[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 88 (Monday, May 22, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4399-H4402]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  GLOBAL CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2017

  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1862

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Global Child Protection Act 
     of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF ILLICIT SEXUAL CONDUCT.

       Section 2423(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) 
     with'' and inserting ``any conduct involving''; and
       (2) by striking ``if the sexual act'' and inserting ``if 
     the conduct''.

     SEC. 3. EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF FEDERAL SEX OFFENSE.

       Section 3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(2)(A)--
       (A) by inserting after ``2244(a)(1)'' the following ``or 
     2244(a)(5)'';
       (B) by striking the ``or'' before ``2423(a)'';
       (C) by striking ``into prostitution''; and
       (D) by inserting ``or 2423(c) (relating to illicit sexual 
     conduct)'' before the semicolon at the end; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(3), by striking ``or 2423(a)'' and 
     inserting ``, 2423(a), or 2423(c)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.

[[Page H4400]]

  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. CONYERS. 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. GOODLATTE. 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.

                              {time}  1630

  Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
making our efforts to combat child exploitation and human trafficking a 
priority on the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I was eager to join the Judiciary 
Committee was to play a role in combating crimes against children. I am 
proud to serve on the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 
Security, and Investigations, where, under the leadership of Chairman 
Trey Gowdy, we are working to protect innocent children, and make sure 
that those that would do them harm are brought to justice.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to talk about crimes against children, 
particularly those that are sexual in nature. Just speaking the term 
``global sex tourism'' is enough to send chills up almost anyone's 
spine. Because this subject is so ugly and uncomfortable, most 
Americans probably have no idea the extent to which children around the 
globe are at risk of exploitation. That is what makes it so important 
that we do talk about it and address the problem head-on.
  Earlier this year, I met with experts from the Department of Justice 
to discuss how loopholes in current law are allowing child predators to 
evade punishment for their abuse of children in the United States 
overseas. Certain types of sexual contact with children are not 
explicitly covered under the criminal definition of ``illicit sexual 
conduct.'' This allows child predators engaged in global sex tourism to 
evade punishment for acts that are clearly abusive.
  Also, current sentencing code does not treat contact offenses against 
child victims under the age of 12 the same as it does against those 
victims between the ages of 12 and 18.
  Mr. Speaker, these loopholes were, of course, never intended. 
Nonetheless, these technical flaws in the law are making it harder for 
authorities to put serial child abusers away where they belong.
  H.R. 1862, the Global Child Protection Act, aims to close these 
loopholes and better equip law enforcement to protect people and punish 
abusers. Specifically, this bill would expand the definition of 
``illicit sexual conduct'' to include ``sexual contact,'' thus allowing 
authorities to crack down on global sex tourism and punish these 
criminals.
  This bill also seeks to protect the youngest child victims by 
broadening the sentencing code to ensure that all types of contact 
offenses against children of all ages are treated with the same level 
of seriousness.
  To be clear, the current statute criminalizes the act of traveling 
abroad to do terrible things to children, but it does not criminalize 
the people who force children to perform sexual acts on them. This bill 
very simply closes the loophole when it comes to sex tourism and 
soliciting sexual acts from a minor, to include not just what someone 
would do to a child, but what they would force a child to do to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our strong partners in the White House 
and the Department of Justice for their commitment to combating 
exploitation and abuse here in our country and abroad.
  Last week I went with the chairman and others to the White House to 
participate in a bipartisan listening session on human trafficking and 
exploitation hosted by Ivanka Trump. I appreciate Ivanka for inviting 
me and my fellow lawmakers to be a part of this very important 
exchange. I believe that her involvement and leadership on this issue 
can be instrumental to achieving results.
  Also, it certainly wasn't lost on me that in his first official act 
after being sworn in, Attorney General Jeff Sessions presented the 
President with an executive order strengthening the enforcement of 
Federal law on international trafficking, including human trafficking. 
We have dedicated law enforcement professionals working hard every day 
to protect children and punish abusers, and we need to make sure that 
they have every tool at their disposal to do their job.
  Mr. Speaker, it is our enduring responsibility to protect those among 
us who cannot protect themselves. We have an opportunity to do that 
today by passing the Global Child Protection Act and getting one step 
closer to closing these loopholes.
  Of course, my bill is just part of a slate of Judiciary Committee 
bills aimed to combat child exploitation and human trafficking. I urge 
my colleagues to approve all of these bills and to take action toward 
stopping this growing problem in this country and abroad.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a

[[Page H4401]]

distinguished former member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1862.
  While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders, the 
existing Federal statutes already severely punish these offenses. This 
legislation, unfortunately, will impose a mandatory sentence of life 
imprisonment.
  This expansion of mandatory minimum sentences of life without parole 
comes on the heels of Attorney General Sessions' memorandum of May 12, 
2017, which has been roundly criticized for rescinding the Holder memo. 
The Sessions memo directs all Federal prosecutors to pursue the most 
serious charges and the maximum sentence to include mandatory minimum 
sentences. This directive takes away from Federal prosecutors and 
judges the ability to individually assess unique circumstances of each 
case, including any factors that may mitigate against imposing a life 
sentence in every case.
  A life sentence is a most severe form of punishment, second only to 
the death penalty. Careful consideration should be given when our 
society imposes a life sentence, and judges should have the discretion 
in determining when this severe punishment should be imposed.
  Now, I point out that this punishment would be imposed not only on 
the ringleader, but on anyone involved in a conspiracy. We have seen 
how that works in drug conspiracies where a girlfriend who takes a 
phone message or drives her boyfriend to a deal would be included in 
the boyfriend's conspiracy and subject to the same draconian mandatory 
minimum the boyfriend is subjected to.

  In this case, the defendant would have to have a prior conviction. 
But life without parole would be the penalty upon a conviction, with no 
consideration being given to how long ago the conviction occurred or 
how serious a conviction was or what role the defendant played in the 
instant case.
  For decades now, extensive research and evidence has demonstrated 
that mandatory minimums fail to reduce crime, they waste the taxpayers' 
money, they discriminate against minorities, and often require a judge 
to impose a sentence so bizarre as to violate common sense. 
Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the 
Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about that problem and 
address this major driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have 
to take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand 
mandatory minimums.
  Mandatory minimums did not get in the Federal code all at once--they 
got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill, which, on 
balance, might have been a good idea. The only way to stop passing new 
mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain mandatory 
minimums.
  Giving lip service to a suggestion that you would have preferred that 
the mandatory minimum not have been in the bill and then voting for it 
anyway, just creates another mandatory minimum, and guarantees that 
those who support mandatory minimums will include them in the next 
bill. That is how we became number one in the world on incarceration.
  Recent studies have shown that we lock up so many people that our 
incarceration rate is actually counterproductive. There are so many 
people in jail, so many people being raised with parents in prison, so 
many people with felony records, and so much of the Justice Department 
budget being used on prisons that aren't doing any good, that could 
have been used for constructive activities. We lock up so many people 
that the incarceration rate is actually counterproductive.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the underlying goals of H.R. 1862 to punish 
sex offenders against children, but I do not support expanding 
mandatory minimums, in this case, life without parole.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial if it had not 
included mandatory minimums, but, unfortunately, it does. So I, 
therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1862.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. 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. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my good friend from 
Virginia, the chairman of the committee, that the acts are heinous. It 
appears that there is no addition to the underlying aspect of section 
3559(e) of title 18 that says, a defendant who has been previously 
convicted of a felony Federal 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 imprisonment.
  But, again, the bill is not written that way. I agree with everything 
my good friend, the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Roby) said. I want to 
congratulate her for her commitment, as so many of us, as women who 
have come to the United States Congress who are mothers, have a special 
interest in children, and, in particular, to avoid the horrific abuse 
of children, and sexual abuse. That is an important cause, and the 
underlying bill is important and crucial.

  But I maintain that there is a lack of clarity into whether or not, 
in fact, there are additional mandatory minimums because it is broken 
down in these elements. The imposition of a life sentence, namely, 
sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, aggravated sexual 
contact with a minor between the ages of 12 and 15, and illicit sexual 
conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen.
  The question is: Is the discretion of the court and the prosecutor 
there?
  I am not in the court. I don't know what the facts are, except for 
the heinousness of tainting and violating a child. I want that criminal 
brought to justice, but I want that prosecutor and that judge and the 
defense under this existing statute to be able to address that question 
and to be able to address the vileness or the mitigating factors in 
that instance.
  I don't want repeat offenders. Some have alleged that there should be 
a variety of responses to sex offenders. I am aware of international 
sex trafficking and men that travel to international places to have sex 
with a child. I can't imagine that that would not fall on deaf ears in 
a courtroom under the existing statute of 3559(e). And that is the 
imposition of life imprisonment.
  But there is merit to the question of discretion and the assessment 
of the court. Now, I might say, with a little aside, that there are 
some populations that don't get fair treatment, no matter what the case 
is, yet I am yielding to the court because I do think there is merit to 
this idea of one mandatory sentence after another, and that that is the 
only response that one must get the mandatory minimum.
  In the backdrop of this Attorney General, who has expressed no 
interest in rehabilitation, in treatment, or in real criminal justice 
reform, I am frightened. I am frightened about what will happen in the 
Nation's U.S. attorneys and Federal courts across America.
  Will we again reinstitute the wave of incarcerated persons marching 
in under mandatory minimums?

[[Page H4402]]

  


                              {time}  1645

  Will the epidemic begin again?
  It is a difficult posture to stand on the floor of the House when you 
are discussing a baby, a child, a 12-year-old. There is no divide 
between my belief and Congresswoman Roby's belief. It is heinous. They 
should be punished.
  We may have a disagreement of what may be a process that reenacts and 
restores our pathway on mass incarceration. It is not clear in the 
bill, plain and simple.
  I heard the response of the chairman: There is nothing new. Then it 
should have been tied to 3559(c) and just say, ``must be sentenced to 
life in prison, as it is.'' But it seems that there is a refinement, so 
more and more opportunities for mandatory minimums and no discretion 
for the judge.
  In a courtroom, 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. At that time, lock them up, throw 
the key away.
  I am not sure what the Department of Justice is speaking about in 
terms of loopholes. There are some very fine men and women who have 
headed up U.S. Attorneys Offices over the years and decades, and they 
have gotten their man or woman.
  So the question is: With an Attorney General that we have, who stood 
in the way of criminal justice reform in the last Congress as we were 
on the precipice of doing great things, now I am supposed to be 
convinced that he is in any way sympathetic to the mass incarceration 
which disproportionately impacts African Americans.
  No, this is not a case that is a bill that points or focuses on 
African Americans. I am very clear about that. I don't suggest that at 
all. But I know the ultimate result of mandatory minimums has a 
disproportionate impact on African Americans, as evidenced by the 
census population in the Federal Prison Bureau, in the Federal criminal 
justice system, and in State prisons across America.
  I want to work with my colleagues. I want to save children. All of us 
are brought to tears when some heinous, vile human being wants to taint 
a child. But if a judge can't understand that, shame on them. If a 
prosecutor doesn't understand that, shame on them.
  And they have got 3559(e) that expresses that, which would include 
the illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen and, 
if not, that could be stated in there, and the language ``must be 
sentenced to life in prison.''
  I am not sure where we are going, but I would hope that we could 
clarify that 3559(e) answers all the questions and that we don't find 
added mandatory minimums which impact communities disproportionately as 
the only solution to getting a dastardly person off the streets.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. 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. GOODLATTE. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1862.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________