Strengthening Children's Safety Act of 2017

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6847) to amend title 18, United States Code, to expand and strengthen Federal sex offenses, to reauthorize certain programs established by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 6847, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are voting today on the Preventing Child Exploitation Act, which rolls together four bills the House considered and passed last year but the Senate failed to take up and pass. Each of them will make important changes to Federal law to protect children.

I would like to thank my colleagues--Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Sensenbrenner--for their excellent work in crafting and introducing these bills with me and their critical efforts to move them through the House earlier this Congress.

The first part of H.R. 6847 is the bill I introduced, the ``Roby bill.'' It closes a significant loophole in pursuing offenders who engage in sex tourism and prey on children abroad. Specifically, the bill ensures that the definition of ``illicit sexual conduct'' includes all potential situations where an adult defendant may abuse a child under these circumstances. No longer will they be able to go and prey on foreign children without facing the possibility of significant punishment at home. They will also not be able to escape enhanced sentences for doing so.

The bill also closes loopholes that permit those who sexually degrade, humiliate, and abuse children under 12 to avoid sentencing enhancements for repeat offenses.

Congress always intended for children to have the greatest protections, and we must ensure that our laws reflect that intent.

The next part of H.R. 6847, the ``Ratcliffe bill,'' closes yet another loophole regarding offenders who commit violent crimes while they are in noncompliant status as sex offenders. Currently, this enhancement applies only to those who committed crimes of violence under Federal, Tribal, D.C., or military law, and the law of any territory or possession of the United States.

This bill adds State crimes of violence as predicate convictions, thus ensuring all sex offenders who have been convicted of crimes of violence face heightened punishment where they fail to register.

Presently, certain recidivist provisions are not consistent with respect to conduct covered when someone has a prior sex conviction under Federal and State law, as opposed to military law. For instance, under current law, an offender with certain prior military child pornography convictions would not qualify for a sentencing enhancement that someone convicted under a Federal statute would, even if their conduct was the same. This bill fixes this and makes sure that those recidivist enhancements are applied consistently.

The third part of H.R. 6847, the ``Johnson bill,'' fixes a judicially created loophole in the Federal production of child pornography statute. In United States versus Palomino-Coronado, the Fourth Circuit reversed a conviction for production of child pornography for insufficient evidence, allowing a defendant to walk free from production of child pornography charges despite photographic evidence he created that he had engaged in sexual abuse of a 7-year-old child.

In doing so, the court suggested that a defendant must initiate sexually illicit conduct with the specific intent to create child pornography. This decision has extremely undesirable consequences in the prosecution of the production of child pornography. It has created a new defense whereby a defendant can merely deny a preformed, specific intent to record a sexual offense of a minor and escape Federal conviction.

That is an outrageous result, and Congress' intervention is required to fix the statute. The creation of child pornography must be adequately deterred, and this fix ensures that it will be.

Finally, H.R. 6847 includes the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, introduced by Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, the author of the original Walsh Act. The bill reauthorizes the Sex Offender Management Assistance Program and provides funding for the United States Marshals Service, which is tasked with identifying and apprehending unregistered sex offenders. It also adds new provisions that aim to improve the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act and make it easier for States to comply.

Thus far, 17 States, 108 Tribes, and 3 territories are in substantial compliance with the law. The intent of this bill is to ensure many more jurisdictions come into compliance.

Over the past several years, DOJ has worked closely with the States to achieve this goal by promulgating flexible guidelines via the continued hard work of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, or the SMART Office.

This bill takes several concrete steps to encourage compliance. For example, it addresses concerns many have addressed about juvenile offenders. It is important to keep in mind that only juveniles who have committed the most serious sex offenses are subject to registration under SORNA. Nevertheless, this bill lessens the amount of time a juvenile who commits certain offenses and keeps a clean record must be on the registry. If these youths keep a clean record for 15 years, they may petition to leave the registry.

Additionally, the bill codifies 2016 DOJ guidelines which permit the SMART Office to deem a State in substantial compliance with the act even if it maintains a discretionary juvenile registry.

Further, the bill alleviates the cost of implementation by explicitly permitting alternative means for in-person check-ins for registrants and lessening the number of required check-ins. This is a reasonable amendment that will help States with significant rural populations achieve compliance.

I want to thank all my colleagues. I am glad to have had the opportunity to introduce the comprehensive child protection bill, which, as I have already noted, will strengthen Federal law to protect children. I also want to, again, thank Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Sensenbrenner for their work.

There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children. I implore my colleagues to take that to heart and support this vital, well-crafted, commonsense legislation. I urge every person in this room to consider this bill, not just as a Member of Congress, but as a parent, a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle, or a friend. Please join me today in supporting this bill and protecting our children.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, we need to make clear that this bill does not expand law to go after teenagers for sexting. Under present law, technically, such changes may be possible. However, we know of no instance where the Department of Justice has pursued such cases.

When these bills were initially passed, the press falsely claimed that they would make it possible for DOJ to go after teen sexting. This is completely reckless journalism. Apparently, these journalists did not participate in any sort of fact checking, which would have merely consisted of opening a U.S. Criminal Code book. They also continually cite State cases as examples of Federal prosecutors acting aggressively, which is similarly extremely misleading. If our friends across the aisle would like to draw our attention to any cases where the Federal Government prosecuted consensual teen sexting, we would be happy to look at them.

Last year, we offered to work on a provision to provide an affirmative defense in this chapter of the code, despite no evidence that it is necessary, but we were not taken up on our offer.

None of these bills, Mr. Speaker, create new mandatory minimum sentences. Instead, they modify the existing statutory framework to ensure the existing enhancements are applied equitably and to close certain loopholes.

Some of the conduct covered is modestly expanded, but that is done commensurate with the crime. These recidivism enhancements are for these predatory crimes, especially where the defendant has previously sexually abused a child, which is the case for the enhancement in 18 U.S.C. 3559(e).

Society's laws need to address the problems of the day and protect the public, especially our children. Sex crimes against children are ubiquitous. Their number, as we heard in our child protection hearing last month, is growing.

Additionally, the offenses are becoming more depraved, and the victims are getting younger. There is no sign of slowing down, and present law does not appear to be keeping up with the numbers.

The gravity and growing prevalence of these crimes merit an appropriate societal response to have a proper deterrent effect. The enhancements provide this deterrent effect.

In addition, these child sex crimes are vastly underreported. In these sexual exploitation crimes, the victims are often very young and very impressionable. They are often scarred for life as a result of horrific abuse. The punishment must fit the crime, especially where it involves our children.

Again, my appeal to my colleagues is to consider this bill, not just as a Member of Congress, but, again, as a parent, a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle, and a friend. I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to offer my strong support for all six bills under consideration tonight to prevent children from suffering the horrors of sexual exploitation and ensure justice for traffickers and abusers.

I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for his consistent work to fight human trafficking and other forms of sexual exploitation of children.

As the prime author of the landmark Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and of its 2003 and 2005 reauthorization, I know the heavy lift such bills can be--and also their critical importance. The Majority Leader's personal commitment to tonight's legislation, as well as to moving other anti-trafficking bills over the next few weeks, builds upon the work he has done in previous congresses to effectively help the victims of trafficking who are primarily women and children.

Sexual exploitation of children is a human rights violation that results in serious, lifelong consequences for the physical, psychological, and spiritual development and well-being of a child In many instances, it is a form of human trafficking.

According to the International Labor Organization, almost 2 million children are still victimized every year by commercial sexual exploitation, which includes the use of girls and boys in sexual activities remunerated in cash or in kind, child sex tourism, the use of children in sex shows (public or private), and the production, promotion and distribution of pornography involving children.

Millions of other children suffer the honor and wounding of other forms of sexual abuse; most do not come forward out of misplaced shame, or the fear that the justice system will re-traumatize and then fail them.

The Strengthening Children's Safety Act of 2017, H.R. 1842, seeks to strengthen our efforts against repeat child sex offenders and ensure they are subjected to increased penalties. As drafted, the bill will crack down on sex offenders who fail to register and then commit violent crimes under state law. It will also ensure that an offender's prior child-related sex offenses under Uniform Code of Military Justice are taken into account in subsequent prosecutions.

The Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017 (H.R. 883) also seeks to improve accountability for suspected crimes against children by ensuring that offenders are not tipped-off to law enforcement investigations of their IP addresses before law enforcement has a chance to gather the critical digital evidence of crimes against children.

The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017 (H.R. 1188) ensures continued finding for the original Adam Walsh Act with important updates. The original Adam Walsh Act created a national registry of sex offenders and the means to enforce registration. While each state has its own registry, the national registry provides an efficient way to track sex offenders who move between states, and helps to systematize standards across states.

The Child Protection Improvement Act of 2017 (H.R. 695), ensures that organizations serving youth have access to the national sex offender registry--so that they are not limited to background checks within their state. This ensures that children are protected from sex offenders whether or not the offender has followed the law and registered in their state.

Last year, I applied this concept worldwide with the International Megan's Law to Prevent Child Exploitation and Other Sexual Crimes Through Advanced Notification of Traveling Sex Offenders (P.L. 114- 119), so that countries are warned when individuals on a U.S. sex offender list for a crime against a child is traveling to their country. Since my bill became law, more than 2,000 notifications of pedophile travel have been sent to 64 countries, with a particular emphasis on countries known to be primary destinations for child sex tourism.

One of the other bills under consideration tonight, the Global Child Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 1862), will make it easier to prosecute known offenders and others who abuse children abroad by expanding the definition of the term ``illicit sexual contact'' to cover any sexual contact with a child.

The TARGET Act (H.R. 1625), encourages accountability for international traffickers by allowing the State Department to provide rewards to people who are willing to bring down international criminal organizations trafficking in women and children. I am a cosponsor of HR 1625 and pleased to see it and all the aforementioned legislation advance tonight.

In addition to the legislation we adopt tonight, Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues may know that a strong bipartisan coalition is also working on the comprehensive reauthorization of America's leading anti- trafficking legislation--The Trafficking Victims Protection Act(TVPA). This additional legislation, the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act of 2017 (H.R. 2200), honors the 200th birthday of slavery survivor and great abolitionist Frederick Douglass, and will reauthorize $130 million in current funds across several federal programs dedicated to fight human trafficking over the next four years.

I am pleased to be the prime author of the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Act with lead Democrat cosponsor Rep. Karen Bass along with a strong

bipartisan group including Chairman Ed Royce, Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee, Susan Brooks, Lois Frankel, Ann Wagner, Tony Cardenas, Ted Poe, and Ryan Costello.

H.R. 2200 is also endorsed by a broad-based coalition of NGOs that work on the frontlines in the battle against human trafficking including.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 17 years, we have seen progress on a number of anti-trafficking fronts: more than 250,000 victims have been rescued worldwide; the Department of Justice has federally funded some 42 anti- human trafficking task forces across the United States and more than 85,000 law enforcement officers have been trained. Additionally, over 300 laws around the world, influenced by American leadership, have enacted to combat trafficking.

We look forward to building upon this record through passage of The Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention, Protection, and Reauthorization Act. Some of the important provisions of H.R. 2200 include:

Ensuring vulnerable children and other at-risk populations are educated to avoid traffickers;

Focusing grants for survivor care on housing for vulnerable groups;

Preferring in government travel contracts airlines and hotels that have in place anti-trafficking training and victim reporting policies for their employees;

Creating a special complaint mechanism in embassies whereby the U.S. is warned of traffickers exploiting the U.S. entry system;

Increasing transparency and oversight of U.S. government grants to fight trafficking;

Facilitating trafficking-free supply chains in private business by clarifying in Department of Labor reports the products that incorporate slavery-made goods;

Encouraging enforcement of the Tariff Act of 1930's prohibition on the importation of goods made with forced labor;

Strengthening federal efforts to reduce demand for services from trafficking victims by increasing prosecution of those who purchase services;

Designating one prosecutor in each of the Department of Justice's focus districts to investigate and prosecute labor trafficking cases;

Preventing abuse of domestic servants in embassies and diplomatic homes in the U.S.;

Encouraging credible and effective use of the trafficking tier ranking system by the U.S. Department of State in the annual Trafficking in Persons Report;

Educating procurement officers in U.S. government agencies to apply all U.S. law and regulations preventing purchases of goods made with trafficking or services from contractors who participate in human trafficking;

Ensuring that U.S. military assistance does not go to foreign governments that use child soldiers; and

Encouraging USAID to integrate human trafficking prevention into disaster relief.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership and, as well, the gentleman who is a proponent of this legislation which, on its face, provides for an enhanced penalty for sex offenders who commit a crime of violence while in noncompliance of sex offender registration and reporting requirements. That offense can apply to that in the Military Code of Justice, Tribal law, State law, and Federal law.

It also adds State crimes of violence as a predicate offense that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory or an enhanced sentencing to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for failing to register or comply with the sex offender registration reporting requirements.

I believe, as my colleagues have said, that the underlying premise of this bill will join us together in linking arms, there is no doubt. It should be the rule of this Congress and the rule of elected

officials from State to local government, the U.S. Military Code of Justice, and Tribal law to protect our children; and certainly, the idea of noncompliance with sex registration should be addressed in any court proceeding dealing with these offenders.

The issue, I believe, is the question, again, of: What do we gain by the implementing of a mandatory minimum? In this instance, it is an enhanced 5-year sentence. But there may be a number of reasons in terms of an individual moving from State to State where the person is not registered.

Again, I have to turn my attention to where we are and where we stand on this day, May 22, 2017. It makes a difference. It makes a difference if we have an Attorney General that does not seem to have any interest in rehabilitation, any interest in ensuring that the mass incarceration ends, the disparate treatment of different races and ethnic groups in the criminal justice system ends.

As has been noted already, the previous policies of Attorney General Holder that were fair and did not add to the enhancement of crime, which allowed discretion by prosecutors of not adding up on the particular defendant any number of offenses that would create 200- and 300-year sentencing and, therefore, having people languish in prisons across this country, building up the record of private prisons, and seeing teeming numbers in our Federal prison system, that is what we are facing now.

There is no doubt that the present law, I believe, does, in fact, cover the efforts of the proponent of this legislation. Obviously, there will be a difference of opinion, but I believe that there is sufficient coverage in the underlying legislation without adding this particular enhancement.

I would hope that our colleagues who are in support of this bill, just as I respect their commitment to fighting against sexual violence, sexual contact, and sexual criminal acts against children, would recognize that a discussion about mandatory minimums does not, in any way, diminish one's commitment to the underlying premise of this legislation.

There are too many unknown variables with the leadership of the Attorney General and his indication as to what kind of treatment there should be for underlying crimes and his wish to have newly appointed U.S. Attorneys, many of whom are not appointed, not confirmed, so that we can, again, overcriminalize America, overcriminalize the acts of individuals, and create another siege of mass incarceration.

We will have a number of other bills that will be on the floor with the same concerns that will be expressed. Again, let me say that I support the idea of fighting against child sex trafficking and violent sexual crimes perpetrated against children. I support the opposition to such and the incarceration of those and bringing those individuals to justice. I do believe, however, that there are many ways of dealing with this, including incarceration without a continuous either enhancement or continued increase of the number of mandatory minimums that are continuing to be added to individuals who are recidivists and who are convicted of Federal, State, or military crimes, in this instance.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I thank the gentleman for that very thoughtful addition and his kind words.

I think what I want to say to Mr. Conyers, in concluding, is that mass incarceration is real. We have lived with this for decades. We finally have gotten to the point that judges recognize that there are many different ways to deal with individuals who are recidivists at sentencing, regardless of whether or not the previous conviction, as I said earlier, was Federal, State, or military court, and now Tribal. That is the only point that we are making here.

Next week, we will have 10 more bills with mandatory minimums. We will all agree with the underlying premise, which is to lock the bad guys up, but we do believe that there is some value to the discretion of judges and courts. I don't believe anyone on this floor--none of us, Republicans or Democrats--would have any argument--none--on the underlying premise of our absolute responsibility, without question, of defending and protecting children from these vile individuals. But I don't have the facts inside the courtroom, and there is not a one-size- fits-all answer. That is what mandatory minimums are. All it does is load our prison systems with bodies, one after another.

I conclude with this. The courts have asked for discretion. I would hope that in the Federal system those who are appointed have, in fact, both the wherewithal, the knowledge, the sense of justice, and the right to make the decision based upon the laws and based upon the vileness of what has been engaged in.

This is not an opposition. This is a plea for collaboration.

If I may say one thing personally. There are neighbors that I know in my community who have been accused of certain things. They are dignified citizens--not with regard to this particular underlying act-- but dignified citizens, former military persons, and they are languishing under a mandatory minimum. It is disgraceful. Let me be very clear: It is not a sex offense, not an offense of violence. It is minimal, at best. But they are operating under a mandatory. It literally is disgraceful how this has destroyed their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1842) to amend title 18, United States Code, to include State crimes of violence as grounds for an enhanced penalty when sex offenders fail to register or report certain information as required by Federal law, to include prior military offenses for purposes of recidivist sentencing provisions, and for other purposes.

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 materials on H.R. 1842, currently under consideration.

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

For victims, the effects of child sexual abuse are devastating. It disrupts the victim's development and increases the likelihood that he or she will experience other sexual assaults in the future, and it is, likely, one of the most underreported crimes in the United States. That is why we have to do all we can to prevent these crimes. We promote prevention by closely monitoring sex offenders and by imposing recidivist enhancements on those who have shown a proclivity to abuse children.

H.R. 1842, the Strengthening Children's Safety Act of 2017, closes two significant loopholes to help accomplish these goals.

First, the bill closes a loophole in the statute that criminalizes a sex offender's failure to register. Under current law, a sex offender who fails to comply with registration requirements is guilty of a crime. An enhanced penalty applies to offenders who, while in noncompliant status, commit a Federal crime of violence, a crime of violence under the D.C. Code, a military code crime of violence, a Tribal crime of violence, or a crime of violence in any territory or possession of the United States. This is logical since offenders who have been convicted of both crimes against children and crimes of violence are deserving of more severe punishment.

However, significantly, this provision fails to include offenders who have been convicted of crimes of violence under State laws. It makes no sense that a person convicted of a crime of violence under the D.C. Code is subject to an enhanced penalty, while a person who committed the same offense in Virginia would not be. Given their propensity for violence, these offenders, regardless of what U.S. jurisdiction convicts them, must be held accountable when they fall off the radar.

The bill further ensures that those offenders who have been previously convicted of sex crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice are exposed to the same recidivist enhancements as those convicted of the same crimes in Federal, State, and Tribal courts. The way the U.S. Code is currently written, many of these Federal recidivist statutes unintentionally fail to cover significant sex crimes committed under military law, including certain child pornography offenses. Again, it is important that repeat offenders are subject to the same sentencing enhancements, no matter where they were convicted, in order to protect our children.

H.R. 1842 is commonsense legislation that closes loopholes in Federal law, promotes uniformity, and will help keep our children safe.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), a member of the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), the chief author of this legislation.

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

Once again, this bill has no new mandatory minimum sentences. These are not low-level offenders. These are not nonviolent offenders. They are violent sexual predators, and these added offenders--which this bill does to close, again, a loophole--these added offenders have committed the exact same crimes with the exact same conduct as those already covered in existing law. This bill aims to apply the mandatory minimums equitably, and that, I think, should be an important goal for all of us.

Again, there are no new mandatory minimums in this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas cited a personal experience she had with someone she knows who has been convicted of a crime and given a mandatory minimum sentence. It was not a violent crime, not a sex crime, and not relevant to this bill, which does not add any new mandatory minimum sentences. It simply makes sure that the sentences already imposed under the law are equitably applied, regardless of where their prior offenses took place.

These are sexual crimes. These are violent crimes. These offenders should receive the exact same sentences for the exact same conduct as others already covered under the current law.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to protect our children and get sexual predators off the street.

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