[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1229-1233]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 1230]]

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.
  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

[[Page 1231]]

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 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

[[Page 1232]]

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.
  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,

[[Page 1233]]

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.
  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.

                          ____________________