[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8189-8192]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               CHILD PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 695) to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to 
establish a national criminal history background check system and 
criminal history review program for certain individuals who, related to 
their employment, have access to children, the elderly, or individuals 
with disabilities, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 695

       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 ``Child Protection 
     Improvements Act of 2017''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECK AND 
                   CRIMINAL HISTORY REVIEW PROGRAM.

       The National Child Protection Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 5119 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 3--
       (A) by amending subsection (a)(3) to read as follows:
       ``(3)(A) The Attorney General shall establish a program, in 
     accordance with this section, to provide qualified entities 
     located in States which do not have in effect procedures 
     described in paragraph (1), or qualified entities located in 
     States which do not prohibit the use of the program 
     established under this paragraph, with access to national 
     criminal history background checks on, and criminal history 
     reviews of, covered individuals.
       ``(B) A qualified entity described in subparagraph (A) may 
     submit to the appropriate designated entity a request for a 
     national criminal history background check on, and a criminal 
     history review of, a covered individual. Qualified entities 
     making a request under this paragraph shall comply with the 
     guidelines set forth in subsection (b), and with any 
     additional applicable procedures set forth by the Attorney 
     General or by the State in which the entity is located.'';
       (B) in subsection (b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1)(E), by striking ``unsupervised'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2)--

       (I) by redesignating subparagraph (A) as clause (i);
       (II) in subparagraph (B)--

       (aa) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (bb) by redesignating such subparagraph as clause (ii);

       (III) by striking ``that each provider who is the subject 
     of a background check'' and inserting ``(A) that each covered 
     individual who is the subject of a background check conducted 
     pursuant to the procedures established pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(1)''; and
       (IV) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(B) that each covered individual who is the subject of a 
     national criminal history background check and criminal 
     history review conducted pursuant to the procedures 
     established pursuant to subsection (a)(3) is entitled to 
     challenge the accuracy and completeness of any information in 
     the criminal history record of the individual by contacting 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the procedure set 
     forth in section 16.34 of title 28, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, or any successor thereto.'';
       (iii) in paragraph (3), by inserting after ``authorized 
     agency'' the following: ``or designated entity, as 
     applicable''; and
       (iv) in paragraph (4), by inserting after ``authorized 
     agency'' the following: ``or designated entity, as 
     applicable,'';
       (C) in subsection (d), by inserting after ``officer or 
     employee thereof,'' the following: ``nor shall any designated 
     entity nor any officer or employee thereof,'';
       (D) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e) Fees.--
       ``(1) State program.--In the case of a background check 
     conducted pursuant to a State requirement adopted after 
     December 20, 1993, conducted with fingerprints on a covered 
     individual, the fees collected by authorized State agencies 
     and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may not exceed 
     eighteen dollars, respectively, or the actual cost, whichever 
     is less, of the background check conducted with fingerprints.
       ``(2) Federal program.--In the case of a national criminal 
     history background check and criminal history review 
     conducted pursuant to the procedures established pursuant to 
     subsection (a)(3), the fees collected by a designated entity 
     shall be set at a level that will ensure the recovery of the 
     full costs of providing all such services. The designated 
     entity shall remit the appropriate portion of such fee to the 
     Attorney General, which amount is in accordance with the 
     amount published in the Federal Register to be collected for 
     the provision of a criminal history background check by the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       ``(3) Ensuring fees do not discourage volunteers.--A fee 
     system under this subsection shall be established in a manner 
     that ensures that fees to qualified entities for background 
     checks do not discourage volunteers from participating in 
     programs to care for children, the elderly, or individuals 
     with disabilities.'';
       (E) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) National Criminal History Background Check and 
     Criminal History Review Program.--
       ``(1) National criminal history background check.--Upon a 
     designated entity receiving notice of a request submitted by 
     a qualified entity pursuant to subsection (a)(3), the 
     designated entity shall forward the request to the Attorney 
     General, who shall, acting through the Director of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation, complete a fingerprint-based 
     check of the

[[Page 8190]]

     national criminal history background check system, and 
     provide the information received in response to such national 
     criminal history background check to the appropriate 
     designated entity. The designated entity may, upon request 
     from a qualified entity, complete a check of a State criminal 
     history database.
       ``(2) Criminal history review.--
       ``(A) Designated entities.--The Attorney General shall 
     designate, and enter into an agreement with, one or more 
     entities to make determinations described in paragraph (2). 
     The Attorney General may not designate and enter into an 
     agreement with a Federal agency under this subparagraph.
       ``(B) Determinations.--A designated entity shall, upon the 
     receipt of the information described in paragraph (1), make a 
     determination of fitness described in subsection (b)(4), 
     using the criteria described in subparagraph (C).
       ``(C) Criminal history review criteria.--The Attorney 
     General shall, by rule, establish the criteria for use by 
     designated entities in making a determination of fitness 
     described in subsection (b)(4). Such criteria shall be based 
     on the criteria established pursuant to section 
     108(a)(3)(G)(i) of the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools 
     to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (42 
     U.S.C. 5119a note).''; and
       (F) by striking--
       (i) ``provider'' each place it appears, and inserting 
     ``covered individual''; and
       (ii) ``provider's'' each place it appears, and inserting 
     ``covered individual's''; and
       (2) in section 5--
       (A) by amending paragraph (9) to read as follows:
       ``(9) the term `covered individual' means an individual--
       ``(A) who has, seeks to have, or may have access to 
     children, the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, 
     served by a qualified entity; and
       ``(B) who--
       ``(i) is employed by or volunteers with, or seeks to be 
     employed by or volunteer with, a qualified entity; or
       ``(ii) owns or operates, or seeks to own or operate, a 
     qualified entity.'';
       (B) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
       ``(12) the term `designated entity' means an entity 
     designated by the Attorney General under section 
     3(f)(2)(A).''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be fully 
     implemented by not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  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. 695, 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, we have spent a great deal of time this afternoon 
discussing legislation designed to detect and punish sexual predators. 
These bills are all strong, well crafted, and laudable. I urge my 
colleagues to support them.
  However, there is another facet to this problem, which is prevention. 
This may be the most important action we as Congress can take in the 
realm of child exploitation laws. We must do all we can to prevent 
child exploitation from happening in the first place.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I am pleased to bring H.R. 695, the Child 
Protection Improvements Act, before the House today. This legislation 
is extremely important in that it makes permanent a successful pilot 
program that allowed youth-serving organizations access to FBI 
fingerprint database searches.
  In 2003, the PROTECT Act created the Child Safety Pilot Program, 
which ran from 2003 until 2011, and provided access to FBI fingerprint 
background checks for a variety of child-serving nonprofits.
  The pilot conducted over 105,000 background checks during its 
existence. 6.2 percent of potential volunteers were found to have 
criminal records of concern. While that may seem like a small 
percentage, Mr. Speaker, it works out to over 6,500 individuals.
  In addition, over 40 percent of individuals with criminal records of 
concern had crimes in States other than where they were applying to 
volunteer, meaning that only a nationwide check would have flagged 
these individuals' criminal records.
  The criminal offenses detected among some of these checks included 
convictions for criminal sexual conduct with a child, child 
endangerment, and manslaughter. Twenty-six percent of these individuals 
showed a different name on their record than the one they used on their 
job application.
  H.R. 695 allows organizations such as the YMCA to submit fingerprints 
to a designated entity which, in turn, submits them to the FBI for 
processing. The system protects privacy rights by ensuring that the 
specifics of a criminal record are never disclosed without explicit 
consent by the applicant, and it provides opportunity for individuals 
to correct errors in their records directly with the FBI.
  Importantly, the bill does not mandate that youth-serving 
organizations use this process. It merely makes the process more 
accessible and more affordable for organizations that wish to use it.
  Mr. Speaker, the harsh reality is that there are individuals who will 
put themselves in positions where they are entrusted with children so 
they can then betray that trust in the worst way imaginable. That is 
why bills like H.R. 695, and other bills we have discussed today, are 
so important.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop) for introducing 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this strong bipartisan 
legislation.
  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 strong support of H.R. 695, the Child 
Protection Improvements Act, and tip my hat to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the author of the bill, who we 
will hear from shortly.
  We have a special responsibility to protect our young people and 
vulnerable adults. For that reason, I am pleased that we are 
considering this measure which would provide a robust, easily 
accessible, cost-effective background check system for organizations 
that work with youth and vulnerable adults. I support it for a number 
of reasons.
  To begin with, it will facilitate more comprehensive criminal 
background checks which provide a critical layer of protection. These 
checks help identify individuals who could potentially harm 
participants in programs for children, young people, and vulnerable 
adults as well.
  Background checks also serve to ensure the integrity and 
accountability of the organizations that sponsor these programs by 
reducing potential threats. Results from background checks that search 
criminal histories nationwide are more reliable than background checks 
that only search criminal histories in a few States. I think that is 
obvious.
  Secondly, the State background checks are no substitute whatsoever 
for the FBI's fingerprint-based system, which is the only nationwide 
database that allows a search of criminal histories in every single 
State.
  Currently, this database can only be accessed through the State law 
enforcement agencies, and many States limit the ability of 
organizations to access the system, with some States completely even 
forbidding access--no access whatsoever. As a result, organizations 
must navigate a labyrinth of State laws or rely on private companies to 
perform background checks of employees and volunteers.
  H.R. 695, on the other hand, would provide organizations with the 
ability to access the FBI's superior system without impacting the 
autonomy of States or the organizations. States would be able to 
continue or establish their own background check systems, and 
organizations would not be required to perform FBI background checks of 
potential applicants or volunteers.

[[Page 8191]]

  Finally, the need for this legislation is clearly justified by the 
Child Safety Pilot Program, which we implemented over a decade ago. 
This program documented the effectiveness of nationwide background 
checks for youth-serving organizations. Based on a comprehensive review 
of thousands of criminal history records spanning an 8-year period, the 
program demonstrated that people who might pose a risk to the safety of 
children, nevertheless, attempted to work with children.
  For example, the program identified applicants who, to avoid 
detection, used aliases, incorrect dates of birth, or wrong Social 
Security numbers. Some of these applicants had serious criminal 
histories, including even homicides, sexual assaults, child 
endangerment, and even rape.
  More than a third of criminal history hits were from out-of-state, 
and more than half of the people with criminal history hits failed to 
disclose them on their application.
  H.R. 695 would give organizations access to the FBI's comprehensive 
background check system and thereby help ensure the safety of our youth 
and others.
  Accordingly, I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in 
supporting this important measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bishop), one of the two chief sponsors of this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Goodlatte for 
his great work in bringing this matter forward.
  Mr. Speaker, protection of children is not a partisan matter, and I 
am grateful to the committee, committee staff, and Chairman Goodlatte 
for his leadership in this matter and bringing this forward.
  With school ending and summer camp starting, this is the time to 
bring awareness to and pass the Child Protection Improvements Act.
  Every year, millions of people work with or volunteer to help our 
children wherever they are as camp counselors, local youth sports 
coaches, mentors. You name it. All across America, there are 
organizations where people can make a difference in the lives of our 
Nation's youth, and our children can absolutely benefit from these 
programs. Take the Boys and Girls Clubs, MENTOR, or the YMCA, just to 
name a few. These groups and dozens of others, which exist virtually in 
all of our districts, have come to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff) and to me asking for help.
  Just like any parent, they too want to ensure that people working 
with our kids are decent, with clean backgrounds and good intentions. 
Mr. Speaker, that is where Congress comes in. We have a duty to ensure 
every youth-serving organization in America can afford and access the 
best background checks on staff and volunteers so they can properly vet 
people who might have traveled across State lines. This means utilizing 
the FBI's gold-standard database.
  Shockingly enough, not every organization has the option today, but 
we have the ability to change that. The Child Protection Improvements 
Act would allow all youth-serving organizations to utilize the FBI 
fingerprint-based background checks. We are simply eliminating the red 
tape that prevents the access in some of these States so every 
organization can adequately look out for our children, no matter where 
they live.
  For those who are justifiably concerned about the cost, it should 
also be noted that the CPIA is fiscally responsible, as it does not 
authorize any new spending. The program will be supported by fees 
assessed for background checks by the requesting nonprofit 
organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, every kid deserves a childhood where they can explore, 
grow, and do fun things beyond the walls of their home and school. As a 
father of three myself, I ask my colleagues to support this commonsense 
measure to catch potential threats and keep our kids safe.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan 
(Mr. Bishop) for his contribution.
  I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff), the ranking member of the Intelligence 
Committee and the author of the bill.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Protection 
Improvements Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Bishop) who has been an excellent partner working with me on this 
bill, the first version of which was introduced in 2007.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank Chairman Goodlatte and 
Ranking Member Conyers for their work on the bill as well.
  I volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters many years ago. I was 
paired with an extraordinary young man named David who is now himself a 
Big Brother. I have always said that I have learned as much or more 
from David and the program as he ever learned from me.
  The experience also helped me understand the huge amount of trust 
that we put in volunteers at organizations all around the country. In 
the vast majority of cases, that trust is well placed. But, 
unfortunately, there are exceptions.
  For that reason, in 2003, Congress created the Child Safety Pilot 
Program to demonstrate the feasibility of allowing youth-serving 
nonprofits to access FBI background checks.

                              {time}  1800

  The FBI maintains the database of criminal histories from every State 
in the Nation, searchable by fingerprint. An FBI search is really the 
gold standard when it comes to background checks, as it cannot be 
evaded by using a fake name, and it will find convictions from every 
State. I believe that the gold standard is what we should strive for 
when it comes to protecting children, seniors, and individuals with 
disabilities who are put in a potentially vulnerable situation.
  Between 2003 and 2011, youth-serving organizations were able to run 
over 100,000 background checks through this pilot program, and about 6 
percent of the potential volunteers were revealed to have criminal 
records of concern. Applicants were found with convictions for 
everything from murder to child abuse, to sexual assault; and 
frequently those convictions were from out of State, so only a national 
background check would have found them.
  H.R. 695 ensures that every child-serving organization in America 
will have access to the most comprehensive and effective background 
check possible. H.R. 695 will also protect the applicant's privacy and 
does not allow for the individual's specific criminal record to be 
disclosed without explicit consent by the potential volunteer.
  We have demonstrated that background checks for nonprofits working 
with children can be conducted quickly, affordably, and accurately. It 
is time to create a system that is permanent and that will protect 
children and other vulnerable populations while ensuring the privacy of 
volunteers.
  I urge the passage of this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am 
prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me also congratulate Mr. Schiff and 
Mr. Bishop. And as was indicated on the floor, thank you very much, Mr. 
Conyers.
  This is the kind of bill that is corrective and effective. This bill 
would allow a more effective and comprehensive criminal background 
check, which will help identify the integrity and accountability of the 
organizations that sponsor these programs.
  Many of us have worked with the Boys and Girls Clubs, Boys and Girls 
Scouts, and many other organizations that really work to help children. 
These nationwide criminal background

[[Page 8192]]

checks are more reliable than background checks that only search 
criminal histories in a few States.
  Many States currently limit the ability of organizations to access 
their database and, thus, force organizations to depend on private 
companies to perform background checks of employees and volunteers. If 
anybody has been on the board of a nonprofit dealing with children, you 
realize that you want to put most of your resources investing in the 
programs to help these children. H.R. 695, however, would alleviate 
this burden of expense and allow organizations to access the FBI's more 
robust system.
  In the Child Safety Pilot Program, which we implemented over 10 years 
ago, it demonstrates the effectiveness of nationwide background checks 
for youth-serving organizations. The program has effectively exposed 
applicants who use aliases, incorrect dates of birth, and other 
identifiers, some of whom have serious criminal backgrounds. That is 
the preventative way to protect our children, by ensuring a very 
healthy, robust vetting of individuals who want to engage with our 
children.
  H.R. 695 would allow organizations to access the FBI's comprehensive 
background check system and to create a more accurate determination of 
individuals who want to work with children. Volunteers we welcome, but 
we want to ensure that those volunteers are there to take care of our 
children, to help our children, and improve the lives of our children. 
H.R. 695 is a very important contributor to that effort.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
am pleased to make my closing remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, the Child Protection Improvements Act is a reasonable, 
bipartisan piece of legislation intended to protect our children and 
vulnerable adults from harm and give those who love them peace of mind.
  Although we still have work to do to address the accuracy and 
reliability of some criminal history records and give individuals an 
opportunity to challenge incomplete or inaccurate records, this is a 
good bill. For those reasons, I urge everyone in this Chamber to 
support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Schiff) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bishop). I thank the 
ranking member of the full committee and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee and the chairman of the subcommittee for working on this 
important legislation with me and the committee staff.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill, and 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. 695, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________