Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am sorry to see the objection on this matter because I believe this is one of the most important bills we will ever enact in the Senate, especially with regard to our children, but with regard to criminal law in general.

Mr. HATCH. I yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. With that understanding then, I yield to the distinguished Senator from California.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will withhold, I will yield a few minutes to the Senator, but I first want to do this unanimous consent request.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Would the Chair explain what the parliamentary order is.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I now renew any unanimous consent request, without losing my right to the floor, that we have 30 additional minutes of debate on the conference report, to be equally divided in the usual form, and that following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the conference report, with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote with respect to this conference report occur at 6:40 today, and that immediately following that vote, the Senate proceed to executive session and a vote on calendar No. 60, the nomination of Ross Swimmer, to be Special Trustee for American Indians; further, I ask consent that following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Senator from California. There is no question she and the distinguished Senator from Texas have been major movers of this legislation and she has been a strong supporter of the bill that this is attached to that does so much for children. I personally would have preferred to have just passed AMBER alert, but I am overjoyed we have this child legislation. By the way, the judges did not have to report to the Congress, they only have to report to the Sentencing Commission, which is made up in part of judges. I wanted to correct that in the Record because I know my colleague will appreciate knowing that. One of the most startling statistics is to find almost 4 million kids out of the 23 million children in our country between 12 and 18 have been abused. It is unbelievable. A study conducted by the Bureau of Prisons found that 76 percent of defendants convicted of child pornography or of traveling in interstate commerce to engage in sex with minors, admitted to undetected sex crimes, with an average of 30.5 victims; on average, 76 percent of people convicted of child pornography or of traveling in interstate commerce to engage in sex with minors, admitted to undetected--in other words, crimes that nobody knows about--sex crimes with minors with an average of 30.5 additional child sex victims. Every one of them. It is time we get tough. This bill is a tough bill, as it should be. This bill will help solve some of the problems of society, as it should. I have to confess, I have been underwhelmed by some of the arguments, underwhelmed by some of the arguments in this area. All I can say is that we do not do away with downward departures; they better be the departures allowed by the Sentencing Commission and not just conjured out of thin air by the judges. I have to also confess the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is continuously bringing up Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy. Their letters were to the Feeney amendment which has been drastically modified by the Hatch-Sensenbrenner-Graham amendment. That argument, in and of itself, does not stand or hold water. I will not say that it is a misrepresentation, as has been indicated on the other side, but I will say it does not hold any water. Now, there have been some complaints from some that the conference committee refused to pass a stand-alone AMBER alert and PROTECT Act bill. They complain that the conference bill contains measures that they had not considered and are opposed to including in the conference bill. We have a wonderful system of government in this country. Our system divides the Congress into two coequal branches of Government because that is the case. It is not unusual the legislation covering the same topics pass both Houses with language and subject matter that is not entirely the same. Just because the two legislative bodies do not agree on each and every provision, we do not simply walk away from the legislation. Instead, we convene a conference between the two legislative bodies in an attempt to harmonize the legislation. Sometimes the conference between the two bodies reaches agreement, and sometimes the two bodies do not. In this case, we did. Both bills-- the House bill and the Senate bill--dealt with crimes that victimized children. However, the two bills were not identical in every respect. The House bill included significant provisions that add stiff punishments to those who actually victimize children, as well as other punishment-related issues. The House passed a measure that would have provided for a study on volunteer background checks, but we from the Senate side insisted that the bill go further, to include a pilot program so the volunteers would have access immediately. A majority of the conferees, after considering all of the measures, have agreed to this conference bill. While all may not agree to each and every specific compromise made by the conference, this bicameral system has succeeded in compiling and producing comprehensive child protective legislation. In fact, it would be safe to say that some of the 400 Members of the House who voted for this today, who voted for this conference bill, agreed to each and every provision in the conference bill, but as with every piece of legislation, overall they voted to pass it. That is how our system works. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this measure because this measure is a measure that can help to put an end to some of these crimes against children that are so affecting our society. I want to pay tribute to John Walsh, to the people who run the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and my friend, Wintley Phipps, who runs the Dream Academy to help children of prisoners who have family members in prison; to bring mentors and tutors into their lives to help them come into the digital world and brings mentors and teachers to help them understand computers, to help them understand there is a better way. Many of these kids, 65 to 85 percent of them, depending on the jurisdiction, would go to crime themselves. I want to compliment those groups I mentioned and many others I wish I had time to mention, who are fighting these battles on the front lines against these child molesters, pornographers, rapists, et cetera. They deserve our respect and they deserve this legislation. We all deserve this legislation. As a father of 6 children, and a grandfather of 21, I have to tell you I want all my kids and grandchildren protected. My kids are now adults so hopefully they can protect themselves, but my grandchildren by and large are not. I am worried about children all over this country. When you think the average convicted child molester has personally abused 30.5 kids, it is time to get tough on them. Frankly, it is time to quit playing games with the sentencing guidelines in this area. I don't see why judges should be offended or concerned if we have them review decisions on guidelines, downward departures by the lower court, especially when those departures are unjustified, unwarranted, and in many cases ridiculous. Let me address something else that has me deeply troubled about what I have heard on the floor about the main complaint by our friends on the other side--some of our friends on the other side; very few, I believe. I believe the vast majority of Democrats are for this bill. I hope they will vote for it. I will be shocked if they do not. But the main complaint by Democrats appears to be they do not like this compromise that provides for meaningful review of the sentencing guideline provisions. Why anyone would oppose provisions that simply grant appellate courts the opportunity to give meaningful review to criminal sentences is just simply beyond me. The House had Sentencing Commission hearings. The Senate has had Sentencing Commission hearings--regardless of the representations by my distinguished friend from Massachusetts. We had extensive hearings back in the year 2000. We all know a lot about this. This measure, through compromise, has taken steps to address a growing problem both bodies identified in guideline sentencing. But I am even more troubled by remarks I have heard or read from the Associated Press, where Republicans were accused of: . . . kidnapping the AMBER alert bill in an attempt to achieve partisan and wholly unrelated goals, getting judicial sentencing guidelines. Understand, those who support this bill want to strengthen punishments. That is what the supporters have voted for; that is what the supporters who plan to vote for this bill want. However, the insinuation that supporters of this bill have kidnapped anything is offensive. I am appalled that was said in public and in the press. The AMBER alert provision is named after Amber Hagerman, from Arlington, TX. This child was kidnapped and murdered. This tragic crime has led to AMBER alerts in various States and is one of the provisions included in this bill for nationwide implementation. To invoke her name in connection with kidnapping is simply offensive. I suspect that when her family reads about that, instead of feeling proud about a law that is named in Amber's memory, this kidnapping reference in connection with her name will only prove more hurtful. Let's put these unwarranted snipes--and that is what they are--aside. Let's vote on this bill and send it to the President immediately. It will be signed by Easter and those criminals who even think of stepping outside the law with respect to any of these offences will know the full weight of the law will be brought down to bear on them. Mr. President, I again urge my colleagues to pass this bipartisan compromise agreement. The House of Representatives passed this legislation this morning by a vote of 400-25. I am pleased we will act tonight by voting on this critical measure to protect our children. This bill enjoys widespread support, and the need for the measures contained in the bill is well demonstrated. Law enforcement organizations around the country have expressed their support for this bill. Victims' families and citizens alike have done so. Earlier I read a letter we received from Elizabeth Smart's family in support of the bill. Even citizens from Senator Kennedy's home State of Massachusetts--such as Maggie Bish whose daughter Molly, was abducted in 2000 and hasn't been found--have expressed their support for this legislation. I now urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill and forward it to the President for his signature as soon as possible. I know that some on the other side do not agree with each and every measure contained within it. I suspect that there are those among the 400 Members in the House who voted for this conference bill did not agree with each and every provision. They might not have agreed with the specifics of Representative Feeney's amendment. However, overall, they believed that the conference bill includes child protection measures that will ultimately benefit those in our society who are most vulnerable. The fact is, this legislation has many provisions that will help prevent crimes against children, as well as help keep those who prey upon the innocent out of our society and away from our children. I am not going to list all of them again here. But I note that provisions such as the AMBER Alert and Code Adam systems will allow the public to assist law enforcement in the timely search for and safe return of child victims. Stronger penalties for pedophiles and child molesters, and especially recidivists, will ensure that those who victimize children will stay behind bars where they deserve to be. Enhanced investigative tools will enable law enforcement officers to prosecute those who exploit children. The sentencing reforms will prevent sentencing abuses in cases involving child and sexual crimes where too often we have seen lenient sentences imposed. They will also ensure that appellate courts can adequately review sentences by district courts. Mr. President, I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the tireless work of the dedicated staff members on both sides of the aisle whose work around the clock made this legislation possible. First, on my staff, I want to specifically commend my former staffer Wan Kim, who recently re-joined the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia as an Assistant United States Attorney. He, along with Mike Volkov, Reed O'Conner, Jennifer Wagner, Ted Lehman, Dabney Friedrich, and my Chief Counsel and Staff Director Makan Delrahim, all poured their hearts into this legislation. On Senator Leahy's staff, I want to thank Julie Katzman, Steve Dettelbach, Tara Magner, Jessica Berry, and Ed Pagano. On Senator Biden's staff, Neil McBride, Tonya Robinson and Eric Rosen. On Senator Session's staff, William Smith and Andrea Sanders. On Senator Grassley's staff, Chad Groover. On Senator Graham's staff, James Galyean. On Chairman Sensenbrenner's staff, I want to commend Will Moschella, Phil Kiko, Jay Apperson, Beth Sokul, Katy Crooks and Sean McLaughlin for their hard work and dedication. It is time for us to vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues in introducing the Child Custody Protection Act and express my strong support for this important piece of legislation. Similar legislation was previously introduced in past sessions of Congress but, and I am sad to say, never was signed into law. However, I hope that today is the beginning of a new day to help protect the health and safety of children while safeguarding the rights and responsibilities of parents. This bill is a reasonable effort to build upon two basic points with which many agree--despite other longstanding differences. The first is the desirability of parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, and the other is the need to protect a pregnant minor's physical health. This bill does not supersede, override, or in any way alter existing State parental consent or notification laws. Nor does this bill require States to implement their own parental involvement laws. The Child Custody Protection Act simply makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a female minor across a state line, with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in circumvention of State laws requiring parental consent or notification. This bill, I would emphasize, is not a Federal parental involvement law; it merely ensures that State laws are not evaded through interstate activity. The Federal Government is not trying to tell the States how they must act and when, and this bill is not forcing parents to be good parents. This legislation strengthens the effectiveness of State laws, which is where the issue is best addressed and enforced. If we fail to pass this bill, we would be choosing to ignore the legitimacy and constitutionality of States to create and pass laws that specifically address the needs and desires of its citizens, especially when it comes to the health and safety of children. The Child Custody Protection Act is a reasonable and rational approach to fixing a serious problem. In most places, a school nurse cannot provide an aspirin to a student for a headache without permission from the parent. Students cannot go on field trips without parental approval. Some report cards need a parent's signature to verify the parent knows how their child is performing academically. This bill is not addressing something relatively trivial; it is drawing attention to a very serious medical procedure and protecting the health and safety of young girls. States that choose to implement parental notification laws because of their concerns with the well- being and safety of children should have every tool necessary to enforce their own laws. An abortion is a risky medical procedure, especially for young teenagers. This bill is designed to protect children from the health and safety risks associated with abortion. In many cases, only a young girl's parents know of her prior psychological and medical history, including allergies to medication and anesthesia. Many other medical procedures in this country require the consent of parents before they are performed. Also, parents are usually the only people who can provide authorization for post-abortion medical procedures or even release important information from family physicians. Given all of these other important medical situations that require parental consent, it is only reasonable and logical to recognize and enforce a States law asking for parental consent or notification for certain abortions. We all know how contentious the issue of abortion can get around here, and across the country. But this matter is not really even about abortion. This bill is simply about protecting the health and safety of minor children and the rights that their own States have concluded their parents should have. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and prevent circumvention of State laws, especially when the health and safety of children is involved.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues in introducing the Child Custody Protection Act and express my strong support for this important piece of legislation. Similar legislation was previously introduced in past sessions of Congress but, and I am sad to say, never was signed into law. However, I hope that today is the beginning of a new day to help protect the health and safety of children while safeguarding the rights and responsibilities of parents. This bill is a reasonable effort to build upon two basic points with which many agree--despite other longstanding differences. The first is the desirability of parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, and the other is the need to protect a pregnant minor's physical health. This bill does not supersede, override, or in any way alter existing State parental consent or notification laws. Nor does this bill require States to implement their own parental involvement laws. The Child Custody Protection Act simply makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a female minor across a state line, with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in circumvention of State laws requiring parental consent or notification. This bill, I would emphasize, is not a Federal parental involvement law; it merely ensures that State laws are not evaded through interstate activity. The Federal Government is not trying to tell the States how they must act and when, and this bill is not forcing parents to be good parents. This legislation strengthens the effectiveness of State laws, which is where the issue is best addressed and enforced. If we fail to pass this bill, we would be choosing to ignore the legitimacy and constitutionality of States to create and pass laws that specifically address the needs and desires of its citizens, especially when it comes to the health and safety of children. The Child Custody Protection Act is a reasonable and rational approach to fixing a serious problem. In most places, a school nurse cannot provide an aspirin to a student for a headache without permission from the parent. Students cannot go on field trips without parental approval. Some report cards need a parent's signature to verify the parent knows how their child is performing academically. This bill is not addressing something relatively trivial; it is drawing attention to a very serious medical procedure and protecting the health and safety of young girls. States that choose to implement parental notification laws because of their concerns with the well- being and safety of children should have every tool necessary to enforce their own laws. An abortion is a risky medical procedure, especially for young teenagers. This bill is designed to protect children from the health and safety risks associated with abortion. In many cases, only a young girl's parents know of her prior psychological and medical history, including allergies to medication and anesthesia. Many other medical procedures in this country require the consent of parents before they are performed. Also, parents are usually the only people who can provide authorization for post-abortion medical procedures or even release important information from family physicians. Given all of these other important medical situations that require parental consent, it is only reasonable and logical to recognize and enforce a States law asking for parental consent or notification for certain abortions. We all know how contentious the issue of abortion can get around here, and across the country. But this matter is not really even about abortion. This bill is simply about protecting the health and safety of minor children and the rights that their own States have concluded their parents should have. I would urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation and prevent circumvention of State laws, especially when the health and safety of children is involved.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I notice the distinguished Senator from Vermont is in the Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if this change were allowed, as the Senator's unanimous consent request asks, it would effectively kill this bill, and he knows it. If Senators on the other side of the aisle want to vote against this conference report, they can do so. The point is that we are prepared to vote on this bill today and to get this to the President for signature before the impending recess so that there will not be any more children subjected to what Elizabeth Smart was subjected to, or at least we can have a better set of tools to solve these problems. Therefore, we cannot agree to this request. I ask unanimous consent that the consent be modified so that there now be 30 additional minutes of debate on the conference report, to be equally divided in the usual form, and that following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the conference report, with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. HATCH. Then I object.

Mr. HATCH. I object to the request of the Senator.

Mr. HATCH. I am not willing to redo this bill because the conference is over. A vast majority has supported it in the House--a huge majority--and a bipartisan majority on the conference. But I am certainly willing to look at it. If we need to modify what we have done here today, I will certainly look at that. I feel badly the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts feels he was misled, but I do not see how he was misled. I can see there was an ambiguity if one did not look at the whole record. He may not have been there when we decided to use Chairman Sensenbrenner's language, which was clear and specific. I thought mine was clear, but Chairman Sensenbrenner's language was more clear than mine. I think everybody there understood. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from Vermont, the ranking member, the Democrat leader on the committee, refused to sign the conference report over perhaps this misunderstanding, but it is a misunderstanding, not a desire by me to do something that is improper. I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments here today. Those are good points he made, and we will see what we can do. Let me make a couple other comments before I finish. Let me provide some additional examples of sentencing departure abuse and why we want to change this and why this bill makes a very good step in the right direction. In one case, a defendant who was convicted of possessing child porn images, over 280 images, more than 10 of which were clearly identified as prepubescent children, was sentenced to serve 13 months in prison and 14 months in home detention, even though the defendant's lawful guidelines sentencing range was 27 to 33 months in prison. Think about that. At sentencing, the defendant threw in the kitchen sink and moved for a departure on multiple grounds. He argued that his status as a former prison guard rendered him as particularly susceptible to abuse in prison. He argued that he needed rehabilitation and treatment. I have no doubt. He argued his age and his wife's age, his extraordinary family responsibilities, and his military and work histories justified a departure. He argued he was entitled to a ``super'' acceptance of responsibility and argued his conduct was aberrant. Although the Government opposed all grounds of downward departure, the court imposed an illegal split sentence and allowed the defendant to spend 14 months of his 27-month sentence in the home. Without explaining how many guideline levels it was departing, the court credited the defendant's claim that he was the only one who could take care of his wife, who had degenerative arthritis and had back surgery but nonetheless continued to work as a night janitor--his wife, that is. The court also credited the defendant's claim that, based on his service in the military and his civilian career in law enforcement, his criminal acts were aberrant. Remarkably, these winning arguments enabled the defendant to spend over half of his 27-month sentence in the home. Now let me state why we need this reporting requirement to the Attorney General that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has inappropriately characterized. It is no secret that the Attorney General is in charge of every aspect of prosecuting cases in the Federal courts. Therefore, he has a direct interest in the disposition of criminal cases. Now let me give you a specific example as to why we need this reporting requirement. There is a Federal judge who routinely violates the Sentencing Commission guidelines because he believes the Sentencing Commission erroneously calculated the sentencing guidelines. He does not depart much, just a little reduction in a sentence here and a little reduction there. But the fact is, he routinely does it. Now the Attorney General may not have the resources to try to appeal each and every time this judge violates the sentencing guidelines. However, if an Attorney General is aware of someone routinely abusing this provision, this reporting requirement will allow him to monitor this and take action when appropriate. That is why we have the requirement in there. Now let me give you another illustration, some more examples of what is going on here and what we are trying to correct with this bill. A child pornographer was sentenced this year in Montana. Prior to sentencing, the court raised on its own motion that the defendant suffered from diminished capacity. The court ruled that this young man had extraordinary family responsibilities and that he suffered from a diminished mental capacity. The judgment notes, in part, United States Sentencing Guidelines section 5(k)(2)(13), diminished capacity: Defendant was extremely addicted to child pornography and the testimony of efforts established that defendant had a significantly impaired ability to control his behavior that he knew to be wrong; that the extent to which the reduced mental capacity contributed significantly and substantially to the commission of the offense. The Court departed downward 8 offense levels from offense level 18 to offense level 10. This reduced the guideline range from 27 to 33 months to just 6 to 12 months. The trial court placed Clark on probation for 5 years. I want to emphasize again a disturbing fact here about child pornographers. A Bureau of Prisons study shows that 76 percent of child pornographers and those who had been convicted of traveling in interstate commerce to commit sex acts with minors admitted to undetected sex crimes with an average of 30.5 child sex victims. Think about that. These child sexual predators, if you averaged them, admitted to undetected sex crimes with an average of 30.5 child sex victims. Can anyone really say that tougher penalties and sentencing reforms are not needed when it comes to these horrible crimes? Does anyone believe that judges should be allowed to grant downward departures based on reasons that are not contemplated within the Guidelines themselves? Now we have supporting letters for this conference report from the Department of Justice, the National Sheriffs' Association, the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Major County Sheriffs' Association, Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. One of the criticisms that has been raised about the conference agreement is that it limits the membership of Sentencing Commission to no more than three Federal judges. Currently, the law requires that the Sentencing Commission be comprised of at least three Federal judges. The hearings before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees showed that trial judges have downwardly departed from the sentencing guidelines to a level beyond what was originally intended. There may be an appearance of conflict of interest when judges, desiring to preserve judicial discretion, serve on the Sentencing Commission whose mission it is to ensure uniformity in sentencing, which necessarily means less judicial discretion. Currently, judges outnumber other voting members of the Sentencing Commission. Because so, there is a potential for at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. Now, I do not argue that there is a conflict or that they are acting improperly. I am proud of those who have served. But there is a different attitude in the courts, as Senator Kennedy has suggested. He has all kinds of letters from judges who do not like this. It means more work to them. This change will, hopefully, restore the appearance of balance in the Sentencing Commission and eliminate any conflict between the commissioners' desire to retain judicial discretion and uniformity in sentencing. Now, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the NCMEC, expressed its thanks to the House of Representatives and Senate conferees on agreeing to the language included in the conference report of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act 2003. This was released April 9. NCMEC also expressed its hope that both Houses of Congress would move swiftly to approve the report and enact these important provisions into law. Children throughout the United States will be safer because these key leaders of the House and Senate were able to come together and reach consensus on so many vital issues--Robbie Callaway, chairman of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. I ask unanimous consent that the comments in this press release, along with a letter from Robbie Callaway, who is with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, along with the National Sheriffs' Association, along with the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and Major County Sheriffs' Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the U.S. Department of Justice, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I personally believe we can do that. We did have a hearing in 2000. The hearing was extensive and led to this legislation. By the way, the number on the chart excluded departure requests made by the prosecutors under Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines, when a defendant provides ``substantial assistance'' to the government. We counted 4,098 downward departures excluding the so-called ``5K1.1 motions'' made by the government. The number of downward departures has risen from 1,241 in 1991. Any Senator should see that this increase is the reason for our concern. I do not disagree with the distinguished Senator. I think it would be good to find out what the Senator wants to know, and that is, if I understand him correctly, he is asking for a hearing on downward departures.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. I would certainly ask the Subcommittee on Crime to do that.

Mr. HATCH. Let me interrupt the Senator for one second. I agree with the Senator. I have seen the girlfriend courier go to prison for 10 years when she did not even know what was in the package, or at least claimed she did not, while the boyfriend, the drug dealer, pleaded State's evidence and gets off. Frankly, I do not like that either. I think we should hold hearings on this, and I will be happy to recommend it to the Crime Subcommittee or if it should be elevated to the full committee, we can perhaps do that. I appreciate the distinguished Senator's willingness to try and help us resolve this today because this bill needs to pass. I do not see how anybody can refute what I have been saying here. I do not see how anyone would not want to get tougher with sentencing with regard to these sexual crimes, especially when they have gone way outside the downward departure limits the Sentencing Commission gives them. We do not stop trial judges from granting downward departures, but they should be done in compliance with the purposes of the sentencing guidelines.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany S. 151, the PROTECT Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Grassley substitute be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.