Global Child Protection 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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1862) to amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the scope of certain definitions pertaining to unlawful sexual conduct, 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. 1862, currently under consideration.

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

Children are the most vulnerable and innocent members of our society, and we have a duty to make sure our laws protect them to the fullest extent possible. H.R. 1862, the Global Child Protection Act of 2017, closes regrettable loopholes in existing child exploitation statutes to do just that.

Currently, dangerous sexual predators who violate children overseas can avoid culpability simply by engaging in what the United States Code defines as sexual contact rather than what the law defines as illicit sexual conduct. That is, they can go abroad, cause a child to sexually touch them, and return, without exposure to the criminal liability they would face had they engaged in what the law defines as illicit sexual conduct.

I am sure my colleagues would agree that it should not matter whether the offender engages in sexual conduct or contact with a child. Either way, he is a child predator. This is the very definition of a loophole, and it is putting children at risk. That is because these predators are aware of this loophole, and they are able to share this information quickly in chat groups on the internet. They plot their foreign sex tourism accordingly, to circumvent criminal liability.

H.R. 1862 closes this loophole by expanding the definition of illicit sexual conduct to include sexual contact. No longer will these predators be able to escape justice and continue to offend with impunity.

This bill also closes a loophole for recidivist offenders. It is estimated that only between 8 and 20 percent of victims of childhood sexual abuse report they have been abused. That is why it is vitally important that, when we do become aware of these offenses and secure convictions, our justice system imposes penalties to adequately punish and deter this evil.

Current law provides that an offender convicted of committing a Federal sex offense against a minor shall be sentenced to life imprisonment if that offender has a prior conviction for a sex offense against a minor. In defining sex offense, however, this provision inexplicably excludes two serious offenses. It is missing offenses covering abusive sexual contact with a minor under 12 and also does not apply to offenders who commit their sex crimes against children overseas. H.R. 1862 fixes these oversights--and they were clearly oversights--by adding these provisions into the definition of Federal sex offense.

When an offender has previously harmed a child, been punished for that offense, and goes on to harm another child, the risk that he will go on to abuse again is extremely high, and we must ensure our children are safe from such a dangerous predator. That dynamic of deterrence, ensuring repeat offenders face harsher penalties, is at the core of our system of justice. It is even more important here where the victims are our children. Children are one-third of our population and all of our future. We must prioritize their protection.

I commend the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) for introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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

First, let me make it very clear that there are no new mandatory minimums in this bill. The mandatory minimum that is already in the law is appropriate for those who are a danger to children, particularly where these enhancements apply when they have abused a minor, not once, but twice.

We are closing a loophole in the current law and we are adding to this provision the sexual abuse of children under 12 years old. Having already harmed two children, an offender poses too great a risk to our vulnerable citizens. There are victims here and potential victims to protect.

As I mentioned before, child victims report abuse at a shockingly low level. It is important that this conduct is adequately deterred for someone who has already abused a child. Clearly, one conviction was not adequate.

Prosecutorial discretion in these cases act as an appropriate buffer to ensure these provisions are being used reasonably. There are no new mandatory minimums in this bill. We simply close a loophole to make sure that people do not sexually abuse children under 12 years of age, not once, not twice, but more than twice. That is why this mandatory minimum should have a loophole closed to include it, but there is not a new mandatory minimum sentence in this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, the ranking member, asked that we look at this in a broad and general way, but that is not what this bill is all about. I ask my colleagues to look at this in the very specific way that this bill is designed: to address a loophole in current law that allows sexual predators of children under 12 years old to avoid the sentencing consequences of their actions.

We are about protecting children. This law is about protecting children. But predators know this loophole in the law, and it needs to be closed, so that is what this is about.

This is about making sure that sexual predators are taken off the streets and prevented from not abusing children once or twice, but many more times. This will stop that. This will close that loophole.

This is not the place--sexual predators for children under 12 years old. This is not the place to have a general, broad discussion about mandatory minimum sentences.

Let's fix this problem. And we can and will as we address criminal justice reform, look at our overall sentencing, but this problem needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed now for the sake of protecting our children. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my good friend from Virginia, the chairman of the committee, that the acts are heinous. It appears that there is no addition to the underlying aspect of section 3559(e) of title 18 that says, 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.

But, again, the bill is not written that way. I agree with everything my good friend, the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Roby) said. I want to congratulate her for her commitment, as so many of us, as women who have come to the United States Congress who are mothers, have a special interest in children, and, in particular, to avoid the horrific abuse of children, and sexual abuse. That is an important cause, and the underlying bill is important and crucial.

But I maintain that there is a lack of clarity into whether or not, in fact, there are additional mandatory minimums because it is broken down in these elements. The imposition of a life sentence, namely, sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, aggravated sexual contact with a minor between the ages of 12 and 15, and illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen.

The question is: Is the discretion of the court and the prosecutor there?

I am not in the court. I don't know what the facts are, except for the heinousness of tainting and violating a child. I want that criminal brought to justice, but I want that prosecutor and that judge and the defense under this existing statute to be able to address that question and to be able to address the vileness or the mitigating factors in that instance.

I don't want repeat offenders. Some have alleged that there should be a variety of responses to sex offenders. I am aware of international sex trafficking and men that travel to international places to have sex with a child. I can't imagine that that would not fall on deaf ears in a courtroom under the existing statute of 3559(e). And that is the imposition of life imprisonment.

But there is merit to the question of discretion and the assessment of the court. Now, I might say, with a little aside, that there are some populations that don't get fair treatment, no matter what the case is, yet I am yielding to the court because I do think there is merit to this idea of one mandatory sentence after another, and that that is the only response that one must get the mandatory minimum.

In the backdrop of this Attorney General, who has expressed no interest in rehabilitation, in treatment, or in real criminal justice reform, I am frightened. I am frightened about what will happen in the Nation's U.S. attorneys and Federal courts across America.

Will we again reinstitute the wave of incarcerated persons marching in under mandatory minimums?

Will the epidemic begin again?

It is a difficult posture to stand on the floor of the House when you are discussing a baby, a child, a 12-year-old. There is no divide between my belief and Congresswoman Roby's belief. It is heinous. They should be punished.

We may have a disagreement of what may be a process that reenacts and restores our pathway on mass incarceration. It is not clear in the bill, plain and simple.

I heard the response of the chairman: There is nothing new. Then it should have been tied to 3559(c) and just say, ``must be sentenced to life in prison, as it is.'' But it seems that there is a refinement, so more and more opportunities for mandatory minimums and no discretion for the judge.

In a courtroom, 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. At that time, lock them up, throw the key away.

I am not sure what the Department of Justice is speaking about in terms of loopholes. There are some very fine men and women who have headed up U.S. Attorneys Offices over the years and decades, and they have gotten their man or woman.

So the question is: With an Attorney General that we have, who stood in the way of criminal justice reform in the last Congress as we were on the precipice of doing great things, now I am supposed to be convinced that he is in any way sympathetic to the mass incarceration which disproportionately impacts African Americans.

No, this is not a case that is a bill that points or focuses on African Americans. I am very clear about that. I don't suggest that at all. But I know the ultimate result of mandatory minimums has a disproportionate impact on African Americans, as evidenced by the census population in the Federal Prison Bureau, in the Federal criminal justice system, and in State prisons across America.

I want to work with my colleagues. I want to save children. All of us are brought to tears when some heinous, vile human being wants to taint a child. But if a judge can't understand that, shame on them. If a prosecutor doesn't understand that, shame on them.

And they have got 3559(e) that expresses that, which would include the illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen and, if not, that could be stated in there, and the language ``must be sentenced to life in prison.''

I am not sure where we are going, but I would hope that we could clarify that 3559(e) answers all the questions and that we don't find added mandatory minimums which impact communities disproportionately as the only solution to getting a dastardly person off the streets.