[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8186-8189]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 TARGETING CHILD PREDATORS ACT OF 2017

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 883) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a 
certification process for the issuance of nondisclosure requirements 
accompanying certain administrative subpoenas, to provide for judicial 
review of such nondisclosure requirements, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 883

       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 ``Targeting Child Predators 
     Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. NONDISCLOSURE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS.

       Section 3486(a) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``the Secretary of the Treasury'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security'';
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``ordered by a court''; 
     and
       (3) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:
       ``(6)(A)(i) If a subpoena issued under this section is 
     accompanied by a certification under clause (ii) and notice 
     of the right to judicial review under subparagraph (C), no 
     recipient of a subpoena under this section shall disclose to 
     any person that the Federal official who issued the subpoena 
     has sought or obtained access to information or records under 
     this section, for a period of 180 days.
       ``(ii) The requirements of clause (i) shall apply if the 
     Federal official who issued the subpoena certifies that the 
     absence of a prohibition of disclosure under this subsection 
     may result in--
       ``(I) endangering the life or physical safety of an 
     individual;
       ``(II) flight from prosecution;
       ``(III) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
       ``(IV) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
       ``(V) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or 
     unduly delaying a trial.
       ``(B)(i) A recipient of a subpoena under this section may 
     disclose information otherwise subject to any applicable 
     nondisclosure requirement to--
       ``(I) those persons to whom disclosure is necessary in 
     order to comply with the request;
       ``(II) an attorney in order to obtain legal advice or 
     assistance regarding the request; or
       ``(III) other persons as permitted by the Federal official 
     who issued the subpoena.
       ``(ii) A person to whom disclosure is made under clause (i) 
     shall be subject to the nondisclosure requirements applicable 
     to a person to whom a subpoena is issued under this section 
     in the same manner as the person to whom the subpoena was 
     issued.
       ``(iii) Any recipient that discloses to a person described 
     in clause (i) information otherwise subject to a 
     nondisclosure requirement shall notify the person of the 
     applicable nondisclosure requirement.
       ``(iv) At the request of the Federal official who issued 
     the subpoena, any person making or intending to make a 
     disclosure under subclause (I) or (III) of clause (i) shall 
     identify to the individual making the request under this 
     clause the person to whom such disclosure will be made or to 
     whom such disclosure was made prior to the request.
       ``(C)(i) A nondisclosure requirement imposed under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to judicial review under 
     section 3486A.
       ``(ii) A subpoena issued under this section, in connection 
     with which a nondisclosure requirement under subparagraph (A) 
     is imposed, shall include notice of the availability of 
     judicial review described in clause (i).
       ``(D) A nondisclosure requirement imposed under 
     subparagraph (A) may be extended in accordance with section 
     3486A(a)(4).''.

     SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NONDISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 223 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 3486 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3486A. Judicial review of nondisclosure requirements

       ``(a) Nondisclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Notice.--If a recipient of a subpoena under section 
     3486 wishes to have a court review a nondisclosure 
     requirement imposed in connection with the subpoena, the 
     recipient may notify the Government or file a petition for 
     judicial review in any court described in subsection (a)(5) 
     of section 3486.
       ``(B) Application.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of receipt of a notification under subparagraph (A), the 
     Government shall apply for an order prohibiting the 
     disclosure of the existence or contents of the relevant 
     subpoena. An application under this subparagraph may be filed 
     in the district court of the United States for the judicial 
     district in which the recipient of the subpoena is doing 
     business or in the district court of the United States for 
     any judicial district within which the authorized 
     investigation that is the basis for the subpoena is being 
     conducted. The applicable nondisclosure requirement shall 
     remain in effect during the pendency of proceedings relating 
     to the requirement.
       ``(C) Consideration.--A district court of the United States 
     that receives a petition under subparagraph (A) or an 
     application under subparagraph (B) should rule expeditiously, 
     and shall, subject to paragraph (3), issue a nondisclosure 
     order that includes conditions appropriate to the 
     circumstances.
       ``(2) Application contents.--An application for a 
     nondisclosure order or extension thereof or a response to a 
     petition filed under paragraph (1) shall include a 
     certification from the Federal official who issued the 
     subpoena indicating that the absence of a prohibition of 
     disclosure under this subsection may result in--
       ``(A) endangering the life or physical safety of an 
     individual;
       ``(B) flight from prosecution;
       ``(C) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
       ``(D) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
       ``(E) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or 
     unduly delaying a trial.
       ``(3) Standard.--A district court of the United States 
     shall issue a nondisclosure order or extension thereof under 
     this subsection if the court determines that there is reason 
     to believe that disclosure of the information subject to the 
     nondisclosure requirement during the applicable time period 
     may result in--
       ``(A) endangering the life or physical safety of an 
     individual;
       ``(B) flight from prosecution;
       ``(C) destruction of or tampering with evidence;
       ``(D) intimidation of potential witnesses; or
       ``(E) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or 
     unduly delaying a trial.
       ``(4) Extension.--Upon a showing that the circumstances 
     described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (3) 
     continue to exist, a district court of the United States may 
     issue an ex parte order extending a nondisclosure order 
     imposed under this subsection or under section 3486(a)(6)(A) 
     for additional periods of 180 days, or, if the court 
     determines that the circumstances necessitate a longer period 
     of nondisclosure, for additional periods which are longer 
     than 180 days.
       ``(b) Closed Hearings.--In all proceedings under this 
     section, subject to any right to an open hearing in a 
     contempt proceeding, the

[[Page 8187]]

     court must close any hearing to the extent necessary to 
     prevent an unauthorized disclosure of a request for records, 
     a report, or other information made to any person or entity 
     under section 3486. Petitions, filings, records, orders, 
     certifications, and subpoenas must also be kept under seal to 
     the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the 
     unauthorized disclosure of a subpoena under section 3486.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 223 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 3486 
     the following:

``3486A. Judicial review of nondisclosure requirements.''.

  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. 883, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, over the years, we as a society have made great strides 
in combating crimes against children. As with many crimes, however, law 
enforcement often struggles to keep pace with modern technology. That 
is why H.R. 883, the Targeting Child Predators Act, is both an 
important and a timely piece of legislation.
  While many of the bills we have discussed today have been aimed at 
prevention and punishment, H.R. 883 provides law enforcement with the 
tools necessary to stop ongoing abuse, occurring in real time, and to 
locate offenders.
  Because of the severity of sex crimes committed against children and 
the often irreparable harm they cause, we must take steps to ensure 
that law enforcement has the ability to swiftly locate sexual 
predators.
  In 1998, Congress recognized this urgency by passing the Protection 
of Children From Sexual Predators Act, which permitted the FBI to use 
administrative subpoenas in cases of child exploitation. That 
legislation was intended to enhance the FBI's ability to investigate 
online child exploitation offenses in an expeditious manner.
  Administrative subpoenas are especially useful in child exploitation 
cases because they are not burdened with grand jury secrecy 
obligations, so the information may be shared among law enforcement to 
quickly locate offenders in emergency situations.
  Under current law, the FBI is permitted to use an administrative 
subpoena to obtain non-content information from internet service 
providers in child exploitation cases.
  H.R. 883 allows the government to prohibit the recipient of a 
subpoena from disclosing the existence of the subpoena, provided the 
government certifies there is reason to believe that disclosure may 
result in endangerment to the life or physical safety of any person, 
flight to avoid prosecution, destruction of or tampering with evidence, 
or intimidation of potential witnesses.
  Presently, if agents want to obtain this information with a 
nondisclosure provision, it must go through the courts, which, of 
course, defeats the purpose of a speedy mechanism to obtain non-content 
information.
  Importantly, the bill contains a provision that allows a company in 
receipt of such a subpoena to insist that the government obtain a court 
order prohibiting the company from disclosing the subpoena to the 
target. Alternatively, the company may initiate such proceedings itself 
in a relevant court to challenge the nondisclosure requirement.
  Mr. Speaker, a nondisclosure provision is vitally important in child 
exploitation cases. If a bad guy who has taken a child knows that law 
enforcement is on to him, or is looking for him, what might he do to 
get away? What might he do to that child?
  H.R. 883 is an important bill which promotes Congress' original 
intent to ensure law enforcement has quick access to this information. 
It is narrowly tailored to ensure that its provisions apply in cases 
where time is of the essence. It provides a mechanism for companies to 
challenge the nondisclosure requirements.

                              {time}  1730

  I commend Mr. DeSantis, the gentleman from Florida and a member of 
the Judiciary Committee, for introducing this 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 reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 883, the 
Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017.
  You see, child sexual exploitation and abuse are reprehensible crimes 
committed against the most vulnerable members of our society. 
Unfortunately, these offenses have been increasingly facilitated by the 
use of the internet in recent years. H.R. 883 would change the 
administrative subpoena statute to facilitate the prosecution of 
criminals who commit these terrible crimes against children.
  Without question, I support the goal of pursuing these criminals, 
but, nevertheless, I am concerned that this bill would eliminate 
judicial oversight of nondisclosure orders currently required prior to 
the issuance of the administrative subpoenas.
  Section 3486 of title 18 of the United States Code authorizes 
investigators to request a 90-day order of nondisclosure from a 
district court judge. The order of nondisclosure forbids the recipient, 
such as an internet service provider, from alerting the target of the 
investigation of the law enforcement's inquiry. H.R. 883 would extend 
the nondisclosure period from 90 days to 180 days to allow 
investigators more time to complete their investigations before the 
target is informed of the inquiry.
  Although I would like to have more information about why it is 
necessary to extend this time period, it is particularly problematic 
combined with the other significant change to the law made by this very 
legislation. H.R. 883 would allow investigators to require 
nondisclosure of internet service providers without the approval of a 
judge, thereby eliminating any judicial oversight prior to issuance of 
the subpoena.
  The administrative subpoena authority is an extraordinary power given 
to certain agencies by Congress under its limited circumstances. While 
the legislation would allow a recipient to challenge a nondisclosure 
order in court, I am concerned about the bill's elimination of judicial 
approval on the front end.
  I understand the desire to do more to facilitate the investigation of 
these crimes and that the online context for them has raised issues 
that we should continue to examine, but I do not believe we have been 
given enough information justifying this bill, at least in its current 
form.
  Elimination of prior judicial approval of nondisclosure orders is a 
step we should undertake only based on evidence and careful 
deliberation. A bill such as the one before us warrants at least a 
legislative hearing to consider its potential ramifications. I don't 
think that is asking too much that we have a hearing on this matter 
before we decide what to do with the proposal rather than not have one 
at all. Our committee has not had the benefit of any such hearing on 
this legislation, and I think this is not the proper way the members of 
the House Judiciary Committee, who are mostly lawyers, should proceed.
  Mr. Speaker, accordingly, I oppose H.R. 883, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis), who is the chief sponsor of 
this legislation.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Speaker, every year, thousands of children are 
victims

[[Page 8188]]

of cyber exploitation. As a former prosecutor who has handled child 
exploitation cases, I know just how important it is to preserve 
evidence that can bring predators to justice.
  After speaking with Florida law enforcement officials about the 
challenges they face when tracking suspects online, I introduced the 
Targeting Child Predators Act. This is a sensible reform that will 
better protect our children by preventing suspected child predators 
from destroying evidence and covering their tracks.
  When tracking a suspected child predator online, law enforcement far 
too often hits roadblocks that can critically threaten their 
investigation. Internet service providers who have been issued a duly 
issued, lawful subpoena from law enforcement will often inform the 
suspect that police investigators have requested their information. 
Once notified that they are the target of an investigation, child 
predators can wipe their systems clean and go into hiding, leaving law 
enforcement empty-handed and potentially putting their victims at 
further risk.
  The Targeting Child Predators Act is a simple and necessary amendment 
to our criminal code requiring that ISPs wait 180 days before 
disclosing to suspected child predators that their information has been 
requested by law enforcement. The bill is narrowly targeted to child 
exploitation cases where the destruction of valuable evidence could 
endanger the safety of a child or seriously jeopardize an ongoing 
investigation. Additionally, the Targeting Child Predators Act provides 
judicial review of subpoenas and affords both ISPs and suspects due 
process as required by law.
  The Targeting Child Predators Act will protect our children from 
those who wish to exploit them while maintaining the constitutional 
rights of suspected criminals. This is an issue that should garner wide 
bipartisan support from the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to step up. Let's support our 
vulnerable children. Let's target child predators, and let's vote 
``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), who is one of the consistent 
leaders for a good criminal justice system.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member very much, 
and I thank him for his work.
  I think the work that we are doing in Judiciary certainly has far-
reaching impact. It is important to try to make more efficient the way 
that we address these very heinous acts against our children.
  As a strong advocate for children throughout my career, I agree that 
we in Congress must do everything within our power and authority to 
prevent child sexual exploitation and abuse. The Targeting Child 
Predators Act of 2017 is intended to assist investigators in their 
pursuit of online predators.
  I fully support efforts to locate and prosecute individuals who 
commit such heinous crimes. However, I believe we should discuss the 
proposal before us with more information from all who would be impacted 
prior to approving the changes to the law this bill proposes.
  This has a lot of moving parts and participants, particularly in 
relation to online internet and the variety of providers that are 
stakeholders in all of this.
  This bill would modify a powerful yet historically controversial 
investigatory tool: the administrative subpoena. Administrative 
subpoenas allow certain investigators investigating specified crimes to 
obtain private records without judicial approval. I can account for the 
fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are many instances where this may be a 
vital approach.
  We know that we live in a very difficult time, and a number of 
incidents dealing with national security and others may certainly be 
impacted by such; but, obviously, there are other subpoenas that are 
attendant to those particular acts. But the administrative subpoenas, 
as indicated, allow Federal investigators investigating specified 
crimes to obtain private records, as indicated, without judicial 
approval.
  Although investigators do not need sign-off from a judge before 
issuing such a subpoena, there is one layer of judicial review that 
prevents them from abusing their subpoena power. That is the judicial 
consideration of nondisclosure orders prior to the issuance of 
subpoenas.
  At present, a district court judge must determine if circumstances 
exist to justify issuance of a 90-day nondisclosure order in connection 
with administrative subpoenas. Under the terms that I understand are in 
this proposed bill, investigators could require nondisclosure by 
subpoena recipients for a longer period--180 days--and without first 
receiving the approval of a district judge, effectively eliminating 
judicial consideration of nondisclosure orders prior to the issuance of 
subpoenas. Subpoena recipients would have the ability to seek judicial 
review of the nondisclosure requirement only after receiving the 
subpoena. I believe that this provision raises concerns that remove the 
wisdom of district judges from this process at the time the gag orders 
are imposed.
  Congress authorized the use of these subpoenas to allow investigators 
to obtain information quickly and expeditiously, and I think they work 
that way. The intervention of judicial review has not proven to be an 
obstruction so much so that you might remove it and the wisdom of the 
court. Congress also expressly required that investigators seek the 
approval of a district judge for nondisclosure orders connected to 
these subpoenas.
  I share my colleagues' desire to locate and prosecute those who 
commit child exploitation and abuse crimes, and, in essence, let's get 
them, but I do think that the willingness to remove judicial review is 
one of question.
  Those individuals who hide behind computer screens committing 
abhorrent acts against children on the internet must be apprehended and 
made to answer for their crimes. I would think that the judge would be 
well aware of how sensitive this is and use their best impression to 
get moving and to allow the process to proceed.
  I think this Nation is a land of laws. We abide by the rule of law, 
and Congress has a right to draft laws. But I do think, in this 
instance, the rule of law, abiding by the rule of law, allowing for the 
active participation of the court and the wisdom of the court is not 
too much to ask in a nation that believes in democracy, believes in the 
rights of the offenders and, as well, the victims.
  So I am very concerned about this bill, and I would hope that we 
would have the opportunity to have this addressed or the issues 
addressed, or addressed in the Senate; and I look forward to those 
issues being addressed in the Senate so that we can, together, handle 
the concerns that are being expressed and have a bill that does not 
remove judicial oversight and the wisdom of the court.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 883, the ``Targeting Child 
Predators Act of 2017.'' As a strong advocate for children throughout 
my career, I agree that we in Congress must do everything within our 
power and authority to prevent child sexual exploitation and abuse.
  The ``Targeting Child Predators Act of 2017'' is intended to assist 
investigators in their pursuit of online child predators.
  I fully support efforts to locate and prosecute individuals who 
commit such heinous crimes. However, I believe we should discuss the 
proposal before us--with more information from all who would be 
impacted--prior to approving the changes to the law this bill proposes.
  This bill would modify a powerful, yet historically controversial, 
investigatory tool--the administrative subpoena.
  Administrative subpoenas allow certain Federal investigators, 
investigating specified crimes, to obtain private records without 
judicial approval.
  Although investigators do not need sign-off from a judge before 
issuing such a subpoena, there is one layer of judicial review that 
prevents them from abusing their subpoena power.
  That is the judicial consideration of nondisclosure orders prior to 
the issuance of subpoenas.
  At present, a district court judge must determine if circumstances 
exist to justify issuance of a 90-day nondisclosure order in connection 
with administrative subpoenas.

[[Page 8189]]

  Under the terms proposed in this bill, investigators could require 
nondisclosure by subpoena recipients for a longer period--180 days--and 
without first receiving the approval of a district judge, effectively 
eliminating judicial consideration of nondisclosure orders prior to the 
issuance of subpoenas.
  Subpoena recipients would have the ability to seek judicial review of 
the nondisclosure requirement only after receiving the subpoena.
  I am deeply concerned with the provision that would remove the wisdom 
of district judges from this process at the time the gag orders are 
imposed.
  Congress authorized the use of these subpoenas to allow investigators 
to obtain information quickly and expeditiously.
  But, Congress also expressly required that investigators seek the 
approval of a district judge for nondisclosure orders connected to 
these subpoenas.
  I share my colleagues' desire to locate and prosecute those who 
commit child exploitation and abuse crimes.
  Those individuals, who hide behind computer screens, committing 
abhorrent acts against children on the internet, must be apprehended 
and made to answer for their crimes.
  I am not convinced that this bill is the best way to go about doing 
so.
  I hope we can find a way to address this issue, with more information 
from all concerned.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the most problematic aspect of H.R. 883 is that it would 
eliminate prior judicial approval of nondisclosure orders. I am firmly 
opposed to that. And while I fully support efforts to investigate 
crime, particularly those perpetrated against children, I cannot 
support this bill without knowing more about how it will affect an 
already extraordinary investigative power.
  Let's have a hearing. That is what our committee is for. The 
Judiciary Committee should inquire into this very carefully, and, in 
the absence of such evidence, I must urge, at this time, our colleagues 
join me in opposing H.R. 883.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
urge my colleagues to support this very important, very targeted 
legislation.
  This is not some broad authority. This is very targeted under 
circumstances where the sexual predator has the child and the 
authorities need to get information from third parties now so they can 
find that child and they need those third parties to not disclose 
information that they are yielding to the government about their 
whereabouts and other information about them because of the emergency 
circumstances that are at play here, or you are dealing with someone 
who has a child and needs to be found so that child can be saved. That 
is the purpose of this legislation.

                              {time}  1745

  It is a good purpose. This legislation should be supported by all the 
Members of the House. I urge them to do so.
  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. 883.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________