[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.

                          ____________________