[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H596-H600]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1315
STOP ADVERTISING VICTIMS OF EXPLOITATION ACT OF 2015
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 285) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide a penalty for knowingly selling advertising that offers certain
commercial sex acts.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 285
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 ``Stop Advertising Victims of
Exploitation Act of 2015'' or the ``SAVE Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. ADVERTISING THAT OFFERS CERTAIN COMMERCIAL SEX ACTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1591 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended in subsection (a)(1), by inserting after
``obtains,'' the following: ``advertises,''.
(b) Mens Rea Requirement.--Section 1591 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended in subsection (a), by inserting after
``knowing, or'' the following: ``, except where, in an
offense under paragraph (2), the act constituting the
violation of paragraph (1) is advertising,''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1591(b) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or obtained'' and
inserting ``obtained, or advertised''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or obtained'' and
inserting ``obtained, or advertised''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
The Speaker recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 285, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act, H.R.
285, introduced by Mrs. Wagner of Missouri, is an important yet modest
bill. It uses one word, just one word, to clarify that, just as it is
against the law to prostitute a child on the street, it is likewise
against the law to prostitute a child through an advertisement.
By adding the word ``advertises'' to the existing Federal sex
trafficking statute at 18 United States Code, section 1591, this bill
makes clear that Congress intends to prohibit the knowing advertising
of child sex trafficking to the same extent as the other conduct
prohibited by law.
H.R. 285 is a technologically neutral bill and applies to all
advertisements that sell children for sex over which there is Federal
jurisdiction, regardless of whether they appear on the Internet or
somewhere else. It is important to remember that these advertisements,
as well as all speech promoting illegal activity, are specifically not
protected speech under the First Amendment.
In order to bring a case against the trafficker under this
legislation, the government must prove that the defendant knew that
they were advertising and knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that
the ad involved a minor or someone involved through force, fraud or
coercion.
However, this legislation raises the bar even higher for defendants
who, while not directly placing the ads, do knowingly benefit from the
placement of advertising.
Specifically, the bill requires the government to show that these
defendants knew that the advertisement involved a minor or a coerced
adult. Reckless disregard is not sufficient.
H.R. 285 only clarifies that people who advertise sex trafficking
could face criminal liability.
Under current law, there is the additional possibility of civil
liability for defendants who violate the Federal sex trafficking
statute. However, under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,
online publishers of third-party advertisements are generally immune
from civil liability for such advertisements. H.R. 285 does nothing to
disrupt or modify the immunity already provided by section 230.
Congress has criminalized advertising multiple times in recent years.
Title 18 of the Federal criminal code currently prohibits advertising
promoting counterfeit currency, section 491; obscene or treasonous
material, section 552; and the unlawful sale of military medals,
section 704, among other things.
It is wholly appropriate for Congress to prohibit the advertising of
illegal goods or services. Having done so for illegal advertisements
involving animal cruelty, prescription drugs, and counterfeit items,
today we take the commonsense step of prohibiting advertising that
offers sex with children and coerced adults.
While the Internet has indisputably done much good, U.S. law
enforcement has identified online advertisements as the primary
platform for buying and selling sex with minors.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), an active
and committed member of the House Judiciary Committee and ranking
member on the Commercial Subcommittee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
285, the SAVE Act.
Human trafficking is never okay. It is a vile crime that no one
should be subjected to, but the SAVE Act goes too far.
This bill would impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 to 15 years
for posting or facilitating the posting of advertisements online. We
should be eliminating mandatory minimum sentences, not creating new
ones.
This bill is not specific enough. It could potentially apply to
communications providers and facilitators who are not actually engaged
in sex trafficking.
For example, an employee at an online advertising network that has no
role in the types of ads they receive could face 10 to 15 years in
prison for simply going in to work every day and helping advance the
business. Web hosts and ad networks oftentimes do not have advance
warning of the ads that are being sent to them.
During our Judiciary Committee markup, I offered an amendment that
would have removed mandatory minimums from the legislation, giving the
judge hearing the case, of course, the discretion to impose a wise and
just punishment.
I believe in the overall goal of the legislation, but I do not agree
with its execution. Judges, working with the sentencing guidelines,
should determine sentences, not legislators.
Mandatory minimums fail to reduce crime, they waste taxpayers' money,
and often violate common sense.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of this bill.
Mrs. WAGNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership
on this very, very important issue.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 285, the Stop
Advertising Victims of Exploitation, or SAVE, Act.
But Madam Speaker, I also rise today in support of all the good work
done by my colleagues here in Congress on the issue of human
trafficking.
Madam Speaker, as a former United States Ambassador, I was exposed
firsthand to the horrors of human trafficking on an international
level. I witnessed and reported on the devastating consequences of
human trafficking, where innocent women and children were dragged into
the dark abyss of sexual slavery.
But never, never in my wildest dreams did I ever think human
trafficking was so rampant right here in the United States of America.
Madam Speaker, right now there are young women being forced into
prostitution in virtually every district across this Nation. In fact, I
was shocked to learn that my own hometown of St. Louis, Missouri, has
been identified as one of the top 20 areas for sex trafficking in the
United States.
[[Page H597]]
Madam Speaker, this is a problem that is hiding in plain sight. Every
year, thousands of young American lives are impacted by this despicable
crime.
However, there is hope. I take hope from the work that is done by law
enforcement professionals who are on the front lines every day
protecting our Nation's children from those who would seek to exploit
them.
I take hope from those who work in victims' services and their
tireless efforts to help survivors recover, heal, and forge new lives
out of the horrors of sexual enslavement.
Most importantly, I take hope from all the survivors of this hideous
crime. This bracelet, Madam Speaker, was made by survivors at a safe
house called Crisis Aid International in my own hometown of St. Louis,
Missouri.
Their strength gives us strength, their resolve gives us inspiration,
and their steadfast commitment to ending sex trafficking gives us the
courage to fight.
I am grateful for the many colleagues that I have who have supported
legislation and held events in their home districts to raise awareness
and education of this crime. Our work has yet to begin.
However, Madam Speaker, there is much, much work to do still.
Legislators, we have an obligation to come together and to do something
because we can, because we should, and because we must.
Over the last 10 years, prostitution has slowly but persistently
migrated to an online marketplace. Classified services like
backpage.com and others are the vehicles for advertising the victims of
sexual slavery in this world.
Pimps and traffickers blatantly advertise their victims' sexual
services with provocative photographs and unsubtle messages, complete
with per-hour pricing. The traffickers pay Web sites like Backpage and
others to display their messages, and these Web sites, accordingly,
reap enormous profits at the expense of victims of sex trafficking.
Many of these ads feature children and trafficking victims, and they
are resulting in thousands of children every year being openly sold for
sex on the Internet.
Madam Speaker, government intervention is necessary to end
facilitation of sex trafficking by Web sites like backpage.com and
others who commercially advertise this criminal activity.
Companies that base their business models off the profits made by
selling sex with children should not be allowed to operate.
The SAVE Act seeks to criminalize this behavior, thereby dramatically
reducing the victimization of vulnerable children and women forced into
sexual slavery in the United States.
Madam Speaker, this legislation passed the House last year in an
overwhelming bipartisan vote of 392-19.
I recognize that it is critically important that innocent actors are
protected from the liability, while giving prosecutors the means to
combat human trafficking.
To be clear, Madam Speaker, this legislation prohibits only those
advertisements that the government can prove actually offer sex with a
child or sex with an adult who is involved due to force, fraud, or
coercion.
There is well-established precedent for Congress to criminalize the
advertising of legal goods and services, as the chairman has outlined
previously. Surely, advertisements offering sex with children should
also be subject to the same restrictions.
Criminalizing the advertisement of trafficking victims will stem the
flow of money, resulting in a reduction of both demand and supply.
The victims of sex trafficking are not nameless, faceless children.
They are our daughters, our granddaughters, our nieces, and our
neighbors. They are the vulnerable youth of our society, the ones who
should be protected the most, Madam Speaker, not exploited for money
and greed.
I urge my colleagues to support the SAVE Act because it will provide
the tools necessary for law enforcement to combat the sexual
exploitation and enslavement of women and children in the United
States.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has served so ably on
this committee, and we congratulate him for his ranking position on the
Education Committee.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 285, the SAVE Act. While I support the
underlying goal of ensuring that those who facilitate sex trafficking
through advertising are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, I am
opposed to the bill's mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.
Mandatory minimum sentences have been studied extensively and have
been found to distort rational sentencing systems, discriminate against
minorities, waste money, and often require a judge to impose sentences
that violate common sense. To add insult to injury, studies have shown
that mandatory minimum sentences fail to reduce crime.
Under this bill, the advertising of sex trafficking will result in a
mandatory penalty of 10 or 15 years, depending on the circumstances of
the crime. There is no doubt that many of these individuals prosecuted
under this bill should receive long prison sentences, but in some cases
a mandatory sentence of 10 or 15 years may not be justified.
This is particularly troublesome when you consider the possible scope
of defendants who could be prosecuted under the bill. Notably, the
prohibition on advertising does not only apply to the sex trafficker
who places the ad, or the employee who accepted the ad, but also
includes those who benefit financially from the ad.
{time} 1330
That is all of the employees, including the receptionist or the
computer guy, everybody on the payroll who might have seen the ads or
read in the paper that the company publishes some illegal ads but
decided to look the other way; they should be held responsible under
the provisions of the bill. And many of them would certainly warrant a
sentence of 15 years or even more, but not all of them.
Madam Speaker, mandatory minimum sentences didn't get into the
criminal code at all once but one at a time, each one part of an
otherwise good bill. If we expect to get rid of mandatory minimums, we
have to first stop passing new ones like this.
Madam Speaker, if people ask why a judge in Florida had to sentence
Marissa Alexander to 20 years for firing a warning shot at her abusive
boyfriend, or why some drug dealer's girlfriend got 25 years when she
had no meaningful role in his drug dealing, or why the United States
has 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's
prisoners, they would not understand why anybody said they had to vote
for a bill that further expands mandatory minimum sentences.
Fifteen years in prison, mandatory for everybody on the payroll that
gets caught up in this bill--that is what is in this bill. There is no
discretion afforded to the judge. The sentence would have to be
imposed, whether it makes any sense or not.
Madam Speaker, if we expect to repeal mandatory minimum sentences,
the first order of business is to stop passing new ones. This bill
contains a new mandatory minimum that someday will require a judge to
impose a sentence that violates common sense. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chair of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Crime
Subcommittee for his hard work on this issue, and I appreciate the
time.
While it goes without saying that the growth of the Internet and
smartphones have proven to be of great value in many aspects of our
lives, these tools can also be used by criminals to facilitate the
commercial sexual exploitation of children and other victims by
providing an easy way for pimps or traffickers to market child sex
trafficking victims to those who seek to do them harm. With just a
click of a button, individuals can now use Web sites to advertise,
schedule, and purchase sexual encounters with minors, just like they
would use these services to hire a ride home.
The SAVE Act, introduced by Mrs. Wagner from Missouri, makes a
technical clarification to an existing Federal sex trafficking statute
to make
[[Page H598]]
clear that the law extends to traffickers who knowingly sell sex with
minors and victims of force, fraud, or coercion through advertising, as
well as to people or entities that knowingly benefit from the sale or
distribution of such advertising.
While much of the growth of this terrible crime is on the Internet,
this bill is technology neutral and applies to all advertising of
children for sex, regardless of the medium. It is important to note
that these advertisements, as with all ads and other speech promoting
illegal activity, are not protected speech under the First Amendment.
H.R. 285 was the subject of robust committee process both last
Congress and this, and the bill was reported out of the Judiciary
Committee last week by voice vote. The legislation that is on the floor
today strikes the right balance by protecting victims from commercial
sexual exploitation, while also ensuring that constitutional rights are
respected and innocent third parties are not wrongly prosecuted.
This legislation simply clarifies and modernizes Federal criminal law
to keep pace with the evolving trend of exploiting the Internet for
criminal gains. The bill passed the House floor last Congress with wide
bipartisan support but was not enacted into law.
I commend my colleague from Missouri, Congresswoman Wagner, for
sponsoring this important legislation again.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I urge the United States
Senate to take up this bill. Let's get it signed into law by the
President of the United States. It would help save our children from
the horrors that people understand but do not want to see. It is good
legislation.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We started out this afternoon by saying that we join together in
stopping the scourge of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and I
still stand by that premise. I support the Stop Advertising Victims of
Exploitation Act. I do believe that adding advertising and having the
provision in the law that includes mens rea is an important protection,
that there must be an intent to sell and to advertise victims of
exploitation.
This, of course, is part of a number of proposals that we are
considering today--and we hope we are successful--to combat sex
trafficking; but, as we have discussed with respect to these other
bills, much more must be done to prevent sex trafficking as well as to
aggressively investigate and prosecute these crimes. H.R. 285 amends
the current Federal sex trafficking statute so that advertising would
now be one of the prohibitive means of facilitating this type of
exploitive criminal conduct.
We know, of course, that technology, however, sometimes is tricky.
The bill correctly recognizes the fact that sex traffickers
increasingly obtain customers for their illegal acts through the means
of mass communication, either through various forms of print media or
via the Internet. Maybe they throw in the cell phone or hard line as
well, but they are out to get their victim. They are out to get that
child. They are out to get that young woman or young man, boy or girl,
and we must stop them in their tracks. In fact, sex traffickers use
generalized marketplace Web pages to advertise, as well as sites and
pages devoted to advertising the availability of commercial sex.
While the Internet has enriched our lives greatly, these sex
traffickers are only interested in using it in the most vile manner;
and they use the Internet to perpetrate heinous criminal schemes, such
as the selling of minors for sex. Without question, sex traffickers who
advertise their scheme should be penalized for their criminal acts.
While I realize that some have raised questions about how the
advertising prohibitions under this bill would apply to online
companies, I am concerned that we have a free use of that, if I might
throw in a word, ``net neutrality.'' Because of this, we adopted an
amendment during the Judiciary Committee's markup last Congress and now
again, in a bipartisan effort, to address such concerns. That amendment
is included in the text of H.R. 285.
We know, for example, however, that with the way the Internet is,
some innocent person might wind up finding things on their site that
they may not have had anything to do with. We hope the standard of mens
rea will help those individuals have a defense.
So as it relates to this legislation, I raise concerns, as my
colleagues have done, about the utilization, conduct, of mandatory
minimums, primarily because of the vastness of the Internet, and our
friends made the point that this advertising could wind up or some act
could wind up on there without their knowledge.
We know the one-size-fits-all approach, which is part of the
mandatory minimum approach, to criminal actions in the form of
mandatory minimums has greatly contributed to our Nation's crisis of
overincarceration, and our Judiciary Committee, rightly so, has looked
at this over the years.
In the markup of this bill, the Judiciary Committee did not adopt an
amendment that would have removed application of the statute's
mandatory minimum penalties and instead allow a judge to apply an
appropriate sentence under the circumstances of the case up to the
statute's existing penalty, which I support enthusiastically, life in
prison.
Given the complicated nature of Internet communications networks with
respect to how advertisements are delivered, the role of the judge
might help to carve through, to ferret out, the facts and determine the
level of guilt. So authorizing life imprisonment is a good thing. It
would allow sufficient latitude for the imposition of extremely lengthy
sentences where appropriate.
I am hoping as we move forward with this legislation, which has a
very important premise and point, that we will have the opportunity to
discuss with our colleagues in the Senate to see how we can best make
sure that this bill works to, in essence, target the bad guys and make
sure that it does it fairly and directly, because sex trafficking, as I
have always said on this floor, should be weeded out. Sex trafficking
should not be.
I ask my colleagues again to consider the mandatory minimum. I ask my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 285, the ``Stop Advertising Victims of
Exploitation Act,'' is among a number of important proposals we are
considering today to combat sex trafficking.
As we have discussed with respect to these other bills, much more
must be done to prevent sex trafficking as well as to aggressively
investigate and prosecute these crimes.
H.R. 285 amends the current federal sex trafficking statute so that
advertising would now be one of the prohibited means of facilitating
this type of exploitative criminal conduct.
The bill correctly recognizes the fact that sex traffickers
increasingly obtain customers for their illegal acts through the means
of mass communication, either through various forms of print media or
via the Internet.
In fact, sex traffickers use generalized marketplace Web pages to
advertise, as well as sites and pages devoted to advertising the
availability of commercial sex.
While the Internet has enriched our lives greatly, these sex
traffickers use the Internet to perpetrate heinous criminal schemes
such as the selling of minors for sex.
Without question, sex traffickers who advertise their schemes should
be penalized for their criminal acts, while I recognize that some have
raised questions about how the advertising prohibitions under this bill
would apply to online companies.
Because of this, we adopted an amendment during the Judiciary
Committee's markup last Congress to help address such concerns. That
amendment is included in the text of H.R. 285.
Nevertheless, I cannot support this bill in its current form because
it would subject yet another category of conduct to mandatory minimum
sentences.
Mandatory minimums lead to sentences that sometimes are not
appropriate based on the facts of a particular case. A one-size-fits-
all approach to criminal actions in the form of mandatory minimums has
greatly contributed to our Nation's crisis of overincarceration.
In the markup of this bill, the Judiciary Committee declined to adopt
an amendment that would have removed application of the statute's
mandatory minimum penalties and instead allow a judge to apply an
appropriate sentence--under the circumstances of the case--up to the
statute's existing maximum penalty of life in prison.
Given the complicated nature of internet communications networks with
respect to how advertisements are delivered, the role of the judge in
evaluating each case is particularly important.
[[Page H599]]
And, authorizing life imprisonment would allow sufficient latitude
for the imposition of extremely lengthy sentences--when appropriate.
Because of this defect involving mandatory minimum sentences, I must
oppose the bill that we consider today.
By voting ``no,'' the House will allow the Judiciary Committee time
to fix this serious flaw.
With this important consideration in mind, I must ask my colleagues
to oppose the bill today so that we may consider a better bill dealing
with this aspect of sex trafficking in the near future.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Madam Speaker, I am an avid supporter of the
Internet; I have been one since the late 1970s. However, there is a
dark side to the Internet. There are back pages out there and Web sites
that have a business model to make money off of exploiting child sex
slaves, advertising child sex slaves.
This bill gives law enforcement the tools they need to investigate
and prosecute those who advertise the victims of sex trafficking. This
bill advances a compelling government and humanitarian interest to
protect our children from those who seek to buy and sell them like
products. This bill makes it illegal to knowingly profit from the
distribution of advertising that offers a commercial sex act in
violation of section 1591 of the Federal criminal code, which deals
with the sex trafficking offense.
The SAVE Act doesn't seek to restrict the free, legitimate exchange
of information and ideas. I heard some of my colleagues on the other
side--the gentleman from Georgia and others--express concern about
innocent employees of Web sites or sites like Google that may
accidentally index one of these sites or somebody who has an online
forum on their Web site and somebody makes an off-topic post. That is
why we added the word ``knowingly.'' I want the legislative history of
this bill to show that ``knowingly'' is important. They have got to
know that they are advertising for victims of human trafficking.
It was carefully crafted so that legitimate Internet companies and
legitimate Web sites are protected, but it is absolutely critical that
we go after those who are trafficking in persons and advertising and
profiting off of it. They absolutely need to be held accountable.
Protection of America's First Amendment right to freedom of speech is
fundamental, especially on the Internet, and that was one of the
guiding principles of creating this. Less regulation of the Internet,
low regulation of the Internet is important, but there are some things
you have got to draw the line on. Profiting off of advertising or
profiting at all from child sex trafficking is unacceptable, and this
law fixes that to the best of our ability while still protecting folks'
First Amendment rights.
I am proud to work with my colleague from Missouri, Representative
Wagner, in working to combat this terrible crime of human trafficking.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from
Wisconsin, the chairman, if he has any further speakers.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I have two additional requests for
time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
Ms. McSALLY. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman
Sensenbrenner, Congresswoman Wagner, and all the other Members for
their hard work on this important legislation put forward last night
and today to combat human trafficking.
Human trafficking is a 21st century form of slavery, and it is
devastating lives across the country. In Arizona's Second Congressional
District, a lack of resources to identify victims, prevent instances of
trafficking, and prosecute those who participate leads to many young
girls and boys being victimized by these traffickers.
I spoke very recently with Jerry Peyton, the founder of an
organization called Sold No More, dedicated to ending trafficking in
Tucson, Arizona. Jerry experienced the devastation of trafficking
firsthand in his own family. His daughter Lisa, who was a high school
honors student, ran away from home after the death of her boyfriend,
where she quickly was preyed upon by traffickers and forced into
smuggling and prostitution. Jerry found his daughter living with five
men who ran a drug ring and was able to rescue her, yet the police
never apprehended the men who victimized Lisa. The only police record
of this innocent reads: ``A juvenile returned to the custody of her
parents.''
Jerry's family's experiences highlight the growing need for resources
to train law enforcement to identify and respond to instances of
trafficking. He told me that in Pima County there is not a single law
enforcement officer in any agency dedicated full-time to the
trafficking issue.
Before 2010, there had not been a single case of sex trafficking in
Pima County, despite arrests for prostitution that treat victims like
criminals. When they place online ads in back pages for clearly young
victims, within 24 hours, there are 100 calls that come in looking to
exploit these victims. This is wrong.
We can start raising awareness of trafficking by changing the
perception of trafficking victims. It is estimated that only about 10
percent of those trafficked in our country have come across the border.
The overwhelming majority are runaways and vulnerable children who are
preyed upon.
{time} 1345
These are our neighbors being trafficked in our communities, not some
distant far-off place. Under the surface of our communities, sex
trafficking is a prevalent and devastating reality. Widely-attended
events like the Super Bowl coming up in Glendale, Arizona, or the
annual gem show in Tucson act as a magnet for traffickers and,
unfortunately, their victims.
It is critical that we pass this bill to prosecute all offenders who
victimize and participate and advertise, including online, in the
trafficking of children. We also must support efforts to raise
awareness and educate those who work in law enforcement, health care,
child protective services, and elsewhere to prevent all trafficking,
give law enforcement the tools they need to be proactive, and care for
the victims after they have been rescued.
I support this legislation and the 11 other bills put forward to
combat human trafficking, and I urge support from my colleagues.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity
to rise and discuss this issue briefly. It just came to me last week
when my 13-year-old daughter turned 14 and I looked at her and have
seen her with her friends, just the scourge, the horrendous things that
are done to these young ladies, whether it is here or internationally.
I was brought back to a visit I had last year to an organization
called WAR, Women At Risk International, in my district, the Second
District of Michigan, where they are trying to use civilian first
responders to identify those signs of trafficking to make sure that
those aren't those police reports saying ``minor returned to parent''
and that they are able to utilize the things that they see or suspect
as a way of pulling those girls out of those situations.
It is heartfelt that I want to make sure that this body pursues this
issue, and I commend all of our colleagues who have dealt with this as
we are trying to create these circles of protection and hope around
these women and children that are in this horrible situation.
Madam Speaker, I commend everybody for this legislation, and I urge a
``yes'' vote.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, in closing, I yield myself such time
as I might consume.
Madam Speaker, we have had three bills so far, and we are getting
ready to offer two others that all speak to this very devastating
impact on our children--human trafficking and sex trafficking. I think
the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act, H.R. 285, does focus
on a particular niche that is heinous.
[[Page H600]]
Our children are on the Internet, they are tech savvy, and they
easily can become victims of an attractive site or attractive sounds
and music, so I think this legislation, again, pinpoints a very serious
issue.
The bill is an amendment of an existing legislation that includes a
mens rea. There must be intent; but we do know, in the course of
legislation, we have the opportunity to make sure that what we do does
meet the test of getting those who are truly the perpetrators.
I would hope as this bill moves to the Senate, as we recognize the
importance of this legislation, we, again, be reminded that one size
does not often fit all and that judges can rightly have discretion to a
sentence of life.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation so that we can have a
comprehensive approach to legislative bills that have been on the floor
today to attack head on, if you will, those who prey on our children,
young men and women, people who find themselves lost with no place to
go and become the serious victims of child pornography, sex
trafficking, and human trafficking. As Members, we know that, many
times, the entire life of that individual is changed forever.
I yield back the balance of my time and ask for support of the
underlying bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, we have spent about an hour and a half today talking
about how bad this problem is. The two previous bills were passed
unanimously by voice vote.
There seem to be two arguments against the current bill. One is that
the net might be too broad. That has been responded emphatically by
putting a ``knowingly'' standard in so that somebody who is innocent
will not be caught up if an advertisement for sex trafficking appears
without their knowledge.
The second is the philosophical debate on mandatory minimum
sentences. I think there are some crimes where there ought to be a
mandatory minimum sentence. I know many of my colleagues sincerely
disagree with that, but believe me, advertising kids--minor kids--for
sex should be something that puts you in jail for some time.
I am glad this bill allows for life sentences in case of egregious
offenses, but I think that even in ones that might be less than
egregious, spending some time in jail will show this country and maybe
others who may be tempted to get involved in this horrific business
that if you are caught, you are going to spend some time.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 285.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________