H.Res. 352

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me quickly say that I respect the

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

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

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

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

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

[June 16, 2014]

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

(By Lizzie Buchen)

Across the country, mandatory minimum sentences are falling

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

Holder, people from both ends of the political spectrum are

blaming these harsh and punitive sentences for driving our

skyrocketing incarceration rates and exacerbating racial

disparities in the criminal justice system. But in this era

of smart sentencing reform--particularly toward young

people--a disturbing piece of legislation is coasting through

the California legislature, threatening to wrench the state

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

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

establishing the first mandatory minimum sentences in the

state's juvenile justice system.

The juvenile justice system was founded on the

understanding that young people who commit offenses are often

struggling in situations outside of their control, are highly

amenable to rehabilitation and have the potential to lead

productive and law-abiding lives. Mandatory minimum sentences

automatic sentences of incarceration or confinement, meted

out regardless of the facts of the case are completely at

odds with these foundational principles. They are determined

not by the youth's past circumstances or potential life

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

punishment, a sharp contrast to the rehabilitative ideals of

the juvenile justice system.

Mandatory minimum sentences are completely incompatible

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

offense, juvenile court judges tailor sanctions to best meet

a youth's unique needs for rehabilitation by weighing a

comprehensive set of factors, including the severity of the

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

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

experience with abuse, homelessness and extreme poverty. The

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

residential options, allowing him or her to tailor the

sanction to best treat the youth and protect the community.

In line with this focus on rehabilitation, the sentences are

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

Proponents of mandatory minimum sentences, including

supporters of California's youth mandatory minimum bill,

claim that these sentences deter crime. But the evidence

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

would introduce the first mandatory minimum sentences in

California's juvenile justice system, such sentences have

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

recognized as failures. A large and growing body of research

has found that mandatory minimum sentences have come at

enormous social, financial and human costs, with little

benefit to public safety. There is no evidence that these

sentences have a significant deterrent effect. If anything,

these harsh punishments are counterproductive, putting the

public at risk by disrupting families, impoverishing

communities of human capital, making it more difficult for

people to return to law-abiding society and diverting

precious public resources away from social services and

toward costly incarceration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 352 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. This rule provides a structured process for debate. I want to highlight that this rule makes in order all amendments submitted to the Rules Committee, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

Nearly 30 years ago, I held my son, Cody, for the first time. A couple of years later, I held my daughter, Kaitlin. I knew right then that these two children were the most important and cherished things in my life. They deserve the happiest childhood and the brightest future and the safest world.

I imagine anyone who holds their child for the first time has the same thought. Until you become a parent, it is hard to describe the love you have for your children.

Mr. Speaker, that someone would hurt a child simply perplexes me. Children are the most vulnerable, the most innocent in our society. They, most of all, don't deserve the trauma and pain that accompany abuse. They don't deserve to have their trust in adults or their trust in the world shattered at such a young age. They don't deserve the ghosts of suffering that accompany abuse victims for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, to commit a crime against children is to engage in the greatest of evils. It is to violate our moral order in the most egregious of ways. Our job in Congress is to debate and maintain that moral order. Thankfully, everyone in this Chamber can agree on the moral imperative to protect children.

Our job today is to uphold our values through well-crafted legislation. We are here today to pass laws that uphold our belief in the sanctity of innocence. We are here today for our children.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1973, the first bill in this rule resolution, strengthens the laws protecting child athletes. The bill requires coaches and adults involved with amateur sports organizations overseen by the U.S. Olympic Committee to report suspected child abuse to local and Federal authorities.

Unfortunately, reporting isn't always the standard under current law. Over the past 20 years, around 368 individuals affiliated with USA Gymnastics faced sexual abuse by adults affiliated with the organization, according to The Indianapolis Star. Sadly, some of the victims never saw justice. Their allegations remained unresolved, sometimes because coaches moved from State to State to avoid investigation.

H.R. 1973 pulls additional adults into the mandatory reporting category, ensuring that those adults working with minors under the U.S. Olympic Committee's jurisdiction must report instances of child abuse to local and Federal authorities.

It further clarifies the sexual abuse reporting duties of national governing bodies, or NGBs. These organizations, supervised by the U.S. Olympic Committee, manage amateur athletic competitions.

We need to promote a culture of reporting sexual assault among youth athletes. That culture needs to overflow into all parts of our society.

We are not suggesting we toss out due process for the accused. The legislation at hand only requires the reporting and investigation of sexual abuse of children. Additionally, H.R. 1973 makes stronger the civil remedies that victims of sexual abuse may pursue.

Mr. Speaker, the other legislation under this rule, H.R. 1761, goes after those who create child pornography. Just to utter those words is unbearable, but our job in Congress is to stop the unbearable.

Under current law and due to the impact of the court ruling in United States v. Palomino-Coronado, perpetrators of child pornography can sometimes evade prosecution for child pornography under a loophole. Under the precedent set in the case, even if perpetrators memorialize the sexual abuse of a child through images and video, they do not necessarily possess the intent or purpose to sexually abuse children in order to take a picture. In other words, they didn't intend to violate title 18 of the U.S. Code, section 2251, which prohibits child pornography.

We need to close this loophole. If evildoers are sexually abusing our children and photographing or filming it, they should be going to prison for a long time. This loophole was carved out by the judicial branch. It is time for the legislative branch to step in and tighten the statutory language to prevent the exploitation of this loophole and to prevent the exploitation of our children.

The bills under consideration today serve two purposes. First and foremost, they provide a deterrent to criminals who would consider harming a child.

We can't preemptively stop everyone who plans to commit a crime against a child, which is why we must deter them with the threat of discovery, conviction, and jail time.

These bills very practically make the exploitation of a child harder to get away with. They commission more well-meaning adults to be on guard against the occurrence of sexual abuse. They allow victims to pursue even stronger civil penalties that will, hopefully, deter future criminals, and they strengthen the law itself to ensure that child pornographers face prosecution and appropriate punishment for their heinous crimes.

The second purpose achieved today is to send a message. These bills signal to all of America that our society is serious about protecting children and that we are serious about catching child predators.

H.R. 1973 specifically directs coaches and others to report sexual abuse. But these bills send a broader message: everyone in this Nation should join the fight against child exploitation.

We have too many examples of well-meaning adults remaining silent in the face of child abuse. This legislation is meant to push Americans to do what is right, even if it is not easy.

We are all the guardians of our Nation's youth. We all are responsible for their childhood. We are all proponents of their future. These are our children, our pride and joy. We must offer them the same vigilance and protection we offer our own children. The rule before us gives this House a chance to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today for the children.

In voting for the bill and the underlying bills, we are sending a message to the abuser of children: If you harm one of these little ones, you will be met with the full fury of the American justice system. You will be discovered and reported by your peers. You will face the threat of appropriately harsh demands. You will face the full force of the law if you visually depict child exploitation.

We are sending a message to the bystanders: You have a solemn duty to protect these children. You have a duty to be their hope and happiness and their future when you step in and stop abuse. You have a duty to report the heinous acts committed by monsters.

Lately, we don't have many moments in Washington where both political parties can come together and reach a consensus, but the legislation we are considering today provides the perfect opportunity.

These bills should not be controversial. They should draw the support of both sides, because protecting our children is a moral necessity for every American. That is, after all, the message these bills send.

I thank Representative Brooks and Representative Johnson for the hard work they have done on these bills, and I thank Chairman Goodlatte for shepherding these bills through the Judiciary Committee and spending so much time in committee working on legislation to protect our children.

Mr. Speaker, I urge members to vote ``yes'' on the resolution, vote ``yes'' on the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber today support the goals of this legislation. We can and we must do more to protect children from the plague of sexual assault and the prevalence of child pornography permeating society today.

I am particularly glad to see such bipartisan support for H.R. 1973. The young athletes that represent the United States on the world's stage at the Olympics must not be taken advantage of by predatory coaches and doctors who should be mentoring them. In fact, no child anywhere should be taken advantage of; but this bill makes some commonsense changes that strengthen the reporting of abuse and puts in place policies that prevent future violations, and I am hopeful it will become law.

It staggers the mind to believe that this assault on those children had gone on for 20 years, and some 400 children were victimized for it, and not a single adult anywhere around ever brought attention to it. In fact, we owe a great newspaper in Indiana for telling us about it, so be sure to read a good newspaper every day.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of agreement about the goals of the bills before us today, but that wasn't the case 20 days ago when the majority rushed through its partisan, slapdash healthcare bill repeal to rip away healthcare from millions of people. They passed the bill without holding a single hearing, listening to any experts, or, most importantly, waiting for a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The Congressional Budget Office tells us what the bill will cost, how many people it will help, how many people it would hurt, something that, with healthcare, would have been vitally important.

But while the lack of a score didn't prohibit them from holding a vote, it did, apparently, prevent the majority from sending the bill over to the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this process is completely backwards and a major breakdown of the integrity of the legislative process.

Most schoolchildren know that, when a bill passes the House, you send it to the Senate. You don't hide it in a drawer for weeks until you finally get the information from the Congressional Budget Office that you should have had before you brought the bill to the floor for a vote.

This is no way to develop a plan that will impact one-sixth of the Nation's gross domestic product, and the process has finally laid bare one of the biggest political hoaxes in recent memory: that notion of repeal and replace. How often did we hear that over the last 7 years?

For the last 7 years, the majority voted more than 60 times to undermine the Affordable Care Act without having a thing in the world to replace it with, and now they are pushing the false notion that the Affordable Care Act is collapsing. The reality is that some States dealing with limited insurers never implemented the full benefits of the law or enacted the exchange under the Affordable Care Act, which would have cut their costs.

Mr. Speaker, one of my proudest moments as a Member of Congress was chairing the House Rules Committee and bringing the Affordable Care Act to the House floor. Almost every President since Theodore Roosevelt had attempted to give healthcare to the American people. Millions of people are now waking up to the benefits of this healthcare, and our Nation's uninsured rate is at its lowest level in more than 50 years. Why would you rip that away?

For the first time in a generation, we are actually slowing the yearly growth of healthcare costs. A poll released just this last month found that 61 percent of the public supports keeping and improving the Affordable Care Act. That is in stark contrast to the 17 percent approval rating for the repeal bill that was voted on here several weeks ago.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the majority would stop turning a deaf ear to the people it represents. The American people have been marching and calling and writing against this bill in numbers none of us have ever seen before. A bad process led to a bad product.

Mr. Speaker, none of us believe that the ACA was perfect. I urge the majority to take the bill out of the drawer and shred it. Let's get together, strengthen our healthcare system and the Affordable Care Act. It is exactly what our constituents deserve.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans want us to work together to improve upon the successes of the Affordable Care Act. We should be expanding access to care and implementing the kind of reforms that will keep American families healthy, not kicking millions of Americans off their insurance to fulfill a deceptive campaign promise, as the Republican healthcare repeal bill will do. Expanding paid sick leave to the 45 percent of American workers who don't have access to it would be a great start.

Each week, up to 3 million employees go to work sick, infecting their coworkers and customers and delaying their own recovery. The benefits of allowing working Americans to earn paid sick leave are undeniable. It slows the spread of disease, lowers healthcare costs, and increases productivity.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would allow us to also bring up Representative DeLauro's bill, H.R. 1516, which would allow Americans to have paid sick time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear after The Indianapolis Star uncovered the widespread abuse scandal that Congress must act to implement consistent, stricter laws governing the reporting of abuses to our Nation's athletes and to all our children. Once again, The Indianapolis Star has shown us the importance of investigative journalism and a free press.

Many of these athletes are too young and are not empowered to speak out against authority figures when they are hurt or abused by them. But each of us as Members of Congress is in a position to do something about it, and we must.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to listen to the voices of the American people before hurling our Nation further toward disaster with this dangerous healthcare bill.

The majority hasn't held any hearings or gotten input from experts, advocates, or patients. They are ignoring the opposition from groups like AARP, American Medical Association, March of Dimes, and American Hospital Association.

The score later today from the Congressional Budget Office won't change the underlying facts of this bill. It will gut protections for people with preexisting conditions. It will gut essential health benefits, kick millions of people off of health insurance, and place a crushing age tax on those aged 50 to 64 whose premiums will go up. It will also cut billions from Medicaid to pay for a major tax cut for the wealthy. That is $880 billion that they want to take away from Medicaid to give to the rich and corporations. This is so unAmerican, I stumbled over saying it.

Mr. Speaker, a bad process has led to a bad bill. We should be doing what the American people want and improving the Affordable Care Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and rise in opposition to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill restructures section 2251 of title 18 of the United States Code as apparently requested by the unit at the Department of Justice that enforces the laws against child pornography.

H.R. 1761 is intended to address limitations in the prosecution of cases pursuant to section 2251, as identified by the Department.

While we all agree that no child pornography offense should go unpunished, we cannot overlook the consequences of mandatory minimum sentencing.

Section 2251(a) prohibits the use of a child to produce child pornography and related conduct, including overseas production and advertising child pornography.

Pursuant to this bill, two new offenses would be added to this section to prohibit the production of child pornography and the transmission of live depictions of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct, such as live-streaming abuse online.

This measure would also modify the existing offense that prohibits having a minor assist in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing or transmitting child pornography. As amended, this offense would prohibit

having a minor assist in sexually explicit conduct that violates each of the three newly enumerated production offenses, except the transportation of a minor for use in child pornography production.

In addition, it would amend the prohibition against the production of child pornography abroad to forbid the live transmission of child pornography produced abroad.

The jurisdictional requirement for each of the offenses enumerated in section 2251, except the production of child pornography abroad, would be codified in a separate subsection. Other portions of the bill would be modified to follow the restructure of the statute for consistency.

Unfortunately, current law sets forth a series of mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for production of child pornography offenses. First-time offenses are punishable by mandatory imprisonment of at least 15 years; offenders with a prior conviction face mandatory imprisonment for at least 25 years; and offenders with two or more prior convictions must be sentenced to imprisonment of at least 35 years.

By modifying and expanding section 2251 to include several new ways in which to violate the prohibition against the production of child pornography, the bill would subject new classes of defendants to mandatory minimum sentences. Although the bill does not establish new mandatory minimum sentences, it would--in this way--expand the application of the existing mandatory minimums, which I oppose.

Mandatory minimums have been studied extensively and found to distort rational sentencing systems, discriminate against minorities, waste taxpayers' money, and violate common sense. Under mandatory minimum sentences, regardless of the nature and circumstances surrounding the offense, the role of the offender in the particular crime, and the history and characteristics of the offender, a judge must impose a sentence set by the legislature.

Even if everyone involved in a case--from the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge to the victim--believes that the mandatory minimum would be an unjust sentence for a particular defendant in a case, it still must be imposed. Mandatory minimum sentences are the wrong way to determine punishment under this or any other statute.

During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this bill, the committee rejected an amendment that would have eliminated the applicable mandatory minimums in the current statute but would still have allowed judges to sentence these offenders to lengthy sentences up to the existing statutory maximums.

Because those changes were not made, the bill continues to present problems with mandatory minimums.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the Members of the House cannot rely on prospective discretion to protect juveniles under this statute. We simply can't rely on it, participate in, given the new policy of the Attorney General. We are under a new regime here at the Federal level, and I can't depend on relying on the prosecutorial discretion to protect juveniles under this statute.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill is well intended, and I share my colleagues' desire to protect children from being victimized by their depiction in pornography. However, I also believe that we must address the serious problem presented by the bill, namely, that it would expand the application of the existing array of mandatory minimum sentences that the code provides for these offenses.

This aspect of H.R. 1761 directly conflicts with the growing bipartisan realization that mandatory minimums are unjust and unwise; this is so even for egregious offenses for which judges should be allowed to impose sentences--often severe and even beyond the minimums--based on the facts and circumstances of each case. I want to leave it up to the judges.

In considering legislation to better protect our children from the types of exploitation addressed by this bill, we must not ignore the sentencing implications of these revisions to the statute. In light of the bill's failure to address these serious concerns, I oppose H.R. 1761 and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

We should consider even stronger legislation that addresses all these concerns. We are not through with the subject matter by this bill coming before us today. There is more work to be done. I thank my colleagues for this very important discussion.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and congratulate her on this very important amendment.

This amendment creates alternative sentencing specifically for teenagers who participate in sexting and could, as a result of this bill and the application of current mandatory minimum sentences, be subject to mandatory sentences of at least 15 years. We should not, as she has already stated so well, leave it to prosecutors to determine whether teenagers take part in teenage behavior.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.