ry. Finally, due to the

a, ry. Finally, due to the high volume of prostitution-related crimes, the Federal government lacks the necessary resources and capacity to prosecute these offenses. Therefore, to the extent that thi DOJ also opposes subsection (g), which would expand the sex tourism offenses to include those who travel for purposes of illicit sexual activity with adults. The Department’s current efforts with regard to extraterritorial offenses focus on child sex tourism, which are very demanding and resource-intensive cases, requiring gathering evidence abroad, bringing victims to the United States to testify, and coordination with foreign law enforcement agencies and foreign governments generally, among other matters. Any expansion of authority would be a distraction from those priority cases and would exacerbate existing burdens on investigation and prosecution. The Department believes that the addition of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 is unnecessary and that 18 U.S.C. § 2423 does not need to be amended. Should Congress create 18 U.S.C. § 2423A, DOJ believes that language should be retained in 18 U.S.C. § 2423(e) that allows the Government to charge attempt or conspiracy for 18 U.S.C. § 2423{a) crimes. Finally, DOJ notes that the definition of illicit sexual conduct needs to be updated to include production of child pornography. 18. Section 222 AS a general matter, the Department opposes the expansion of jurisdiction over offenses involving non-American offenders or victims that are committed outside the United States. The expansion of jurisdiction in this section would place an enormous strain on available resources. In addition, this new section’s jurisdiction description overlaps with 18 U.S.C. § 3271. Should the choice be made to keep the jurisdictional provisions provided for in this section, perhaps it would be more effective to expand section 3271. 19, Section 223 These provisions are not directly related to trafficking. As this section is related to aliens brought into the country for the purposes of prostitution, without a showing of force, fraud, or coercion, and the International Marriage Brokers Act (IMBRA), this bill is not the vehicle for this language. Furthermore, subsection (a)(1) removes the requirement from section 278 of the Immigration and Nationality Act that such conduct be done in furtherance of the importation of the alien. By removing this requirement, the bill extends the statute to cover all instances of “pimping” an alien. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012380