July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5507 

uses to protect secret, valuable commercial information from theft. The 

EEA addresses two types of trade secret theft. Section 1831 punishes the 

theft of a trade secret to benefit a foreign entity. Section 1832 punishes the 

commercial theft of trade secrets carried out for economic advantage 

whether or not the theft benefits a foreign entity. 

Since enacting the EEA in 1996, Congress has not adjusted its penalties to 

take into account the increasing importance of intellectual property to the 

economic and national security of the 

U.S. The bill increases the maximum 

penalties for an individual convicted of 

committing espionage on behalf of a 

foreign entity. Currently, the maximum penalty for someone convicted 

under section 1831 of the EEA is 15 

years imprisonment and a fine of up to 

$500,000. This bill increases the maximum penalty to 20 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5 million. 

Earlier this year, the FBI estimated 

that U.S. companies had lost $13 billion 

to trade secret theft in just over 6 

months. Over the past 6 years, losses to 

individual U.S. companies have ranged 

from $20 million to as much as $1 billion. 

Our intelligence community has recognized a ‘‘significant and growing 

threat to our Nation’s prosperity and 

security’’ posed by criminals, both inside and outside our borders, who commit espionage. Congress should also 

recognize this increasing threat and 

enhance deterrence and more aggressively punish those criminals who 

knowingly target U.S. companies for 

espionage. 

So I urge my colleagues to support 

H.R. 6029, which was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee 

this month. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I rise in support of H.R. 6029, the Foreign and Economic Espionage Penalty 

Enhancement Act of 2012. 

This legislation will help to protect 

the intellectual property and competitive strengths of American businesses 

by increasing the maximum penalties 

for engaging in the Federal offense of 

economic espionage. This crime, which 

has serious repercussions for the victim companies and our economy, consists of knowingly misappropriating 

trade secrets with the intent or knowledge that the offense will benefit a foreign government. 

As reported by the U.S. Intellectual 

Property Enforcement Coordinator, 

economic espionage is a serious threat 

to American businesses by foreign governments. Economic espionage inflicts 

a significant cost on victim companies 

and threatens the economic security of 

the United States. These companies 

incur extensive costs resulting from 

the loss of unique intellectual property, the loss of expenditures related to 

research and development, and the loss 

of future revenues and profits. Many 

companies do not even know when 

their sensitive data has been stolen, 

and those that do find out are often reluctant to report the losses, fearing potential damage to their reputations 

with investors, customers, and employees. 

Unfortunately, the pace of the economic espionage collection of information and industrial espionage activities 

against major United States corporations is accelerating. During fiscal year 

2011, the Department of Justice and the 

FBI saw an increase of 29 percent in 

economic espionage and trade secret 

theft investigations compared to the 

prior year. Foreign competitors of 

United States corporations with ties to 

companies owned by foreign governments are increasing their efforts to 

steal trade secret information and intellectual property by infiltrating our 

computer networks. 

Evidence suggests that economic espionage and trade secret theft on behalf of companies located in China is 

an emerging trend. For example, at 

least 34 companies were reportedly victimized by attacks originating from 

China in 2010. Over the course of these 

attacks, computer viruses were spread 

via emails to corporate employees, allowing the attackers to have access to 

emails and sensitive documents. In response to these growing threats, the 

United States Intellectual Property 

Coordinator, in her 2011 annual report, 

called upon Congress to increase the 

penalties for economic espionage, and 

this bill is consistent with that recommendation. 

I want to commend Members on both 

sides of the aisle for their work on this 

bill, particularly the gentleman from 

Texas, the Judiciary Committee chairman, Mr. SMITH; the gentleman from 

Michigan, the ranking member of the 

committee, Mr. CONYERS; my colleague 

from Virginia (Mr. GOODLATTE); and 

the gentleman from North Carolina 

(Mr. WATT). 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

bill, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 6029. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I object to the vote on the ground that 

a quorum is not present and make the 

point of order that a quorum is not 

present. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

The point of no quorum is considered 

withdrawn. 

CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 6063) to amend title 18, 

United States Code, with respect to 

child pornography and child exploitation offenses. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 6063 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Child Protection Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION 

OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. 

(a) CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL INVOLVING THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF

MINORS.—Section 2252(b)(2) of title 18, United 

States Code, is amended by inserting after 

‘‘but if’’ the following: ‘‘any visual depiction 

involved in the offense involved a prepubescent minor or a minor who had not attained 

12 years of age, such person shall be fined 

under this title and imprisoned for not more 

than 20 years, or if’’. 

(b) CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MATERIAL CONSTITUTING OR CONTAINING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.—Section 2252A(b)(2) of title 18, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting 

after ‘‘but, if’’ the following: ‘‘any image of 

child pornography involved in the offense involved a prepubescent minor or a minor who 

had not attained 12 years of age, such person 

shall be fined under this title and imprisoned 

for not more than 20 years, or if’’. 

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF CHILD WITNESSES. 

(a) CIVIL ACTION TO RESTRAIN HARASSMENT

OF A VICTIM OR WITNESS.—Section 1514 of 

title 18, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subsection (b)— 

(A) in paragraph (1)— 

(i) by inserting ‘‘or its own motion,’’ after 

‘‘attorney for the Government,’’; and 

(ii) by inserting ‘‘or investigation’’ after 

‘‘Federal criminal case’’ each place it appears; 

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), 

and (4) as paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; 

(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: 

‘‘(2) In the case of a minor witness or victim, the court shall issue a protective order 

prohibiting harassment or intimidation of 

the minor victim or witness if the court 

finds evidence that the conduct at issue is 

reasonably likely to adversely affect the 

willingness of the minor witness or victim to 

testify or otherwise participate in the Federal criminal case or investigation. Any 

hearing regarding a protective order under 

this paragraph shall be conducted in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (3), except that 

the court may issue an ex parte emergency 

protective order in advance of a hearing if 

exigent circumstances are present. If such an 

ex parte order is applied for or issued, the 

court shall hold a hearing not later than 14 

days after the date such order was applied 

for or is issued.’’; 

(D) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by 

striking ‘‘(and not by reference to the complaint or other document)’’; and 

(E) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, in 

the second sentence, by inserting before the 

period at the end the following: ‘‘, except 

that in the case of a minor victim or witness, 

the court may order that such protective 

order expires on the later of 3 years after the 

date of issuance or the date of the eighteenth 

birthday of that minor victim or witness’’; 

and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5508 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

(2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘(c) Whoever knowingly and intentionally 

violates or attempts to violate an order 

issued under this section shall be fined under 

this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, 

or both. 

‘‘(d)(1) As used in this section— 

‘‘(A) the term ‘course of conduct’ means a 

series of acts over a period of time, however 

short, indicating a continuity of purpose; 

‘‘(B) the term ‘harassment’ means a serious act or course of conduct directed at a 

specific person that— 

‘‘(i) causes substantial emotional distress 

in such person; and 

‘‘(ii) serves no legitimate purpose; 

‘‘(C) the term ‘immediate family member’ 

has the meaning given that term in section 

115 and includes grandchildren; 

‘‘(D) the term ‘intimidation’ means a serious act or course of conduct directed at a 

specific person that— 

‘‘(i) causes fear or apprehension in such 

person; and 

‘‘(ii) serves no legitimate purpose; 

‘‘(E) the term ‘restricted personal information’ has the meaning give that term in section 119; 

‘‘(F) the term ‘serious act’ means a single 

act of threatening, retaliatory, harassing, or 

violent conduct that is reasonably likely to 

influence the willingness of a victim or witness to testify or participate in a Federal 

criminal case or investigation; and 

‘‘(G) the term ‘specific person’ means a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case or 

investigation, and includes an immediate 

family member of such a victim or witness. 

‘‘(2) For purposes of subparagraphs (B)(ii) 

and (D)(ii) of paragraph (1), a court shall presume, subject to rebuttal by the person, that 

the distribution or publication using the 

Internet of a photograph of, or restricted 

personal information regarding, a specific 

person serves no legitimate purpose, unless 

that use is authorized by that specific person, is for news reporting purposes, is designed to locate that specific person (who 

has been reported to law enforcement as a 

missing person), or is part of a governmentauthorized effort to locate a fugitive or person of interest in a criminal, antiterrorism, 

or national security investigation.’’. 

(b) SENTENCING GUIDELINES.—Pursuant to 

its authority under section 994 of title 28, 

United States Code, and in accordance with 

this section, the United States Sentencing 

Commission shall review and, if appropriate, 

amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and 

policy statements to ensure— 

(1) that the guidelines provide an additional penalty increase above the sentence 

otherwise applicable in Part J of Chapter 2 of 

the Guidelines Manual if the defendant was 

convicted of a violation of section 1591 of 

title 18, United States Code, or chapters 

109A, 109B, 110, or 117 of title 18, United 

States Code; and 

(2) if the offense described in paragraph (1) 

involved causing or threatening to cause 

physical injury to a person under 18 years of 

age, in order to obstruct the administration 

of justice, an additional penalty increase 

above the sentence otherwise applicable in 

Part J of Chapter 2 of the Guidelines Manual. 

SEC. 4. SUBPOENAS TO FACILITATE THE ARREST 

OF FUGITIVE SEX OFFENDERS. 

(a) ADMINISTRATIVE SUBPOENAS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 3486(a)(1) of title 

18, United States Code, is amended— 

(A) in subparagraph (A)— 

(i) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

end; 

(ii) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause 

(iii); and 

(iii) by inserting after clause (i) the following: 

‘‘(ii) an unregistered sex offender conducted by the United States Marshals Service, the Director of the United States Marshals Service; or’’; and 

(B) in subparagraph (D)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘paragraph, the term’’ and 

inserting the following: ‘‘paragraph— 

‘‘(i) the term’’; 

(ii) by striking the period at the end and 

inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(iii) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(ii) the term ‘sex offender’ means an individual required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (42 

U.S.C. 16901 et seq.).’’. 

(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 3486(a) of title 18, United 

States Code, is amended— 

(A) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking 

‘‘United State’’ and inserting ‘‘United 

States’’; 

(B) in paragraph (9), by striking ‘‘(1)(A)(ii)’’ 

and inserting ‘‘(1)(A)(iii)’’; and 

(C) in paragraph (10), by striking ‘‘paragraph (1)(A)(ii)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph 

(1)(A)(iii)’’. 

(b) JUDICIAL SUBPOENAS.—Section 566(e)(1) 

of title 28, United States Code, is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

at the end; 

(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(C) issue administrative subpoenas in accordance with section 3486 of title 18, solely 

for the purpose of investigating unregistered 

sex offenders (as defined in such section 

3486).’’. 

SEC. 5. INCREASE IN FUNDING LIMITATION FOR 

TRAINING COURSES FOR ICAC TASK 

FORCES. 

Section 102(b)(4)(B) of the PROTECT Our 

Children Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17612(b)(4)(B)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$4,000,000’’. 

SEC. 6. NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR CHILD EXPLOITATION PREVENTION AND 

INTERDICTION . 

Section 101(d)(1) of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17611(d)(1)) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘to be responsible’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘with experience in investigating or prosecuting child exploitation 

cases as the National Coordinator for Child 

Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction 

who shall be responsible’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘The National Coordinator for Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction shall be a 

position in the Senior Executive Service.’’ 

SEC. 7. REAUTHORIZATION OF ICAC TASK 

FORCES. 

Section 107(a) of the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17617(a)) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’; 

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period 

at the end; and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following: 

‘‘(6) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; 

‘‘(7) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2015; 

‘‘(8) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2016; 

‘‘(9) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2017; and 

‘‘(10) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2018.’’. 

SEC. 8. CLARIFICATION OF ‘‘HIGH-PRIORITY SUSPECT’’. 

Section 105(e)(1)(B)(i) of the PROTECT Our 

Children Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 

17615(e)(1)(B)(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘the 

volume’’ and all that follows through ‘‘or 

other’’. 

SEC. 9. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 

shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a 

report on the status of the Attorney General’s establishment of the National Internet 

Crimes Against Children Data System required to be established under section 105 of 

the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (42 

U.S.C. 17615). 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Texas (Mr. SMITH) and the gentleman 

from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT) each will 

control 20 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas. 

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SMITH of Texas. 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. 6063, the bill currently 

under consideration. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Internet child pornography may be 

the fastest-growing crime in America, 

increasing by an average of 150 percent 

per year. Every day, online criminals 

prey on America’s children with virtual anonymity, and according to recent estimates there are as many as 

100,000 fugitive sex offenders in the U.S. 

Congress has taken important steps to 

combat child exploitation, including 

the passage of the Adam Walsh Act in 

2006 and the PROTECT Our Children 

Act in 2008. 

But our work is not yet done. 

That is why Representative DEBBIE

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ and I introduced 

H.R. 6063, the Child Protection Act of 

2012, that provides law enforcement officials with important tools and additional resources to combat the growing 

threat of child pornography and exploitation. This bipartisan legislation increases penalties for child pornography 

offenses that involve young children 

and strengthens protections for child 

witnesses and victims. 

b 2000 

The bill allows a Federal court to 

issue a protective order if it determines that a child victim or witness is 

being harassed or intimidated and imposes criminal penalties for a violation 

of that protective order. The Child Protection Act ensures that paperwork 

does not stand in the way of the apprehension of dangerous criminals. This 

bill gives the U.S. marshals limited 

subpoena authority to locate and apprehend fugitive sex offenders. 

Unlike the other 300 Federal administrative subpoena powers, which are 

used at the beginning of a criminal investigation, a marshal’s use of subpoena authority under this bill will 

occur only after, and only after, these 

actions occur: 

The fugitive is arrested pursuant to a 

judge-issued warrant, indicted for committing a sex offense, convicted by 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
July 31, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H5509 

proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and 

sentenced in a court of law; 

The fugitive is required to register as 

a sex offender; 

The fugitive pleas or otherwise violates their registration requirements; 

and 

A State or Federal arrest warrant is 

issued for violation of the registration 

requirements. 

This narrow subpoena authority is 

critical to help take convicted sex offenders off the streets. 

H.R. 6063 also reauthorizes, for 5 

years, the Internet Crimes Against 

Children task forces. The ICAC task 

forces were launched in 1998 and officially authorized by Congress in the 

PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008. 

The ICAC Task Force Program is a 

national network of 61 coordinated 

task forces that represent over 3,000 

Federal, State, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies dedicated to child exploitation investigations. Since 1998, the ICAC task forces 

have reviewed more than 280,000 complaints of alleged child sexual abuse 

and arrested more than 30,000 individuals. The Child Protection Act increases the cap on grant funds for ICAC 

training programs and makes several 

clarifications to provisions enacted as 

a part of the PROTECT Our Children 

Act. 

Finally, the bill requests a report 

from the Justice Department on implementation of a national Internet 

crimes against children data system. 

Yesterday, Senator BLUMENTHAL and 

Senator CORNYN introduced the companion bill in the Senate. This bipartisan, bicameral bill is supported by a 

number of outside organizations, which 

include the National Center for Missing 

and Exploited Children, the Major City 

Chiefs of Police, Futures Without Violence, the Fraternal Order of Police, 

the International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, the National Alliance to End 

Sexual Violence, the National District 

Attorneys Association, the National 

White Collar Crime Center, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Surviving Parents Coalition, the Rape 

Abuse Incest National Network, the 

National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, and the National Association to 

Protect Children. 

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to 

thank Congresswoman DEBBIE

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ for her great 

work on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this 

important legislation to protect America’s children. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield myself such time as I may consume. 

I rise in opposition to H.R. 6063. 

While I can appreciate the apparent attempt in the bill to better protect children who are victims of sexual abuse, it 

not only fails to achieve that objective, 

but it also presents serious constitutional concerns and other problematic 

provisions. 

First, the bill creates a rebuttable 

presumption in 18 U.S.C. section 1514 

that, if an individual posts a photograph or personal identifying information about a person subject to a protective order, it ‘‘serves no legitimate purpose,’’ which is an essentiable element 

of the offense of harassment and intimidation. This rebuttable presumption would shift the burden of proof in 

these cases from the accuser to the accused by requiring the accused to prove 

that posting of the photograph or information about the person served a legitimate purpose. Therefore, under current law and the fundamental principles of the Constitution, the burden 

is on the accuser to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this element of the offense, not the obligation of the accused 

to prove his innocence. This provision 

violates the constitutional rights of defendants who may be innocent of the 

underlying charge and who are entitled 

to be presumed innocent. 

The coincidental inclusion of a protected person in a family photo posted 

over Facebook or an email, which may 

be unintentional and coincidental, 

should not be presumed to be a crime. 

What’s wrong with the normal process by which the accuser has to show 

that the posting was for harassment or 

intimidation? To make an innocent 

person prove his innocence is not only 

unnecessary and unfair, but unconstitutional. 

In Francis v. Franklin, a 1985 Supreme Court case, the government argued that the constitutional issue regarding the rebuttable presumption 

there was overcome by the defendant’s 

ability to rebut the presumption. The 

Supreme Court, however, found that 

argument unpersuasive. The Court said 

that a mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it must infer the 

presumed fact if the State presumes 

certain predicate facts. Such a presumption can be conclusive or rebuttable. The key is whether it is mandatory, that is, whether the jury must 

make a presumption, possibly subject 

to rebuttal, if the State proves certain 

facts. 

In light of the fact that section 

3(d)(2) of H.R. 6063 explicitly mandates 

the court shall presume there was no 

legitimate purpose, this provision is 

exactly the kind of mandatory rebuttable presumption that the Court repudiated in the Francis decision. 

Another problem with the bill is it 

adds a new criminal offense of violating a protective order. Minor activities that are not intended to cause 

harm or distress, such as a phone call 

or an email, can result in a Federal 

criminal charge, not as a violation of 

Federal law protecting a witness from 

harassment or intimidation—there are 

already laws against that—but as a 

technical violation of a civil order. 

Judges already have plenty of laws 

and authority to protect victims and 

witnesses. There’s already a comprehensive statutory scheme in place 

to assist judges and law enforcement in 

protecting witnesses in Federal criminal proceedings. In addition to Federal 

criminal provisions with heavy penalties and the authority for judges to 

enter protective orders for the protection of all witnesses, including children, the judges have immense contempt and other powers to accomplish 

this goal. Thus, the additional criminal 

offense is unnecessary and unproductive. We should stop adding unnecessary criminal laws to the criminal 

code. 

In the previous Congress, we held 

hearings regarding the general problem 

of over-criminalization of conduct and 

the over-federalization of criminal law. 

Members of both parties then expressed 

concern over this. We already have 

over 4,000 Federal criminal offenses in 

the code, along with an estimated 

300,000 Federal regulations that impose 

criminal penalties, often without clearly setting out what will be subject to 

criminal liability. 

This bill is yet another example of 

adding more unnecessary crimes and 

penalties to the Federal code. Moreover, such a provision moves the protection responsibility from the judge in 

the case to a prosecutor who decides 

when there is a violation and when to 

bring charges for the violations. Given 

the fact that many proceedings involving child witnesses also involve family 

members of the child witness in emotionally charged situations, the addition of more criminal provisions to this 

mix is not helpful. 

This provision allows the imposition 

of a Federal felony up to 5 years in 

prison for a violation. It is unnecessary, overbroad, and harsh, especially 

given a restraining order can be violated by simply making an innocent 

phone call. 

A further problem with H.R. 6063 is 

that it would give U.S. marshals the 

authority to issue administrative subpoenas to investigate unregistered sex 

offenders. I’m not convinced that extending this extraordinary ex parte judicial authority is appropriate. 

Research has clearly shown that registered sex offenders who may not be 

compliant with the law are actually no 

more apt to commit a criminal offense 

than those who are compliant. So there 

is no compelling reason to create a special authority for U.S. marshals in the 

case of registered or unregistered sex 

offenders. There’s no urgent or imminent threat context in rounding up alleged noncompliant sex offenders 

which, as we said, are no more likely to 

commit a crime than those who are 

compliant with all of the technicalities 

of the law. 

b 2010 

The existing statutory scheme for administrative subpoenas for law enforcement focuses on extreme situations, 

such as the Presidential threat protection administrative subpoena. We approved that power a few years ago to 

assist in the protection of the President when the director of the Secret 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H5510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE July 31, 2012 

Service has determined that an imminent threat is posed against the life of 

the President of the United States, and 

he has to certify the same to the Secretary of the Treasury. And the Attorney General has the same kind of 

power in child exploitation cases. Both 

are Cabinet-level officials. 

I offered an amendment to remove 

the provisions extending this type of 

judicial authority to the U.S. Marshals 

Service. Upon the failure of that 

amendment, I then offered an amendment to continue limiting the authority to issue administrative subpoenas 

to Cabinet officials to ensure that this 

extraordinary judicial power is used 

discreetly and only in circumstances 

where it is absolutely warranted. Those 

amendments were defeated; and, therefore, this bill gives more power to the 

Marshals Service in cases where there 

is no proven need for the power, more 

power than the Secret Service has 

when faced with an imminent threat to 

the President of the United States. 

Despite serious constitutional issues 

and these other problems, this bill was 

introduced on June 29 and was marked 

up in committee 12 days later, on July 

10, which was the very next day that 

Congress was in session. Clearly these 

provisions need more consideration. 

For these reasons, I urge that we defeat H.R. 6063. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

have no further requests for time on 

this side and reserve the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield such time as she may consume 

to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. 

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ), a cosponsor of 

the bill. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. 

Speaker, I rise today in support of the 

Child Protection Act of 2012, which I 

am honored to cosponsor with my good 

friend from Texas, Chairman LAMAR

SMITH. Chairman SMITH and I are 

proof-positive of what bipartisan working relationships can accomplish, especially because we both agree that protecting the safety and well-being of our 

Nation’s children is our highest priority. That’s why I am so pleased that 

this bill, which was reported favorably 

out of committee on voice vote, is before us today. This is an opportunity to 

make a real difference in the lives of 

children nationwide, thousands of 

whom are plagued by abuse, terror, and 

assaults that we cannot even imagine. 

In 2008, I was honored to sponsor the 

PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, 

which provides the safety net and resources the law enforcement agents 

who fight child sexual predators so desperately need. This commonsense bill 

builds on the progress that we started 

in PROTECT to ensure that law enforcement can combat one of the fastest-growing crimes in the United 

States, child pornography. 

We must ensure that investigators 

have every available resource to track 

down predators and protect our children. This bill ensures that paperwork 

does not stand in the way of protecting 

our kids. 

Mr. Speaker, I have learned far too 

much about the world of child pornography since I first took on this cause 4 

years ago. There are many aspects of it 

that are disturbing beyond words to describe, like the fact that in a survey of 

convicted offenders, more than 83 percent of them had images of children 

younger than 12 years old, and almost 

20 percent of them had images of babies 

and toddlers who were less than 3 years 

old. And let’s remember that these 

aren’t just images of naked children. 

These are crime scene photographs and 

videos taken of children being beaten, 

raped, and abused beyond our worst 

nightmares for the sexual pleasure of 

the person looking at the photo or 

video. 

Let’s also remember that these are 

children who are often being victimized 

by someone in their circle of trust, 

someone who was supposed to protect 

them, and someone who, instead, chose 

to do them harm. These children only 

have the law to protect them because 

their protectors failed them and caused 

them harm. 

While it’s not often that we have an 

opportunity to pass a bill here that 

quite literally means the difference between life or death, this is one of those 

times. That’s why, as a Member of Congress, I know that I, as well as Chairman SMITH and the Members of Congress here today fighting to protect the 

children of this country, will stand 

strong and continue to press forward 

on their behalf. 

I am proud and honored to be the 

lead Democratic sponsor of this bill, 

and I am thankful to my friend Chairman SMITH for his continued leadership 

and support on this crucial cause. 

While the chairman listed some of 

the organizations that are supporting 

this bill, I will add some others. This 

bill is supported by the Rape, Abuse, 

and Incest National Network; the National Council of Jewish Women; Men 

Can Stop Rape; and the Florida Council 

Against Sexual Violence, among the 

other worthy and proud organizations 

that Chairman SMITH listed. 

We are grateful to all of these organizations for their endorsement of this 

bill and for their continued support for 

all victims of sexual assault and abuse. 

I urge all of my colleagues to join us in 

supporting this critical legislation. 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

yield back the balance of my time as 

well. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. SMITH) 

that the House suspend the rules and 

pass the bill, H.R. 6063. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

object to the vote on the ground that a 

quorum is not present and make the 

point of order that a quorum is not 

present. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. 

The point of no quorum is considered 

withdrawn. 

f 

STOPPING TAX OFFENDERS AND 

PROSECUTING IDENTITY THEFT 

ACT OF 2012 

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I 

move to suspend the rules and pass the 

bill (H.R. 4362) to provide effective 

criminal prosecutions for certain identity thefts, and for other purposes. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 4362 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stopping 

Tax Offenders and Prosecuting Identity 

Theft Act of 2012’’ or the ‘‘STOP Identity 

Theft Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. USE OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RESOURCES WITH REGARD TO TAX RETURN IDENTITY THEFT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General 

should make use of all existing resources of 

the Department of Justice, including any appropriate task forces, to bring more perpetrators of tax return identity theft to justice. 

(b) CONSIDERATIONS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.—In carrying out this section, the Attorney General should take into account the 

following: 

(1) The need to concentrate efforts in those 

areas of the country where the crime is most 

frequently reported. 

(2) The need to coordinate with State and 

local authorities for the most efficient use of 

their laws and resources to prosecute and 

prevent the crime. 

(3) The need to protect vulnerable groups, 

such as veterans, seniors, and minors (especially foster children) from becoming victims or otherwise used in the offense. 

SEC. 3. VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT MAY INCLUDE ORGANIZATIONS. 

Section 1028(d)(7) of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘specific individual’’ and inserting ‘‘specific person’’. 

SEC. 4. TAX FRAUD AS A PREDICATE FOR AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT. 

Section 1028A(c) of title 18, United States 

Code, is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (10), by striking ‘‘or’’; 

(2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period 

at the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(12) section 7206 or 7207 of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986.’’. 

SEC. 5. REPORTING REQUIREMENT. 

(a) GENERALLY.—Beginning with the first 

report made more than 9 months after the 

date of the enactment of this Act under section 1116 of title 31, United States Code, the 

Attorney General shall include in such report the information described in subsection 

(b) of this section as to progress in implementing this Act and the amendments made 

by this Act. 

(b) CONTENTS.—The information referred to 

in subsection (a) is as follows: 

(1) Information readily available to the Department of Justice about trends in the incidence of tax return identity theft. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HOUSE