[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 30, 2017)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E741-E742]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   REMARKS IN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 1862

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 30, 2017

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition of 
H.R. 1862, the Global Child Protection Act of 2017.
  Studies completed by the Centers for Disease Control show that 1 in 4 
women and 1 in 6 men are sexually abused before the age of 18. 
Furthermore, these numbers may not be completely accurate--acts of 
child sexual abuse are often not reported, and experts agree that 
incidence is higher than what is discovered by authorities. These acts 
can be detrimental to youth, multiple studies have shown that child 
sexual abuse victims are twice as likely to develop mental health 
conditions. In my home state of Georgia, 800 children suffered from 
sexual abuse in 2015.
  As a member of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's 
Caucus, I am in

[[Page E742]]

strong support of giving law enforcement any and every legal tool they 
need to protect children and punish abusers. However, as someone who is 
passionate about criminal justice reform, I cannot support the current 
version of this bill.
  Crimes against children are pathetic and disgusting, and those who 
hurt children must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 
While we want to protect these vulnerable individuals, it is also 
important to consider the legal ramifications of this bill. We are 
considering a bill that would impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 
life imprisonment in many cases. Repeat offenders should be prosecuted 
to the fullest extent of the law. However, I do not believe that 
mandatory minimum sentences are an effective solution. Congress does 
not know the facts of every case--but the judges will. That is why I do 
not support legally binding judges to give mandatory sentences--but 
instead giving the judges the freedom to consider each option 
available.
  Again, I fully support the goal of this bill--punishing those who 
commit horrible crimes against children. However, if we are going to 
make such substantial changes to U.S. federal code, I believe that this 
bill requires more discussion. In its current form, I cannot support 
H.R. 1862.
  I would encourage my colleagues to vote NAY on this resolution.

                          ____________________