Tommy---notice the "states would have to"---that means there would be specific federal requirements the states would have to meet as part of that licensing effort.
Also, the "federal civil and criminal" bit means:
1) they're going to make it (finally) a federal crime---probably a felony--to abuse children in a Program. That means that even if the state doesn't want to prosecute, the local federal US Attorney's office (or if he's reluctant, as directed by the US attorney general) can prosecute that crime.
2) the "civil" bit means they're going to make it so kids and parents can sue the programs, under *federal* law, for damages and that the *federal* government will set any statute of limitations. It also, iirc, means those cases will be heard in *federal* courts, not state courts---or even if begun in state courts, that they will be able to be appealed to the federal courts.
What this means is that Utah can't just sweep it all under the rug in Utah anymore, if this bill passes.
I know a lot of survivors don't trust Republican administrations, and on this issue Republicans don't have a very good track record---but an important part of the teeth in this law is that when you commit a federal felony, the AG at that time can choose not to prosecute you, BUT HE CANNOT make you unprosecutable short of the President issuing you a specific Presidential Pardon. That means that unless the statute of limitations runs out---and it frequently runs longer than any one President's term---when the *next* AG gets in, you can still be prosecuted.
Just that legal possibility puts pressure on reluctant AG's under one administration to prosecute cases that might not otherwise be high on their agenda.
Keep in mind that the Republicans don't think child abuse is okay. They either don't believe it's happening or think it's being exaggerated, and because of their political prejudices, they're reluctant to look at the evidence.
But Republicans are really into law and order. If you make something a crime, they're so keen on stopping crime that they sometimes forget to even think about whether it was a good idea to criminalize whatever it was in the first place.
(I vote Republican, but I'm not blind to their blind spots.)
If it gets passed into law and goes on the books as a federal crime, that's going to make a difference to the way they look at alleged abuse---because instead of just being a bad thing that they're not really inclined to believe is happeneing, it will be a potential federal crime that they feel a responsibility to investigate.
Democrats' emotions play more heavily into their political choices (relatively), Republicans' thoughts about principles play more heavily into their political choices (relatively). I'm not calling Republicans heartless or Democrats brainless, I'm just saying there's a definite difference in emphasis of what each side tends to believe is important.
If the law goes on the books, it being there *will* change the behavior of Republican AG's--and FBI agents, and US Attorneys, and federal judges, all down the line.
If you have a Republican Congressman or Senator, be sure you point out that most of the kids in these facilities are shipped in from out of state, and if the kid breaks too many rules, the facility typically ships them to another facility in yet another state or outside the US, which is why the federal government has jurisdiction. That this is not an in-state issue, that it is very, very much involved with interstate activity.
Point out that all these kids are placed out of state, frequently to avoid the laws put in place regulating such facilities in their home states---which is why state by state regulation isn't working and it is a legitimate federal issue---because no matter what the child's home state, the facility locates in a state with the laxest laws for what it wants to do, and then parents from all the other states ship in their kids.
If they sound really skeptical about why it's a federal problem, suggest that they *could* attach an amendment so it only affects facilities that accept kids from out of state.
Yes, you and I know they all do---but if you tell a Republican they can ensure the facility really is an interstate activity by attaching such an amendment, it is going to make a persuasive impact on them because it proves to them that you really are telling them the truth when you say what you're worried about are the places that locate in states with very loose laws and take kids from all the other states with tighter laws.
I'm not trying to talk down to the people reading this. There are a lot of posts I read on here where people sound like they think Republicans are just evil. They are usually people of good conscience who think and prioritize differently from the way Democrats do. They can be persuaded, but you have to couch your arguments right for the way they think, that's all.
So if you, yourself, knew all this already, don't get hacked off at me for talking down to you---I typed it in case there were readers who didn't know and would be helped by the "talking points" because I really, really want this bill to pass.
Timoclea
