F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Ashcroft v. the Free Speech Coalition held that the current definition of child pornography as enacted by the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 is overbroad and, thus, unconstitutional. In response to that decision, Ernest Allen, the president and CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, testified that he believes that the Court's decision will result in the proliferation of child pornography in America unlike anything we have seen in more than 20 years. He concluded that, as a result of the Court's decision, thousands of children will be sexually victimized, most of whom will not report the offense. Technology will exist, or may exist today, to create depictions of virtual children that are indistinguishable from depictions of real children. Just the mere possibility that such technology exists will make it impossible for law enforcement and prosecutors to enforce the child pornography laws in cases where computers are involved. A vast majority of child pornography prosecutions today involve images contained on computer hard drives, computer disks or related media. A computer image seized from a child pornographer is rarely a first-generation product. These pictures are e-mailed over and over again or scanned in from photographs of real children being abused and exploited. The transmission of images over an e-mail system can alter the image and make it impossible for even an expert to know whether or not a particular image depicts a real child. If the original image has been scanned from a paper version into a digital format, accurate analysis can be even more difficult because proper forensic delineation may depend upon the quality of the image scanned and the tools used to scan it. As a result, the prosecution of child pornography cases that involve a computer in any form are threatened. Convicted child pornographers are appealing their cases with claims that the government must prove that the child in the picture is real. This can be an insurmountable burden on the prosecution. In fact, on May 1, the committee received testimony that while there are estimates that hundreds of thousands of child pornography files are in existence and available on the Internet, law enforcement has established the identity of less than 100 children to date. The government has an obligation to respond to the Supreme Court's decision, as it has an unquestionable compelling interest to protect children from those who would sexually exploit them. The Supreme Court recognized this compelling interest in its 1982 New York v. Ferber decision, holding that child pornography is not protected by the first amendment. The government will not be able to protect real children unless it can effectively prosecute and enforce child pornography laws. In order to do that, a statute must be adopted that narrows the definition of child pornography to withstand constitutional muster. H.R. 4623, the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002, does that. In response to the Court's decision, this bill narrows the definition of child pornography, strengthens the existing affirmative defense, amends the obscenity laws to address virtual and real child pornography that involve visual depictions of pre-pubescent children, creates new offenses against pandering visual depictions as child pornography, and creates new offenses against providing children obscene or pornographic material. Mr. Speaker, this is carefully crafted legislation that will help to protect our children from the worst predators in our society. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4623, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4623) to prevent trafficking in child pornography and obscenity, to proscribe pandering and solicitation relating to visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, to prevent the use of child pornography and obscenity to facilitate crimes against children, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the author of the bill. (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4679, the Lifetime Consequences for Sex Offenders Act of 2002, amends the current law, which grants Federal courts the authority to include in any sentence a term of supervised release after imprisonment. Under this legislation, a court would be authorized to impose a term of supervised release for any term of years or life for a number of serious sex offenses. These offenses include crimes of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children, transportation for illegal sexual activity, sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, or coercion. Under current law, a term of supervised release for any of these crimes is limited to a maximum term of between 1 and 5 years. This legislation will provide judges with greater discretion in dealing with sex offenders. The court imposing the sentence is in the best possible position to determine if an extended period of supervision is necessary, based on that court's knowledge of the facts of the case and the defendant's criminal history. The court is also in the best position to determine what conditions of release are necessary to ensure the defendant will not reoffend and the public will be safe. There is no requirement in this bill that a judge impose any term of supervised release if the court feels that it is not necessary. The court may also revoke such supervision at any time after 1 year if the court decides that supervision is no longer warranted. Lifetime supervised release is not a novel idea. A court may currently impose a life term of supervised release for certain Federal drug and terrorism offenses. It does not make any sense to tie the hands of the court in the case of a sex offender if that court knows that there is a greater possibility that a defendant will victimize another person if they are not subject to the conditions of supervised release. Study after study has shown extremely high recidivism rates for sex offenders. The lifelong harm that they cause to their victims far outweighs any inconvenience they may suffer as a result of lifetime supervision. This legislation will give the courts the ability to permanently monitor those individuals who have demonstrated a higher risk to society. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4679, as amended, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4679) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a maximum term of supervised release of life for child sex offenders, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4858 extends authority for a visa-requirement waiver that permits certain foreign medical doctors to practice medicine in underserved areas without first leaving the United States. The bill also increases the number of foreign residence waivers from 20 per State to 30 per State. Aliens who attend medical school in the United States on ``J'' visas are required to leave the United States after graduating to reside abroad for 2 years before they may practice medicine in the United States. The intent behind this policy is to encourage American-trained foreign doctors to return home to improve health conditions and advance the medical profession in their native countries. In 1994, the Congress created a waiver of the 2-year foreign residence requirement for foreign doctors who commit to practicing medicine for no less than 3 years in the geographic area or areas, either rural or urban, which are designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals. The waiver limited the number of foreign doctors to 20 per State so that underserved areas in all States receive doctors. The original waiver was set to expire on June 1, 1996. The Congress extended the waiver to June 1, 2002. States with underserved medical areas worry that health facilities in such areas will have to close down if the authority for these medical waivers is not extended. The States have also requested additional waivers so that they have more doctors to help keep their clinics open. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4858 increases the numerical limitation on waivers requested by States from 20 per State per year to 30 per State per year. It also extends the deadline for the authorization of the waiver to June 1, 2004. The bill retroactively takes effect May 31, 2002, prior to the waiver's expiration. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that urgently needed doctors may continue to practice medicine in areas that are in critical need of medical care. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4858, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3275) to implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings to strengthen criminal laws relating to attacks on places of public use, to implement the International Convention of the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, to combat terrorism and defend the Nation against terrorist acts, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 439, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 96) proposing a tax limitation amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall). (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) since the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) wants us to debate this waste-of-time constitutional amendment further.