Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I associate myself with the words of the ranking member, Mr. Conyers. I look forward to strengthening these laws and, as well, working on legislation to continue to protect our children, our innocent children, from sexual abuse, sexual assault, and the devastation that it has on their lives. So I rise to continue that theme and to indicate, as I said earlier, that some of the clarifications in the underlying bill are important, and important to clarify, and important to provide prohibitions that will be clear in possible further court interpretations. But I maintain that we cannot predict the court interpretations, and the better and clearer that we are to protect our children, I believe, is a route that we should take. The bill would add new classes of offenses. But section 2251 does not provide for Romeo and Juliet exceptions; i.e., the penalties apply even when conduct is consensual and when the victim and offender are close in age. For example, a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old who videotaped themselves engaged in a sexual act, then emailed the video to their own email accounts, the 19-year-old would be subject to mandatory minimums. That is the basis of the amendment, the Jackson Lee amendment. The Jackson Lee amendment is a Romeo and Juliet exception. The amendment is a reasonable approach to treatment of adolescent behavior that should not be left to prosecutors. The pervasiveness of personal technology, such as cell phones and tablets, have given rise to teenage sexting. Research has shown that teenage sexting is widespread, even among middle school-age youth. Under section 2251, teenagers prosecuted for talking and sending messages, and then taking and sending messages, would be subject to mandatory prison sentences of at least 15 years and sex offender registration. In light of the recent troubling statements by Attorney General Sessions, Congress should provide an alternative to existing mandatory penalties in sexting cases, particularly with juveniles. We cannot say that a juvenile will not be prosecuted federally. They could be, under this particular statute. So this is a carve-out, a Romeo and Juliet carve-out, to ensure that it does not happen, to protect against the possibility of it happening. A study conducted by Drexel University found that more than half of the undergraduate students who took part in an online survey said they had sexted when they were teenagers, and 30 percent said that they included photos in that message, meaning that they had sent sexual texts. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues come together and support the Jackson Lee amendment for a Romeo and Juliet carve-out. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to consider these concerns. I heard the gentleman speak of his effort to ensure that the internet provider would have to show intent or have intentionally engaged. Again, the interpretation of these bills are subject to interpretation, and the clearer we can be here on the floor of the House, the more we can be appropriate in its application. My point is, in concluding, I hope we will ultimately have legislation that comes back to the floor of the House that we all may be able to join in and that the elements that do not impact and protect our teenagers will be eliminated and we can be assured that internet providers are protected as well.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to go home and join my community in honoring the fallen as we come together and say thank you. But as I go home, as well, I will be visiting with so many constituents who will be asking the question: Why? This week in the Budget Committee, a very callous statement by the OMB Director about diabetes victims or individuals who have that disease who are sitting on their couch and eating nonnutritious food, because the budget that the President has offered wants to take 23 million people off of healthcare, take $880 billion away from seniors who are in nursing homes who need Medicaid, and shutting down the Meals on Wheels. That is inhumane and cruel. At the same time, they will be asking me about the ridiculous, if you will, actions of the President firing the FBI Director because he was involved in the Russian investigation, asking the National Security Agency Director to block or to avoid talking about Russian collusion, and the National Intelligence Director asking him to cover up such things. I believe now it is time for an impeachment inquiry that goes along with the other investigations, along with the U.S. commission, along with the legislation on the special prosecutor because a special counsel can be fired. Our constituents are asking for the truth, and we need to give the truth.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the federal budget is more than a financial document; it is an expression of our values and priorities as a nation. Sadly, the President's budget fails this moral test of government. This budget does not reflect our dreams for our nation; rather it is the ``Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.'' Mr. Speaker, it appears that the President loves TrumpCare so much that he decided to double down and give us ``TrumpScare'' for a budget. This TrumpScare budget stacks the deck for the rich while undermining hard-working Americans everywhere. Throwing billions at defense while ransacking America's investments in jobs, education, clean energy and lifesaving medical research will leave our nation weakened. America will not be made great by stealing another $610 billion from Medicaid, abandoning seniors and families in need, depriving students of realizing a dream to attend college without drowning in debt, or disinvesting in the working families to give unwanted tax breaks to wealthy corporations and the top 1 percent. America will not be positioned to compete and win in the global, interconnected, and digital economy by slashing funding for scientific research, the arts and humanities, job retraining, and clean energy. And the President's TrumpScare budget does not ``put America First'' by cutting Social Security Disability Insurance benefits and Meals on Wheels for Americans who depend upon these programs to sustain themselves. Even a cursory review leaves the inescapable conclusion that this budget represents a betrayal--of our values as a nation, and of the promises made by the President during the election campaign. Just like the ``TrumpRussia'' scandal, we have another mystery and the question is: ``Whodunit?'' So the real question is whether the budgetary priorities in the budget represent a betrayal of the President, or a betrayal by the President of the promises he made repeatedly to the American people? The answer to this question will tell us all we need to know about this budget and this President.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I want to add my support for this legislation, and I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentlewoman from Arizona for their longstanding service. We have been dealing with bills dealing with sexual assault in the Judiciary Committee. Having listened to the young female soldiers who were impacted by Marines United, I know that this legislation that gives the military leadership additional tools to ensure that the depiction of women and others in the United States military, against their will, on social media, will not be tolerated and will not be viewed as an honorable act under the U.S. Military Code. Giving these tools will show that you will be punished and that men and women will be respected in the United States military. I ask colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2473, the Put Trafficking Victims First Act of 2017. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass) for the introduction of this legislation. This bill is intended to improve the implementation of the Justice for Victims Trafficking Act of 2015. The 2015 act expanded the Federal response to trafficking concerning services and benefits for victims, criminal justice, domestic sex trafficking of children, and interagency coordination and training. I support H.R. 2473 for several reasons. To begin with, this measure will strengthen the effectiveness of the 2015 act in various ways. For example, H.R. 2473 requires that training be provided for prosecutions of traffickers. When children fall prey to the sex trade and then are treated as criminals rather than victims, their injuries are compounded. We had the first human trafficking hearing of any committee in Houston, Texas, just a few years ago under the auspices of the Homeland Security Committee. Our committee determined this very point: that children fall prey and then become victims of the criminal justice system. That is not the way to deal with our children who are victims, innocent children who have been turned into human traffic products by the heinous traffickers. As such, this training is critical to ensure that human trafficking victims are treated as victims and afforded justice, respect, and dignity. Second, H.R. 2473 establishes a working group to develop best practices or best methods to assess the prevalence of human trafficking. We know that there is a growing epidemic of abhorrent practices of sex trafficking, and we must consider all methods to help law enforcement stop these crimes. The working group will identify barriers that hamper human trafficking data collection and identify what information should be collected, as well as ascertain current practices being used by different agencies and organizations that can be standardized into best practices. As a result, H.R. 2473 will help ensure the most effective prevention practices are standardized so that perpetrators of sex trafficking are ultimately brought to justice. Lastly, the legislation encourages States to adopt protections for sex trafficking victims. These victims are often very afraid to seek help, particularly from law enforcement because of the risk that they will be treated as criminals again rather than victims. H.R. 2473 recognizes the critical fact that children involved in sex trafficking are victims and not criminals. They absolutely should not be treated as criminals. In acknowledgement of this fact, the bill identifies a broad range of important initiatives that States should undertake that would provide meaningful assistance to these victims: upholding basic rights, facilitating ways to identify child trafficking, providing emergency long-term housing. Each of these initiatives should help ensure that these victims are not revictimized and help enable them to be guided back to a normalized life. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I am pleased to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass), the original cosponsor of this legislation and one of the champions of protecting children and a leader of the Congressional Caucus on Foster Youth.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. What an appropriate time so that I can add my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Conyers, the ranking member of the subcommittee that I am on, and to the chairman of the subcommittee. We have enjoyed working together on this legislation. To the cosponsors of this legislation, Mrs. Wagner and Ms. Bass. And then to the potent statement of my friend and fellow Texan, Congressman Ted Poe, who modestly indicated that we, as women, helped drive this, frankly, he beat us to the finish line riding his horse, but I want to thank him very much for his great leadership and interest in this very important area. This bill is a wonderful complement to the igniting of understanding about the vileness of human trafficking. I think it is important to take note that the Homeland Security Department has trained airline stewards to recognize human trafficking victims on airplanes. Many of them are children, camouflaged as an adult and their special child--niece or nephew--traveling together. This legislation is all about pointing out, finding, saving the victims, making sure they get treatment, and making sure that human trafficking is identified. So I am also pleased that this measure, as amended, requires a report on State safe harbor laws. As we all know, safe harbors play a critical role in preventing youth, forced into the sex trade, from being revictimized again and stigmatized a second time by the criminal justice system, almost similar to the little girl who was looking for love. Instead, she got victimized and turned into a human trafficking product. H.R. 2473 also fosters better collaboration among the Federal, State, and local law enforcement in the fight against sex trafficking and encourages States to adopt protections for trafficking victims by providing rehabilitation and recovery services for victims of human trafficking. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this measure and, as well, to be reminded of all those children who will be helped and saved. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1188, the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017. For those of us who have met John Walsh and know of his family, it is both unspeakable and unimaginable the feeling that families have faced when a beautiful young child has gone missing and ultimately brutalized and killed. That is what happened to John, his wife, and his family's beautiful child in 1981. So out of that came a lifelong commitment to ending this kind of violence against children, but, more importantly, finding the Nation's worst criminals who would brutalize families and fail to be apprehended. The Adam Walsh Act, in particular, established the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act--often referred to as SORNA--as a national system for the registration of sex offenders. This bill is an important bill, and I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) again for his energized and effective effort reauthorizing this legislation and his commitment to fighting for the needs of protecting children. We join him in that. I am reminded of the great work of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and how they have continued their work for years. As they came into fruition, it seemed that children were missing every day. Violence was perpetrated, but laws were brought about to make a difference. So I support this bill and I raise some reflective thoughts. I am glad that this bill reflects changes to SORNA that were agreed to by the Judiciary Committee when it last reauthorized the Adam Walsh Act in 2012 to improve the requirements for States to register sex offenders, for that was a very difficult system, and some States were complying and others were not. Whatever one's belief may be about the wisdom of sex offender registries, prior to SORNA, many States had already developed sex offender registries on their own and devoted substantial resources to identify the most effective methods to manage sex offenders. In the legislation, there was a certain way that SORNA wanted to handle that, therefore, States were made to disregard those efforts in favor of a one-size-fits-all. One of the principal concerns with SORNA is that it deprives States of flexibility in dealing with juvenile sex offender registration. I am glad that there is at least a recognition that States have put in good programs, so I am delighted that that flexibility can be addressed. I also think that it is important to note that the bill has to address longstanding implementation issues. As we noted in 2012, although the legislation made some useful reforms, it failed to address fundamental concerns with SORNA, and we are still working to achieve that accomplishment. Commendably, H.R. 1188, however, would allow States discretion in determining whether juvenile sex offender information would be accessible to the public via the internet. Of course, it continues to be a steadfast legal prohibition and structure to diminishing--or hopefully diminishing--the sex violence against children. It will reduce the time that certain, but not all, juvenile sex offenders adjudicated as a delinquent are required to register from 25 to 15 years. The bill has many merits, and I think the changes that have been made are extremely positive, one, in dealing with flexibility, and, two, with recognizing some flexibility as it relates to juvenile offenders. This is legislation that many have poured their heart into because they believe that there should be a day when this kind of violence ends, and I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss H.R. 1188, the ``Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act of 2017.'' While it is an improvement over current law dealing with a very important subject, it should do more. This bill is a step forward in our effort to address concerns about the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, commonly known as SORNA. There is no doubt that child sexual exploitation is a plague on our country. The mistreatment of children should not be tolerated in any form. Congress has a duty to carefully craft solutions to this problem without creating confusion or new problems. The creation of a uniform, nationwide standard for sex offender registries in the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 was motivated by laudable goals--prevention and protection. Congress soon found, however, that state implementation of SORNA would not occur quickly or easily. Many states were unable to comply, and some would not comply because of disagreements about who should be subject to mandatory registration. Problems with SORNA were still evident in 2012 when we last considered, but did not complete, reauthorization of the Adam Walsh Act. Now, ten years after enactment, problems with SORNA remain. According to the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), only 17 states, 3 territories, and 103 Indian tribes, have substantially implemented SORNA. States continue to incur penalties imposed on Byrne Justice Assistance Grants funding for noncompliance, monies that fund essential state and local programs. Juvenile registration is still the most significant barrier to state implementation of SORNA. Research has shown that treatment of juvenile sex offenders can and does work through therapy that involves community-based intervention, adapted to the needs of juveniles, working within multiple systems-- individual, family, and school--to address the various causes of childhood delinquency. Researchers have also found that adolescents who completed sexual offender treatment had significantly lower recidivism rates than untreated adolescents, whereas registration serves only to marginalize and label youth, causing more harm than good. In order to implement the approaches to the treatment of juvenile offenders that have proven successful, states must have flexibility in the manner in which they handle juvenile sex offenders--flexibility that is all but denied to states by SORNA. Although I believe juveniles should be completely removed from registration requirements, I am glad that this bill includes a provision that allows states to exempt juveniles adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses from the public website and reduces the time some juveniles will be potentially required to register from 25 to 15 years. Under this bill, the Attorney General's annual report to Congress on sex offender registration will now include an analysis of common reasons for state noncompliance, including more detailed information on offenders, particularly juveniles, including a breakdown of the number of registered offenders who are juveniles and adults who are required to register because of statutory rape convictions or other conduct committed as juveniles. Hopefully, this information will inform future efforts to amend SORNA. While this bill includes provisions that address some of the concerns raised when the Adam Walsh Act was considered by this Committee in 2012, it is clear that work remains to be done if the Act is to ever achieve its purpose. I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner for his dedication to this issue. I support this bill--as far as it goes--and hope my colleagues will support efforts to improve it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. First of all, we will be doing a series of bills that are extremely important, and I will make note of my interest in protecting children, but as well to broaden our work as we work in the Committee on the Judiciary on matters dealing with criminal justice reform and specifically dealing with the issue of solitary confinement, alternative sentencing for young people, and Ban the Box. I also hope that we will work on issues dealing with criminal justice reform sentencing reduction that are crucial and prison reform. There is a lot of work for us to do as we do the work on the floor today. People are waiting, and in some instances languishing, in the Nation's juvenile detention centers and various juvenile justice courts for a statement to be made by the Federal Government on seeking a second chance for those who are in the juvenile justice system. As relates to the Adam Walsh legislation, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the other cosponsors of H.R. 1188 for their steadfast work on these issues. Nevertheless, as I indicated, let's do more with respect to dealing with the registration of juvenile offenders in terms of attempting to ensure that they will have an opportunity for rehabilitation. While I hope we may still work to make additional improvements to this legislation, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to again consider the importance of our duty to protect children from sexual predators in as efficient and broad-based manner as we possibly can. I want to thank the continued service of John Walsh and offer again, as we all do, our deepest expression of remorse for the loss that he and so many families tragically have experienced at the hands of horrific sexual predators and those who would attack our children. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with my good friend from Virginia, the chairman of the committee, that the acts are heinous. It appears that there is no addition to the underlying aspect of section 3559(e) of title 18 that says, a defendant who has been previously convicted of a felony Federal or State sex offense committed against a child and who is guilty of a predicate Federal sex offense against a child must be sentenced to life imprisonment. But, again, the bill is not written that way. I agree with everything my good friend, the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Roby) said. I want to congratulate her for her commitment, as so many of us, as women who have come to the United States Congress who are mothers, have a special interest in children, and, in particular, to avoid the horrific abuse of children, and sexual abuse. That is an important cause, and the underlying bill is important and crucial. But I maintain that there is a lack of clarity into whether or not, in fact, there are additional mandatory minimums because it is broken down in these elements. The imposition of a life sentence, namely, sexual contact with a minor under the age of 12, aggravated sexual contact with a minor between the ages of 12 and 15, and illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen. The question is: Is the discretion of the court and the prosecutor there? I am not in the court. I don't know what the facts are, except for the heinousness of tainting and violating a child. I want that criminal brought to justice, but I want that prosecutor and that judge and the defense under this existing statute to be able to address that question and to be able to address the vileness or the mitigating factors in that instance. I don't want repeat offenders. Some have alleged that there should be a variety of responses to sex offenders. I am aware of international sex trafficking and men that travel to international places to have sex with a child. I can't imagine that that would not fall on deaf ears in a courtroom under the existing statute of 3559(e). And that is the imposition of life imprisonment. But there is merit to the question of discretion and the assessment of the court. Now, I might say, with a little aside, that there are some populations that don't get fair treatment, no matter what the case is, yet I am yielding to the court because I do think there is merit to this idea of one mandatory sentence after another, and that that is the only response that one must get the mandatory minimum. In the backdrop of this Attorney General, who has expressed no interest in rehabilitation, in treatment, or in real criminal justice reform, I am frightened. I am frightened about what will happen in the Nation's U.S. attorneys and Federal courts across America. Will we again reinstitute the wave of incarcerated persons marching in under mandatory minimums? Will the epidemic begin again? It is a difficult posture to stand on the floor of the House when you are discussing a baby, a child, a 12-year-old. There is no divide between my belief and Congresswoman Roby's belief. It is heinous. They should be punished. We may have a disagreement of what may be a process that reenacts and restores our pathway on mass incarceration. It is not clear in the bill, plain and simple. I heard the response of the chairman: There is nothing new. Then it should have been tied to 3559(c) and just say, ``must be sentenced to life in prison, as it is.'' But it seems that there is a refinement, so more and more opportunities for mandatory minimums and no discretion for the judge. In a courtroom, the judge, at sentencing, has all the information he or she needs to impose a sentence commensurate with the crime committed and the culpability of the offender. At that time, lock them up, throw the key away. I am not sure what the Department of Justice is speaking about in terms of loopholes. There are some very fine men and women who have headed up U.S. Attorneys Offices over the years and decades, and they have gotten their man or woman. So the question is: With an Attorney General that we have, who stood in the way of criminal justice reform in the last Congress as we were on the precipice of doing great things, now I am supposed to be convinced that he is in any way sympathetic to the mass incarceration which disproportionately impacts African Americans. No, this is not a case that is a bill that points or focuses on African Americans. I am very clear about that. I don't suggest that at all. But I know the ultimate result of mandatory minimums has a disproportionate impact on African Americans, as evidenced by the census population in the Federal Prison Bureau, in the Federal criminal justice system, and in State prisons across America. I want to work with my colleagues. I want to save children. All of us are brought to tears when some heinous, vile human being wants to taint a child. But if a judge can't understand that, shame on them. If a prosecutor doesn't understand that, shame on them. And they have got 3559(e) that expresses that, which would include the illicit sexual conduct with a minor abroad by a U.S. citizen and, if not, that could be stated in there, and the language ``must be sentenced to life in prison.'' I am not sure where we are going, but I would hope that we could clarify that 3559(e) answers all the questions and that we don't find added mandatory minimums which impact communities disproportionately as the only solution to getting a dastardly person off the streets.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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. 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.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

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. 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.

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 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.

Ms. JACKSON LEE

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the chairman and to the Republican team, let me offer, on behalf of the Democrats and Mr. Conyers, our deepest sympathy for the loss of Burak, and to also acknowledge how important our staff is and how important we are as a family on the Judiciary Committee; staff, Republican and Democratic staff members, working together around legislation that makes a difference in the lives of Americans. To hear the dedication of Burak only warms our hearts to recognize that we still live in the greatest country in the world because we have young people willing to serve and sacrifice on behalf of their Nation. I offer my deepest sympathy to you and to his family as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the underlying bill, and that is H.R. 1039. Again, as we finish Police Week, let me say to all of those in law enforcement, including our Federal law enforcement, local, county, and State, a very large ``thank you'' for the work that you have done. In my work as a former judge in the city of Houston, I have seen their work up close and personal, and as well, I have had the opportunity, on a number of cases, where I have asked and interacted with them as they have proceeded with their investigation to find the culprit, the perpetrator, and to make the community safe. Federal probation officers perform a critical service in interacting with and managing their supervisees. They have a central role in seeking to achieve the important goals of supervision, which includes rehabilitating the defendant, safeguarding society from further criminal conduct by the defendant, and protecting the rights of victims. Although probation officers do have the ability to arrest a supervisee under certain circumscribed conditions, they should not take on the role of police officers. Rather, they should focus on their role of working in a constructive manner with supervisees to maximize the chances of adherence to the conditions of supervision. We certainly do not want probation officers to be threatened or assaulted while performing their duties, nor do we want anyone to obstruct the performance of those duties. In many instances, those probation officers can be assisted by backup officers or other Federal officers in the line of their duty. That is why Congress enacted section 111 of title 18 of the United States Code which prohibits such behavior. If violated, these crimes should be investigated, charges brought when appropriate, but also the probation officer can seek assistance. In fact, probation officers have long relied on law enforcement officers to provide support during searches, and I believe that is still the best course. Section 111, however, itself presents serious issues about the vagueness of some of its terms that define violation, such as ``interferes'' or ``opposes.'' May I remind my colleagues that we have a First Amendment. We have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of access, freedom of movement. This exacerbates my concerns about allowing probation officers to arrest individuals whom they are not supervising for violations of this section. Indeed, we are told by proponents of the bill that Federal probation officers plan to use lesser-included authority to detain violators instead of bringing them in for charges after an arrest. At a time when we need to do more to de-escalate circumstances involving confrontations between law enforcement and citizens, I am concerned that establishing this authority would only lead to more confrontation. In concluding, as I indicated, the bill would authorize Federal probation officers to arrest, without a warrant, an individual other than their supervisee if there is probable cause to believe that person assaulted or interfered with a probation officer in the course of their duties. I believe there are conflicting constitutional issues here, and I ask my colleagues, with all due respect, to oppose the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1039, the ``Probation Officer Protection Act.'' I must oppose this bill for several important reasons. To begin with, this bill raises serious constitutional and practical concerns that could have been identified and explored had our Committee held any hearings on the subject matter. This bill would authorize federal probation officers to arrest without a warrant an individual--other than supervisees--if there is probable cause to believe that person assaulted or interfered with a probation officer in the course of their duties. The changes this bill would make to current law would significantly alter the role of federal probation officers and invite abuse in the application of the proposed expanded authority. Federal probation officers perform a critical service in interacting with and managing their supervisees. They have a central role in seeking to achieve the important goals of supervision, which includes: (1) rehabilitating the defendant; (2) safeguarding society from further criminal conduct by the defendant; and (3) protecting the rights of victims. Although probation officers do have the ability to arrest a supervisee under certain circumscribed conditions, they should not take on the role of police officers. Rather, they should focus on their role of working in a constructive manner with supervisees to maximize the chances of adherence to the conditions of supervision. We certainly do not want probation officers to be threatened or assaulted while performing their duties, nor do we want anyone to obstruct the performance of those duties. That is why Congress enacted Section 111 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which prohibits such behavior. If violated, these crimes should be investigated and charges brought when appropriate. In fact, probation officers have long relied on law enforcement officers to provide support during searches, and I believe that is still the best course to continue. Section 111, however, itself presents serious issues about the vagueness of some of its terms that define violations, such as ``interferes'' or ``opposes''. This exacerbates my concerns about allowing probation officers to arrest individuals whom they are not supervising for violations of this section. Making such determinations on vague terms invites abuse. Indeed, we are told by proponents of the bill that federal probation officers plan to use ``lesser included'' authority to ``detain'' violators instead of bringing them in for charges after an arrest. This is an invitation for abuse as it indicates the statute may be used--at times--when not necessary. And, at a time when we need to do more to de-escalate circumstances involving confrontations between law enforcement and citizens, I am concerned that establishing this authority will only lead to more confrontation. This is all the more troubling because of constitutional concerns regarding such detentions. As the Federal Public Defenders of New York explains: ``the Fourth Amendment does not permit probation officers to exercise this `lesser included' power. Under an exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, police officers, when executing a search warrant, are permitted to temporarily restrain third parties absent probable cause for arrest, including by using handcuffs. In holding such detentions to be `reasonable,' the Supreme Court emphasized the fact--`of prime importance'--that the search was authorized by a neutral magistrate's finding of probable cause to search the premises.'' In the circumstances contemplated by this bill, the probation officers would have the right to be on the premises, but their underlying authority to detain individuals--not based on a probable cause warrant--would fail this constitutional requirement. Overall, the extension of third-party arrest authority to federal probation officers is a step in the wrong direction. As the Federal Defenders warn, the ``bill represents a retreat from the current constructive role of probation officers in reintegrating offenders into society. If probation officers assumed the role of police, directing and restraining, or arresting, family and friends, progress in individual cases and the system as a whole would be undermined.'' Likewise, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Leadership Counsel for Civil and Human Rights have expressed strong opposition to this bill. I appreciate the dedication of federal probation officers in carrying out their important duties. And it is because of my respect for the role that they play that I fear that this bill will ultimately serve to undermine it. Accordingly, I ask that my colleagues join me in opposing this well- intentioned, but harmful bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. First of all, let me indicate the important work that all law enforcement do and, as well, those who serve in the probation departments of our State and Federal Government. In particular, we are talking about Federal probation officers. I think it is important to give them a debt of gratitude. But they are not police officers. They are probation officers. Their training is quite different. Their role is quite different. They are to engage in a constructive relationship with the probationer, rehabilitation, making sure they adhere to their rules and confinement or what is detailed by the court. They do it very well; so much so, that we have determined that the incidents are very low. Of the 987 searches that were conducted by Federal probation officers, only 30 involved uncooperative third parties, or 3 percent. We would like it to be zero. Of the 1,060 searches conducted in 2016, only 39 involved uncooperative third parties, which amounts to about 3.7 percent. But I agree, no probation officer should be subjected to encountering any manner that threatens them. But this legislation is vague; it is constitutionally weak. It is weak as relates to the Constitution. Its premises, as unopposed and interfered, invite abuse. I still maintain that many of these probation officers go to the homes of either the probationer or their family, and likely, in many instances, it is close individuals. I believe probationers can be assisted by law enforcement officers. Remember, the training is distinctly different. What it lends itself to is overbroad interpretations of interference with probation officers, whose duties may lead to overzealous exercise of arrest authority, which does violate the Constitution. We are now looking at ways to work with law enforcement, and the solution would not be even more training, because we do not want to turn probation officers into police officers, which would undermine the constructive role probation officers have in the rehabilitation of supervisees. Detaining, arresting, and issuing orders to family, friends, employers, and coworkers of supervisees will not advance the goals of supervision but would escalate conflict and lead to greater danger. These are high goals that my colleagues have spoken of, and I certainly believe that these are worthy goals, but I would offer to say that third parties are not in the same position as those who are supervised with respect to their rights. They have given up none of their rights and should not be detained or arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is and can be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, of unreasonable search and seizure. It is too vague a description to allow an onsite determination as to whether someone should be arrested. So, in the name of the respect and dignity of all and the appreciation of probation officers, if they view the situation as inappropriate or threatening, as the law allows, those cases should be investigated and prosecuted, but they can call law enforcement officers. Federal probation officers should never be threatened, intimidated, assaulted, or precluded from doing their jobs. Nevertheless, H.R. 1039, rather than improving their ability to execute their responsibilities, would, unfortunately, have the opposite result. In addition to presenting the constitutional concerns, the bill fails to provide an acceptable, practical, or necessary preventative measure. Further, as the public defenders of New York have indicated, the Fourth Amendment does not permit probation officers to exercise this lesser included power. Under an exception to the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, police officers, when executing a search warrant, are permitted to temporarily restrain third parties, absent probable cause for arrest, including by using handcuffs. Holding such detentions to be reasonable, the Supreme Court emphasized the fact of prime importance: that the search was authorized by a neutral magistrate's finding of probable cause to search the premises. That is not what the probation officer comes into that place with. They are not a law enforcement officer. In caution to our efforts to recognize and respect these fine men and women, let us find a different way, and let us adhere to the established law that will protect the probation officer and all those whom he or she may come in contact with. Again, with great respect for law enforcement and those who serve, I would ask my colleagues to recognize the broadness and vagueness of this legislation and oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman and indicate that there is no doubt we want our officers to be safe. I do want to bring to the attention of my colleagues that we don't want probation officers to be threatened or assaulted while performing their work or their duties, nor do we want to obstruct the performance of those duties. Let me remind my colleagues that many times probation officers are going into homes. There are moms and grandmoms or granddads or children, and certainly we realize that emotions of concern may occur. We want our probation officers to be safe. That is why Congress enacted section 111 of title 18 of the United States Code which prohibits such behavior. And if violated, these crimes should be investigated, and charges are brought. But the other point is that our probation officers undergo an initial 6 weeks of training and some additional training during the year. They still do not have the degree of training of law enforcement officers. I want them to be protected. That is why I think it is important that they have the assistance of trained law enforcement officers. Not all probation officers carry a firearm, as it varies in each judicial district. We want them protected, and we would rather follow the law, which is section 111. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has a longstanding record of advocacy and support for the Nation's law enforcement and first responders, and he is a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire if the other side has any additional speakers?

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.