking a bold step today. I agree. This is historic 
legislation. The majority leader referred to this as the most 
comprehensive child safety legislation that this body has ever taken 
up. I have not been around long enough; I will trust him on that. But 
what I can say from my experience, I can say that we can all say 
proudly today, to policymakers, to law enforcement, to victims, to 
everyday families, we can say proudly today, We fight back. And that is 
something that we can all be very proud of.
  I urge ``yes'' votes. Let us send a strong signal. Let us pass this 
bill today.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) a member of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clear the record and make it 
very clear that all of us are committed to fighting against the 
predatory acts of those who would do harm and injure our children.
  I believe there was unanimous joy in America and in this body when 
Elizabeth Smart was returned to her family. I said just a few minutes 
ago on this floor that it was because of an AMBER Alert-type system, 
her younger sister, and the many community friends who were alert when 
they began to hear information. So collectively, as neighbors, we can, 
in fact, enforce against those predators the laws of the land and 
protect our children.
  My record on this floor has been consistently supporting laws to 
protect our children. Why? Because I have seen the pain of families who 
have lost their little babies, staying with the family of Laura Ayala 
in my community, and wanting her to be found and recognizing the need 
for the community to come together. So there are parts of this 
legislation that I support.
  I am glad that we are supporting the National Center for Missing 
Children. I would hope that we could have done more. I have legislation 
to create a separate DNA bank for sexual predators against children. My 
law enforcement officials in Harris County say that if there is such a 
bank, when there are allegations of sexual acts against children, the 
police can go to one, single database and know that these are at least 
convicted sexual predators against children and quickly assess whether 
any of these individuals were in the area of this missing or molested 
child.
  So there are a lot of things that this body can do.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the American people are respectful 
of the laws and the Constitution. They know the value of having what we 
call Article III courts, Federal courts, with the appropriate 
discretion to be able to make decisions in the courtroom about 
sentencing of individuals under the sentencing guidelines that are 
worked through the Federal Judiciary and the U.S. Sentencing 
Commission.
  Why did we have to add this to a bill that deals with the question of 
protecting children? This is a direct insert, a direct hammer, a direct 
axe to the direction of the courts. It directs the Sentencing 
Commission to amend guidelines to ensure that the incidence of downward 
departures is substantially reduced. It means that that judge who is 
listening to the case cannot go up, maybe cannot go down in terms of 
sentencing. It requires that a prosecutor approve a downward departure 
on extraordinary acceptance of responsibility and prohibits the 
Commission from even altering this amendment.
  What we are doing with this legislation is not having long hearings 
about interfering with the judicial discretion; we are just writing 
legislation without hearing from our judges or knowing how it will be 
impacted.
  One thing we value is the independence of our court system. We may 
not agree with what the Supreme Court renders, I may not agree with 
their decision on affirmative action or previous decisions, but the 
court will have ruled. I will have to find other ways to address the 
question.
  Here we are dealing with these courts and not having full vetted 
hearings and listening to the courts themselves.
  It establishes de novo review of all downward departures in all 
cases. Requires the Department of Justice to report downward departures 
to the Committee on the Judiciary unless, within 90 days, the AG 
reports to Congress of new regulations. It gives the Justice Department 
access to Sentencing Commission files on each judge's departure 
practices in all cases.
  That is absolute intimidation of the court. That is absolute 
intimidation of our Federal judges. That is absolute intimidation of 
our Judiciary, for which we pay taxes, not allowing them the discretion 
that is necessary to be fair in the courthouse.
  The one thing we believe in is a due process system. And so here we 
have this provision that addresses all sentencing, not just limited to 
sexual crimes against children and the unfairness of the process.
  I am reminded of the tragedy with Elizabeth Smart. If my colleagues 
will recall, there was a gentleman incarcerated that seemingly had all 
of the tendencies to be the perpetrator. He died in jail. We have now 
come to find out, at least allegedly so, that there was another 
perpetrator. Just imagine if he had lived, we had not found Elizabeth 
Smart, and he went to trial. These are the kinds of potential 
injustices that will occur when the Federal courts are in fear of their 
life because they have pressure from this place to put certain 
sentencing in place.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say in closing that this bill has a lot of bad 
aspects to it. It did not have to be so. We could have done a good job, 
and I wish we had done so.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas asked why we have to have 
restrictions on downward departures, and I will give her one example.
  In the case of the United States v. Robert Parish, a defendant who 
was convicted of possession of child pornography. He was in possession 
of 1,300 images of child pornography, some of which depicted graphic 
violent sexual exploitation of very young children. He got a downward 
departure.

[[Page H3070]]

  The majority of those 1,300 child pornography images which he 
possessed depicted adolescent girls, including one in which a very 
young girl, wearing a dog collar around her neck, is having sexual 
intercourse with an adult male. The defendant was also in the midst of 
communicating on line with a 15-year-old female high school student 
when, thankfully, he was arrested.
  Now, what happened when he was convicted? The sentencing guidelines 
have a range of 33 to 41 months imprisonment for a conviction of those 
crimes. The trial court gave him 8 months. The trial court found that 
the defendant's conduct was outside the typical heartland of these 
types of cases, and that the defendant was susceptible to abuse in 
prison. The trial court felt that the combination of factors, including 
the defendant's ``stature,'' ``demeanor,'' ``naivete,'' and the nature 
of the offense justified the departure from the minimum of 33 months in 
the guidelines to just 8 months.
  This is why we have the restriction on downward departures for sex 
crimes in this bill.
  Now, I am a bit puzzled that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) is complaining about the fact that we provide for a de novo review 
of downward departures for all crimes, not just crimes against 
children, but all crimes. When this legislation was originally debated 
on March 27, she voted in favor of it, and I introduced in the 
Congressional Record a letter signed by a majority of the members of 
the Congressional Black Caucus who were in office at the time asking 
the Clinton Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Janet Reno, 
to seek a de novo review of the downward departure that the trial judge 
gave to Stacey Koon, who is the police officer who was convicted of 
violating the civil rights of Rodney King.
  Fortunately, that passed and that is included in this legislation. 
What we are doing in this legislation on de novo review is exactly what 
the next speaker, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and 
those who cosigned this letter, asked the Clinton Justice Department to 
do.
  Now, unfortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the 
case of Koon v. United States, decided that there could only be a 
review on appeal of a departure from the sentencing guidelines based 
upon abuse of discretion by the trial judge. We overturn that part of 
the Koon v. U.S. ruling and allow for de novo review on appeal. 
Sometimes, maybe, if you ask for something too much, you might get it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to read just one paragraph of the letter the gentleman from 
Wisconsin just referred to.
  ``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 mitigating factors may be appropriate in other 
circumstances.''
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, we did not ask for a change in the law, 
we just asked for a review consistent with the law. This bill changes 
the law, changes the standard for review. What the Congressional Black 
Caucus asked for was just a review under the current law.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letter just referred to by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin from the Congressional Black Caucus.

                                    Congress 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 mitigating factors may be 
     appropriate in other circumstances. However, we feel that the 
     defendants' special status as police officers, with special 
     duties owed to the public, should have militated 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 defendants' 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 phenomenal 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 that police 
     officers have an enhanced responsibility to uphold 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; Sanford Bishop; Eddie Bernice Johnson; 
           Floyd H. Flake; Albert R. Wynn; Carrie P. Meek; Eva M. 
           Clayton; Major R. Owens; Walter Tucker; William Clay; 
           Charles B. Rangel; William J. Jefferson.
         James E. Clyburn; Earl Hilliard; Bennie M. Thompson; Cleo 
           Fields; Cynthia McKinney; John Lewis; Corrine Brown; 
           Donald M. Payne; Alcee Hastings; Kweisi Mfume; Louis 
           Stokes; Melvin L. Watt; Ronald V. Dellums.

  Mr. Speaker, could you advise how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the letter that the members of the Congressional 
Black Caucus sent to Attorney General Janet Reno on August 6, and while 
they did not ask for a change in the law, what they did ask was for the 
Justice Department to appeal the sentence.
  Now, what happened in the Stacey Koon case is that the Court of 
Appeals agreed with the Justice Department and established de novo 
review. Mr. Koon's lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court, and the 
Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and established the abuse 
of discretion standard.
  Now, what this legislation does is to establish the de novo review 
standard for all crimes should there be a review of the sentence on 
appeal.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the letter dated August 6, 1993 
from members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

                                    Congress 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 mitigating factors may be 
     appropriate in other circumstances. However, we feel that the 
     defendants' special status as police officers, with special 
     duties owed to the public, should have militated 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.

[[Page H3071]]

       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 defendants' 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 phenomenal 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 that police 
     officers have an enhanced responsibility to uphold 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; Sanford Bishop; Eddie Bernice Johnson; 
           Floyd H. Flake; Albert R. Wynn; Carrie P. Meek; Eva M. 
           Clayton; Major R. Owens; Walter Tucker; William Clay; 
           Charles B. Rangel; William J. Jefferson.
         James E. Clyburn; Earl Hilliard; Bennie M. Thompson; Cleo 
           Fields; Cynthia McKinney; John Lewis; Corrine Brown; 
           Donald M. Payne; Alcee Hastings; Kweisi Mfume; Louis 
           Stokes; Melvin L. Watt; Ronald V. Dellums.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Congressional Black 
Caucus did not complain about the Supreme Court reinstating the law as 
it was.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I 
rise in opposition to the legislation because this is one of those 
bills that could have been a clean bill dealing with AMBER Alert. It 
could have been a bill to deal with the problem of abduction of our 
children.
  However, some Members of this body have taken this as an opportunity 
to load up the bill with everything that they think will create certain 
kinds of problems so that it can be used for political reasons. There 
will be a lot of Members who will be intimidated, and they will vote 
for this bill even though they are opposed to mandatory minimum 
sentencing because they do not want to be accused of being against a 
bill that will deal with the problems of abduction of our children.
  Well, we must point out what is going on and we must focus in on this 
business of mandatory minimum sentencing. Every judge that I know of in 
the country and all of the Federal judges, whether they are on the left 
or the right, disagree with mandatory minimum sentencing. They do not 
like it. It takes away their discretion. It does not allow them to take 
into consideration all of the mitigating factors, and so we continue to 
overrule the judges that go through awesome processes to get where they 
are by inserting mandatory minimum sentencing into legislation. It has 
wreaked havoc on some communities.
  As a matter of fact, when we take a look at the mandatory minimum 
sentencing done because of some of the drug laws that we have created 
right here on this floor, Members will see that whole communities have 
been devastated, and we are beginning to get a turnaround on some of 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, we have young people 18 and 19 years old under mandatory 
minimum sentencing, drug laws, who are doing not just a minimum 5 years 
but even more, simply because the judge had no discretion. A child, 
first-time offense, with some of these drug laws, coming from good 
families who happen to makes a mistake, wrong place, wrong time, and we 
have something similar in this legislation between consenting young 
people, 18 and 17 years old who would cross a State line and have 
consensual sex, they would be at risk for mandatory minimum sentencing.
  We do not want to do that. This is not honest. If we want a clean 
bill that deals with abductions and an AMBER Alert, do that. Take this 
other mess out of the bill and stop trying to use it as a political 
vehicle by which to judge some people in their elections.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heart filled with gratitude, not 
just as a congressman, but as a parent of three small children for the 
efforts of the conferees in developing this historic child protection 
legislation. This will save lives.
  I would particularly like to single out the courageous and tenacious 
and dogged efforts of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for the gentleman's 
commitment against, at times, withering public relations challenges to 
move meaningful legislation for our kids through this body.
  I also rise humbly to thank conferees for including language known as 
the Truth in Domain Names language in the conference report which I 
authored in the last Congress and again in this. Mr. Speaker, the very 
moment this conference report becomes law, not only will our children 
become safer from predators, but the Internet will become safer for our 
children, families, and teachers. As millions of Americans do every 
night, I help my kids with their homework. As we surf the Web for 
useful information about history or government or science, my kids with 
the most innocent intentions will type in domain names which are 
harmless, but what pops up are sites with smut, profanity and 
pornography; and there was no law on the books to prevent that until 
today. With the Truth in Domain Names language in this legislation, we 
render those Web sites illegal; and anyone who uses a misleading domain 
name on the Internet to deceive a person into viewing material 
constituting obscenity can face fines of up to 2 years in prison; and 
if they mislead children, they can face 4 years in prison. The minute 
the President signs this bill, using a misleading domain name with the 
intent to deceive a child will become a criminal act.
  Mr. Speaker, this historic legislation will make our children 
measurably safer from those who would prey on them. Also, Congress can 
today make playing on the information superhighway much safer for our 
kids, and so they should. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this 
conference report.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to this bill which I 
think have very strong merit, and I am very pleased that they have been 
included; and I enjoyed working with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) in getting them into the now-final conference report.
  The first is the Victims of Child Abuse Act now amended into the bill 
and now part of this final conference agreement that would reauthorize 
this important legislation initially authorized in 1992. The thrust of 
this legislation is to authorize training and technical assistance to 
programs to improve the prosecution of child abuse cases. This funding 
flows to centers and programs that provide training for law enforcement 
agencies, for prosecutors and local jurisdictions to help them 
establish comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches to the 
investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases.
  As we move the AMBER Alert response forward, we have to also think 
about what happens following the joyous reunion of a recovered kidnap 
victim. There is a lot of healing that has

[[Page H3072]]

to take place, special counseling for the victims, and then a very 
special treatment required by prosecutors and law enforcement officials 
as they bring the crime to punish the perpetrator, but do not want to 
further punish the victim who has already been through so much.
  This legislation was initially authored by the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Cramer), who continues to play a leadership role in this area; and 
I am glad it is included.
  I am also pleased the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act 
has been included in the legislation and is now part of the conference 
agreement. This puts back on our books legislation banning computer-
generated child pornography. As Members may recall, there was a Supreme 
Court case that found an earlier statute to be overly broad. Well, we 
have looked very carefully at the ruling of the Supreme Court. We do 
not challenge it. We try and follow the direction that they lay out to 
craft a statute that they will find constitutional. We have tightened 
the definitions of inappropriate computer-generated child pornography, 
and we respond to the directions of prosecutors in trying to prosecute 
those who traffic in child pornography with other provisions as well. 
We make it illegal for an adult to use child pornography, sending child 
pornography over the Internet in order to lure children to 
inappropriate activity. We draw a per se prohibition on the depiction 
of explicit sex between young children.
  Mr. Speaker, we think that this legislation is going to make a very 
important contribution to our efforts to stop those who want to traffic 
in child pornography. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am frequently asked what we can do to repeal some of 
the mandatory minimum sentences which frequently impose bizarre, 
Draconian, and unreasonable sentences. Sometimes these requests come 
from relatives or friends of people, women whose boyfriends deal drugs, 
and the young lady does not deal drugs, does not use drugs, but she is 
around the boyfriend enough so that there is no question, she probably 
broke the law, took a message, drove a car to a meeting, so prosecutors 
can show she was involved, but not involved to the point where she 
ought to serve 20-some years, more than bank robbers serve.
  When they ask what they can do about these kinds of Draconian 
sentences, I tell them the first thing they have to do to repeal the 
existing mandatory minimums is to stop passing new ones. Today we are 
going to pass a new set of mandatory minimum sentence laws. If anybody 
asks in the future where these mandatory minimums come from, Members 
can point to bills like the one today.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the Ashcroft 
decision. The Ashcroft decision was clear. You cannot prohibit child 
pornography, illegal child pornography unless real children were 
involved. The provisions in this bill allow prosecution whether or not 
real children are involved. The Court goes to great lengths to say 
whatever problems there are in prosecution, it is a problem for the 
defense. And if nobody knows whether they are computer-generated or 
involving real children, in that case they cannot successfully 
prosecute. They require real children to be involved in the production; 
and without real children, it cannot be illegal. This statute plainly 
on its face violates that Supreme Court decision and is 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we can send this back to committee, improve some 
of the provisions, and pass the AMBER Alert bill like we should. But in 
its present condition, I hope we will reject the conference report with 
a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote is going to be the end of a long period where 
the provisions of this legislation were carefully considered in the 
Committee on the Judiciary in the House and in the other body. The 
compromise that was reached by the conferees is a good compromise. It 
will make a difference to protect children. It will give parents of 
abducted children the comfort of knowing that those who have harmed 
their children are going to be dealt with seriously, as well as setting 
up the machinery to alert the public and the news media as well as the 
police to try to find an abducted child and return that child home to 
his or her parents.
  This is legislation that deserves all of our support. I ask for an 
``aye'' vote on this conference report. I hope that the other body will 
act quickly and that the President of the United States can sign this 
legislation very promptly because our children will be better protected 
as a result.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, It is vital that we implement AMBER 
Alert systems, not just in our local communities, but nationwide. Our 
efforts to crack down on child abductors and abusers will be fruitless 
if we cannot transcend state borders quickly enough to catch these 
vicious criminals. I am in full support of a national system that will 
provide for such coordination. In the conference report, we have just 
that, a provision that provides for a nationwide alert system that is 
cost-effective and technologically savvy. That is, however, not the 
only provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker. There are many provisions in 
this bill that, while attempting to deter these criminals from 
committing such heinous acts, infringe upon the livelihoods of many 
innocent individuals and prohibit what would normally be harmless, 
legal acts.
  I vote for the H.R. 1104, the House version of this conference report 
in hopes that conferees would come together and agree upon a bill that 
would attack the key issue at hand, protecting our children from 
molesters and pedophiles. After reviewing the conference report, I did 
not see any substantive alterations or any elimination of these bad 
provisions, but rather I noticed additional provisions that, again, 
hurt the livelihood of innocent individuals and legal acts. For those 
reasons, Mr. Speaker, I vote ``NO'' on final passage of the conference 
report and I will further expound on why I did so below.
  The PROTECT Act would expand the type of homicide that can be 
punished by death. This will would provide for this expansion, despite 
the fact that more than half of death penalty cases are found to be 
erroneous. Cognizant of the disproportionate number of minorities being 
sentenced to death yearly, and the high number of erroneous rulings by 
the court system, I am very reluctant to support such a provision.
  Furthermore, I am not a proponent of mandatory minimum sentencing 
guidelines because they undermine and eliminate judicial discretion in 
individual cases. Judges, under the provision, are unable to impose a 
lesser sentence after considering the circumstances surrounding a given 
case. There should not be a one-size-fits-all sentencing structure when 
judges are determining incarceration of a human being.
  This bill would increase certain mandatory minimum sentences for many 
sexual abuse crimes. For example, for child abduction cases current law 
consists of a minimum of 51-63 months in jail. This bill increases the 
minimum to 121-151 months in jail. Judges engage in numerous cases 
regarding sexual abduction and have more experience and expertise in 
those cases than we do. Therefore, we should not second-guess their 
decisions on whether to impose a sentence that is more lenient. They 
see the defendant and victim, they hear the arguments and testimony, 
and hence, we should show deference to their rulings.
  Similar to the mandatory minimum provisions, this bill also provides 
for a ``two strikes and you're out'' section that creates a mandatory 
life sentence for sexual offenders that have been convicted more than 
once. This provision negates a judges discretion and ability to impose 
just sentences. Currently, there is no such law that provides for 
mandatory imprisonment for life after being convicted of a sex crime.
  Under this report, if an individual commits a sex crime and is 
jailed, subsequent to that person's release, he or she will be 
supervised for life. The statute of limitations regarding these crimes 
will be voided and an individual can be supervised for his entire life. 
Not only will it be difficult for these persons to find employment or 
social acceptance after such a conviction, but this bill will also 
allow them to be followed and observed day-to-day.
  Another bad provision that was added in conference has been coined 
the ``crack-house statute amendments''. Essentially, this provision 
will make legitimate businesses the victim of felony charges if they 
cannot guarantee a drug free property or business. This provision was 
intended to eliminate the many detrimental effects of ``rave'' parties 
that allegedly expose drugs and drug usage to the minors that are 
present. This provision permits government to narrow its focus to 
particular parties and social gatherings where drug usage is allegedly 
prevalent and impose felony charges on the owners as a means to 
eradicating the drug problem. Quite to the contrary, what it

[[Page H3073]]

will do is deter innocent, law-abiding property owners and potentially 
lucrative sole proprietors from investing in the community because of 
their inability to ensure a drug-free environment. This provision is 
bad for community and economic development and does not guarantee that 
these ``raves'' will cease to exist, or that drugs will not be readily 
available to youth.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am vehemently opposed to the conference 
agreement. It is anti-civil liberty and overreaching. Any attempt to 
provide strong protection for children is trumped by the unreasonable 
persistence of the majority to increase penalties for these cases. As I 
stated earlier, the court is experienced enough to decipher individual 
sex crime cases and impose the appropriate sentence. We should focus on 
the issue at hand--a system that is technologically apt enough to 
produce the type of nationwide coordination that we need to catch 
criminals. Thereafter, the courts will proceed as needed, on a case-by-
case basis. I support the need for an AMBER Alert system, but I do not 
support the conference agreement in its entirety.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of 
the Conference Report on S. 151, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other 
Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003, or the 
PROTECT Act. I support the Conference Report on S. 151 reluctantly 
because while the Conference Report improves upon the AMBER Alert 
system, it is does not provide us with a clean AMBER Alert Bill. 
Moreover, many of the extraneous provisions of the Conference Report 
violate the Constitutional principles of First Amendment freedom of 
speech, and the separate judicial powers of our federal courts.
  The Conference Report on S. 151 has a myriad of provisions that are 
unrelated to establishing a national AMBER Alert System. I firmly 
believe that all of the provisions dealing with criminal justice 
matters should be debated in separate legislation, and many of the 
provisions violate the Constitution.
  For example, the sentencing guideline provisions proposed by Mr. 
Feeney have been the subject of heated debate by the conference members 
because they are at odds with the Constitution. Mr. Feeney's provisions 
impose limitations or prohibitions on federal district court judges' 
discretion in sentencing. By so doing, Mr. Feeney's Amendment handcuffs 
federal judges and eliminates their judicial discretion in imposing 
sentences.
  The Feeney provisions establish separate departure standards for 
child-related offenses and sex offenses that must be followed by 
district courts. The provisions also prohibit sentencing departures for 
gambling dependence, aberrant behavior, family ties, and diminished 
capacity in child and sex cases. The provisions limit age and physical 
impairment departures in child and sex cases.
  Mr. Feeney's provisions improperly interfere with the sentencing 
process in cases that have left Federal district courts and are now on 
appeal. The Amendment prohibits downward sentencing departures based on 
new grounds when a case is remanded. It also subjects district courts 
to de novo review of their sentencing decisions.
  The provisions offered by Mr. Feeney are an improper violation of the 
doctrine of separation of powers. Article III of our Constitution 
separates powers between the three branches of our Government. Our 
Federal courts area allocated the power to review the facts and law in 
a particular case and render a decision. The Federal judges that sit on 
our courts are hand-picked for the legal acumen and wisdom, and we 
defer to their experience in rendering sentencing decisions.

  It is improper for Congress to mandate that Courts follow rigid 
sentencing guidelines. To do so strips our federal judges of their 
discretion to review the facts and extenuating circumstances of a 
particular case, and render a decision based on the best interests of 
the accused and the community. Members of Congress are not members of 
the judicial branch. They are not privy to all of the information 
needed to make an informed sentencing decision in any given case. The 
responsibility of sentencing should be reserved for federal judges.
  I also object to the provisions of the PROTECT Act that ban 
``virtual'' child pornography. The provision of the Conference Report 
to S. 151 violates the First Amendment and attempts to circumvent the 
Supreme Court's ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, by 
claiming that ``virtual'' child pornography is ``indistinguishable'' 
from actual images of sexual activity.
  The Majority of the Supreme Court has already ruled in Ashcroft that 
extending the reach of child pornography laws to computer-generated 
images that do not involve real children was ``overbroad and 
unconstitutional'' and violated the First Amendment. While computer-
generated images of child sexual activity may be objectionable to all 
of us, the Supreme Court has made clear that ``the government may not 
suppress lawful speech as a means to suppress unlawful speech.'' The 
Court also ruled, ``protected speech does not become unprotected merely 
because it resembles the latter.''
  The provisions of the Conference Report are particularly 
controversial because they deal with Constitutional liberties and 
personal freedoms. The longer we debate Amendments like Mr. Feeney's, 
the longer our country operates without a national AMBER Alert System. 
Every day that goes by without a national AMBER Alert system in place 
puts the lives of children at risk. According to an October 2002 U.S. 
Department of Justice Report titled the National Incidence Studies of 
Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART Report), 
12,222 children were the victims of traditional kidnappings in the year 
1999 alone. That amounts to approximately 33 children kidnapped 
nationwide per day.
  While the members of the House debate extraneous amendments, hundreds 
of children are being kidnapped and murdered. As the Chair of the 
Congressional Children's Caucus, I strongly believe that the best way 
to save children's lives is to vote in support of the PROTECT Act, even 
if I do so reluctantly.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of AMBER 
alert bill, the Child Abduction Prevention Act. One of the provisions 
in this comprehensive legislation is my own bill, H.R. 220--known as 
Suzanne's law. The inclusion of Suzanne's Law will aid in the abduction 
investigations of college-aged children.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation was inspired by Suzanne Lyall--an 
ambitious young woman from the 20th Congressional District of New York. 
Suzanne abruptly vanished on March 2, 1998 from her life as a 
University of Albany college student. Although only 19 years old at the 
time of her disappearance, police did not immediately act after her 
parents reported her missing. The common practice of state and local 
law enforcement agencies is to impose a 24-hour waiting period before 
accepting missing persons reports for individuals over the age of 18. 
It is often assumed that college aged youth, as legal adults, disappear 
from their own free will. Although this assumption may have some 
anecdotal credibility, Suzanne's case proves it is not a responsible 
assumption. Time is of the essence when someone disappears.
  Mr. Speaker, Suzanne's Law would amend the Crime Control Act of 1990 
to require each Federal, State, and local law enforcement agency to 
immediately report missing children under the age of 21 to the 
Department of Justice's National Crime Information Center. The current 
requirement is only for those individuals under 18 years of age. Such a 
change would eliminate costly delays. It is certainly prudent to offer 
college-age youth, away from home and independent for the first time, 
the additional resources and protections that come with the designation 
of ``missing child.'' This designation will also help open doors with 
organizations that sponsor ``missing children'' lists, but do not 
include individuals over 17 years old.
  Suzanne's parents, Doug and Mary Lyall, understand all too clearly 
the pain and confusion experienced by the families and friends of 
missing children. They have courageously used their own loss to help 
others struggling with the disappearance of a loved one.
  As a result of their tireless activism, I first introduced Suzanne's 
Law during the 106th Congress. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased this 
legislation, along with the other valuable provisions of the AMBER 
alert bill, will be voted on today. I urge my colleagues to honor the 
Lyalls and support Suzanne's Law. Perhaps with its passage, potential 
breakdowns in investigations will be avoided and future college-age 
disappearances will be taken seriously.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to vote for this 
bill. It includes provisions that I strongly support--including the 
``AMBER Alert'' system that would aid in finding missing children. But 
those children have been taken hostage by a bill that also includes so-
called ``sentencing reforms''--radical, sweeping changes to the Federal 
sentencing system that were never considered by any committee of either 
House. Provisions that would cause an explosion in the number of people 
behind bars--including many who simply do not belong there.
  Just three days ago, the Justice Department reported that the number 
of people living behind bars in the United States had exceeded two 
million for the first time in our history. Two million. And included in 
that number is a staggering 12 percent of African-American men aged 20 
to 34.
  If this bill is the congressional response to that situation, the 
public may well conclude that we have finally taken leave of our 
senses.
  The rate of incarceration in the U.S. is seven times higher than that 
of such advanced nations as Germany, Italy, and Denmark. A primary 
reason for this is that a large number of our prisoners are serving 
long

[[Page H3074]]

terms for minor nonviolent offenses. And if this bill becomes law, 
there will be a lot more of them.
  Men in prison cannot raise families, cannot hold jobs, cannot pay 
taxes, and cannot support the economy. And when they get out, many who 
might have turned their lives around will have become hardened 
criminals, ready to return to the only life they know. Conservatives 
and liberals alike have recognized that this situation poses a threat 
to the future of our cities, our families, our economic well-being, and 
the health of our democracy itself. Growing numbers of prominent 
conservatives have joined in calls for an end to mandatory minimum 
sentences. Yet this bill takes a giant--and potentially catastrophic--
step in the wrong direction.
  When Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it created a 
system of guidelines for judges to follow. But Congress also recognized 
that no system of guidelines can anticipate all of the facts and 
circumstances of a given case. And it wisely preserved sufficient 
flexibility to allow the judge to depart from the guidelines when 
necessary.
  This bill would substantially eliminate that safety valve, barring 
judges from making ``downward departures'' in a large number of cases--
effectively transforming the federal guidelines into a system of 
mandatory minimum sentences.
  When Chief Justice Rehnquist learned of this proposal, he wrote: 
``this legislation, is enacted, would do serious harm to the basic 
structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair 
the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.'' 
Justice Rehnquist is certainly no liberal. But even his concerns have 
been brushed aside.
  Similar opposition was expressed by the Judicial Conference of the 
United States, the American Bar Association, the Leadership Conference 
on Civil Rights, the Washington Legal Foundation, the Cato Institute 
and many other groups and individuals. All to no avail.
  It is true that during conference, a number of improvements were made 
to the original language. But the final version retains many features 
of the original, and barely begins to address the concerns raised by 
the Chief Justice.
  Title IV of the bill prohibits all downward departures in connection 
with child-related offenses and sex offenses. In all other cases, it 
discourages judges from making downward departures by subjecting them 
to burdensome reporting requirements and Justice Department scrutiny if 
they do so. And it directs the Sentencing Commission to amend the 
guidelines to ensure that downward departures are ``substantially 
reduced.''
  Since there has been virtually no debate on these radical proposals, 
we must guess at the reasons for them. Apparently, they are based on 
the belief that judges have been abusing their departure power by 
handing down overly lenient sentences.
  No doubt errors and abuses occur. Judges are human, and some 
sentences will be too lenient while others are too harsh. But the 
system already provides a remedy for this: the government can and does 
appeal downward departures it considers inappropriate. And it wins 
approximately 80 percent of such appeals.
  The truth is that the vast majority of the downward departures are 
sought, not by the judge, but by the government itself. Of the nearly 
20,000 downward departures granted in 2001, 79 percent were requested 
by the prosecution--most in return for the cooperation of the 
defendant, and the rest in five Mexican border districts in which the 
government uses departures to clear cases more quickly.
  If the sponsors of the bill have concerns about the rate of downward 
departures, the Justice department is where they should be making 
inquiries. As a former prosecutor, I can see plenty of reasons to 
question the overuse of departures as a law enforcement tool.
  Inf act, the one thing that pleases me about the language as it came 
out of conference is that it instructs the Sentencing Commission to 
review not just those downward departures that are initiated by the 
sentencing judge but all downward departures--whether requested by the 
prosecution or the defense. I certainly hope that in fulfilling the 
congressional mandate to review these departures and ensure that their 
incidence is ``substantially reduced,'' the Commission will do so in a 
thorough and even-handed way.
  Nevertheless, if there is a problem with departures, depriving judges 
of the ability to exercise discretion cannot be the answer. A rigid, 
mechanical system of sentences cannot do justice--either to the accused 
or to the society to which the millions we imprison today will one day 
return.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I speak in support of the conference 
report to S. 151, the PROTECT Act, which creates new and increases 
already existing penalties for crimes against children, as well as 
provides for the national coordination of the AMBER Alert 
communications network. An important provision in S. 151 doubles the 
authorization level 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.
  The conference report also makes other changes to require Regional 
Children's Advocacy Centers grantees to provide information to the 
Attorney General on the use of funds for evaluation of community 
response to child abuse, and coordinates the operation of a Cyber-
Tipline to provide online users an effective means of reporting 
Internet-related child sexual exploitation in the areas of distribution 
of child pornography, online enticement of children for sexual acts, 
and child prostitution.
  The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is a private 
non-profit organization, mandated by Congress, working in cooperation 
with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within 
the U.S. Department of Justice. It is a critical resource for aiding 
over 18,000 law enforcement agencies throughout the nation in their 
search for missing children.
  The Center is uniquely positioned to access vital information to aid 
in the search and recovery of missing kids. It is the only child 
protection non-profit organization with access to the FBI's National 
Crime Information Center (NCIC) Missing Person, Wanted Person, and 
Unidentified Person Files; the National Law Enforcement 
Telecommunications System (NLETS); and the Federal Parent Locator 
Service (FPLS). 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. Department of Justice. 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.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children does our country and our nation's families a great 
service in the fight to keep our nation's children safe. I want to 
congratulate my colleagues for quickly resolving the differences 
between the House and Senate bills and I urge their support for final 
passage.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, it is with a troubled heart that I will be 
voting for the PROTECT Act today. The benefits of a national AMBER 
Alert network are undeniable, and I cannot support any further delay on 
its implementation. However, I do not believe that this Conference 
Report will make good law, and I fervently hope that Congress will soon 
repeal the egregious provisions that have been included. Though the 
Conference Committee was able to moderate the bill somewhat, it is 
still chock-full of what I considered to be bad policy. Regardless of 
what one thinks of these provisions, they should have received 
independent consideration and deliberation, rather than being tied to, 
and slowing down, a need as pressing as AMBER.
  I am particularly disturbed by the parts of this legislation that 
would eliminate judicial discretion. For example, Section 109 of this 
measure would fundamentally alter the carefully crafted and balanced 
system established by the Sentencing Reform Act. It undermines our 
independent judiciary, as well as the United States Sentencing 
Commission. It is a reversal of existing law that was inserted during 
floor debate, without committee hearings or any semblance of due 
deliberation. Unfortunately, this is all to emblematic of how this bill 
has been handled in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because it is well past time 
to pass an AMBER Alert network act, but instead of marking an 
unmitigated legislative achievement, the passage of this omnibus 
measure will be a cause for serious self-reflection on what we are 
doing here.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that we would have been able to 
come together to reach consensus on how best to deal with the difficult 
problem of child abduction in this country and to pass an AMBER alert 
bill. The recent rash of child abductions clearly indicate that 
additional steps need to be taken to protect our children from sexual 
predators.
  Unfortunately, the conference was delayed and hung up by provisions 
which have nothing to do with Amber alert and which should have been 
dealt with separately. First and foremost, is the highly controversial 
amendment offered by Rep. Tom Feeney, which would totally hamstring any 
remaining discretion federal judges have in making sentencing 
determinations. This provision was added on the floor two weeks ago 
without proper hearings or committee debate and clearly is not ready 
for prime time.
  It is opposed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, by the Federal Judicial 
Conference, by the American Bar Association, by the Federal Bar 
Association, by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, by the NAACP 
and by countless law professors, prosecutors, and public defenders.
  In a nutshell, the Freeney Amendment, as introduced, would make it 
next to impossible

[[Page H3075]]

for federal judges to reduce sentences below the guidelines, even where 
mitigating factors such a military service, community involvement and 
youth are present. Guess who is going to be harmed disproportionally by 
this harsh approach to sentencing--minorities in general and African 
Americans in particular.
  Consider the fact that a full 12 percent of African American men aged 
20-34 are in prison--more than 8 times the comparable rate of white 
males in the same age group. According to the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, nearly one out of every three black men will spend time in 
prison during their lifetime.
  So when you toughten sentencing, as the Feeney amendment would do, 
you should know that you are busting up African American families and 
decimating our inner cities. You are also creating massive problems 
concerning reentry when these individuals leave the prison system in 
another 10 or 15 years. The very least we should do is to leave these 
critical life decisions in the reasonable discretion of the Federal 
judge who is closest to the situation. To use the popular AMBER alert 
measure to alter this long standing principle, and without proper 
hearings or consideration is to me shameful.
  Now my friends on the other side of the aisle will claim not to 
worry, that they fixed the Feeney amendment which they will say is 
limited to sex offenses. But the truth is that the revised Feeney 
language would radically alter the sentencing regime for every single 
criminal case in the legal system. It does this by adding a whole host 
of new procedural requirements for a judge to show any form of mercy in 
all federal cases. The bill also adds new requirements on the Justice 
Department and the Sentencing Commission with regard to downward 
departures in all Federal cases. At the end of the day, what we will 
have is something very close to the original purpose of the Feeney 
Amendment--mandatory minimums in all federal criminal cases.
  There are other problems in the bill before us, including new death 
penalties, eliminating statutes of limitation, and criminalizing so-
called ``RAVE'' parties. As a result of these provisions and the very 
broad based and dangerous Feeney amendment, I must reluctantly urge a 
NO vote on this short sighted measure.

                            [April 9, 2003]

  Vote No on Child Abduction Prevention Act (S. 151), Which Deprives 
   Federal Judges of Discretion to Make the Punishment Fit the Crime

       Dear Representative: On Thursday, April 10, the House will 
     consider the Child Abduction Prevention Act (S. 151), Title 
     IV of which would radically limit federal judicial discretion 
     to impose just sentences for federal offenses. This measure, 
     which was attached to the House child abduction bill without 
     committee considerations, goes far beyond any effort to crack 
     down on child abductors. It overrules a key Supreme Court 
     sentencing decision and constitutes a drastic encroachment on 
     the independence of the judiciary and the U.S. Sentencing 
     Commission. Such far-reaching changes in the laws and 
     procedures that govern our federal criminal justice system 
     should not be undertaken without hearings and meaningful 
     debate.
       Title IV directs the Sentencing Commission to limit a 
     federal judge's power to depart from the Sentencing 
     Guidelines. Departures are in integral part of the Sentencing 
     Reform Act that Congress enacted in 1984. That bipartisan 
     reform struck as balance between uniformity and judicial 
     discretion and was enacted after years of study and 
     consideration of problems in the previous sentencing system. 
     Congress understood that a guidelines system that encompasses 
     every relevant sentencing factor is neither possible nor 
     desirable. Departures are a necessary and healthy part of the 
     guideline system.
       Departures do not reflect an avoidance of the law by 
     federal judges but rather their conscientious compliance with 
     the Congressional mandate to impose a guideline sentence 
     unless the court finds a circumstance not adequately 
     considered by the Commission that warrants a departure.
       The Sentencing Reform Act already contains substantial 
     limits on judicial discretion. The overwhelming majority of 
     federal sentences, other than those requested by the 
     government to reward defendants who have provided assistance 
     in prosecuting others or to manage the caseload in border 
     districts, are within the guidelines written by the 
     Sentencing Commission, which is appointed by the President 
     and confirmed by the Senate. Judges may only depart from the 
     guidelines if the case involves circumstances not adequately 
     considered by the Commission. The government may appeal any 
     downward departure.
       Title IV overturns an important Supreme Court decision. In 
     the 1996 case of Koon v. United States, which was in relevant 
     part a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the 
     departure standard in a way that limited departures but left 
     some room for judicial discretion. Title IV of S. 151 
     recklessly overturns that landmark decision, which recognized 
     that departures are an integral part of the guidelines system 
     that seeks ``to reduce unjustified disparities and so reach 
     toward the evenhandedness and neutrality that are the 
     distinguishing marks of any principled system of justice [but 
     that at the same time preserve the] uniform and constant * * 
     * Federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge to 
     consider every convicted person as an individual and every 
     case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes 
     mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to 
     ensue.'' 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996). The current bill overturns 
     the basic structure of the carefully crafted guidelines 
     system, without meaningful input from judges or practitioners 
     and based on numbers called into question by the statistics 
     maintained by the Sentencing Commission.
       Departures preserve some measure of fairness in the 
     Sentencing Guidelines. Without the discretionary authority to 
     depart, all crimes regardless of the circumstances would have 
     to be sentenced exactly the same; one size must fit all, 
     predetermined by the body of experts sitting in Washington, 
     D.C. The Sentencing Guidelines will become a little more than 
     mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which cause rampant 
     injustice and unwarranted racial disparity.
       The departure process is already under review. Departures 
     are the one area of the Guidelines were the Commission can 
     see if its sentencing policies are working or whether an 
     adjustment needs to be made. A high departure rate in certain 
     types of cases can indicate flaws in the guidelines that the 
     Commission needs to address. This is the careful system of 
     checks and balances that Congress crafted when it created the 
     guidelines. The Sentencing Commission has repeatedly 
     demonstrated its willingness to police the departure power 
     and recently announced that it will be conducting a study of 
     the issue. We urge Congress to let this process work.
       Thank you for considering our views. Please contact Kyle 
     O'Dowd (202-872-8600, ext. 226) for the National Association 
     of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Ronald Weich for the 
     Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (202-788-1818) if we 
     can provide more information.
     Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Association 
     of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Legal Aid and Defender 
     Association, National Association of Federal Defenders, 
     Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

  Mr.SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground 
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum 
is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
the conference report will be followed by 5-minute votes on motions to 
suspend the rules and agree to House Concurrent Resolution 141 and 
House Resolution 165, as amended, which were debated yesterday.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400, 
nays 25, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 127]

                               YEAS--400

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     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)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English

[[Page H3076]]


     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     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
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     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
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     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
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     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
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Toomey
     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)

                                NAYS--25

     Ballance
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Frank (MA)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Payne
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Scott (VA)
     Stark
     Towns
     Waters
     Watt

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Delahunt
     Tierney
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brady (TX)
     Crenshaw
     Davis (TN)
     Dooley (CA)
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Rush


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). The Chair 
reminds the Members there are 2 minutes left to vote.

                              {time}  1234

  Messrs. BALLANCE, DAVIS of Illinois, LEWIS of Georgia and CUMMINGS, 
Ms. LEE and Mrs. JONES of Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. TIERNEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
   Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 127, I was unavoidably 
detained in a meeting with my regional constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________