[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8182-8186]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              STRENGTHENING CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT OF 2017

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1842) to amend title 18, United States Code, to include 
State crimes of violence as grounds for an enhanced penalty when sex 
offenders fail to register or report certain information as required by 
Federal law, to include prior military offenses for purposes of 
recidivist sentencing provisions, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1842

       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 ``Strengthening Children's 
     Safety Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. FAILURE OF SEX OFFENDERS TO REGISTER.

       Section 2250(d) of title 18, United State Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``Federal law (including the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice),'' the following: ``State law,''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Definition.--In this section, the term `crime of 
     violence' has the meaning given such term in section 16.''.

     SEC. 3. PRIOR MILITARY OFFENSES INCLUDED FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   RECIDIVIST SENTENCING PROVISIONS.

       (a) Aggravated Sexual Abuse.--Section 2241(c) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``State 
     offense'' the following: ``or an offense under the Uniform 
     Code of Military Justice''.
       (b) Sexual Exploitation of Children.--Section 2251(e) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``section 920 of

[[Page 8183]]

     title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice), or under'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``the Uniform Code of Military Justice or''.
       (c) Certain Activities Relating to Material Involving the 
     Sexual Exploitation of Minors.--Section 2252 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``section 920 of 
     title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice), or under'' and inserting ``the Uniform Code of 
     Military Justice or''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``section 920 of 
     title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice), or under'' and inserting ``the Uniform Code of 
     Military Justice or''.
       (d) Certain Activities Relating to Material Constituting or 
     Containing Child Pornography.--Section 2252A of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``section 920 of 
     title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice), or under'' and inserting ``the Uniform Code of 
     Military Justice or''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``section 920 of 
     title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice), or under'' and inserting ``the Uniform Code of 
     Military Justice or''.
       (e) Repeat Offenders.--Section 2426(b)(1)(B) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``State 
     law'' the following: ``or the Uniform Code of Military 
     Justice''.
       (f) Sentencing Classification.--Section 3559 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (e)(2)(B)--
       (A) by striking ``State sex offense'' and inserting ``State 
     or Military sex offense''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``under State law'' the following: 
     ``or the Uniform Code of Military Justice''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(2)(C), by inserting after ``State'' 
     the following: ``or Military''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1842, currently under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  For victims, the effects of child sexual abuse are devastating. It 
disrupts the victim's development and increases the likelihood that he 
or she will experience other sexual assaults in the future, and it is, 
likely, one of the most underreported crimes in the United States. That 
is why we have to do all we can to prevent these crimes. We promote 
prevention by closely monitoring sex offenders and by imposing 
recidivist enhancements on those who have shown a proclivity to abuse 
children.
  H.R. 1842, the Strengthening Children's Safety Act of 2017, closes 
two significant loopholes to help accomplish these goals.
  First, the bill closes a loophole in the statute that criminalizes a 
sex offender's failure to register. Under current law, a sex offender 
who fails to comply with registration requirements is guilty of a 
crime. An enhanced penalty applies to offenders who, while in 
noncompliant status, commit a Federal crime of violence, a crime of 
violence under the D.C. Code, a military code crime of violence, a 
Tribal crime of violence, or a crime of violence in any territory or 
possession of the United States. This is logical since offenders who 
have been convicted of both crimes against children and crimes of 
violence are deserving of more severe punishment.
  However, significantly, this provision fails to include offenders who 
have been convicted of crimes of violence under State laws. It makes no 
sense that a person convicted of a crime of violence under the D.C. 
Code is subject to an enhanced penalty, while a person who committed 
the same offense in Virginia would not be. Given their propensity for 
violence, these offenders, regardless of what U.S. jurisdiction 
convicts them, must be held accountable when they fall off the radar.
  The bill further ensures that those offenders who have been 
previously convicted of sex crimes under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice are exposed to the same recidivist enhancements as those 
convicted of the same crimes in Federal, State, and Tribal courts. The 
way the U.S. Code is currently written, many of these Federal 
recidivist statutes unintentionally fail to cover significant sex 
crimes committed under military law, including certain child 
pornography offenses. Again, it is important that repeat offenders are 
subject to the same sentencing enhancements, no matter where they were 
convicted, in order to protect our children.
  H.R. 1842 is commonsense legislation that closes loopholes in Federal 
law, promotes uniformity, and will help keep our children safe.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), a member of 
the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this important bill, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1842, a bill that is 
intended to address gaps in our child protection laws.
  Now, this bill makes a number of changes to the Federal criminal code 
that, unfortunately, makes the same error that was previously made. It 
results in the expanded imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. I 
don't know where we get this notion that mandatory minimum sentences 
are a solution.
  H.R. 1842 amends section 2250(d) of the criminal code, which provides 
for an enhanced penalty for sex offenders who commit a crime of 
violence while in noncompliance of sex offender registration and 
reporting requirements.
  In addition to the Federal crimes of violence already included in 
that statute, this bill would add State crimes of violence as predicate 
offenses that, in turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory 5-
year prison sentence to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed 
for failing to register or comply with sex offender registration and 
reporting requirements.
  H.R. 1842 would also add prior military child sex offenses to several 
recidivist sentencing provisions, most of which carry mandatory minimum 
penalties of at least 15 years or life, itself.
  Perhaps we should expand coverage of enhanced sentences for the 
offenses added by this bill, but we should do so without expanding the 
number of mandatory minimums. The judges, not the Congress--not us--are 
in the best position to impose sentences for even the most offensive 
criminal violations because they know the facts and circumstances of 
each case.

                              {time}  1700

  There is an increasing bipartisan, national recognition that 
mandatory minimum sentences are not only unfair, but they are also 
counterproductive. Instead of expanding the coverage of mandatory 
minimums, we should be eliminating them. Individuals convicted of 
serious offenses will still receive appropriately lengthy sentences, 
but they will not be set on a one-size-fits-all basis.
  We want to examine the facts, the circumstances in each case, and the 
judge is in the best position to do that. We should not be assuming 
that we can sit here and pass these national laws that will not help 
and will make it difficult for judges to do their work.
  Unfortunately, this bill takes the opposite course, and that is why I 
must oppose it. I encourage my colleagues to think about what we are 
doing here and oppose H.R. 1842. I urge your support against this 
measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ratcliffe), the chief author 
of this legislation.
  Mr. RATCLIFFE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1842, the 
Strengthening Children's Safety Act of 2017.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few things more shocking to the conscience or 
sickening to the soul than crimes

[[Page 8184]]

against children--the most innocent, the most vulnerable members of our 
society.
  In my time as a Federal prosecutor, the child exploitation images 
that I was forced to review as part of the evidence were, by far, the 
most disturbing and difficult part of that job. All of these years 
later, I still can't erase those depraved images from my mind, and I 
doubt that I will ever be able to do that.
  But crimes against children should stick with us, they should haunt 
us, and then they should spur us to take action. If we do anything here 
in Congress, it should be working to protect children. We talk all day 
long in this Chamber about the future of this country. Well, Mr. 
Speaker, the children are the future of this country. We need to put 
our words into action.
  So today I am introducing H.R. 1842, the Strengthening Children's 
Safety Act of 2017, a bill which closes two sets of loopholes in 
Federal child exploitation laws to make sure that all dangerous sex 
offenders are treated the same and are subject to the same enhanced 
penalties under the law.
  Right now, Mr. Speaker, current law establishes minimum national 
standards for sex offender registration and notification in all 50 
States, in the District of Columbia, in U.S. territories, and Tribal 
jurisdictions. If a sex offender knowingly fails to register or update 
a registration, that individual faces a fine and imprisonment of up to 
10 years.
  There is also an enhanced penalty of 5 to 30 years imprisonment if 
the offender, while in that noncompliance status, also commits a crime 
of violence under Federal law, under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice, the law of the District of Columbia, Indian Tribal law, or the 
law of any territory or possession of the United States.
  But here is the problem, Mr. Speaker: Right now, only individuals 
committing crimes of violence under these Federal, military, and Tribal 
laws are subject to the enhanced penalty, while individuals committing 
the same crimes of violence under State law are not.
  Mr. Speaker, hopefully, we can all agree that child predators 
committing crimes of violence should be subject to the same enhanced 
penalties, regardless of whether these crimes are being charged in 
Federal court or at the State level. So this bill adds similar State 
crimes of violence to that list to ensure that the enhanced penalty 
applies equally to all dangerous offenders.
  Mr. Speaker, the second portion of H.R. 1842 addresses enhanced 
sentences for individuals with prior sex offenses. Fortunately, our 
child exploitation laws consistently do call for higher sentences any 
time a defendant has a prior conviction for Federal or State sex 
offenses. But currently, these sentencing provisions do not 
consistently include all similar sex offense convictions that arise 
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  H.R. 1842 amends those Federal child exploitation laws to include all 
child sexual exploitation offenses under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice in the recidivist provisions, as appropriate. Again, I think it 
is critical, Mr. Speaker, that we close this loophole to ensure that 
all prior child exploitation convictions are penalized for repeat 
offenders.
  Many issues in Congress these days are partisan, but it is my sincere 
hope, Mr. Speaker, that Members on both sides of the aisle today will 
be able to come together to support stronger protections for children 
who are sexually abused. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this important bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, as usual, we are indebted to the gentleman 
from Virginia, who, for years, was the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations in the 
Judiciary Committee and still carries with him the understanding and 
the experience that leads him to be on the floor with us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Scott) in support of his position.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1842.
  While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders, the 
existing sentencing laws already provide serious punishment for this 
conduct. Unfortunately, this legislation expands nonmandatory minimums 
to additional offenders.
  This expansion of mandatory of minimums comes at the heels of 
Attorney General Sessions' memo, which has been roundly criticized for 
rescinding the Holder memo and directing all Federal prosecutors to 
pursue the most serious charges and the maximum sentence, to include 
mandatory minimum sentences.
  The Sessions memo takes away, from Federal prosecutors, the ability 
to individually assess the unique circumstances of their cases and any 
factors which would mitigate against seeking the harshest sentence in 
every case. Once that offense triggers a mandatory minimum and once 
that is charged, the sentencing judge loses any discretion to assess 
the unique circumstances of the case and, upon conviction, must impose 
the mandatory minimum provided in the code.
  This legislation is remarkable in that it extends a number of 
exceptionally high mandatory minimums to most defendants. The mandatory 
sentence of life without parole is expanded to apply to more cases. The 
mandatory sentence of 35 years is expanded. In other cases, the 
mandatory minimum would triple from 5 years to 15 years.
  These are grave sentences, and the judge should have discretion in 
determining when they should be imposed. And these sentences would 
apply not only to the ring leader, but to everyone who may be involved 
in the activity and subject to a conspiracy conviction. The mandatory 
minimum eliminates the ability of the judge to consider the individual 
circumstances of the case or the culpability or the role of the 
defendant in that case.
  For decades now, extensive research has been done on mandatory 
minimums, and the conclusions are: they do not reduce crime; they do 
not protect anybody; they waste the taxpayers' money; they discriminate 
against minorities; and they often require judges to impose sentences 
so bizarre that they violate common sense.
  When you see how these are worked in drug cases, you can be reminded 
of President Obama's policy to consider full commutation. Those who 
are, essentially, first offenders who have been convicted of 
nonviolent, low-level activity in a drug case would be considered for 
commutation after 10 years.
  Now, that seems reasonable, but what you ought to ask is the 
question: How did a low-level, nonviolent first offender get so much 
time that, after 10 years, they still need help from the President? The 
answer is: mandatory minimums. The judge had no choice but to impose 
that bizarre sentence.
  Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the 
Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about the problem and 
address that driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to 
take is to stop passing new mandatory minimums or bills that expand 
existing mandatory minimums.
  Mandatory minimums in the code did not get there all at once; they 
got there one at a time, each, part of a larger bill which, on balance, 
seemed like a good idea. Therefore, the first step we have to take in 
reducing mandatory minimums is to stop passing new ones or to stop 
passing bills that expand mandatory minimums.
  For these reasons, while I support the underlying goals of H.R. 1842, 
to punish sex offenses against children, I oppose expanding the 
application of severe mandatory minimum sentences such as the 15 and 35 
and life imprisonment.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill would not be controversial without the 
mandatory minimums; but, unfortunately, they are in the bill, and I, 
therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Once again, this bill has no new mandatory minimum sentences. These 
are

[[Page 8185]]

not low-level offenders. These are not nonviolent offenders. They are 
violent sexual predators, and these added offenders--which this bill 
does to close, again, a loophole--these added offenders have committed 
the exact same crimes with the exact same conduct as those already 
covered in existing law. This bill aims to apply the mandatory minimums 
equitably, and that, I think, should be an important goal for all of 
us.
  Again, there are no new mandatory minimums in this bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield such time as 
she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland 
Security, and Investigations in the House Judiciary Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Michigan for his leadership and, as well, the gentleman who is a 
proponent of this legislation which, on its face, provides for an 
enhanced penalty for sex offenders who commit a crime of violence while 
in noncompliance of sex offender registration and reporting 
requirements. That offense can apply to that in the Military Code of 
Justice, Tribal law, State law, and Federal law.
  It also adds State crimes of violence as a predicate offense that, in 
turn, would require the imposition of a mandatory or an enhanced 
sentencing to be served consecutively to any sentence imposed for 
failing to register or comply with the sex offender registration 
reporting requirements.
  I believe, as my colleagues have said, that the underlying premise of 
this bill will join us together in linking arms, there is no doubt. It 
should be the rule of this Congress and the rule of elected officials 
from State to local government, the U.S. Military Code of Justice, and 
Tribal law to protect our children; and certainly, the idea of 
noncompliance with sex registration should be addressed in any court 
proceeding dealing with these offenders.
  The issue, I believe, is the question, again, of: What do we gain by 
the implementing of a mandatory minimum? In this instance, it is an 
enhanced 5-year sentence. But there may be a number of reasons in terms 
of an individual moving from State to State where the person is not 
registered.
  Again, I have to turn my attention to where we are and where we stand 
on this day, May 22, 2017. It makes a difference. It makes a difference 
if we have an Attorney General that does not seem to have any interest 
in rehabilitation, any interest in ensuring that the mass incarceration 
ends, the disparate treatment of different races and ethnic groups in 
the criminal justice system ends.
  As has been noted already, the previous policies of Attorney General 
Holder that were fair and did not add to the enhancement of crime, 
which allowed discretion by prosecutors of not adding up on the 
particular defendant any number of offenses that would create 200- and 
300-year sentencing and, therefore, having people languish in prisons 
across this country, building up the record of private prisons, and 
seeing teeming numbers in our Federal prison system, that is what we 
are facing now.

                              {time}  1715

  There is no doubt that the present law, I believe, does, in fact, 
cover the efforts of the proponent of this legislation. Obviously, 
there will be a difference of opinion, but I believe that there is 
sufficient coverage in the underlying legislation without adding this 
particular enhancement.
  I would hope that our colleagues who are in support of this bill, 
just as I respect their commitment to fighting against sexual violence, 
sexual contact, and sexual criminal acts against children, would 
recognize that a discussion about mandatory minimums does not, in any 
way, diminish one's commitment to the underlying premise of this 
legislation.
  There are too many unknown variables with the leadership of the 
Attorney General and his indication as to what kind of treatment there 
should be for underlying crimes and his wish to have newly appointed 
U.S. Attorneys, many of whom are not appointed, not confirmed, so that 
we can, again, overcriminalize America, overcriminalize the acts of 
individuals, and create another siege of mass incarceration.
  We will have a number of other bills that will be on the floor with 
the same concerns that will be expressed. Again, let me say that I 
support the idea of fighting against child sex trafficking and violent 
sexual crimes perpetrated against children. I support the opposition to 
such and the incarceration of those and bringing those individuals to 
justice. I do believe, however, that there are many ways of dealing 
with this, including incarceration without a continuous either 
enhancement or continued increase of the number of mandatory minimums 
that are continuing to be added to individuals who are recidivists and 
who are convicted of Federal, State, or military crimes, in this 
instance.
  Mr. CONYERS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I commend the gentlewoman for her consistent 
understanding and explaining why mass incarceration is at the base of 
all of the debate that is going on.
  I am hoping that more and more people who listen to these discussions 
that we have here in the House of Representatives will begin to 
understand that mass incarceration is not the answer to our problems. 
As a matter of fact, they compound the problems.
  I salute the gentlewoman for her tenacity and understanding and 
explaining this situation to everyone who can listen to our discussions 
here.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for that very thoughtful 
addition and his kind words.
  I think what I want to say to Mr. Conyers, in concluding, is that 
mass incarceration is real. We have lived with this for decades. We 
finally have gotten to the point that judges recognize that there are 
many different ways to deal with individuals who are recidivists at 
sentencing, regardless of whether or not the previous conviction, as I 
said earlier, was Federal, State, or military court, and now Tribal. 
That is the only point that we are making here.
  Next week, we will have 10 more bills with mandatory minimums. We 
will all agree with the underlying premise, which is to lock the bad 
guys up, but we do believe that there is some value to the discretion 
of judges and courts. I don't believe anyone on this floor--none of us, 
Republicans or Democrats--would have any argument--none--on the 
underlying premise of our absolute responsibility, without question, of 
defending and protecting children from these vile individuals. But I 
don't have the facts inside the courtroom, and there is not a one-size-
fits-all answer. That is what mandatory minimums are. All it does is 
load our prison systems with bodies, one after another.
  I conclude with this. The courts have asked for discretion. I would 
hope that in the Federal system those who are appointed have, in fact, 
both the wherewithal, the knowledge, the sense of justice, and the 
right to make the decision based upon the laws and based upon the 
vileness of what has been engaged in.
  This is not an opposition. This is a plea for collaboration.
  If I may say one thing personally. There are neighbors that I know in 
my community who have been accused of certain things. They are 
dignified citizens--not with regard to this particular underlying act--
but dignified citizens, former military persons, and they are 
languishing under a mandatory minimum. It is disgraceful. Let me be 
very clear: It is not a sex offense, not an offense of violence. It is 
minimal, at best. But they are operating under a mandatory. It 
literally is disgraceful how this has destroyed their lives.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1842 is a well-intentioned bill meant to ensure 
that repeat sex offenders are punished for their crimes, whether their 
prior offenses are State, Federal, or military.

[[Page 8186]]

  While I believe that repeat sex offenders of any kind should receive 
appropriately lengthy sentences, I disagree with the imposition of 
mandatory minimums. We are not the court. We are not the judge. We do 
not hear the facts and circumstances in each case.
  I appeal to good common sense and good legal analysis that we oppose 
this legislation that would amplify the difficulties that we already 
know exist. I hope that we will oppose this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas cited a personal experience 
she had with someone she knows who has been convicted of a crime and 
given a mandatory minimum sentence. It was not a violent crime, not a 
sex crime, and not relevant to this bill, which does not add any new 
mandatory minimum sentences. It simply makes sure that the sentences 
already imposed under the law are equitably applied, regardless of 
where their prior offenses took place.
  These are sexual crimes. These are violent crimes. These offenders 
should receive the exact same sentences for the exact same conduct as 
others already covered under the current law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation to protect 
our children and get sexual predators off the street.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1842.
  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. SCOTT of Virginia. 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.

                          ____________________