Preventing Child Exploitation Act of 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6847. The legislation exposes additional persons to preexisting mandatory minimum sentences of 15, 25, 35, or even mandatory life in prison. While I support the underlying goal of punishing sex offenders and I agree that they should be punished harshly, I stand against mandatory minimums.

For decades now, extensive research and evidence has demonstrated that mandatory minimums fail to reduce crime; they discriminate against minorities; they waste the taxpayer's money; and they often require a judge to impose sentences so bizarre that they violate common sense.

Unfortunately, there are already too many mandatory minimums in the Federal code. If we ever expect to do anything about that problem and actually address this driver of mass incarceration, the first step we have to take is to stop passing or expanding mandatory minimums.

The mandatory minimums in the code today did not get there all at once. They got there one at a time, each one part of a larger bill, which, on balance, would seem like a good idea.

Giving lip service to the suggestion that you would have preferred that the mandatory minimum not be in the bill but then vote for the bill anyway not only creates the new mandatory minimum, but it also guarantees that those who support mandatory minimums would include them in the next crime bill. Therefore, the only way to stop passing new mandatory minimums is to stop passing bills that contain or broaden the application of mandatory minimums.

This bill is particularly appalling because it would impose mandatory minimum sentences on teenagers who are doing what many teenagers do. For example, teenage sexting is widespread, that is, texting sexually explicit pictures. Under this bill, teenagers who privately send photos of a sexual nature to each other may be prosecuted, and, if convicted, the judge must sentence them to at least 15 years in prison.

The bill explicitly states that some of these mandatory minimums will apply equally to attempts or conspiracies. That means if a teenager attempts to obtain a photo of sexually explicit conduct by requesting it from his teenage girlfriend, the judge must sentence that teenager to at least 15 years for making that attempt. Or if a teenager encourages a friend to ask another classmate to send the sexually explicit image, the friend agrees to do so and asks her, they are both guilty of conspiracy and the judge must sentence both of them to at least 15 years in prison.

Now, the term ``sexually explicit conduct'' actually includes simulated conduct. This means if a teenager asks another teenager for a photo simulating sex, then that minor, even if the minor is fully clothed, the law is violated. The teenager must get 15 years in prison.

The bill does not allow the judge to consider the fact that the conduct may be consensual conduct between minors or consensual between a 17-year-old or an 18-year-old. These circumstances are irrelevant when the sentence is mandatory.

In many cases covered by the bill, the draconian penalties are appropriate; in others, the penalties are just absurd. But because they are mandatory in the bill, they would have to be imposed anyway.

This bill wouldn't be controversial if it did not expand mandatory minimum sentences, but, unfortunately, it does. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source