Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017

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 thank the ranking member very much, and I thank him for his work.

I think the work that we are doing in Judiciary certainly has far- reaching impact. It is important to try to make more efficient the way that we address these very heinous acts against our children.

As a strong advocate for children throughout my career, I agree that we in Congress must do everything within our power and authority to prevent child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017 is intended to assist investigators in their pursuit of online predators.

I fully support efforts to locate and prosecute individuals who commit such heinous crimes. However, I believe we should discuss the proposal before us with more information from all who would be impacted prior to approving the changes to the law this bill proposes.

This has a lot of moving parts and participants, particularly in relation to online internet and the variety of providers that are stakeholders in all of this.

This bill would modify a powerful yet historically controversial investigatory tool: the administrative subpoena. Administrative subpoenas allow certain investigators investigating specified crimes to obtain private records without judicial approval. I can account for the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are many instances where this may be a vital approach.

We know that we live in a very difficult time, and a number of incidents dealing with national security and others may certainly be impacted by such; but, obviously, there are other subpoenas that are attendant to those particular acts. But the administrative subpoenas, as indicated, allow Federal investigators investigating specified crimes to obtain private records, as indicated, without judicial approval.

Although investigators do not need sign-off from a judge before issuing such a subpoena, there is one layer of judicial review that prevents them from abusing their subpoena power. That is the judicial consideration of nondisclosure orders prior to the issuance of subpoenas.

At present, a district court judge must determine if circumstances exist to justify issuance of a 90-day nondisclosure order in connection with administrative subpoenas. Under the terms that I understand are in this proposed bill, investigators could require nondisclosure by subpoena recipients for a longer period--180 days--and without first receiving the approval of a district judge, effectively eliminating judicial consideration of nondisclosure orders prior to the issuance of subpoenas. Subpoena recipients would have the ability to seek judicial review of the nondisclosure requirement only after receiving the subpoena. I believe that this provision raises concerns that remove the wisdom of district judges from this process at the time the gag orders are imposed.

Congress authorized the use of these subpoenas to allow investigators to obtain information quickly and expeditiously, and I think they work that way. The intervention of judicial review has not proven to be an obstruction so much so that you might remove it and the wisdom of the court. Congress also expressly required that investigators seek the approval of a district judge for nondisclosure orders connected to these subpoenas.

I share my colleagues' desire to locate and prosecute those who commit child exploitation and abuse crimes, and, in essence, let's get them, but I do think that the willingness to remove judicial review is one of question.

Those individuals who hide behind computer screens committing abhorrent acts against children on the internet must be apprehended and made to answer for their crimes. I would think that the judge would be well aware of how sensitive this is and use their best impression to get moving and to allow the process to proceed.

I think this Nation is a land of laws. We abide by the rule of law, and Congress has a right to draft laws. But I do think, in this instance, the rule of law, abiding by the rule of law, allowing for the active participation of the court and the wisdom of the court is not too much to ask in a nation that believes in democracy, believes in the rights of the offenders and, as well, the victims.

So I am very concerned about this bill, and I would hope that we would have the opportunity to have this addressed or the issues addressed, or addressed in the Senate; and I look forward to those issues being addressed in the Senate so that we can, together, handle the concerns that are being expressed and have a bill that does not remove judicial oversight and the wisdom of the court.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 883, the ``Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017.'' As a strong advocate for children throughout my career, I agree that we in Congress must do everything within our power and authority to prevent child sexual exploitation and abuse.

The ``Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017'' is intended to assist investigators in their pursuit of online child predators.

I fully support efforts to locate and prosecute individuals who commit such heinous crimes. However, I believe we should discuss the proposal before us--with more information from all who would be impacted--prior to approving the changes to the law this bill proposes.

This bill would modify a powerful, yet historically controversial, investigatory tool--the administrative subpoena.

Administrative subpoenas allow certain Federal investigators, investigating specified crimes, to obtain private records without judicial approval.

Although investigators do not need sign-off from a judge before issuing such a subpoena, there is one layer of judicial review that prevents them from abusing their subpoena power.

That is the judicial consideration of nondisclosure orders prior to the issuance of subpoenas.

At present, a district court judge must determine if circumstances exist to justify issuance of a 90-day nondisclosure order in connection with administrative subpoenas.

Under the terms proposed in this bill, investigators could require nondisclosure by subpoena recipients for a longer period--180 days--and without first receiving the approval of a district judge, effectively eliminating judicial consideration of nondisclosure orders prior to the issuance of subpoenas.

Subpoena recipients would have the ability to seek judicial review of the nondisclosure requirement only after receiving the subpoena.

I am deeply concerned with the provision that would remove the wisdom of district judges from this process at the time the gag orders are imposed.

Congress authorized the use of these subpoenas to allow investigators to obtain information quickly and expeditiously.

But, Congress also expressly required that investigators seek the approval of a district judge for nondisclosure orders connected to these subpoenas.

I share my colleagues' desire to locate and prosecute those who commit child exploitation and abuse crimes.

Those individuals, who hide behind computer screens, committing abhorrent acts against children on the internet, must be apprehended and made to answer for their crimes.

I am not convinced that this bill is the best way to go about doing so.

I hope we can find a way to address this issue, with more information from all concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 883) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a certification process for the issuance of nondisclosure requirements accompanying certain administrative subpoenas, to provide for judicial review of such nondisclosure requirements, 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. 883, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the years, we as a society have made great strides in combating crimes against children. As with many crimes, however, law enforcement often struggles to keep pace with modern technology. That is why H.R. 883, the Targeting Child Predators Act, is both an important and a timely piece of legislation.

While many of the bills we have discussed today have been aimed at prevention and punishment, H.R. 883 provides law enforcement with the tools necessary to stop ongoing abuse, occurring in real time, and to locate offenders.

Because of the severity of sex crimes committed against children and the often irreparable harm they cause, we must take steps to ensure that law enforcement has the ability to swiftly locate sexual predators.

In 1998, Congress recognized this urgency by passing the Protection of Children From Sexual Predators Act, which permitted the FBI to use administrative subpoenas in cases of child exploitation. That legislation was intended to enhance the FBI's ability to

investigate online child exploitation offenses in an expeditious manner.

Administrative subpoenas are especially useful in child exploitation cases because they are not burdened with grand jury secrecy obligations, so the information may be shared among law enforcement to quickly locate offenders in emergency situations.

Under current law, the FBI is permitted to use an administrative subpoena to obtain non-content information from internet service providers in child exploitation cases.

H.R. 883 allows the government to prohibit the recipient of a subpoena from disclosing the existence of the subpoena, provided the government certifies there is reason to believe that disclosure may result in endangerment to the life or physical safety of any person, flight to avoid prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, or intimidation of potential witnesses.

Presently, if agents want to obtain this information with a nondisclosure provision, it must go through the courts, which, of course, defeats the purpose of a speedy mechanism to obtain non-content information.

Importantly, the bill contains a provision that allows a company in receipt of such a subpoena to insist that the government obtain a court order prohibiting the company from disclosing the subpoena to the target. Alternatively, the company may initiate such proceedings itself in a relevant court to challenge the nondisclosure requirement.

Mr. Speaker, a nondisclosure provision is vitally important in child exploitation cases. If a bad guy who has taken a child knows that law enforcement is on to him, or is looking for him, what might he do to get away? What might he do to that child?

H.R. 883 is an important bill which promotes Congress' original intent to ensure law enforcement has quick access to this information. It is narrowly tailored to ensure that its provisions apply in cases where time is of the essence. It provides a mechanism for companies to challenge the nondisclosure requirements.

I commend Mr. DeSantis, the gentleman from Florida and a member of the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), who is the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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 to urge my colleagues to support this very important, very targeted legislation.

This is not some broad authority. This is very targeted under circumstances where the sexual predator has the child and the authorities need to get information from third parties now so they can find that child and they need those third parties to not disclose information that they are yielding to the government about their whereabouts and other information about them because of the emergency circumstances that are at play here, or you are dealing with someone who has a child and needs to be found so that child can be saved. That is the purpose of this legislation.

It is a good purpose. This legislation should be supported by all the Members of the House. I urge them to do so.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 883, the Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017.

You see, child sexual exploitation and abuse are reprehensible crimes committed against the most vulnerable members of our society. Unfortunately, these offenses have been increasingly facilitated by the use of the internet in recent years. H.R. 883 would change the administrative subpoena statute to facilitate the prosecution of criminals who commit these terrible crimes against children.

Without question, I support the goal of pursuing these criminals, but, nevertheless, I am concerned that this bill would eliminate judicial oversight of nondisclosure orders currently required prior to the issuance of the administrative subpoenas.

Section 3486 of title 18 of the United States Code authorizes investigators to request a 90-day order of nondisclosure from a district court judge. The order of nondisclosure forbids the recipient, such as an internet service provider, from alerting the target of the investigation of the law enforcement's inquiry. H.R. 883 would extend the nondisclosure period from 90 days to 180 days to allow investigators more time to complete their investigations before the target is informed of the inquiry.

Although I would like to have more information about why it is necessary to extend this time period, it is particularly problematic combined with the other significant change to the law made by this very legislation. H.R. 883 would allow investigators to require nondisclosure of internet service providers without the approval of a judge, thereby eliminating any judicial oversight prior to issuance of the subpoena.

The administrative subpoena authority is an extraordinary power given to certain agencies by Congress under its limited circumstances. While the legislation would allow a recipient to challenge a nondisclosure order in court, I am concerned about the bill's elimination of judicial approval on the front end.

I understand the desire to do more to facilitate the investigation of these crimes and that the online context for them has raised issues that we should continue to examine, but I do not believe we have been given enough information justifying this bill, at least in its current form.

Elimination of prior judicial approval of nondisclosure orders is a step we should undertake only based on evidence and careful deliberation. A bill such as the one before us warrants at least a legislative hearing to consider its potential ramifications. I don't think that is asking too much that we have a hearing on this matter before we decide what to do with the proposal rather than not have one at all. Our committee has not had the benefit of any such hearing on this legislation, and I think this is not the proper way the members of the House Judiciary Committee, who are mostly lawyers, should proceed.

Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I oppose H.R. 883, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is one of the consistent leaders for a good criminal justice system.

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

Mr. Speaker, the most problematic aspect of H.R. 883 is that it would eliminate prior judicial approval of nondisclosure orders. I am firmly opposed to that. And while I fully support efforts to investigate crime, particularly those perpetrated against children, I cannot support this bill without knowing more about how it will affect an already extraordinary investigative power.

Let's have a hearing. That is what our committee is for. The Judiciary Committee should inquire into this very carefully, and, in the absence of such evidence, I must urge, at this time, our colleagues join me in opposing H.R. 883.

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

Mr. Speaker, every year, thousands of children are victims of cyber exploitation. As a former prosecutor who has handled child exploitation cases, I know just how important it is to preserve evidence that can bring predators to justice.

After speaking with Florida law enforcement officials about the challenges they face when tracking suspects online, I introduced the Targeting Child Predators Act. This is a sensible reform that will better protect our children by preventing suspected child predators from destroying evidence and covering their tracks.

When tracking a suspected child predator online, law enforcement far too often hits roadblocks that can critically threaten their investigation. Internet service providers who have been issued a duly issued, lawful subpoena from law enforcement will often inform the suspect that police investigators have requested their information. Once notified that they are the target of an investigation, child predators can wipe their systems clean and go into hiding, leaving law enforcement empty-handed and potentially putting their victims at further risk.

The Targeting Child Predators Act is a simple and necessary amendment to our criminal code requiring that ISPs wait 180 days before disclosing to suspected child predators that their information has been requested by law enforcement. The bill is narrowly targeted to child exploitation cases where the destruction of valuable evidence could endanger the safety of a child or seriously jeopardize an ongoing investigation. Additionally, the Targeting Child Predators Act provides judicial review of subpoenas and affords both ISPs and suspects due process as required by law.

The Targeting Child Predators Act will protect our children from those who wish to exploit them while maintaining the constitutional rights of suspected criminals. This is an issue that should garner wide bipartisan support from the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to step up. Let's support our vulnerable children. Let's target child predators, and let's vote ``yes'' on this bill.