Floor Statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise as both the Dean of the House and as a former employer of Brian Cooper to congratulate him on his impending retirement from the House of Representatives after 35 years of service, and to thank him for his years of dedicated service to the House.

Brian is a Baltimore native and the youngest of seven children of his parents Dolores and Ellsworth Cooper, Brian loves the Charm City so much that he has lived in the same house his whole life.

He is a proud graduate of Frederick Douglass High School in Baltimore (the very same high school attended by Supreme Court Justice and civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall), After high school Brian received a scholarship to the Community College of Baltimore, now known as Baltimore City Community College, where he received his degree in commercial and graphic arts.

Brian's first Capitol Hill job began in the fall of 1982 when he began work in the stock room for Publications and Distribution Services. Thereafter, in the 1980s and early 1990s, Brian worked for the House Post Office, the House document room, the Small Business Committee and the Government Operations Committee. At Government Operations, Brian served under both Jack Brooks and myself as Chair (the latter from 1991 through 1994). In that capacity Brian worked as staff assistant, handled filing and archiving of committee materials, and prepared documents for committee hearings and markups. I can personally testify that Brian's work was respected and appreciated by Members on both sides of the aisle.

In 1995, Brian joined the Office of the House Parliamentarian as Clerk where he spent a full 22 years, rising to become Chief Clerk to the Parliamentarian in 2009. Brian's most visible duties included assisting presiding officers during sessions of the House and handling timekeeping and legislative paperwork at the rostrum, In addition, Brian provided invaluable assistance in creating the first office computer network, supervising House pages, and preparing for joint meetings and joint sessions, It is no understatement to say that Brian observed and participated in a great swath of American political history during that time period.

Brian remains active in many artistic endeavors--including watercolor, oils, photography, and architectural design--which I understand he plans to continue in his retirement. Brian also plans to use his well-deserved retirement to travel to Italy and spend more time with family (including his many nieces and nephews).

As a devoted Baltimore sports fan, Brian has enjoyed the highs and suffered the lows of the local teams. He is a particularly avid fan of the Baltimore Orioles, and I am sure he appreciates the good start they are off to this year.

I know from personal experience and observation that Brian is the consummate professional. Members and staff on both sides of the aisle know Brian to be committed to an orderly and accurate legislative process observed in a fair, nonpartisan manner. In this age of increasing polarization and legislative gridlock, Brian is a committed institutionalist. He is the rare individual consistently striving to continue the customs and traditions of the House, and committed to pass on his institutional knowledge to his successors.

The House and the Congress will greatly miss Brian's services, but we will greatly benefit from his work and legacy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to H.R. 1862, and I regret this opposition because it would add a new offense--well, new offenses--to the current provision in the criminal code providing for mandatory life imprisonment for certain repeat sex offenders.

Now, under section 3559(e) of title 18 of the U.S. Code, a defendant who has been previously convicted of a Federal felony or State sex offense committed against a child, and who is guilty of a predicate Federal sex offense against a child, must be sentenced to life in prison. H.R. 1862 amends section 3559 to add more Federal predicate offenses on which to base imposition of a life sentence; namely, sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, aggravated sexual contact with minors between the ages of 12 and 15, and illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen. The bill would also provide the requirement that a Federal predicate offense relating to coercion or enticement of a minor be related to prostitution.

Instead, H.R. 1862 would allow coercion or enticement of a minor into any criminal sexual activity to serve as a basis for imposition of a mandatory life sentence. Repeat offenders should, of course, be subject to increased penalties, and, for some offenses, life imprisonment is appropriate. Yet Congress should not mandate that life imprisonment be the only sentencing option.

For far too long, the Federal criminal justice system has relied on an unsustainable system of mass incarceration that is largely driven by inflexible mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimums are not necessary to impose appropriate sentences. The judge at sentencing has all the information he or she needs to impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed and the culpability of the offender. Arrived at this way, sentences may still be quite lengthy--perhaps, in some cases, life in prison--but these penalties must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to join with me and others in opposing this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a

distinguished former member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

I would like everyone to think about this in a very general way, that expanding the scope of offenses subject to mandatory minimums is just as harmful as enacting new ones. It is the same thing. And so, accordingly, I oppose this legislation.

Those who commit crimes against children deserve to be punished, and repeat offenders most certainly deserve to face increased penalties. There is no one that, I don't think, in this House, disagrees with that.

But nevertheless, I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing and, therefore, I must oppose this legislation. I believe that judges are the best suited to determine the just and appropriate punishment in each case.

So for the foregoing reasons, I urge each and every one of my colleagues here to oppose H.R. 1862.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1842, a bill that is intended to address gaps in our child protection laws.

Now, this bill makes a number of changes to the Federal criminal code that, unfortunately, makes the same error that was previously made. It results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. I don't know where we get this notion that mandatory minimum sentences are a solution.

H.R. 1842 amends section 2250(d) of the criminal code, which provides for an enhanced penalty for sex offenders who commit a crime of violence while in noncompliance of sex offender registration and reporting requirements.

In addition to the Federal crimes of violence already included in that statute, this bill would add State crimes of violence as predicate offenses that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory 5- year prison sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for failing to register or comply with sex offender registration and reporting requirements.

H.R. 1842 would also add prior military child sex offenses to several recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory minimum penalties of at least 15 years or life, itself.

Perhaps we should expand coverage of enhanced sentences for the offenses added by this bill, but we should do so without expanding the number of mandatory minimums. The judges, not the Congress--not us--are in the best position to impose sentences for even the most offensive criminal violations because they know the facts and circumstances of each case.

There is an increasing bipartisan, national recognition that mandatory minimum sentences are not only unfair, but they are also counterproductive. Instead of expanding the coverage of mandatory minimums, we should be eliminating them. Individuals convicted of serious offenses will still receive appropriately lengthy sentences, but they will not be set on a one-size-fits-all basis.

We want to examine the facts, the circumstances in each case, and the judge is in the best position to do that. We should not be assuming that we can sit here and pass these national laws that will not help and will make it difficult for judges to do their work.

Unfortunately, this bill takes the opposite course, and that is why I must oppose it. I encourage my colleagues to think about what we are doing here and oppose H.R. 1842. I urge your support against this measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as usual, we are indebted to the gentleman from Virginia, who, for years, was the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in the Judiciary Committee and still carries with him the understanding and the experience that leads him to be on the floor with us today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) in support of his position.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in the House Judiciary Committee.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I commend the gentlewoman for her consistent understanding and explaining why mass incarceration is at the base of all of the debate that is going on.

I am hoping that more and more people who listen to these discussions that we have here in the House of Representatives will begin to understand that mass incarceration is not the answer to our problems. As a matter of fact, they compound the problems.

I salute the gentlewoman for her tenacity and understanding and explaining this situation to everyone who can listen to our discussions here.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1842 is a well-intentioned bill meant to ensure that repeat sex offenders are punished for their crimes, whether their prior offenses are State, Federal, or military.

While I believe that repeat sex offenders of any kind should receive appropriately lengthy sentences, I disagree with the imposition of mandatory minimums. We are not the court. We are not the judge. We do not hear the facts and circumstances in each case.

I appeal to good common sense and good legal analysis that we oppose this legislation that would amplify the difficulties that we already know exist. I hope that we will oppose this measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 695, the Child Protection Improvements Act, and tip my hat to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the author of the bill, who we will hear from shortly.

We have a special responsibility to protect our young people and vulnerable adults. For that reason, I am pleased that we are considering this measure which would provide a robust, easily accessible, cost-effective background check system for organizations that work with youth and vulnerable adults. I support it for a number of reasons.

To begin with, it will facilitate more comprehensive criminal background checks which provide a critical layer of protection. These checks help identify individuals who could potentially harm participants in programs for children, young people, and vulnerable adults as well.

Background checks also serve to ensure the integrity and accountability of the organizations that sponsor these programs by reducing potential threats. Results from background checks that search criminal histories nationwide are more reliable than background checks that only search criminal histories in a few States. I think that is obvious.

Secondly, the State background checks are no substitute whatsoever for the FBI's fingerprint-based system, which is the only nationwide database that allows a search of criminal histories in every single State.

Currently, this database can only be accessed through the State law enforcement agencies, and many States limit the ability of organizations to access the system, with some States completely even forbidding access--no access whatsoever. As a result, organizations must navigate a labyrinth of State laws or rely on private companies to perform background checks of employees and volunteers.

H.R. 695, on the other hand, would provide organizations with the ability to access the FBI's superior system without impacting the autonomy of States or the organizations. States would be able to continue or establish their own background check systems, and organizations would not be required to perform FBI background checks of potential applicants or volunteers.

Finally, the need for this legislation is clearly justified by the Child Safety Pilot Program, which we implemented over a decade ago. This program documented the effectiveness of nationwide background checks for youth-serving organizations. Based on a comprehensive review of thousands of criminal history records spanning an 8-year period, the program demonstrated that people who might pose a risk to the safety of children, nevertheless, attempted to work with children.

For example, the program identified applicants who, to avoid detection, used aliases, incorrect dates of birth, or wrong Social Security numbers. Some of these applicants had serious criminal histories, including even homicides, sexual assaults, child endangerment, and even rape.

More than a third of criminal history hits were from out-of-state, and more than half of the people with criminal history hits failed to disclose them on their application.

H.R. 695 would give organizations access to the FBI's comprehensive background check system and thereby help ensure the safety of our youth and others.

Accordingly, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this important measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) for his contribution.

I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee and the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am pleased to make my closing remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the Child Protection Improvements Act is a reasonable, bipartisan piece of legislation intended to protect our children and vulnerable adults from harm and give those who love them peace of mind.

Although we still have work to do to address the accuracy and reliability of some criminal history records and give individuals an opportunity to challenge incomplete or inaccurate records, this is a good bill. For those reasons, I urge everyone in this Chamber to support the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, though troubled and saddened by the recent attacks on law enforcement officials, I believe that H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act, is counterproductive to ensuring public safety and only serves to exacerbate concerns with the unfair and unjust death penalty.

H.R. 115 expands the list of statutory aggravating factors in Federal death penalty cases to also include killing or targeting a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or other first responder.

Aggravating factors are specific factors that judges and juries consider in determining whether a sentence of death is justified for the underlying offense. Passage of this bill would add a 17th statutory aggravating factor for Federal death penalty eligible offenses.

H.R. 115 has been rushed to the House floor, without a single hearing and without the opportunity to consider amendments directly relevant to whether our system of imposing the death penalty is fair, just, and reliable. Like most of my colleagues, I support measures that would actually protect our first responders, brave men and women who risk their lives every day to protect us.

Unfortunately, H.R. 115 not only fails to do this but would also exacerbate problems with the Federal death penalty.

First, H.R. 115 duplicates Federal and State laws that enhance sentences of persons convicted of crimes of violence against law enforcement. The very law the bill seeks to amend, 18 U.S.C. section 3592, already states that a crime against a high public official, including a judge, a law enforcement officer, or an employee of a United States penal or correctional institution, is an aggravating factor that may be considered in determining whether a death sentence should be imposed.

Other Federal laws also impose a life sentence or death on persons convicted of killing State and local law enforcement officers, or other employees assisting with Federal investigations, as well as officers of the United States courts.

Secondly, H.R. 115 does not address documented and systemic unfairness and racial unfairness in the disposition of the death penalty. Any legislation dealing with the Federal death penalty must also address numerous concerns related to racial disparity in application of capital punishment, the lack of qualified counsel and sufficient resources to represent those facing the death penalty, and faulty forensic ``science'' testimony ordered in support of convictions in death penalty cases.

The Federal death penalty, in particular, is rife with troubling evidence of racial disparity. For example, 36 of the 61 people currently on Federal death row are African American, Latino, Asian, or Native American.

If you break this down by Federal circuit, the results are even more disturbing. For example, 15 of 18 men who have received a Federal death sentence in the Fifth Circuit--Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi--in the modern era have been people of color.

Third, civil rights and civil liberties organizations oppose H.R. 115. Organizations committed to the protection of civil rights and civil liberties, including the NAACP, ACLU, and the LCCR, have noted that the Thin Blue Line Act ``is an unnecessary and misguided attempt to politicize the unfortunate deaths of law enforcement officers and could ultimately exacerbate existing tension between law enforcement and the communities they served.''

And finally, H.R. 115 will not deter violence against police officers. By adding a 17th aggravating factor to the Federal death penalty statute, this legislation ignores scientific research regarding the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime.

It is important to note that the National Research Council of the National Academies has concluded that the studies claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are ``fundamentally flawed'' and should not be the basis of sound public policy.

Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter addressed to Mr. Goodlatte and myself, and I want to read the first paragraph of it.

``Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers:

``We are current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R. 115, the Thin Blue Line Act. We do so because we believe this bill will do little to protect the lives of police and first responders and will drive away resources proven to be effective at protecting law enforcement and preventing and solving crime.''

April 26, 2017.

Re Law Enforcement Opposition to H.R. 115.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers: We are

current and former law enforcement leaders and officers from

jurisdictions across the country. We ask you to oppose H.R.

115, the Thin Blue Line Act. We

do so because we believe this bill will do little to protect

the lives of police and first responders and will drive away

resources proven to be effective at protecting law

enforcement and preventing and solving crime.

We are all too familiar with the risks that local, state,

and federal law enforcement and first responders take each

day to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crime. In fact;

some of us have served alongside colleagues who were killed

in the line of duty. We understand the impulse to threaten

those who have murdered our fellow officers with the death

penalty, and some of us have experienced that desire

directly.

But we also know that the death penalty, as it currently

operates, is poor public policy. It is ineffective,

expensive, and can make irrevocable mistakes. It is also used

disparately and often on vulnerable populations, which

undermines our ability to create effective and trusted

relationships with those in the community on whose support

our success depends. That is why, while some of us may

philosophically support the death penalty, we all oppose its

expansion in practice--even under the auspices of supporting

law enforcement.

Each of us understands that it takes many and varied

resources to keep our communities safe. We need strong

partnerships with local government and the communities we

serve. We need well-functioning and modern systems to

collect, store and process police activities, crime data, and

evidence. We need equipment to protect and assist officers as

they perform their duties. One tool virtually never seen on

our list of needs is the death penalty.

In short, we believe H.R. 115 is an unnecessary expansion

of an already flawed and ineffective policy. We encourage you

to oppose this bill and instead support measures that promote

the overall health, safety, and welfare of law enforcement

and the communities we have been sworn to protect.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

James Abbott, Chief, West Orange (NJ) Police Department

(1997-Present).

John Breckenridge, Officer, Manchester (NH) Police

Department (ret.).

James Davidsaver, Emergency Management Director, Lancaster

County, Nebraska; former captain, Lincoln (NE) Police

Department.

Neill Franklin, Baltimore Police Department (2000-2010);

Maryland State Police (1976-1999).

Gerald Galloway, Chief, Southern Pines (NC) Police

Department (1988-2005); Past President, North Carolina Chiefs

of Police Association; former Executive Committee member,

Mr. Speaker, I would like all of my colleagues to recognize that, during our observation of National Police Week, we are reminded again of the importance of ensuring that law enforcement officers are safe so they can carry out their duties effectively.

These kinds of ``enhancement'' bills like H.R. 115 do nothing to invest in officer wellness or to address the everyday challenges faced by police officers or first responders. Moreover, they are redundant, especially because there are laws that protect police officers and first responders from violence in all 50 States.

Rather than advancing a bill that amounts to an empty gesture, that is damaging, at best, this Congress should focus on real reform measures that will protect law enforcement, first responders, and their communities. Providing duplicative protections to law enforcement simply cannot counterbalance the impact of fundamentally flawed death penalty legislation.

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2266, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, which would make 14 temporary bankruptcy judgeships permanent and authorize four additional bankruptcy judgeships.

I introduced this bipartisan legislation together with the support of Judiciary Committee Chairman Goodlatte, along with Regulatory Reform,

Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee Chairman Marino and Ranking Member Cicilline. H.R. 2266 warrants the support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for several reasons.

To begin with, this measure reflects the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States with respect to the judicial resource needs of our Nation's bankruptcy courts. These recommendations are themselves based on a comprehensive survey of all judicial circuits.

This analysis consists of two components. The first is premised on a case-weight formula devised by the Federal Judicial Center that is intended to provide a more accurate and useful measure of judicial workload than a mere count of case filings.

The second component considers a broad array of other factors, including the nature of a court's caseload, filing trends, demographic considerations, geographic issues, and economic aspects, among other items.

Taken together, the resulting analysis provides a reliable basis upon which Congress may assess the necessity of authorizing additional judgeships and extending temporary judgeships.

In addition, H.R. 2266 addresses an immediate need. All of the temporary judgeships addressed in H.R. 2266 will lapse as of May 25, which is just a week away.

Once a temporary judgeship lapses, any ensuing vacancy may not be filled, which presents a serious concern. As the Judicial Conference warns, these bankruptcy courts would ``face a serious and, in many cases, debilitating workload crisis if their temporary judgeships were to expire.''

This is particularly true with respect to the Eastern District of Michigan, which has a weighted caseload well in excess of the minimum necessary to trigger additional judicial resources.

Although Congress has previously extended temporary bankruptcy judgeships from time to time, some have also lapsed as a result of Congress' failure to timely act. So to avoid future lapses in judicial resources, my legislation converts 14 of these temporary judgeships to permanent status.

Finally, I am pleased to report that H.R. 2266 pays for all of these judgeships without having to require consumer debtors to bear that expense. The cost of this legislation is offset by increasing the quarterly fees that the largest 10 percent of chapter 11 debtors pay to the United States Trustee System Fund, a proposal initially made by the Obama administration as part of the President's budget request for 2017.

Specifically, the fee increase would apply only to chapter 11 debtors that have quarterly disbursements in excess of $1 million and only during the period when the fund has less than $200 million.

For all of these various reasons, I support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am pleased to note that H.R. 2266 is supported by the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the American College of Bankruptcy, and the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges.

I want to also express appreciation to our Judiciary chairman, Mr. Goodlatte, to Chairman Marino and Ranking Member Cicilline, as well as their staffs, for their cooperative efforts in working with me on this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Speaker, given the time-sensitive nature of the temporary judgeships addressed by H.R. 2266 and the immediate need for additional bankruptcy judgeships to be authorized, it is my hope that our colleagues in the Senate will expeditiously consider this important legislation. I urge all of the Members here to support this measure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in strong support of S. 419, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act, a bill which was just passed by the Senate yesterday.

Each day, public safety officers put their lives on the line for the greater good of those whom they have taken an oath to serve and protect. Unfortunately, for some of these brave men and women, the ultimate sacrifice is made, and they will die while in the line of duty.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits program, which is administered by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance, was established in 1976 to provide certain benefits to the families of these officers as well as to officers who are disabled as a result of their service.

The death benefit is provided to eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are a direct and proximate result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty or death from certain heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures sustained while on duty.

An education benefit is provided to spouses and children of public safety officers killed or disabled while on duty. The program provides disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, I support S. 419 because it will significantly improve in several respects how benefits claims of fallen and injured officers are processed under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. To begin with, the bill responds to the fact that, all too often, these officers and their families, after experiencing a loss of life or traumatic injury, must then endure months, sometimes years, of uncertainty and delay concerning their benefit claims.

S. 419 requires the Bureau to give substantial weight to evidence and facts presented by a Federal, State, or local agency when determining eligibility for death or disability benefits. In addition, the measure authorizes the Bureau of Justice Assistance to establish rules based on standards for the Benefits program. These two requirements will help facilitate and expedite the Benefits program claims processed and, thereby, reduce the backlog of families awaiting a decision on their benefit claims.

S. 419 also increases transparency of the Bureau's claims processing. It requires, for example, the Bureau to publish and update a report with information on the status of pending claims regarding death, disability, and educational claims submitted, which will increase transparency.

As we all know, transparency often leads to accountability, and this bill will make the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Department of Justice more accountable to the families of fallen and traumatically injured officers, Congress, and the public as well. By requiring that updates or pending benefit claims be posted on public websites, Congress and the public will be able to evaluate the performance of the Bureau in timely processing pending claims.

Finally, S. 419 will help ensure that families, who are the ultimate victims of those who sacrifice their lives for our protection, are not deprived of benefits they are due under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program.

We all have a responsibility to take care of surviving family members when a first responder is tragically killed or injured in the line of duty. This bill is a step in the right direction of ensuring that families are not overly burdened and that the public is aware of how the Bureau and the Justice Department are handling claims submitted by family members.

Mr. Speaker, the sacrifice of these first responders should not be taken for granted, and their families should not be unduly burdened when applying for benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program. Accordingly, I support S. 419. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, it is particularly significant to note that S. 419 is being considered in the midst of National Police Week, a period dedicated to honor our Nation's fallen law enforcement heroes.

President John Kennedy, by proclamation signed in 1962, designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that date falls as National Police Week.

S. 419 memorializes our commitment to public safety officers, who daily risk their lives for us, by removing barriers that prevent beneficiaries under the Benefits program from obtaining the benefits they so justly deserve. Families of our first responders deserve timely consideration of benefit claims when their loved ones give the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this measure so that it may be sent to the President for signature.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for five decades, and I can't recall a time when we have debated something so obviously harmful to seniors and working people in this country. This bill strips health care from 24 million people. It requires seniors to pay sometimes 100 percent or more of their income in premiums.

This legislation drastically and dramatically cuts Medicaid, directly contradicting President Trump's claim not to.

In Michigan, half of all children rely on Medicaid. In my district alone, 56,000 people will lose coverage, including 16,000 children and 3,200 seniors.

Let's be clear. If we pass this bill, people will die. Health care is a right and not a privilege.

Mr. Speaker, the Emergency Financial Manager Reform Act of 2017 is intended to ensure that state-appointed emergency financial managers for municipalities in fiscal distress do not violate Constitutional protections, ensure public health and safety, and are accountable stewards of taxpayer funds. The bill responds to problems presented when unaccountable emergency financial managers usurp local elected officials and unilaterally make decisions that jeopardize public health and safety.

The bill accomplishes these objectives by authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to withhold ten percent of the funds that would otherwise be allocated to a state under the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne-JAG), which provides funding to states for law enforcement purposes, if the U.S. Attorney General determines that the state appointed an emergency financial manager who fails to meet any of the criteria as specified in the bill. These criteria, for example, include a requirement that the appropriate state official submit a certification to the U.S. Attorney General stating that the appointment of an emergency financial manager has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. Another condition specifies that the emergency financial manager receive prior approval from the governor of the state and the appropriate local elected officials before making decisions affecting public health or safety. A further condition protects the rights of employees under collective bargaining agreements from being impaired in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Section-by-Section Explanation of the Bill

Section 1. Short Title. Section 1 sets forth the short

title of the bill as the Emergency Financial Manager Reform

Act of 2017.

Section 2. Findings. Section 2 of the bill sets forth a

series of congressional findings explaining why this

legislation is necessary.

Section 3. Safeguards Regarding State Appointment of an

Emergency Financial Manager. Subsection (a) of section 3

authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to withhold ten percent

of funds that would otherwise be allocated to a state under

the Byrne-JAG grant program for the following fiscal year if

the state has appointed an emergency financial manager and

any of the following criteria are not met:

(1) The emergency financial manager is appointed and the

chief legal officer or other appropriate state official has

not prior thereto submitted a certification to the U.S.

Attorney General that such appointment has neither the

purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to

vote on account of race or color and the U.S. Attorney

General has not interposed an objection within 60 days

following the submission of such certification.

(2) The emergency financial manager is authorized to make

decisions affecting public health or safety of the residents

of a local government unit without receiving prior approval

from the governor of the state and the appropriate local

elected officials.

(3) The emergency financial manager fails to have adequate

oversight to ensure against conflicts of interest,

mismanagement, and abuse of discretion by the emergency

financial manager. The bill, in section 4, defines adequate

oversight to mean that a monthly, publically-available report

accounting for all financial activities of the emergency

financial manager, including possible conflicts of interest,

mismanagement, and abuses of discretion. This report must be

reviewed and approved by the governor. In addition, adequate

oversight means that there must be an independent, state-

approved, and publically-available annual audit of the

emergency financial manager's duty-related activities.

(4) The emergency financial manager is authorized to

reject, modify, or terminate an existing collective

bargaining agreement without mutual consent of all parties to

such agreement.

(5) The emergency financial manager is authorized to

reject, modify, or terminate an existing contract without

mutual consent of all parties to such contract or such

rejection, modification, or termination is approved by an

federal bankruptcy court.

Subsection (b) provides that the amount of funding not

allocated under subsection (a) is to be reallocated to other

states that are not subject to any reduction under subsection

(a).

Section 4. Definitions. Section 4 defines various terms

used in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my brothers of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Incorporated, during the annual James ``Biff'' Carter Kappas on the Capitol Hill Legislative Policy Conference. I knew Biff Carter personally.

Each year, Kappas from all over the country flock to Capitol Hill to raise awareness around the key issues that are affecting our communities. These men are leaders in religious, business, legal, academia, and community service institutions, as well as others.

Mr. Speaker, I have committed my life to public service for over 52 years. I have been honored to serve my constituents in this esteemed body. But one of my proudest moments in public service is when I committed myself to a life of honorable achievement in

every field of human endeavor--the day I joined Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Incorporated.

Today I am proud as I see brothers in their red blazers walk these hallowed Halls, bringing their professional expertise and wisdom gained through experience and passion for their communities to Washington, D.C., the Nation, and the world.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1695, the Register of Copyrights Selection and Accountability Act. As lead Democratic cosponsor of this bipartisan, bicameral legislation, I am pleased that this bill passed out of our Judiciary Committee--thanks to Chairman Goodlatte and many others--by a vote of 27-1.

This legislation represents sound public policy that will strengthen the copyright system. To begin with, it has evolved directly from the bipartisan copyright review process that Chairman Goodlatte initiated way back in 2013. Over the course of that highly deliberative process, the Judiciary Committee held no less than 20 hearings and heard from over 100 witnesses on how to update the copyright laws for the 21st century.

H.R. 1695 is the product of more than 4 years of outreach efforts with a wide range of interested parties who very much want to see, like all of us, a Copyright Office that is responsible to all stakeholders in the copyright ecosystem.

This bill is also the product of bicameral collaboration with our Senate colleagues, including the Judiciary Committee Chairman Grassley, the Ranking Member Feinstein, and Senator Leahy. As a result of this inclusive process, the strong bipartisan consensus emerged from the Copyright Office that needs to be more accountable to Congress, and that it should have greater independence.

That Office has a long and distinguished history of serving as an adviser to Congress on copyright measures, and it is only reasonable that Congress play a significant role in deciding who leads that important agency.

H.R. 1695 also elevates the stature of the Register and makes the position directly accountable to Congress, which will help ensure a strong and vibrant copyright system that fuels our economy, creates jobs, and promotes a diverse range of views.

Today, core copyright businesses annually contribute more than $1.2 trillion to our Nation's economy and generate foreign sales of almost $180 billion. These businesses are also tremendous job creators, creating more than 5 million workers.

That is why the bill is strongly supported by several unions, including the AFL-CIO, the Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, as well as the Directors Guild of America.

H.R. 1695 is also supported by a broad range of other stakeholders, including: the American Intellectual Property Law Association; the Intellectual Property Owners Association; and various coalitions of creators, such as the Content Creators Coalition (c3), CreativeFuture, and the Copyright Alliance.

Individual creators like Jeff Friday, the founder and CEO of Film Life and the producer of the American Black Film Festival also are in strong support of the bill.

Finally, H.R. 1695 will enable Congress to ensure that the Copyright Office is led by a well-qualified individual by requiring the Register to be confirmed by the Senate. This individual must be responsive to the Congress and the public, as well as all the stakeholders in the copyright community.

In fact, an amendment offered by our distinguished colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), that was accepted during the Judiciary Committee markup of the bill, will further strengthen the selection process by establishing an even larger role for Congress in choosing candidates for the position.

Accordingly, I urge total support for H.R. 1695, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of the committee who has done an amazing job.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), ranking member of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Judy Chu).

Mr. Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), one of the most influential members of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Ladies and gentlemen, in closing, I want to point out that it is particularly appropriate that we are considering H.R. 1695 on World Intellectual Property Day, a day dedicated to acknowledging the critical role that intellectual property rights play in encouraging creativity and innovation.

First established in 2001, World Intellectual Property Day encourages engagement among governments, private industry, and the public about the importance of intellectual property promotion and protection.

H.R. 1695 goes a long way in achieving those goals. Accordingly, I thank my colleagues for their support, and I urge that this bill be passed.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want everyone to know that I rise in support of this amendment. As we discovered through the Judiciary Committee's comprehensive copyright review process, the Copyright Office needs significant upgrades to its technology; so the gentleman's amendment would ensure that the Register has someone on her staff with the knowledge and skills necessary to bring the Copyright Office information technology system into the 21st century.

It is a useful amendment. It will help modernize the Copyright Office, and I appreciate the gentleman from Florida for offering it. I urge total support for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

This amendment makes clear that nothing in the bill would impact the Library of Congress' mandatory deposit requirement. For over 100 years, the Library has built its world-class collection, in large part, through the mandatory deposit requirement.

So H.R. 1695 is a very narrow bill that only changes how the Register of Copyrights is selected. I think it is helpful, and I congratulate the gentlewoman for this very creative amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Clay for his discussion here. I think it is courageous and necessary. To begin with, the painting's removal by the Architect of the Capitol was an infringement on the free speech rights of the artist and on the Congressman, yourself, Mr. Clay, from Missouri.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that: ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . . '' And it is undisputed that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee extends to artistic expression, including visual arts. This is true even when such expression may be offensive to many people or to some people.

While Members who removed the artist's painting may have acted based on their belief that the artwork's viewpoint was offensive, that belief cannot trump the free-speech rights of the artist and of you, yourself, Congressman Clay. I congratulate you for putting this discussion into the Record.

Mr. Speaker. This past January within the very confines of the Capitol complex, we witnessed a direct assault against the First Amendment when several Republican Members of Congress unilaterally removed a painting by high school senior David Pulphus from the 2016. Congressional Art Competition display in the Cannon Tunnel.

The painting, sponsored by our colleague--Representative William Lacy Clay--had been displayed in the Cannon Tunnel along with more than 400 winners of the Art Competition for nearly 7 months without incident or comment.

And, rather than upholding the artist's right to free expression and Representative Clay's prerogative to sponsor student artwork from his district, the Architect of the Capitol capitulated to political pressure generated by the right-wing media outlets and ratified these Members' acts of vigilante censorship by having the painting permanently removed from the Congressional Art Competition display in the Cannon Tunnel.

This artwork, seemingly inspired by the events in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014 and other incidents that sparked tension between police and minority communities, depicts a protest, with two police officers and a young man facing each other in a standoff, all of three which have animalistic features.

In the background, protesters look on and a young man of color appears to be depicted in a crucifixion tableau.

Whatever message one draws from this painting, several things are quite clear.

To begin with, the painting's removal by the Architect of the Capitol was an infringement on the free speech rights of Mr. Pulphus and Representative Clay.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.''

And, it is undisputed that the First Amendment's free speech guarantee extends to artistic expression, including visual art.

This is true even when such expression may be deeply offensive to many people.

As the Supreme Court recognized in F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, the ``fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it. Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection.''

While the Members who removed Mr. Pulphus's painting may have acted based on their belief that the artwork's viewpoint was offensive, that belief cannot trump the free speech rights of the artist and Representative Clay.

Nor does it justify the Architect's removal of the painting in response to pressure from these and other Members who found the painting offensive.

Once the House established the Congressional Art Competition and opened the Cannon Tunnel to display artwork sponsored by each individual Member office, it created a limited public forum.

Having created such a forum, individual House Members and the Architect cannot then constitutionally discriminate against expression within that forum based on the viewpoint expressed.

Yet, that is precisely what happened here.

Unfortunately, the painting's removal was part of a broader pattern of behavior by the Majority to undermine the fundamental right of free expression in the House.

For instance, in January the House adopted an unconstitutional gag rule that would allow the imposition of fines of up to $2,500 on a Member for using an electronic device to record, post, or live-stream activity on the House floor.

This rule was a thinly-veiled response to the protest undertaken last year by Democratic Members on the House floor with regard to the Majority's failure to consider comprehensive gun reform.

The rule is a direct attack against the Minority's right to political expression and it is clearly intended to stifle the American public's ability to access that expression.

While it is easy to think that these matters concern only one young artist or a group of House Members, every American should be deeply concerned about such kinds of censorship.

Tyranny starts in small ways. Censor a painting here, a poem there. Ban photos in some instances, videos in others.

When such seemingly minor acts go unanswered, it invites more oppressive conduct in the future.

Ensuring freedom requires vigilance and a willingness to push back vigorously against every instance of censorship.

This is why I applaud the federal lawsuit filed by Mr. Pulphus and Representative Clay seeking to vindicate their free speech rights though it is shameful that they were forced to go to court at all.

And, while the trial court incorrectly concluded that the First Amendment does not protect Mr. Pulphus and Representative Clay, I am confident this conclusion will be overturned on appeal.

All Americans must be free to speak truth to power.

Therefore, it is imperative that we draw a line in the sand now, lest we encourage further and even more troubling acts of censorship in the future.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) be removed as a cosponsor from H. Res. 246.