[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9229-S9230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1738

  Mr. REID. Madam President, again, as has happened during this long 
process where these bills have languished, we keep getting suggestions 
for changes. We make them, and it does not make any difference. And 
last night, again, Senator Coburn suggested a change. We certainly can 
go along with that. We will make the change, send it over to you, and 
take a look at it.
  I want to take a minute to talk about another one of the 34 pieces of 
legislation that is so important. Its name is ``PROTECT Our Children 
Act,'' or the PROTECT Act. This bill seeks to increase the prosecution 
of individuals producing and trading in child pornography by providing 
funding to the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
  The Crimes Against Children Task Force has developed the ability to 
identify individuals in the online distribution of child pornography 
but lacks the manpower needed to pursue and prosecute the offenders. 
This bill would give the Crimes Against Children Task Force the 
resources it needs.
  This bill would also help promote coordination and strategic planning 
of Government resources to catch child predators by requiring DOJ to 
develop and implement a national strategy to combat child exploitation.
  This bill would go a long way toward rescuing the thousands of 
children who are being exploited by child predators. Studies show that 
30 percent of the people identified by the Crimes Against Children Task 
Force are actively engaged in molesting a child. Yet, right now, of the 
over 500,000 known cases, we are investigating 2 percent of them 
because law enforcement does not have the resources to do more.
  This legislation was introduced in October 2007 and passed the House 
about a year ago, 415 to 2. The Senate companion legislation passed the 
Judiciary Committee. The Senate bill Republican cosponsors include 
Senators Stevens, Hatch, Hutchison, and Murkowski. So it is the right 
thing to do to pass this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 862, 
S. 1738, that a substitute amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, 
the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and the motion 
to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, a question again for the 
majority leader. As confused as I was on a previous act, this does not 
include the language of the SAFE Act?
  Mr. REID. That is right. The reason it doesn't--there are lots of 
reasons it doesn't, but we have a letter from the Justice Department. 
The Justice Department--Bush's Justice Department we all know about--
decided to take a look at that. Even the Bush Justice Department said 
this needs a lot more work. Keep in mind, I have described in detail 
what we are trying to do. The SAFE Act the Senator is talking about is 
a different piece of legislation, and it should not be tied into what 
we are trying to do with this child pornography thing. I would hope we 
would get this done. We will be happy to work with the Justice 
Department and everybody else to see if we can work something out on 
the SAFE Act. It is not yet ready for passage. We all agree there is a 
need to combat Internet pornography. But important questions about the 
text of Senator Coburn's proposed legislation must be answered. We have 
questions. I used the Justice Department as an example. It is not only 
us. It is the Bush Justice Department. While some version of the SAFE 
Act might pass, let's not fool ourselves. The SAFE Act will help 
develop leads, but right now only 2 percent of all cases are 
investigated because law enforcement does not have the resources. The 
SAFE Act does absolutely nothing to bolster law enforcement resources. 
The PROTECT Act fills the known hole that has resulted in 98 percent of 
existing leads on child predators to go uninvestigated.
  The Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, has not held 
a hearing on the SAFE Act. It has not been the subject of committee 
markup. I don't believe any Republican on the committee even formally 
asked for a markup. It is ironic that Senator Coburn, the self-
designated champion of insisting that bills be scrutinized before 
passage, now wants to circumvent the legislative process for a bill he 
never even bothered to raise in committee.
  The Justice Department has serious concerns about this act. In a six-
page letter sent last year, DOJ made numerous suggestions for improving 
the text of the bill. Some of the suggestions were addressed in the 
House version of the bill but many were not. In addition, officials 
from the Internet service providers that would implement this new law 
have raised important practical questions. They are concerned about 
vague definitions and requirements in the bill. There is no point in 
rushing to pass a bill that will be ineffective or struck down by the 
courts as unconstitutionally vague.
  Last week, I asked my staff to convene a group of Republican and 
Democratic staffers to try to revise the text of the bill in light of 
the concerns expressed by the Department of Justice and others. Senator 
Coburn's staff is part of that effort. I am hopeful we can reach 
bipartisan agreement on the SAFE Act. The staff negotiations are 
ongoing. We will continue to work in good faith to get this bill in 
shape, but we are not there yet. Meanwhile, we are there on the PROTECT 
Act. It is ready to go. It has been for a long time. We can pass it 
today and get it to the President's desk immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Continuing my reservation of the right to object, by the 
same logic that the majority leader has argued on all these other 
bills, the SAFE Act passed the House 390 to 2. So with the wisdom of 
the House, under which we are basing all the other requests for 
unanimous consent, why is that wisdom not any good now with the SAFE 
Act? The fact is that it isn't. I regret that unless we can pass the 
PROTECT Act with the SAFE Act and unless we can actually do something--
the SAFE Act actually will do something tomorrow, the day it is signed. 
The PROTECT Act will not do anything until the money comes through 
Congress a year from now. So the fact is, if we had the SAFE Act, we 
will stop child pornography faster than if we don't. The question of 
the fourth amendment rights of child pornographers versus the rights of 
children being abused is not a hard thing to figure out. With that, I 
object until we add that to the bill.
  Mr. REID. It is interesting how my friend isn't interested in the 
authorization of money this takes. It is obvious from what we have 
heard from my friend, supported by his Republican colleagues, that 
these important pieces of legislation have been held up and are 
continuing to be held up. That is unfortunate. We have not a single 
piece of legislation today that has been approved. That is the way it 
is, this arrangement. I hope the Republicans accept what they have 
done. They have supported this. The Republicans have

[[Page S9230]]

supported Senator Coburn's blocking bills that have passed 
overwhelmingly in the House. They would pass overwhelmingly here, but 
Republicans are supporting his procedural blockage of these bills.

                          ____________________