[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3193-3207]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            TWO STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT CHILD PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 366 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 366

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2146) to amend title 18 of the United States 
     Code to provide life imprisonment for repeat offenders who 
     commit sex offenses against children. The first reading of 
     the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration 
     of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 366 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child 
Protection Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, evenly divided and 
controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. The rule further provides that the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment.

                              {time}  1030

  This is a fair rule that will allow Members ample opportunity to 
offer amendments and debate this important issue.
  I can think of few crimes, Mr. Speaker, as serious as the sexual 
abuse of children. I personally favor the death penalty for the 
criminals that we are dealing with in this legislation. Though this 
legislation does not go that far, it does treat repeat child molesters 
in a severe fashion.
  H.R. 2146 would establish mandatory sentences of life imprisonment 
for twice convicted child sex offenders. This bill would apply to 
individuals committing sexual offenses against persons under the age of 
17. Child sex offenders pose a very serious threat to society. Studies 
have shown that a single child molester can abuse hundreds of children. 
This number is particularly troubling when one considers that the abuse 
of one child is far too many.
  Perpetrators of these unthinkable crimes steal the innocence of our 
Nation's children and corrupt society. According to the committee 
report, Mr. Speaker, victims experience severe mental and physical 
health problems as a result of these crimes. These problems include 
increased rates of depression and suicide as well as all sorts of other 
serious problems.
  We must do everything in our power to ensure that repeat sex 
offenders are kept off of our streets. Mr. Speaker, we sadly live in a 
world where children are all too often forced to grow up much too 
quickly. I ask that my colleagues help us in protecting our children 
from sexual offenders by passing this critical piece of legislation.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green); the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary; and all those who have 
worked so diligently to bring this legislation forward.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the 
rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for 
yielding me the time. This is an open rule. It will allow for the 
consideration of a bill that would establish a mandatory sentence of 
life in prison for anyone convicted a second time for sexual offenses 
against children.
  The legislation applies only to cases on Federal properties such as 
military bases and national parks. As my colleague has described, this 
rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  The rule permits amendments under the 5-minute rule. This is the 
normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the 
aisle will have the opportunity to offer germane amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, sex offenses against children are among the disturbing 
crimes in our society and each attack can be a tragic event that will 
leave a permanent psychological scar on its

[[Page 3194]]

victim. Punishment should be severe. It is important to lock up 
offenders so that they do not have the opportunity to strike again. 
This is the justification behind this bill.
  However, I must use this opportunity to express some concern over 
eliminating the flexibility of the courts to make the sentence fit the 
unique events behind a particular case. Experts have pointed to a 
number of undesirable practices that could occur by requiring such a 
strict sentence regardless of the circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. Members will have a chance to 
change this bill. They will have the opportunity to perfect it through 
the amendment process. I support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my voice is a 
little raspy, but my heart is certainly not raspy but concerned about 
the nature of the acts against children when they are sexually molested 
or abducted; and so in general I think the idea of acknowledging the 
viciousness of those who would sexually molest and abduct children is 
very valuable. And the underpinnings of this legislation, I recognize 
the importance of and clearly believe that we should move in the 
direction, however, with one concern as the ranking member indicated, 
whether or not our Federal judges would have some discretion to deal 
with cases that warrant determinations of difference other than what 
this legislation proposes.
  As I speak to that issue, I believe and hope that my amendment 
concerning a study of the impact of this legislation would be received 
and accepted. And then I would like to move to another discussion, Mr. 
Speaker, and that is of a present circumstance that is going on in my 
district right now. I am going to ask this House to weigh the 
germaneness that might be raised against an amendment that I propose 
because we have a problem, and I believe this is a Federal problem.
  As I speak, a 13-year-old in Houston, Texas, has been abducted, 
someone who simply wanted to do her homework Sunday night. She lives in 
an apartment. She is an immigrant, Spanish speaking. She just wanted to 
go 100 feet down the street to get a Sunday newspaper dutifully doing a 
school project. And her mother indicated, can you wait till Monday 
morning, and my colleagues know how good students are in the 7th grade. 
She said she needed the Sunday paper. Lo and behold, on Monday morning 
when she did not return or early that morning when the mother was 
frantic, the police found sneakers scattered, papers scattered and 
obviously something has gone awry.
  What a tragedy, Mr. Speaker, that here in the face of this 
legislation we now have a circumstance that this child is missing, but 
let me tell my colleagues the absolute insult.
  As the officers were poring over lists of known sexual offenders, 
concentrating on the girl's neighborhood, the Texas Department of 
Public Safety lists 25 registered sex offenders in one ZIP code. This 
is unbelievable. This has no sense to it. This is a tragedy in its own 
making, and I hope the leaders of this legislation can find some sense 
to allowing an amendment that investigates how we can put 25 sex 
offenders in one ZIP code, and this has to do with Federal funding and 
a nexus as to whether or not these States should have these dollars. We 
have to find some other way of dealing with this.
  Mr. Speaker, thanks very much for the tolerance of my outrage, but we 
need an amendment that will stop putting this overabundance of sex 
offenders in one neighborhood; and we need to find little Laura Ayala 
now.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 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 on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Green of Wisconsin). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 366 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2146.

                              {time}  1039


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2146) to amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide life 
imprisonment for repeat offenders who commit sex offenses against 
children, with Mr. Terry in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child 
Protection Act. This bill would establish a mandatory sentence of life 
imprisonment for twice-convicted child sex offenders.
  The bill states that any person convicted of a Federal sex offense 
against a person under the age of 17 who has been previously convicted 
of a similar offense at the State or Federal level would be subject to 
a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The term ``Federal 
sex offense'' includes various crimes of sexual abuse committed against 
children and the interstate transportation of minors for sexual 
purposes.
  According to the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
since 1980 the number of persons sentenced for violent sexual assault 
other than rape increased annually by an average of nearly 15 percent, 
which is faster than any other category of violent crime. Of the 
estimated 95,000 sex offenders in State prisons today, well over 60,000 
most likely committed their crime against a child under age 17.
  Compounding this growing problem is the high rate of recidivism among 
sex offenders. A review of frequently cited studies of sex offender 
recidivism indicates that offenders who molest young girls repeat their 
crimes at rates up to 25 percent and offenders who molest young boys at 
rates up to 40 percent. Moreover the recidivism rates do not 
appreciably decline as offenders age.
  Another factor that makes these numbers disturbing is that many 
serious sex crimes are never reported to authorities. National data and 
criminal justice experts indicate that sex offenders are apprehended 
for a fraction of the crimes they commit. By some estimates, only one 
in every three to five serious sex offenses are reported to 
authorities, and only 3 percent of such crimes ever result in the 
apprehension of an offender.
  Studies confirm that a single child molester can abuse hundreds of 
children. It goes without saying that any attack is devastatingly 
tragic for the victim and will leave a scar that will be carried 
throughout life. Victims experience severe mental and physical health 
problems as a result of these crimes. These problems include increased 
rates of depression and suicide, as well as reproductive problems. The 
effect of sexual abuse resonates from victim to family and continues to 
weave through the fabric of our communities.
  Children have the right to grow up protected from sexual predators 
and free from abuse. H.R. 2146 will protect America's children by 
permanently removing the worst offenders from our society, those who 
repeatedly victimize children.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 3195]]

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition of H.R. 2146. It is a perfect example of what 
the Judicial Conference of the United States Courts describes as the 
type of legislation that ``severely distorts and damages the Federal 
sentencing system and undermines the sentencing guideline regimen 
established by Congress to promote fairness and proportionality in our 
sentencing system.''
  Under the bill, Mr. Chairman, the mandatory minimum penalty for 
second offense of consensual touching by an 18-year-old of his 14-year-
old girlfriend is life imprisonment without parole, the same penalty 
for a sexual offense against a child which results in the child's 
death.
  Mr. Chairman, 2243(a) violations which are included in the bill 
involve consensual acts between a 13- to 15-year-old minor and someone 
who is at least 18 years of age, more than 4 years older than the 
minor. ``Sexual act'' is broadly defined to include even consensual 
touching. And since attempts are punished in the same manner under the 
law as the completed act, even a second attempted touching mandates 
life without parole.
  An older sexual predator may well deserve life without parole for 
even attempted consensual touching, but no rational sentencing scheme 
would treat an 18-year-old attempting to touch a 14-year-old girlfriend 
in the same manner.

                              {time}  1045

  Proponents of the bill suggest that a second consensual offense 
between teens could not occur because by the time the first case is 
over, the offender, who has served his sentence, would no longer be a 
teen. This does not take into account the fact that the likely judgment 
for such a first offense would be probation. All it takes for these 
kinds of cases to end up in court is a determined parent and equally 
determined teens, and, bam, life without parole for what children refer 
to as ``petting.''
  The current penalty maximum for a second offense under 2243(a) is 15 
years. We do not have to mandate life in prison to get all of the cases 
for which life would be deserved. To get the cases for which 15 years 
is not harsh enough, we can increase the maximum penalty. So, Mr. 
Chairman, at the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to raise 
the maximum possible sentence for violations of 2243(a) to life 
imprisonment, and leave it to the Sentencing Commission and the courts 
to distinguish which cases deserve harsher punishment than 15 years, 
rather than taking the draconian approach in this bill and mandating 
life without parole for all cases, regardless of circumstances.
  One thing should be clear, Mr. Chairman, the bill only applies where 
there is Federal jurisdiction. Therefore, none of the cases, virtually 
none of the cases that will be referred to by the supporters of the 
bill will be affected by the bill because those are State cases. The 
Federal jurisdiction would be those on Native American reservations, 
national parks and U.S. maritime jurisdiction.
  Only a few cases fall under that jurisdiction, the requirement of 
Federal jurisdiction; at least the information we have gotten from the 
Sentencing Commission is that it might affect 60 cases. But virtually 
all of those cases will be for Native Americans on reservations.
  It is unfair that Native Americans will be subjected to such a 
grossly disproportionate impact from the draconian legislation just 
because they live on a reservation. The bill will create the anomaly of 
two like offenders committing the same offense in the same State with 
one getting probation and the other getting life without parole because 
he lives on a reservation.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, I will offer another amendment that will 
allow tribal governments to opt out of the provision of the bill in the 
same manner as we did for the ``Three Strikes and You're Out'' bill a 
few years ago. There is no evidence that there is any particular 
problem with sex crimes against children on reservations or any other 
Federal jurisdiction, and there is nothing to suggest that to whatever 
extent there is a problem it is not being appropriately dealt with 
under Federal jurisdiction now.
  Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, prior marriage is a bar to 
prosecution under 2243(a). All over this Nation, States recognize the 
rights of parents to give consent to a minor, often as young as 13, 
where the spouse could be as old as 40 or older. In all likelihood, 
before the marriage, they will have been committing offenses which 
could result in life without parole under the bill. If there is any 
debate within the family about the appropriateness of the marriage, 
life without parole creates an interesting new idea about the shotgun 
wedding.
  The problem with this bill, Mr. Chairman, is the problem of mandatory 
sentences in general. They eliminate reason and discretion in order to 
promote the politics of tough on crime. There is no study or data or 
other reasoned basis for this bill. The entire reason is its title, the 
baseball phrase ``two strikes and you're out.'' If ``two strikes and 
you're out'' is not even good baseball policy, why would we arbitrarily 
conclude it is good crime policy?
  Another major concern is that it would have the chilling effect on 
victims coming forward to report sex crimes if the victim knows the 
result will be that the perpetrator will have to serve life without 
parole. For example, a teen victim may be reluctant to turn in an older 
sibling or other family member if they know that the offender will have 
to face life without parole.
  In addition, H.R. 2146 would lead to a victim being killed to lessen 
the risk of being caught. The law professor and criminologist who 
testified before the Subcommittee on Crime on an earlier version of 
this bill stated that facing life without parole, a sex offender would 
have little further to lose by eliminating the victim, who is often an 
important witness against the offender.
  Now, considering the penalty for second-offense murder is less than 
second-offense petting, we can see why this is a concern. So, Mr. 
Chairman, I oppose the bill in its present form, but believe we can fix 
the worst problems in it, and I, along with other colleagues, will 
offer amendments designed to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), who is the author of the bill.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I begin by thanking my friend and colleague 
from Wisconsin for his work in bringing this bill forward. I appreciate 
it very, very much.
  First, let me say that this bill is not new to this House. This House 
has already passed the bill twice on a voice vote. The State version of 
this legislation is already the law in Wisconsin, and other States are 
looking at it. The cosponsorship of this legislation is bipartisan. In 
fact, it includes the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  The reason this bill has such strong support is that its objective is 
unassailable, preventing repeat child molesters from continuing to prey 
upon our young kids. This bill is a very simple one. It does not 
federalize any crimes. It does not change the terms of underlying 
criminal laws. This bill is not about sending a message, this bill is 
not about deterring crime, it is about getting bad guys off the streets 
so they cannot attack more innocent children.
  This bill says very simply, If you are arrested and convicted of a 
serious sex crime against kids, and then after you have done your time 
and you are released, you do it yet again, that is the end of the line. 
You are going to go to prison for the rest of your life. No more 
chances and, Lord willing, no more victims.
  Now, my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott), said there are no good studies for this bill. I could not 
disagree more. Study after study supports this bill. A 1992 study from 
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children found that the 
average pedophile commits 281 offenses, with an average of 150 victims. 
One hundred fifty victims. There

[[Page 3196]]

are other studies that do much more; the numbers are higher. For 
purposes of the debate today, we have tossed out those high numbers. We 
have come up with an average of 201.
  So think about that number as we have the debate today, 201 victims 
per pedophile. There are other studies, as I said, that put the number 
higher. Those studies recently caused former Attorney General, 
Democratic Attorney General, Janet Reno to estimate that the recidivism 
rate of child molesters is 75 percent.
  This bill is necessary because, thankfully, the number of attackers 
is relatively small; but tragically, the number of victims, the number 
of lives destroyed, innocence stolen, is incredibly and unacceptably 
high. If someone is arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime 
against kids, and then after they are released, they do it yet again, 
they have shown that they are unwilling or unable to help themselves. 
We must get them off the streets so their reign of terror will end.
  Congress must stop this tragedy. It is happening in too many places 
across this country to too many young people, to too many families. I 
urge our Members to take this measure up. Let us get this done quickly. 
This is important. This will save lives.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to point out that the cases that have been mentioned probably do 
not even come under the bill.
  First of all, if the average is 201 before apprehension, the bill 
will have no effect because it will not be a second offense. Second, 
you have to charge at least one of them as being on Federal property 
after the prior conviction. And, third, it does include misbehaving 
teenagers.
  The bill needs to be reworked. It can get those we are trying to get, 
but it is overinclusive and many people who do not deserve life without 
parole will be brought up under it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Smith), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding 
me this time, and I strongly support H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and 
You're Out Child Protection Act, introduced by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  This bill will amend the Federal Criminal Code to provide for 
mandatory life imprisonment of a person convicted of a Federal sex 
offense in which a minor is the victim, when the person has previously 
been convicted of a State or Federal child sex offense. This is 
important legislation that will protect our children from sexual 
predators.
  Studies have shown that sex offenders and child molesters are four 
times more likely than other violent criminals to recommit their 
crimes. Even more disturbing is the number of victims the average 
pedophile abuses in a lifetime. While any criminal's subsequent offense 
is of public concern, preventing child sexual predators from repeating 
crimes is particularly important, given the irrefutable harm that these 
offenses cause victims and the fear they generate in the community. 
Sexual assault is a terrifying crime that can leave its victims with 
physical, emotional, and psychological scars.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will provide law enforcement officials 
with the ability to permanently remove those individuals from our 
society, who have demonstrated that they will continue to prey upon our 
children if not incarcerated.
  Based upon the testimony before the Subcommittee on Crime, this bill 
enjoys broad support from victims' rights organizations, correction 
officials, as well as those who suffer from sex offenders' actions. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I am here this morning to 
show my strong support for H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out 
Child Protection Act, sponsored by my good friend, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Green). This legislation would bring to justice the 
worst kind of sexual predators in our Nation, those who prey on our 
children.
  Statistics have shown that giving these predators two strikes is more 
than enough for what they are doing to our children. Actual rates of 
repeat offenders are two-and-a-half times higher than are reported. A 
study of offenders, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) was 
referring to earlier, shows those with two offenses each, in actuality, 
in one study, were found to have 110 different victims and committed 
318 different offenses each. And, sadly, it is obvious that victims of 
child sex offenders have a higher risk of depression and suicide and 
are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs.
  I know this will be a stringent and difficult guideline, but as a man 
with four children of my own, I think it is time that we crack down. 
Ronald Reagan said that government's first duty is to protect the 
people. By passing this important legislation, we stand up and say 
``no.''
  Now, I know there are some who wish to make some changes in this 
legislation, like exempting certain groups or geographic areas from its 
application. We cannot allow that to happen. Exempting some would only 
create a safe harbor for these predators to prey. If we exempt a 
certain area, we are saying to those children, Your safety and well-
being matters less than our children's.
  Mr. Chairman, in this time of war, it is important for us to focus on 
foreign predators who wish to end our existence and our democracy, but 
we cannot forget to focus on those who wish to take advantage of the 
fairness and mercy of our judicial system by harming our most 
vulnerable, our children. Please join me in supporting H.R. 2146.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time, even though we are on 
opposite sides of this issue.
  I rise in support of the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection 
Act. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) for his hard work 
on this legislation.
  I think too often Americans have heard the cases of heinous crimes 
committed against children by criminals who turn out to be repeat 
offenders. Despite the best efforts of local and State law enforcement 
officers, convicted pedophiles still threaten the well-being of our 
children. I believe we must do everything we can to keep sex offenders 
off the street and away from our youth. This bill takes a step in the 
right direction. Many States have already passed laws known as Megan's 
laws to notify communities when a sex offender moves into the 
neighborhood. Today, we have an opportunity to see that some of these 
offenders never have the opportunity to move into our neighborhoods in 
the first place.
  Today, by passing the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection 
Act, we can ensure that these lowest of all criminals are moved out of 
residential blocks in our communities and moved into the cells of 
Federal prisons.
  I support this bill wholeheartedly. I urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
just to mention that if someone is caught molesting 300 children, it is 
hard to believe that with consecutive sentences that they would ever 
get out, first or second offense. This also, unfortunately, includes 
misbehaving teenagers who would be treated, under this bill, worse than 
murderers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

[[Page 3197]]

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time, and I want to 
also thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas) for his support for 
this legislation.
  The issue just raised by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), about the so-called casual teenage statutory rape 
scenario, we will talk about a little later on. I think Members will 
see that is not an applicable scenario to this legislation. But, Mr. 
Chairman, what I would like to do here is focus everyone's attention to 
this chart. On this chart there are three numbers. These three numbers 
are important because I believe that this whole debate really comes 
down to these three numbers. These three numbers say it all: 16, 75, 
and 511. What do those numbers stand for?
  Sixteen. Sixteen represents the number of years that a sexual 
offender commits his crime before he is caught. So when you see a 
sexual offender on television, of someone being caught, convicted and 
being tried for their offense, understand that, on average, he has been 
doing this for 16 years before he gets caught. Sixteen. Think of how 
much damage and destruction, how many lives he has destroyed.
  The second number, 75. Seventy-five is the recidivism rate for child 
molesters as estimated by Attorney General Janet Reno, a Democrat. She 
wrote this last year in an article that she believes the recidivism 
rate is about 75 percent. Again, that goes to what we have been saying 
all along, that these are unusual crimes. This is not run-of-the-mill 
crime in any sense of the word. And that if we have someone who is 
arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids and they 
have done it yet again after they are released, studies tell us, the 
numbers tell us they are going to do it again and again and again 
unless we stop them.
  Five hundred eleven. This is the most troubling number of all. This 
is a number that I do not make up. This is a number that comes from a 
study done in the year 2000 by ``Sex Abuse,'' the journal of research 
and treatment into this area of sexual offenders. Five hundred eleven 
represents the average number of crimes committed by admitted child 
molesters; 511 per molester. That number is so large, it is hard for us 
to even imagine, to even comprehend it. And we cannot comprehend it, 
because these individuals are sick. They are sick monsters in every 
sense of the word. But once again, these numbers tell us that if 
someone is arrested and convicted of a serious sex crime against kids 
and they serve their time and they are released, if they do it yet 
again, they are self-identified. They have told the world that they are 
either unwilling or unable to help themselves. Congress has to step in.
  This bill is not about sending a message. This bill is not about 
piling on. This bill is not about deterrence. This bill is very simply, 
given these numbers, given the recidivism rate, this is simply about 
taking these sick monsters off the streets, away from schools, away 
from our children, to protect our children, to protect our families, to 
try to end the cycle of horrific violence that is every parent's 
nightmare. That is what this bill is about, these three numbers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Let us get this on the 
Senate's desk. Let us encourage the Senate to act. Let us break the 
cycle of violence.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2146, 
the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act. One reason I 
support this legislation is because, it is estimated that child 
molesters are four times more likely than other violent criminals to 
recommit their crime.
  Despite my support, I am concerned that this legislation, since it 
only applies in Federal jurisdiction, will have a disproportionate 
racial impact on Native Americans. I am pleased that my colleague Bobby 
Scott offered an amendment to add a new section including special 
provisions for lands occupied by Native Americans. However, the 
amendment failed by voice vote. It is my hope that as this bill is 
forwarded to the Senate, attempts to address this imbalance will occur.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 
2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act. Protecting 
our children from abuse is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, the 
potentially harmful consequences of this bill outweigh its benefits.
  My primary concern with H.R. 2146 is its mandatory sentencing 
requirements. Mandatory sentencing laws tie the hands of judges. Such 
laws remove the flexibility judges need to carefully review every case 
and assess the individual circumstances of their cases. For example, 
this bill could force a judge to sentence someone to life in prison for 
a minor offense. Furthermore, in some abuse cases, particularly those 
involving family members, treatment and counseling may effectively 
address the offending behavior. This bill would eliminate the prospect 
for such treatment. When sentencing, judges need to have the discretion 
to determine when a plaintiff is a sexual predator that could threaten 
other children, versus someone whose problems could be addressed 
through treatment, counseling or other means.
  In addition to my concerns about mandatory sentencing, this bill has 
an unintended racial bias. This bill is limited to cases falling under 
federal jurisdiction, meaning it would apply primarily to Native 
Americans on reservations. It would have no effect on the type of cases 
used to justify the bill, such as the Polly Klaus case. That was a 
state case and so this bill would have no effect. There is no evidence 
to suggest that child abuse is particularly prevalent on Native 
American reservations, so this bill unfairly singles them out.
  We need strong laws to protect children from abuse. Such laws, 
however, must give our judges the proper authority to best protect the 
interests of our children and their families. In that regard, this bill 
falls short, so I must reluctantly vote against the bill.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support H.R. 2146, the Two 
Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act. I believe the youth of 
this Nation are our most important and precious commodity, and those 
who violate these children must be punished to the fullest extent of 
the law.
  Unfortunately, we have all seen what the abuse, both physical and 
mental, can do to the victims of these sexual predators. It is 
devastating, and those wounds do not heal even when these children 
reach adulthood. In addition, studies have shown that child sex 
offenders are more likely to reoffend than any other type of criminal, 
and there is nothing more frightening to a parent than the thought of 
one of these monsters having any kind of contact with their children. I 
firmly believe that these repeat offenders should be permanently locked 
away, not only as punishment, but also to protect children who are 
defenseless against these predators.
  In closing, I would like to reiterate my strong support for this 
legislation. As a parent and a representative of the citizens of this 
country, I believe we must implement every safeguard possible to 
protect our children. We cannot afford to stand idly by and allow the 
evil-doers that prey on children to ruin any more lives. These 
individuals must be locked away, for life.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost let it be known that 
I strongly support the protection of children from child molesters and 
the punishment of those who molest children to the full extent of the 
law. I am, however, concerned that the use of mandatory minimum 
sentencing guidelines is not the right direction to take. This measure 
is another expansion of the use of mandatory minimum sentencing without 
the benefit of studying their true impact. Mandatory minimum sentences, 
particularly as they pertain to drug sentencing, have resulted in a 
skyrocketing prison population with no end in sight. Our prisons today 
are filled with nonviolent drug offenders serving harsh sentences for 
acts that treatment might better address. I believe that our experience 
in this area has shown that crimes are best assessed on a case-by-case 
basis, by a judge and jury of one's peers. I do not believe we should 
enact more legislation that takes the administration of justice away 
from our Nation's judges.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 2146, the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act. The 
premise of the bill is simple: if you are convicted twice of any 
Federal sex crime, and the crimes take place on Federal property, then 
you go to prison for life.
  Study after study shows that criminals who prey upon children are 
more likely to reoffend than any other category of criminal. According 
to a 1999 study by the Center for Sex Offender Management, 16 years 
goes by before the average sex offender is caught and a recent 2000 
study in the issue of sex abuse found that the average sex offender 
commits 511 crimes. As you know, they victimize, on average, hundreds 
of children and commit

[[Page 3198]]

several hundred different offenses and unfortunately, they are 
prosecuted for only a tiny fraction of their horrific acts.
  Mr. Chairman, these statistics are all too real--in my district in 
New Jersey, a 7-year-old girl, Megan Kanka, was raped and then murdered 
by her neighbor, Jesse Timmendquas in 1994. He was a two-time convicted 
sex offender who was released early from prison after serving 6 years 
of a 10 year sentence. Mr. Timmendquas lived across the street from the 
Kanka family in a house he shared with two other sex offenders--and 
neighbors were not aware of their criminal past.
  In light of Megan Kanka's horrific tragedy, I worked alongside my 
colleagues to pass ``Megan's Law.'' At first, this legislation was 
established at the State level. Later, we were successful at winning 
support at the Federal level to require states to inform the public 
when dangerous sex offenders are released from prison and move to their 
neighborhoods.
  The combination of the Two Strikes You're Out Child Protection Act, 
and Megan's Law, will provide important tools to protect our 
communities from sex offenders. It is my hope that we will eventually 
expand the Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act nationwide, 
and into all states and territories.
  The people who repeatedly sexually molest children do not deserve to 
roam free. When they are free, they molest children. Until modern 
medicine can cure the sick mind that compels sex offenders to commit 
their horrific crimes, they should not be allowed to leave prison. 
Period.
  Megan Kanka's death could have been prevented. All of us in Congress 
have a special burden to make sure that our laws adequately protect 
children from the likes of Mr. Timmendquas. H.R. 2146 is a good step in 
the right direction.
  Protecting our children from sexual predators requires a 
comprehensive, multilayered approach. I am proud to have been the prime 
sponsor of legislation, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence 
Protection Act (P.L. 106-386), which contained two key provisions to 
help fight child molesters. The first provision of P.L. 106-386 would 
expand the ``Megan's Law'' concept to college and university 
communities. Under the new law, law enforcement authorities are 
required to notify local communities when a registered sex offender is 
enrolled or employed at a local college or university.
  The second provision was called ``Aimee's Law,'' and is designed to 
punish states that release dangerous sexual felons back into our 
communities in the first place. Under ``Aimee's Law,'' if a State lets 
a sexual predator loose, and that predator moves to another State and 
victimizes another person, the second State can petition the Attorney 
General to have law enforcement grant funds transferred from the first 
State to the second State as a form of interstate compensation. The 
central idea behind the law is to discourage States from releasing sex 
offenders early.
  As the father of four children, I share the anger and frustration 
that parents across our country have regarding sexual predators and the 
grave danger they pose to our country's children. As my colleagues are 
aware, I have worked with many of you in the effort to pass and enforce 
tough laws to crack down on child pornography, precisely because I 
believe it leads to diabolicala crimes such as sexual molestation and 
rape of young children. The Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection 
Act will take these people who prey on our children off the streets and 
into jail--where they belong--for life.
  I urge my colleagues to unanimously support the Two Strikes and 
You're Out Child Protection Act.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2146, the 
Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act which will amend the 
current code and provide for no less than automatic life imprisonment 
for repeat child sex offenders.
  There are few crimes which are as evil and heinous as those committed 
by sexual predators against innocent children. Those sick, twisted 
individuals not only destroy the lives and the innocence of the 
children upon whom they prey, but they also impact forever on entire 
families and communities.
  It is estimated that over two-thirds of the sex criminals imprisoned 
today preyed on minors. Moreover, studies show that child sex offenders 
are more likely to reoffend than any other category of criminal. 
Accordingly, this legislation is the least we can do to ensure that 
these deviants are not provided the opportunity to commit these 
egregious crimes again and again. Once is unspeakable. Twice should be 
life. Accordingly I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
important and timely legislation.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of 
bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to 
punish severely those guilty of sexual abuse of children. In fact, it 
is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one 
who preys on children. However, I must offer a cautionary note to the 
legislation before us, which would establish a mandatory lifetime 
sentence for anyone convicted of two child sexual abuse crimes.
  The bill before us today simply expands Federal penalties for already 
existing Federal crimes, and does not in any way infringe on the 
jurisdiction of the States. However, Mr. Chairman, I would ask my 
colleagues to consider whether child sexual abuse should be a Federal 
crime at all. The Constitution specifies three Federal crimes, namely 
treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. It is a stretch, to say the least, 
to define child abuse as a form of treason, piracy, or counterfeiting. 
Therefore, perhaps the best means of dealing with child sexual abuse 
occurring on Federal lands across State lines is to turn the suspected 
perpetrator over to the relevant local jurisdiction and allow the local 
authorities to prosecute the crime.
  As I stated before, it certainly is a legitimate exercise of 
government power to impose a lifetime sentence on those guilty of 
multiple sex crimes against children. However, I would ask my 
colleagues to consider the wisdom of Congress' increased reliance on 
mandatory minimums. Over the past several years we have seen a number 
of cases with people sentenced to life, or other harsh sentences, that 
appear to offend basic principles of justice. Even judges in many of 
these cases admit that the sentences imposed are in no way just, but 
the judiciary's hands are tied by the statutorily imposed mandatory 
minimums.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while I believe this is a worthy piece 
of legislation, I hope someday we will debate whether expanding Federal 
crimes (along with the use of congressionally mandated mandatory 
minimum sentences) is consistent with constitutional government and 
fundamental principles of justice.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we had the 
opportunity to discuss the merits of this bill last July 2001, in the 
Crime Subcommittee. There, we heard some very moving testimony from 
witnesses who have experienced first-hand, the horrors perpetrated by 
sex offenders and the pain and helplessness of their victims and the 
victims' families. I believe that Congress must do all that we can to 
recognize these horrors and approach solutions intelligently, and with 
level heads.
  Having said that, I must raise my concerns with the bill before us, 
H.R. 2146, the ``Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act.''
  This bill would mandate that any person convicted of a ``Federal sex 
offense'' be imprisoned for life if that person was previously 
convicted of a similar offense under either federal or state law.
  Federal sex offense is defined in H.R. 2146 to include offenses 
sexual abuse, abusive sexual contact, and the interstate transportation 
of minors for sexual purposes. However, this measure does not include 
the pornography or coercion and enticement crimes, and limits offenses 
to those involving a minor.
  Of course, I support efforts to adequately punish those convicted of 
multiple sex crimes, and as a parent, I sympathize and recognize the 
efforts and passions of the proponents of this bill, which seeks to 
address the very serious problem of sex crimes.
  The problem is clear: in this Nation every 19 seconds a girl or woman 
is raped; every 70 seconds a child is molested; and every 70 seconds a 
child or adult is murdered. Yet, despite these horrific statistics, the 
average time served in prison for rape is 5 years and the average time 
served in prison for molesting a child is less than 4 years. Clearly 
there is a disconnect between the facts and the current solutions to 
the problem.
  In the Subcommittee on Crime hearings we heard from proponents of 
this bill as they relayed the heart-wrenching stories of multiple sex 
offenders who, because of loopholes in the criminal justice system, 
continued to abuse women and children in numerous different counties 
throughout the country.
  I recognize that the Sentencing Commission is concerned that 
increased punishments for sex crimes committed against minors would 
create unfair disparities in sentences.
  So, while I believe that this bill addresses some of the worst crimes 
in our society, I also know that it is our responsibility as 
legislators to carefully deliberate the ramifications of any 
legislation to ensure that we take into account the rights of all 
stakeholders in this process.
  Before we move forward sweeping legislation as is currently before 
us, I believe that we need a better understanding of the alternatives

[[Page 3199]]

available to us. In its current form, this legislation and its 
mandatory life sentences, eliminates the opportunity for the family, 
the community, the professionals, and the court system, to work in 
conjunction in order to address the needs of the victim and the 
offender in terms of healing and rehabilitation.
  This bill fails to address the reality that there are few resources 
in Federal or State prisons to deal with accountability and treatment 
of sex abusers. In many cases, and certainly under this bill, we simply 
lock offenders up for life. The result is a disincentive for the 
correctional system to provide help or programs that correct the 
underlying behavior, when it is clear that such programs may be what is 
needed for true rehabilitation to take place, so that the offender can 
get to the point where he or she can truly be accountable to the 
victim, their own families, and the community.
  To that end, I have introduced an amendment mandating a thorough 
evaluation of alternatives to incarceration and treatment in order to 
rehabilitate those capable of such progress. I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  I believe whole-heartedly, that we must protect Americans from the 
horrors of sex offenders. To this end I am asking for support for my 
second amendment which states simply that no Federal monies can be 
expended for this legislation if there are more than two convicted sex 
offenders within a given ZIP Code.
  This amendment is motivated by a recent tragedy in Houston, Texas in 
which a 13-year-old girl, Laura Ayala, went across the street from her 
southeast Houston home Sunday night and never returned.
  Since that day, our police officers have been poring over lists of 
known sexual offenders, concentrating on Laura's neighborhood. What is 
most disturbing is that the Texas Department of Public Safety lists 25 
registered sex offenders in the ZIP Code. This amendment recognized the 
need for legislation that protects our children from multiple sex 
offenders who collectively may have a cumulative effect that is adverse 
to our children and communities.
  But in our efforts to protect society and rehabilitate those who 
perpetrate these heinous crimes, we must do so justly, and with 
precision so as not to create further injustice within an already 
overtaxed justice system.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation and in defense of our children. This legislation is overdue 
and I would urge my colleagues to pass it without delay.
  Mr. Chairman, there's a raging debate in criminal justice circles 
regarding the wisdom of mandatory minimum sentences. One side of the 
argument holds that we should let the system work--that judges can make 
the best judgments on important issues of incarceration.
  With all due respect to opponents of this legislation, that debate is 
totally inappropriate when it comes to child victims of sexual abuse.
  When it comes to children--children and sexual abuse and sexual 
crimes--we cannot leave the issue to discretionary judgments. There are 
principles of law that civilized societies must adhere to and enforce. 
Protecting our children from sexual abuse is one of them.
  It is estimated that child molesters are four times more likely than 
other violent criminals to recommit their crime. In a recent study, 453 
sex offenders admitted to molesting more than 67,000 children in their 
lifetime. Another study found that 571 pedophiles had each molested an 
average of 300 victims.
  Two is too many. But this bill will bring us closer to a world where 
molesters cannot continue their horrible crimes ad infinitum.
  Over the past few years, this Congress has been strongly supportive 
of such commonsense legislation as Megan's Law--named after a victim 
from our State of New Jersey who was brutalized and murdered by a 
repeat sexual offender. Megan's Law requires citizens to be notified 
when a sexual offender moves into their neighborhood.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will not mean there will never be 
another repeat offender. But what it should mean is that the 
neighborhood a repeat offender moves into is a prison--for life.
  Our charge here in this House is to protect the children. This 
legislation prevents them from being victimized by those who we know 
are likely to abuse, attack and murder again.
  Support this commonsense legislation. It reaffirms our commitment to 
our American principle that we are a civilized society raising 
standards for the world.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ose). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 2146

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Two Strikes and You're Out 
     Child Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. MANDATORY LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR REPEAT SEX OFFENDERS 
                   AGAINST CHILDREN.

       Section 3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Mandatory Life Imprisonment for Repeated Sex Offenses 
     Against Children.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person who is convicted of a Federal 
     sex offense in which a minor is the victim shall be sentenced 
     to life imprisonment if the person has a prior sex conviction 
     in which a minor was the victim, unless the sentence of death 
     is imposed.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For the purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `Federal sex offense' means--
       ``(i) an offense under section 2241 (relating to aggravated 
     sexual abuse), 2242 (relating to sexual abuse), 2243(a) 
     (relating to sexual abuse of a minor), 2244(a)(1) or (2) 
     (relating to abusive sexual contact), 2245 (relating to 
     sexual abuse resulting in death), or 2251A (relating to 
     selling or buying of children); or
       ``(ii) an offense under section 2423(a) (relating to 
     transportation of minors) involving prostitution or sexual 
     activity constituting a State sex offense;
       ``(B) the term `State sex offense' means an offense under 
     State law that consists of conduct that would be a Federal 
     sex offense if, to the extent or in the manner specified in 
     the applicable provision of this title--
       ``(i) the offense involved interstate or foreign commerce, 
     or the use of the mails; or
       ``(ii) the conduct occurred in any commonwealth, territory, 
     or possession of the United States, within the special 
     maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, 
     in a Federal prison, on any land or building owned by, leased 
     to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the 
     Government of the United States, or in the Indian country (as 
     defined in section 1151);
       ``(C) the term `prior sex conviction' means a conviction 
     for which the sentence was imposed before the conduct 
     occurred constituting the subsequent Federal sex offense, and 
     which was for a Federal sex offense or a State sex offense;
       ``(D) the term `minor' means an individual who has not 
     attained the age of 17 years; and
       ``(E) the term `State' has the meaning given that term in 
     subsection (c)(2).''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Sections 2247 and 2426 of title 18, United States Code, are 
     each amended by inserting ``, unless section 3559(e) 
     applies'' before the final period.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. During consideration of the bill for 
amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Scott:
       Page 2, beginning in line 22, strike ``2243(a) (relating to 
     sexual abuse of a minor''.
       Page 4, after line 7 insert the following:

     SEC. 3. LIFE IMPRISONMENT MAXIMUM FOR CERTAIN REPEAT SEX 
                   OFFENDERS AGAINST CHILDREN.

       Section 2243(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking the final period and inserting ``, but if the 
     defendant has a prior sex conviction (as defined in section 
     3559(e)) in which a minor was a victim, the court may 
     sentence that defendant to imprisonment for any term or years 
     or for life.''.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove the mandatory 
life sentence for a violation of section 2243(a) as a second sex 
offense against a minor. Instead, this amendment would increase the 
maximum possible term for a second offense to a term up to life 
imprisonment. Under the bill, consensual sexual touching of a 14-year-
old by an 18-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend with a prior offense

[[Page 3200]]

would mandate life without parole, while murder, even second offense 
murder, does not.
  While we can all imagine cases in which a life sentence would be 
appropriate for a second offense against a child, we do not have to 
mandate life sentences for cases which clearly do not warrant such 
treatment in order to get at those that do. We can simply extend the 
maximum possible sentence to life imprisonment and leave it to the 
sentencing commission and the courts to determine which ones warrant 
that treatment.
  Not only would we have the unintended racial impact in that it would 
affect primarily Native Americans but it would also have a chilling 
effect on victims in some cases that would otherwise be prosecuted. 
This is especially true in families where the victim might want to see 
an older sibling or other relative dealt with for a repeat offense but 
not seen to cause the relative spending the life imprisonment which 
would be required under the bill.
  If we believe the purpose of the bill is to send a message to repeat 
sex offenders, it would send the wrong message. At a hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Crime, a law professor and criminologist testified that 
a repeat offender who knows that if caught he will be sentenced to life 
imprisonment on a mandated basis, that person may be more disposed to 
kill his victim to eliminate the primary witness. This is particularly 
true because the punishment for second offense murder would be less 
than second offense petting. Under this amendment, life without parole 
would be available for those who are appropriately sentenced to life 
but not mandated for misbehaving teenagers.
  Again, I would point out that the whole bill is only in cases that 
have Federal jurisdiction; so even with the amendment, we may have the 
anomaly of persons committing a crime within the State and if they are 
in Federal jurisdiction, they get life without parole. If they are 
without Federal jurisdiction, they could get probation.
  I would hope that the House would adopt the amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, under the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, we 
are going to reduce the penalty for pedophiles if they do not murder 
one of their victims. That shows that this amendment really is not a 
good idea and in effect reverses the entire thrust of the bill.
  I do not think that the concern of the gentleman from Virginia is 
justified because what he is saying is that we ought to take the bill's 
penalties away from section 2243(a) of the criminal code which provides 
that whoever knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who 
is 12 to 15 years old and is at least 4 years older than the victim 
shall be fined or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both.
  If you have the hypothetical of an 18-year-old adult knowingly 
engaging in a sexual act with a 13-year-old child, that person would be 
indicted, would be prosecuted, would be convicted and would be 
incarcerated for several years as a result of that crime. My guess is 
that he would not be out of prison until he was in his mid- to late 
twenties. Now, if he turns around and commits another sexual act on 
someone who is 12 to 15 years old in his mid-twenties, then I think the 
book ought to be thrown at him, because this is not an immediate post-
adolescent whose hormones have run amok and commits a sexual act. This 
is somebody who is now preying on somebody who is probably 10 to 15 
years younger as a victim. I think that that is the type of person who 
ought to be sentenced to life imprisonment.
  I think that really what we ought to do is look at how the clock 
runs, where you have the first strike that does not involve life 
imprisonment and then you have the second strike which would involve 
life imprisonment where the victim is probably at least 10 years and 
maybe even more than that younger than the assailant.
  For that reason, I would hope that this amendment would be rejected.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My opposition 
really falls on three grounds. First off, let us remember that this 
bill, Two Strikes and You're Out, does not change the terms of 
underlying criminal law. It simply changes the penalties for those who 
do it over and over again. This section that the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) seeks to change, to modify, is current law and one 
that Congress has always treated seriously. It is already punishable by 
15 years in prison and doubled for the second offense. If the gentleman 
from Virginia wants to change the terms of 2243(a), he should introduce 
legislation to do so, but that is not this bill.
  Secondly, those who would be caught up by this 2243(a) and the Two 
Strikes law are not merely guilty of, quote-unquote, ``teen statutory 
rape.'' Listen closely, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) has pointed out. The victim must be 12 to 15 years old. 
The attacker must be at least 4 years older. For Two Strikes to apply, 
the attacker must have committed this crime or an even more serious sex 
crime against kids, against his teenage girlfriend under the gentleman 
from Virginia's scenario, been arrested, gone through a trial, been 
convicted, served his time, come out and do it again, all in the span 
of 2 years.

                              {time}  1115

  Well, logically, that is next to impossible.
  Finally, and I think the most important point here, is to understand 
that there are other statutes that cover the behavior that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) refers to. We spoke only this 
morning to a representative of the U.S. attorney's office, and he said 
that no U.S. attorney in the Nation would charge under 2243(a) for the 
conduct that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) describes.
  There is, in fact, another statute which is not part of Two Strikes, 
2244(a) and 2244(b), abusive sexual contact. That is the statute which 
U.S. attorneys can use to charge, if they see fit to charge, for that 
type of behavior.
  That is not covered by Two Strikes. Two Strikes deals with a narrow 
category of seven serious sex crimes against kids, and it says in the 
event that after someone has done their time, they have done one of 
these serious offenses, they get out, they do it yet again, then by all 
the studies we have seen, we know that they are going to do it again 
and again and again unless Congress steps in and breaks the cycle of 
violence. That is why this bill exists.
  The scenario that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) raises is 
implausible, at best, and also the points the gentleman makes are 
outside the course of this bill.
  Let us keep our eye on the ball here. Let us focus on the problem of 
repeat child molesters. That is what this bill deals with. Let us 
defeat this amendment and go on to pass this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the member of the Committee on the Judiciary that 
I think has made more of a contribution and has thought about this more 
carefully than anyone else.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin indicated that the 
prosecutor would have the discretion of lowering the charge, but by 
virtue of the charge, the judge would have no discretion if the 
prosecutor decides life without parole. So you have given, essentially, 
the sentencing power to the prosecutor, not to the judge.
  Under the term ``sexual act,'' which is covered under this, it 
includes consensual, intentional touching of a person who has not 
attained the age of 16, that is, a 15-year-old person, with the intent 
to gratify. That is petting teenagers 4 years younger.
  If that is a first offense, the likelihood, quite frankly, is they 
will get probation. If they do it again, if they

[[Page 3201]]

are teenagers determined to be together, you are talking about life 
without parole if the prosecutor charges under this section.
  If it is an appropriate case, you can get life. But it just seems to 
me that life without parole for this situation, which could include 
family members, is totally inappropriate; and I would hope we would 
adopt the amendment which would allow life, but not mandate life, so 
the judge would have some discretion in sentencing people under this 
bill. If you have 500 people, the stories they have told, the judge 
will know what to do.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I support the Scott 
amendment because I think we are trying not to expose a countless 
number of teenagers to mandatory lifetime sentences for being involved 
in consensual relationships. I am almost inclined to ask the author of 
the bill if that is his intention, but I am afraid to.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are not considering the cultural differences and 
not considering whether family members are aware of the youthful 
indiscretions of a couple of teenagers, then this is a one-way ticket 
to a life imprisonment bill; this is not Two Strikes and You're Out. I 
have to keep thinking that this is an unintended consequence.
  We are saying to our youth that the circumstances of each case are 
not relevant and will not be given any consideration at all. So all the 
gentleman from Virginia is doing is correcting this by permitting the 
judge to impose a maximum sentence of life.
  The amendment would restore to the judiciary the discretion to deal 
with the sentence that he is giving under the circumstances, and the 
judge would not be stopped from imposing a life sentence; but in other 
cases, they may be able to tailor a decision that would take into 
account the appropriateness of something other than life. So I urge my 
colleagues on the floor to give this some thought from this point of 
view.
  This is almost becoming an antijudge bill as well. Who needs judges? 
The prosecutor is given far more authority and decision-making that 
determines in effect the whole outcome of the case that comes before 
the judge. The judge is sitting here saying, I am bound by this, I am 
caught by this. The prosecutor decides the other thing.
  So I think it is something that we need to rethink with the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott). I am pleased and happy the gentleman has 
offered the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following article entitled ``Judges Speak 
Out'' for the Record.

                            Judges Speak Out

       ``Statutory mandatory minimum sentences create injustice 
     because the sentence is determined without looking at the 
     particular defendant. . . . It can make no difference whether 
     he is a lifetime criminal or a first-time offender. Indeed, 
     under this sledgehammer approach, it could make no difference 
     if the day before making this one slip in an otherwise 
     unblemished life the defendant had rescued 15 children from a 
     burning building or had won the Congressional Medal of Honor 
     while defending his country.''--J. Spencer Letts, U.S. 
     District Judge, Central District of California.
       ``We must remember we are not widgets or robots, but human 
     beings. Defendants should be sentenced within the spectrum of 
     what most judges would consider fair and reasonable.''--Leon 
     Higginbotham, Judge, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
       ``I think that a lot of people do not understand what is 
     going on until, all of a sudden, they are caught up in the 
     system; and they find out that people have been mouthing all 
     kinds of slogans, and when the slogans all come down to rest, 
     they sometimes come to rest very hard on the shoulders of the 
     individual.''--David Doty, U.S. District Judge, Minnesota.
       ``. . . I continue to believe that sentence of 10 years' 
     imprisonment under the circumstances of this case is 
     unconscionable and patently unjust. . . . [the defendant] 
     will be sacrificed on the altar of Congress' obsession with 
     punishing crimes involving narcotics. This obsession is, in 
     part, understandable, for narcotics pose a serious threat to 
     the welfare of this country and its citizens. However, at the 
     same time, mandatory minimum sentences--almost by 
     definition--prevent the Court from passing judgment in a 
     manner properly tailored to a defendant's particular 
     circumstances.''--Paul A. Magnuson, U.S. District Judge, 
     Minnesota.
       ``As a consequence of the mandatory sentences, we (judges) 
     know that justice is not always done . . . [Y]ou cannot 
     dispense equal justice by playing a numbers game. Judgment 
     and discretion and common sense are essential.''--Joyce Hens 
     Green, U.S. District Judge, District of Columbia.
       ``We need to deal with the drug problem in a much more 
     discretionary, compassionate way. We need treatment, not just 
     punishment and imprisonment.''--Stanley Sporkin, U.S. 
     District Judge, District of Columbia.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Scott:
       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:

     SEC. 4. SPECIAL PROVISION FOR INDIAN COUNTRY.

       Section 3559(c)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or subsection (e)'' after ``this 
     subsection'' each place it occurs.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow tribal 
governments to opt out of the coverage of the bill and the 
administration of their systems of justice in the manner that we 
allowed them to opt out of the application of the Three Strikes and 
You're Out law that we passed several years ago to avoid the unintended 
racial and disproportionately negative impact.
  Since the bill only applies in Federal jurisdictions, the vast 
majority of the cases affected would involve Native Americans. This 
means the bill will affect Native Americans in a disproportionately 
negative manner when compared to similar offenders in the same State as 
the Native American reservation.
  Based merely on the location of the offense, whether you are on the 
reservation or right outside of the reservation, you could have vastly 
different sentences, as vastly different as probation in one case and 
life imprisonment for exactly the same offense and offenders. There is 
no evidence that this particular problem, sex crimes against children, 
is predominantly a Native American problem, so why are we singling them 
out for the draconian treatment?
  Because this bill only applies in Federal jurisdiction, it will have 
no effect on the vast majority of cases that have been mentioned today. 
The only good thing about it is, it will only affect a few cases, but 
unfortunately, an overwhelming proportion of those cases will be cases 
affecting Native Americans.
  I would hope that the House would adopt the amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the second Scott amendment amends the bill so that no 
person subject to the criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribal 
government would be covered by the Two Strikes and You're Out provision 
contained in this bill.
  What the amendment does is, it creates a safe haven for child sex 
offenders on Indian land. I do not think we want to do that. A 
convicted child molester in Wisconsin would know the only way to avoid 
life imprisonment if he is caught would be to prey upon children in 
Indian lands. I think the Congress has an obligation to protect 
children on Indian lands just as much as we have an obligation to 
protect children on other Federal lands, as well.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand what we are doing here, we are allowing 
tribal governments to opt out of coverage, as we have done in other 
matters like this before, so it is not encouraging this kind of offense 
to get softer treatment than it would anywhere else in the country.
  The racially discriminatory impact on Native Americans is pretty 
clear here, and that is what we are trying to deal with, because the 
legislation that is proposed applies to conduct occurring on land owned 
by the United States or within the territorial jurisdiction of the 
United States. So that is Indian reservations. Most of the cases have 
indicated that 75 percent of these

[[Page 3202]]

kinds of cases arising under the bill's provision will involve Native 
Americans, so to give the tribal government this option is no less 
rational than when we did it before.
  We did an opt-out provision in the Three Strikes legislation. It did 
not work in any kind of way to mitigate the way that law was handled. 
Therefore, there should be no difference in the action we take here 
today with respect to these groups.
  Mr. Chairman, that is my take on the Scott amendment, and I hope that 
we can reach agreement on it.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. For the record, 
I am proud to have six Indian Tribes in my congressional district. I am 
proud to represent both Native Americans and non-Native Americans.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is 
bad public policy because it would send a terrible message to States 
like Wisconsin. Carving out a reservation from this law would somehow 
suggest that Native American children are less deserving of protection 
than non-Native American children. I do not think that is what we want 
to do.
  Carving out reservations from this law would, as the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has said, create the appearance of a 
safe harbor for child molesters. It says to them, lure your victims to 
the reservation, take your victims from the reservation, and the 
penalty will be less. That is wrong-headed. We should not be doing 
that.
  Now, the reasoning of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) that a 
high percentage of Federal sex crimes under this bill would occur on 
Federal Indian reservations, I think that argues for the inclusion of 
those reservations into this bill.
  It also raises a self-evident point: Under his logic, Federal 
homicide laws would have a greater impact on reservations and Native 
Americans; Federal drug laws would have a greater impact on Native 
Americans by his logic. I do not believe that we should be exempting 
from reservations Federal drug laws.
  There are actually very few cases in which reservation land is exempt 
from Federal jurisdiction. No tribe has approached me, either this 
session or last session when we passed this bill twice by a voice vote, 
no tribe has come to me asking for a carve-out. That is because, I 
would guess, they do not want to create a safe harbor, either, for 
child molesters. The last thing they would want to do is say, Come on, 
we will protect you; you will be safe here on reservation land.

                              {time}  1130

  They do not want to look the other way when these terrible crimes 
occur, and we should not look the other way when these terrible crimes 
occur. We should protect all children, native American children, non-
native American children. Wherever they are, we should take steps to 
protect them from the monsters who would prey on our children over and 
over again. My colleagues saw the numbers I had up here before: 209 
victims per child molester, 511 offenses per child molester. Do we 
really want to say that that is okay if it occurs on Federal land, or 
we are not going to treat it as severely? I do not think so. I do not 
think anyone here seriously wants to do that.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The amendment was rejected.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC.    . STUDY AND REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the National Institute of Justice shall make a 
     study and report to Congress on the availability and 
     effectiveness of treatment for incarcerated and 
     nonincarcerated perpetrators of sex offenses against children 
     and on the effectiveness of probation and parole supervision 
     in reducing rates of recidivism of sex offenses against 
     children.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a 
point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am experiencing a personal 
dilemma with respect to the legislation before us as it relates to a 
crisis in my district. As we speak, a young 13-year-old has been 
abducted in Houston in a community that is, of course, outraged by her 
disappearance.
  Recognizing this legislation is moving forward, I am offering an 
amendment that will, at the very least, be a step toward, I hope, long-
term and, in an expanded way, reducing the number of sex offenses 
committed against our children. It is a parallel. It is an attempt to 
help balance what happens when we incarcerate persons.
  My amendment would require that the National Institute of Justice 
study and report to Congress on the availability and effectiveness of 
treatment for incarcerated and nonincarcerated perpetrators of sex 
offenders against children, while also analyzing the effectiveness of 
probation and parole supervision and reducing the rates of recidivism 
in the sex offenders, even if they are incarcerated. We have got to 
find out what propels individuals to do these heinous and horrific 
acts.
  These crimes are a great threat to our children and to our society at 
large. Statistics indicate that on a given day there are well over 
200,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, 
custody, or control of correction agencies, whether they are life, 
whether they are mandatory minimums, or however they are incarcerated. 
In any 1 year there are over 1 million such offenders in prison. More 
startling, however, is the fact that nearly 80 percent of the victims 
of sexual offenders are children 17 or younger. These statistics are 
truly startling, yet the Bureau of Justice Statistics also reported 
that in 1988, only 2.9 percent of all inmates in State prisons were 
enrolled in programs for sex offenders. That is less than 30 percent of 
the sex offenders who receive any type of treatment. As a result, these 
individuals, whether they be incarcerated or not, will do the acts 
again.
  The National Institute of Justice reports that research has failed to 
identify those offenders who are likely to reoffend or to determine 
effective treatment while incarcerated. Although many believe that sex 
offenders are the hardest type of criminals to rehabilitate and are the 
most likely to reoffend, no evidence supports either. If they have been 
a first-time offended, why not have treatment and rehabilitation?
  In 1994 Congress enacted the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children 
and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, which requires that 
perpetrators of violent sex offenses and crimes against minors register 
with local law enforcement. In 1996, Megan's Law and the Lynchner Act 
were passed. These laws require community notification and interstate 
tracking.
  In these ways, we attempted to protect children and others from 
violent criminals. However, we must also ensure that when these 
offenders, if after the first time, may be released in our communities, 
they are equipped with the tools that they need so that they are less 
likely than ever, ever, ever, ever to commit these offenses again.
  To this end, I believe this is a germane and relevant amendment to 
sentencing. This is a parallel to sentencing. This provides for the 
treatment and rehabilitation of the first offense and does not offend 
this legislation of Two Strikes. I believe that this amendment is 
appropriate. I would ask my colleagues to waive the germaneness of this 
amendment so that we could holistically address the problem

[[Page 3203]]

that will continue to plague our communities, and that is, those who 
would, even the first time, attempt a heinous act of sexual molestation 
of anyone in our Nation, any child.
  Our community now is hurting. Some other community tomorrow will be 
hurting. A precious child has been violated, a child that, to my 
knowledge, has not yet been found. Why not provide an instructive 
message to those who, in fact, will be covered by this legislation? I 
hope that we would waive the germaneness of this amendment and move 
this amendment to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, recognizing that this legislation is moving forward, I 
am offering an amendment that will at the very least, be a step toward 
reducing the number of sex offenses committed against our children.
  My amendment will require that the National Institute of Justice 
study and report to Congress on the availability and effectiveness of 
treatment for incarcerated and non-incarcerated perpetrators of sex 
offenses against children, while also analyzing the effectiveness of 
probation and parole supervision in reducing the rates of recidivism of 
these sex offenders.
  These crimes are a great threat to our children, and to our society 
at large. Statistics indicate that on a given day, there are well over 
200,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, 
custody or control of corrections agencies. In any one year, there are 
over one million such offenders in prison. More startling, however, is 
the fact that nearly 80 percent of the victims of sexual offenders are 
children 17 or younger.
  These statistics are truly startling. Yet, the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics has reported that as of 1998, only 2.9 percent of all 
inmates in state prisons were enrolled in programs for sex offenders--
that is less than 30 percent of the sex offenders who receive any type 
of treatment. As a result, recidivism rates are dangerously high.
  The National Institute of Justice reports that research has failed to 
identify those offenders who are likely to re-offend, or to determine 
effective treatments for sex offenders. Although many believe that sex 
offenders are the hardest type of criminal to rehabilitate and are the 
most likely to re-offend, no evidence supports either belief.
  In 1994, Congress enacted the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against 
Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, which requires 
that perpetrators of violent sex offenses and crimes against minors 
register with local law enforcement. In 1996, Megan's Law and the 
Lychner Act were passed; these laws require community notification and 
interstate tracking.
  In these ways, we attempted to protect children and others from 
violent criminals. However, we must also ensure that when these 
offenders are released into our communities, they are equipped with 
tools that they need so they are less likely than ever to attempt to 
commit another heinous act.
  To this end we must evaluate the availability and effectiveness of 
treatments and post-release programs. Some studies have been conducted, 
but they do not comprehensively address the issue, nor do they provide 
up-to-date information. For example, in March of this year, the Office 
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention issued a review of the 
professional literature from the past 10 years on juveniles who have 
sexually offended, including references to treatment, its approaches 
and its efficacy. The national Institute of Justice issued in January 
1997 a study on managing adult sex offenders in communities through 
probation, parole and other forms of community supervision. These 
studies are valuable tools, but they must be more comprehensive, and we 
must keep them updated.
  My amendment is an effort to protect our children by compelling a 
thorough evaluation of alternatives to incarceration and treatment in 
order to rehabilitate those capable of such progress.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.


                             point of order

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment. The amendment is not germane. It fails the fundamental 
purpose test.
  The fundamental purpose of the legislation is to provide mandatory 
minimum sentences for those convicted of sex offenses against children. 
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
exceeds the scope of this legislation by directing a component of the 
Department of Justice to study a subject not contemplated by the bill, 
namely, the effectiveness of treatment for incarcerated and 
nonincarcerated sex offenders.
  Therefore, the amendment is not germane, and the point of order 
should be ruled well taken by the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin raises a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas is not germane.
  To be germane, an amendment not only must have the same end as the 
matter sought to be amended, but also must contemplate a method of 
achieving that end that is closely allied to the method contemplated by 
the bill. For example, as recorded in section 933 of the House Rules 
and Manual, the Chair has held that, to a bill addressing substance 
abuse through prevention and treatment, an amendment imposing civil 
penalties on drug dealers was not germane.
  The pending bill narrowly amends the Federal Criminal Code to 
establish a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for twice-convicted 
sex offenders against children. The amendment requires the National 
Institute of Justice to report to Congress on the availability and 
effectiveness of treatment for perpetrators of sex offenses against 
children and on the effectiveness of probation and parole supervision 
in reducing rates of recidivism of such sex offenses.
  The bill is narrowly drafted to address only sentencing of certain 
sex offenders of children. The amendment, by addressing treatment and 
rehabilitation, proposes an unrelated method and is, therefore, not 
germane to the bill.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the proponent of the legislation was 
willing to waive the germaneness, would that not have supported 
allowing this amendment to be heard on the floor?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order was made and sustained 
against the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the Chair. I am so sorry that we 
are losing the opportunity to do a better job on this legislation.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Page 4, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 3. STUDY OF IMPACT OF LEGISLATION.

       (a) In each case in which a life sentence is imposed under 
     section 3559(e), the judge shall make and transmit to the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts findings 
     with regard to each of the following:
       (1) The applicable range under the Federal Sentencing 
     Guidelines if the statutory minimum life sentence had not 
     applied.
       (2) The sentence that the court would have imposed on the 
     defendant if the statutory minimum life sentence had not 
     applied, in light of the nature and circumstances of the 
     offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, 
     and the other factors set forth in section 3553(a).
       (3) The race, gender, age, and ethnicity of the victim and 
     defendant.
       (4) The reason for the Government's decision to prosecute 
     this defendant in Federal court instead of deferring to 
     prosecution in State or tribal court, and the criteria used 
     by the Government to make that decision in this and other 
     cases.
       (5) The projected cost to the Federal Government of the 
     life sentence, taking into account capital and operating 
     costs associated with imprisonment.
       (b) To assist the court to make the findings required in 
     subsections (a)(4) and (a)(5), the Government attorney shall 
     state on the record such information as the court deems 
     necessary to make such findings, including cost data provided 
     by the Bureau of Prisons. In making the required findings, 
     the court shall not be bound by the information provided by 
     the Government attorney.
       (c) The Administrative Office of the United States Courts 
     shall annually compile and report the findings made under 
     subsection (a) to the Congress.
       Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.

  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.

[[Page 3204]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to introduce a notion that we would 
require the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to 
compile and report to the Congress its findings pertaining to the 
impact of this legislation, specifically relating to race, gender, age, 
ethnicity of victim and defendant; the reasoning behind the 
government's decision to prosecute the defendant in Federal court 
instead of deferring to a State or tribal court; and the sentence that 
the court would have imposed on the defendant if the statutory minimum 
life sentence had not applied.
  The idea is to provide our colleagues with invaluable insight into 
the effect of this legislation as it will relate to prison 
overpopulation, racial considerations, and the costs that would be 
attached to the Federal court in the event of the enacting of this 
legislation.
  This is dealing with the ballooning prison population because we have 
more people proportionately in prison than anywhere else on the planet, 
and we think that this would be a very important move in the right 
direction; and I hope that it will become a part of this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for introducing a germane amendment on how to study the impact 
of this legislation. I think the type of material that the study would 
put together would be very useful in looking at the types of crimes 
that have been committed against children.
  However, let me say I am a little bit puzzled at the gentleman from 
Michigan putting this amendment in, because all day yesterday when we 
were dealing with the class action suit, the gentleman from Michigan 
and his supporters on the other side of the aisle were saying how 
overworked our Federal judges are and how the complicated class action 
legislation that we were discussing yesterday, really more of these 
cases should be tried in the State court because our Federal judges 
were overworked.
  Well, now we have an amendment that has a mandate on the Federal 
judges. Let me read from the amendment to show that the Federal judges 
are going to have to do more work. It says that ``in each case in which 
a life sentence is imposed, the judge shall make and transmit to the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts findings with regard 
to each of the following: the applicable range under the sentencing 
guidelines if the minimum mandatory life sentence had not applied.'' So 
the judge has to speculate what he would do to sentence the defendant 
if he were not required to sentence the defendant for life.
  ``The race, gender, age and ethnicity of the victim and of the 
defendant.'' Well, that is fairly obvious from the court records. But 
then we have to have the reason for the government's decision to 
prosecute this defendant in Federal court instead of State or tribal 
court, and then the criteria used by the government to make that 
decision in this or other cases, and the projected cost to the 
government of the life sentence, taking into account capital and 
operating costs associated with the imprisonment.
  Now, what this is going to require is it is going to require an 
additional hearing after the sentence for the court to make these 
findings, because the government would not be able to make a 
determination of what this cost would be until the sentence is 
pronounced, as well as what the alternative would have been and the 
mandatory life sentence if not applied in this case.
  So I would say to the gentleman from Michigan, I think these are 
very, very useful statistics, and I am prepared to support this 
amendment; but I am wondering if the gentleman's sympathy for our 
overworked Federal judges evaporated overnight, and I am happy to yield 
for an answer.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am 
glad the gentleman pointed out the fact that I claimed that the judges 
were overworked. I think they are probably in the same condition today 
that they were yesterday, which is overworked; and I would like to use 
the gentleman's solution, which is that we get more judges into the 
judicial system. I think it is 70-something, and I think that would 
help. So I think the gentleman thinks they are overworked and so do I, 
but we think that this could be a useful purpose.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we will be 
dealing with the issue of additional judicial manpower in the context 
of the conference on the Department of Justice authorization bill.
  But even before that passes, if we could get a few more 
confirmations, we would get more judges on the bench and more judicial 
work done.
  Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, 
could I ask the gentleman if he would consider, with me, the proposal 
of the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) in terms of a 
freestanding proposal separate from this?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
encourage the gentlewoman from Texas to introduce her proposal as 
separate legislation. I am not sure that the Committee on the Judiciary 
has exclusive jurisdiction over that type of a study, and I certainly 
would not wish to preclude other committees of jurisdiction from 
looking at it.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC.   . PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL EXPENDITURES.

       This Act shall have no effect if there are more than five 
     convicted child sex offenders within any given zip code.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin reserves a 
point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the intent of the 
legislation, the underlying legislation, is to ensure the safety of our 
children. I agree with that. At the same time, I think that the 
legislation has the opportunity to ensure the further enhanced security 
of our children from convicted sexual molesters of children.
  I rise to support the amendment that indicates that no dollars should 
be rendered in this act if there are more than five sex molesters of 
children in one ZIP code. The act would then have no effect.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, because there is great 
evidence that in urban areas and even in rural areas there seems to be 
a dumping in particular locations of child sex molesters.
  Here is a prime example. On Sunday, March 11, 2002, a young girl by 
the name of Laura Ayala walked from her family's apartment no more than 
100 feet away to get some newspapers for her homework, an innocent 
chore, if you will. Her mother asked her whether she could get the 
newspaper on Monday morning, but she needed the Sunday paper. She was 
13, or is 13.

[[Page 3205]]

  After a few minutes, when she did not return, her parents, her family 
members, went to look for her. The clerk remembers her coming to the 
store and buying the newspaper. What was later discovered is a 
scattered newspaper and her shoes scattered in an area along the way.
  But the most shocking aspect, as members of my community continue to 
search for her, is that as the officers were poring over lists of known 
sexual offenders, concentrating on the girl's neighborhood, the Texas 
Department of Public Safety listed 25 registered sex offenders in the 
ZIP code.
  Laura is only 4 feet tall, weighs 90 pounds, has black, medium-length 
hair with brown highlights. She is a child that is loved, as there are 
in many homes children that are loved.
  Therefore, I would argue that this is a germane amendment as it is 
presently constructed and constituted, and I would ask my colleagues to 
support this enthusiastically, that this act shall have no effect if 
there are more than five convicted sex offenders in any given ZIP code.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a tragedy. It is a dumping ground. I believe 
that once put on notice, our States will act. We will not have this 
problem. Innocent communities will not have this problem, and 
wonderful, beautiful young girls like Laura will not have this problem, 
and other children.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an outrage. Today on the floor of the House we 
can fix it right now. Our colleagues will support this. Who in this 
whole world would want their neighborhood, no matter where they live, 
what their economic status, what language they speak or what culture 
they come from, would want to know that next door they have in their 
neighborhoods 25 sex molesters of children living in their community?
  We always ask the question, Mr. Chairman, are we relevant? Are we 
really focusing on what Americans' desires are as we proceed as Members 
of the House and the other body?
  Today we can be relevant. In addition to this legislation, we can be 
relevant and right now confront a crisis that is not only in Houston, 
Texas, but I would imagine if we took a sampling around the Nation, we 
would find dumping of these offenders in communities wherever we might 
look. We can be relevant today by providing some solace to the family 
of this child in looking for a way to prevent, if you will, the dumping 
of sex offenders in particular areas.
  Those who are first offenders will ultimately be out. This does not 
conflict with the underlying intent. We know that some sex offenders 
will be out among our population. Why have 25? Who knows, there may be 
35 and 45 and 50 in other ZIP codes.
  Mr. Chairman, is it not reasonable for my colleagues to support this 
amendment to be able to be relevant today as we move this legislation 
forward? I would ask that my colleagues support this amendment that 
will prohibit the dumping of sex offenders on our community and dumping 
of sex offenders on our innocent children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment which states 
simply that no federal monies can be expended for this legislation if 
there are more than two convicted sex offenders within a given zip 
code.
  This amendment is motivated by a recent tragedy in Houston, Texas in 
which a 13-year-old girl, Laura Ayala, went across the street from her 
southeast Houston home Sunday night and never returned.
  Since that day, our police officers have been poring over lists of 
known sexual offenders, concentrating on Laura's neighborhood. What is 
most disturbing is that the Texas Department of Public Safety lists 25 
registered sex offenders in the ZIP code. Why was this allowed to 
happen?
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment recognized the need for legislation that 
protects our children from multiple sex offenders who collectively may 
have a cumulative effect that is adverse to our children and 
communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, since 
the amendment is germane, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe that the gentlewoman from Texas would 
draft an amendment of this nature and submit it to the committee for 
its consideration.
  It says, ``This act shall have no effect if there are more than five 
convicted child offenders within any given ZIP code.'' That means that 
if there are five child sex offenders who are convicted under this law 
and sent to the penitentiary for life, there are five people in the ZIP 
code where the penitentiary is located, and every future child sex 
offender would be able to run around the country in Federal areas and 
be able to continue preying on these children.
  Stop and think about how this amendment is drafted. It is drafted so 
that anyplace where there is a penitentiary that has five or more child 
sex offenders, it would end up taking away the effect of this law 
throughout the United States of America.
  This is a shameful amendment, and I hope it is overwhelmingly 
rejected.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
so she can respond to the comments that were just made.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that in the wisdom of this body, we could 
find a way to work on this very striking discovery and still keep the 
enforcement of the act.
  I support the amendment that I have, but I will look further to, if 
you will, having the opportunity to write freestanding legislation. I 
still believe that we have the opportunity here to craft this amendment 
to not be detrimental to the underlying bill. That is not the intent of 
the amendment.
  I do recognize there is free association and free movement in this 
country. That is why I went to the proponents of the bill to see how we 
could work together. This is an important enough issue for me that I 
believe that this body should address it and address it today.
  However, if the amendment does not achieve its ultimate goal of 
victory, then what I will do is write a freestanding bill. I would hope 
to encourage those who would understand the sentiment, the purpose, the 
underlying legal standing of such legislation, which is not to 
undermine the present legislation, but to protect our communities. I 
would hope they would join in with me on that.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me first 
say that I believe that the gentlewoman's intentions are honorable and 
good intentions, and she is pointing out a problem that I think is 
worth our examining at some point. I think the Committee on the 
Judiciary, as it has oversight hearings and such, should ask some of 
these questions. They are important questions.
  I, unfortunately, believe that this amendment is not drafted in a way 
that will achieve the result the good gentlewoman intends. I do not 
think the answer is to say that the more sex offenders we find in a 
particular area, the softer the law should be, or this tougher law 
should not apply to other parts of the country.
  In fact, the answer should be if there are more sexual offenders in a 
given area, to go to the State legislature in that State and get 
tougher laws and more enforcement, beef up our resources. Those 
children in those areas deserve more protection, not less protection.
  So while I understand the motives and would like to work with the 
gentlewoman in the future to look at some of these issues, I do not 
believe this amendment gets to that point.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I thank him very much for his statement. I think the 
victory that I have had today is that this amendment is germane and has 
not been ruled out of order, and that we have gotten a very vigorous 
debate on it.

[[Page 3206]]

  It would be my druthers, in light of the tragedies that we are facing 
right now in Houston, and I might imagine that there will be another 
headline tomorrow or the next day or next month, that we would move 
this amendment now, but in light of the comments that the gentleman has 
made, and my other colleagues, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
this amendment so we can craft legislation that I hope would get 
expedited attention in the Committee on the Judiciary, and be able to 
join some of the other legislative initiatives that focus specifically 
on dealing with child sex molesters, keeping in mind the constitutional 
protections that need to be addressed as it relates to freedom of 
movement and freedom of association.
  But I think this is an outrageous and heinous finding, 25 of them in 
one community. I ask the gentleman's assistance in helping me with this 
legislation.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with 
the gentlewoman, not being the chair of the committee or subcommittee, 
but I would be happy to. I think she points to an important problem.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1200


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ose). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 259, 
noes 161, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 63]

                               AYES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burton
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--161

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graves
     Grucci
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barrett
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Ehrlich
     Eshoo
     Hinojosa
     Kilpatrick
     Mascara
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Towns
     Traficant

                              {time}  1225

  Messrs. PENCE, PHELPS and SHUSTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. McCRERY, JOHNSON of Illinois, SHAYS, DREIER, BOYD, PORTMAN, 
MURTHA, GUTKNECHT, HOEKSTRA, BURTON of Indiana, GALLEGLY, HILLEARY, 
HULSHOF, Ms. HARMAN, Messrs. HOBSON, PETRI, MORAN of Kansas, SCHAFFER, 
GRAHAM, Mrs. EMERSON, Messrs. GREENWOOD, WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mrs. 
KELLY, Messrs. CRANE, UPTON, GANSKE and SIMMONS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 63 on an amendment 
to H.R. 2146 to provide for a study of the impact of the legislation I 
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained in committee 
and therefore unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 63. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no'' on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ose).
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.

[[Page 3207]]

Emerson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Ose, Chairman pro tempore of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2146) to 
amend title 18 of the United States Code to provide life imprisonment 
for repeat offenders who commit sex offenses against children, pursuant 
to House Resolution 366, he reported the bill back to the House with an 
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 382, 
nays 34, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 64]

                               YEAS--382

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     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)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--34

     Abercrombie
     Berman
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeGette
     Farr
     Filner
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Jones (OH)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Payne
     Rangel
     Sabo
     Scott
     Stark
     Udall (NM)
     Waters
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Barrett
     Blagojevich
     Davis (IL)
     Eshoo
     Ford
     Gilman
     Hinojosa
     Istook
     Kilpatrick
     Mascara
     Roukema
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1244

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ISTOOK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 64, I was detained due to 
chairing a hearing regarding the White House and its budget. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, on rollcall 64, H.R. 2146, the 
Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act, I was delayed on 
official business on the other side of the Capitol. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. Madam Speaker, on H.R. 2146, rollcall 64, I was on the 
floor but apparently missed the vote, the Two Strikes and You're Out 
Child Protection Act.
  I would have voted in favor of the legislation, had I not been in the 
cloakroom and slightly confused about the second vote being called.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 64 on final 
passage of H.R. 2146 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________