[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 88 (Monday, May 22, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4409-H4411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017
Mr. GOODLATTE. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 695
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 ``Child Protection
Improvements Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECK AND
CRIMINAL HISTORY REVIEW PROGRAM.
The National Child Protection Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 5119
et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 3--
(A) by amending subsection (a)(3) to read as follows:
``(3)(A) The Attorney General shall establish a program, in
accordance with this section, to provide qualified entities
located in States which do not have in effect procedures
described in paragraph (1), or qualified entities located in
States which do not prohibit the use of the program
established under this paragraph, with access to national
criminal history background checks on, and criminal history
reviews of, covered individuals.
``(B) A qualified entity described in subparagraph (A) may
submit to the appropriate designated entity a request for a
national criminal history background check on, and a criminal
history review of, a covered individual. Qualified entities
making a request under this paragraph shall comply with the
guidelines set forth in subsection (b), and with any
additional applicable procedures set forth by the Attorney
General or by the State in which the entity is located.'';
(B) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(E), by striking ``unsupervised'';
(ii) in paragraph (2)--
(I) by redesignating subparagraph (A) as clause (i);
(II) in subparagraph (B)--
(aa) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(bb) by redesignating such subparagraph as clause (ii);
(III) by striking ``that each provider who is the subject
of a background check'' and inserting ``(A) that each covered
individual who is the subject of a background check conducted
pursuant to the procedures established pursuant to subsection
(a)(1)''; and
(IV) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) that each covered individual who is the subject of a
national criminal history background check and criminal
history review conducted pursuant to the procedures
established pursuant to subsection (a)(3) is entitled to
challenge the accuracy and completeness of any information in
the criminal history record of the individual by contacting
the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the procedure set
forth in section 16.34 of title 28, Code of Federal
Regulations, or any successor thereto.'';
(iii) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``authorized
agency'' the following: ``or designated entity, as
applicable''; and
(iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``authorized
agency'' the following: ``or designated entity, as
applicable,'';
(C) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``officer or
employee thereof,'' the following: ``nor shall any designated
entity nor any officer or employee thereof,'';
(D) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
``(e) Fees.--
``(1) State program.--In the case of a background check
conducted pursuant to a State requirement adopted after
December 20, 1993, conducted with fingerprints on a covered
individual, the fees collected by authorized State agencies
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may not exceed
eighteen dollars, respectively, or the actual cost, whichever
is less, of the background check conducted with fingerprints.
``(2) Federal program.--In the case of a national criminal
history background check and criminal history review
conducted pursuant to the procedures established pursuant to
subsection (a)(3), the fees collected by a designated entity
shall be set at a level that will ensure the recovery of the
full costs of providing all such services. The designated
entity shall remit the appropriate portion of such fee to the
Attorney General, which amount is in accordance with the
amount published in the Federal Register to be collected for
the provision of a criminal history background check by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
``(3) Ensuring fees do not discourage volunteers.--A fee
system under this subsection shall be established in a manner
that ensures that fees to qualified entities for background
checks do not discourage volunteers from participating in
programs to care for children, the elderly, or individuals
with disabilities.'';
(E) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) National Criminal History Background Check and
Criminal History Review Program.--
``(1) National criminal history background check.--Upon a
designated entity receiving notice of a request submitted by
a qualified entity pursuant to subsection (a)(3), the
designated entity shall forward the request to the Attorney
General, who shall, acting through the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, complete a fingerprint-based
check of the national criminal history background check
system, and provide the information received in response to
such national criminal history background check to the
appropriate designated entity. The designated entity may,
upon request from a qualified entity, complete a check of a
State criminal history database.
``(2) Criminal history review.--
``(A) Designated entities.--The Attorney General shall
designate, and enter into an agreement with, one or more
entities to make determinations described in paragraph (2).
The Attorney General may not designate and enter into an
agreement with a Federal agency under this subparagraph.
``(B) Determinations.--A designated entity shall, upon the
receipt of the information described in paragraph (1), make a
determination of fitness described in subsection (b)(4),
using the criteria described in subparagraph (C).
``(C) Criminal history review criteria.--The Attorney
General shall, by rule, establish the criteria for use by
designated entities in making a determination of fitness
described in subsection (b)(4). Such criteria shall be based
on the criteria established pursuant to section
108(a)(3)(G)(i) of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools
to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (42
U.S.C. 5119a note).''; and
(F) by striking--
(i) ``provider'' each place it appears, and inserting
``covered individual''; and
(ii) ``provider's'' each place it appears, and inserting
``covered individual's''; and
(2) in section 5--
(A) by amending paragraph (9) to read as follows:
``(9) the term `covered individual' means an individual--
``(A) who has, seeks to have, or may have access to
children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities,
served by a qualified entity; and
``(B) who--
``(i) is employed by or volunteers with, or seeks to be
employed by or volunteer with, a qualified entity; or
``(ii) owns or operates, or seeks to own or operate, a
qualified entity.'';
(B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(C) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
``(12) the term `designated entity' means an entity
designated by the Attorney General under section
3(f)(2)(A).''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be fully
implemented by not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
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. 695, 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.
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.
[[Page H4410]]
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. CONYERS. 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. GOODLATTE. 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. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for
his great work in bringing this matter forward.
Mr. Speaker, protection of children is not a partisan matter, and I
am grateful to the committee, committee staff, and Chairman Goodlatte
for his leadership in this matter and bringing this forward.
With school ending and summer camp starting, this is the time to
bring awareness to and pass the Child Protection Improvements Act.
Every year, millions of people work with or volunteer to help our
children wherever they are as camp counselors, local youth sports
coaches, mentors. You name it. All across America, there are
organizations where people can make a difference in the lives of our
Nation's youth, and our children can absolutely benefit from these
programs. Take the Boys and Girls Clubs, MENTOR, or the YMCA, just to
name a few. These groups and dozens of others, which exist virtually in
all of our districts, have come to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Schiff) and to me asking for help.
Just like any parent, they too want to ensure that people working
with our kids are decent, with clean backgrounds and good intentions.
Mr. Speaker, that is where Congress comes in. We have a duty to ensure
every youth-serving organization in America can afford and access the
best background checks on staff and volunteers so they can properly vet
people who might have traveled across State lines. This means utilizing
the FBI's gold-standard database.
Shockingly enough, not every organization has the option today, but
we have the ability to change that. The Child Protection Improvements
Act would allow all youth-serving organizations to utilize the FBI
fingerprint-based background checks. We are simply eliminating the red
tape that prevents the access in some of these States so every
organization can adequately look out for our children, no matter where
they live.
For those who are justifiably concerned about the cost, it should
also be noted that the CPIA is fiscally responsible, as it does not
authorize any new spending. The program will be supported by fees
assessed for background checks by the requesting nonprofit
organizations.
Mr. Speaker, every kid deserves a childhood where they can explore,
grow, and do fun things beyond the
[[Page H4411]]
walls of their home and school. As a father of three myself, I ask my
colleagues to support this commonsense measure to catch potential
threats and keep our kids safe.
Mr. CONYERS. 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. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Protection
Improvements Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Bishop) who has been an excellent partner working with me on this
bill, the first version of which was introduced in 2007.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and
Ranking Member Conyers for their work on the bill as well.
I volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters many years ago. I was
paired with an extraordinary young man named David who is now himself a
Big Brother. I have always said that I have learned as much or more
from David and the program as he ever learned from me.
The experience also helped me understand the huge amount of trust
that we put in volunteers at organizations all around the country. In
the vast majority of cases, that trust is well placed. But,
unfortunately, there are exceptions.
For that reason, in 2003, Congress created the Child Safety Pilot
Program to demonstrate the feasibility of allowing youth-serving
nonprofits to access FBI background checks.
{time} 1800
The FBI maintains the database of criminal histories from every State
in the Nation, searchable by fingerprint. An FBI search is really the
gold standard when it comes to background checks, as it cannot be
evaded by using a fake name, and it will find convictions from every
State. I believe that the gold standard is what we should strive for
when it comes to protecting children, seniors, and individuals with
disabilities who are put in a potentially vulnerable situation.
Between 2003 and 2011, youth-serving organizations were able to run
over 100,000 background checks through this pilot program, and about 6
percent of the potential volunteers were revealed to have criminal
records of concern. Applicants were found with convictions for
everything from murder to child abuse, to sexual assault; and
frequently those convictions were from out of State, so only a national
background check would have found them.
H.R. 695 ensures that every child-serving organization in America
will have access to the most comprehensive and effective background
check possible. H.R. 695 will also protect the applicant's privacy and
does not allow for the individual's specific criminal record to be
disclosed without explicit consent by the potential volunteer.
We have demonstrated that background checks for nonprofits working
with children can be conducted quickly, affordably, and accurately. It
is time to create a system that is permanent and that will protect
children and other vulnerable populations while ensuring the privacy of
volunteers.
I urge the passage of this bipartisan bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am
prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me also congratulate Mr. Schiff and
Mr. Bishop. And as was indicated on the floor, thank you very much, Mr.
Conyers.
This is the kind of bill that is corrective and effective. This bill
would allow a more effective and comprehensive criminal background
check, which will help identify the integrity and accountability of the
organizations that sponsor these programs.
Many of us have worked with the Boys and Girls Clubs, Boys and Girls
Scouts, and many other organizations that really work to help children.
These nationwide criminal background checks are more reliable than
background checks that only search criminal histories in a few States.
Many States currently limit the ability of organizations to access
their database and, thus, force organizations to depend on private
companies to perform background checks of employees and volunteers. If
anybody has been on the board of a nonprofit dealing with children, you
realize that you want to put most of your resources investing in the
programs to help these children. H.R. 695, however, would alleviate
this burden of expense and allow organizations to access the FBI's more
robust system.
In the Child Safety Pilot Program, which we implemented over 10 years
ago, it demonstrates the effectiveness of nationwide background checks
for youth-serving organizations. The program has effectively exposed
applicants who use aliases, incorrect dates of birth, and other
identifiers, some of whom have serious criminal backgrounds. That is
the preventative way to protect our children, by ensuring a very
healthy, robust vetting of individuals who want to engage with our
children.
H.R. 695 would allow organizations to access the FBI's comprehensive
background check system and to create a more accurate determination of
individuals who want to work with children. Volunteers we welcome, but
we want to ensure that those volunteers are there to take care of our
children, to help our children, and improve the lives of our children.
H.R. 695 is a very important contributor to that effort.
Mr. CONYERS. 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. GOODLATTE. 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.
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. 695, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________