Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important bipartisan legislation. I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy), and the chief sponsor, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for working with me and my staff on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1188) to reauthorize certain programs established by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In preventing child victimization, Congress, working in tandem with law enforcement, has long recognized the importance of monitoring sex offenders. In 1994, Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. This legislation mandated that States track violent sex offenders and establish guidelines for tracking those offenders. Over the years, Congress continued its vigilance in monitoring sex offenders, which ultimately culminated in a comprehensive piece of legislation titled the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Among other things, the Adam Walsh Act established a national sex offender registry, provided for post-conviction civil commitment of certain sex offenders, eliminated the statute of limitations for certain sex offenses against children, and created an office at the Justice Department specifically designed to monitor sex offenders. Today I am proud to be here on the floor to champion the reauthorization of this landmark legislation. H.R. 1188, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017, authorizes funds for the Department of Justice's Sex Offender Management Assistance program and for the great work the United States Marshals do in locating and apprehending fugitive sex offenders who do not comply with the law's requirements. H.R. 1188 also contains numerous measures to encourage more States and Tribal jurisdictions to comply with the requirements of the Federal system, in part by making changes to the law to address concerns some States have expressed. For instance, the bill lowers the duration of sex offender registration requirements for certain juveniles and allows States to register juveniles adjudicated delinquent on a nonpublic system. It also clarifies that only juveniles who commit violent sexual assaults should be placed on a State registry. The bill also permits alternative methods for in-person verification so that rural jurisdictions can verify location of offenders remotely, in most instances only requiring in-person verification once per year. H.R. 1188 requires parole officers and pretrial services officers to stay informed of the conduct and provide supervision of sexually dangerous persons. Moreover, the bill strengthens civil remedies for survivors of exploitation and trafficking by allowing individuals who were victims of exploitation or trafficking as juveniles to have 10 years after becoming an adult to file suit for a civil remedy. Mr. Speaker, we must not forget why we are here. In 1981, Adam Walsh, a 7-year-old boy, was abducted and brutally murdered in Hollywood, Florida. His death was devastating. And for many families, that kind of inconsolable pain would be incapacitating. As a father and grandfather, I cannot even imagine it. We are thankful for the work of the Walsh family, who have dedicated their lives to child advocacy and whose work is responsible for saving the lives of countless children. I am also grateful to our colleague, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the author of the original Adam Walsh Act, for introducing this reauthorization bill and for his own tireless advocacy on behalf of our Nation's children. Mr. Speaker, scripture reminds us that ``children are a heritage from the Lord.'' I urge my colleagues to support this strong, bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1188, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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. 1862, currently under consideration.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me make it very clear that there are no new mandatory minimums in this bill. The mandatory minimum that is already in the law is appropriate for those who are a danger to children, particularly where these enhancements apply when they have abused a minor, not once, but twice. We are closing a loophole in the current law and we are adding to this provision the sexual abuse of children under 12 years old. Having already harmed two children, an offender poses too great a risk to our vulnerable citizens. There are victims here and potential victims to protect. As I mentioned before, child victims report abuse at a shockingly low level. It is important that this conduct is adequately deterred for someone who has already abused a child. Clearly, one conviction was not adequate. Prosecutorial discretion in these cases act as an appropriate buffer to ensure these provisions are being used reasonably. There are no new mandatory minimums in this bill. We simply close a loophole to make sure that people do not sexually abuse children under 12 years of age, not once, not twice, but more than twice. That is why this mandatory minimum should have a loophole closed to include it, but there is not a new mandatory minimum sentence in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Children are the most vulnerable and innocent members of our society, and we have a duty to make sure our laws protect them to the fullest extent possible. H.R. 1862, the Global Child Protection Act of 2017, closes regrettable loopholes in existing child exploitation statutes to do just that. Currently, dangerous sexual predators who violate children overseas can avoid culpability simply by engaging in what the United States Code defines as sexual contact rather than what the law defines as illicit sexual conduct. That is, they can go abroad, cause a child to sexually touch them, and return, without exposure to the criminal liability they would face had they engaged in what the law defines as illicit sexual conduct. I am sure my colleagues would agree that it should not matter whether the offender engages in sexual conduct or contact with a child. Either way, he is a child predator. This is the very definition of a loophole, and it is putting children at risk. That is because these predators are aware of this loophole, and they are able to share this information quickly in chat groups on the internet. They plot their foreign sex tourism accordingly, to circumvent criminal liability. H.R. 1862 closes this loophole by expanding the definition of illicit sexual conduct to include sexual contact. No longer will these predators be able to escape justice and continue to offend with impunity. This bill also closes a loophole for recidivist offenders. It is estimated that only between 8 and 20 percent of victims of childhood sexual abuse report they have been abused. That is why it is vitally important that, when we do become aware of these offenses and secure convictions, our justice system imposes penalties to adequately punish and deter this evil. Current law provides that an offender convicted of committing a Federal sex offense against a minor shall be sentenced to life imprisonment if that offender has a prior conviction for a sex offense against a minor. In defining sex offense, however, this provision inexplicably excludes two serious offenses. It is missing offenses covering abusive sexual contact with a minor under 12 and also does not apply to offenders who commit their sex crimes against children overseas. H.R. 1862 fixes these oversights--and they were clearly oversights--by adding these provisions into the definition of Federal sex offense. When an offender has previously harmed a child, been punished for that offense, and goes on to harm another child, the risk that he will go on to abuse again is extremely high, and we must ensure our children are safe from such a dangerous predator. That dynamic of deterrence, ensuring repeat offenders face harsher penalties, is at the core of our system of justice. It is even more important here where the victims are our children. Children are one-third of our population and all of our future. We must prioritize their protection. I commend the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby) for introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

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.

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. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again, this bill has no new mandatory minimum sentences. These are 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. 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.

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. GOODLATTE

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. 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.

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.

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.

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. GOODLATTE

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.

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.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, collectively, these organizations represent over half a million sworn law enforcement officers. On this last day of National Police Week, let's join them in supporting this bill. In this body, Members tend to frequently use the term ``common sense'' to describe a piece of legislation. I don't think many more pieces of legislation are as common sense as this bill. It really boils down to this question: Should a law enforcement officer be able to arrest the individual who forcibly assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated, or interfered with that officer? That is it. That is all we are talking about today. Common sense tells us that the answer is a resounding ``yes.'' It has been insinuated that probation officers aren't real law enforcement and lack the training to make arrests. I think the brave men and women who serve as Federal probation officers, who have received extensive training, and have ongoing training requirements as part of their jobs, might disagree with that insinuation. Further, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and its Federal Probation and Pretrial Academy offer nationally standardized training programs and advanced training programs targeting specialized areas of supervision. Common sense tells us that these officers are qualified to make arrests. Opponents of this bill would prefer to have these law enforcement officers retreat when confronted by third parties. Let's think about what some of the consequences of retreat might mean. If forced to retreat, that officer is forced to terminate interaction with a probationer who may urgently require services, such as substance abuse or mental health treatment. It also means contraband, such as firearms or narcotics, which could have been removed by the parole officer, remains in the community. In short, the consequences of retreat place public safety in jeopardy. Common sense tells us that retreat is not a viable option. There is nothing revolutionary going on here. There is no new Federal crime being added. This bill simply says that when someone forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with a probation officer, that probation officer can arrest that individual. It is already a crime to engage in the behavior I just described. An individual who commits that act is going to get arrested. All we are debating today is who puts the handcuffs on the arrestee. Common sense tells us that the officer who was assaulted should have the authority to make the arrest. Use common sense. Support H.R. 1039, the Probation Officer Protection Act of 2017, so that Federal probation officers can do their jobs safely and effectively. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), the chief sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, support the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, who called H.R. 1039 a ``critical officer safety measure'' in their letter of endorsement. Support the National Association of Police Organizations, who said H.R. 1039 is a ``sensible solution that ensures the safety of the officer, the probationer, and the community.'' Mr. Speaker, I enter in the Record these letters. Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Cabin John, MD, May 17, 2017. Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf of the nearly 27,000 members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association to advise you of our strong support for H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act,'' and to express our appreciation for the Congress's consideration of this important officer safety measure during National Police Week. FLEOA opposes the amendment that will be offered on the floor to sunset the authority provided by the bill, as you cannot put a stopwatch on critical law enforcement officer protection measures such as H.R. 1039. The ``Probation Officer Protection Act'' is a critical officer safety measure. At a time when U.S. Probation Officers have seen their workloads increase due to changes in sentencing policy and are being asked to ``do more with the same,'' ensuring that they have the means to protect themselves when placed in harm's way is paramount. H.R. 1039 will fully authorize a U.S. Probation Officer to arrest any third party who violates 18 USC 111. This statute has been on the books since the 1940s and makes it a crime for any person to forcibly assault, resist, intimidate, or interfere with any federal officer in the performance of their official duties. Current law, however, only allows Probation Officers to make arrests of individuals on probation or under supervised release who violate 18 USC 111. This authority does not extend to ``third parties,'' which could include a former associate of the offender or an unidentified member of the community. In many instances third parties are well aware that a federal officer's authority is limited to individuals on supervision, and when a third party does impede or assault a U.S. Probation Officer, the Officer's only recourse is to retreat and call for local law enforcement. While in major cities local law enforcement may respond depending on availability, the same is not true for U.S. Probation Officers who work in rural communities where response by local law enforcement may be a single officer or none. This places Probation Officers at even greater risk, particularly in those situations where retreat is not even a reasonably safe alternative. During the forthcoming debate on this bill, there will undoubtedly be those who go to great lengths to demean U.S. Probation Officers as something less than ``real'' law enforcement officers or to diminish the hazards that they face. Some may also raise inchoate objections about the constitutionality of H.R. 1039. For example, you will hear that Congress cannot extend Executive Branch police powers to the Judicial Branch, despite the fact that it was Congress that established the U.S. Supreme Court Police that resides directly across the street from the U.S. Capitol. Not only are such statements factually inaccurate, they display a basic lack of understanding about those who serve our nation as U.S. Probation Officers and the purposes behind the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.'' Make no mistake: U.S. Probation Officers are fully trained federal law enforcement officers. They attend basic training at the National Training Academy at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Charleston, SC, and receive ongoing in-service training throughout the year. Their training covers everything from firearms regulation and safety and defensive tactics to handcuffing, the use of force, de-escalation training, and reality-based scenario training. It may be difficult for some to acknowledge, but there is an inherent risk to the work U.S. Probation Officers do--a risk that often outweighs that of traditional law enforcement. They do not enter into sterile offices, but often into environments that are uncertain. They are required to have frequent and regular contacts in the home and community and knowingly come into daily contact with individuals who have a history of violence, mental health issues, problems with authority, and troubles with substance abuse. U.S. Probation Officers are not able to anticipate what is going to occur during all contacts. There are and have been occasions when U.S. Probation Officers are threatened and/or attacked by third parties and they need the ability to take an affirmative step to protect themselves. U.S. Probation Officers are a unique profession. They have a knowledge base in law and human behavior, and a mix of skills in investigation, communication, and analysis. They strive to make our communities safer, to make a positive difference in the lives of those they serve, and promote fairness in process and excellence in service. But as the volume of approved searches they must conduct has markedly increased over the past year due to changes in sentencing policy, the absence of any authority to restrain or direct the movements of third parties places U.S. Probation Officers at a greater and unnecessary risk of physical harm. H.R. 1039 provides a modest expansion of U.S. Probation Officers' existing arrest authority to cover only violations of 18 USC 111. It does not in any way provide them ``peace officer'' status or grant them the same general arrest authority that state-level probation officers enjoy in many jurisdictions. Granting U.S. Probation Officers the authority to arrest third parties would not change who they are and what they are seeking. Nor will it interfere with or otherwise diminish U.S. Probation Officers' use of the de-escalation techniques that are the hallmark of their profession. It would simply afford them another tool, another avenue, if ever needed. In the end, this legislation will enhance officer safety while also protecting probationers and third parties by preventing obstruction from escalating to actual violence. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this legislation and for helping U.S. Probation Officers do their job more safely by passing H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.'' Sincerely, Nathan R. Catura, National President.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special member of my staff, Burak Guvensoylar, who lost his courageous battle with cancer this past weekend. Burak was a valued member of the Judiciary Committee team and worked on a variety of issues, including digital privacy and intellectual property. His vast knowledge and grasp of the issues impacting the technology community was a tremendous asset to the Committee. Most recently, Burak's work included the development of the Committee's Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda, and his steadfast work and tenacious attitude were not only essential to making this initiative a success, but were also a testament to his character. In fact, while he was undergoing intensive cancer treatments, he was actively working and sending follow up emails from his hospital bed. And just days before Burak passed away he met with FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai to discuss a number of Judiciary Committee priorities. For Burak, nothing could prevent him from an opportunity to discuss and advance the policies he was so passionate about. Burak was a true technology policy enthusiast. Prior to joining the staff of the Judiciary Committee, Burak served as a Legislative Advisor for Congressman Randy Forbes. While working for Congressman Forbes, Burak handled the diverse range of issues that fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee but it was always evident that technology policy was his first love. He co-founded the Congressional Tech Staff Association and served as an Executive Officer responsible for the professional development program. Prior to his career on Capitol Hill, Burak worked at TechAmerica and CompTIA focusing on international trade policy. Burak has many friends here in the halls of Congress, on both sides of the aisle. I know all of you will join me in extending our deepest sympathies to his mother Filiz Guvensoylar, his sister Aylin Forbes, his girlfriend Ashley Newsome, and all of his loved ones. Burak will be deeply missed.