To repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the United States when certain lands in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, were conveyed by Public Law 102-562.

Mr. Speaker, as an OB-GYN who has had the privilege of bringing over 3,000 children into the world, I share the desire to punish severely those who sexually abuse children. In fact, it is hard to imagine someone more deserving of life in prison than one who preys on children. Therefore, I certainly support those parts of H.R. 1104 which enhance the punishment for those convicted of federal crimes involving sexual assaults on children.

I also support the provisions increasing the post-incarceration supervision of sex offenders. However, given the likelihood that a sex

offender will attempt to commit another sex crime, it is reasonable to ask why rapists and child molesters are not simply imprisoned for life?

However, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that making the AMBER Alert system a Federal program is neither constitutionally sound nor effective law enforcement. All Americans should be impressed at the demonstrated effectiveness of the AMBER system in locating missing and kidnapped children. However, I would ask my colleagues to consider that one of the factors that makes the current AMBER system so effective is that the AMBER Alert system is not a Federal program. Instead, states and local governments developed AMBER Alerts on their own, thus ensuring that each AMBER system meets the unique needs of individual jurisdictions. Once the AMBER Alert system becomes a one-size-fits all Federal program (with standards determined by DC-based bureaucrats instead of community-based law enforcement officials) local officials will not be able to tailor the AMBER Alert to fit their unique circumstances. Thus, nationalizing the AMBER system will cause this important program to lose some of its effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1104 also exceeds Congress' constitutional authority by criminalizing travel with the intent of committing a crime. As appalling as it is that some would travel abroad to engage in activities that are rightly illegal in the United States, legislation of this sort poses many problems and offers few solutions. First among these problems is the matter of national sovereignty. Those who travel abroad and break the law in their host country should be subject to prosecution in that country: it is the responsibility of the host country--not the U.S. Congress--to uphold its own laws. It is a highly unique proposal to suggest that committing a crime in a foreign country against a non-US citizen is within the jurisdiction of the United States Government.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes it a Federal crime to ``travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct.'' I do not think this is a practical approach to the problem. It seems that this bill actually seeks to probe the conscience of anyone who seeks to travel abroad to make sure they do not have illegal or immoral intentions. Is it possible or even advisable to make thoughts and intentions illegal? And how is this to be carried out? Should Federal agents be assigned to each travel agency to probe potential travelers as to the intent of their travel?

At a time when Federal resources are stretched to the limit, American troops are preparing for imminent military conflict, and when we are not even able to keep known terrorists out of our own country, this bill would require Federal agents to not only track Americans as they vacation abroad, but would also require that they be able to divine the intentions of these individuals who seek to travel abroad. Talk about a tall order! As well-intentioned as I am sure this legislation is, I do not believe that it is a practical or well-thought-out approach to what I agree is a serious and disturbing problem. Perhaps a better approach would be to share with those interested countries our own laws and approaches to prosecuting those who commit these kinds of crimes, so as to see more effective capture and punishment of these criminals in the countries where the crime is committed.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 1104 has some good provisions aimed at enhancing the penalties of those who commit the most heinous of crimes, it also weakens the effective AMBER Alert program by nationalizing it. H.R. 542 also raises serious civil liberties and national sovereignty concerns by criminalizing intent and treating violations of criminal law occurring in other countries' jurisdictions as violations of American criminal law.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 542) to repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the United States when certain lands in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, were conveyed by Public Law 102-562.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 542, introduced by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), would give private citizens in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, mineral rights that have been rightfully theirs for generations. The 640 acres of land in question were held in private ownership when the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803; but due to poor recordkeeping by French colonial authorities, the Federal Government ultimately came into possession of the title to this property.

The citizens who rightfully held the land remained on the land for nearly 2 centuries. In 1825, an order of survey was signed by a Federal agent asserting the landowner's claim to the land, but those documents were never filed in Washington. Again, in 1875 the owners' claim was acknowledged but a land patent was never issued. Finally, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Federal Government surveyed the inventory of Louisiana properties and discovered that no patent had been issued for the Livingston Parish properties in question. While some legislative attempts were made, it was not until 1992 that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and Senator J. Bennett Johnston passed legislation that conveyed the surface rights of the land to its rightful owners. That bill did not convey the mineral rights to the private owners. Historical precedent, however, shows that the mineral rights should have been conveyed to them at the time, since private landholders in the Louisiana Purchase territory were given title to both surface and subsurface property rights.

Because the Federal Government was never actually entitled to the 640 acres in Livingston Parish, the mineral rights should be conveyed to the rightful and patient owners of this property. Incidentally, there is currently no oil and gas development on these lands and the U.S. Geological Survey reports potential for only marginal minerals production. H.R. 542 conveys these property owners their mineral rights and corrects a 200-year-old bureaucratic error.

I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the author of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I wish to express my appreciation to him and the minority for their courtesies extended in the consideration of this important measure.

As has been previously recited, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the French law provided that the State at that time would maintain control of mineral rights. Upon the acquisition of the property by the United States Government, there was an effort to restore mineral rights with surface rights. On March 3, 1819, Congress passed an act adjusting the claims to land, establishing land offices in the district east of the island of New Orleans. Specifically, this was aimed at the property now in question.

For some 200 years, the property rights and mineral rights have been legally and arbitrarily separated. In 1992,

I offered legislation which conveyed only surface rights of the property to the landowners now awaiting resolution. At that time, there was some debate as to the value of these mineral rights to the United States Government. Pursuant to the intervening decade, there is now a geological survey determination that any such value would be so minimal in effect as to not adversely affect any taxpayer interest by transferring these unquestioned mineral rights to the rightful owner.

I respectfully request that the House do now consider and adopt H.R. 542 in order to restore the property rights with mineral rights to those who have been waiting 200 years for resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 542 would repeal the reservation of mineral rights made by the United States when lands in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, were conveyed by Public Law 102-562, which was enacted in 1992. The Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate of the proposed legislation found that any foregoing receipts to the United States would be negligible.

Mr. Speaker, we would have preferred that this bill be considered under regular order with a hearing in the Committee on Resources prior to markup and floor consideration. However, we will not object to its consideration today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 bills, H.R. 1446, H.R. 542, and