Stay Connected with the Library All ways to connect »
Find us on
19-006
2d Session
Part 1
CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT
| OCTOBER 7, 2002- Ordered to be printed | |
| Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following | |
| R E P O R T | |
| together with | |
| DISSENTING VIEWS | |
| [To accompany H.R. 5422] | |
| [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] |
| CONTENTS | Page | |
| The Amendment | 1 | |
| Purpose and Summary | 8 | |
| Background and Need for the Legislation | 8 | |
| Hearings | 9 | |
| Committee Consideration | 9 | |
| Vote of the Committee | 9 | |
| Committee Oversight Findings | 9 | |
| Performance Goals and Objectives | 10 | |
| New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures | 10 | |
| Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate | 10 | |
| Constitutional Authority Statement | 14 | |
| Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion | 14 | |
| Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported | 19 | |
| Markup Transcript | 31 | |
| Dissenting Views | 89 |
| `3296. Child abduction and sex offenses.'. |
On average, 2,200 children are reported missing each day of the year. There are approximately 114,600 attempted stranger abductions every year and 3,000-5,000 attempts are successful. These facts and recent high profile abductions have significantly increased the fear of parents across the Country that their children are in danger. H.R. 5422, the `Child Abduction Prevention Act' sends a clear message to any potential child abductor that, should they commit these crimes, they will not escape justice. This legislation provides stronger penalties against kidnapping, ensures lifetime supervision of sexual offenders and kidnappers of children, gives law enforcement the tools it needs to effectively prosecute these crimes, and provides assistance to the community when a child is abducted.
According to the United States Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Juvenile Justice Deliquency Prevention (OJJDP), the number of missing persons reported to law enforcement has increased from 154,341 in 1982 to 876,213 in 2000, an increase of 468 percent. Out of those cases, there are about 3,000 to 5,000 non-family abductions reported to police each year, most of which are short term sexually-motivated cases. About 200 to 300 of these cases, or about 6 percent, make up the most serious cases where the child was murdered, ransomed or taken with the intent to keep. According to Federal Government statistics, three out of four children who are kidnapped and murdered are killed within 3 hours of their initial abduction. Research has shown that the average victim of abduction and murder is an approximately 11 year old girl from a stable family who has initial contact with the abductor within a quarter mile of her home.
The recent wave of high profile child abductions that has swept our Nation has illustrated the tremendous need for legislation in this area. Although some researchers indicate that the worst cases of child abduction might actually be on the decline, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has stated that, based on feedback from law enforcement around the country and cases submitted to NCMEC, the sexual victimization of children is on the rise. Another concern is that research also indicates that subjects who abduct children typically are not first-time offenders, but are serial offenders who often travel during the commission of multiple sexual offenses against children.
An abducted child is a parent's worst nightmare. We must assure that law enforcement has every possible tool necessary to return that child safely to his or her parents. Authorities believe that promptly alerting the general public when a child is abducted by a stranger is crucial to saving their life. To accomplish this, H.R. 5422 authorizes funding for a national AMBER Alert program to help expand the child abduction communications warning network throughout the United States.
For those individuals that would harm a child, we must ensure that punishment is severe and that sexual predators are not allowed to slip through the cracks of the system to harm other children. To this end, this legislation provides a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for stranger abductions of a child under the age of 18, lifetime supervision for sex offenders and mandatory life imprisonment for second time offenders. Furthermore, H.R. 5422 removes any statute of limitations and opportunity for pretrial release for crimes of child abduction and sex offenses.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children is the Nation's resource center for child protection. The Center provides assistance to parents, children, law enforcement, schools, and the community in recovering missing children and raising public awareness about ways to help prevent child abduction, molestation and sexual exploitation. To date, NCMEC has worked on more than 73,000 cases of missing and exploited children and helped recover more than 48,000 children. This legislation recognizes the important role NCMEC plays in our Nation's efforts to prevent child abductions by doubling its authorization to $20 million through 2004.
On October 1, 2002, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a legislative hearing on H.R. 5422. Testimony was received from two witnesses. The witnesses were: Daniel P. Collins, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice; and Ernest E. Allen, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
On October 1, 2002, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 5422, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On October 2, 2002, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 5422 by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
There were no recorded votes on H.R. 5422.
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
H.R. 5422 is intended to prevent future crime by extending the length of supervised-release terms for offenders and by establishing a rebuttable presumption in favor of pretrial detention; enhance law enforcement tools for identifying and apprehending offenders, by including child exploitation offenses as wiretap predicates and by eliminating the statute of limitations for certain offenses; increase penalties to more accurately reflect the extreme seriousness of child kidnapping and sex offenses, especially repeat offenses; punish offenders who travel abroad to prey on children; support a coordinated approach to the recovery of abducted children; and provide the States with additional tools and assistance to pursue these common goals.
Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures.
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 5422, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5422, the Child Abduction Prevention Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Grabowicz (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and Angela Seitz (for the State and local impact), who can be reached at 225-3220.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
H.R. 5422--Child Abduction Prevention Act.
H.R. 5422 would establish new Federal crimes relating to sexual abuse, increase fines and prison sentences for such crimes, and make it easier to investigate sex offenders. The bill also would direct the Attorney General to act as the national coordinator for the AMBER (America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alert communications network, which is used by State and local law enforcement agencies to search for abducted children. In addition, H.R. 5422 would authorize the appropriation of:
Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing
H.R. 5422 would cost $64 million over the 2003-2007 period. This legislation could affect direct spending and revenues, but we estimate that any such effects would not be significant.
H.R. 5422 would expand an existing mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), by widening requirements for State and local law enforcement agencies to report cases of missing children up to the age of 21. CBO estimates the costs of this mandate would not be significant and, thus, would not meet the threshold established in that act ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).
H.R. 5422 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5422 is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within budget functions 400 (transportation) and 750 (administration of justice).
For this estimate, CBO assumes that the amounts authorized for grant programs will be appropriated near the beginning of each fiscal year and that outlays will follow the historical spending rates for these or similar activities.
H.R. 5422 would increase prison sentences for kidnapping and for a number of sex offenses. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the longer sentences required by H.R. 5422 would apply to about 500 offenders annually by 2007. Based on information from the Bureau of Prisons, CBO estimates that the cost to incarcerate a prisoner for an additional year is about $7,000 (at 2003 prices). Thus, we estimate that the cost to support the additional prisoners would reach $4 million by fiscal year 2007 and would total $9 million over the 2003-2007 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Based on information from DOJ, CBO estimates that it would cost less than $500,000 annually for the department to coordinate the AMBER Alert program, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Enacting H.R. 5422 could increase revenues through greater collections of criminal fines. However, CBO does not expect any such increase to exceed $500,000 a year. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues and deposited in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent without further appropriation action.
H.R. 5422 would expand an existing mandate as defined in UMRA by widening requirements for State and local law enforcement agencies to report cases of missing children up to the age of 21. CBO estimates the additional costs of the expansion would not be significant and, thus, would not meet the threshold established in that act ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation).
The bill would benefit State governments by establishing grant programs to assist with efforts to notify the public about child abductions using the AMBER Alert communications network. In addition, H.R. 5422 would expand the approved uses for grants under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to include assisting States in enforcing registry of sex offenders. Any costs incurred to receive or administer such grants would be voluntary. The bill also would benefit State and local government law enforcement agencies by authorizing the U.S. Secret Service to provide them with additional assistance in forensic and investigative training with investigations of missing or exploited children.
H.R. 5422 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
H.R. 5422 contains the provisions of four bills for which CBO has previously prepared cost estimates. These bills are:
The costs estimated for these provisions in H.R. 5422 are the same as those estimated previously for the separate bills.
Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Angela Seitz (225-3220)
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226-2940)
Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution.
Section 1. Short Title
The short title of this Act may be cited as the `Child Abduction Prevention Act.'
Sec. 101. Supervised release term for sex offenders.
This section amends section 3583 of title 18, United States Code, to provide a judge with the discretion to extend the term of post-release supervision of sex offenders up to a maximum of life. Currently, most such offenses have a maximum of three to 5 years of supervision. This section is identical to H.R. 4679, the `Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2002,' which passed the House 409-3 on June 25, 2002.
Sec. 102. First degree murder for child abuse and child torture murders.
This section amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1111 to insert `child abuse' and `the pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children' that results in murder as a predicate for first degree murder. Section 1111 is the Federal murder statute. Under the current law, first degree murder includes murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, certain crimes including arson, escape, kidnapping, sexual abuse, and several other crimes. `Child abuse' and torture would be added to the list for first degree murder. First degree murder is punishable by death or life imprisonment. These changes will help to ensure that child abusers who kill their victims will receive penalties that reflect the heinousness of their crimes.
Sec. 103. Sexual abuse penalties.
This section increases the maximum and minimum penalties of section 1591 and chapters 110 and 117 of title 18, United States Code, relating to the sexual exploitation of children and the sex trafficking of children.
Statutory maximum penalties provide only an upper limit on punishment, and accordingly should be coordinated to the type of penalty which would be appropriate for the most aggravated forms of the offenses in question, as committed by offenders with the most serious criminal histories. Where the statutory maximum penalty is too low, it may be impossible to impose a proportionate penalty in cases involving highly aggravated offense conduct. Likewise, in cases involving incorrigible offenders, low statutory maximum penalties may force the court to impose a sentence that is less than what is warranted in light of the offender's criminal history.
The increased mandatory minimum sentences are responsive to real problems of excessive leniency in sentencing under existing law. For example, the offenses under chapter 117 of the criminal code apply in sexual abuse cases involving interstate movement of persons or use of interstate instrumentalities, such as luring of child victims through the Internet. Courts all too frequently impose sentences more lenient than those prescribed by the sentencing guidelines in cases under chapter 117, particularly in situations where an undercover agent rather than a child was the object of the enticement. Yet the offender's conduct in such a case reflects a real attempt to engage in sexual abuse of a child, and the fact that the target of the effort turned out to be an undercover officer has no bearing on the culpability of the offender, or on the danger he presents to children if not adequately restrained and deterred by criminal punishment. Likewise, courts have been disposed to grant downward departures from the guidelines for child pornography possession offenses under chapter 110, based on the misconception that these crimes are not serious.
Sec. 104. Stronger penalties against kidnapping.
This section directs the Sentencing Commission to increase the base offense level for kidnapping from level 24 (51-63 months) to a base offense level of 32 (121-151 months). (Amends Sec. 2A4.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines). It further deletes the provision of the Guidelines that rewards kidnappers for releasing the victim within 24 hours by reducing the base offense level by one point. (Deletes 2A4.1(4)(C) of the Sentencing Guidelines). Under the current Guidelines, if a defendant sexually exploits the kidnapping victim, then the defendant's base offense level is increased by 3 levels. This is amended to a 6 level increase. (Amends 2A4.1(5) of the Sentencing Guidelines.)
This section also amends 18 U.S.C. 1201 to provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years if the victim of the non-family kidnapping is under the age of 18.
Sec. 105. Penalties against sex tourism.
This section addresses a number of problems related to persons who travel to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual relations with minors. Current law requires the government to prove that the defendant traveled with the intent to engage in the illegal activity. Under this section the government would only have to prove that the defendant engaged in illicit sexual conduct with a minor while in a foreign country. This section also criminalizes the actions of sex tour operators by prohibiting persons from arranging, inducing, procuring, or facilitating the travel of a person knowing that such a person is traveling in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct. This section is similar to H.R. 4477, the `Sex Tourism Prohibition Improvement Act of 2002,' which passed the House 418-8 on June 26, 2002.
Sec. 106. Two strikes you're out.
This section would establish a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for twice-convicted child sex offenders. This section amends 18 U.S.C. 3559 of the Federal criminal code to provide for a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment for any person convicted of a `Federal sex offense' if they had previously been convicted of a similar offense under either Federal or State law. The legislation defines Federal sex offense to include offenses committed against a person under the age of 17 and involving the crimes of sexual abuse, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a minor, abusive sexual contact, and the interstate transportation of minors for sexual purposes. This section is similar to H.R. 2146, the `Two Strikes and You're Out Child Protection Act,' which passed the House 382-34 on March 14, 2002.
Subtitle A--Law enforcement tools to protect children.
Sec. 201. Law enforcement tools to protect children.
This section would add four new wiretap predicates under section 2516 of title 18, United States Code that relate to sexual exploitation crimes against children. This legislation in no way changes the strict limitations on how and when wiretaps may be used. This section also adds chapter 55 of title 18, United States Code, kidnapping, to the list of wiretap predicates. This section is similar to H.R. 1877, the `Child Sex Crimes Wiretapping Act of 2002,' which passed the House 396-11 on May 21 2002.
Sec. 202. No statute of limitations for child abduction and sex crimes.
This section provides that child abductions and felony sex offenses can be prosecuted without limitation of time. Under current law, the limitation period applicable to most Federal crimes is 5 years. See 18 U.S.C. 3282. There are some exceptions to this limitation--see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 3281 (no limitation period for capital crimes); 18 U.S.C. 3293 (ten-year limitation period for certain financial institution offenses); 18 U.S.C. 3294 (twenty-year limitation period for certain thefts of artwork). Existing law also modifies the current limitation rules for certain cases involving child victims by providing that the limitation period does not bar prosecution `for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of eighteen years . . . before the child reaches the age of 25 years.' 18 U.S.C. 3283. While this is better than a flat 5-year rule, it remains inadequate in many cases. For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit--even if DNA matching conclusively identified him as the perpetrator 1 day after the victim turned 25. Nor is this provision applicable in any case that does not involve child victims, such as that of a serial rapist of adult victims who is identified a number of years after the commission of the crimes through DNA matching.
Subtitle B--No pretrial release for those who rape or kidnap children
Sec. 221.No pretrial release for those who rape or kidnap children.
This section provides a rebuttalble presumption that child rapists and kidnappers should not get pre-trial release. Under current law, a defendant may be detained before trial if the government establishes by clear and convincing evidence that no release conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person and the safety of others. Current law also provides rebuttable presumptions that the standard for pretrial detention is satisfied in certain circumstances. For example, such a presumption exists if the court finds probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a drug offense punishable by imprisonment for 10 years or more, or that the person committed a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime while armed with a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). See 18 U.S.C. 3142(e). Thus, existing law creates a presumption that, for example, an armed robber charged under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) cannot safely be released before trial. This section will provide the same presumption for crimes such as child abduction and child rape.
Subtitle C--No waiting period to report missing children `Suzanne's Law.'
Sec. 241. Amendment.
This section amends section 3701(a) of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5779(a)) to require law enforcement agencies to report missing children less than 21 years of age to the National Crime Information Center. Current law only requires reporting for children under the age of 18.
Subtitle D--Recordkeeping to demonstrate minors were not used in production of pornography
Sec. 261. Recordkeeping to demonstrate minors were not used in production of pornography.
This section requires that 1 year after enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report detailing the number to times since January 1993 that the Department of Justice has inspected the records of any producer of materials regulated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2257 (records to prove pornographic actors are above the age of 18) and 28 C.F.R. 75. The Attorney General shall indicate the number of violations prosecuted as a result of those inspections.
Sec. 301. National coordination of AMBER Alert communications network.
This section establishes an AMBER Alert Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist States with their AMBER Alert plans. This coordinator will eliminate gaps in the network, including gaps in interstate travel, work with States to encourage development of additional AMBER plans, work with States to ensure regional coordination among plans, and serve as a nationwide point of contact.
The AMBER program is a voluntary partnership between law-enforcement agencies and broadcasters to activate an urgent alert bulletin in serious child-abduction cases. The goal of the AMBER Alert is to instantly galvanize the entire community to assist in the search for and safe return of the child.
Sec. 302. Minimum standards for issuance and dissemination of alerts through AMBER Alert communications network.
This section requires the Department of Justice Coordinator to establish nationwide minimum standards for the issuance of an AMBER alert and the extent of dissemination of the alert. The legislation allows for voluntary adoption of these standards. The Committee intends that the establishment of minimum standards will limit the use of the system to those rare instances of serious child abductions. Limiting the use of AMBER Alerts is critical to the long-term success of the program because overuse or misuse of AMBER Alerts could lead to public fatigue or numbness to the alerts.
Sec. 303. Grant program for notification and communications systems along highways for recovery of abducted children.
This section authorizes $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 for the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to States for the development or enhancement of notification or communications systems along highways for alerts and other information for the recovery of abducted children.
Sec. 304. Grant program for support of AMBER Alert communications plans.
This section authorizes $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 for the Attorney General to administer a grant program for the development and enhancement of programs and activities for the support of AMBER Alert communication plans.
Sec. 305. Increased support.
This section reauthorizes and doubles the annual grant to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000 through fiscal year 2004. (Amends 42 U.S.C. 5773(b)(2)).
Sec. 306. Sex offender apprehension program.
This would authorize COPS funding for Sex Offender Apprehension Programs in States that have a sex offender registry and have laws that make it a crime for failure to notify authorities of any change in address information, etc. The money could be used by local law enforcement agencies to fund officers who would check up on sex offenders and arrest them for noncompliance. Keeping up to date records will help law enforcement in future investigations of missing children.
Sec. 401. Forensic and investigative support of missing and exploited children.
This section amends section 3056 of title 18, United Sates Code, to allow the U.S. Secret Service to provide forensic and investigative support to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to assist in efforts to find missing children.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
[ shall be subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection. ][<-Struck out][ (2) GUIDELINES- The United States Sentencing Commission is directed to amend the existing guidelines for the offense of `kidnapping, abduction, or unlawful restraint,' by including the following additional specific offense characteristics: If the victim was intentionally maltreated (i.e., denied either food or medical care) to a life-threatening degree, increase by 4 levels; if the victim was sexually exploited (i.e., abused, used involuntarily for pornographic purposes) increase by 3 levels; if the victim was placed in the care or custody of another person who does not have a legal right to such care or custody of the child either in exchange for money or other consideration, increase by 3 levels; if the defendant allowed the child to be subjected to any of the conduct specified in this section by another person, then increase by 2 levels. ][<-Struck out] shall include imprisonment for not less than 20 years.* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
[ 20 ][<-Struck out] 40 years, or both.* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Any individual who violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title [Struck out->][ or imprisoned not less than 10 ][<-Struck out] and imprisoned not less than 15 years nor more than [Struck out->][ 20 ][<-Struck out] 30 years, [Struck out->][ and both, ][<-Struck out] but if such person has one prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to the sexual exploitation of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than [Struck out->][ 15 ][<-Struck out] 25 years nor more than [Struck out->][ 30 ][<-Struck out] 50 years, but if such person has 2 or more prior convictions under this chapter, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to the sexual exploitation of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than [Struck out->][ 30 ][<-Struck out] 35 years nor more than life. Any organization that violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, this section shall be fined under this title. Whoever, in the course of an offense under this section, engages in conduct that results in the death of a person, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
* * * * * * *
[ 20 ][<-Struck out] 30 years or for life and by a fine under this title, if any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section exist.* * * * * * *
[ 20 ][<-Struck out] 30 years or for life and by a fine under this title, if any of the circumstances described in subsection (c) of this section exist.* * * * * * *
[ or imprisoned ][<-Struck out] and imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than [Struck out->][ 15 ][<-Struck out] 20 years, [Struck out->][ or both, ][<-Struck out] but if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than [Struck out->][ 5 ][<-Struck out] 15 years nor more than [Struck out->][ 30 ][<-Struck out] 40 years. (2) Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, paragraph (4) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title [Struck out->][ or imprisoned ][<-Struck out] and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than [Struck out->][ 5 ][<-Struck out] 10 years, [Struck out->][ or both, ][<-Struck out] but if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than [Struck out->][ 2 ][<-Struck out] 10 years nor more than [Struck out->][ 10 ][<-Struck out] 20 years.
* * * * * * *
[ or imprisoned ][<-Struck out] and imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than [Struck out->][ 15 ][<-Struck out] 20 years, [Struck out->][ or both, ][<-Struck out] but, if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than [Struck out->][ 5 ][<-Struck out] 15 years nor more than [Struck out->][ 30 ][<-Struck out] 40 years.[ or imprisoned ][<-Struck out] and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than [Struck out->][ 5 ][<-Struck out] 10 years, [Struck out->][ or both, ][<-Struck out] but, if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than [Struck out->][ 2 ][<-Struck out] 10 years nor more than [Struck out->][ 10 ][<-Struck out] 20 years.* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
[ or imprisoned ][<-Struck out] and imprisoned not less than 2 years and not more than [Struck out->][ 10 years, or both ][<-Struck out] 20 years.[ , imprisoned ][<-Struck out] and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than [Struck out->][ 15 years, or both ][<-Struck out] 30 years.[ or attempts to do so, ][<-Struck out] shall be fined under this title [Struck out->][ , imprisoned ][<-Struck out] and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than [Struck out->][ 15 years, or both ][<-Struck out] 30 years.[ (b) TRAVEL WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL ACT WITH A JUVENILE- A person who travels in interstate commerce, or conspires to do so, or a United States citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States who travels in foreign commerce, or conspires to do so, for the purpose of engaging in any sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years. ][<-Struck out]* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
[ 2251 and 2252 ][<-Struck out] 2251, 2251A, 2252, and 2252A (sexual exploitation of children), sections 2312, 2313, 2314, and 2315 (interstate transportation of stolen property), section 2321 (relating to trafficking in certain motor vehicles or motor vehicle parts), section 2423(b) (relating to travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile), section 1203 (relating to hostage taking), section 1029 (relating to fraud and related activity in connection with access devices), section 3146 (relating to penalty for failure to appear), section 3521(b)(3) (relating to witness relocation and assistance), section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), section 38 (relating to aircraft parts fraud), section 1963 (violations with respect to racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations), section 115 (relating to threatening or retaliating against a Federal official), section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), a felony violation of section 1030 (relating to computer fraud and abuse), section 351 (violations with respect to congressional, Cabinet, or Supreme Court assassinations, kidnapping, and assault), section 831 (relating to prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials), section 33 (relating to destruction of motor vehicles or motor vehicle facilities), section 175 (relating to biological weapons), section 1992 (relating to wrecking trains), a felony violation of section 1028 (relating to production of false identification documentation), section 1425 (relating to the procurement of citizenship or nationalization unlawfully), section 1426 (relating to the reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1427 (relating to the sale of naturalization or citizenship papers), section 1541 (relating to passport issuance without authority), section 1542 (relating to false statements in passport applications), section 1543 (relating to forgery or false use of passports), section 1544 (relating to misuse of passports), or section 1546 (relating to fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents);* * * * * * *
[ or ][<-Struck out][ (r) ][<-Struck out] (s) any conspiracy to commit any offense described in any subparagraph of this paragraph.* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
[ of title 18 of the United States Code ][<-Struck out] or a felony offense under chapter 109A, 110, or 117 where a victim has not attained the age of 18 years.* * * * * * *
| Sec. |
| 3281. Capital offenses. |
| * * * * * * * |
| 3296. Child abduction and sex offenses. |
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
-
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
-
[ 18 ][<-Struck out] 21 reported to such agency to the National Crime Information Center of the Department of Justice.* * * * * * *
-
SEC. 404. (a) * * *
[ 2002, and 2003 ][<-Struck out] and 2002 and $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 and 2004.* * * * * * *
-
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
[ (10) ][<-Struck out] (11) establish, implement, and coordinate crime prevention and control programs (involving law enforcement officers working with community members) with other Federal programs that serve the community and community members to better address the comprehensive needs of the community and its members; and[ (11) ][<-Struck out] (12) support the purchase by a law enforcement agency of no more than 1 service weapon per officer, upon hiring for deployment in community-oriented policing or, if necessary, upon existing officers' initial redeployment to community-oriented policing.* * * * * * *
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
--Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:57 a.m., in Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Committee will be in order. A working quorum is present.
* * * * * * *
Finally, the last item on the agenda is H.R. 5422, the `Child Abduction Prevention Act.'
[The bill, H.R. 5422, follows:]
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee, for a motion.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security favorably reports the bill H.R. 5422 with the single amendment in the nature of a substitute and moves its favorable recommendation to the full House.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for amendment at any point, and the Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute, which the Members have before them, will be considered as read, considered as the original text for purposes of amendment, and open for amendment at any point.
[The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:]
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, to strike the last word.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is good policy. It has the potential to protect and save lives, the lives of the most innocent among us.
H.R. 5422 is divided into three titles: Sanctions and Offenses, Investigation and Prosecution, and Public Outreach. This legislation sends a clear message that child abductors will not escape justice.
Title I, Sanctions and Offenses, strengthens the penalties against kidnapping by providing for a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for non-family abductions of a child under the age of 18. This section also includes Mr. Gekas' bill, H.R. 4679, that requires lifetime supervision for sex offenders. Also included is Mr. Green's bill, H.R. 2146, that requires mandatory life imprisonment for second-time offenders. Chairman Sensenbrenner's bill, H.R. 4477, strengthens the laws related to travel to foreign countries for sex with minors.
In addition, this title directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase offense levels for crimes of kidnapping, expands the crime of sexual abuse, murder, and adds child abuse that results in murder as a predicate for a first degree murder.
Title II, Effective Investigation and Prosecution, gives law enforcement agencies the tools they need to enforce the laws against child abduction. This section includes Representative Nancy Johnson's bill, H.R. 1877, which adds four new wiretap predicates that relate to sexual exploitation crimes against children. The title also provides that child abductions and felony sex offenses can be prosecuted without limitation of time and provides a rebuttable presumption that child rapists and kidnappers should not get pretrial release.
Title III, Public Outreach, establishes a national AMBER Alert Program based on Representative Jennifer Dunn's and Representative Martin Frost's bill to expand the Child Abduction Communications Warning Network throughout the United States. The AMBER program is a voluntary partnership between law enforcement agencies and broadcasters to activate an urgent alert bulletin in serious child abduction cases.
This title also increases support for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Nation's resource center for child protection, by doubling its authorization to $20 million. Further, the title authorizes COPS funding for local law enforcement agencies to establish sex offender apprehension programs within their States.
Mr. Chairman, the recent wave of high-profile child abductions illustrates the tremendous need for legislation in this area. These criminals breach the security of our homes to steal, molest, rape, and kill our children. Immediate action is necessary, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding a markup on the AMBER Alert part of the bill. Unfortunately, the bill contains more than AMBER Alert. If only AMBER Alert were before us, we'd be ready to move the pending question and pass the bill. But instead of the non-controversial House bill introduced by bipartisan leadership, Mr. Frost and Ms. Dunn, or the companion Senate AMBER Alert bill which passed that body unanimously a couple of weeks ago, we have before us a bill that is a convoluted smorgasbord of get-tough, sound-bite-based provisions. Two strikes and you're out, lifetime supervision, sex crimes, wiretapping, mandatory minimum sentences, new death penalties, all sound like we're doing something about crime when--until you realize what they call for.
I'm curious to know, Mr. Chairman, why these bills are back before us in Committee at all. The two-strikes bill, the lifetime supervision bill, the sex tourism bill, the sex crimes wiretap bill have all not only passed the Committee, but have passed the House and are awaiting Senate action. The AMBER Alert portion of the bill has already passed the Senate unanimously and could be passed by the House and be on the President's desk tomorrow to be signed during the first-ever White House Conference on Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children. Instead, we're here today bogged down in controversial political sound bites that have already passed the Committee and are unlikely to even be considered by the Senate at all.
When you take a close look at these bills, you can see why they will not warrant consideration in the Senate. Take the two-strikes bill, which is a second offense--which says a second offense sex crime involving a minor would require imprisonment for life without parole. It applies to cases involving consensual sexual activity between high school teenagers which may even--who may even be engaged to be married. The best part of these bills is that they have very limited application because they would enact Federal laws that would apply only in Federal jurisdiction. The worst part is they bring about an unfair, draconian result mostly upon Native Americans on reservations.
Sentencing Commission data indicates that about 75 percent of the offenders prosecuted under the Federal provisions are likely to be Native Americans. Offenders who commit the same crime in the same State can get vastly differing sentences, probation or life without parole, based on the fact that one was on one side of the reservation line and the other is just across the line.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that testimony from Frank Zimring, a noted criminologist at the University of California Law School at Berkeley, be introduced. His testimony was critical of an earlier version of the two-strikes bill, and I'd ask that his testimony be inserted in the record.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.
[The testimony of Mr. Zimring follows:]
The bills before this Committee are prime examples of the legislative frustration generated by limited federal criminal jurisdiction. Federal criminal justice accounts for about 7% of all prisoners and a much smaller percentage of violent and sex crime prosecution. House members wish to denounce crime and also take steps to reduce it, but symbolic gestures are easier to find than measures with strong preventive potential. None of the group of proposals before the Committee today is a promising method of legislating public safety.
The four proposals before the Committee create four different strategies to use federal law as an adjunct to crime control. But each strategy is a journey into the unknown, and there is also a potential for harmful impacts in many of the proposals. Legislative action on any of these bills would be premature.
House Bill 894 tries to encourage states to punish murder, rape and sex offenses against children with a minimum of life without possibility of parole. The bill would achieve this by deducting from federal law enforcement assistance grants to states that release offenders if a recidivist is reconvicted of murder, rape or sexual assault on a child in another state. We have no idea how many such reconviction cases occur in the United States, or how many of these involve multiple states. (There are no payments to victims where a subsequent crime occurs in the state that released the offender). The monetary costs per case are modest and thus the impact of the bill on state sanctions would probably be minimal, which is just as well.
There are several problems with the aim of HB 894, including the fact that offenses such as second degree murder and non-aggravated rape would not merit a Life Without Parole sentence on grounds of penal proportionality. To punish lessor grades of murder with the same penalty now exclusively reserved for aggravated first degree murder seems questionable on grounds of morally deserved punishment. To punish non-fatal crimes such as rape and child molestation with a penalty reserved for the highest grade of murder seems indiscriminating.
It might also be dangerous. If the bill actually provoked Life Without Parole penalties in the states, and if offenders are highly sensitive to deterrent threats at the margin, a rapist or child sex offender would have little further to lose by eliminating the victim who is often an important witness against the offender. If my child or daughter-in-law were under the physical control of a sexual predator, I would worry about the law's lack of room for incentives to keep the victim alive. Such incentives are probably more important in situations of prolonged physical control of victims, but such kidnapings are not uncommon.
The other major problem with HB 894 is the perverse incentive it provides by encouraging convictions for reduced charges. All a state need do to avoid any eventual liability under the bill is convict of a reduced charge--voluntary manslaughter is one example. If this bill were enacted, the high mandatory penalties it demands would create incentives for plea bargains to lessor charges for many if not most defendants. The net effect would be to increase the disparity of punishment between the few convicted of the top charge and the many who would be plea bargained to lessor charges. The result would be the opposite of truth in sentencing and objectionable for the dishonesty as well as the disparity it encourages.
House Bill 4045 hopes to enhance the penalties for those convicted of violence against children under thirteen in federal criminal law. Its means are direct: a five-step enhancement in sentencing guidelines if one of the crime victims is a child under thirteen. The problem with direct use of federal criminal law in this way is the tiny and unrepresentative sample of violence against children that is within the jurisdictional boundaries of federal criminal justice. How many cases of such crimes were there last year in the United States in federal courts? What percentage of these were crimes within the family? What percentage of the total were Native American? Miliary? What would have been the impact of five-step jumps on the case sentences last year or the year before in the federal courts?
The first step in the career of any legislation that seeks to restructure the sentencing guidelines should be a study by the Sentencing Commission of the type and volume of cases that will be covered, and the type of impact any such new enhancements would produce on actual sentences. We do know that only a tiny percentage of violence against children comes to federal courts. We have reason to worry about ignorant interference with sentencing guidelines. But if the Committee thinks the approach of HB 4045 has promise, it would be legislative malpractice to do anything other than gather basic data on the federal share of child violence cases, the current disposition of such cases, and the likely impact of enhancements of the magnitude provided in this bill.
The target of House Bill 4047 is repeat offenders who commit sex crimes against children and are convicted of such a crime in federal court. Upon proof of a previous conviction for a sex offense against a person under eighteen involving conduct that would constitute a federal sex crime had there been federal jurisdiction, the sentence for the federal sex crime would be life. Unlike HB 4045, HB 4047 is targeted at sex offenses. It also has a much older cut-off date for the end of special victim status: the eighteenth birthday instead of the thirteenth birthday. While the number of HB 4045 offenses is both tiny and unrepresentative of child violence offenders, the number of HB 4047 offenders will be tinier still. In the first four years of federal three strikes, there were thirty-five special convictions. Here there might be none or a very few. I do not know what kind of cases or offenders will meet this standard in the federal system, but I suspect the Indian country jurisdictional rubric will account for the majority.
Here are two things that we do not know about the subjects of HB 4047. How many offenders come before the federal courts who meet its criteria? What sentences do those offenders receive, and for what specific offenses? The sponsor of this legislation should seek the answers to these questions. But here is one thing we do know: this bill will have no impact on the lives of 99% of all American children who are at risk of sexual predation.
The fourth bill before this Committee, House Bill 4147, concerns the age at which child status should end for the purpose of a special criminal law prohibiting the transporting of obscene materials to minors. The bill is in this collection, presumably, because its author believes there is some linkage between the transportation of prohibited sexual materials to sixteen- and seventeen-year-old subjects and their victimization in sexual crime. The extension of child status to ages sixteen and seventeen involves assumptions of inability to consent that are more problematic for older teens than for twelve- and thirteen-year-olds. Further, many of the persons who supply obscene materials to sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds are close in age to the transferees. This statute, unlike the definition of Dangerous Sexual Offense in HB 894, does not require any age difference between victim and offender on which to base an assumption of predation.
But the major problem with HB 4147 is the questionable link between the subject of the law and the danger of predatory sexual crime against the young. There is no reason to believe that HB 4147 will have any impact on the sexual abuse of American kids. The gravest danger of the proposal would be imagining that passing such a law is a real response to a serious problem. That type of legislative fantasy is not good for our children's well-being.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, the AMBER Alert has proven itself to be something that will actually assist in recovering abducted children. It is, therefore, too important to the lives and safety of such children to be used as a vehicle to get a bunch of controversial provisions into a conference which may never even meet this late in a session.
The resistance in the Senate is just not true of the current Senate. Most of the provisions have been languishing in the Senate for the last three Congresses after passing the House without any Senate consideration.
Mr. Chairman, if we insist on passing all of these provisions, we risk losing the chance of passing the AMBER Alert bill, which enjoys broad bipartisan support. I will hope that you will adopt my amendment which conforms the bill to the Senate AMBER Alert bill so that we can pass the bill and send it on to the President.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, all Members may put opening statements in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Mr. Chairman, I lend my support to H.R. 5422, Proposed Omnibus `Child Abduction Prevention Act.' As founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I applaud the goals of this bill. However, there are some concerns about some of the measures incorporated in the bill. Although I have supported all the measures in the bill that have been considered on the floor, I would like acknowledge the tireless efforts of Congressman Bobby Scott to ensure that this measure does not violate the strong tradition of protecting civil liberties that is fundamental to our national legal system.
Every day in this country, 2,100 children are reported missing to the FBI's National Crime Information Center. There are at least 5,000 children missing per year in Houston. The National Child Identification Program was created in 1997 with the goal of fingerprinting 20 million children. This program provides a free fingerprint kit to parents, who then take and store their child's fingerprints in their own homes. If this information were ever needed, fingerprints would be given to the police to help them in locating a missing child. This bill will compliment the National Crime Information Center.
I have taken steps to protect the very youngest of such victims. I introduced H.R. 72, the Infant Protection and Baby Switching Prevention Act. This legislation would require certain hospitals reimbursed under Medicare to have in effect security procedures to reduce the likelihood of infant patient abduction and baby switching, including procedures for identifying all infant patients in the hospital in a manner that ensures that it will be evident if infants are missing.
I have also filed legislation to instruct the Attorney General to establish a national DNA database only for sex offenders and violent offenders against children. It was noted at the scene where Samantha Runnion lost her life that a lot of DNA evidence was there. I can imagine that this happens in crime scene after crime scene.
Only 22 States sex offender registries collect and maintain DNA samples as part of the registration. Only 22 States have a DNA registry that can be utilized for sex offenders. Research on sex offenders found that over a 4- to 5-year period, a 13.4 percent rate of recidivism in regard to commission of another sexual offense, and a 12.2 percent rate of recidivism with a nonsexual offense, violent offense, and a 36.6 percent rate of recidivism with any other offense. One offense is one too many for me. A long-term follow-up on a study of child molesters in Canada found that 42 percent were re-convicted of a sexual or violent crime during the 15- to 30-year follow-up period. There are provisions of this measure that would authorize COPS funding for SEX Offender Apprehension Programs (SOAPs) in States that have a sex offender registry and have laws that make it a crime for failure to notify authorities of any change in address by child sex offenders. My legislation would help expand the sex offender registries--specifically as it relates to violent predators against children, making more states available for this funding.
Mr. Speaker, as I have previously stated, I cannot take the murderous acts that are being perpetrated on our children, one after another. There are times that I feel that we, in this country, have become jaded. One child after another, Samantha Runnion being the last, most vicious and violent exhibition of the lowest grade of individual. Ms., Runnion, a 5-year-old playing with her friend in front of her house was snatched away screaming and kicking and pleading for her life. Her nude body was found a day later with clear indication that she had been sexually assaulted and strangled.
Elizabeth Smart,--and Laura Ayala, of my own community--both were victims of Abduction. Laura Ayala was a 13-year-old just trying to get a newspaper for her homework, maybe less than 50 feet away from a store. She was snatched so fast that all the police found scattered newspaper and sandals left in place. The names go on and we all know them, Danielle Van Dam--Rilya Wilson, 5 years old, missing for a year before the children's protective services in Florida even managed to say anything.
Mr. Chairman, we truly have a crisis, I believe. In a 1999 report authored about children as victims, it states, `Although the U.S. violent crime rate has been decreasing since 1994, homicide remains a leading cause of death for young people. Juveniles are twice as likely as adults to be victims of serious violent crimes and 3 times as likely to be victims of assault. Many of these victims are quite young. Law enforcement data indicates that 1 in 18 victims of violent crime is under the age of 12. In one-third of the sexual assaults reported to law enforcement, the victim is under the age of 12. In most cases involving serious violent crime, juvenile victims know the perpetrator, who is not the stereotypical stranger, but a family member or acquaintance.'
The AMBER (America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) alert system is a successful nationwide effort, which permits law enforcement agencies and broadcasters to rapidly exchange information in the most serious child abduction cases and quickly alert the public during the critical first few hours of a child's abduction. This program is named after Amber Hagerman, who was abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas several years ago. This program has been responsible for the amazing recovery of at least ten children. One of these programs is based in my district of Houston, Texas. In response to the May 1 abduction of 11-year-old Leah Henry of Houston, the Amber plan has been made more flexible, permitting alerts to air more frequently and through radio and television stations, rather than resorting to the emergency broadcast system. It is my hope that cities around the nation will adopt this valuable program.
We must all take a stand against child abduction and victimization. I am grateful to all other concerned organizations and citizens for doing so.
Are there any amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, do you have an amendment?
Mr. SCOTT. I have an amendment. Do----
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I have a quick one.
Mr. SCOTT. I'd defer to the gentlelady from----
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from Texas, for what purpose do you seek recognition?
Ms. JACKSON LEE. An amendment under the name of Jackson Lee. This amendment has the support of Mr. Schiff and----
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is the Schiff amendment. This is the Schiff amendment.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. What is being passed out is one that's from Mr. Scott that strikes everything except section 301 through----
Ms. JACKSON LEE. No, this is the section 401, Forensic and Investigative Support.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Okay. The clerk will report that amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. Don't go too far away with that other one.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. This is the Schiff-Jackson Lee.
The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5422, offered by Mr. Schiff and Ms. Jackson Lee. At the end of the bill, add the following: Title IV-Miscellaneous. Section 401, Forensic and Investigative Support of Missing and Exploited Children.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes, and will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, I'd be happy to yield.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. I'm happy to accept this amendment. This is a constructive addition to the bill.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, if I might, first of all, to acknowledge that this legislation was first offered by one of my colleagues who I work with in the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus, as well as the Congressional Children's Caucus, Nick Lampson. And what it does is it consummates the relationship between the National Center for Missing Children and as well the Secret Service using their varied talents.
Might I ask my colleagues to consider this, and I conclude by simply saying this: that this bill has great legs and great movement. I sense a degree of unreadiness, and I believe there would be genuine support of Democrats to allow this process to continue a little longer than it has. I will say that I'm very dedicated to this issue, and I thank the Missing and Exploited Children for working with me on several points, including DNA legislation that I am going to continue to pursue to ensure that we have a stronger initiative in making sure our children are not abducted but, more importantly, violent predators against children are found.
This particular amendment that I offer today is one that I think will strengthen this legislation, and I'd ask my colleagues to support this amendment that consummates the relationship between the Secret Service and the Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the adoption of the Jackson Lee amendment. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.
Are there further amendments? The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Mr. SCOTT. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 5422, offered by mr. Scott. Starting on page 2, line 1, strike all of the bill except sections 301 through 305, and renumber sections accordingly.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman's recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, to save time, I'd incorporate by reference my opening statement.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Without objection.
Mr. SCOTT. This conforms the bill to the AMBER Alert bill that everyone has agreed to, that the Senate will pass. I hope you'll adopt the amendment so that the AMBER Alert portion of the bill will not get lost in a legislative quagmire.
I yield back.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would strike all the provisions of the bill except those related to the implementation of a national AMBER Alert system, as the gentleman from Virginia just described it. Although I am in favor of the AMBER Alert provisions of this bill, I do not believe that passing only these provisions is the best way to deal with the problem of child abductions in this country.
H.R. 5422 in its current form is a balanced approach that provides stronger penalties against kidnapping, ensures lifetime supervision of sexual offenders and kidnappers of children, gives law enforcement the tools it needs to prosecute these crimes, and provides community assistance when a child is abducted.
Many of these provisions that would be stricken by the amendment have already passed the House by a wide bipartisan margin. Of course, if the Senate had acted, we wouldn't be highlighting them in the package today.
Those provisions, along with the others, ensure that for those individuals who harm a child, the punishment will be severe and they will not be allowed to slip through the cracks of the system to harm other children.
Mr. Chairman, there's another reason to oppose this amendment, and that is, while the AMBER provisions are good and constructive, they deal only with the situation after the child has already been abducted. The rest of the provisions in this bill which we need to maintain actually go to the heart of the matter, which is trying to prevent abductions from actually occurring and, should they occur, punish the perpetrators more severely. So we need all the provisions in this bill, not just the AMBER provision.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters, seek recognition?
Ms. WATERS. To strike the last word.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman's recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WATERS. I would like to support Mr. Scott's amendment, really. It seems to me that it is a sensible amendment that would show our support for AMBER Alert without reviving legislation that's already been passed by this Committee and this House. As a matter of fact, I thought there were some rules of the House that would not allow us to simply take up legislation that had already been passed, particularly by the Committee and the House again, and just recycle it into legislation that has with it just additional information that makes it appear as if it's new legislation somehow.
Some of that legislation that passed out I certainly had some questions about, and I think that we debated that here in the Committee, and the decision of the Committee to pass it was certainly a decision by the majority of this Committee. Why, then, are we doing that again?
As a matter of fact, I would like to yield to the Chair to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether or not we're in violation of any House rules by recycling legislation that's already been passed out of the Committee.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The answer to that question is no.
Ms. WATERS. You don't have anything else you want to say?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentlewoman from California knows that I'm a person of many fewer words than she.
Ms. WATERS. Okay. On my time, I think that the Chair's answer is abbreviated because the Chair does not wish to get into a discussion about duplication of legislation and knows that this legislation has just been blown up to make it look as if it is something that it is not.
As a matter of fact, that portion which is new I support on AMBER Alert. The other part of the legislation, which I think is being struck by this amendment, I would support the amendment by the gentleman from Virginia because it makes good sense.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The question is on the Scott amendment. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The noes appear to have it. The noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT. I seek recognition for a motion.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. What is the motion?
Mr. SCOTT. To bring up for consideration Senate bill S. 2896, the National AMBER Alert----
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And that has not been properly noticed in the Committee notice, and consequently that motion is not in order.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. State your inquiry.
Mr. SCOTT. Would it be in order without notice by unanimous consent?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The pending question is H.R. 5422, and that is not in order while there is another matter that is pending.
Are there further amendments to H.R. 5422? If not, the question is on the Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. Those in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the substitute amendment as amended is agreed to.
The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. Those in favor of the motion to report the bill H.R. 5422 favorably as amended will say aye. Opposed, no?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the motion to report favorably is agreed to.
Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted here today. Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by the rules in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority views.
That completes the noticed----
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman SENSENBRENNER- agenda, and the Chair declares the Committee adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
We are very disappointed with the approach being taken by the Majority to deal with the very serious problem of child abduction.
If ever there was an issue the parties could come together on in a bipartisan way, this would seem to be it. The recent rash of child abductions clearly indicates the need to protect our children from sexual predators. Bipartisan legislation was introduced in the House (H.R 5326) 1
[Footnote] and Senate (S. 2896) 2
[Footnote] that would create a national Amber alert system to assist local and state authorities in tracking kidnappers that attempt to cross state lines.
[Footnote 1: H.R. 5326, the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2002 was introduced on September 4, 2002, by Representatives Frost and Dunn. The bill currently has 108 cosponsors.]
[Footnote 2: S. 2896, the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2002 was introduced on September 3, 2002, by Senators Feinstein and Hutchinson. The bill passed the Senate the following week on September 10, 2002.]
That bipartisan bill quickly passed the Senate and it should have quickly passed the House and been sent on to the president. Instead, what we have is a bill that includes the non-controversial Amber alert provisions and far more controversial provisions concerning death penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, wiretap extensions, pre-trial release, and a whole host of other unrelated provisions.
For example, this bill mandates life without parole for even attempted consensual touching of sexual parts by consenting teenagers if one is a minor and it is a second such offense. This is a greater penalty than is required for a second offense of 2nd degree murder. Approximately 80% of those subject to these draconian penalties are Native Americans on reservations.
The bill also extends FBI wiretap authority to sexual acts between consenting adults. It, furthermore, extends wiretap authority to investigate sexually explicit computer generated images, even when the images do not involve real children, despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that creation and possession of such images does not constitute a crime. While some of us support these provisions and others do not, we all agree that it is unnecessary and counterproductive to weigh down the Amber alert provisions with these measures.
The majority knows that many on this side of the aisle cannot as a matter of principal support the death penalty and mandatory minimum sentences, particularly with all of the problems we have seen in these areas in this country. As many people now know, our current death penalty system is riddled with several flaws. Namely, the unacceptably high rate of wrongful convictions, inadequate legal representation and a system that is applied in a racially discriminatory manner. Indeed, after realizing the significant problems with the death penalty, Governor Ryan of Illinois, historically an advocate of the death penalty, declared a moratorium in his state after 13 people were released from death row because of innocence. Ryan wanted assurances that the system worked before resuming executions. Some death penalty proponents have argued that the problems in Illinois are exceptional. In fact, however, the error rate in Illinois is 66%, slightly lower than the national average of 68%.
Problems with the bill's mandatory minimum provisions are equally troubling. Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and have been shown to be ineffective in preventing crime, to distort the sentencing process and to be a considerable waste of taxpayers' money. Weighing in on the issue, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who is not generally known to be lenient on crime, has stated that, `mandatory minimums . . . are frequently the result of floor amendments to demonstrate emphatically that legislators want to `get tough on crime.' Just as frequently, they do not involve any careful consideration of the effect they might have on the sentencing guidelines as a whole . . .' When the majority of scholars, justices and policy analysts all oppose such controversial provisions, the majority's inclusion of such policies suggests that they have gone out of its way to load the bill up and make it more difficult for some Members to support the legislation.
This `my way or the highway' approach might at least be understandable if it was employed early in the legislative session. But we only have 1 week left in the Congress, and we need to pass a clean `AMBER alert' bill now and send it on to the president. The White House has asked us to do exactly that. 3
[Footnote] We are puzzled that the Majority has decided to play politics, rather than advance this important bill.
[Footnote 3: Bush Promotes `Amber Alert' System, The Washington Post, Thursday, October 3, 2002.]
John Conyers, Jr.
Howard L. Berman.
Robert C. Scott.
Melvin L. Watt.
