[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 91 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H4582-H4590]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1015
PROTECTING AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION ACT OF 2017
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 352, I call
up the bill (H.R. 1761) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction, or live
transmission, of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and for
other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Kentucky). Pursuant to House
Resolution 352, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 115-19 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is
considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1761
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 ``Protecting Against Child
Exploitation Act of 2017''.
SEC. 2. SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN.
Section 2251 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by amending subsections (a) and (b) to read as follows:
``(a) Any person who, in a circumstance described in
subsection (f), knowingly--
``(1) employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or
coerces a minor to engage in any sexually explicit conduct
for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such
conduct, or transmitting a live visual depiction of such
conduct;
``(2) produces or causes to be produced a visual depiction
of a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct where the
production of such visual depiction involves the use of a
minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and such visual
depiction is of such conduct;
``(3) transmits or causes to be transmitted a live visual
depiction of a minor engaged in any sexually explicit
conduct;
``(4) has a minor assist any other person to engage in any
sexually explicit conduct during the commission of an offense
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this subsection;
or
``(5) transports any minor in or affecting interstate or
foreign commerce with the intent that such minor be used in
the production or live transmission of a visual depiction of
a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct,
shall be punished as provided under subsection (e).
``(b) Any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody
or control of a minor who, in a circumstance described in
subsection (f), knowingly permits such minor to engage in, or
to assist any other person to engage in, sexually explicit
conduct knowing that a visual depiction of such conduct will
be produced or transmitted shall be punished as provided
under subsection (e).'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``employs, uses, persuades, induces,
entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a
minor assist any other person to engage in, any sexually
explicit conduct'' and inserting ``engages in any conduct
described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a)'';
and
(ii) by striking ``, for the purpose of producing any
visual depiction of such conduct,'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting after ``transported''
the following: ``or transmitted''; and
[[Page H4583]]
(C) in paragraph (2)(B), by inserting after ``transports''
the following; ``or transmits'';
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) The circumstances referred to in subsections (a) and
(b) are--
``(1) that the person knows or has reason to know that such
visual depiction will be--
``(A) transported or transmitted using any means or
facility of interstate or foreign commerce;
``(B) transported or transmitted in or affecting interstate
or foreign commerce; or
``(C) mailed;
``(2) the visual depiction was produced or transmitted
using materials that have been mailed, or shipped or
transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by
any means, including by computer;
``(3) such visual depiction has actually been--
``(A) transported or transmitted using any means or
facility of interstate or foreign commerce;
``(B) transported or transmitted in or affecting interstate
or foreign commerce; or
``(C) mailed; or
``(4) any part of the offense occurred in a territory or
possession of the United States or within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
``(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,
no criminal charge under subsection (a)(3) may be brought
against an electronic communication service provider or
remote computing service provider unless such provider has
intentionally transmitted or caused to be transmitted a
visual depiction with actual knowledge that such depiction is
of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, nor may any
such criminal charge be brought if barred by the provisions
of section 2258B.''.
SEC. 3. LIMITED LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN PERSONS WHEN RESPONDING
TO SEARCH WARRANTS OR OTHER LEGAL PROCESS.
Section 2258B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``from the response to
a search warrant or other legal process or'' before ``from
the performance''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2)(C), by inserting ``the response to
a search warrant or other legal process or to'' before ``the
performance of any responsibility''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order
to consider the further amendment printed in part B of House Report
115-152, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall
be considered read, shall be separately debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of
the question.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 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. 1761.
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, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1761, the
Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act of 2017, and urge my
colleagues to do the same. I would like to note that May is National
Missing Children's Month and today marks National Missing Children's
Day. It is an honor to be on the floor here today as we continue our
mission to protect these innocent victims.
We have made great strides toward ending child exploitation. However,
gaps still exist in our laws that are contrary to Congress' goal of
protecting children and criminalizing the production of images of child
sexual abuse.
H.R. 1761 takes necessary steps to close an unfortunate loophole
created by a Fourth Circuit decision in United States v. Palomino-
Coronado--a case in which a defendant was able to walk free from
Federal conviction despite photographic evidence he had engaged in the
sexual abuse of a 7-year-old child.
On May 3, 2012, Prince George's County police officers responded to a
home in Laurel, Maryland, based on a report of a missing 7-year-old
child known as ``B.H.'' Officers found the child at the fence that
separated her house and her neighbor's house. Upon investigation, it
was uncovered that the neighbor, Anthony Palomino-Coronado, a 19-year-
old male, had sexually molested the child.
At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of knowingly employing,
using, persuading, inducing, enticing, or coercing a minor in sexually
explicit conduct, for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of
that conduct--in other words, for the production of child pornography.
The defendant appealed his conviction, alleging insufficient evidence.
Incredibly, the Fourth Circuit vacated the defendant's conviction,
finding there was insufficient evidence the defendant's sexual abuse of
the 7-year-old girl was ``for the purpose of'' creating an image of
such conduct. The court found that, though the defendant engaged in
sexual conduct with a child, ``the fact that only one image was
produced militates against finding that his intent in doing so was to
take a picture.''
Essentially, the court decided that the defendant had engaged in
sexual conduct with a 7-year-old and taken a picture but had not
engaged in sexual conduct with a 7-year-old to take a picture. To me,
this is a preposterous, offensive result.
Under the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Palomino, a defendant could
admit to sexually abusing a child, and memorializing the conduct, but
could argue that he should, nonetheless, escape Federal conviction
because he lacked the requisite purpose or specific intent, prior to
initiating the sexual abuse. Indeed, defense attorneys have begun to
raise these Palomino defenses in other courts.
In response to Palomino, H.R. 1761 establishes additional bases of
liability to the crime of production of child pornography.
Specifically, the bill clarifies existing law by prohibiting the
knowing production of, or knowingly causing the production of, a visual
depiction of a real minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Additionally, H.R. 1761 amends current law to prohibit the knowing
transmission of, or knowingly causing the transmission of, a live
visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct while
also criminalizing the knowing creation of the visual depiction of a
minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
This language will serve to fix this judicially created loophole and
ensure our court system will not have to spend time evaluating this
meritless defense and will make certain predators such as this will not
be able to escape Federal consequences.
Mr. Speaker, with this bill, Congress' intent is clear. We must
continue to protect our children, the most vulnerable and innocent
members of society. I commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Johnson), a member of the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this
important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) may control
that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. 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
[[Page H4584]]
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.
{time} 1030
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank the
gentleman for his leadership on this issue to help save those who have
been trafficked across not only just America, but around the world.
Mr. Speaker, they didn't list her name in the report, and that makes
sense. It all happened before she even reached the age of 16. So to
protect her identity, they called her Tonya.
She ran away from home and ended up living with a man they called
Eddie. Eddie was the stepdad of one of her classmates. Tonya and Eddie
started a relationship. Tonya felt that she really loved him. Eddie
took advantage of that, and he pressured Tonya into a life no child
should have to live.
Tonya was saved in large part by luck. A tip to the police led to
action by the Federal special agent. And now Eddie is behind bars
finishing the second year of his 12-year prison sentence. Meanwhile,
Tonya is just trying to return to a normal life.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say this story wasn't true, that these
fictitious names didn't reflect hard reality. I wish I could say it was
isolated. I wish I could say that this type of thing doesn't happen
here in America, but it does.
It repeats itself with different details even more disturbing than
Tonya's story in towns and cities across our Nation. It is not just sex
trafficking. It is forced labor. It is exploitation. It is slavery. And
every single instance cries out against the moral truth written on
every human heart.
Now, the numbers are staggering. 20.9 million people are trafficked
globally. Of that number, over a quarter are children. The majority are
pressed to work for little to no wages. And 4.5 million of these people
are victims of forced sexual exploitation.
Here in America, there were 7,572 cases of human trafficking reported
in 2016. That is an increase of 35 percent over just the year before.
My home State of California is particularly dire. Of all the cases in
the Nation, 1,323 come from California.
Though we need no explanation for why we are passing anti-trafficking
and exploitation legislation today, I think it helps that we understand
the magnitude of this evil.
We have, in this body, voted on 11 bills so far. Today we will vote
on two more by the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) and the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson). Altogether, these bills address
many aspects of this problem: international trafficking, recording and
transmission of child pornography, abuse uncovered on the U.S. Olympic
teams, the handling of trauma cases in our justice system.
I don't believe that these bills alone will end human trafficking or
exploitation in and of themselves, but they will help. They will help
prevent these crimes, they will help the victims recover, and they will
bring us closer to a world where every person, especially those who
need us most, won't be abused but will be truly loved.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work in this effort.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
1761.
I first want to point out that the case outlined by the chair of the
Judiciary Committee that failed in Federal court could have been
brought in State court and the defendant would have been subjected to
extremely long, lengthy prison time for the heinous conduct that he had
participated in.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation expands the use of preexisting
mandatory minimum sentences. Although the bill does not technically
create new mandatory minimums, it does expose additional defendants to
preexisting mandatory minimum sentences of 15, 25, and 35 years.
While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders--and
they should be punished harshly--the use of mandatory minimums has time
and time again been shown to be inappropriate.
This expansion of mandatory minimum sentences comes on the heels of
the Attorney General's memorandum of May 12, 2017, which has been
roundly criticized for directing all Federal prosecutors to pursue the
most serious charges and maximum sentences, to include mandatory
minimum sentences. This directive takes away from Federal prosecutors
and judges the ability to individually assess the unique circumstances
of each case, including any factors that may mitigate against imposing
mandatory minimum sentences.
This law is particularly appalling because it would apply to people
who I think we should all agree should not be subject to these long
mandatory minimum sentences. I am talking about teenagers. Teenage
sexting is widespread. Under this law, teenagers who engage in
consensual conduct and send photos of a sexual nature to their friends
or even to each other may be prosecuted and the judge must sentence
them to at least 15 years in prison.
The law explicitly states that the mandatory minimums will apply
equally to an attempt or a conspiracy. That means if a teenager
attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting
it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager
to prison for at least 15 years for making such an attempt. If a
teenager goads a friend to ask a teenager to take a sexually explicit
image of herself, just by asking, he could be guilty of conspiracy or
attempt, and the judge must sentence that teenager to at least 15 years
in prison.
[[Page H4585]]
Under the Federal code, the term ``sexually explicit conduct''
includes actual or simulated conduct. That means if a teenager asks
another teenager for a photo simulating sex, even if the minor is fully
clothed, that attempt would violate the law and the teenager must get a
sentence of at least 15 years mandatory minimum for making that
attempt.
This law does not allow the judge to consider whether or not the
conduct may have been consensual between minors. This circumstance is
irrelevant when the sentence is mandatory.
For decades now, the extensive research and evidence has demonstrated
that mandatory minimum sentences fail to reduce crime, discriminate
against minorities, waste the taxpayers' money, and often require a
judge to impose sentences so bizarre that they violate common sense.
Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the
Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about the problem and
actually 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 existing mandatory minimums.
Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that mandatory minimums in the code
did not get there all at once. They got there one at a time, each part
of a larger bill, which, on balance, might seem like a good idea.
Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to
stop passing bills that contain or broaden the application of mandatory
minimums.
Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred
that the mandatory minimum had not been in the bill and then voting for
the bill anyway not only creates that new mandatory minimum, but it
also guarantees that mandatory minimums will be included in the next
crime bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial if it did not
contain mandatory minimums, but, unfortunately, it does. Therefore, I
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1761.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I am honored today to speak in support of my legislation, the
Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act, which aims to close a court-
created loophole, and as the title suggests, further protect our
children from predators.
When I first arrived to Congress after almost 20 years of litigating
constitutional law cases and drafting legislation for municipalities to
control the proliferation of sexually oriented businesses, I was deeply
concerned to learn that this particular loophole even existed in
current Federal law, which essentially allows a child rapist to admit
to sexually abusing a child and yet still evade punishment.
The background is important to reiterate. As my chairman stated
moments ago, this comes from a 2015 case, United States v. Palomino-
Coronado, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the conviction of a child sex offender simply because the
court determined the perpetrator lacked specific intent to record the
disgusting images that were found on the offender's smartphone. This is
despite the fact that the defendant admitted to sexually abusing the 7-
year-old child from next door and memorializing the conduct.
In its opinion, the court decided the lack of purpose or specific
intent was enough to overturn the conviction, even though the defendant
himself took the photo of the heinous act and subsequently admitted to
sexually abusing this child. This is absolutely in clear contradiction
of our responsibility and this Congress' intention to protect America's
children.
In Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as
``God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the
wrongdoer.'' I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any
just government should, to defend the defenseless.
My legislation presents a simple fix and updates title 18 of the U.S.
Code to ensure future defendants are not able to circumvent the law by
simply claiming a lack of intent, especially after knowingly creating a
visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually conduct.
More specifically, my legislation amends section 2251 of title 18 to
prohibit the production and transmission of a visual depiction of a
real minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
Furthermore, it amends current law to include prohibiting the
depiction of a minor assisting any person in engaging in a sexually
explicit act.
Lastly, to clarify potential circumstances of misinterpretation of
the statute and to ensure the statute is not used erroneously to
prosecute internet services providers when they have not engaged in
wrongdoing, my legislation emphasizes that to be criminally liable
under section (a)(3), an internet service provider must have actual
knowledge that the child pornography is on its server and that it must
intentionally transmit that image or intentionally cause its
transmission.
We also take the step of prohibiting any criminal or civil liability
for internet service providers who are required to transmit child
pornography to law enforcement in response to a legal process, such as
a search warrant in child exploitation cases. Of course, we would
never anticipate a prosecution of an internet service provider for
merely responding to a legal process, but it is my hope that explicitly
providing for this immunity in the statute will further enhance the
relationship between internet service providers and law enforcement to
work together to combat these predators.
In answer to the opposition that we have heard here, it is important
to reiterate this legislation does not create new mandatory minimums.
However, I would like to address the comments regarding the current law
on mandatory minimum penalties under the production of child
pornography statute.
There is simply no evidence that Federal prosecutors are abusing this
statute. I think we should all recognize that producing child
pornography is a horrific crime. It often means luring young children
into acts that no one, man, woman, or child, should be forced to do.
It is not a photograph of a nude child. It is something far worse.
Each photo is a crime scene. Such a horrific act by the perpetrator
requires the maximum amount of legal deterrents.
While mandatory minimums have reached much scrutiny in the drug
statutes, in this venue for this statute, there could be no doubt that
the penalties that exist under current law are appropriate. Child
sexual exploitation is vastly underreported. The number of images of
child pornography keeps growing and the images are becoming more and
more depraved. The harm is too great to these victims not to have
significant penalties available to deter this conduct and punish the
producers of child pornography.
Every time an image of child pornography is viewed, the victim gets
revictimized. Once an image is on the internet, it is irretrievable and
can continue to circulate forever. This permanent record of a child's
sexual abuse can alter his or her life forever. Many victims of child
pornography suffer from feelings of helplessness, fear, humiliation,
and lack of control, given that their images are available for others
to view in perpetuity.
{time} 1045
These images are becoming more sadistic and violent, and the age of
the average victim is becoming younger and younger. It is a horrifying
fact that it is not uncommon for even toddlers and infants to now be
subjects of these images.
It is also important that there is no confusion about one fact: The
very creation of these images is repulsive, regardless of whether or
not the abuse was done with a specific intent of creating an image or
if the intent to memorialize this conduct was a secondary thought.
Consider the facts of the case that led to this bill. As was
mentioned, an adult male had sexual relations with a 7-year-old girl
who lived next door and decided to photograph it. That is the
production of child pornography. There is no question about it. No one
should be permitted to escape responsibility merely by asserting they
did not have a specific intent to create the image before they abused
the child. The act of taking a photo or making a video is enough to
demonstrate intent.
Mr. Speaker, that is what this bill does. It is appropriate that we
are doing all this on the day that we recognize as National Missing
Children's
[[Page H4586]]
Day. I am going to urge all my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the opponents and proponents of
this legislation because they have said much the same thing.
H.R. 1761 is a bill that stands against everything we stand against.
It is for protecting against child exploitation, and we all agree with
that. We agree, as well, that the bill has existing mandatory minimums
and the attempt of the proponent of this bill to ensure that the
decision that occurred in Palomino would not occur again.
Some clarification has occurred, and that is that the bill, or the
law, now, with H.R. 1761 explicitly prohibits the creation of a visual
depiction or live transmission of a minor engaged in sexually explicit
conduct. That is, of course, a meritorious and unanimously supported
position. The mandatory minimums continue and also are added to, now, a
number of other offenses. As have been indicated, those offenses can be
upwards of 20 years, and they can be for a variety of offenses added
under this bill.
So the bill is well intended, and the initial prohibition could draw
support in a bipartisan manner, but the continued adding of offenses to
mandatory minimums rather than language that would have left the
sentencing to the discretion of the Federal court--which, by the way,
many Federal judges have come to this Congress and to the Committee on
the Judiciary to ask for and indicate the value of discretion as
relates to their sentencing. This is not a death penalty case, so,
clearly, the discretion of the court and the wisdom of the court could
be utilized for the appropriate new offenses and the appropriate
sentencing.
So while the bill is well intended, it is overbroad in scope and will
punish the very people it indicates it is designed to protect: our
children. H.R. 1761 would expand and modify the meaning of sexual
exploitation of children, thereby granting new offenses that may be
prosecuted under section 2251 of the Federal criminal code, which
generally prohibits the production of child pornography.
As indicated, it works to fix the Fourth Circuit decision in
Palomino, which reversed the defendant's conviction because the
decision was that there was no proof of intent. The structure of the
statute, however, would significantly be modified by H.R. 1761,
separating section 2251(a) into five enumerated offenses, codified as
2251(a)(1) through (5). Based on the language in this bill, to
criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction or live
transmission of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, a
teenager sexting another teenager could be swept up under the statutory
power of this new measure.
Research shows that 91 percent of teenagers, tweens, have access to
the internet and/or a smartphone. Hence, given the rampant advancement
in technology and, consequently, its usage among this demographic, we
must exercise prudence when introducing legislation that is seemingly
ignorant of the growing trend of communication among teenagers.
H.R. 1761 ignores the life-altering impact it would have on our
juveniles who engage in otherwise stupid and immature behaviors and, in
most cases, consensually explicit sexual conduct if we begin to
criminalize such conduct. While this bill seeks to protect minors--and
I congratulate the proponent for that intent--in the same vein, it
drastically alters the penalty for minors who may face mandatory
minimums in sentencing, and, therefore, it is flawed in its design and
intended purpose.
Let me be very clear: Legislators have very good intentions, but we
cannot stand on the floor and guarantee how it will be interpreted. We
cannot guarantee that one teenager will not be caught up in this new
legislation. Court interpretation, prosecutors' interpretation, all
that will be subjected to mandatory minimums, which is in the
underlying bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poliquin). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider these
concerns.
I heard the gentleman speak of his effort to ensure that the internet
provider would have to show intent or have intentionally engaged.
Again, the interpretation of these bills are subject to
interpretation, and the clearer we can be here on the floor of the
House, the more we can be appropriate in its application.
My point is, in concluding, I hope we will ultimately have
legislation that comes back to the floor of the House that we all may
be able to join in and that the elements that do not impact and protect
our teenagers will be eliminated and we can be assured that internet
providers are protected as well.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume to just say a couple of important points in rebuttal to
what we have heard.
For one thing, there has been no evidence that the cases referenced
by the gentlewoman involving conduct between minors are being
prosecuted at the Federal level. I have not seen even one that has been
cited. The point here is that prosecutorial discretion has been a
sufficient buffer.
In committee, our colleagues on the other side have invoked stories
of juvenile offenders being charged for consensual conduct and placed
on sex offender registries unjustly; however, these are all cases that
were prosecuted at the local level. Not one that has been mentioned has
been a Federal case.
It is important to note that, for offenders under 18, the Federal
Department of Justice policy on charging juveniles means that juvenile
prosecutions very rarely occur, and only if no State court can assume
jurisdiction. In fact, certification from the Attorney General himself
is necessary to proceed against a juvenile.
Again, I know of no such case in which a juvenile has been prosecuted
federally under any child pornography statute. So while we appreciate
and understand the concerns about mandatory minimum sentencing and its
abuse, particularly with the drug statutes, again, it is important to
reiterate here, that is not the case with child pornography.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would oppose these arguments and
trust that my colleagues will see the wisdom in supporting this very
important and timely legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. 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.
[[Page H4587]]
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, the concerns stated today
are misplaced. The child pornography statutes have never been the
subject of abuse by Federal prosecutors, and there is no evidence that
that would happen in the future. However, the abuse that is being
allowed and that we must address today is that of our children, and
that abuse is being allowed because of a loophole that was, sadly,
created by a Federal court.
Today we have an opportunity to correct that wrong. We have an
opportunity to do what we all acknowledge to be the right thing: to
defend the most defenseless among us. It is, indeed, an honor for us to
take this action on the week that commemorates National Missing
Children's Week and here, even, on this day, National Missing
Children's Day.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the Protecting
Against Child Exploitation Act. We hope that everyone will do the right
thing here today.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). All time for debate on the bill
has expired.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
1 printed in part B of House Report 115-152.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 5, line 3, insert after ``section 2258B.'' the
following:
``(h) Notwithstanding subsection (e), a person who violates
paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) and is 19 years of age
or younger at the time the violation occurred may, in the
alternative, be punished for a violation of this section by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine under this
title, or both, if--
``(1) the minor is 15 years of age or older and not more
than 4 years younger than the person who committed the
violation, at the time the sexually explicit conduct
occurred; and
``(2) the sexually explicit conduct that occurred was
consensual.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 352, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
{time} 1100
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I associate myself with the words of
the ranking member, Mr. Conyers.
I look forward to strengthening these laws and, as well, working on
legislation to continue to protect our children, our innocent children,
from sexual abuse, sexual assault, and the devastation that it has on
their lives.
So I rise to continue that theme and to indicate, as I said earlier,
that some of the clarifications in the underlying bill are important,
and important to clarify, and important to provide prohibitions that
will be clear in possible further court interpretations. But I maintain
that we cannot predict the court interpretations, and the better and
clearer that we are to protect our children, I believe, is a route that
we should take.
The bill would add new classes of offenses. But section 2251 does not
provide for Romeo and Juliet exceptions; i.e., the penalties apply even
when conduct is consensual and when the victim and offender are close
in age. For example, a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old who videotaped
themselves engaged in a sexual act, then emailed the video to their own
email accounts, the 19-year-old would be subject to mandatory minimums.
That is the basis of the amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment.
The Jackson Lee amendment is a Romeo and Juliet exception. The
amendment is a reasonable approach to treatment of adolescent behavior
that should not be left to prosecutors. The pervasiveness of personal
technology, such as cell phones and tablets, have given rise to teenage
sexting. Research has shown that teenage sexting is widespread, even
among middle school-age youth.
Under section 2251, teenagers prosecuted for talking and sending
messages, and then taking and sending messages, would be subject to
mandatory prison sentences of at least 15 years and sex offender
registration.
In light of the recent troubling statements by Attorney General
Sessions, Congress should provide an alternative to existing mandatory
penalties in sexting cases, particularly with juveniles. We cannot say
that a juvenile will not be prosecuted federally. They could be, under
this particular statute.
So this is a carve-out, a Romeo and Juliet carve-out, to ensure that
it does not happen, to protect against the possibility of it happening.
A study conducted by Drexel University found that more than half of
the undergraduate students who took part in an online survey said they
had sexted when they were teenagers, and 30 percent said that they
included photos in that message, meaning that they had sent sexual
texts.
Therefore, I ask that my colleagues come together and support the
Jackson Lee amendment for a Romeo and Juliet carve-out.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, it is not only unnecessary,
but it is fashioned in such a manner which may potentially create the
type of loophole that we are looking to close.
Under current law, so-called Romeo and Juliet cases, such as those
between 19- and 50-year-olds, could be prosecuted under any of the
child pornography laws--possession, production, or distribution. That
has always been the case.
However, I reiterate that we know of no such instance that has been
brought under any of these Federal provisions under the circumstances
covered by this amendment, which further supports the fact that Federal
prosecutors do not appear to be bringing such cases. There is just
simply no evidence that has been produced to suggest otherwise. For
that reason, the amendment is completely unnecessary, and it is based
upon no evidence at all.
On the contrary, the underlying bill is based upon a real case where
a real 7-year-old girl was sexually abused and photographed by a real
sexual predator.
Our colleagues on the other side have also continually referred to
Attorney General Sessions' recent charging memoranda which suggests
that under the policy in his memo prosecutors will suddenly be forced
to aggressively prosecute 19-year-olds who are engaging in consensual
sexual conduct under this statute. But that notion is preposterous and
is also based on no evidence.
As an initial matter, the minority completely ignores the fact that a
prosecutor makes an initial determination as to whether to commence or
decline prosecution. And this is distinct from the subsequent decision
of what charges should be brought, which would only occur if the
decision to prosecute is made in the first place.
According to the U.S. attorneys' manual, in making the initial
determination to commence a prosecution, a prosecutor must consider
whether ``a substantial Federal interest would be served by the
prosecution,'' and whether, ``in his or her judgment: One, the person
is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or, two,
there exists an adequate noncriminal alternative to prosecution.''
The Sessions memo doesn't change any of that, and it is absurd to
think that the memo will cause the Department of Justice to suddenly
shift its prosecutions to aggressively go after Romeo and Juliet cases.
This is especially ridiculous, as Attorney General Sessions had made
clear from the outset, that the priorities of DOJ and this
administration are to prosecute violent crimes and violent offenders.
I think that the minority just fundamentally misunderstands and
mischaracterizes not only the Sessions memo but this legislation. For
that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Jackson Lee
amendment.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me quickly say that I respect the
[[Page H4588]]
gentleman, but I take great issue in calling a Member's amendment, or
the analysis of that amendment, ridiculous, because it is not
ridiculous. It is an extremely reasonable amendment. And unless he has
some powers that I am not aware of, no one can predict when a
prosecutor will determine that they will prosecute. We cannot. We pass
criminal justice laws every day and cannot predict.
Whether or not it is based upon the Sessions memo, which as far as
anyone who can read knows that we are going back to a stricter
enforcement of everything criminal against everyone. That is clear.
The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes that not all sex offenses are
the same. And currently, section 2251 is a one-size-fits-all sentencing
scheme. It fits all, even a 19-year-old.
The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a better alternative.
Punishment will be available involving offenses. When defendants are no
more than 19 years old, they would have other alternatives. The judge
would have discretion. That is simply what we are asking for.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled, ``Keep
Mandatory Minimums Out of the Juvenile Justice System.'' This bill does
not do that; and I also include an article entitled, ``Teenage Sexting
is Not Child Porn.''
[June 16, 2014]
OP-ED: Keep Mandatory Minimums Out of the Juvenile Justice System
(By Lizzie Buchen)
Across the country, mandatory minimum sentences are falling
out of favor. From Sen. Rand Paul to Attorney General Eric
Holder, people from both ends of the political spectrum are
blaming these harsh and punitive sentences for driving our
skyrocketing incarceration rates and exacerbating racial
disparities in the criminal justice system. But in this era
of smart sentencing reform--particularly toward young
people--a disturbing piece of legislation is coasting through
the California legislature, threatening to wrench the state
in the opposite direction. Senate Bill 838, authored by state
Sen. Jim Beall (D-Santa Clara), would break new ground by
establishing the first mandatory minimum sentences in the
state's juvenile justice system.
The juvenile justice system was founded on the
understanding that young people who commit offenses are often
struggling in situations outside of their control, are highly
amenable to rehabilitation and have the potential to lead
productive and law-abiding lives. Mandatory minimum sentences
automatic sentences of incarceration or confinement, meted
out regardless of the facts of the case are completely at
odds with these foundational principles. They are determined
not by the youth's past circumstances or potential life
ahead, but by what he or she has done. The only result is
punishment, a sharp contrast to the rehabilitative ideals of
the juvenile justice system.
Mandatory minimum sentences are completely incompatible
with how juvenile court works. When a youth has committed an
offense, juvenile court judges tailor sanctions to best meet
a youth's unique needs for rehabilitation by weighing a
comprehensive set of factors, including the severity of the
crime, the statement of the victims, and the circumstances of
the youth's life--including mental health issues and
experience with abuse, homelessness and extreme poverty. The
judge then chooses from a wide range of community-based and
residential options, allowing him or her to tailor the
sanction to best treat the youth and protect the community.
In line with this focus on rehabilitation, the sentences are
indeterminate, with terms based on the youth's progress.
Proponents of mandatory minimum sentences, including
supporters of California's youth mandatory minimum bill,
claim that these sentences deter crime. But the evidence
tells us this is a dubious notion at best. Although this bill
would introduce the first mandatory minimum sentences in
California's juvenile justice system, such sentences have
been in place in the adult system for decades--and are widely
recognized as failures. A large and growing body of research
has found that mandatory minimum sentences have come at
enormous social, financial and human costs, with little
benefit to public safety. There is no evidence that these
sentences have a significant deterrent effect. If anything,
these harsh punishments are counterproductive, putting the
public at risk by disrupting families, impoverishing
communities of human capital, making it more difficult for
people to return to law-abiding society and diverting
precious public resources away from social services and
toward costly incarceration.
____
[From the New York Times, Apr. 4, 2016]
Teenage Sexting Is Not Child Porn
(By Amy Adele Hasinoff)
Teenagers who sext are in a precarious legal position.
Though in most states teenagers who are close in age can
legally have consensual sex, if they create and share
sexually explicit images of themselves, they are technically
producing, distributing or possessing child pornography. The
laws that cover this situation, passed decades ago, were
meant to apply to adults who exploited children and require
those convicted under them to register as sex offenders.
Though most prosecutors do not use these laws against
consensual teenage sexters, some do. The University of New
Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center estimates
that 7 percent of people arrested on suspicion of child
pornography production in 2009 were teenagers who shared
images with peers consensually.
Almost two dozen states, including New York, Illinois and
Florida, have tried to solve the legal problems that surround
sexting with new legislation, and others, like Colorado, are
considering new sexting laws. These reforms typically give
prosecutors the discretion to choose between child-
pornography felony charges or lesser penalties like
misdemeanor charges or a mandatory educational program.
These new laws may seem like a measured solution to the
problem of charging teenage sexters with child pornography
felonies. However, once they have the option of lesser
penalties, prosecutors are more likely to press charges--not
only against teenagers who distribute private images without
permission, but also against those who sext consensually.
Given the extensive research that shows that young people
who are nonwhite, low income, gay or transgender are
disproportionately prosecuted for many crimes, there is good
reason to suspect that laws that criminalize teenage sexting
are being unfairly applied as well. As legislators have tried
to cope with the legal fallout, they have also opened up more
types of images to scrutiny: While child pornography laws
apply only to sexually explicit images, many new sexting laws
criminalize all nude images of teenagers, including photos of
topless teenage girls.
A better solution would be to bring child pornography laws
in line with statutory rape laws by exempting teenagers who
are close in age and who consensually create, share or
receive sexual images. Vermont tried to enact major reform to
its child pornography laws in 2009, but abandoned the effort
after a national backlash and settled instead on a new
misdemeanor law.
In February, New Mexico passed a limited version of child
pornography reform, which shields teenagers who receive a
sexual image from a peer from facing child-pornography
possession charges. Teenagers who create or share sexual
images can still be convicted of child pornography production
or distribution.
Both existing child pornography laws and new sexting-
specific laws criminalize a common behavior among teenagers.
Studies have shown that roughly one-third of 16- and 17-year-
olds share suggestive images on their cellphones. Among young
adults, rates are above 50 percent. In the past, partners
wrote love letters, sent suggestive Polaroids and had phone
sex. Today, for better or worse, this kind of interpersonal
sexual communication also occurs in a digital format. And
it's not just young people: An article in an AARP magazine
describes sexting as ``fun, easy and usually harmless.''
Like any sexual act, consensual sexting is somewhat risky
and requires trust, but it is not inherently harmful as long
as partners respect each other's privacy and are attentive to
consent. Studies have found that around 3 percent of
Americans report that someone has distributed private sexual
images without their permission, and around 10 percent of
sexters report negative consequences. The risk of
distribution is significantly higher among those who were
coerced into sexting.
The victim of a sexual privacy violation can be traumatized
and humiliated, and is often blamed for his or her
victimization. Unfortunately, the criminalization of sexting
worsens this problem because teenagers know that if they
report the incident they may be punished at school and
possibly charged with the same offense as the perpetrator. In
most jurisdictions, distributing a sexual image of a teenager
is illegal, regardless of whether one is consensually sending
a nude selfie to a partner or maliciously distributing a
private photo of another person without permission.
Though some people believe that prohibiting sexting
discourages the practice and protects teenagers from harm,
research on abstinence-only sex education demonstrates that
those policies actually increase unwanted pregnancies and
sexually transmitted infections. Abstinence-only messages
about sexting are likely to be counterproductive as well.
What parents and educators need to do instead is help young
people learn how to navigate sexual risk and trust. Whether
or not it is criminalized, we cannot prevent sexting, just as
we cannot prevent teenagers from having sex. What we need to
focus on is preventing acts of sexual violation, like the
distribution of a private image without permission,
pressuring a partner to sext or sending a sexual image to an
unwilling recipient. Though not all teenagers are sexting,
those who are (and those who will when they are older) need
to learn how to practice safer sexting, which means that it
always has to be consensual.
As State Senator George Munoz, a prominent supporter of the
amendment that established New Mexico's new sexting regime,
told
[[Page H4589]]
The Guardian, ``Our laws have to change with technology.'' To
keep up with those changes, the first step is to
decriminalize consensual sexting by creating exceptions in
child pornography laws for teenagers who are close in age.
Once we do this, we can concentrate on developing better
ways to deal with the new digital forms of harm.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the
Jackson Lee amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about my amendment to H.R. 1761,
``Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act.''
As Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, I
offer this amendment to help make H.R. 1761 a better bill to achieve
its intended purpose.
Though troubled by any sexually explicit activity that may exploit
and otherwise, harm our children, I believe that H.R. 1761, the
``Protecting Against Child Exploitation Act,'' is deadly and
counterproductive to ensuring protection of our youth population in our
new technology era.
This bill will exacerbate overwhelming concerns with the unfair and
unjust mandatory minimum sentencing that contributes to the over-
criminalization of juveniles and mass incarceration generally.
Simply put, this bill will add to the already tragic realities of
many juveniles. Rather than proceeding with the caution befitting an
expansion of the mandatory sentencing penalty, H.R. 1761 is being
rushed to the House Floor, without a single hearing and without the
opportunity to consider amendments directly relevant to whether our
system of criminalizing juveniles for sexting is fair, just, and sound
policy.
Though presented as a proposal to protect children, H.R. 1761
excessively penalizes juveniles and creates life altering criminal
charges when engaged in `sexting'.
Rather, it raises new constitutional concerns; and it does not
address documented and systemic unfairness and racial disparity in the
imposition of mandatory sentencing and its overbroad sweep of
criminalizing juveniles.
My amendment fixes that problem. It creates an alternative punishment
(not more than one year of imprisonment) under section 2251 for
teenagers who participate in ``sexting'' and might otherwise be subject
to mandatory minimum sentences of at least 15 years in prison.
The Jackson Lee is a thoughtful, narrowly-drawn provision that
provides judges with a sensible sentencing option for teenagers no more
than 19 years old who participate in sexting that may be applied in the
judges' discretion, in appropriate cases.
The Jackson Lee amendment is a reasonable approach to treatment of
adolescent behavior that should not be left to prosecutors. The
pervasiveness of personal technology, such as cellphones and tablets,
has given rise to teenage ``sexting.'' Research has shown that teenage
sexting is widespread, even among middle school-aged youth. Under
section 2251, teenagers prosecuted for taking and sending such messages
would be subject to mandatory prison sentences of at least 15 years and
sex offender registration. In light of the recent troubling statements
made by Attorney General Sessions, Congress should provide an
alternative to existing mandatory minimum penalties in ``sexting''
cases.
A study conducted by Drexel University found that more than half of
the undergraduate students who took part in an online survey said that
they sexted when they were teenagers. Thirty percent said they included
photos in their messages and 61 percent did not know that sending nude
photos via text could be considered child pornography. Another online
survey published in 2008 found that almost 40 percent of teenagers
between ages 13 and 19 had sent ``sext'' messages, almost 50 percent
had received a sext message, and 20 percent posted nude or semi-nude
content online.
The Jackson Lee amendment recognizes that not all sex offenses are
the same. Currently, section 2251 employs a one-size-fits-all
sentencing scheme. Under section 2251, a 19 year-old, who engages in
``sexting'' (sending or receiving a sexually explicit photo or video of
a minor) with a willing, 17 year-old girlfriend or boyfriend, would be
subject to the same mandatory minimum sentence as a 50 year-old man,
who engages in the same conduct with a 17 year-old.
The Jackson Lee amendment would provide a better alternative. The
alternative punishment would be available in prosecutions involving
offenses under section 2251(a)(2) or 2251(a)(3), when the defendant is
no more than 19 years old, the difference in age between the defendant
and victim is no more than four years, and the sexually explicit
conduct depicted in the photo or video was consensual. Judges would not
be required to sentence teenagers pursuant to the alternative
punishment.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. 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.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect
for my colleagues on the other side, Mr. Conyers and Ms. Jackson Lee. I
understand her amendment is heartfelt and has the proper motive and
attention.
I would just suggest, again, that the risk of this amendment
outweighs any potential benefit because it creates the kind of
loopholes that we are trying here desperately to prevent.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question
is ordered on the bill, as amended, and on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the amendment will be followed
by 5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and passage of
H.R. 1973.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 180,
nays 238, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 283]
YEAS--180
Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--238
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bera
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
[[Page H4590]]
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Panetta
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Cummings
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kihuen
Kustoff (TN)
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McSally
Meeks
Newhouse
Nolan
Quigley
Swalwell (CA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1132
Ms. STEFANIK, Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina, ARRINGTON, BURGESS,
BISHOP of Michigan, GARRETT, ROGERS of Alabama, YOHO, and DIAZ-BALART
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. RICHMOND changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 368,
noes 51, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 284]
AYES--368
Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barragan
Barton
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Blunt Rochester
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Capuano
Carbajal
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes (KS)
Esty (CT)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Levin
Lewis (MN)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Norcross
Nunes
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Trott
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin
NOES--51
Amash
Bass
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Cardenas
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Davis, Danny
DeSaulnier
Ellison
Evans
Fudge
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Khanna
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lowenthal
Massie
McEachin
McGovern
Moore
Nadler
Pallone
Payne
Pocan
Richmond
Rush
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Takano
Veasey
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Johnson, Sam
Kihuen
Kustoff (TN)
Maloney, Carolyn B.
McSally
Meeks
Newhouse
Nolan
Swalwell (CA)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1140
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________