Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017

Mr. Speaker, I thank the opponents and proponents of this legislation because they have said much the same thing.

H.R. 1761 is a bill that stands against everything we stand against. It is for protecting against child exploitation, and we all agree with that. We agree, as well, that the bill has existing mandatory minimums and the attempt of the proponent of this bill to ensure that the decision that occurred in Palomino would not occur again.

Some clarification has occurred, and that is that the bill, or the law, now, with H.R. 1761 explicitly prohibits the creation of a visual depiction or live transmission of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. That is, of course, a meritorious and unanimously supported position. The mandatory minimums continue and also are added to, now, a number of other offenses. As have been indicated, those offenses can be upwards of 20 years, and they can be for a variety of offenses added under this bill.

So the bill is well intended, and the initial prohibition could draw support in a bipartisan manner, but the continued adding of offenses to mandatory minimums rather than language that would have left the sentencing to the discretion of the Federal court--which, by the way, many Federal judges have come to this Congress and to the Committee on the Judiciary to ask for and indicate the value of discretion as relates to their sentencing. This is not a death penalty case, so, clearly, the discretion of the court and the wisdom of the court could be utilized for the appropriate new offenses and the appropriate sentencing.

So while the bill is well intended, it is overbroad in scope and will punish the very people it indicates it is designed to protect: our children. H.R. 1761 would expand and modify the meaning of sexual exploitation of children, thereby granting new offenses that may be prosecuted under section 2251 of the Federal criminal code, which generally prohibits the production of child pornography.

As indicated, it works to fix the Fourth Circuit decision in Palomino, which reversed the defendant's conviction because the decision was that there was no proof of intent. The structure of the statute, however, would significantly be modified by H.R. 1761, separating section 2251(a) into five enumerated offenses, codified as 2251(a)(1) through (5). Based on the language in this bill, to criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction or live transmission of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, a teenager sexting another teenager could be swept up under the statutory power of this new measure.

Research shows that 91 percent of teenagers, tweens, have access to the internet and/or a smartphone. Hence, given the rampant advancement in technology and, consequently, its usage among this demographic, we must exercise prudence when introducing legislation that is seemingly ignorant of the growing trend of communication among teenagers.

H.R. 1761 ignores the life-altering impact it would have on our juveniles who engage in otherwise stupid and immature behaviors and, in most cases, consensually explicit sexual conduct if we begin to criminalize such conduct. While this bill seeks to protect minors--and I congratulate the proponent for that intent--in the same vein, it drastically alters the penalty for minors who may face mandatory minimums in sentencing, and, therefore, it is flawed in its design and intended purpose.

Let me be very clear: Legislators have very good intentions, but we cannot stand on the floor and guarantee how it will be interpreted. We cannot guarantee that one teenager will not be caught up in this new legislation. Court interpretation, prosecutors' interpretation, all that will be subjected to mandatory minimums, which is in the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider these concerns.

I heard the gentleman speak of his effort to ensure that the internet provider would have to show intent or have intentionally engaged.

Again, the interpretation of these bills are subject to interpretation, and the clearer we can be here on the floor of the House, the more we can be appropriate in its application.

My point is, in concluding, I hope we will ultimately have legislation that comes back to the floor of the House that we all may be able to join in and that the elements that do not impact and protect our teenagers will be eliminated and we can be assured that internet providers are protected as well.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I associate myself with the words of the ranking member, Mr. Conyers.

I look forward to strengthening these laws and, as well, working on legislation to continue to protect our children, our innocent children, from sexual abuse, sexual assault, and the devastation that it has on their lives.

So I rise to continue that theme and to indicate, as I said earlier, that some of the clarifications in the underlying bill are important, and important to clarify, and important to provide prohibitions that will be clear in possible further court interpretations. But I maintain that we cannot predict the court interpretations, and the better and clearer that we are to protect our children, I believe, is a route that we should take.

The bill would add new classes of offenses. But section 2251 does not provide for Romeo and Juliet exceptions; i.e., the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and when the victim and offender are close in age. For example, a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old who videotaped themselves engaged in a sexual act, then emailed the video to their own email accounts, the 19-year-old would be subject to mandatory minimums. That is the basis of the amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment.

The Jackson Lee amendment is a Romeo and Juliet exception. The amendment is a reasonable approach to treatment of adolescent behavior that should not be left to prosecutors. The pervasiveness of personal technology, such as cell phones and tablets, have given rise to teenage sexting. Research has shown that teenage sexting is widespread, even among middle school-age youth.

Under section 2251, teenagers prosecuted for talking and sending messages, and then taking and sending messages, would be subject to mandatory prison sentences of at least 15 years and sex offender registration.

In light of the recent troubling statements by Attorney General Sessions, Congress should provide an alternative to existing mandatory penalties in sexting cases, particularly with juveniles. We cannot say that a juvenile will not be prosecuted federally. They could be, under this particular statute.

So this is a carve-out, a Romeo and Juliet carve-out, to ensure that it does not happen, to protect against the possibility of it happening.

A study conducted by Drexel University found that more than half of the undergraduate students who took part in an online survey said they had sexted when they were teenagers, and 30 percent said that they included photos in that message, meaning that they had sent sexual texts.

Therefore, I ask that my colleagues come together and support the Jackson Lee amendment for a Romeo and Juliet carve-out.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me quickly say that I respect the

gentleman, but I take great issue in calling a Member's amendment, or the analysis of that amendment, ridiculous, because it is not ridiculous. It is an extremely reasonable amendment. And unless he has some powers that I am not aware of, no one can predict when a prosecutor will determine that they will prosecute. We cannot. We pass criminal justice laws every day and cannot predict.

Whether or not it is based upon the Sessions memo, which as far as anyone who can read knows that we are going back to a stricter enforcement of everything criminal against everyone. That is clear.

The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes that not all sex offenses are the same. And currently, section 2251 is a one-size-fits-all sentencing scheme. It fits all, even a 19-year-old.

The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a better alternative. Punishment will be available involving offenses. When defendants are no more than 19 years old, they would have other alternatives. The judge would have discretion. That is simply what we are asking for.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled, ``Keep Mandatory Minimums Out of the Juvenile Justice System.'' This bill does not do that; and I also include an article entitled, ``Teenage Sexting is Not Child Porn.''

[June 16, 2014]

OP-ED: Keep Mandatory Minimums Out of the Juvenile Justice System

(By Lizzie Buchen)

Across the country, mandatory minimum sentences are falling

out of favor. From Sen. Rand Paul to Attorney General Eric

Holder, people from both ends of the political spectrum are

blaming these harsh and punitive sentences for driving our

skyrocketing incarceration rates and exacerbating racial

disparities in the criminal justice system. But in this era

of smart sentencing reform--particularly toward young

people--a disturbing piece of legislation is coasting through

the California legislature, threatening to wrench the state

in the opposite direction. Senate Bill 838, authored by state

Sen. Jim Beall (D-Santa Clara), would break new ground by

establishing the first mandatory minimum sentences in the

state's juvenile justice system.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the

understanding that young people who commit offenses are often

struggling in situations outside of their control, are highly

amenable to rehabilitation and have the potential to lead

productive and law-abiding lives. Mandatory minimum sentences

automatic sentences of incarceration or confinement, meted

out regardless of the facts of the case are completely at

odds with these foundational principles. They are determined

not by the youth's past circumstances or potential life

ahead, but by what he or she has done. The only result is

punishment, a sharp contrast to the rehabilitative ideals of

the juvenile justice system.

Mandatory minimum sentences are completely incompatible

with how juvenile court works. When a youth has committed an

offense, juvenile court judges tailor sanctions to best meet

a youth's unique needs for rehabilitation by weighing a

comprehensive set of factors, including the severity of the

crime, the statement of the victims, and the circumstances of

the youth's life--including mental health issues and

experience with abuse, homelessness and extreme poverty. The

judge then chooses from a wide range of community-based and

residential options, allowing him or her to tailor the

sanction to best treat the youth and protect the community.

In line with this focus on rehabilitation, the sentences are

indeterminate, with terms based on the youth's progress.

Proponents of mandatory minimum sentences, including

supporters of California's youth mandatory minimum bill,

claim that these sentences deter crime. But the evidence

tells us this is a dubious notion at best. Although this bill

would introduce the first mandatory minimum sentences in

California's juvenile justice system, such sentences have

been in place in the adult system for decades--and are widely

recognized as failures. A large and growing body of research

has found that mandatory minimum sentences have come at

enormous social, financial and human costs, with little

benefit to public safety. There is no evidence that these

sentences have a significant deterrent effect. If anything,

these harsh punishments are counterproductive, putting the

public at risk by disrupting families, impoverishing

communities of human capital, making it more difficult for

people to return to law-abiding society and diverting

precious public resources away from social services and

toward costly incarceration.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about my amendment to H.R. 1761, ``Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act.''

As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, I offer this amendment to help make H.R. 1761 a better bill to achieve its intended purpose.

Though troubled by any sexually explicit activity that may exploit and otherwise, harm our children, I believe that H.R. 1761, the ``Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act,'' is deadly and counterproductive to ensuring protection of our youth population in our new technology era.

This bill will exacerbate overwhelming concerns with the unfair and unjust mandatory minimum sentencing that contributes to the over- criminalization of juveniles and mass incarceration generally.

Simply put, this bill will add to the already tragic realities of many juveniles. Rather than proceeding with the caution befitting an expansion of the mandatory sentencing penalty, H.R. 1761 is being rushed to the House Floor, without a single hearing and without the opportunity to consider amendments directly relevant to whether our system of criminalizing juveniles for sexting is fair, just, and sound policy.

Though presented as a proposal to protect children, H.R. 1761 excessively penalizes juveniles and creates life altering criminal charges when engaged in `sexting'.

Rather, it raises new constitutional concerns; and it does not address documented and systemic unfairness and racial disparity in the imposition of mandatory sentencing and its overbroad sweep of criminalizing juveniles.

My amendment fixes that problem. It creates an alternative punishment (not more than one year of imprisonment) under section 2251 for teenagers who participate in ``sexting'' and might otherwise be subject to mandatory minimum sentences of at least 15 years in prison.

The Jackson Lee is a thoughtful, narrowly-drawn provision that provides judges with a sensible sentencing option for teenagers no more than 19 years old who participate in sexting that may be applied in the judges' discretion, in appropriate cases.

The Jackson Lee amendment is a reasonable approach to treatment of adolescent behavior that should not be left to prosecutors. The pervasiveness of personal technology, such as cellphones and tablets, has given rise to teenage ``sexting.'' Research has shown that teenage sexting is widespread, even among middle school-aged youth. Under section 2251, teenagers prosecuted for taking and sending such messages would be subject to mandatory prison sentences of at least 15 years and sex offender registration. In light of the recent troubling statements made by Attorney General Sessions, Congress should provide an alternative to existing mandatory minimum penalties in ``sexting'' cases.

A study conducted by Drexel University found that more than half of the undergraduate students who took part in an online survey said that they sexted when they were teenagers. Thirty percent said they included photos in their messages and 61 percent did not know that sending nude photos via text could be considered child pornography. Another online survey published in 2008 found that almost 40 percent of teenagers between ages 13 and 19 had sent ``sext'' messages, almost 50 percent had received a sext message, and 20 percent posted nude or semi-nude content online.

The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes that not all sex offenses are the same. Currently, section 2251 employs a one-size-fits-all sentencing scheme. Under section 2251, a 19 year-old, who engages in ``sexting'' (sending or receiving a sexually explicit photo or video of a minor) with a willing, 17 year-old girlfriend or boyfriend, would be subject to the same mandatory minimum sentence as a 50 year-old man, who engages in the same conduct with a 17 year-old.

The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a better alternative. The alternative punishment would be available in prosecutions involving offenses under section 2251(a)(2) or 2251(a)(3), when the defendant is no more than 19 years old, the difference in age between the defendant and victim is no more than four years, and the sexually explicit conduct depicted in the photo or video was consensual. Judges would not be required to sentence teenagers pursuant to the alternative punishment.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be on the floor with a fellow colleague in the Judiciary Committee, and we have a similar passion for children over the years.

I am pleased to be able to acknowledge the work that the Walsh family, tragically, has had to do in honor of their son, Adam Walsh, and their reauthorization act, which has had a major impact on child violent crimes. So, in this set of bills is H.R. 1188, which I intend to speak on as it relates to protecting our children, but also are bills

H.R. 1761, H.R. 1842, and H.R. 1862, which we know would expand unjust mandatory minimum sentences.

So the Adam Walsh Act established the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act, often referred to as SORNA, as the national system for the registration of sex offenders.

Everyone knows the tragic story of young Adam Walsh and the Walsh family that has committed themselves to years of fighting against violent sex offenders who have impacted our children. The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, however, that is included in H.R. 6847, reflects changes recommended to SORNA by the Judiciary Committee when it last reauthorized the Adam Walsh Act in 2012 to improve the requirements for States to register sex offenders. States that fail to substantially implement SORNA are subject to a 10 percent reduction in Federal grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.

Commendably, the reauthorization provisions that are included in this overall omnibus bill will allow States discretion in determining whether juvenile sex offender information will be publicly accessible via the internet, a step forward as it relates to comprehensive criminal justice reform addressing questions that recognize the difference for juveniles, and it would reduce the time that certain but not all juvenile sex offenders adjudicated as delinquent are required to register from 25 years to 15 years.

I welcome these changes as steps in the right direction, which is what happens when we work in a bipartisan manner, to address some of the existing concerns with SORNA, which I supported as H.R. 1188 last year.

Now, what has happened is that we have H.R. 6847 that incorporates a number of other bills with problematic provisions that would add new offenses to the criminal code requiring mandatory life imprisonment for certain repeat sex offenders.

No one is coddling or condoning or supporting any of these heinous acts or individuals. Under section 3559(e) of title 18 of the U.S. Code, a defendant who has been previously convicted of a felony, Federal or State, sex offense committed against a child and who is guilty of a predicate Federal sex offense against a child must be sentenced to life imprisonment.

H.R. 6847 would amend H.R. 3559 to add more Federal predicate offenses on which to base imposition of a life sentence, namely, sexual contact with a minor. Missing is the fact of not allowing judges to be involved in the sentencing of these particular offenses.

This bill would also remove the requirement that a Federal predicate offense relating to coercion or enticement of a minor be related to prostitution. As a result, this bill would allow coercion or enticement of a minor into any criminal sexual activity to serve as a basis for imposition of a mandatory life sentence. Repeat offenders, of course, would be subject to increased penalties, and, for some offenses, life imprisonment is appropriate.

Again, however, it is taking away the discretion of the judge in the review of these matters. Yet Congress should not mandate life imprisonment as the only sentencing option.

Another set of problematic provisions within H.R. 6847, unfortunately, results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing, and so this leads many to be concerned and to be against.

In another addition to the Federal crimes of violence already included in the statute providing penalties for failing to register as a sex offender, H.R. 6847 would add State crimes of violence as predicate offenses that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory 5-year sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for failing to register or comply with sex offender registration, again, taking away the discretion of the court.

The bill would also add prior military child sex offenses to several recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory minimum penalties of at least 15 years to life.

Lastly, the bill would amend section 2251 to create two new offenses that prohibit causing the production of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct and the transmission or causing the transmission of a live visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as live-streaming.

In effect, these provisions would add a new class of offenders subject to mandatory minimum sentencing, specifically 15 to 30 years in prison. Yet this bill fails to provide any Romeo and Juliet exceptions. Consequently, the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and when the victim and offender are close in age.

For example, if a 19-year-old and 17-year-old videoed themselves engaged in a sexual act and email the video to their own email account, the 19-year-old would be subject to mandatory minimums set by section 2251 as amended by this bill. That is why I offered an amendment when this issue was last heard before our committee.

My amendment would have been the Romeo and Juliet, which would have simply amended the provision that defines which juvenile adjudications of delinquency qualify as offenses which trigger mandatory registration.

As harsh as we need to be on these offenses, I am also concerned that we look to the reform of the juvenile system and not criminalize acts between juveniles. It would have added a new requirement that an adjudication for an otherwise qualifying offense would trigger the registration only if the judge presiding over the delinquency proceedings finds that the registration is necessary to protect the public safety based on a variety of factors.

We all have the same common goal, and that common goal is to protect our children; but, unfortunately, there are children who are actors in this, and we want to allow the judge to discern what harsh penalties they should get. Frankly, my Romeo and Juliet amendment would have responded to two kids doing what kids sometimes do. Unfortunately, those provisions were not included.

For far too long, the Federal criminal justice system has relied on an unsustainable system of mass incarceration that is largely driven by inflexible mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are not necessary to impose appropriate sentences.

The judge at sentencing has all the information he or she needs to impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed and the culpability of the offender. Therefore, I note the issues that we have with a good bill and then the imposition of mandatory minimums.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and former member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, those who commit crimes against children--as I started out, I have been engaged in the tragedy of Adam Walsh from almost the very beginning and certainly support that legislation, but we realize that we must be very vigilant as relates to our children. There is no quarrel with that.

There is a question of mandatory minimums and the importance of giving our courts that discretion. So those who commit crimes against children deserve to be punished, and repeat offenders most certainly deserve to face increased penalties.

Nevertheless, there is a mass of us who have seen the results of mandatory minimums that result in mass incarceration. I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing and, therefore, this legislation. I believe that judges are best suited to determine just and appropriate punishment in these matters. It would have been more appropriate to separate out the Adam Walsh reauthorization legislation.

Even conservative groups agree that expanding the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences is costly and unjust. Yet, without mandatory minimum sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses would still receive appropriately lengthy sentences.

Mr. Speaker, let me say that again. Yet, without mandatory minimum sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses would still receive appropriately lengthy sentences.

How can we underestimate the judgment of our Federal courts and others who see these cases and know the dastardliness of them? We should not create a one-size-fits-all policy approach.

For the foregoing reasons, I would like to have these bills divided so that we can move on good bills and begin to work together for the appropriate way to punish, and punish strongly, but not build on the mountain of mass incarceration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6847, the ``Preventing Child Exploitation Act of 2018,'' for several reasons.

Regrettably, I must oppose this bill because, although it substantially includes the text of H.R. 1188, the ``Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act,'' which both the House Judiciary Committee and the House passed last year, H.R. 6847 also includes the text of three other bills, H.R. 1761, H.R. 1842, and H.R. 1862 that, although the House passed last year, would expand the scope of unjust mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

The Adam Walsh Act established the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act--often referred to as ``SORNA''--as a national system for the registration of sex offenders.

The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, as included in H.R. 6847, reflects changes recommended to SORNA by the Judiciary Committee when it last reauthorized the Adam Walsh Act in 2012 to improve the requirements for states to register sex offenders.

States that fail to substantially implement SORNA are subject to a 10% reduction in federal grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

Commendably, the reauthorization provisions included in H.R. 6847 would allow states discretion in determining whether juvenile sex offender information will be publicly accessible via the Internet.

And, it would reduce the time that certain, but not all, juvenile sex offenders adjudicated as delinquent are required to register from 25 years to 15 years.

I welcome these changes as steps in the right direction to address some of the existing concerns with SORNA, which is why I supported H.R. 1188 last year.

Unfortunately, H.R. 6847 also incorporates a problematic provision that would add new offenses to the Criminal Code requiring mandatory life imprisonment for certain repeat sex offenders.

Under Section 3559(e) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a defendant who has been previously convicted of a felony federal or state sex offense committed against a child--and who is guilty of a predicate federal sex offense against a child--must be sentenced to life in prison.

H.R. 6847 would amend Section 3559 to add more federal predicate offenses on which to base imposition of a life sentence, namely sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, aggravated sexual contact with minors between the ages of 12 and 15, and illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen.

The bill would also remove the requirement that a federal predicate offense relating to coercion or enticement of a minor be related to prostitution.

As a result, this bill would allow coercion or enticement of a minor into any criminal sexual activity to serve as a basis for imposition of a mandatory life sentence.

Repeat offenders should, of course, be subject to increased penalties, and for some offenses life imprisonment is appropriate. Yet, Congress should not mandate life imprisonment as the only sentencing option.

Another set of problematic provisions within H.R. 6847 unfortunately results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum sentences.

In addition to the federal crimes of violence already included in the statute providing penalties for failing to register as a sex offender, H.R. 6847 would add state crimes of violence as predicate offenses that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory 5-year prison sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for failing to register or comply with sex offender registration.

And, the bill would also add prior military child sex offenses to several recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory minimum penalties of at least 15 years or life.

Lastly, H.R. would amend section 2251 to create two new offenses that would prohibit causing the production of a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and the transmission, or causing the transmission of, a live visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as live streaming. In effect, these provisions would add new classes of offenders subject to mandatory minimum sentencing, specifically 15 to 30 years in prison. Yet, this bill fails to provide any ``Romeo and Juliet'' exceptions.

Consequently, the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and when the victim and offender are close in age. For example, if a 19- year-old and a 17-year-old videoed themselves engaged in a sexual act, then emailed the video to their own email accounts, the 19-year-old would be subject to the mandatory minimums set by Section 2251, as amended by this bill.

Unfortunately, the commendable provisions to reauthorize the Adam Walsh Act in H.R. 6847 are weighed down by the bill's inclusion of various problematic proposals that will expand mandatory minimum sentencing.

For far too long, the federal criminal justice system has relied on an unsustainable system of mass-incarceration that is largely driven by inflexible mandatory minimum sentencing.

Mandatory minimums are not necessary to impose appropriate sentences. The judge at

sentencing has all the information he or she needs to impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed and the culpability of the offender.

Therefore, I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Those who commit crimes against children deserve to be punished and repeat offenders most certainly deserve to face increased penalties.

Nevertheless, I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing and, therefore, I must oppose this legislation. I believe that judges are best suited to determine just and appropriate punishments in these matters.

Even conservative groups agree that expanding the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences is costly and unjust. Yet, without mandatory minimum sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses would still receive appropriately lengthy sentences, but we should not create a one-size-fits-all policy approach.

For the foregoing reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6847.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of the majority leader telling us in-depth the schedule for the weeks to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for those remarks.

I want to join him in thanking our colleague, Brian Cooper. I am not sure, Brian, that I adopt the sentiments of the majority leader with respect to what Mr. Thomas could and could not do. Apparently he chose not to, and that is good.

But, Brian Cooper, we want to thank you for three and a half decades of service to this House; three and a half decades of service to this House in a role that most people, including Members of this House, would not recognize, but that is critically important to the good management and flow of the people's business through this House.

As the majority leader referenced, he will continue to root for the Baltimore Orioles because he is from Baltimore. He is a Marylander, and we are very proud of him. I want to thank him for his service and wish him the very best in the days ahead.

I now will go to the schedule.

By law, under the Budget Control Act, a budget is supposed to be brought to this floor on April 15. The majority leader would quickly observe that neither Democrats nor Republicans have always met that deadline. However, we are unusually late in the budget process, in my view, and despite months of promising to return to regular order, we have not yet done so as it relates to the budget, and the budget has not been marked up in committee, Mr. Speaker.

Monday marked the statutory date by which the Appropriations Committee no longer has to wait to bring bills to the floor of the House because the majority has failed to meet its obligation to pass a budget on time.

Now, again, I want to quickly note that both parties have failed to meet that deadline in times past, but I cannot remember us being as late in the session in getting to the appropriations process, because there really has been no direction from the administration as to what their budget priorities should be, would be, other than the so-called ``skinny budget'' that was sent down, which, in my view, almost every Member of Congress thought was a totally unrealistic, unadoptable, and unworthy budget priority document; and if it were to be adopted, the security of the United States, both abroad and at home, would be put at substantial risk.

So, Mr. Majority Leader, can you provide some indication? I know it is not on the floor next week.

And I want to say that I join with the majority leader. The issue of human trafficking is one of the critical issues that confronts us, as a country, and the global community. It puts millions of young women and young men at risk--and not so young men and women at risk--on a daily basis. It is appropriate that we deal with this issue. Hopefully, we will deal with it, as the majority leader said, in a bipartisan fashion and that we will produce more effective ways to stop and to hold accountable those who put human beings at risk by human slavery.

But can the gentleman tell me when the Budget Committee will mark up a budget and when we will have such a budget considered on the floor?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

With respect to the appropriations process, as the gentleman knows, there are 12 discrete appropriation bills dealing with national security and domestic spending. Can the gentleman tell

me whether or not we still intend to consider, on a timely basis, discretely, that is, one at a time, the 12 appropriation bills?

I don't think any of them have been marked up as of this point in time. Obviously, not having a budget would preclude that from happening. I understand that. But, as the gentleman knows and I know from experience of serving on the appropriations process, frankly, it was at the beginning of this month, historically, that we would start to mark up appropriation bills, with the intent to use much of June and July for the purposes of passing appropriations bills so that we might send them to the Senate for consideration and have some chance of getting them done prior to the expiration of the fiscal year on September 30.

Does the gentleman anticipate that we will be considering separately the 12 appropriation bills between now and the August break?

I yield to my friend.

Well, I hope that we do, in fact, get that done.

Now, Mr. Leader, I was shocked yesterday to learn that the process that, from my perspective and our side's perspective, was extraordinarily accelerated, undermining the opportunity for careful and thorough consideration, the bill that is known as the American Health Care Act, or otherwise known as the bill to attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That bill, as the gentleman knows, was introduced on March 6. It had not a single hearing and was marked up less than 2 full days later in the Ways and Means Committee, on March 8. It was marked up on March 8 and 9 in the Energy and Commerce Committee, in the Budget Committee on March 16, in the Rules Committee on March 22, and brought to the floor with a CBO score on March 23. In other words, in my view, Mr. Speaker, it moved so quickly that no one could have given it thoughtful consideration. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on March 24, that bill was brought to the floor, was subjected to some debate, and then was pulled. The judgment was made that, apparently, it was not ready for prime time.

That bill was then brought back to the floor some 2-plus weeks, about 2 weeks later, on Thursday, May 4 of this year. It was passed on a Thursday, notwithstanding the fact it had not been noted for consideration on Thursday at the beginning of the week or in the week prior. It passed on a vote of 217-213, with a significant number of Republicans voting against it and a significant number of Republicans who voted for it saying ``no, I haven't read the bill'' in response to inquiries from the press.

That afternoon, Mr. Speaker, there were buses out in front of the Capitol to take my Republican colleagues down to the White House to cheer its passage, an accomplishment of what our Republican colleagues had pledged for 6 years.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine my shock, chagrin, and surprise when I learned yesterday that bill has not gone to the Senate. Apparently, it has gone from one chair to maybe the other chair in the desks before me. It has been held, Mr. Speaker. It has been held because there was no CBO score to ensure that, in fact, it complied with the rules.

A lot of talk about regular order, Mr. Speaker.

So the bill that was cheered at the White House and the President saying ``I'm so glad this passed,'' apparently, may not have passed this House in a form that is consistent with the rules. And so, my colleagues, I want you to know that you may think you have passed the bill, but it is still here 2 weeks later.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, why we couldn't have waited for a CBO score, other than the political imperative of going home and having Members be able to say, ``We passed the bill.''

Well, it is still here, folks. It is still within the bosom of the House, warmly embraced, aging, unfortunately, not to perfection.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the majority leader: When might we pass this bill? Is the bill going to have another hearing? Are we going to wait for the CBO score? And will another vote be necessary to, again, confirm the 217-213 votes?

I will not ask you whether or not you think you still have 217 votes, but let me ask you: When might this bill be considered again on this floor? And when might this bill go to the United States Senate, as everybody thought it had on the 4th of May?

I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker.

But he got the point, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a similar conversation before, and the majority leader would love to rely on the hearings that were held before this bill that we passed was introduced. The 113 hearings were on the repeal. This bill, as surely the majority leader knows and Members who voted on it know, was not repealed. It does not repeal.

Now, it is said that the gentleman is correct that the insurance industry has been very badly roiled, and confidence in the marketplace has been very badly undermined by this administration since its first day in office, and badly undermined by the Republicans' continued attempts to repeal, and passage of repeal legislation that didn't become law, and so insurers have, in fact, lost confidence that the marketplace will be stable, an absolutely critical component of pricing their product correctly.

The administration continues, as does the House itself and the Republican leadership in the Senate, to undermine the confidence that there will be a market. So, yes, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader is correct. The insurance market is not as stable. But almost everybody who speaks to that--and there is a Los Angeles Times story today, relatively lengthy on that--in terms of what steps the administration has taken from the very beginning, starting with the IRS, don't worry about the mandate. Don't worry about the fact you have insurance.

It is like the automobile people saying, don't worry about having automobile insurance; there is going to be no penalty. Well, if that was the case, I bet you a lot of people would not have automobile insurance, and if they hit you, you would be exposed to the expense yourself.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader says he wants to follow the rules. They want to follow regular order, and, of course, they will do that. My, my, my.

Mr. Speaker, on May 4 of this month, why did we not have such a CBO score?

He says we didn't send it because the rule will not allow us unless we have a CBO score.

Frankly, I think there are some additional reasons because they are not sure that they are complying with the Byrd rule in the United States Senate, and they have got to see. So they may have to pass this again, to which the majority leader did not address himself.

But there was no reason not to wait other than politics, other than to have those buses go down to the Capitol and cheer one another. They had no idea what CBO is going to come up with next week. So they did not wait, consistent with the rules. We should have had a score when we passed the bill. But that was not convenient for the politics of repeal.

Now, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, has not told me when we are going to consider that bill again or if we are going to need to consider that bill again. And perhaps the honest answer is the majority leader does not have that knowledge as to whether he is going to have to bring that bill to the floor again because he is going to need the CBO score to make that determination. I understand that. And we should have waited, Mr. Speaker, not rushed to judgment.

He talks about hearings. There were no hearings on this bill. One reason there were no hearings on these bills is because my Republican colleagues have been having town meetings, and they are hearing about the public's thoughts about their bill. And some of them are not having town meetings because they don't want to hear any more than they wanted to have hearings here in the House to hear what the public thought.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the majority leader will be able to, perhaps at some point in time in the relatively near future, give us a clear picture as to when we may either consider this bill again or when we are going to send it to the United States Senate; flawed, though, it may be.

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to yield to my friend, the majority leader, if he would like to say something further. If not, I will yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I listened to his comments with interest. I want to touch on a number of comments he made, however.

First of all, in a very partisan vote from 3 a.m. in the morning until 6 a.m. in the morning, my Republican colleagues passed a bill in a partisan fashion--there were a few Democrats; not many--that passed part D prescription drugs for seniors.

We voted against that. And then we took the majority. And what did we do, Mr. Speaker? We acted in a way to ensure that the part D prescription drug package that the Republicans had passed in the previous Congress did, in fact, work; and it is a success today because we did that.

That is exactly the opposite of what our Republican colleagues did, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the Affordable Care Act, as my friend knows and polling now shows that over 55 percent of Americans believe that the Affordable Care Act ought to be kept; and 75 percent of them, three out of four Americans, believe we ought to fix the Affordable Care Act, not repeal it.

That has not changed, however, the Republicans' attempt and rhetoric to repeal. Now, there were a number of things that the Republicans did, contrary to what we did with respect to the prescription drug bill for seniors, to undermine and create this situation of which the majority leader speaks where there are some insurance companies that have pulled out, that are not doing as well as they should have and we wanted them to have.

One thing, many Republican Governors refuse to join the Medicaid expansion program, adversely affecting millions of Americans.

Secondly, they did not find the risk corridors. We knew when we established this problem that there was going to be a very tough time in making valid judgments on what costs were going to be two years into this program. We did not fund it. The CO-OPs also did not receive the support that was contemplated by the statute.

The cost-sharing subsidies the administration has put at risk. Now, we were assured just before the bill passed that: Oh, no, we are going to pay for the cost-sharing subsidies.

But the Republicans, Mr. Speaker, filed suit, and the court said: Oh, no, you have to appropriate those moneys on the cost-sharing subsidies.

The majority leader knows--certainly everybody on the Energy and Commerce knows, and every Member ought to know--without those subsidies, the insurance companies will have mispriced their product, for deductibles and copays, in particular.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what I speak of, in terms of the actions that have been taken over the last 6 years to undermine the confidence of the marketplace. Everybody knows that confidence is an important factor in any marketplace.

I am sure we are going to debate this again. Mr. Speaker, again, I would simply ask: Is this bill coming back to the House? Will we expect another vote on it?

The CBO report is due next week. I believe that if, in fact, we are going to schedule that, we ought to at least be given notice that that either is or may be a piece of legislation that will be on the floor next week, prior to our break for Memorial Day.

I yield to my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected in the House.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. This list will include a series of bills to honor our Nation's veterans.

With Memorial Day around the corner, it is important for this House to show our appreciation to those who have defended our freedoms, especially the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, next week in the House is Combating Human Trafficking and Child Protection Week.

In addition to a series of suspensions, the House will consider H.R. 1973, the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act, sponsored by Representative Susan Brooks. This bill would require prompt reporting of suspected cases of abuse, as well as implementation of procedures for addressing such allegations.

We will also consider H.R. 1761, the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act, sponsored by Representative Mike Johnson. This bill would protect victims of sexual abuse by ensuring that predators who send explicit content are subject to appropriate punishment.

Mr. Speaker, human trafficking is an incredibly serious issue in our Nation. With the passage of these bipartisan bills, we will show our continued commitment to ending this modern-day form of slavery, while supporting and assisting all survivors.

Now, lastly, Mr. Speaker, the House will consider H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act, sponsored by Representative Bob Gibbs. My district is home to many hardworking farmers, so I know this issue quite well. This bill will reduce red tape that makes it more costly for farmers to protect their crops and our Nation's food supply.

In addition, the CDC reports that there are still 119 cases of individuals with Zika in the United States and 495 cases in U.S. territories. With the summer season approaching, this bill will ensure we can use pesticides to control mosquitos.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to thank a true public servant. Next week, Brian Cooper will retire from the House Parliamentarian's Office after 35 years on Capitol Hill.

Brian is a professional in every sense of the word. Much of his work is done behind the scenes, but it has not gone unnoticed. From timekeeping to processing bills, to preparing for joint sessions, Brian has made sure this body works in an orderly and fair way. It is my understanding that even my predecessor, Bill Thomas, could not challenge Brian's timekeeping.

On behalf of all those on this side of the aisle, we wish you well in your retirement, Brian, and from a very grateful nation for your service. I am sure you are ready to trade late nights on this floor for late nights watching the Orioles play baseball.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

As my friend knows, we do expect to receive the formal budget request from the President next week, which, as my friend also knows, is common for the first year of a new administration.

Now, as the gentleman said, maybe this is later, but this is the latest in the history of America that any President has had to wait for a Cabinet, which is always helpful. He still has many more positions to be filled and confirmed, and as that progresses, I think actions will be able to move forward even faster.

But, as is tradition, the Budget Committee has announced its intention to host OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, as the gentleman knows, a former colleague here, to answer questions Members may have about the President's budget request following its release. This will kick off the regular order process of the committee work on crafting an FY 2018 budget resolution.

Likewise, with appropriations, the committee is looking forward to marking up bills through regular order. Now, as soon as action is scheduled for the floor, the gentleman will know that I will notify all Members.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman will be happy to know that Appropriations has already held 47 hearings dealing with FY 2018, so, as we receive the President's budget and are able to ask questions of the OMB Director, we will continue to move forward. But it is our intention always to go through regular order and, in all cases, if possible, individually, down onto the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank him for his long question.

Let me first answer the number of points you have made because I want history to be written correctly.

First of all, you were shocked. I don't know why you were shocked. I thought you were going to say you were shocked that that exact same week, when you read the paper, 94 counties out of 99 in Iowa would have no healthcare if ObamaCare continued to go forward. I thought that would have shocked you.

Then, when you wanted to put dates down and talk about hearings, we had more than 113 hearings. That is more than the number of hearings you had for ObamaCare.

Our bill is less than 150 pages. That is thousands of pages less than ObamaCare.

You talk of CBO. You know that CBO scored this bill, but those eight pages of amendments you were shocked by. You shouldn't be shocked to know the rules of the House, that you do not move a bill until the CBO score of those eight pages is done. That will be done next week, and we will move it right along.

But let's go on further because I do want history to be written correctly.

We marked up this bill in three separate committees, with over 18 hours of debate in Ways and Means and over 27 hours of debate in Energy and Commerce. We debated countless amendments in committees, from both Republicans and Democrats, even the ones where the Democrats asked that they change the name to have some hashtag. We spent hours on that, but we did that because we believed that was important to you.

Now, our bill eliminates the many taxes and mandates of ObamaCare. It gives patients enhanced tools to take control of their own healthcare decisions, and it expands choice for Americans.

So, yes, I am shocked every day I read the paper that more Americans are going to lose their healthcare if ObamaCare stays where it is or that people will even pay more, because I remember the promise the President made that our premiums would go down or we could keep our own doctor, which so many thousands of Americans found out to be a lie.

So, Mr. Speaker, I understand politics. I understand the phrases and the adjectives people can use, but there is no reason to be shocked that we kept our word of what we would do for the last 6 years. There is no reason to be shocked that the American public put a majority in the House and the Senate and the Presidency which, I would argue for the main purpose, that they want greater choice in their healthcare system.

So, yes, if I go to Iowa, I go to Tennessee, those 16 counties there that will no longer have healthcare--or what about Aetna? You didn't even mention them pulling out of Virginia. You weren't shocked by that either.

But you know what? Eight pages of amendments that stayed out there for everybody to read--not more than 2,000--yes, we will wait until the CBO finishes scoring the amendments and send it to the Senate. Yes, we know what is in those amendments, just as everybody else had the opportunity to read them, just as we went through the Rules Committee.

So there are lots of things to be shocked by, but don't ever be shocked by: We go by the rules of the House. I

think you should be shocked by the number of faces, the number of families that will not have healthcare if we did not act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I am actually shocked. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but did you actually make the argument that those 94 counties out of 99 in Iowa pulled out just because we were bringing a bill up?

Did you actually believe the 18 out of 23 CO-OPs that were given more than $2 billion pulled out because somehow they knew we would probably capture the White House, too, and keep the Senate and the House? So that is why it failed?

Or maybe those 16 counties in Tennessee that were told almost a year ago that they wouldn't have healthcare the next year; somehow people could look into the future, and just because a Republican took office, that is who we are going to blame?

I know President Bush is no longer here, but do we have to continue to put blame on others instead of having the facts?

So let's talk about a few things. Now, let's be clear of what you asked me earlier because, I apologize, I got off--you had a lot of adjectives out there. I wanted to make sure that I had answered them all. But I am very confident that this bill will hit the mark for reconciliation and it will move across the aisle over to the other Chambers.

Now, you talk about the House, and you are going to blame us for everything. Let's go to facts. They are not my facts. There is a recent report from Quorum, which is a data analysis company in D.C. These are bright, young people; a lot of them are Stanford grads. Here are the facts, because they just went and analyzed the first 100 days:

In the first 100 days, President Trump signed 30 pieces of legislation into law. Now, that is more than President Obama, Bush, Clinton, or H.W. Bush signed in their first 100 days.

Only once before in history has a Congressional Review Act been signed into law, only one. Now we have 14 overturned regulations through the Congressional Review Act, saving Americans $3.7 billion in regulatory cost, and 4.2 million hours in filling out paperwork.

Now, my favorite quote of this report, this House, the one we stand in today, passed 103 bills out of this Chamber, edging out former Speaker Pelosi's House as the most productive during the first 100 days of a Presidency since H.W. Bush.

Now, just this week we passed the Modernizing Government Technology Act, and I do thank my friend for his hard work on this. It is going to upgrade government IT to better serve our constituents. So if we are shocked, maybe that shocked you. Maybe we ought to stop playing politics. Maybe we ought to stop blaming things that just aren't even there. Maybe we ought to just take responsibility for where we currently are, understand that this is the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, and it was ``. . . conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.''

No, we are not going to blame others for our problems. And if you want to go along that line, I can go into all of the things that were promised in the more than 2,000 pages of ObamaCare.

But you know what?

Today I live currently, and what I currently see is that 18 of the 23 CO-OPs have collapsed. And the current law says we are going to penalize the people who actually paid the CO-OPs to get their healthcare, but they have no healthcare to get.

I want to read the facts where more Americans took the penalty or the exemption than actually signed up for ObamaCare; that prior to a bill even passing on this floor--something we promised for 6 years--that a number of companies pulled out because it was not working. But the biggest shock I had all week is that somehow it is our fault.

I could not look an American in the eye knowing the knowledge that we all have. I don't care what party you are in; you don't sit on a carpet that has red on one side and blue on the other. This is the American House. You know people are hurting. You know people have lost their doctors. You know they are pulling out of these counties. Don't make up some political spin to make yourself feel better for some vote.

We promised we would repeal ObamaCare and give people greater choice. That is what we did. You disagree with it, then disagree with it, but don't lay blame where it is not true.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

As I said earlier, this is a technical issue. I have all the confidence in the world the CBO score will come back, we will meet the reconciliation number, and we will move it to the Senate.

If my colleague wants to schedule something, I will schedule with you. We can walk the bill over there together. I believe the American people are waiting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

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

I am honored today to speak in support of my legislation, the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act, which aims to close a court- created loophole, and as the title suggests, further protect our children from predators.

When I first arrived to Congress after almost 20 years of litigating constitutional law cases and drafting legislation for municipalities to control the proliferation of sexually oriented businesses, I was deeply concerned to learn that this particular loophole even existed in current Federal law, which essentially allows a child rapist to admit to sexually abusing a child and yet still evade punishment.

The background is important to reiterate. As my chairman stated moments ago, this comes from a 2015 case, United States v. Palomino- Coronado, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the conviction of a child sex offender simply because the court determined the perpetrator lacked specific intent to record the disgusting images that were found on the offender's smartphone. This is despite the fact that the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the 7- year-old child from next door and memorializing the conduct.

In its opinion, the court decided the lack of purpose or specific intent was enough to overturn the conviction, even though the defendant himself took the photo of the heinous act and subsequently admitted to sexually abusing this child. This is absolutely in clear contradiction of our responsibility and this Congress' intention to protect America's children.

In Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ``God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.'' I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.

My legislation presents a simple fix and updates title 18 of the U.S. Code to ensure future defendants are not able to circumvent the law by simply claiming a lack of intent, especially after knowingly creating a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually conduct.

More specifically, my legislation amends section 2251 of title 18 to prohibit the production and transmission of a visual depiction of a real minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Furthermore, it amends current law to include prohibiting the depiction of a minor assisting any person in engaging in a sexually explicit act.

Lastly, to clarify potential circumstances of misinterpretation of the statute and to ensure the statute is not used erroneously to prosecute internet services providers when they have not engaged in wrongdoing, my legislation emphasizes that to be criminally liable under section (a)(3), an internet service provider must have actual knowledge that the child pornography is on its server and that it must intentionally transmit that image or intentionally cause its transmission.

We also take the step of prohibiting any criminal or civil liability for internet service providers who are required to transmit child pornography to law enforcement in response to a legal process, such as a search warrant in child exploitation cases. Of course, we would never anticipate a prosecution of an internet service provider for merely responding to a legal process, but it is my hope that explicitly providing for this immunity in the statute will further enhance the relationship between internet service providers and law enforcement to work together to combat these predators.

In answer to the opposition that we have heard here, it is important to reiterate this legislation does not create new mandatory minimums. However, I would like to address the comments regarding the current law on mandatory minimum penalties under the production of child pornography statute.

There is simply no evidence that Federal prosecutors are abusing this statute. I think we should all recognize that producing child pornography is a horrific crime. It often means luring young children into acts that no one, man, woman, or child, should be forced to do.

It is not a photograph of a nude child. It is something far worse. Each photo is a crime scene. Such a horrific act by the perpetrator requires the maximum amount of legal deterrents.

While mandatory minimums have reached much scrutiny in the drug statutes, in this venue for this statute, there could be no doubt that the penalties that exist under current law are appropriate. Child sexual exploitation is vastly underreported. The number of images of child pornography keeps growing and the images are becoming more and more depraved. The harm is too great to these victims not to have significant penalties available to deter this conduct and punish the producers of child pornography.

Every time an image of child pornography is viewed, the victim gets revictimized. Once an image is on the internet, it is irretrievable and can continue to circulate forever. This permanent record of a child's sexual abuse can alter his or her life forever. Many victims of child pornography suffer from feelings of helplessness, fear, humiliation, and lack of control, given that their images are available for others to view in perpetuity.

These images are becoming more sadistic and violent, and the age of the average victim is becoming younger and younger. It is a horrifying fact that it is not uncommon for even toddlers and infants to now be subjects of these images.

It is also important that there is no confusion about one fact: The very creation of these images is repulsive, regardless of whether or not the abuse was done with a specific intent of creating an image or if the intent to memorialize this conduct was a secondary thought.

Consider the facts of the case that led to this bill. As was mentioned, an adult male had sexual relations with a 7-year-old girl who lived next door and decided to photograph it. That is the production of child pornography. There is no question about it. No one should be permitted to escape responsibility merely by asserting they did not have a specific intent to create the image before they abused the child. The act of taking a photo or making a video is enough to demonstrate intent.

Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill does. It is appropriate that we are doing all this on the day that we recognize as National Missing Children's

Day. I am going to urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just say a couple of important points in rebuttal to what we have heard.

For one thing, there has been no evidence that the cases referenced by the gentlewoman involving conduct between minors are being prosecuted at the Federal level. I have not seen even one that has been cited. The point here is that prosecutorial discretion has been a sufficient buffer.

In committee, our colleagues on the other side have invoked stories of juvenile offenders being charged for consensual conduct and placed on sex offender registries unjustly; however, these are all cases that were prosecuted at the local level. Not one that has been mentioned has been a Federal case.

It is important to note that, for offenders under 18, the Federal Department of Justice policy on charging juveniles means that juvenile prosecutions very rarely occur, and only if no State court can assume jurisdiction. In fact, certification from the Attorney General himself is necessary to proceed against a juvenile.

Again, I know of no such case in which a juvenile has been prosecuted federally under any child pornography statute. So while we appreciate and understand the concerns about mandatory minimum sentencing and its abuse, particularly with the drug statutes, again, it is important to reiterate here, that is not the case with child pornography.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would oppose these arguments and trust that my colleagues will see the wisdom in supporting this very important and timely legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, the concerns stated today are misplaced. The child pornography statutes have never been the subject of abuse by Federal prosecutors, and there is no evidence that that would happen in the future. However, the abuse that is being allowed and that we must address today is that of our children, and that abuse is being allowed because of a loophole that was, sadly, created by a Federal court.

Today we have an opportunity to correct that wrong. We have an opportunity to do what we all acknowledge to be the right thing: to defend the most defenseless among us. It is, indeed, an honor for us to take this action on the week that commemorates National Missing Children's Week and here, even, on this day, National Missing Children's Day.

I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act. We hope that everyone will do the right thing here today.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, it is not only unnecessary, but it is fashioned in such a manner which may potentially create the type of loophole that we are looking to close.

Under current law, so-called Romeo and Juliet cases, such as those between 19- and 50-year-olds, could be prosecuted under any of the child pornography laws--possession, production, or distribution. That has always been the case.

However, I reiterate that we know of no such instance that has been brought under any of these Federal provisions under the circumstances covered by this amendment, which further supports the fact that Federal prosecutors do not appear to be bringing such cases. There is just simply no evidence that has been produced to suggest otherwise. For that reason, the amendment is completely unnecessary, and it is based upon no evidence at all.

On the contrary, the underlying bill is based upon a real case where a real 7-year-old girl was sexually abused and photographed by a real sexual predator.

Our colleagues on the other side have also continually referred to Attorney General Sessions' recent charging memoranda which suggests that under the policy in his memo prosecutors will suddenly be forced to aggressively prosecute 19-year-olds who are engaging in consensual sexual conduct under this statute. But that notion is preposterous and is also based on no evidence.

As an initial matter, the minority completely ignores the fact that a prosecutor makes an initial determination as to whether to commence or decline prosecution. And this is distinct from the subsequent decision of what charges should be brought, which would only occur if the decision to prosecute is made in the first place.

According to the U.S. attorneys' manual, in making the initial determination to commence a prosecution, a prosecutor must consider whether ``a substantial Federal interest would be served by the prosecution,'' and whether, ``in his or her judgment: One, the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or, two, there exists an adequate noncriminal alternative to prosecution.''

The Sessions memo doesn't change any of that, and it is absurd to think that the memo will cause the Department of Justice to suddenly shift its prosecutions to aggressively go after Romeo and Juliet cases. This is especially ridiculous, as Attorney General Sessions had made clear from the outset, that the priorities of DOJ and this administration are to prosecute violent crimes and violent offenders.

I think that the minority just fundamentally misunderstands and mischaracterizes not only the Sessions memo but this legislation. For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Jackson Lee amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my colleagues on the other side, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand her amendment is heartfelt and has the proper motive and attention.

I would just suggest, again, that the risk of this amendment outweighs any potential benefit because it creates the kind of loopholes that we are trying here desperately to prevent.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.