Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I would first like to thank Chairman Hensarling for introducing this important piece of legislation.

The CHOICE Act replaces the orderly liquidation authority under title II of Dodd-Frank with a new bankruptcy procedure developed by the Committee on the Judiciary in the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act.

In 2008, our economy suffered one of the most significant financial crises in history. In the ensuing years, experts from the financial, regulatory, legal, and academic communities have examined how best to prevent another similar crisis from occurring and to eliminate the possibility of using taxpayer moneys to bail out failing firms.

The Judiciary Committee has advanced the review of this issue, with the aim of crafting a solution that will better equip our bankruptcy laws to resolve failing firms, while also encouraging greater private counterparty diligence in order to reduce the likelihood of another financial crisis.

The Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act is the culmination of a multiyear, bipartisan process that solicited and incorporated the views of a wide range of leading experts and relevant regulators. The CHOICE Act incorporates all of the provisions of the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act, providing a balanced approach that increases transparency and predictability in the resolution of a financial firm.

Furthermore, it ensures that shareholders and creditors--not taxpayers--bear the losses related to the failure of a financial company.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of H. Con. Res. 33. This resolution would designate the George C. Marshall Museum and the George C. Marshall Research Library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National George C. Marshall Museum and Library.

I would like to thank Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and Mr. Brat for their work in bringing this legislation to the floor today.

It is only fitting that we consider this resolution on the week of the 70th anniversary of George C. Marshall's speech at Harvard University where he proposed a comprehensive foreign assistance program--later coined as the Marshall Plan--to help rebuild the war- torn and devastated economies in Western Europe after World War II.

General George Catlett Marshall dedicated his life to public service--serving honorably in the United States Army, as Army Chief of Staff during World War II, Special Ambassador to China, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense. He was one of only five five-star generals ever to serve in our military.

From his allied plan to storm the beaches of Normandy to the Marshall Plan, his leadership changed the world. The history of the United States and the global community would be a different place if not for the contributions of General Marshall.

At the recommendation of former President Harry Truman, the Marshall Foundation was established in 1953. On May 23, 1964, the Marshall Museum and Library was dedicated on the post of the Virginia Military Institute--General Marshall's alma mater.

For over 50 years, the Marshall Foundation has devoted its mission to educating the public about the important contributions of General Marshall.

The museum has five extensive exhibits and houses General Marshall's 1953 Nobel Peace Prize. The research library collects, preserves, and shares the largest collection of documents pertaining to General Marshall's life.

Just last year, the Marshall Foundation reached a huge milestone with the completion of the Papers of George Catlett Marshall. This project began in 1977 with a goal to create a published record of every document that General Marshall produced. The final project consists of 7 volumes and includes 4,260 documents spanning over 5,666 pages.

In addition to its extensive research work, the Marshall Foundation provides educational opportunities for college students and future military leaders.

The Marshall Undergraduate Scholars program sends college history students to the Marshall Foundation to conduct primary research in the library's archives. The Marshall Army ROTC Award Seminar also provides the top ROTC cadet at each college in the United States the opportunity to participate in a national security conference with fellow award recipients and current Army leaders. The Marshall-Arnold Air Force ROTC Award Seminar provides a similar opportunity to top senior cadets at each college with an Air Force ROTC program.

Two years ago, the Marshall Foundation began the Marshall Legacy Series--this multiyear series of exhibits, lectures, and events to showcase General Marshall's contributions during the 20th century, and connects those contributions to today's world.

This is just a snapshot of the important work the Marshall Foundation conducts to honor and preserve the legacy of General Marshall. I am honored to have such a distinguished institution in my district, the Sixth Congressional District of Virginia.

General Marshall once said: ``Sincerity, integrity, and tolerance are, to my mind, the first requirements of many to a fine, strong character.''

I applaud the Marshall Foundation's work in sharing Marshall's vision and character with a new generation of Americans. I urge passage of this resolution to honor one of America's most sincere and distinguished public servants by congressionally designating the museum and library in Lexington, Virginia, as the National George C. Marshall Museum and Library.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1973.

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

Today, we are able to continue our efforts in protecting children by passing legislation to protect young athletes from abuse. The country was shocked at the revelations in recent years concerning the ongoing abuse endured by young athletes at the hands of their coaches and trainers in USA Gymnastics and USA Swimming. These children were betrayed by people they trusted, by people they looked up to, and by people who had a duty to protect them.

That is why I am pleased to be on the floor here today in support of the Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse Act. This bill imposes a requirement to report child abuse for those authorized by U.S. sport national governing bodies, such as USA Gymnastics and USA Swimming, to work with minor athletes or members of these governing bodies.

As is the case with existing Federal mandatory reporting requirements, these individuals will be required to make a prompt report to law enforcement when they learn of facts that give reason to suspect that a child has suffered an incident of child abuse. This provision will ensure that the malfeasance on the part of national governing bodies, like USA Gymnastics, in failing to report allegations of abuse to law enforcement, never occurs again.

The bill further strengthens existing civil remedies for victims of sexual abuse who wish to seek civil damages from their abusers. The bill clarifies that once a victim has established a harm occurred, the court will presume damages of $150,000. It relaxes the statute of limitations for victims. The 10-year period will now begin when the victim reasonably discovers the violation or harm, not when it accrues. It also extends the statute of limitations to 10 years after a legal disability is lifted. In other words, minors who are victims will have 10 years from the time they reach adulthood to file.

Finally, the bill expands the authority of the national governing bodies to develop practices, policies, and procedures to prevent sexual abuse, and clarifies the duties of the bodies in developing these practices.

Sports have always been a central aspect of American life. Sports teach our children about focus, teamwork, and leadership, and we should encourage our children to participate, to be a part of healthy competition; but, in doing so, we need to assure we keep these competitive atmospheres safe.

I am pleased to see that the U.S. Olympic Committee has helped to establish a new organization called the Center for Safe Sport, to prevent and respond to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse of young athletes.

I want to commend the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) for introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 352, I call up the bill (H.R. 1761) to amend title 18, United States Code, to criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction, or live transmission, of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. 1761.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1761, the Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017, and urge my colleagues to do the same. I would like to note that May is National Missing Children's Month and today marks National Missing Children's Day. It is an honor to be on the floor here today as we continue our mission to protect these innocent victims.

We have made great strides toward ending child exploitation. However, gaps still exist in our laws that are contrary to Congress' goal of protecting children and criminalizing the production of images of child sexual abuse.

H.R. 1761 takes necessary steps to close an unfortunate loophole created by a Fourth Circuit decision in United States v. Palomino- Coronado--a case in which a defendant was able to walk free from Federal conviction despite photographic evidence he had engaged in the sexual abuse of a 7-year-old child.

On May 3, 2012, Prince George's County police officers responded to a home in Laurel, Maryland, based on a report of a missing 7-year-old child known as ``B.H.'' Officers found the child at the fence that separated her house and her neighbor's house. Upon investigation, it was uncovered that the neighbor, Anthony Palomino-Coronado, a 19-year- old male, had sexually molested the child.

At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of knowingly employing, using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor in sexually explicit conduct, for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of that conduct--in other words, for the production of child pornography. The defendant appealed his conviction, alleging insufficient evidence.

Incredibly, the Fourth Circuit vacated the defendant's conviction, finding there was insufficient evidence the defendant's sexual abuse of the 7-year-old girl was ``for the purpose of'' creating an image of such conduct. The court found that, though the defendant engaged in sexual conduct with a child, ``the fact that only one image was produced militates against finding that his intent in doing so was to take a picture.''

Essentially, the court decided that the defendant had engaged in sexual conduct with a 7-year-old and taken a picture but had not engaged in sexual conduct with a 7-year-old to take a picture. To me, this is a preposterous, offensive result.

Under the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Palomino, a defendant could admit to sexually abusing a child, and memorializing the conduct, but could argue that he should, nonetheless, escape Federal conviction because he lacked the requisite purpose or specific intent, prior to initiating the sexual abuse. Indeed, defense attorneys have begun to raise these Palomino defenses in other courts.

In response to Palomino, H.R. 1761 establishes additional bases of liability to the crime of production of child pornography. Specifically, the bill clarifies existing law by prohibiting the knowing production of, or knowingly causing the production of, a visual depiction of a real minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Additionally, H.R. 1761 amends current law to prohibit the knowing transmission of, or knowingly causing the transmission of, a live visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct while also criminalizing the knowing creation of the visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

This language will serve to fix this judicially created loophole and ensure our court system will not have to spend time evaluating this meritless defense and will make certain predators such as this will not be able to escape Federal consequences.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill, Congress' intent is clear. We must continue to protect our children, the most vulnerable and innocent members of society. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2473) to ensure compliance with the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, to make strides toward eradicating human trafficking, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 2473, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2473, the Put Trafficking Victims First Act of 2017, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Human trafficking has plagued communities and neighborhoods across America. Victims have endured horrific trauma, violence, and reoccurring abuse. As a result, there is a tremendous need for expanded victim services, improved data on the prevalence and trends of human trafficking, and effective mechanisms to identify and rescue trafficking victims.

H.R. 2473 takes reasonable steps to increase victim services while improving upon the tools already available to combat human trafficking. The bill directs the Attorney General to provide a report on the effectiveness of State safe harbor laws to ensure these laws are based upon a survivor-centered approach.

In addition to the report, the bill instructs States to recognize coping mechanisms and the symptoms of trauma as local law enforcement interacts with victims of human trafficking.

Furthermore, the legislation provides for increased training and technical assistance for State and Federal agencies, prosecutors, and law enforcement on how to take a victim-centered approach to preventing human trafficking. This provision promotes evidence-based training in order to improve the physical and mental health services provided to victims.

The bill's focus on supporting victims continues as H.R. 2473 instructs the National Institute of Justice to establish detailed methodologies to review the modern trends and detail the prevalence of human trafficking throughout the United States. The survey will not only assess how victims of trafficking are accessing services, but, in addition, help estimate the prevalence of human trafficking in the United States.

Moreover, H.R. 2473 will provide assistance to trafficking victims seeking restitution, many of whom still face many obstacles in Federal court. The bill directs the Attorney General to report on efforts to increase mandatory restitution for victims by providing Congress with data involving the number of Federal cases related to human trafficking in which restitution was ordered, as well as the participation rate of victims in trafficking criminal proceedings.

Finally, the bill expresses the sense of Congress that States should implement trauma-informed, victim-centered care for all trafficking victims.

Mr. Speaker, Congress' intent is clear: Protecting victims from the heinous crime of human trafficking is of utmost concern. I commend the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) for introducing this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Committee on Education

and the Workforce,

Washington, DC, May 23, 2017.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I write to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to H.R. 2473, Put Trafficking

Victims First Act of 2017. Thank you for consulting with the

Committee on Education and the Workforce with regard to H.R.

2473 on those matters within my committee's jurisdiction and

agreeing to make improvements to the legislation to address

concerns.

The Committee on Education and the Workforce will not delay

further consideration of this bill. However, I do so only

with the understanding this procedural route will not be

construed to prejudice my committee's jurisdictional interest

and prerogatives on this bill or any other similar

legislation and will not be considered as precedent for

consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my

committee in the future.

I respectfully request your support for the appointment of

outside conferees from the Committee on Education and the

Workforce should this bill or a similar bill be considered in

a conference with the Senate. I also request you include our

exchange of letters on this matter in the committee report

and in the Congressional Record during consideration of this

bill on the House Floor. Thank you for your attention to

these matters.

Sincerely,

Virginia Foxx,

Chairwoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1188) to reauthorize certain programs established by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1188, currently under consideration.

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

In preventing child victimization, Congress, working in tandem with law enforcement, has long recognized the importance of monitoring sex offenders.

In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. This legislation mandated that States track violent sex offenders and establish guidelines for tracking those offenders.

Over the years, Congress continued its vigilance in monitoring sex offenders, which ultimately culminated in a comprehensive piece of legislation titled the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Among other things, the Adam Walsh Act established a national sex offender registry, provided for post-conviction civil commitment of certain sex offenders, eliminated the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses against children, and created an office at the Justice Department specifically designed to monitor sex offenders.

Today I am proud to be here on the floor to champion the reauthorization of this landmark legislation.

H.R. 1188, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017, authorizes funds for the Department of Justice's Sex Offender Management Assistance program and for the great work the United States Marshals do in locating and apprehending fugitive sex offenders who do not comply with the law's requirements.

H.R. 1188 also contains numerous measures to encourage more States and Tribal jurisdictions to comply with the requirements of the Federal system, in part by making changes to the law to address concerns some States have expressed.

For instance, the bill lowers the duration of sex offender registration requirements for certain juveniles and allows States to register juveniles adjudicated delinquent on a nonpublic system. It also clarifies that only juveniles who commit violent sexual assaults should be placed on a State registry.

The bill also permits alternative methods for in-person verification so that rural jurisdictions can verify location of offenders remotely, in most instances only requiring in-person verification once per year.

H.R. 1188 requires parole officers and pretrial services officers to stay informed of the conduct and provide supervision of sexually dangerous persons. Moreover, the bill strengthens civil remedies for survivors of exploitation and trafficking by allowing individuals who were victims of exploitation or trafficking as juveniles to have 10 years after becoming an adult to file suit for a civil remedy.

Mr. Speaker, we must not forget why we are here. In 1981, Adam Walsh, a 7-year-old boy, was abducted and brutally murdered in Hollywood, Florida. His death was devastating. And for many families, that kind of inconsolable pain would be incapacitating. As a father and grandfather, I cannot even imagine it.

We are thankful for the work of the Walsh family, who have dedicated their lives to child advocacy and whose work is responsible for saving the lives of countless children. I am also grateful to our colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the author of the original Adam Walsh Act, for introducing this reauthorization bill and for his own tireless advocacy on behalf of our Nation's children.

Mr. Speaker, scripture reminds us that ``children are a heritage from the Lord.'' I urge my colleagues to support this strong, bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), and the chief sponsor, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for working with me and my staff on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1862) to amend title 18, United States Code, to expand the scope of certain definitions pertaining to unlawful sexual conduct, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1862, currently under consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1842, currently under consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 695) to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to establish a national criminal history background check system and criminal history review program for certain individuals who, related to their employment, have access to children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 695, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have spent a great deal of time this afternoon discussing legislation designed to detect and punish sexual predators. These bills are all strong, well crafted, and laudable. I urge my colleagues to support them.

However, there is another facet to this problem, which is prevention. This may be the most important action we as Congress can take in the realm of child exploitation laws. We must do all we can to prevent child exploitation from happening in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am pleased to bring H.R. 695, the Child Protection Improvements Act, before the House today. This legislation is extremely important in that it makes permanent a successful pilot program that allowed youth-serving organizations access to FBI fingerprint database searches.

In 2003, the PROTECT Act created the Child Safety Pilot Program, which ran from 2003 until 2011, and provided access to FBI fingerprint background checks for a variety of child-serving nonprofits.

The pilot conducted over 105,000 background checks during its existence. 6.2 percent of potential volunteers were found to have criminal records of concern. While that may seem like a small percentage, Mr. Speaker, it works out to over 6,500 individuals.

In addition, over 40 percent of individuals with criminal records of concern had crimes in States other than where they were applying to volunteer, meaning that only a nationwide check would have flagged these individuals' criminal records.

The criminal offenses detected among some of these checks included convictions for criminal sexual conduct with a child, child endangerment, and manslaughter. Twenty-six percent of these individuals showed a different name on their record than the one they used on their job application.

H.R. 695 allows organizations such as the YMCA to submit fingerprints to a designated entity which, in turn, submits them to the FBI for processing. The system protects privacy rights by ensuring that the specifics of a criminal record are never disclosed without explicit consent by the applicant, and it provides opportunity for individuals to correct errors in their records directly with the FBI.

Importantly, the bill does not mandate that youth-serving organizations use this process. It merely makes the process more accessible and more affordable for organizations that wish to use it.

Mr. Speaker, the harsh reality is that there are individuals who will put themselves in positions where they are entrusted with children so they can then betray that trust in the worst way imaginable. That is why bills like H.R. 695, and other bills we have discussed today, are so important.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) for introducing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this strong bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop), one of the two chief sponsors of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop). I thank the ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the subcommittee and the chairman of the subcommittee for working on this important legislation with me and the committee staff.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special member of my staff, Burak Guvensoylar, who lost his courageous battle with cancer this past weekend.

Burak was a valued member of the Judiciary Committee team and worked on a variety of issues, including digital privacy and intellectual property. His vast knowledge and grasp of the issues impacting the technology community was a tremendous asset to the Committee. Most recently, Burak's work included the development of the Committee's Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, and his steadfast work and tenacious attitude were not only essential to making this initiative a success, but were also a testament to his character. In fact, while he was undergoing intensive cancer treatments, he was actively working and sending follow up emails from his hospital bed. And just days before Burak passed away he met with FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai to discuss a number of Judiciary Committee priorities. For Burak, nothing could prevent him from an opportunity to discuss and advance the policies he was so passionate about.

Burak was a true technology policy enthusiast. Prior to joining the staff of the Judiciary Committee, Burak served as a Legislative Advisor for Congressman Randy Forbes. While working for Congressman Forbes, Burak handled the diverse range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee but it was always evident that technology policy was his first love. He co-founded the Congressional Tech Staff Association and served as an Executive Officer responsible for the professional development program. Prior to his career on Capitol Hill, Burak worked at TechAmerica and CompTIA focusing on international trade policy.

Burak has many friends here in the halls of Congress, on both sides of the aisle. I know all of you will join me in extending our deepest sympathies to his mother Filiz Guvensoylar, his sister Aylin Forbes, his girlfriend Ashley Newsome, and all of his loved ones. Burak will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 324, I call up the bill (H.R. 1039) to amend section 3606 of title 18, United States Code, to grant probation officers authority to arrest hostile third parties who obstruct or impede a probation officer in the performance of official duties, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I asked 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. 1039.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the question of adopting the amendment to H.R. 1039 may be subject to postponement as though under clause 8 of rule XX.

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

Before I address the bill under consideration today, I would like to take a few minutes to honor a very special

member of my staff, Burak Guvensoylar, who lost his courageous battle with cancer this past weekend.

Burak was a valued member of the Judiciary Committee team and worked on a variety of issues, including digital privacy and intellectual property. His vast knowledge and grasp of the issues impacting the technology community was a tremendous asset to the committee.

Most recently, Burak's work included the development of the committee's Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda; and his steadfast work and tenacious attitude were not only essential in making this initiative a success, but were also a testament to his character. In fact, while he was undergoing intensive cancer treatments, he was actively working and sending follow-up emails from his hospital bed. And just days before Burak passed away, he met with FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai to discuss a number of Judiciary Committee priorities. For Burak, nothing could prevent him from an opportunity to discuss and advance the policies he was so passionate about.

Burak was a true technology policy enthusiast. Prior to joining the staff of the Judiciary Committee, Burak served as a legislative adviser for Congressman Randy Forbes. While working for Congressman Forbes, Burak handled the diverse range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, but it was always evident that technology policy was his first love.

He cofounded the Congressional Tech Staff Association and served as an executive officer responsible for the professional development program.

Prior to his career on Capitol Hill, Burak worked at TechAmerica and CompTIA, focusing on international trade policy.

Burak has many friends here in the Halls of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I know all of my colleagues join me in extending our deepest sympathies to his mother, Filiz; his sister, Aylin Forbes; his girlfriend, Ashley Newsome; and all of his loved ones.

Burak will be deeply missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

I want to thank the primary author of the bill, the gentleman from Washington, Congressman Reichert, for his leadership on this and many other law enforcement issues.

Under current law, a Federal probation officer may arrest a probationer or an offender on supervised released if the officer has probable cause to believe that the offender has violated a condition of his or her probation or release. The officer may make the arrest with or without a warrant.

Unfortunately, current law does not grant probation officers arrest authority in situations where a third party attempts to physically obstruct an officer or inflict physical harm on the officer. Despite the fact that interfering with a probation officer in the performance of his or her official duties is in itself a crime, Federal probation officers lack the authority to correct or restrain a physically interfering third party.

In fact, a probation officer's only course of action is to retreat from the situation. This not only exposes these officers to a heightened risk of harm, as they are not permitted to subdue the assailant, it also allows the probationer to conceal evidence that he has violated terms of his probation or supervised release or any other criminal activity.

H.R. 1039 is a reasonable and responsible remedy to this very real problem. This bill, which has the support of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, will protect probation officers and enhance their ability to do their job by giving them authority to arrest a third party who forcibly interferes with an officer's performance of his or her official duties.

This bill would not give probation officers general arrest authority. Rather, as noted, it grants them the very limited authority to arrest a third party who is interfering with the duties of the officer, which is already a Federal crime.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense measure to ensure that these dedicated men and women have the necessary authority to undertake their duties safely and effectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard many arguments in opposition to this legislation. We have carefully explained how each of these arguments is unfounded.

I simply want to again urge my colleagues to vote for this very simple, yet much-needed, piece of bipartisan legislation. Support the men and women of law enforcement with your vote. Support the Fraternal Order of Police who wrote a letter supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I enter in the Record the FOP letter.

National Fraternal

Order of Police,

Washington, DC, 15 February 2017.

Hon. David G. Reichert,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Reichert: I am writing on behalf of the

members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our

support for H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection

Act.'' This legislation will amend

section 3606 of Title 18, United States Code, to grant

probation officers authority to arrest hostile third parties

who obstruct or impede a probation officer in the performance

of official duties.

Probation officers supervise men, women and juveniles who

are convicted of a crime. Instead of a judge sentencing these

offenders to prison, the judge sentences them to close

supervision while continuing to live and work with the

general public. A probation officer's job title comes with an

inherent element of danger due to the supervision of

offenders such as drug addicts, sexual offenders and domestic

violence offenders who could turn violent at any time.

Offenders are often intimidated by the amount of power a

probation officer has over their freedom. If they feel the

officer will recommend a prison sentence or report illegal

activity, which may lead to a prison sentence, they may try

to eliminate this threat by harming the officer.

When probation officers are accosted by a violent third

party, they are forced to retreat because they have no third-

party arrest authority. They also cannot assist any police

officer at the scene who may have been called to assist. This

subjects everyone involved in the situation to greater risk

and can result in the loss of evidence, the escape of an

offender, or harm to an individual.

In the past, offenders typically reported to the probation

officer's office for scheduled visits. Now many probation

officers are required to make home visits where the offender

may have easy access to weapons. While the officer may carry

a gun, and have armed back up in some cases, often he or she

will go into the home or workplace alone without knowing

anything about other persons at the site.

For these reasons, this authority is needed and we are

proud to support your bill and look forward to working with

you on it.

On behalf of more than 330,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I want to thank you for introducing this

legislation and amendment. If I can be of further help,

please do not hesitate to contact me or my Senior Advisor,

Jim Pasco, in my Washington office.

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, support the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, who called H.R. 1039 a ``critical officer safety measure'' in their letter of endorsement.

Support the National Association of Police Organizations, who said H.R. 1039 is a ``sensible solution that ensures the safety of the officer, the probationer, and the community.''

Mr. Speaker, I enter in the Record these letters.

Federal Law

Enforcement Officers Association,

Cabin John, MD, May 17, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf

of the nearly 27,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement

Officers Association to advise you of our strong support for

H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act,'' and to

express our appreciation for the Congress's consideration of

this important officer safety measure during National Police

Week. FLEOA opposes the amendment that will be offered on the

floor to sunset the authority provided by the bill, as you

cannot put a stopwatch on critical law enforcement officer

protection measures such as H.R. 1039.

The ``Probation Officer Protection Act'' is a critical

officer safety measure. At a time when U.S. Probation

Officers have seen their workloads increase due to changes in

sentencing policy and are being asked to ``do more with the

same,'' ensuring that they have the means to protect

themselves when placed in harm's way is paramount. H.R. 1039

will fully authorize a U.S. Probation Officer to arrest any

third party who violates 18 USC 111. This statute has been on

the books since the 1940s and makes it a crime for any person

to forcibly assault, resist, intimidate, or interfere with

any federal officer in the performance of their official

duties. Current law, however, only allows Probation Officers

to make arrests of individuals on probation or under

supervised release who violate 18 USC 111. This authority

does not extend to ``third parties,'' which could include a

former associate of the offender or an unidentified member of

the community. In many instances third parties are well aware

that a federal officer's authority is limited to individuals

on supervision, and when a third party does impede or assault

a U.S. Probation Officer, the Officer's only recourse is to

retreat and call for local law enforcement. While in major

cities local law enforcement may respond depending on

availability, the same is not true for U.S. Probation

Officers who work in rural communities where response by

local law enforcement may be a single officer or none. This

places Probation Officers at even greater risk, particularly

in those situations where retreat is not even a reasonably

safe alternative.

During the forthcoming debate on this bill, there will

undoubtedly be those who go to great lengths to demean U.S.

Probation Officers as something less than ``real'' law

enforcement officers or to diminish the hazards that they

face. Some may also raise inchoate objections about the

constitutionality of H.R. 1039. For example, you will hear

that Congress cannot extend Executive Branch police powers to

the Judicial Branch, despite the fact that it was Congress

that established the U.S. Supreme Court Police that resides

directly across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Not only

are such statements factually inaccurate, they display a

basic lack of understanding about those who serve our nation

as U.S. Probation Officers and the purposes behind the

``Probation Officer Protection Act.''

Make no mistake: U.S. Probation Officers are fully trained

federal law enforcement officers. They attend basic training

at the National Training Academy at the Federal Law

Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, SC, and receive

ongoing in-service training throughout the year. Their

training covers everything from firearms regulation and

safety and defensive tactics to handcuffing, the use of

force, de-escalation training, and reality-based scenario

training. It may be difficult for some to acknowledge, but

there is an inherent risk to the work U.S. Probation Officers

do--a risk that often outweighs that of traditional law

enforcement. They do not enter into sterile offices, but

often into environments that are uncertain. They are required

to have frequent and regular contacts in the home and

community and knowingly come into daily contact with

individuals who have a history of violence, mental health

issues, problems with authority, and troubles with substance

abuse. U.S. Probation Officers are not able to anticipate

what is going to occur during all contacts. There are and

have been occasions when U.S. Probation Officers are

threatened and/or attacked by third parties and they need the

ability to take an affirmative step to protect themselves.

U.S. Probation Officers are a unique profession. They have

a knowledge base in law and human behavior, and a mix of

skills in investigation, communication, and analysis. They

strive to make our communities safer, to make a positive

difference in the lives of those they serve, and promote

fairness in process and excellence in service. But as the

volume of approved searches they must conduct has markedly

increased over the past year due to changes in sentencing

policy, the absence of any authority to restrain or direct

the movements of third parties places U.S. Probation Officers

at a greater and unnecessary risk of physical harm. H.R. 1039

provides a modest expansion of U.S. Probation Officers'

existing arrest authority to cover only violations of 18 USC

111. It does not in any way provide them ``peace officer''

status or grant them the same general arrest authority that

state-level probation officers enjoy in many jurisdictions.

Granting U.S. Probation Officers the authority to arrest

third parties would not change who they are and what they are

seeking. Nor will it interfere with or otherwise diminish

U.S. Probation Officers' use of the de-escalation techniques

that are the hallmark of their profession. It would simply

afford them another tool, another avenue, if ever needed.

In the end, this legislation will enhance officer safety

while also protecting probationers and third parties by

preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this

legislation and for helping U.S. Probation Officers do their

job more safely by passing H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer

Protection Act.''

Sincerely,

Nathan R. Catura,

National President.

Mr. Speaker, collectively, these organizations represent over half a million sworn law enforcement officers. On this last day of National Police Week, let's join them in supporting this bill.

In this body, Members tend to frequently use the term ``common sense'' to describe a piece of legislation. I don't think many more pieces of legislation are as common sense as this bill.

It really boils down to this question: Should a law enforcement officer be able to arrest the individual who forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with that officer?

That is it. That is all we are talking about today. Common sense tells us that the answer is a resounding ``yes.''

It has been insinuated that probation officers aren't real law enforcement and lack the training to make arrests. I think the brave men and women who serve as Federal probation officers, who have received extensive training, and have ongoing training requirements as part of their jobs, might disagree with that insinuation.

Further, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and its Federal Probation and Pretrial Academy offer nationally standardized training programs and advanced training programs targeting specialized areas of supervision. Common sense tells us that these officers are qualified to make arrests.

Opponents of this bill would prefer to have these law enforcement officers retreat when confronted by third parties. Let's think about what some of the consequences of retreat might mean. If forced to retreat, that officer is forced to terminate interaction with a probationer who may urgently require services, such as substance abuse or mental health treatment. It also means contraband, such as firearms or narcotics, which could have been removed by the parole officer, remains in the community.

In short, the consequences of retreat place public safety in jeopardy. Common sense tells us that retreat is not a viable option.

There is nothing revolutionary going on here. There is no new Federal crime being added. This bill simply says that when someone forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a probation officer, that probation officer can arrest that individual.

It is already a crime to engage in the behavior I just described. An individual who commits that act is going to get arrested. All we are debating today is who puts the handcuffs on the arrestee. Common sense tells us that the officer who was assaulted should have the authority to make the arrest.

Use common sense. Support H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, so that Federal probation officers can do their jobs safely and effectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 115.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 323, I call up the bill (H.R. 115) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide additional aggravating factors for the imposition of the death penalty based on the status of the victim, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, Federal law provides a list of 16 aggravating factors a jury is required to consider when deciding whether a death sentence is warranted in a Federal capital case. These factors include whether the defendant acted in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; whether the defendant engaged in substantial planning and premeditation; whether the victim was particularly vulnerable; and whether the victim was a high public official.

High public official, as defined in the statute, includes a litany of high-ranking public persons from the President, to a foreign head of state, to a judge or law enforcement officer. Currently, however, the law only contains specific protections for Federal officers, not State and local officers.

H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Buchanan, amends Federal law to add the killing of a State or local law enforcement officer as an aggravating factor for a jury to determine during the sentencing phase of a trial, when the jury is considering whether a sentence of death is justified.

This legislation enjoys widespread support in the law enforcement community. And, Mr. Speaker, we can all understand why. In recent years, police officers across our Nation have laid down their lives in the service of their communities, often with little recognition or support.

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 17 police officers have already died as a result of gunfire this year. Most recently, 2 days ago, Deputy Sheriff Mason Moore of the Broadwater County, Montana, Sheriff's Office was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop. We honor Deputy Moore's sacrifice, which is a stark reminder of how a routine event can quickly turn fatal for an officer of the law.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is true that the scenarios where the provision in H.R. 115 applies may be limited. It is true that the vast majority of homicide cases are prosecuted in State courts. It is also true that the circumstances where a defendant killed a State or local law enforcement officer during the commission of a Federal capital offense are probably limited.

But H.R. 115 is, nevertheless, vitally important in the scenarios where it will apply--for example, in many terrorism cases. My colleagues may not remember that the terrorist who bombed the Boston Marathon also murdered an MIT police officer during their flight from the law. H.R. 115 would also apply to situations where a State or local officer is killed serving as a member of a Federal task force. And it would cover volunteer first responders, who are, of course, authorized by law to carry out their duties.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation sends a simple message: The stalking and killing of law enforcement officers will not be tolerated.

H.R. 115 is straightforward, commonsense legislation that will provide all the men and women of law enforcement, who serve and protect our communities every day, with the support they deserve.

As we conclude the 2017 National Police Week, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of the bill.

National Association of

Police Organizations, Inc.,

Alexandria, VA, January 5, 2017.

Hon. Vern Buchanan,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Buchanan: On behalf of the National

Association of Police Organizations (NAPO), I am writing to

you to express our strong support for the Thin Blue Line Act.

NAPO is a coalition of police units and associations from

across the United States that serves to advance the interests

of America's law enforcement through legislative and legal

advocacy, political action, and education. Founded in 1978,

NAPO now represents more than 1,000 police units and

associations, including the Florida Police Benevolent

Association, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers, and more

than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair

and effective crime control and law enforcement.

The Thin Blue Line Act increases penalties on those who

harm or target for harm public safety officers by making the

murder or attempted murder of a local police officer,

firefighter, or first responder an aggravating factor in

death penalty determinations.

This bill is critical, as law enforcement officer assaults,

injuries, and deaths have increased sharply in recent years.

In 2016 alone, ambush-style killings of law enforcement

officers increased by 167 percent. Establishing stricter

penalties for those who harm or target for harm law

enforcement officers will deter crime. Any persons

contemplating harming an office must know that they will face

serious punishments. NAPO strongly believes that increased

penalties make important differences in the attitudes of

criminals toward public safety officers, and ensure

protection for the community.

We thank you for your continued support of the law

enforcement community and we look forward to working with you

to pass this important legislation.

Sincerely,

William J. Johnson, Esq., CAE,

Executive Director.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Buchanan), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2266) to amend title 28 of the United States Code to authorize the appointment of additional bankruptcy judges; and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2266, currently under consideration.

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

We are here today to address an imposing threat to one of the foundational aspects of our economy, the national bankruptcy system. A well-functioning bankruptcy system provides relief to consumers, allows businesses to reorganize, preserves jobs, maximizes the value of assets, and ensures the proper allocation of resources. Our bankruptcy judiciary is the heartbeat that keeps this system moving. If that judiciary is strained and undermanned, that system will grind to a halt, eliminating the essential benefits it provides and sending repercussions throughout the economy.

There are presently 29 temporary bankruptcy judgeships in the bankruptcy system with a lapse date of May 25. These temporary judgeships comprise more than 8 percent of the current bankruptcy judgeships nationwide. After May 25, 2017, these judgeships are at risk of being permanently lost, resulting in larger caseloads shared by fewer judges and causing further strain on our judiciary system.

The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 converts 14 of the existing temporary judgeships to permanent status and creates 4 new permanent bankruptcy judgeships in districts with some of the highest caseloads in the country. In fact, since the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, when a majority of the temporary judgeships were created, these districts have seen weighted filings increase by more than 55 percent.

This bill is based on a comprehensive study of judicial resource needs conducted by the Judicial Conference and is supported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Conference has assured us that its request comes only after it has taken steps to maximize all other alternatives to reduce judicial workloads. Moreover, the Conference has demonstrated that, while a district may have a permanent judgeship, it will not be filled unless completely necessary.

Importantly, this bill will not present any new costs for the taxpayers. The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act includes an increase in the quarterly U.S. Trustee fees for large chapter 11 debtors, excluding small businesses. This fee increase is directly tied to the balance of the United States Trustee System Fund and will only be applied when the balance of the fund falls below a $200 million threshold, thereby ensuring that the Office of the U.S. Trustee is properly funded.

These temporary bankruptcy judgeships were first set to lapse in 2010. Most have been extended for over 12 years, and some even longer. Despite this committee's efforts to address the issue, to date there have been only limited, short-term fixes. Additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships have not been authorized since 1992.

The time has come for Congress to address bankruptcy judgeship needs more permanently. We need a bankruptcy system that has a sufficient number of judges to be able to manage the caseloads in a just, economical, and timely manner. The efficiency of this system is too important to our economy to risk. This bill helps ensure that we have such a system.

I would like to thank Ranking Member Conyers for his efforts on this issue. I would also like to thank Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Chairman Marino and Ranking Member Cicilline for joining me as original cosponsors of the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, permanent bankruptcy judgeships have not been authorized since 1992. Over the past 25 years, we have limited our protection of the bankruptcy system to short-term temporary fixes. A well-functioning bankruptcy system, however, is too important to our economy to risk. Now is the time for Congress to address bankruptcy judgeship needs more permanently.

The Bankruptcy Judgeship Act is a measured, long-term solution carefully crafted and based on the well-developed recommendation of the Administrative Office of the Courts. Not only does it ensure the viability of our bankruptcy

system, but it also addresses the funding concerns of the Office of the United States Trustee.

This bill is a bipartisan measure that enjoys broad support from outside groups, including the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, and the American College of Bankruptcy. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation.

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