SAVE Act of 2015

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman, if he has any further speakers.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), the author of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the distinguished chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Madam Speaker, I have two additional requests for time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.''