[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 158 (Tuesday, September 25, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H8839-H8844]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PREVENTING CHILD EXPLOITATION ACT OF 2018
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 6847) to amend title 18, United States Code, to expand and
strengthen Federal sex offenses, to reauthorize certain programs
established by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,
and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6847
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing
Child Exploitation Act of 2018''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING FEDERAL SEX OFFENSE LAWS
Sec. 101. Expanding the definition of illicit sexual conduct.
Sec. 102. Expanding the definition of Federal sex offense.
Sec. 103. Failure of sex offenders to register.
Sec. 104. Prior military offenses included for purposes of recidivist
sentencing provisions.
Sec. 105. Sexual exploitation of children.
Sec. 106. Limited liability for certain persons when responding to
search warrants or other legal process.
TITLE II--ADAM WALSH REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Sex offender management assistance (SOMA) program
reauthorization.
Sec. 203. Reauthorization of Federal assistance with respect to
violations of registration requirements.
Sec. 204. Duration of sex offender registration requirements for
certain juveniles.
Sec. 205. Public access to juvenile sex offender information.
Sec. 206. Protection of local governments from State noncompliance
penalty under SORNA.
Sec. 207. Additional information to be included in annual report on
enforcement of registration requirements.
Sec. 208. Ensuring supervision of released sexually dangerous persons.
Sec. 209. Tribal Access Program.
Sec. 210. Alternative mechanisms for in-person verification.
Sec. 211. Clarification of aggravated sexual abuse.
Sec. 212. Comprehensive examination of sex offender issues.
Sec. 213. Assisting States with juvenile registration.
TITLE I--STRENGTHENING FEDERAL SEX OFFENSE LAWS
SEC. 101. EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF ILLICIT SEXUAL CONDUCT.
Section 2423(f)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``a sexual act (as defined in section 2246)
with'' and inserting ``any conduct involving''; and
(2) by striking ``if the sexual act'' and inserting ``if
the conduct''.
SEC. 102. EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF FEDERAL SEX OFFENSE.
Section 3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(2)(A)--
(A) by inserting after ``2244(a)(1)'' the following ``or
2244(a)(5)'';
(B) by striking the ``or'' before ``2423(a)'';
(C) by striking ``into prostitution''; and
(D) by inserting ``or 2423(c) (relating to illicit sexual
conduct)'' before the semicolon at the end; and
(2) in subsection (e)(3), by striking ``or 2423(a)'' and
inserting ``, 2423(a), or 2423(c)''.
SEC. 103. FAILURE OF SEX OFFENDERS TO REGISTER.
Section 2250(d) of title 18, United State Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting after ``Federal law (including the Uniform
Code of Military Justice),'' the following: ``State law,'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Definition.--In this section, the term `crime of
violence' has the meaning given such term in section 16.''.
SEC. 104. PRIOR MILITARY OFFENSES INCLUDED FOR PURPOSES OF
RECIDIVIST SENTENCING PROVISIONS.
(a) Aggravated Sexual Abuse.--Section 2241(c) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``State
offense'' the following: ``or an offense under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice''.
(b) Sexual Exploitation of Children.--Section 2251(e) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
``section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), or under'' each place it appears and
inserting ``the Uniform Code of Military Justice or''.
(c) Certain Activities Relating to Material Involving the
Sexual Exploitation of Minors.--Section 2252 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``section 920 of
title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), or under'' and inserting ``the Uniform Code of
Military Justice or''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``section 920 of
title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), or under'' and inserting ``the Uniform Code of
Military Justice or''.
(d) Certain Activities Relating to Material Constituting or
Containing Child Pornography.--Section 2252A of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``section 920 of
title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), or under'' and inserting ``the Uniform Code of
Military Justice or''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``section 920 of
title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice), or under'' and inserting ``the Uniform Code of
Military Justice or''.
(e) Repeat Offenders.--Section 2426(b)(1)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``State
law'' the following: ``or the Uniform Code of Military
Justice''.
(f) Sentencing Classification.--Section 3559 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)(2)(B)--
(A) by striking ``State sex offense'' and inserting ``State
or Military sex offense''; and
(B) by inserting after ``under State law'' the following:
``or the Uniform Code of Military Justice''; and
(2) in subsection (e)(2)(C), by inserting after ``State''
the following: ``or Military''.
SEC. 105. 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
(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
[[Page H8840]]
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. 106. 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''.
TITLE II--ADAM WALSH REAUTHORIZATION ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Adam Walsh Reauthorization
Act of 2018''.
SEC. 202. SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE (SOMA) PROGRAM
REAUTHORIZATION.
Section 126(d) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20928(d)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General
$20,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2018 through 2022,
to be available only for the SOMA program.''.
SEC. 203. REAUTHORIZATION OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT
TO VIOLATIONS OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.
Section 142(b) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20941(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) For each of fiscal years 2018 through 2022, of
amounts made available to the United States Marshals Service,
not less than $60,000,000 shall be available to carry out
this section.''.
SEC. 204. DURATION OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR CERTAIN JUVENILES.
Subparagraph (B) of section 115(b)(2) of the Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C.
20915(b)(2)) is amended by striking ``25 years'' and
inserting ``15 years''.
SEC. 205. PUBLIC ACCESS TO JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION.
Section 118(c) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20920(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(3);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) any information about a sex offender for whom the
offense giving rise to the duty to register was an offense
for which the offender was adjudicated delinquent; and''.
SEC. 206. PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM STATE
NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY UNDER SORNA.
Section 125 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20927(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``jurisdiction'' each place it appears and
inserting ``State'';
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``subpart 1 of part E'' and inserting
``section 505(c)''; and
(B) by striking ``(42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.)'' and inserting
``(34 U.S.C. 10156(c))''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Calculation of Allocation to Units of Local
Government.--Notwithstanding the formula under section 505(c)
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10156(c)), a State which is subject to a reduction in
funding under subsection (a) shall--
``(1) calculate the amount to be made available to units of
local government by the State pursuant to the formula under
section 505(c) using the amount that would otherwise be
allocated to that State for that fiscal year under section
505(c) of that Act, and make such amount available to such
units of local government; and
``(2) retain for the purposes described in section 501 any
amount remaining after the allocation required by paragraph
(1).''.
SEC. 207. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN ANNUAL
REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT OF REGISTRATION
REQUIREMENTS.
Section 635 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20991) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Not later than July 1 of each year'' and
inserting ``On January 1 of each year,'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting before the semicolon at
the end the following: ``, and an analysis of any common
reasons for noncompliance with such Act'';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(4) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(5) by adding after paragraph (5) the following:
``(6) the number of sex offenders registered in the
National Sex Offender Registry;
``(7) the number of sex offenders registered in the
National Sex Offender Registry who--
``(A) are adults;
``(B) are juveniles; and
``(C) are adults, but who are required to register as a
result of conduct committed as a juvenile; and
``(8) to the extent such information is obtainable, of the
number of sex offenders registered in the National Sex
Offender Registry who are juveniles--
``(A) the percentage of such offenders who were adjudicated
delinquent; and
``(B) the percentage of such offenders who were prosecuted
as adults.''.
SEC. 208. ENSURING SUPERVISION OF RELEASED SEXUALLY DANGEROUS
PERSONS.
(a) Probation Officers.--Section 3603 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended in paragraph (8)(A) by striking ``or
4246'' and inserting ``, 4246, or 4248''.
(b) Pretrial Services Officers.--Section 3154 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended in paragraph (12)(A) by
striking ``or 4246'' and inserting ``, 4246, or 4248''.
SEC. 209. TRIBAL ACCESS PROGRAM.
The Attorney General is authorized to provide technical
assistance, including equipment, to tribal governments for
the purpose of enabling such governments to access, enter
information into, and obtain information from, Federal
criminal information databases, as authorized under section
534(d) of title 28, United States Code. The Department of
Justice Working Capital Fund (established under section 527
of title 28, United States Code) may be reimbursed by
federally recognized tribes for technical assistance provided
pursuant to this section.
SEC. 210. ALTERNATIVE MECHANISMS FOR IN-PERSON VERIFICATION.
Section 116 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20918) is amended--
(1) by striking ``A sex offender shall'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a
sex offender shall''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Alternative Verification Method.--A jurisdiction may
allow a sex offender to comply with the requirements under
subsection (a) by an alternative verification method approved
by the Attorney General, except that each offender shall
appear in person not less than one time per year. The
Attorney General shall approve an alternative verification
method described in this subsection prior to its
implementation by a jurisdiction in order to ensure that such
method provides for verification that is sufficient to ensure
the public safety.''.
SEC. 211. CLARIFICATION OF AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ABUSE.
Section 111(8) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20911(8)) is amended by
inserting ``subsection (a) or (b) of'' before ``section 2241
of title 18, United States Code''.
SEC. 212. COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATION OF SEX OFFENDER ISSUES.
Section 634(c) of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Additional report.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of
2018, the National Institute of Justice shall submit to
Congress a report on the public safety impact, recidivism,
and collateral consequences of long-term registration of
juvenile sex offenders, based on the information collected
for the study under subsection (a) and any other information
the National Institute of Justice determines necessary for
such report.''.
SEC. 213. ASSISTING STATES WITH JUVENILE REGISTRATION.
Section 125 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006 (34 U.S.C. 20927) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(e) Substantial Implementation for Juvenile Registration
Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a jurisdiction that uses
a discretionary process for determining whether registration
under this Act is required for juveniles 14 years of age or
older who are adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses
described in section 111(8), the Attorney General, in
assessing whether the jurisdiction has substantially
implemented this title with respect to the registration of
such juveniles, may examine the policies and practices that
the jurisdiction has in place--
``(A) related to the prosecution as adults, of juveniles
who commit sex offenses described in section 111(8);
``(B) related to the registration under this Act of
juveniles adjudicated delinquent for such an offense; and
``(C) related to the identification, tracking, monitoring,
or managing of juveniles adjudicated delinquent for such
offenses who reside in the jurisdiction, including policies
and practices to ensure that the records of
[[Page H8841]]
their identities and sex offenses are available as needed for
public safety purposes.
``(2) Submission by jurisdiction.--A jurisdiction described
in paragraph (1) shall submit to the Attorney General an
explanation for how the discretionary process used by the
jurisdiction with respect to the registration of juveniles
under this Act should be considered substantial
implementation of this title.
``(3) Determination.--The Attorney General may determine
that a jurisdiction has substantially implemented this title
if the Attorney General determines that the policies and
practices described in paragraph (1) have resulted or will
result in the registration, identification, tracking,
monitoring, or management of juveniles who commit sex
offenses described in section 111(8), and in the availability
of the identities and sex offenses of such juveniles as
needed for public safety purposes, in a manner that does not
substantially disserve the purposes of this title.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Mrs. Roby) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Alabama.
General Leave
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous materials on H.R. 6847, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are voting today on the Preventing Child
Exploitation Act, which rolls together four bills the House considered
and passed last year but the Senate failed to take up and pass. Each of
them will make important changes to Federal law to protect children.
I would like to thank my colleagues--Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Johnson, and
Mr. Sensenbrenner--for their excellent work in crafting and introducing
these bills with me and their critical efforts to move them through the
House earlier this Congress.
The first part of H.R. 6847 is the bill I introduced, the ``Roby
bill.'' It closes a significant loophole in pursuing offenders who
engage in sex tourism and prey on children abroad. Specifically, the
bill ensures that the definition of ``illicit sexual conduct'' includes
all potential situations where an adult defendant may abuse a child
under these circumstances. No longer will they be able to go and prey
on foreign children without facing the possibility of significant
punishment at home. They will also not be able to escape enhanced
sentences for doing so.
The bill also closes loopholes that permit those who sexually
degrade, humiliate, and abuse children under 12 to avoid sentencing
enhancements for repeat offenses.
Congress always intended for children to have the greatest
protections, and we must ensure that our laws reflect that intent.
The next part of H.R. 6847, the ``Ratcliffe bill,'' closes yet
another loophole regarding offenders who commit violent crimes while
they are in noncompliant status as sex offenders. Currently, this
enhancement applies only to those who committed crimes of violence
under Federal, Tribal, D.C., or military law, and the law of any
territory or possession of the United States.
This bill adds State crimes of violence as predicate convictions,
thus ensuring all sex offenders who have been convicted of crimes of
violence face heightened punishment where they fail to register.
Presently, certain recidivist provisions are not consistent with
respect to conduct covered when someone has a prior sex conviction
under Federal and State law, as opposed to military law. For instance,
under current law, an offender with certain prior military child
pornography convictions would not qualify for a sentencing enhancement
that someone convicted under a Federal statute would, even if their
conduct was the same. This bill fixes this and makes sure that those
recidivist enhancements are applied consistently.
The third part of H.R. 6847, the ``Johnson bill,'' fixes a judicially
created loophole in the Federal production of child pornography
statute. In United States versus Palomino-Coronado, the Fourth Circuit
reversed a conviction for production of child pornography for
insufficient evidence, allowing a defendant to walk free from
production of child pornography charges despite photographic evidence
he created that he had engaged in sexual abuse of a 7-year-old child.
In doing so, the court suggested that a defendant must initiate
sexually illicit conduct with the specific intent to create child
pornography. This decision has extremely undesirable consequences in
the prosecution of the production of child pornography. It has created
a new defense whereby a defendant can merely deny a preformed, specific
intent to record a sexual offense of a minor and escape Federal
conviction.
That is an outrageous result, and Congress' intervention is required
to fix the statute. The creation of child pornography must be
adequately deterred, and this fix ensures that it will be.
Finally, H.R. 6847 includes the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act,
introduced by Crime Subcommittee Chairman Sensenbrenner, the author of
the original Walsh Act. The bill reauthorizes the Sex Offender
Management Assistance Program and provides funding for the United
States Marshals Service, which is tasked with identifying and
apprehending unregistered sex offenders. It also adds new provisions
that aim to improve the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
and make it easier for States to comply.
Thus far, 17 States, 108 Tribes, and 3 territories are in substantial
compliance with the law. The intent of this bill is to ensure many more
jurisdictions come into compliance.
Over the past several years, DOJ has worked closely with the States
to achieve this goal by promulgating flexible guidelines via the
continued hard work of the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing,
Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking, or the SMART
Office.
This bill takes several concrete steps to encourage compliance. For
example, it addresses concerns many have addressed about juvenile
offenders. It is important to keep in mind that only juveniles who have
committed the most serious sex offenses are subject to registration
under SORNA. Nevertheless, this bill lessens the amount of time a
juvenile who commits certain offenses and keeps a clean record must be
on the registry. If these youths keep a clean record for 15 years, they
may petition to leave the registry.
Additionally, the bill codifies 2016 DOJ guidelines which permit the
SMART Office to deem a State in substantial compliance with the act
even if it maintains a discretionary juvenile registry.
Further, the bill alleviates the cost of implementation by explicitly
permitting alternative means for in-person check-ins for registrants
and lessening the number of required check-ins. This is a reasonable
amendment that will help States with significant rural populations
achieve compliance.
I want to thank all my colleagues. I am glad to have had the
opportunity to introduce the comprehensive child protection bill,
which, as I have already noted, will strengthen Federal law to protect
children. I also want to, again, thank Mr. Ratcliffe, Mr. Johnson, and
Mr. Sensenbrenner for their work.
There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in
which it treats its children. I implore my colleagues to take that to
heart and support this vital, well-crafted, commonsense legislation. I
urge every person in this room to consider this bill, not just as a
Member of Congress, but as a parent, a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle,
or a friend. Please join me today in supporting this bill and
protecting our children.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be on the floor with a fellow colleague
in the Judiciary Committee, and we have a similar passion for children
over the years.
I am pleased to be able to acknowledge the work that the Walsh
family, tragically, has had to do in honor of their son, Adam Walsh,
and their reauthorization act, which has had a major impact on child
violent crimes. So, in this set of bills is H.R. 1188, which I intend
to speak on as it relates to protecting our children, but also are
bills
[[Page H8842]]
H.R. 1761, H.R. 1842, and H.R. 1862, which we know would expand unjust
mandatory minimum sentences.
{time} 1930
So the Adam Walsh Act established the Sex Offender Registration
Notification Act, often referred to as SORNA, as the national system
for the registration of sex offenders.
Everyone knows the tragic story of young Adam Walsh and the Walsh
family that has committed themselves to years of fighting against
violent sex offenders who have impacted our children. The Adam Walsh
Reauthorization Act, however, that is included in H.R. 6847, reflects
changes recommended to SORNA by the Judiciary Committee when it last
reauthorized the Adam Walsh Act in 2012 to improve the requirements for
States to register sex offenders. States that fail to substantially
implement SORNA are subject to a 10 percent reduction in Federal grants
under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.
Commendably, the reauthorization provisions that are included in this
overall omnibus bill will allow States discretion in determining
whether juvenile sex offender information will be publicly accessible
via the internet, a step forward as it relates to comprehensive
criminal justice reform addressing questions that recognize the
difference for juveniles, and it would reduce the time that certain but
not all juvenile sex offenders adjudicated as delinquent are required
to register from 25 years to 15 years.
I welcome these changes as steps in the right direction, which is
what happens when we work in a bipartisan manner, to address some of
the existing concerns with SORNA, which I supported as H.R. 1188 last
year.
Now, what has happened is that we have H.R. 6847 that incorporates a
number of other bills with problematic provisions that would add new
offenses to the criminal code requiring mandatory life imprisonment for
certain repeat sex offenders.
No one is coddling or condoning or supporting any of these heinous
acts or individuals. Under section 3559(e) of title 18 of the U.S.
Code, a defendant who has been previously convicted of a felony,
Federal or State, sex offense committed against a child and who is
guilty of a predicate Federal sex offense against a child must be
sentenced to life imprisonment.
H.R. 6847 would amend H.R. 3559 to add more Federal predicate
offenses on which to base imposition of a life sentence, namely, sexual
contact with a minor. Missing is the fact of not allowing judges to be
involved in the sentencing of these particular offenses.
This bill would also remove the requirement that a Federal predicate
offense relating to coercion or enticement of a minor be related to
prostitution. As a result, this bill would allow coercion or enticement
of a minor into any criminal sexual activity to serve as a basis for
imposition of a mandatory life sentence. Repeat offenders, of course,
would be subject to increased penalties, and, for some offenses, life
imprisonment is appropriate.
Again, however, it is taking away the discretion of the judge in the
review of these matters. Yet Congress should not mandate life
imprisonment as the only sentencing option.
Another set of problematic provisions within H.R. 6847,
unfortunately, results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum
sentencing, and so this leads many to be concerned and to be against.
In another addition to the Federal crimes of violence already
included in the statute providing penalties for failing to register as
a sex offender, H.R. 6847 would add State crimes of violence as
predicate offenses that, in turn, would require the imposition of a
mandatory 5-year sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence
imposed for failing to register or comply with sex offender
registration, again, taking away the discretion of the court.
The bill would also add prior military child sex offenses to several
recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory minimum
penalties of at least 15 years to life.
Lastly, the bill would amend section 2251 to create two new offenses
that prohibit causing the production of a visual depiction of a minor
engaged in sexually explicit conduct and the transmission or causing
the transmission of a live visual depiction of a minor engaged in
sexually explicit conduct, such as live-streaming.
In effect, these provisions would add a new class of offenders
subject to mandatory minimum sentencing, specifically 15 to 30 years in
prison. Yet this bill fails to provide any Romeo and Juliet exceptions.
Consequently, the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and
when the victim and offender are close in age.
For example, if a 19-year-old and 17-year-old videoed themselves
engaged in a sexual act and email the video to their own email account,
the 19-year-old would be subject to mandatory minimums set by section
2251 as amended by this bill. That is why I offered an amendment when
this issue was last heard before our committee.
My amendment would have been the Romeo and Juliet, which would have
simply amended the provision that defines which juvenile adjudications
of delinquency qualify as offenses which trigger mandatory
registration.
As harsh as we need to be on these offenses, I am also concerned that
we look to the reform of the juvenile system and not criminalize acts
between juveniles. It would have added a new requirement that an
adjudication for an otherwise qualifying offense would trigger the
registration only if the judge presiding over the delinquency
proceedings finds that the registration is necessary to protect the
public safety based on a variety of factors.
We all have the same common goal, and that common goal is to protect
our children; but, unfortunately, there are children who are actors in
this, and we want to allow the judge to discern what harsh penalties
they should get. Frankly, my Romeo and Juliet amendment would have
responded to two kids doing what kids sometimes do. Unfortunately,
those provisions were not included.
For far too long, the Federal criminal justice system has relied on
an unsustainable system of mass incarceration that is largely driven by
inflexible mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums are not
necessary to impose appropriate sentences.
The judge at sentencing has all the information he or she needs to
impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed and the
culpability of the offender. Therefore, I note the issues that we have
with a good bill and then the imposition of mandatory minimums.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce and former member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6847. The legislation
exposes additional persons to preexisting mandatory minimum sentences
of 15, 25, 35, or even mandatory life in prison. While I support the
underlying goal of punishing sex offenders and I agree that they should
be punished harshly, I stand against mandatory minimums.
For decades now, extensive research and evidence has demonstrated
that mandatory minimums fail to reduce crime; they discriminate against
minorities; they waste the taxpayer's money; and they 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 that problem and
actually address this driver of mass incarceration, the first step we
have to take is to stop passing or expanding mandatory minimums.
The mandatory minimums in the code today did not get there all at
once. They got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill,
which, on balance, would seem like a good idea.
Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred
that the mandatory minimum not be in the bill but then vote for the
bill anyway not only creates the new mandatory minimum, but it also
guarantees that those who support mandatory minimums would include them
in the next
[[Page H8843]]
crime bill. Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory
minimums is to stop passing bills that contain or broaden the
application of mandatory minimums.
This bill is particularly appalling because it would impose mandatory
minimum sentences on teenagers who are doing what many teenagers do.
For example, teenage sexting is widespread, that is, texting sexually
explicit pictures. Under this bill, teenagers who privately send photos
of a sexual nature to each other may be prosecuted, and, if convicted,
the judge must sentence them to at least 15 years in prison.
The bill explicitly states that some of these mandatory minimums will
apply equally to attempts or conspiracies. 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 at least 15 years for making that attempt. Or if a teenager
encourages a friend to ask another classmate to send the sexually
explicit image, the friend agrees to do so and asks her, they are both
guilty of conspiracy and the judge must sentence both of them to at
least 15 years in prison.
Now, the term ``sexually explicit conduct'' actually includes
simulated conduct. This means if a teenager asks another teenager for a
photo simulating sex, then that minor, even if the minor is fully
clothed, the law is violated. The teenager must get 15 years in prison.
The bill does not allow the judge to consider the fact that the
conduct may be consensual conduct between minors or consensual between
a 17-year-old or an 18-year-old. These circumstances are irrelevant
when the sentence is mandatory.
In many cases covered by the bill, the draconian penalties are
appropriate; in others, the penalties are just absurd. But because they
are mandatory in the bill, they would have to be imposed anyway.
This bill wouldn't be controversial if it did not expand mandatory
minimum sentences, but, unfortunately, it does. I, therefore, urge my
colleagues to oppose this legislation.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, those who commit crimes against children--as I started
out, I have been engaged in the tragedy of Adam Walsh from almost the
very beginning and certainly support that legislation, but we realize
that we must be very vigilant as relates to our children. There is no
quarrel with that.
There is a question of mandatory minimums and the importance of
giving our courts that discretion. So those who commit crimes against
children deserve to be punished, and repeat offenders most certainly
deserve to face increased penalties.
Nevertheless, there is a mass of us who have seen the results of
mandatory minimums that result in mass incarceration. I oppose
mandatory minimum sentencing and, therefore, this legislation. I
believe that judges are best suited to determine just and appropriate
punishment in these matters. It would have been more appropriate to
separate out the Adam Walsh reauthorization legislation.
Even conservative groups agree that expanding the imposition of
mandatory minimum sentences is costly and unjust. Yet, without
mandatory minimum sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses
would still receive appropriately lengthy sentences.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that again. Yet, without mandatory minimum
sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses would still
receive appropriately lengthy sentences.
How can we underestimate the judgment of our Federal courts and
others who see these cases and know the dastardliness of them? We
should not create a one-size-fits-all policy approach.
For the foregoing reasons, I would like to have these bills divided
so that we can move on good bills and begin to work together for the
appropriate way to punish, and punish strongly, but not build on the
mountain of mass incarceration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6847, the ``Preventing
Child Exploitation Act of 2018,'' for several reasons.
Regrettably, I must oppose this bill because, although it
substantially includes the text of H.R. 1188, the ``Adam Walsh
Reauthorization Act,'' which both the House Judiciary Committee and the
House passed last year, H.R. 6847 also includes the text of three other
bills, H.R. 1761, H.R. 1842, and H.R. 1862 that, although the House
passed last year, would expand the scope of unjust mandatory minimum
sentencing provisions.
The Adam Walsh Act established the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act--often referred to as ``SORNA''--as a national system
for the registration of sex offenders.
The Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act, as included in H.R. 6847,
reflects changes recommended to SORNA by the Judiciary Committee when
it last reauthorized the Adam Walsh Act in 2012 to improve the
requirements for states to register sex offenders.
States that fail to substantially implement SORNA are subject to a
10% reduction in federal grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program.
Commendably, the reauthorization provisions included in H.R. 6847
would allow states discretion in determining whether juvenile sex
offender information will be publicly accessible via the Internet.
And, it would reduce the time that certain, but not all, juvenile sex
offenders adjudicated as delinquent are required to register from 25
years to 15 years.
I welcome these changes as steps in the right direction to address
some of the existing concerns with SORNA, which is why I supported H.R.
1188 last year.
Unfortunately, H.R. 6847 also incorporates a problematic provision
that would add new offenses to the Criminal Code requiring mandatory
life imprisonment for certain repeat sex offenders.
Under Section 3559(e) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code, a defendant who
has been previously convicted of a felony federal or state sex offense
committed against a child--and who is guilty of a predicate federal sex
offense against a child--must be sentenced to life in prison.
H.R. 6847 would amend Section 3559 to add more federal predicate
offenses on which to base imposition of a life sentence, namely sexual
contact with a minor under the age of 12, aggravated sexual contact
with minors between the ages of 12 and 15, and illicit sexual conduct
with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen.
The bill would also remove the requirement that a federal predicate
offense relating to coercion or enticement of a minor be related to
prostitution.
As a result, this bill would allow coercion or enticement of a minor
into any criminal sexual activity to serve as a basis for imposition of
a mandatory life sentence.
Repeat offenders should, of course, be subject to increased
penalties, and for some offenses life imprisonment is appropriate. Yet,
Congress should not mandate life imprisonment as the only sentencing
option.
Another set of problematic provisions within H.R. 6847 unfortunately
results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum sentences.
In addition to the federal crimes of violence already included in the
statute providing penalties for failing to register as a sex offender,
H.R. 6847 would add state crimes of violence as predicate offenses
that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory 5-year
prison sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for
failing to register or comply with sex offender registration.
And, the bill would also add prior military child sex offenses to
several recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory
minimum penalties of at least 15 years or life.
Lastly, H.R. would amend section 2251 to create two new offenses that
would prohibit causing the production of a visual depiction of a minor
engaged in sexually explicit conduct; and the transmission, or causing
the transmission of, a live visual depiction of a minor engaged in
sexually explicit conduct, such as live streaming. In effect, these
provisions would add new classes of offenders subject to mandatory
minimum sentencing, specifically 15 to 30 years in prison. Yet, this
bill fails to provide any ``Romeo and Juliet'' exceptions.
Consequently, the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and
when the victim and offender are close in age. For example, if a 19-
year-old and a 17-year-old videoed themselves engaged in a sexual act,
then emailed the video to their own email accounts, the 19-year-old
would be subject to the mandatory minimums set by Section 2251, as
amended by this bill.
Unfortunately, the commendable provisions to reauthorize the Adam
Walsh Act in H.R. 6847 are weighed down by the bill's inclusion of
various problematic proposals that will expand mandatory minimum
sentencing.
For far too long, the federal criminal justice system has relied on
an unsustainable system of mass-incarceration that is largely driven by
inflexible mandatory minimum sentencing.
Mandatory minimums are not necessary to impose appropriate sentences.
The judge at
[[Page H8844]]
sentencing has all the information he or she needs to impose a sentence
commensurate with the crime committed and the culpability of the
offender.
Therefore, I must oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Those who commit crimes against children deserve to be punished and
repeat offenders most certainly deserve to face increased penalties.
Nevertheless, I oppose mandatory minimum sentencing and, therefore, I
must oppose this legislation. I believe that judges are best suited to
determine just and appropriate punishments in these matters.
Even conservative groups agree that expanding the imposition of
mandatory minimum sentences is costly and unjust. Yet, without
mandatory minimum sentences, individuals convicted of serious offenses
would still receive appropriately lengthy sentences, but we should not
create a one-size-fits-all policy approach.
For the foregoing reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 6847.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. ROBY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
close.
Mr. Speaker, first, we need to make clear that this bill does not
expand law to go after teenagers for sexting. Under present law,
technically, such changes may be possible. However, we know of no
instance where the Department of Justice has pursued such cases.
When these bills were initially passed, the press falsely claimed
that they would make it possible for DOJ to go after teen sexting. This
is completely reckless journalism. Apparently, these journalists did
not participate in any sort of fact checking, which would have merely
consisted of opening a U.S. Criminal Code book. They also continually
cite State cases as examples of Federal prosecutors acting
aggressively, which is similarly extremely misleading. If our friends
across the aisle would like to draw our attention to any cases where
the Federal Government prosecuted consensual teen sexting, we would be
happy to look at them.
Last year, we offered to work on a provision to provide an
affirmative defense in this chapter of the code, despite no evidence
that it is necessary, but we were not taken up on our offer.
{time} 1945
None of these bills, Mr. Speaker, create new mandatory minimum
sentences. Instead, they modify the existing statutory framework to
ensure the existing enhancements are applied equitably and to close
certain loopholes.
Some of the conduct covered is modestly expanded, but that is done
commensurate with the crime. These recidivism enhancements are for
these predatory crimes, especially where the defendant has previously
sexually abused a child, which is the case for the enhancement in 18
U.S.C. 3559(e).
Society's laws need to address the problems of the day and protect
the public, especially our children. Sex crimes against children are
ubiquitous. Their number, as we heard in our child protection hearing
last month, is growing.
Additionally, the offenses are becoming more depraved, and the
victims are getting younger. There is no sign of slowing down, and
present law does not appear to be keeping up with the numbers.
The gravity and growing prevalence of these crimes merit an
appropriate societal response to have a proper deterrent effect. The
enhancements provide this deterrent effect.
In addition, these child sex crimes are vastly underreported. In
these sexual exploitation crimes, the victims are often very young and
very impressionable. They are often scarred for life as a result of
horrific abuse. The punishment must fit the crime, especially where it
involves our children.
Again, my appeal to my colleagues is to consider this bill, not just
as a Member of Congress, but, again, as a parent, a grandparent, an
aunt, an uncle, and a friend. I urge my colleagues to adopt this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6847, 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.
____________________