[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 201 (Thursday, December 20, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H10396-H10401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE REAUTHORIZATION ACT of 2018
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (S. 2961) to reauthorize subtitle A of the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
s. 2961
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 ``Victims of Child Abuse Act
Reauthorization Act of 2018''.
SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.
(a) Findings.--Section 211 of the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20301) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``2,000,000'' and
inserting ``3,300,000'';
(2) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by inserting ``improve positive outcomes for the
child,'' before ``and increase''; and
(B) by striking ``; and'' and inserting a semicolon;
(3) in paragraph (7), by striking ``could be duplicated in
many jurisdictions throughout the country.'' and inserting
``have expanded dramatically throughout the United States;
and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) State chapters of children's advocacy center networks
are needed to--
``(A) assist local communities in coordinating their
multidisciplinary child abuse investigation, prosecution, and
intervention services; and
``(B) provide oversight of, and training and technical
assistance in, the effective delivery of evidence-informed
programming.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 212 of the Victims of Child Abuse
Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20302) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraphs (3) and (6);
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (7), (8), and (9)
as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively;
(3) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated, by striking
``and'' at the end;
(4) in paragraph (7), as so redesignated, by striking the
period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) the term `State chapter' means a membership
organization that provides technical assistance, training,
coordination, grant administration, oversight, and support to
local children's advocacy centers, multidisciplinary teams,
and communities working to implement a multidisciplinary
response to child abuse in the provision of evidence-informed
initiatives, including mental health counseling, forensic
interviewing, multidisciplinary team coordination, and victim
advocacy.''.
(c) Regional Children's Advocacy Centers.--Section 213 of
the Victims of Child
[[Page H10397]]
Abuse Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20303) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``with the Director and''
(B) by striking paragraph (2);
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively;
(D) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking
``and'' at the end;
(E) in paragraph (3), as so redesignated--
(i) by inserting after ``mental health care professionals''
the following: ``, law enforcement officers, child protective
service workers, forensic interviewers, prosecutors, and
victim advocates,'';
(ii) by striking ``medical'' each place that term appears;
and
(iii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(F) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) collaborate with State chapters to provide training,
technical assistance, coordination, and oversight to--
``(A) local children's advocacy centers; and
``(B) communities that want to develop local children's
advocacy centers.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``, in coordination with the Director,'';
(ii) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the prevention,
judicial handling, and treatment of child abuse and neglect;
and'' and inserting ``multidisciplinary team investigation,
trauma-informed interventions, and evidence-informed
treatment,''; and
(iv) by striking subparagraph (C); and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking
``communities'' and inserting ``communities, local children's
advocacy centers, multidisciplinary teams, and State
chapters'';
(II) in clause (i), by inserting ``and expanding'' after
``developing'';
(III) by redesignating clauses (ii) through (x) as clauses
(iii) through (xi), respectively;
(IV) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) in promoting the effective delivery of the evidence-
informed Children's Advocacy Model and the multidisciplinary
response to child abuse, including best practices in--
``(I) organizational support and development;
``(II) programmatic evaluation; and
``(III) financial oversight of Federal funding;'';
(V) in clause (iii), as so redesignated, by striking ``a
freestanding facility where interviews of and services for
abused children can be provided'' and inserting ``child-
friendly facilities for the investigation of, assessment of,
and intervention in abuse''; and
(VI) in clause (iv), as so redesignated, by striking
``multiple'' and inserting ``duplicative''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and interested
communities'' after ``advocacy centers'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``remedial counseling
to'' and inserting ``evidence-informed services for'';
(B) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by striking
``multidisciplinary child abuse program'' and inserting
``children's advocacy center''; and
(C) in paragraph (4)(B)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``, in
coordination with the Director,'';
(ii) by striking clause (iii); and
(iii) by redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses
(iii) and (iv), respectively;
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, in coordination with
the Director,'';
(B) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``and the Director''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Discontinuation of
funding.--'' and all that follows through ``Upon
discontinuation'' and inserting the following:
``Discontinuation of funding.--Upon discontinuation''; and
(5) by striking subsections (e) and (f).
(d) Local Children's Advocacy Centers.--Section 214 of the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20304) is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--The Administrator, in coordination with
the Director of the Office of Victims of Crime, shall make
grants to--
``(1) develop and enhance multidisciplinary child abuse
investigations, intervention, and prosecution; and
``(2) promote the effective delivery of the evidence-
informed Children's Advocacy Model and the multidisciplinary
response to child abuse, including best practices in
programmatic evaluation and financial oversight of Federal
funding.'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``Human
Trafficking and'' before ``Child Pornography'';
(B) by striking ``with the Director and''; and
(C) by inserting ``human trafficking and'' before ``child
pornography'';
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``Director'' and inserting
``Administrator''; and
(ii) by striking ``this section'' and inserting
``subsections (a) and (b)''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``social service'' and
inserting ``child protective service'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the `counseling
center' '' and inserting ``a `children's advocacy center' '';
(iii) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``sexual and serious
physical abuse and neglect cases to the counseling center''
and inserting ``child abuse cases that meet designated
referral criteria to the children's advocacy center'';
(iv) in subparagraph (D)--
(I) by striking ``investigative'' and inserting
``forensic''; and
(II) by striking ``social service'' and inserting ``child
protective service'';
(v) by striking subparagraph (E);
(vi) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (J) as
subparagraphs (E) through (I), respectively;
(vii) in subparagraph (E), as so redesignated, by striking
``counseling center'' and inserting ``children's advocacy
center or an agency with which there is a linkage agreement
regarding the delivery of multidisciplinary child abuse
investigation, prosecution, and intervention services'';
(viii) in subparagraph (F), as so redesignated, by striking
``minimize the number of interviews that a child victim must
attend'' and inserting ``eliminate duplicative forensic
interviews with a child victim'';
(ix) in subparagraph (G), as so redesignated, by striking
``multidisciplinary program'' and inserting ``children's
advocacy center'';
(x) in subparagraph (H), as so redesignated, by inserting
``intervention and'' before ``judicial proceedings''; and
(xi) in subparagraph (I), as so redesignated, by striking
``Director'' and inserting ``Administrator'';
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``the Director'' and inserting ``the
Administrator''; and
(B) by striking ``both large and small States'' and
inserting ``all States that are eligible for such grants,
including large and small States,''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Grants to State Chapters for Assistance to Local
Children's Advocacy Centers.--In awarding grants under this
section, the Administrator shall ensure that a portion of the
grants is distributed to State chapters to enable State
chapters to provide technical assistance, training,
coordination, and oversight to other recipients of grants
under this section in providing evidence-informed
initiatives, including mental health counseling, forensic
interviewing, multidisciplinary team coordination, and victim
advocacy.''.
(e) Grants for Specialized Technical Assistance and
Training Programs.--Section 214A of the Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20305) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``to attorneys'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``to--
``(1) attorneys and other allied professionals instrumental
to the criminal prosecution of child abuse cases in State or
Federal courts, for the purpose of improving the quality of
criminal prosecution of such cases; and
``(2) child abuse professionals instrumental to the
protection of children, intervention in child abuse cases,
and treatment of victims of child abuse, for the purpose of--
``(A) improving the quality of such protection,
intervention, and treatment; and
``(B) promoting the effective delivery of the evidence-
informed Children's Advocacy Model and the multidisciplinary
response to child abuse, including best practices in
programmatic evaluation and financial oversight of Federal
funding.'';
(2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Grantee Organizations.--
``(1) Prosecutors.--An organization to which a grant is
made for specific training and technical assistance for
prosecutors under subsection (a)(1) shall be one that has--
``(A) a broad representation of attorneys who prosecute
criminal cases in State courts; and
``(B) demonstrated experience in providing training and
technical assistance for prosecutors.
``(2) Child abuse professionals.--An organization to which
a grant is made for specific training and technical
assistance for child abuse professionals under subsection
(a)(2) shall be one that has--
``(A) a diverse portfolio of training and technical
resources for the diverse professionals responding to child
abuse, including a digital library to promote evidence-
informed practice; and
``(B) demonstrated experience in providing training and
technical assistance for child abuse professionals,
especially law enforcement officers, child protective service
workers, prosecutors, forensic interviewers, medical
professionals, victim advocates, and mental health
professionals.''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(2), by inserting after ``shall
require'' the following: ``, in the case of a grant made
under subsection (a)(1),''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 214B of the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20306) is
amended--
[[Page H10398]]
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``sections 213 and 214''
and all that follows and inserting the following: ``sections
213 and 214, $16,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019
through 2023.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``section 214A'' and all
that follows and inserting the following: ``section 214A,
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023.''.
(g) Accountability.--Section 214C of the Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990 (34 U.S.C. 20307) is amended--
(1) by striking ``All grants awarded'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--All grants awarded''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Reporting.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Attorney General shall submit to the Committee on the
Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House of Representatives a report that--
``(1) summarizes the efforts of the Administrator to
monitor and evaluate the regional children's advocacy program
activities under section 213(d);
``(2) describes--
``(A) the method by which amounts are allocated to grantees
and subgrantees under this subtitle, including to local
children's advocacy centers, State chapters, and regional
children's advocacy program centers; and
``(B) steps the Attorney General has taken to minimize
duplication and overlap in the awarding of amounts under this
subtitle; and
``(3) analyzes the extent to which both rural and urban
populations are served under the regional children's advocacy
program.''.
(h) Technical and Conforming Amendments Relating to Title
34, United States Code.--The Victims of Child Abuse Act of
1990 (34 U.S.C. 20301 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 212(1) (34 U.S.C. 20302), by striking ``(42
U.S.C. 5611(b))'' and inserting ``(34 U.S.C. 11111(b))'';
(2) in section 214(c)(1) (34 U.S.C. 20304(c)(1)), by
striking ``(42 U.S.C. 5665 et seq.)'' and inserting ``(34
U.S.C. 11183, 11186)'';
(3) in section 214A(c)(1) (34 U.S.C. 20305(c)(1)), by
striking ``(42 U.S.C. 5665 et seq.)'' and inserting ``(34
U.S.C. 11183, 11186)'';
(4) in section 217(c)(1) (34 U.S.C. 20323(c)(1)), by
striking ``(42 U.S.C. 5665 et seq.)'' and inserting ``(34
U.S.C. 11183, 11186)''; and
(5) in section 223(c) (34 U.S.C. 20333(c)), by striking
``(42 U.S.C. 5665 et seq.)'' and inserting ``(34 U.S.C.
11183, 11186)''.
SEC. 3. IMMUNITY PROTECTIONS FOR REPORTERS OF CHILD ABUSE.
(a) State Plans.--Section 106(b)(2)(B)(vii) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5106a(b)(2)(B)(vii)) is amended to read as follows:
``(vii) provisions for immunity from civil or criminal
liability under State and local laws and regulations for
individuals making good faith reports of suspected or known
instances of child abuse or neglect, or who otherwise provide
information or assistance, including medical evaluations or
consultations, in connection with a report, investigation, or
legal intervention pursuant to a good faith report of child
abuse or neglect;''.
(b) Federal Immunity.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any individual making a good faith report to appropriate
authorities of a suspected or known instance of child abuse
or neglect, or who otherwise, in good faith, provides
information or assistance, including medical evaluations or
consultations, in connection with a report, investigation, or
legal intervention pursuant to a good faith report of child
abuse or neglect shall not be subject to civil liability or
criminal prosecution, under any Federal law, rising from
making such report or providing such information or
assistance.
(2) Presumption of good faith.--In a Federal civil action
or criminal prosecution brought against a person based on the
person's reporting a suspected or known instance of child
abuse or neglect, or providing information or assistance with
respect to such a report, as described in paragraph (1),
there shall be a presumption that the person acted in good
faith.
(3) Costs.--If the defendant prevails in a Federal civil
action described in paragraph (2), the court may award costs
and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the defendant.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Collins) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous materials on S. 2961, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation takes a number of positive steps to
protect children; for example, it reauthorizes the appropriation of
Federal grant funds until 2023 for the Department of Justice programs
to prevent child abuse and assist victims of such crimes.
In doing so, the bill also provides important liability protection
for mandatory reporters such as, and including, pediatricians,
educators, and law enforcement. This will protect these individuals
from criminal and civil liability from not just reporting suspected
child abuse, which they are mandated to do, but also for assisting with
investigations of suspected child abuse.
Mr. Speaker, as a father, I can think of no greater responsibility
than protecting the most vulnerable among us, our children.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2961, the Victims of Child Abuse
Act Reauthorization. This bill updates and reauthorizes this important
law so that we can better prevent and address child abuse in our
communities.
This is very important legislation, just for the fact of the number
of children that are abused. In my own community in Texas and in the
city of Houston, we have had some atrocious cases; one just reported in
our newspaper of a 5-year-old under a stairwell, locked, lying flat on
his back, weighing 70 pounds, with no food and water, abused by two
parents, the step-child of one of the parents. What a horrific and
horrible life.
The Administration for Children and Families reported that over 4.1
million referrals for 7.4 million children were made to Child
Protective Services in the United States in 2016.
Our Federal Government must provide resources to ensure that these
cases are carefully, compassionately, and comprehensively addressed at
the local level.
This bill recognizes the sensitivity of these issues and helps
integrate social services, mental and physical healthcare, and law
enforcement.
With the resources and legislative updates in this bill, child
advocacy centers can extend their outreach to underserved communities
and expand programs, such as offering longer term counseling.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Representatives Poe and Costa here in
the House and Senators Blunt and Coons in the Senate for leadership on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again I just want to emphasize it couldn't be a better
day for us, especially with the First Step Act and the things we are
moving forward on criminal justice. I join the gentlewoman from Texas
in saying this is a good bill, and I urge adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record several letters
dealing with S. 756: a letter from the ACLU; a letter from the Judicial
Conference of the United States; and a letter from the Center for
American Progress.
The Leadership Conference, ACLU,
Washington, DC, December 19, 2018.
Re THE ACLU AND THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT
5.756, THE FIRST STEP Act.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and The Leadership
Conference on Civil and Human Rights, we write to urge you to
vote YES on S. 756, the FIRST STEP Act. This legislation is a
next step towards desperately needed federal criminal justice
reform, but for all its benefits, much more needs to be done.
The inclusion of concrete sentencing reforms in the new and
improved Senate version of the FIRST STEP Act is a modest
improvement, but many people will be left in prison to serve
long draconian sentences because some provisions of the
legislation are not retroactive. The revised FIRST STEP Act,
however, is not without problems. The bill continues to
exclude individuals from benefiting from some provisions
based solely on their
[[Page H10399]]
prior offenses, namely citizenship and immigration status, as
well as certain prior drug convictions and their ``risk
score'' as determined by a discriminatory risk assessment
system. While these concerns remain a priority for our
organizations and we will advocate for improvements in the
future, ultimately the improvements to the federal sentencing
scheme will have a net positive impact on the lives of some
of the people harmed by our broken justice system and we urge
you to vote YES on S. 756. The ACLU and The Leadership
Conference will include your votes on our updated voting
scorecards for the 115th Congress.
Over the past four to five decades, U.S. criminal justice
policies have driven an increase in incarceration rates that
is unprecedented in this country and unmatched elsewhere in
the world. Our country has over 20 percent of the world's
incarcerated individuals, despite having less than five
percent of the world's population. In 2015, the U.S. Justice
Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that 6.7
million persons were involved in the adult correctional
systems in this country and almost 2.2 millions were in
prisons or jail. More than 180,000 of these people are in
federal prison, almost half of whom are there for drug
offenses.
The most recent data indicate that the United States spends
almost $81 billion per year on corrections systems--prisons,
jails, parole, and probation--and this figure does not
include the costs of policing and court systems. The cost of
the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) accounts for nearly a
third of the Department of Justice's discretionary budget.
Federal incarceration has become one of our nation's biggest
expenditures, swallowing the budget of federal law
enforcement. It costs more than $36,000 a year to house just
one federal inmate, almost four times the average yearly cost
of tuition at a public university.
While the dollar amounts are astounding, the toll that our
U.S. criminal justice policies have taken on black and brown
communities across the nation goes far beyond the enormous
amount of money that is spent. This country's extraordinary
incarceration rates impose much greater costs than simply the
fiscal expenditures necessary to incarcerate over 20 percent
of the world's prisoners. The true costs of this country's
addiction to incarceration must be measured in human lives
and particularly the generations of young black and Latino
men who serve long prison sentences and are lost to their
families and communities. The Senate version of the FIRST
STEP Act makes some modest improvements to the current
federal system.
I. Sentencing Reform Changes to House-passed FIRST STEP
Act--Sentencing reform is the key to slowing down the flow of
people going into our prisons. This makes sentencing reform
pivotal to addressing mass incarceration, prison
overcrowding, and the exorbitant costs of incarceration. As a
result of our coalition's advocacy, the new FIRST STEP Act
added some important sentencing reform provisions from SRCA,
which will aid us in tackling these issues on the federal
level. These important changes in federal law will result in
fewer people being subjected to harsh mandatory minimums.
Expands the Existing Safety Valve. The revised bill expands
eligibility for the existing safety valve under 18 U.S.C.
3553(f) from one to four criminal history points if a person
does not have prior 2-point convictions for crimes of
violence or drug trafficking offenses and prior 3-point
convictions. Under the expanded safety valve, judges will
have discretion to make a person eligible for the safety
valve in cases where the seriousness of his or her criminal
history is overrepresented, or it is unlikely he or she would
commit other crimes. This crucial expansion of the safety
valve will reduce sentences for an estimated 2,100 people per
year.
Retroactive Application of Fair Sentencing Act (FSA). The
new version of FIRST STEP Act would retroactively apply the
statutory changes of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA),
which reduced the disparity in sentence lengths between crack
and powder cocaine. This change in the law will allow people
who were sentenced under the harsh and discriminatory 100 to
1 crack to powder cocaine ratio to be resentenced under the
2010 law. This long overdue improvement would allow over
2,600 people the chance to be resentenced.
Reforms the Unfair Two-Strikes and Three-Strikes Laws. The
new version of FIRST STEP would reduce the impact of certain
mandatory minimums. It would reduce the mandatory life
sentence for a third drug felony to a mandatory minimum
sentence of 25 years and reduce the 20-year mandatory minimum
for a second drug felony to 15 years.
Eliminates 924(c) ``stacking''. The revised bill would also
amend 18 U.S.C. 924(c), which currently allows ``stacking,''
or consecutive sentences for gun charges stemming from a
single incident committed during a drug crime or a crime of
violence. The legislation would require a prior gun
conviction to be final before a person could be subject to an
enhanced sentence for possession of a firearm. This provision
in federal law has resulted in very long and unjust
sentences.
II. Prison Reform Changes to House-passed FIRST STEP Act,
H.R. 3356--The revised bill also made some strides in
improving some of the problematic prison reform provisions.
The new bill strengthened oversight over the new risk
assessment system, limited the discretion of the attorney
general, and increased funding for prison programming, among
other things. The bill now does the following:
Establishes an Independent Review Committee. The revised
bill establishes an Independent Review Committee (IRC) of
outside experts to assist the Attorney General in the
development of the risk and needs assessment system. The
National Institute of Justice would select a nonpartisan,
nonprofit organization with expertise in risk and needs
assessments to host the IRC. This added guardrail will help
to ensure the risk and needs assessment system is evidence-
based and potentially help to mitigate any harms.
Permits Early Community Release and Loosens Restrictions on
Home Confinement. The House-passed FIRST STEP Act limited the
use of earned credits to time in prerelease custody (halfway
house or home confinement). The revised bill would expand the
use of earned credits to supervised release in the community.
The bill also would permit individuals in home confinement to
participate in family-related activities that facilitate the
prisoner's successful reentry.
Increased Funding for Prison Reforms. The revised bill
would authorize $75 million annually, a 50 percent increase
over the House-passed bill's $50 million annual
authorization.
Limits Discretion to Deny Early Release. The revised bill
strikes language giving the BOP Director and/or the prison
warden broad discretion to deny release to individuals who
meet all eligibility criteria.
Mandates BOP Capacity. The revised bill mandates that BOP
ensure there is sufficient prerelease custody capacity to
accommodate all eligible prisoners. This helps to address
concerns that individuals would be unable to use their earned
credits because of waiting lists for prerelease custody.
Effectively Ends Federal Juvenile Solitary Confinement. The
revised bill significantly restricts juvenile solitary
confinement, which can cause substantial psychological
damage.
Reauthorizes Second Chance Act. The revised bill
reauthorizes the Second Chance Act, which provides federal
funding for drug treatment, vocational training, and other
reentry and recidivism programming.
While these revisions to the bill were critical to
garnering our support, we must acknowledge that some of the
more concerning aspects of the House-passed version of the
FIRST STEP Act remain.
III. Outstanding Concerns Regarding the FIRST STEP Act--The
bill continues to exclude too many people from earning time
credits, including those convicted of immigration-related
offenses. It does not retroactively apply its sentencing
reform provisions to people convicted of anything other than
crack convictions, continues to allow for-profit companies to
benefit off of incarceration, fails to address parole for
juveniles serving life sentences in federal prison, and
expands electronic monitoring.
Fails to Include Retroactivity for Enhanced Mandatory
Minimum Sentences for Prior Drug Offenses & 924(c)
``stacking.'' The bill does not include retroactivity for its
sentencing reforms besides the long-awaited retroactivity for
the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. This minimizes the overall
impact substantially. Retroactivity is a vital part of any
meaningful sentencing reform. Not only does it ensure that
the changes we make to our criminal justice system benefit
the people most impacted by it, but it's also one of the
essential policy changes to reduce mass incarceration. The
federal prison population has fallen by over 38,000 since
2013 thanks in large part to retroactive application of
sentencing guidelines approved by the U.S. Sentencing
Commission. More than 3,000 people will be left in prison
without retroactive application of the ``three strikes'' law
and the change to the 924(c) provisions in the FIRST STEP
Act.
Excludes Too Many Federal Prisoners from New Earned Time
Credits. The bill continues to exclude many federal prisoners
from earning time credits and excludes many federal prisoners
from being able to ``cash in'' the credits they earn. The
long list of exclusions in the bill sweep in, for example,
those convicted of certain immigration offenses and drug
offenses. Because immigration and drug offenses account for
53.3 percent of the total federal prison population, many
people could be excluded from utilizing the time credits they
earned after completing programming. The continued exclusion
of immigrants from the many benefits of the bill simply based
on immigration status is deeply troubling. The Senate version
of FIRST STEP maintains a categorical exclusion of people
convicted of certain immigration offenses from earning time
credits under the bill. The new version of the bill also bars
individuals from using the time credits they have earned if
they have a final order of removal. More than 12,000 people
are currently in federal prison for immigration offenses and
are disproportionately people of color. Thus, a very large
number of people in federal prison would not reap the
benefits proposed in this bill and a disproportionate number
of those excluded would be people of color. Denying early-
release credits to certain people also reduces their
incentive to complete the rehabilitative programs and
contradicts the goal of increasing public safety. Any reforms
enacted by Congress should impact a significant number of
people in federal prison and reduce racial disparities or
they will have little effect on the fiscal and human costs of
incarceration.
[[Page H10400]]
Allows Private Prison Companies to Profit. The bill also
maintains concerning provisions that could privatize
government functions and allow the Attorney General excessive
discretion. FIRST STEP provides that in order to expand
programming, BOP shall enter into partnerships with private
organizations and companies under policies developed by the
Attorney General, ``subject to appropriations.'' This could
result in the further privatization of what should be public
functions and would allow private entities to unduly profit
from incarceration.
Relies on Discriminatory Risk Assessment System. The bill
continues to give the Bureau of Prisons and the Attorney
General too much discretion in the design, implementation,
and review of the tool, including the ability for the BOP to
use an existing tool. It also continues to misuse terminology
(i.e. recidivism risk vs. risk categories), inappropriately
ties risk categories to earned time credits, and fails to
properly safeguard against unwarranted racial disparities.
Fails to Include Parole for Juveniles, Sealing and
Expungement. Under SRCA, judges would have discretion to
reduce juvenile life without parole sentences after 20 years.
It would also permit some juveniles to seal or expunge non-
violent convictions from their record. The FIRST STEP Act
does not address these important bipartisan provisions.
IV. Conclusion
Bringing fairness and dignity to our justice system is one
of the most important civil and human rights issues of our
time. The revised version of the FIRST STEP Act is a modest,
but important move towards achieving some meaningful reform
to the criminal legal system. While the bill continues to
have its problems, and we will fight to address those in the
future, it does include concrete sentencing reforms that
would impact people's lives. For these reasons, we urge you
to vote YES on S. 756.
Ultimately, the First Step Act is not the end--it is just
the next in a series of efforts over the past 10 years to
achieve important federal criminal justice reform. Congress
must take many more steps to undo the harms of the tough on
crime policies of the 80's and 90's--to create a system that
is just and equitable, significantly reduces the number of
people unnecessarily entering the system, eliminates racial
disparities, and creates opportunities for second chances.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to
contact Jesselyn McCurdy, Deputy Director, ACLU Washington
Legislative Office, at [email protected] or (202) 675-2307 or
Sakira Cook, Director, Justice Program, The Leadership
Conference, at [email protected] or (202) 263-2894.
Sincerely,
Faiz Shakir,
National Political Director, ACLU, National Political
Advocacy Dept.
Jesselyn McCurdy,
Deputy Director, ACLU, Washington Legislative Office.
Vanita Gupta,
President & CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights.
Sakira Cook, Director,
Justice Program, The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights.
Judicial Conference of
The United States,
Washington, DC, November 30, 2018.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write on behalf of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for
the federal Judiciary, regarding S. 3649, the ``First Step
Act,'' which was introduced on November 15, 2018. The
Judiciary strongly supports many of the reforms proposed by
S. 3649. We note that several provisions, however, will
impose new workload requirements on the federal Judiciary,
particularly on judges and our probation system, which will
necessitate additional resources.
Title I: Recidivism Reduction
We greatly appreciate that, unlike several of its
legislative predecessors, S. 3649 would not require Article
III judges to exercise powers that traditionally have been
exercised by officials in the executive branch in deciding
whether an inmate may be allowed to serve a portion of his or
her prison sentence in the community. Such decisions are in
the nature of parole and therefore we agree that they are
more appropriately made by the executive branch, which has
direct contact with the inmates and the most accurate and up-
to-date information about their conduct and condition.
We remain concerned, however, about the resources that the
federal probation system would be required to expend to
ensure the effective implementation of S. 3649. Specifically,
one of this bill's predecessors--H.R. 3356, the ``Prison
Reform and Redemption Act''--required the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons (``BOP'') to ``provide for the transfer of
such funds as may be necessary'' to the federal probation
system to ``supervise prisoners placed in home confinement or
community supervision.''
Unfortunately, this language is omitted from S. 3649 in
favor of a more general statement that agreements between BOP
and the federal probation system should ``take into account''
the resource requirements of the federal probation system
``to the greatest extent practicable'' when moving prisoners
to prerelease custody or supervised release.
Our position has been that reimbursement authority is
preferable to transfer authority, and we are concerned that
the explicit deletion of the transfer provision found in H.R.
3356 could be read as communicating a lack of support for the
underlying concept that the probation and pretrial services
system must be provided with the resources necessary to
execute its new responsibilities. Further, Sections 101 and
104 of S. 3649 indicate that recidivism reduction activities
at the BOP (potentially including the costs of funding
agreements with the probation system under Section 102)
should be covered by the ``savings'' realized as a result of
the implementation of this title. This may be an insufficient
or unreliable source of funding because much of the
``savings'' will be in the form of future cost avoidances
rather than current excess appropriations that could be
reinvested. Without the provision of such resources in future
appropriations acts and via other funding mechanisms, the
Judiciary will be unable to carry out the provisions of the
bill as intended without diverting resources from other
critical activities that are needed to ensure public safety
and the efficient administration of justice.
In addition to our concerns about resources that will be
needed, we also ask that you consider amending S. 3649 to
include the Judicial Conference's legislative proposal to
allow federal probation officers to conduct their official
duties more safely--which include conducting searches and
seizing contraband--by authorizing probation officers to
arrest anyone who assaults, impedes, or interferes with them
while carrying out official duties. This legislation already
has passed the House of Representatives this Congress, and
has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Title IV: Sentencing Reform
For over sixty years, the Judicial Conference has
consistently and vigorously opposed mandatory minimum
sentencing provisions and has supported measures for their
repeal or to ameliorate their effects. Mandatory minimums do
not enhance the administration of justice, but have proven to
undermine it by wasting valuable taxpayer dollars, creating
tremendous injustice in sentencing, undermining guideline
sentencing, and ultimately fostering a lack of confidence in
the criminal justice system.
S. 3649 would reduce mandatory minimum sentences for
certain offenses, which the Judicial Conference supports.
Moreover, Section 402 would expand the existing safety valve,
which is consistent with the Conference's support for
``legislation . . . that is designed to restore judges'
sentencing discretion and avoid the costs associated with
mandatory minimum sentences.'' The Conference continues to
pursue its overriding goal of persuading Congress to reduce
or repeal mandatory minimum sentences.
The Judicial Conference supports the amendment to 18 U.S.C.
924(c)(1)(C), contained in Section 403 of S. 3649, that would
clarify that the additional consecutive penalties apply only
to true repeat offenders, i.e., those with one or more
convictions that have become final prior to the commission of
such offense. Section 924(c)(1)(C) compounds the problems
created by mandatory minimums, however, by treating multiple
Section 924(c) counts in one indictment as triggers of the
statute's second-or-subsequent-conviction mandatory minimums.
Section 404 of S. 3649 would retroactively apply the ``Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010,'' which reduced the disparity between
sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses, to inmates
who had been sentenced prior to its August 3, 2010, enactment
date. This proposal is consistent with the Judicial
Conference's strategy to restore fairness to the sentences
for defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses. Noting
concern that the disparity between the sentences for powder
and crack cocaine offenses could have a corrosive effect on
public confidence in the courts, the Conference agreed to
oppose that disparity and supported its reduction.
Title V: Miscellaneous Criminal Justice
We appreciate that Section 509 of S. 3649 would help to
ensure the supervision of released sexually dangerous
persons. In the interest of ensuring public safety, the
Judicial Conference supports giving probation officers clear
statutory authority to supervise these offenders, and we are
pleased to see it included in this legislation.
We are concerned with the potential impact of Section
503(b), which would amend 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) to allow a
defendant to bring a motion on his or her own behalf for
modification of an imposed term of imprisonment, commonly
known as compassionate release. This amendment could result
in premature motions to federal courts, before administrative
appeals have been fully exhausted, thereby forcing federal
judges to decide these motions on an incomplete or
undeveloped record. Depending on how BOP implements this
provision, additional judicial resources could be required to
handle petitions for compassionate release filed by prisoners
when a warden fails to act on a prisoner's request for such
relief. It is also unclear whether the defendant would be
entitled to counsel for this process, including
[[Page H10401]]
court-appointed counsel. We may be in touch with further
observations or concerns after the Judicial Conference has
studied this issue in detail.
Relatedly, the Judicial Conference supports expanding
judges' authority to terminate supervised release for
compassionately released inmates. Ongoing supervision of
certain offenders, such as those in hospice care, may be
wasteful of public resources.
Relevant Positions of the Judicial Conference
The Judicial Conference believes that the Sentencing
Commission would benefit by having a federal defender
representative as a non-voting member. Prosecutors currently
are ably represented in the Commission's proceedings by the
ex officio non-voting member assigned to the Attorney General
or his designee.
Notably, although S. 3649 would implement sweeping
sentencing and prison reforms, it does not address the
pretrial system. Section 4285 of title 18, U.S. Code,
currently authorizes courts to order the United States
Marshals Service (``USMS'') to provide a released defendant
with non-custodial transportation and subsistence to the
court where that individual's appearance is required, when
the interests of justice would be served and the client is
financially unable to pay transportation costs. The Judicial
Conference supports giving courts the discretion, in the
interests of justice, to order the USMS to furnish, when
financially necessary, transportation and subsistence
(lodging and food) for defendants returning home from court
proceedings, and subsistence while attending such
proceedings, including for successive court appearances. This
provision would not be applicable for a defendant found by
the court to be financially able to cover these costs. Draft
statutory language for each of the aforementioned proposed
reforms was submitted to your office earlier this Congress
and is attached.
Section 3142(e) of title 18, U.S. Code, creates a
presumption that certain defendants should be detained
pending trial because a court cannot craft conditions of
supervision that would reasonably assure both the safety of
the community and the defendant's appearance at court
proceedings. The statute identifies several categories of
defendants to whom this presumption applies, including those
charged with specific drug trafficking offenses, and places
the burden on a defendant to rebut the presumption for
detention. In keeping with its support of evidence-based
supervision practices, the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts conducted a study analyzing data collected from a ten-
year period. The study reveals that a sizeable segment of
low-risk defendants fall into the category of drug
traffickers subject to the presumption of detention. The
study concluded that these defendants are detained at a high
rate, even when their criminal histories and other applicable
risk factors indicate that they pose a low risk of either
reoffending or absconding while on pretrial release, and
arguably should be released for pretrial supervision.
Legal, policy, and budgetary factors--including the
presumption of innocence and the relative costs of
incarceration versus pretrial supervision--support reducing
unnecessary pretrial detention. Therefore, at its September
2017 meeting, upon recommendation of the Criminal Law
Committee, the Judicial Conference endorsed limiting the
application of the presumption of detention to defendants
whose criminal history suggests that they pose a higher risk
of failing to appear or being a danger to the community if
released pending trial. This would enable judges to make
pretrial release decisions for low-risk defendants on a case-
by-case basis. No defendant would be automatically released
into the community if this proposal were enacted. We would be
glad to provide draft statutory language, as well as an
academic article analyzing the aforementioned study, for your
consideration.
Conclusion
Thank you for considering the federal Judiciary's views on
this important legislation. If we may be of further
assistance to you in this or any other matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us through the Office of Legislative
Affairs, Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts.
Sincerely,
James C. Duff,
Secretary.
Enclosure.
____
November 28, 2018.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles Schumer,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Chairman Grassley
and Ranking Member Feinstein: We, the International Community
Corrections Association (ICCA) and National Criminal Justice
Association (NCJA), add our voices to the many urging passage
of the First Step Act before Congress adjourns for the year.
The First Step Act of 2018 (S. 3649) is bipartisan, common
sense legislation based on innovations adopted and tested in
the states over many years. The bill would require the
federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to adopt a risk and needs
assessment system to determine the recidivism risk of each
prisoner as part of the intake process and to provide
evidence-based recidivism reduction programming based on each
individual's criminogenic needs. Eligible inmates who
successfully complete the recidivism reduction programming
and/or other productive activities shall earn time credits
allowing them to complete their sentences in a residential
reentry center or in home confinement. Further, the bill
would require BOP to ensure there is sufficient prerelease
custody capacity to accommodate all who are eligible.
The First Step Act would also restore judicial discretion
for some non-violent offenses where federal mandatory minimum
sentences have been found to be too rigid, reduce the
enhanced mandatory minimum sentence for certain firearm
offenses, and apply the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010
retroactively.
ICCA members have been at the forefront of the evidence-
based practices movement for decades. ICCA members operate
residential reentry centers and have extensive experience
delivering community-based services to justice-involved
individuals. NCJA members are the state criminal justice
planning agencies who fund and oversee community-based
services and are responsible for planning across the justice
system. NCJA members are keenly aware that successful reentry
rests on the provision and quality of community-based
services. ICCA and NCJA look forward to working closely with
BOP on implementation of the bill.
The First Step Act is important legislation and we urge its
swift passage.
Sincerely,
Ellen Donnarumma.
President, International Community Corrections Association.
Christian Kervick,
President, National Criminal Justice Association.
[From the Center for American Progress, Dec. 19, 2018]
____
Statement: The Center for American Progress Applauds the Senate for
Passing the FIRST STEP Act
(By Julia Cusick)
Washington, D.C.--Yesterday, the Senate passed the FIRST
STEP Act by an 87-12 bipartisan vote. The bill would reform
the federal criminal justice system by revising some
sentencing laws and letting judges consider sentences below
the mandatory minimum for more people. The legislation would
also establish a system of programs to provide incarcerated
people with skills and tools to succeed when they go back to
their communities after serving their sentence. Following the
passage of the bill, Ed Chung, vice president for Criminal
justice Reform at the Center for American Progress, provided
the following statement:
The Center for American Progress applauds the Senate for
passing the FIRST STEP Act with overwhelming bipartisan
support. The Senate's version of the legislation, while far
from perfect, includes crucial sentencing reforms that safely
reduce the footprint of the federal criminal justice system
from the front end. Additionally, the Senate added important
checks on the U.S. Department of Justice as it creates a risk
and needs assessment and a system of programs and education
in the Bureau of Prisons.
These changes, which were priorities of CAP when we
announced our support for the bill, would not have been
possible without the leadership of Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL),
Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kamala Harris
(D-CA). These champions all resisted earlier calls to accept
a more moderated version of the bill that omitted sentencing
reforms and made sure the legislation was as progressive as
possible in the current political climate. We look forward to
the House quickly passing this version of the bill followed
by enactment of the legislation in the coming days.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support S. 2961
to save our children, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 2961.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________