Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act of 2018

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2961, the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization. This bill updates and reauthorizes this important law so that we can better prevent and address child abuse in our communities.

This is very important legislation, just for the fact of the number of children that are abused. In my own community in Texas and in the city of Houston, we have had some atrocious cases; one just reported in our newspaper of a 5-year-old under a stairwell, locked, lying flat on his back, weighing 70 pounds, with no food and water, abused by two parents, the step-child of one of the parents. What a horrific and horrible life.

The Administration for Children and Families reported that over 4.1 million referrals for 7.4 million children were made to Child Protective Services in the United States in 2016.

Our Federal Government must provide resources to ensure that these cases are carefully, compassionately, and comprehensively addressed at the local level.

This bill recognizes the sensitivity of these issues and helps integrate social services, mental and physical healthcare, and law enforcement.

With the resources and legislative updates in this bill, child advocacy centers can extend their outreach to underserved communities and expand programs, such as offering longer term counseling.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representatives Poe and Costa here in the House and Senators Blunt and Coons in the Senate for leadership on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record several letters dealing with S. 756: a letter from the ACLU; a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States; and a letter from the Center for American Progress.

The Leadership Conference, ACLU,

Washington, DC, December 19, 2018.

Re THE ACLU AND THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT

5.756, THE FIRST STEP Act.

Hon. Paul D. Ryan,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of

the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and The Leadership

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, we write to urge you to

vote YES on S. 756, the FIRST STEP Act. This legislation is a

next step towards desperately needed federal criminal justice

reform, but for all its benefits, much more needs to be done.

The inclusion of concrete sentencing reforms in the new and

improved Senate version of the FIRST STEP Act is a modest

improvement, but many people will be left in prison to serve

long draconian sentences because some provisions of the

legislation are not retroactive. The revised FIRST STEP Act,

however, is not without problems. The bill continues to

exclude individuals from benefiting from some provisions

based solely on their

prior offenses, namely citizenship and immigration status, as

well as certain prior drug convictions and their ``risk

score'' as determined by a discriminatory risk assessment

system. While these concerns remain a priority for our

organizations and we will advocate for improvements in the

future, ultimately the improvements to the federal sentencing

scheme will have a net positive impact on the lives of some

of the people harmed by our broken justice system and we urge

you to vote YES on S. 756. The ACLU and The Leadership

Conference will include your votes on our updated voting

scorecards for the 115th Congress.

Over the past four to five decades, U.S. criminal justice

policies have driven an increase in incarceration rates that

is unprecedented in this country and unmatched elsewhere in

the world. Our country has over 20 percent of the world's

incarcerated individuals, despite having less than five

percent of the world's population. In 2015, the U.S. Justice

Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that 6.7

million persons were involved in the adult correctional

systems in this country and almost 2.2 millions were in

prisons or jail. More than 180,000 of these people are in

federal prison, almost half of whom are there for drug

offenses.

The most recent data indicate that the United States spends

almost $81 billion per year on corrections systems--prisons,

jails, parole, and probation--and this figure does not

include the costs of policing and court systems. The cost of

the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) accounts for nearly a

third of the Department of Justice's discretionary budget.

Federal incarceration has become one of our nation's biggest

expenditures, swallowing the budget of federal law

enforcement. It costs more than $36,000 a year to house just

one federal inmate, almost four times the average yearly cost

of tuition at a public university.

While the dollar amounts are astounding, the toll that our

U.S. criminal justice policies have taken on black and brown

communities across the nation goes far beyond the enormous

amount of money that is spent. This country's extraordinary

incarceration rates impose much greater costs than simply the

fiscal expenditures necessary to incarcerate over 20 percent

of the world's prisoners. The true costs of this country's

addiction to incarceration must be measured in human lives

and particularly the generations of young black and Latino

men who serve long prison sentences and are lost to their

families and communities. The Senate version of the FIRST

STEP Act makes some modest improvements to the current

federal system.

I. Sentencing Reform Changes to House-passed FIRST STEP

Act--Sentencing reform is the key to slowing down the flow of

people going into our prisons. This makes sentencing reform

pivotal to addressing mass incarceration, prison

overcrowding, and the exorbitant costs of incarceration. As a

result of our coalition's advocacy, the new FIRST STEP Act

added some important sentencing reform provisions from SRCA,

which will aid us in tackling these issues on the federal

level. These important changes in federal law will result in

fewer people being subjected to harsh mandatory minimums.

Expands the Existing Safety Valve. The revised bill expands

eligibility for the existing safety valve under 18 U.S.C.

3553(f) from one to four criminal history points if a person

does not have prior 2-point convictions for crimes of

violence or drug trafficking offenses and prior 3-point

convictions. Under the expanded safety valve, judges will

have discretion to make a person eligible for the safety

valve in cases where the seriousness of his or her criminal

history is overrepresented, or it is unlikely he or she would

commit other crimes. This crucial expansion of the safety

valve will reduce sentences for an estimated 2,100 people per

year.

Retroactive Application of Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). The

new version of FIRST STEP Act would retroactively apply the

statutory changes of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA),

which reduced the disparity in sentence lengths between crack

and powder cocaine. This change in the law will allow people

who were sentenced under the harsh and discriminatory 100 to

1 crack to powder cocaine ratio to be resentenced under the

2010 law. This long overdue improvement would allow over

2,600 people the chance to be resentenced.

Reforms the Unfair Two-Strikes and Three-Strikes Laws. The

new version of FIRST STEP would reduce the impact of certain

mandatory minimums. It would reduce the mandatory life

sentence for a third drug felony to a mandatory minimum

sentence of 25 years and reduce the 20-year mandatory minimum

for a second drug felony to 15 years.

Eliminates 924(c) ``stacking''. The revised bill would also

amend 18 U.S.C. 924(c), which currently allows ``stacking,''

or consecutive sentences for gun charges stemming from a

single incident committed during a drug crime or a crime of

violence. The legislation would require a prior gun

conviction to be final before a person could be subject to an

enhanced sentence for possession of a firearm. This provision

in federal law has resulted in very long and unjust

sentences.

II. Prison Reform Changes to House-passed FIRST STEP Act,

H.R. 3356--The revised bill also made some strides in

improving some of the problematic prison reform provisions.

The new bill strengthened oversight over the new risk

assessment system, limited the discretion of the attorney

general, and increased funding for prison programming, among

other things. The bill now does the following:

Establishes an Independent Review Committee. The revised

bill establishes an Independent Review Committee (IRC) of

outside experts to assist the Attorney General in the

development of the risk and needs assessment system. The

National Institute of Justice would select a nonpartisan,

nonprofit organization with expertise in risk and needs

assessments to host the IRC. This added guardrail will help

to ensure the risk and needs assessment system is evidence-

based and potentially help to mitigate any harms.

Permits Early Community Release and Loosens Restrictions on

Home Confinement. The House-passed FIRST STEP Act limited the

use of earned credits to time in prerelease custody (halfway

house or home confinement). The revised bill would expand the

use of earned credits to supervised release in the community.

The bill also would permit individuals in home confinement to

participate in family-related activities that facilitate the

prisoner's successful reentry.

Increased Funding for Prison Reforms. The revised bill

would authorize $75 million annually, a 50 percent increase

over the House-passed bill's $50 million annual

authorization.

Limits Discretion to Deny Early Release. The revised bill

strikes language giving the BOP Director and/or the prison

warden broad discretion to deny release to individuals who

meet all eligibility criteria.

Mandates BOP Capacity. The revised bill mandates that BOP

ensure there is sufficient prerelease custody capacity to

accommodate all eligible prisoners. This helps to address

concerns that individuals would be unable to use their earned

credits because of waiting lists for prerelease custody.

Effectively Ends Federal Juvenile Solitary Confinement. The

revised bill significantly restricts juvenile solitary

confinement, which can cause substantial psychological

damage.

Reauthorizes Second Chance Act. The revised bill

reauthorizes the Second Chance Act, which provides federal

funding for drug treatment, vocational training, and other

reentry and recidivism programming.

While these revisions to the bill were critical to

garnering our support, we must acknowledge that some of the

more concerning aspects of the House-passed version of the

FIRST STEP Act remain.

III. Outstanding Concerns Regarding the FIRST STEP Act--The

bill continues to exclude too many people from earning time

credits, including those convicted of immigration-related

offenses. It does not retroactively apply its sentencing

reform provisions to people convicted of anything other than

crack convictions, continues to allow for-profit companies to

benefit off of incarceration, fails to address parole for

juveniles serving life sentences in federal prison, and

expands electronic monitoring.

Fails to Include Retroactivity for Enhanced Mandatory

Minimum Sentences for Prior Drug Offenses & 924(c)

``stacking.'' The bill does not include retroactivity for its

sentencing reforms besides the long-awaited retroactivity for

the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. This minimizes the overall

impact substantially. Retroactivity is a vital part of any

meaningful sentencing reform. Not only does it ensure that

the changes we make to our criminal justice system benefit

the people most impacted by it, but it's also one of the

essential policy changes to reduce mass incarceration. The

federal prison population has fallen by over 38,000 since

2013 thanks in large part to retroactive application of

sentencing guidelines approved by the U.S. Sentencing

Commission. More than 3,000 people will be left in prison

without retroactive application of the ``three strikes'' law

and the change to the 924(c) provisions in the FIRST STEP

Act.

Excludes Too Many Federal Prisoners from New Earned Time

Credits. The bill continues to exclude many federal prisoners

from earning time credits and excludes many federal prisoners

from being able to ``cash in'' the credits they earn. The

long list of exclusions in the bill sweep in, for example,

those convicted of certain immigration offenses and drug

offenses. Because immigration and drug offenses account for

53.3 percent of the total federal prison population, many

people could be excluded from utilizing the time credits they

earned after completing programming. The continued exclusion

of immigrants from the many benefits of the bill simply based

on immigration status is deeply troubling. The Senate version

of FIRST STEP maintains a categorical exclusion of people

convicted of certain immigration offenses from earning time

credits under the bill. The new version of the bill also bars

individuals from using the time credits they have earned if

they have a final order of removal. More than 12,000 people

are currently in federal prison for immigration offenses and

are disproportionately people of color. Thus, a very large

number of people in federal prison would not reap the

benefits proposed in this bill and a disproportionate number

of those excluded would be people of color. Denying early-

release credits to certain people also reduces their

incentive to complete the rehabilitative programs and

contradicts the goal of increasing public safety. Any reforms

enacted by Congress should impact a significant number of

people in federal prison and reduce racial disparities or

they will have little effect on the fiscal and human costs of

incarceration.

Allows Private Prison Companies to Profit. The bill also

maintains concerning provisions that could privatize

government functions and allow the Attorney General excessive

discretion. FIRST STEP provides that in order to expand

programming, BOP shall enter into partnerships with private

organizations and companies under policies developed by the

Attorney General, ``subject to appropriations.'' This could

result in the further privatization of what should be public

functions and would allow private entities to unduly profit

from incarceration.

Relies on Discriminatory Risk Assessment System. The bill

continues to give the Bureau of Prisons and the Attorney

General too much discretion in the design, implementation,

and review of the tool, including the ability for the BOP to

use an existing tool. It also continues to misuse terminology

(i.e. recidivism risk vs. risk categories), inappropriately

ties risk categories to earned time credits, and fails to

properly safeguard against unwarranted racial disparities.

Fails to Include Parole for Juveniles, Sealing and

Expungement. Under SRCA, judges would have discretion to

reduce juvenile life without parole sentences after 20 years.

It would also permit some juveniles to seal or expunge non-

violent convictions from their record. The FIRST STEP Act

does not address these important bipartisan provisions.

IV. Conclusion

Bringing fairness and dignity to our justice system is one

of the most important civil and human rights issues of our

time. The revised version of the FIRST STEP Act is a modest,

but important move towards achieving some meaningful reform

to the criminal legal system. While the bill continues to

have its problems, and we will fight to address those in the

future, it does include concrete sentencing reforms that

would impact people's lives. For these reasons, we urge you

to vote YES on S. 756.

Ultimately, the First Step Act is not the end--it is just

the next in a series of efforts over the past 10 years to

achieve important federal criminal justice reform. Congress

must take many more steps to undo the harms of the tough on

crime policies of the 80's and 90's--to create a system that

is just and equitable, significantly reduces the number of

people unnecessarily entering the system, eliminates racial

disparities, and creates opportunities for second chances.

If you have any additional questions, please feel free to

contact Jesselyn McCurdy, Deputy Director, ACLU Washington

Legislative Office, at [email protected] or (202) 675-2307 or

Sakira Cook, Director, Justice Program, The Leadership

Conference, at [email protected] or (202) 263-2894.

Sincerely,

Faiz Shakir,

National Political Director, ACLU, National Political

Advocacy Dept.

Jesselyn McCurdy,

Deputy Director, ACLU, Washington Legislative Office.

Vanita Gupta,

President & CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and

Human Rights.

Sakira Cook, Director,

Justice Program, The Leadership Conference on Civil and

Human Rights.

Judicial Conference of

The United States,

Washington, DC, November 30, 2018.

Hon. Charles E. Grassley,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write on behalf of the Judicial

Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for

the federal Judiciary, regarding S. 3649, the ``First Step

Act,'' which was introduced on November 15, 2018. The

Judiciary strongly supports many of the reforms proposed by

S. 3649. We note that several provisions, however, will

impose new workload requirements on the federal Judiciary,

particularly on judges and our probation system, which will

necessitate additional resources.

Title I: Recidivism Reduction

We greatly appreciate that, unlike several of its

legislative predecessors, S. 3649 would not require Article

III judges to exercise powers that traditionally have been

exercised by officials in the executive branch in deciding

whether an inmate may be allowed to serve a portion of his or

her prison sentence in the community. Such decisions are in

the nature of parole and therefore we agree that they are

more appropriately made by the executive branch, which has

direct contact with the inmates and the most accurate and up-

to-date information about their conduct and condition.

We remain concerned, however, about the resources that the

federal probation system would be required to expend to

ensure the effective implementation of S. 3649. Specifically,

one of this bill's predecessors--H.R. 3356, the ``Prison

Reform and Redemption Act''--required the Director of the

Bureau of Prisons (``BOP'') to ``provide for the transfer of

such funds as may be necessary'' to the federal probation

system to ``supervise prisoners placed in home confinement or

community supervision.''

Unfortunately, this language is omitted from S. 3649 in

favor of a more general statement that agreements between BOP

and the federal probation system should ``take into account''

the resource requirements of the federal probation system

``to the greatest extent practicable'' when moving prisoners

to prerelease custody or supervised release.

Our position has been that reimbursement authority is

preferable to transfer authority, and we are concerned that

the explicit deletion of the transfer provision found in H.R.

3356 could be read as communicating a lack of support for the

underlying concept that the probation and pretrial services

system must be provided with the resources necessary to

execute its new responsibilities. Further, Sections 101 and

104 of S. 3649 indicate that recidivism reduction activities

at the BOP (potentially including the costs of funding

agreements with the probation system under Section 102)

should be covered by the ``savings'' realized as a result of

the implementation of this title. This may be an insufficient

or unreliable source of funding because much of the

``savings'' will be in the form of future cost avoidances

rather than current excess appropriations that could be

reinvested. Without the provision of such resources in future

appropriations acts and via other funding mechanisms, the

Judiciary will be unable to carry out the provisions of the

bill as intended without diverting resources from other

critical activities that are needed to ensure public safety

and the efficient administration of justice.

In addition to our concerns about resources that will be

needed, we also ask that you consider amending S. 3649 to

include the Judicial Conference's legislative proposal to

allow federal probation officers to conduct their official

duties more safely--which include conducting searches and

seizing contraband--by authorizing probation officers to

arrest anyone who assaults, impedes, or interferes with them

while carrying out official duties. This legislation already

has passed the House of Representatives this Congress, and

has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Title IV: Sentencing Reform

For over sixty years, the Judicial Conference has

consistently and vigorously opposed mandatory minimum

sentencing provisions and has supported measures for their

repeal or to ameliorate their effects. Mandatory minimums do

not enhance the administration of justice, but have proven to

undermine it by wasting valuable taxpayer dollars, creating

tremendous injustice in sentencing, undermining guideline

sentencing, and ultimately fostering a lack of confidence in

the criminal justice system.

S. 3649 would reduce mandatory minimum sentences for

certain offenses, which the Judicial Conference supports.

Moreover, Section 402 would expand the existing safety valve,

which is consistent with the Conference's support for

``legislation . . . that is designed to restore judges'

sentencing discretion and avoid the costs associated with

mandatory minimum sentences.'' The Conference continues to

pursue its overriding goal of persuading Congress to reduce

or repeal mandatory minimum sentences.

The Judicial Conference supports the amendment to 18 U.S.C.

924(c)(1)(C), contained in Section 403 of S. 3649, that would

clarify that the additional consecutive penalties apply only

to true repeat offenders, i.e., those with one or more

convictions that have become final prior to the commission of

such offense. Section 924(c)(1)(C) compounds the problems

created by mandatory minimums, however, by treating multiple

Section 924(c) counts in one indictment as triggers of the

statute's second-or-subsequent-conviction mandatory minimums.

Section 404 of S. 3649 would retroactively apply the ``Fair

Sentencing Act of 2010,'' which reduced the disparity between

sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses, to inmates

who had been sentenced prior to its August 3, 2010, enactment

date. This proposal is consistent with the Judicial

Conference's strategy to restore fairness to the sentences

for defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses. Noting

concern that the disparity between the sentences for powder

and crack cocaine offenses could have a corrosive effect on

public confidence in the courts, the Conference agreed to

oppose that disparity and supported its reduction.

Title V: Miscellaneous Criminal Justice

We appreciate that Section 509 of S. 3649 would help to

ensure the supervision of released sexually dangerous

persons. In the interest of ensuring public safety, the

Judicial Conference supports giving probation officers clear

statutory authority to supervise these offenders, and we are

pleased to see it included in this legislation.

We are concerned with the potential impact of Section

503(b), which would amend 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a

defendant to bring a motion on his or her own behalf for

modification of an imposed term of imprisonment, commonly

known as compassionate release. This amendment could result

in premature motions to federal courts, before administrative

appeals have been fully exhausted, thereby forcing federal

judges to decide these motions on an incomplete or

undeveloped record. Depending on how BOP implements this

provision, additional judicial resources could be required to

handle petitions for compassionate release filed by prisoners

when a warden fails to act on a prisoner's request for such

relief. It is also unclear whether the defendant would be

entitled to counsel for this process, including

court-appointed counsel. We may be in touch with further

observations or concerns after the Judicial Conference has

studied this issue in detail.

Relatedly, the Judicial Conference supports expanding

judges' authority to terminate supervised release for

compassionately released inmates. Ongoing supervision of

certain offenders, such as those in hospice care, may be

wasteful of public resources.

Relevant Positions of the Judicial Conference

The Judicial Conference believes that the Sentencing

Commission would benefit by having a federal defender

representative as a non-voting member. Prosecutors currently

are ably represented in the Commission's proceedings by the

ex officio non-voting member assigned to the Attorney General

or his designee.

Notably, although S. 3649 would implement sweeping

sentencing and prison reforms, it does not address the

pretrial system. Section 4285 of title 18, U.S. Code,

currently authorizes courts to order the United States

Marshals Service (``USMS'') to provide a released defendant

with non-custodial transportation and subsistence to the

court where that individual's appearance is required, when

the interests of justice would be served and the client is

financially unable to pay transportation costs. The Judicial

Conference supports giving courts the discretion, in the

interests of justice, to order the USMS to furnish, when

financially necessary, transportation and subsistence

(lodging and food) for defendants returning home from court

proceedings, and subsistence while attending such

proceedings, including for successive court appearances. This

provision would not be applicable for a defendant found by

the court to be financially able to cover these costs. Draft

statutory language for each of the aforementioned proposed

reforms was submitted to your office earlier this Congress

and is attached.

Section 3142(e) of title 18, U.S. Code, creates a

presumption that certain defendants should be detained

pending trial because a court cannot craft conditions of

supervision that would reasonably assure both the safety of

the community and the defendant's appearance at court

proceedings. The statute identifies several categories of

defendants to whom this presumption applies, including those

charged with specific drug trafficking offenses, and places

the burden on a defendant to rebut the presumption for

detention. In keeping with its support of evidence-based

supervision practices, the Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts conducted a study analyzing data collected from a ten-

year period. The study reveals that a sizeable segment of

low-risk defendants fall into the category of drug

traffickers subject to the presumption of detention. The

study concluded that these defendants are detained at a high

rate, even when their criminal histories and other applicable

risk factors indicate that they pose a low risk of either

reoffending or absconding while on pretrial release, and

arguably should be released for pretrial supervision.

Legal, policy, and budgetary factors--including the

presumption of innocence and the relative costs of

incarceration versus pretrial supervision--support reducing

unnecessary pretrial detention. Therefore, at its September

2017 meeting, upon recommendation of the Criminal Law

Committee, the Judicial Conference endorsed limiting the

application of the presumption of detention to defendants

whose criminal history suggests that they pose a higher risk

of failing to appear or being a danger to the community if

released pending trial. This would enable judges to make

pretrial release decisions for low-risk defendants on a case-

by-case basis. No defendant would be automatically released

into the community if this proposal were enacted. We would be

glad to provide draft statutory language, as well as an

academic article analyzing the aforementioned study, for your

consideration.

Conclusion

Thank you for considering the federal Judiciary's views on

this important legislation. If we may be of further

assistance to you in this or any other matter, please do not

hesitate to contact us through the Office of Legislative

Affairs, Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts.

Sincerely,

James C. Duff,

Secretary.

Enclosure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support S. 2961 to save our children, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I missed some votes on Wednesday, December 19, all votes on Thursday, December 20, and some votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Roll Call Vote Number 440 (Passage of H.R. 7327, the SECURE Technology Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 441 (Passage of H.R. 7279, the Water Infrastructure Improvement Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 442 (Passage of H.R. 6227, the National Quantum Initiative Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 443 (Passage of H.R. 6652): YES;

Roll Call Vote 444 (Passage of S. 1520, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 445 (Passage of S. 3530, the Museum and Library Services Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 446 (Agreeing to H. Res. 1180): NO;

Roll Call Vote Number 447 (Agreeing to H. Res. 1181): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 448 (Concurring in the Senate Amendment to the House Amendment to S. 756, the First Step Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 449 (Passage of H.R. 7328, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 450 (Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5075, the Ashanti Alert Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 451 (Passage of H.R. 7093, the Clean Up the Code Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 452 (Passage of S. 2896, the Justice Against Corruption on K Street Act of 2018 or JACK Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 453 (Passage of S. 2961, the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 454 (Passage of S. 2679, the Veterans Small Business Enhancement Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 455 (Passage of H.R. 7227, the Taxpayer First Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 456 (Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 4227, the Vehicular Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 457 (Passage of S. 2652, the Stephen Michael Gleason Congressional Gold Medal Act): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 458 (Passage of S. 2765, the RBIC Advisers Relief Act of 2018): YES;

Roll Call Vote Number 459 (Concurring in the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5509, the Innovations in Mentoring, Training, and Apprenticeships Act):

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 2961) to reauthorize subtitle A of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 2961, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes a number of positive steps to protect children; for example, it reauthorizes the appropriation of Federal grant funds until 2023 for the Department of Justice programs to prevent child abuse and assist victims of such crimes.

In doing so, the bill also provides important liability protection for mandatory reporters such as, and including, pediatricians, educators, and law enforcement. This will protect these individuals from criminal and civil liability from not just reporting suspected child abuse, which they are mandated to do, but also for assisting with investigations of suspected child abuse.

Mr. Speaker, as a father, I can think of no greater responsibility than protecting the most vulnerable among us, our children.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again I just want to emphasize it couldn't be a better day for us, especially with the First Step Act and the things we are moving forward on criminal justice. I join the gentlewoman from Texas in saying this is a good bill, and I urge adoption.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 581, S. 2961.

I ask unanimous consent that the Blunt amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the committee-reported substitute amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered and made and laid upon the table.

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