The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE PROTECT ACT, S. 151” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S5334 on April 11, 2003.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE PROTECT ACT, S. 151
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, although I voted in favor of the conference report on S. 151, I must register my profound concern with certain provisions that were added to the conference report that have nothing to do with protecting children.
I am referring to title IV of the conference report that mandates sweeping changes to the Nation's sentencing laws and guidelines. These provisions stem from an amendment added to the bill in the House, and later modified under unusual circumstances in the conference committee.
These provisions will drastically impact the discretion and independence of Federal judges and the judiciary to impose just sentences not just for child and sex abuse crimes, but for all crimes. These provisions will alter the sentencing laws of the United States, with little or no public debate or hearing on the issue, and with little or no research or study on whether too many Federal judges are in fact abusing their discretion or improperly granting departures from mandatory minimum sentences.
As my colleague from Massachusetts pointed out, if the majority on the conference committee had limited these changes to the serious crimes of sex abuse of children and child pornography, there would be little or no objection to these provisions. But they didn't. They allowed the de novo appellate review and other provisions to stand, provisions which will restrict the ability and discretion of Federal judges to grant downward departures for all offenses.
Unfortunately, as the majority is well aware, the child abduction notification provisions and virtual child pornography provisions of S. 151 are too important to delay any longer than necessary. I cannot vote against those provisions--we must do everything we can to strengthen the hand of State, Federal, and local law enforcement, as well as prosecutors, to protect our children from sexual predators.
It is just unfortunate that this must-pass legislation was taken advantage of to move sweeping reforms of the larger U.S. criminal justice system, reforms the Senate did not debate and on which no hearings were held. I hope we will be able to revisit this matter in the near future.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I joined my colleagues in voting for S. 151, the PROTECT Act, legislation that is intended to help reduce the incidence of child abduction in our country. The bill passed unanimously on a vote of 98 to 0. I voted for this bill because I believe it contains many important and needed provisions, but I did so with reservations about a couple of different sections of the bill that, in my view, deserved further deliberation.
Before I discuss these reservations, let me start by discussing the most important provisions in this bill. First, this legislation establishes a national AMBER alert system, which includes the establishment of an AMBER alert coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist states with their AMBER alert plans, and which will help to eliminate gaps in the network through better regional coordination among plans. I was pleased to be a cosponsor of the stand-
alone version of this bill in both the 107th and 108th Congresses. My home State of New Mexico already has an Amber alert plan, which was recently codified by our State legislature, and I am hopeful that this new Federal legislation will allow my State to receive funding under the new grant programs created by this bill.
Second, the bill includes the so-called ``Code Adam Act,'' which would require Federal buildings to establish procedures to locate a child that is missing in the building. The original Code Adam--one of the country's largest child safety programs--was created by Wal-Mart in 1994 and is now used in more than 36,000 stores nationwide. It is also supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Third, in spite of the many extraneous provisions added by the House, the bill includes much of the original PROTECT Act, which passed the Senate unanimously last year. These provisions provide needed tools to prosecutors to help them deal with the problem of child pornography in a way that should pass constitutional muster. Congress first addressed this issue in the 1996 Child Pornography Protection Act, but a significant portion of that law was struck down by the Supreme Court last year. I am pleased with the work of the Senate Judiciary Committee in working through the issues raised by the Supreme Court in a thoughtful and bipartisan way, and I am hopeful that this new measure will help ensure that child pornographers are held accountable for their actions.
I would like to say a few words now about my reservations in voting for this bill. Title IV of the bill makes significant new changes to Federal sentencing procedures in the name of reform. While many of these changes may turn out to be beneficial, at no point in the legislative history of this bill was there an opportunity for critical questions to be raised and answered about these new sentencing reforms. Title IV was added in conference as an amendment with little opportunity for the minority to even read the amendment or engage in a thoughtful debate. Further, several of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have noted their objections to what they view as a misrepresentation of the amendment in conference. I do not believe this is the way in which we should do business, and I am disappointed that there was not an opportunity for my colleagues to debate their legitimate concerns further.
In particular, Senator Leahy raised concerns that this amendment could potentially undermine the Federal sentencing system and prevent judges from imposing just and responsible sentences. As justification, Senator Leahy cites remarks by Chief Justice Rehnquist on the nearly identical Feeney amendment, which was added to the bill on the House floor. In those remarks, the Chief Justice said, ``This legislation, if enacted, would do serious harm to the basic structure of the sentencing guideline system and would seriously impair the ability of courts to impose just and responsible sentences.''
Whether one agrees with the sentencing reform provisions in this bill or not, the very fact that the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has voiced concerns about it leads me to believe that more time was needed for both the Senate and the House to consider the scope and potential impact of this legislation.
Finally, I would like to comment on another piece of the PROTECT Act, which was added as an amendment in conference by Senator Biden. The Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, previously known as the RAVE Act, modifies the current so-called ``crack house'' statute to make clear that anyone who knowingly or intentionally uses his or her property, or allows another person to use his or her property, for the purpose of distributing, manufacturing, or using illegal drugs will be held accountable. The provision also allows for civil suits against violators.
I have received many calls and letters from people in my State who have raised legitimate concerns about this legislation. While I fully support efforts to ensure that our youth do not fall victim to drugs, and while I understand that Senator Biden modified his bill slightly from the previous Congress to address concerns that were raised, I would have preferred that this legislation be allowed to go through the normal legislative process. This would have allowed a public airing of the many concerns that I have heard, and would have provided an opportunity for the Senate Judiciary Committee to address those concerns, as necessary.
I hope very much that during the remainder of this Congress we can revisit both these new provisions related to sentencing and the RAVE Act.
____________________
