[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 34 (Thursday, March 16, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       CHILDREN'S SAFETY AND VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, March 8, 2006

  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favor of 
passing H.R. 4472, The Children's Safety and Violent Crime Reduction 
Act of 2006. However, I want to make clear the serious concerns I have 
regarding some of the content of this legislation and the manner in 
which it is being considered by the House of Representatives.
  I ultimately support this legislation, primarily because it 
incorporates the core content contained in H.R. 3132, The Children's 
Safety Act of 2005, which was previously passed by the House of 
Representatives on September 14, 2005. H.R. 3132--and by extension H.R. 
4472--provides for vital improvements to strengthen the ability of our 
justice system to protect children from sex offenders. This legislation 
helps to develop a comprehensive national approach to prevent sex 
offenders from preying on our children, as it creates a national sex 
offender registry and increases penalties for sex crimes against 
children. Like everyone else, I have been horrified by the recent cases 
of abductions and murders of children by sex offenders, and am 
determined to do everything in my power as a public official to prevent 
such tragedies from ever occurring again.
  I am also supportive of the main provisions of H.R. 1751, The Secure 
Access to Justice and Court Protection Action of 2005, which are 
included in H.R. 4472. These provisions would increase federal 
penalties for the assault, murder, or kidnapping of judges and court 
employees and make it a federal crime to kill or assault public safety 
officers or other court personnel.
  However, H.R. 4472 also contains the core content of additional 
legislation, H.R. 1279, The Gang Deterrence and Community Protection 
Act of 2005, which I voted against last year on May 11, 2005. H.R. 
1279--and by extension H.R. 4472--creates new federal criminal 
penalties and mandatory minimums for crimes committed by gang members, 
yet it loosely defines the definition of gang membership. Further, it 
redefines ``crimes of violence'' to include drug-trafficking crimes, 
and authorizes the Attorney General to charge a juvenile as an adult 
for certain crimes. I believe this aspect of the legislation has many 
flaws, one of which is the ability to penalize even non-violent drug 
dealing and some misdemeanors as ``crimes of violence.'' I am opposed 
to prosecuting youth as adults and imposing mandatory minimum 
sentences.

  We already incarcerate two million people, about half for non-violent 
drug crimes, and I believe that we need to emphasize more prevention 
and early intervention programs geared towards at-risk youth. This 
legislation seriously errs in its lack of focus on prevention and early 
intervention, which time after time has proven to be the most effective 
way to prevent juvenile, and ultimately, adult crime.
  I also think it is yet another abuse of the procedures of the House 
by the majority to bring up this bill on the suspension calendar. The 
suspension calendar, which does not permit amendments, is intended for 
non-controversial bills for which there is broad consensus. For the 
reasons described above and others, many Menibers of this body have 
reservations about H.R. 4472. Undoubtedly, a number of Members would 
have offered improving amendments if given the opportunity. Perhaps 
those amendments would have been rejected by a majority of the House, 
and would have failed. Perhaps they would have been approved 
unanimously. Bringing this legislation up on the suspension calendar 
subverts the democratic process. Particularly given that the House has 
already passed the entire contents of H.R. 4472, it is patently obvious 
that the sole purpose of bringing up H.R. 4472 without an ability to 
amend it is to play politics.
  In conclusion, my vote in favor of passing H.R. 4472 comes despite my 
reservations regarding these controversial provisions, and is driven by 
my overriding concern for the safety of our nation's most valuable 
asset--our children. I continue to have major concerns about some 
elements of the legislation, and particularly the manner in which it 
has been brought up. Protecting our nation's children should be our 
overriding priority, and worth real debate and attention from the 
House.

                          ____________________