Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from Alabama for managing this legislation. I thank Congresswoman Wagner for her leadership and, as someone said, continued determination, joined by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Beatty and Congresswoman Maloney. We have all worked together over the years for the victims of human trafficking and sex trafficking.

In the last couple of hours, we heard in the Judiciary Committee the stories of the victims of rape, so we know that this is an important time and important legislation. Throughout this time, you will hear stories of victims who have been victimized and are in need of this legislation.

Just to recount my statement in the Rules Committee, yesterday, Monday, a week ago, in Houston, I sat down with victims who had been trafficked or who had been victimized through online sex trafficking or other aspects of sex trafficking. It was overwhelming to hear parents speak of a young girl, their daughter, who had been misled and driven away from their home or from her area and had been taken and abused for a long period of time until he had to rescue her himself, spending $50,000, and then $60,000, to be able to rehabilitate herself, which is now an ongoing process. Though, as every family and every parent, he is grateful that she is alive.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1865, Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, an important bill intended to address the reprehensible crime of online sex trafficking by prosecuting the violators and providing relief to the violated.

First and foremost, H.R. 1865 makes clear that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which its interpretation was expanded in the first circuit court ruling of Doe v. Backpage, this bill makes it clear that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was never intended to protect the facilitation of online prostitution or sex trafficking and calls out those websites that have acted recklessly in allowing the sale of victims of sex trafficking online or stood idly by while young boys and girls, many as young as 13 years old or even younger, were coerced, threatened, tortured, bought, and sold on the whims of their exploiters.

Secondly, this legislation will provide Federal prosecutors with an additional weapon to use against the immoral individuals who participate in the forced enslavement we know as sex trafficking.

H.R. 1865 creates the new offense of intentional promotion or facilitation of prostitution while using or operating a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, such as the internet. A general violation of this offense will be punishable by a sentence of upwards of 10 years.

Websites have operated with impunity, hidden behind section 230, allowing traffickers to advertise, promote, sell minors and other vulnerable at-risk members of our society, children, parents' precious, precious children, who are forced to perform unspeakable acts under the threat of violence, gun violence, starvation, and emotional and physical abuse.

Under this legislation, an aggravated violation of the new offense, punishable by imprisonment, occurs if a defendant, such as Backpage, promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more victims or acts with reckless disregard of the fact that the conduct in question contributed to sex trafficking as defined in the Federal criminal code at section 1591, title 18.

Not only does H.R. 1865 create criminal liability and mandatory restitution for online sex traffickers and their enablers, this legislation goes even further. Victims harmed as a result of an aggravated violation of this new offense will have the ability--very important--to seek civil damages, while judges will be required to impose restitution upon defendants convicted of committing either the general or aggravated violation.

We appreciate law enforcement, U.S. attorneys, yet we know that State law enforcement agencies and prosecutors are vital in the fight as well, and they have called on Congress to act and to fight more effectively. There are State task forces across the country working to protect young girls and boys, and H.R. 1865 allows State legislators to enact laws prohibiting the conduct that reflects the offense created in this bill.

Soon we will be discussing the Walters amendment, which is offered because of the victims groups who want a stronger response to helping victims. We thank them for that.

The Jackson Lee amendment, which I will offer, leads to be able to help understand what the level of recovery is and the mandatory restitution. It will tell the story. It will provide the GAO study to find out how this legislation is positively impacting, who is receiving the dollars, are they receiving the dollars.

Today, this account has swelled to $99 billion a year, with a considerable portion of that money being generated through online advertising solicitation, and that is the account of dollars that are being used through sex trafficking.

My amendment will determine and help to bring information to us as to the effectiveness of this particular legislation, and I think it will be very important.

Let me conclude by saying that a letter to Congress from the National Association of Attorneys General indicated certain Federal courts have broadly interpreted the Communications Decency Act, which has left victims and State and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, who regularly confront the cruel realities of sex trafficking, feeling powerless against online ad services and websites that facilitate or allow sex trafficking.

My heart goes out, and I am grateful that we have moved. As we move forward, we will be able to build with more legislation that might include my second amendment that would have allowed victims of sex trafficking to file civil actions in State courts.

Mr. Chair, let me express my gratitude to the victims who have been courageous enough to tell their story.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1865, the ``Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017,'' an important bill, intended to address the reprehensible crime of online sex trafficking by prosecuting the violators and providing relief to the violated.

First and foremost, H.R. 1865:

(1) Makes clear that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was never intended to protect the facilitation of online prostitution or sex trafficking; and

(2) Calls out those websites that have acted recklessly in allowing the sale of victims of sex trafficking online, or stood idly by while young boys and girls--many as young as thirteen years old or even younger--were coerced, threatened, tortured, bought, and sold on the whims of their exploiters.

Secondly, this legislation will provide federal prosecutors with an additional weapon to use against the immoral individuals who participate

in the forced enslavement we know as sex trafficking.

H.R. 1865 creates the new offense of intentional promotion or facilitation of prostitution while using or operating a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, such as the Internet.

A general violation of this offense will be punishable by a sentence of imprisonment of up to ten years.

Websites have operated with impunity and hidden behind Section 230-- allowing traffickers to advertise, promote, and sell minors and other vulnerable, at risk members of our society, who are forced to perform unspeakable acts under the threat of violence, starvation, and emotional and physical abuse.

Under this legislation, an aggravated violation of the new offense, punishable by a maximum of twenty-five years imprisonment, occurs if a defendant, such as Backpage.com:

(1) Promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more victims; or

(2) Acts with reckless disregard of the fact that the conduct in question contributed to sex trafficking, as defined in the federal criminal code at section 1591 of title 18.

Not only does H.R. 1865 create criminal liability and mandatory restitution for online sex traffickers and their enablers, this legislation goes even further.

Victims harmed as a result of an aggravated violation of this new offense will have the ability to seek civil damages, while judges will be required to impose restitution upon defendants convicted of committing either the general or aggravated violation.

We appreciate the efforts of federal law enforcement and assistant U.S. attorneys who endeavor to rid the streets and virtual highways of sex trafficking.

Yet we know that state law enforcement agencies and prosecutors are vital to this fight as well, and they have called on Congress to help them fight more effectively.

There are state task forces across the country working on the frontlines to locate young girls and young boys--children--and return them to the arms of distraught mothers and fathers.

H.R. 1865 allows state legislatures to enact laws prohibiting conduct that reflects the offenses created in this bill and the existing sex trafficking statute that I previously mentioned.

Congresswoman Walters has offered an amendment, which is supported by many victims' advocacy groups, to further strengthen the legislation before us today.

Taking two key provisions from the Senate bill, known as SESTA, the Walters amendment makes clear that the Communications Decency Act does not impair or limit federal causes of action filed by victims of sex trafficking and creates a right of action for state attorneys general to file federal causes of action for sex trafficking on behalf of their citizens.

This leads me to my own amendment, which is intended to measure the effectiveness of the civil recovery and mandatory restitution provisions of H.R. 1865.

In every community across the country, soulless individuals bend, break, and use the minds and bodies of young girls, young boys, men, and women--for a profit--over and over and over again.

Despite the reprehensible nature of this crime, sex trafficking is a widespread problem that is now the fastest growing criminal industry.

Today, it has swelled to $99 billion a year--with a considerable portion of that money being generated through online advertising and solicitation.

Sex traffickers have harnessed the wide-reaching expanse of the Internet together with the ability to conduct their so-called business anonymously.

They are no longer restricted to dark, unsafe street corners, filthy truck stops, or seedy hotels and strip clubs.

Instead, websites have made sex trafficking easy, convenient, and less risky for traffickers and their cowardly customers.

Today, visitors to websites can scroll through virtual Yellow Pages of listings, on their cell phones or tablets, according to their location, tastes, and preferences, without leaving the privacy and safety of their homes.

According to the Polaris Project, U.S. law enforcement has identified online advertisements as the primary platform for buying and selling sex with minors. Over the past several years, more than 80 percent of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's reports regarding child sex trafficking relate to the sex trafficking of a child online.

When notified of the criminal activity occurring on their websites and platforms, many companies, have worked to remove the content and even collaborated with law enforcement to find the perpetrators and rescue victims.

On the other hand, there are companies that have made every effort to obfuscate the criminal nature of the activity that is allowed to continue unabated, while the companies continue to turn a profit, and traffickers continue to force their captives to perform sex acts, under the threat of violence and actual physical and emotional abuse.

Girls and boys, men and women, are brazenly advertised and sold for sex on roughly a dozen major websites--the most notorious of these is, of course, Backpage.com.

However, local law enforcement officials in Seattle, Washington have identified more than 130 websites where mostly women and children are bought and sold for sex.

Many attempts have been made to hold these websites, including Backpage.com, accountable for allowing sex traffickers to operate on their platforms and profiting from their conduct.

However, as was pointed out in a letter to Congress from The National Association of Attorneys General: ``certain federal courts have broadly interpreted the Communications Decency Act,'' which has left victims and state and local law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, who regularly confront the cruel realities of sex trafficking, feeling powerless against online ad services and websites that facilitate or allow sex trafficking.

My heart aches for those who are taken advantage of, abused, robbed of their innocence, and then robbed again of the justice they seek.

As I said earlier, the legislation before us will allow victims to file civil actions in federal courts under certain conditions and my amendment will determine if the civil actions are delivering relief and restoration.

I offered a second amendment that would have allowed victims of sex trafficking to file civil actions in state courts under the same conditions set forth in the underlying bill for federal civil actions.

Although I am disappointed that this amendment was not accepted, I look forward to building upon the work that has been done to address the needs of victims and survivors of sex trafficking, and introducing additional legislation to continue along the pathway towards a comprehensive solution.

I am inspired and energized by the countless survivors who, despite their suffering, are willing to stand against those who have exploited them. These brave individuals want justice and I want them to have it.

As a leader in the fight against Human and Sex Trafficking and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I am painfully familiar with the pervasiveness of sex trafficking in my own state of Texas--which has become a hot bed of human trafficking.

Among law enforcement and human trafficking authorities, Houston is known as the hub of human trafficking.

The highest number of calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline in Texas comes from Houston, and a study conducted by the University of Texas stated that there are more than 300,000 victims of human trafficking in Texas, including almost 79,000 minors.

In the few minutes I have left, I would like to share the story of a young woman named Kathy, who moved to Houston in 1994 with her family.

Kathy was raised to be strong and independent; she was very involved in her church, community, and ROTC.

She graduated from high school, with hopes of pursuing a career in journalism.

Yet, Kathy became a victim of sex trafficking.

Like most girls, she wanted to be loved.

She met a charming young man who treated her like she had never been treated before.

After a fairytale year, her Prince Charming proposed something Kathy felt she could not refuse--a promising job with his company, an administrative position that would triple her income and provide financial security for her future, which seemed like a dream come true.

The job was in Dallas and, despite her initial hesitation, she saw the offer as an opportunity to provide for her family.

But, shortly after she arrived in Dallas, Kathy found herself in the dark world of sex trafficking and prostitution--a life she never imagined.

Graphic images were taken of her and placed on the Internet against her will.

She was forced to perform sexual favors multiple times, every day, throughout Dallas and surrounding areas.

Escape was not easy.

She was cut off from her family.

Her boyfriend, turned pimp, limited her phone calls to johns, and did not allow her to have money.

But, somehow she found an opportunity to get away and she never looked back.

After many years of living in silence, Kathy decided to journal her experience.

That journal became a book, which became a stage play.

Kathy found her voice and is now an inspirational speaker who hopes to use her story to encourage others to join the fight against sex trafficking.

Images of Kathy's horrific past linger on the Internet.

She says: ``Sites like Backpage have chosen to revictimize survivors and keeps us in bondage by refusing to remove images taken against our will.''

Kathy hopes that one day the voices of survivors will be heard.

Well, Kathy--know that I hear you.

Congress hears you.

We hear the voices of the victims, who remain in physical and mental bondage.

We hear the voices of the survivors, who are struggling to rid themselves of reminders of their torment--survivors like Liliana who was lured away from her home by a man she met on the internet, held captive, repeatedly raped by at least five different men, and suffers from PTSD.

H.R. 1865, the ``Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017,'' together with Representative Walters's amendment, provides law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts at every level with the tools they need to hold responsible each and every bad actor who participates in, facilitates, contributes to, or profits from this modern-day form of slavery.

The proposed legislative combination will help defend and protect communities across the country, guard against the further spread of sex trafficking, and provide survivors with a path to justice of their own.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty), a Democratic cosponsor of this legislation. I thank her very much for her perseverance and determination.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), who joined with Representative Joyce Beatty from Ohio and the lead sponsor, Congresswoman Wagner, to be strong supporters of this legislation. She is an original cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Judiciary Committee, a distinguished Member, who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and knows about violations of human beings.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and offer a closing to this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, as indicated, I had offered an amendment that would have allowed victims of sex trafficking to file civil action in State courts under the same conditions set forth in the underlying bill for Federal/civil actions.

I believe, however, that we have laid a stupendous foundation for innocent victims and that we will have an opportunity to work with all of our friends who fought so hard for this legislation.

So again, I want to take the opportunity to thank Congresswoman Wagner and her cosponsors, and as well Congresswoman Maloney and Congresswoman Beatty, and the work that we have done in the Judiciary Committee through a period of coming together, I believe, is extremely constructive.

It is so constructive that we have any number of support letters. I include in

the Record a statement by John F. Clark, President and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Statement By John F. Clark, President & and CEO, National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children

Regarding House Action on Legislation to Provide Justice to Child Sex

Trafficking Victims--February 23, 2018

The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children is

pleased that the House of Representatives is scheduled to

consider Representative Ann Wagner's Allow States and Victims

to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (H.R. 1865) next week. We

strongly urge all Members to support the crucial amendment

offered by Representative Mimi Walters, which makes long

needed updates to the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to

ensure that children trafficked for sex online can have their

day in court against online traffickers and to clarify that

there is no legal protection for anyone who participates in

the sex trafficking of children.

We especially thank Senators Rob Portman and Richard

Blumenthal for their powerful leadership in authoring the

Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S. 1693), which is the

basis for Representative Walters' amendment, and for their

ongoing support of the child survivors, their families, and

the coalition of advocacy organizations who serve these

survivors.

We look forward to continuing to work with Members of

Congress to bring this legislation to a vote on the House

Floor and through the Senate so that it can get to the

President's desk to be signed into law.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter from Enough is Enough.

For Immediate Release: February 26, 2018

Enough Is Enough Calls on the U.S. House of Representatives To Pass

Critical Legislation To Hold Websites Accountable for Knowingly

Facilitating Sex Trafficking

Statement by Donna Rice Hughes, President & CEO, Enough Is Enough

Great Falls, VA.--H.R. 1865, the Fight Online Sex

Trafficking Act of 2017 (FOSTA), originally introduced by

Representative Ann Wagner, is scheduled for an historic floor

vote on Tuesday. The need for legislation to clarify Section

230 of the Communication's Decency Act (CDA) is necessary

given the 1st Circuit ruling in Doe v Backpage which held

that even if Backpage had participated in the crime of sex

trafficking, Section 230 shielded the company from the claims

filed by child victims.

``The urgency to amend Section 230 of the Communications

Decency Act is long overdue,'' said EIE President Donna Rice

Hughes. ``Section 230, originally known as the Good Samaritan

Defense, was intended to protect children from the online

exploitation. Unfortunately, it has been anything but a Good

Samaritan immunity for responsible Internet service and

content providers, and instead has been misused by third

party websites like backpage.com as a Trojan horse to

knowingly facilitate sex and trafficking with women in

children,'' said Ms. Hughes. ``There must be accountability

in the form of state and local criminal and civil liability

for such sites which have been referred to by prosecutors as

an `online brothel.' Its time to put the dignity of women and

children over corporate profit,'' said Hughes.

For years, EIE has encouraged Congress to amend Section 230

due to a series of devastating rulings in multiple court

cases over the years which have misinterpreted Section 230 of

the Communications Decency Act by granting anything goes

immunity to websites whose advertising business model

knowingly facilitates sex trafficking and exploitation.

``By passing FOSTA along with the crucial amendment offered

by Representative Mimi Walters which mirrors S. 1693 ``Stop

Enabling Sex Trafficking Act 2017'' (SESTA), each member of

the House has the opportunity to send an `enough is enough'

clarion message to sites who exploit and traffic vulnerable

children and women and to the federal courts who have failed

to properly interpret Congress's original intent for #230 An

overwhelming `yes' vote by the House will say to child

victims, `we hear you, we see you and we are standing with

you by providing the necessary legislative remedy to seek

justice,'' continued Hughes, who applauded the resolution

last week set forth unanimously by the Kentucky House of

Representatives, which requested and petitioned the U.S.

Congress to amend sections of the Community Decency Act (CDA

230) to ``permit the prosecution of interactive computer

service providers.''

In 2016, during his candidacy, Donald Trump signed EIE's

Children's Internet Safety Presidential Pledge in which he

promised to ``aggressively enforce existing federal laws to

prevent the sexual exploitation of children online, including

the obscenity, child pornography, sexual predation & sex

trafficking laws.'' Ms. Hughes added, ``We strongly urge the

House to pass the FOSTA-SESTA compromise package and move it

to the Senate, offering hope to and justice for those who

have suffered from this unconscionable act of human

exploitation.'' SESTA, originally introduced by Senators

Portman and Blumenthal currently has 67 bipartisan Senate co-

sponsors and is endorsed by the Internet Association (IA), as

is H.R. 1865.

In 2013, Enough Is Enough voiced strong support of the

effort of The National Association of Attorneys General (49

Attorneys General) calling on Congress to support a simple

two word amendment that would enable state prosecutors to

help fight prostitution and child sex trafficking.

Unfortunately, Congress failed to act, resulting in more

years of untold trauma and exploitation for trafficking

victims and huge profits for websites and interactive service

providers.

Mr. Chair, I also include in the Record a letter from World Without Exploitation with many, many signatures.

For Immediate Release

National Anti-Trafficking Coalition Urges Congress to Pass FOSTA With

Section 230 Provision to Curb Online Sex Trafficking--As Internet Demand Explodes, World Without Exploitation Calls on National Lawmakers to Support Survivors and Stem the Tide of Human Trafficking by Holding

Websites Accountable

New York, NY--February 26, 2018--World Without Exploitation

(WorldWE), the national coalition to end human trafficking

and exploitation, today urges members of Congress to pass

legislation that would clarify Section 230 of the

Communications Decency Act and allow state law enforcement

and survivors to seek justice against websites that knowingly

engage in facilitating human trafficking. The bill will help

disrupt sex trafficking in the United States, much of which

has shifted from the streets to the Internet.

The Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (FOSTA), H.R.

1865, was introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) and now

includes a crucial amendment by Rep. Mimi Walters (R-CA) that

seeks to close a legal loophole in Section 230 of the

Communications Decency Act that allows websites that host

online sex ads to operate with impunity. The Walters

amendment echoes language from the Stop Enabling Sex

Traffickers Act of 2017 (SESTA), S. 1693 sponsored in the

Senate by Rob Portman (R-OH) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

``Every day, thousands of children and adults are being

illegally bought and sold online, and the websites that

facilitate these transactions have been able to hide behind

legislation that was never designed to shelter this kind of

activity,'' said Lauren Hersh, national director of WorldWE.

``WorldWE and our members are incredibly grateful to Reps.

Wagner and Walters and Sens. Portman and Blumenthal, among

many others, for listening to the voices of survivors and

driving meaningful change with so much bipartisan support.

The urgency we are seeing to stop human trafficking at the

highest levels of our government is truly inspiring.''

With the growth of the Internet, human trafficking that

once happened mainly on street corners has largely shifted

online. According to the National Center for Missing &

Exploited Children, 73 percent of the 10,000 child sex

trafficking reports it receives from the public each year

involve ads on the website Backpage.com. The anonymity and

ease with which victims can be bought and. sold on the

Internet has created a multibillion-dollar industry, and a

tremendous surge in exploitation across the United States.

``The illegal sex trade is no less odious simply because it

is operating on the Web,'' said Anne K. Ream, founding co-

chair of WorldWE. ``Wherever it happens, whenever it happens,

human trafficking is an industry in which profits are built

on human pain. We need public policies that are responsive to

the current face of trafficking, which is why passage of

FOSTA with the Walters amendment is so critical.''

``We urge the House to pass FOSTA with the Walters

amendment and send the bill to the Senate for adoption,''

said Nikki Bell, founder and director of Living in Freedom

Together (LIFT), a survivor-led organization. ``We are hoping

after today, we will be one step closer to bringing justice

to survivors and disrupting the profitable model of online

trafficking in our country.''

To learn more about WorldWE, hear survivor stories, donate,

and join our movement to create a world without exploitation,

please visit http://www.worldwithoutexploitation.org./

About World Without Exploitation

World Without Exploitation (WorldWE) is a national

coalition of more than 100 organizations and individuals

committed to human rights, civil rights, and gender justice.

WordWE's mission is to create a world where no person is

bought, sold or exploited. The coalition aims to create a

culture where those who have been trafficked or sexually

exploited are treated as victims of a crime, not criminals

themselves, while those who purchase, sell or exploit another

human being are punished.

What was it like before this legislation? Simply, J.S., who is documented in the film ``Jane Doe,'' will tell you. A bright young lady, 15 years old, ran on the track team here in this area and, for her own enthusiasm, went to Seattle, Washington.

When she went to Seattle, Washington, it would have been nice if a kind soul had found her, but that was not the case.

Within 15 days, she met a man twice her age, who seduced her with gifts and convinced her to stay with him. Once she trusted the 32-year- old, he quickly turned on her and raped her, and he would post explicit pictures of her in an ad on Backpage.com, and she was forced to continue to have sex for money.

One would think that there was relief. But when her family sought to file in court, she lost. She lost. Only through the work of Congress has her case been able to move forward on an appeal.

So the work that we have done is vital to saving lives and to restoring lives. I am inspired and energized by the countless survivors, many of whom I have seen today and many of whom I have joined with last Monday in my district.

As a leader in the fight against human and sex trafficking and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, I am painfully familiar with the pervasiveness of sex trafficking in my own State of Texas, which has become a hotbed of human trafficking in the city of Houston.

Among law enforcement and human trafficking authorities, Houston is known as a hub of human trafficking, not because of the lack of concern and energy in my law enforcement and social service community. It is just an epicenter because of the ability for people to come because of the warm weather, for children who have aged out of foster care, and for others who are victims of human trafficking.

The highest number of calls to the National Human Trafficking Hotline in Texas comes from Houston, and a study conducted by the University of Texas stated that there are more than 300,000 victims of human trafficking in Texas, including almost 79,000 minors.

The story of Kathy, right here in Houston, in the few minutes I have left, I would like to share the story of a young woman named Kathy who moved to Houston in 1994 with her family. Kathy was raised to be strong and independent. She was very involved in a church community and ROTC. So in the few minutes I have remaining, I will share the story of Kathy.

She graduated from high school with hopes of pursuing a career in journalism, but she became a victim of sex trafficking. Like most girls, she wanted to be loved. She met a charming young man who treated her like she had never been treated before.

After a fairytale year, her Prince Charming proposed something Kathy felt she could not refuse: a promising job with his company, an administrative position that would triple her income and provide financial security for her future. It seemed like a dream come true.

The job was in Dallas. Despite her initial hesitation, she saw the offer as an opportunity to provide for her family. But shortly after she arrived in Dallas, Kathy found herself in the dark world of sex trafficking and prostitution, a life she never knew she would be involved in.

Graphic images were taken of her and placed on the internet against her will. She was forced to perform sexual favors multiple times every day throughout Dallas' surrounding areas.

Escape was not easy. She was cut off from her family. Her boyfriend- turned-pimp limited her phone calls to johns and did not allow her to have money. Somehow she found an opportunity to get away, and she never looked back.

After many years of living in silence, Kathy decided to journal her experience. The journal became a book, which became a stage play. Kathy found her voice and is now an inspirational speaker who hopes to use her story to encourage others to join the fight.

Images of Kathy's horrific past linger on. She said:

Sites like Backpage have chosen to revictimize survivors

and keep us in bondage by refusing to remove images taken

against our will.

Kathy hopes that one day the voices of survivors will be heard. Well, we hear Kathy today. Congress hears her. We hear the voices of the victims remaining in physical and mental bondage.

So, in conclusion, let me say, as we hear the voices of the survivors, we realize the importance of our First Amendment and the ability of free expression. But we know that the torment that these victims are going through, the PTSD that they are suffering, really is a statement of importance for H.R. 1865 that allows States and victims to fight online sex trafficking and to work with all of those who have worked so hard on this bill, from our Judiciary Committee to the Senate Judiciary Committee to the sponsors, and to go forward building on this legislation with more legislation, more victims being able to work with us, and, finally, Mr. Chairman, to be able to stomp out and extinguish human trafficking, sex trafficking, and online trafficking.

This is a powerful nation. There is no reason why we cannot do this. I look forward to that effort. With that, I ask for a vote of ``yes'' on this bill.

I want to say that Mrs. Maloney, who sounded as if she said vote ``no,'' really meant to say she wants a resounding ``yes'' on this legislation as well.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Goodlatte amendment, and I thank the chairman along with our ranking member, Mr. Nadler, for their hard work in working together.

I think this amendment is particularly important because it clarifies that the restitution provision applies to victims of sex trafficking and ensures that the affirmative defense applies to both of the criminal offenses created in the underlying bill. These changes are simple and reasonable.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Goodlatte Manager's Amendment, which makes technical changes to H.R. 1865.

The amendment adds ``attempt'' language that was inadvertently omitted from the bill and is consistent with, and tracks the typical language used in the federal criminal code to define criminal offenses.

The amendment also clarifies that the restitution provision applies to victims of sex trafficking and ensures that the affirmative defense applies to both of the criminal offenses created in the underlying bill.

These changes are simple and reasonable and maintain the overall spirit of the bill

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chair, a 16-year-old was found beaten and stabbed to death after being advertised as a prostitute on Backpage.

I might suggest that we follow one great philosopher in California who asked: Can we all get along?

This amendment is needed in order to give enhanced powers to State attorneys general that they can provide the extra litigation leverage for individuals who are impacted in a devastating manner.

As I said, we have to be concerned about the First Amendment, but we have got to protect our children. Every time I think of this precious young lady, Desiree, and the tears of her mother who testified before the other body in the Senate hearing, I think it is important that we move forward. If we move forward, we can build on this legislation.

I intend to offer additional legislation that we will need so that we can put a stop sign in front of the dastardly behavior of online sex trafficking.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Walters amendment in order to ensure that we can move forward and, as we move forward, make a difference in the lives of these children.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Walters Amendment, which addresses problems states and local law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and advocates have faced in their attempts to hold online sex traffickers responsible for their despicable behavior.

Congress decided more than 150 years ago that no person--no woman, no child, no boy or girl--deserves to be bought, sold, or owned by another person.

And, as I have said many times before, trafficking in human beings has no place in a civilized society.

Our country is facing a crisis that touches urban cities, rural areas, and suburbs, and violates the fundamental American ideal of liberty--which sets this country apart from so many others.

Traffickers hold their victims captive both physically and mentally, employing extreme forms of psychological abuse and coercion to main control over them and prevent them from escaping, while stripping them of their humanity.

This is an ongoing battle with very high stakes. Several years ago, I, along with Chairman McCaul, held the first field hearing on human trafficking in Texas before the Committee on Homeland Security. At the time of the hearing, a stash house was raided and 115 people were rescued. I visited that location and saw first-hand, the atrocious conditions in which those people were forced to exist.

Without the hard work of those Texas officers, I cannot fathom the torment that might have befallen those poor souls.

As Ranking Member of the Judiciary Crime Subcommittee, I support the eradication of Human and Sex Trafficking. This vile cruelty must end.

Anyone who aids, assists, facilitates or promotes such behavior must be held accountable.

Just last week, I sat down with a room filled with anti-human trafficking advocates and representatives of anti-human trafficking advocacy groups, including Real Beauty Real Women and Break the Cycle. I heard stories of suffering and stories of frustrations.

Victims and survivors are crying out for a change in the law and they are crying out for justice. They have tried to bring cases against the people, websites, and online service providers, who contributed to their suffering and profited from their victimization--to no avail.

Prosecutors have tried to bring online sex traffickers and the companies who provide them safe harbor--and, unfortunately failed.

It is imperative that we do all that we can to provide for victims of this disgusting crime, protect vulnerable members of society from becoming victims as well, and tell websites like Backpage.com.

Sex trafficking is a callous and brutal crime that unquestionably deserves the nation's upmost attention. It is particularly difficult to see the victimization of the very young who are sold into the sex trafficking market.

The SESTA amendment provides law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts at every level with the tools they need to hold responsible, both civilly and criminally, each and every bad actor who participates in, facilitates, contributes to, or profits from sex trafficking.

Many of the groups that work with victims and survivors of sex trafficking support passage of H.R. 1865 only if Ms. Walters's amendment passes as well.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have already raised the picture of Desiree, who is dead. Her death was driven by being exposed as a so- called prostitute in the sex trafficking of a little girl on Backpage.

Or J.S., who, in fact, was victimized in Seattle. She was raped. She was put on Backpage. Then she was rescued by her family. Since it was before this legislation, it failed in court.

My legislation is very simple: Does this bill work? What more can we do?

I am asking for a study where the GAO would be instructed to assess the damages awarded to victims and restitution amounts imposed against defendants as a result of this bill.

Victims of sex trafficking require a multifaceted response to rebuild their life. That includes housing; counseling; job training; and, in many cases, drug treatment and rehabilitation. We as Members of Congress need to be able to know if it works.

A citizen-led movement called Fight for Us, along with a team of influential citizens called The Houston 20, work to fill in the gaps and strengthen the services for victims and survivors in the city of Houston.

I was very proud to meet with them at the Community of Faith Church, a socially motivated church, led by Bishop James Dixon. Jackie is the lead. They were all committed, Children at Risk and many other organizations, to eliminating some of the gaps for The Houston 20, which will allow them to utilize resources for greater work.

So I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 1865 which requests the Government Accountability Office to study the effectiveness of the civil and restitution provisions enacted by H.R. 1865.

In an effort to determine if we are actually providing justice to victims of sex trafficking through this legislation, GAO would be instructed to assess the damages awarded to victims and restitution amounts imposed against defendants as a result of this bill.

Victims of sex trafficking require a multi-faceted response to rebuild their lives that includes: housing, counseling, job training, and, in many cases, drug treatment and rehabilitation.

There are well-meaning, dedicated victim advocacy groups all over the country, that offer their help and services that are dependent on state and federal grants, charitable donations, and private funding.

A citizen-led movement called Fight For Us, along with a team of influential citizens called the Houston 20, work to fill in the gaps and strengthen the services for victims and survivors in my city of Houston. I commend these selfless individuals and hope that they continue their important work.

Fortunately though, H.R. 1865 creates a civil cause of action for victims of the aggravated violation, and requires judges to impose mandatory restitution orders in criminal cases involving such victims.

It is my hope that this measure will eliminate some of those gaps for the Houston 20 and allow them to utilize their resources for even greater work. Through this legislation, victims will be empowered to take control of their own recovery and restoration.

My amendment will collect data on the civil awards and restitution orders, to determine whether victims are actually receiving the relief, assistance, and justice they require and deserve.

My amendment primarily asks GAO to:

(1) report the amounts of the damages awarded and the restitution amounts ordered; but also

(2) report the amounts that are requested by victims and the government, on behalf of victims;

(3) the nature and descriptions of the losses that are claimed and proven; and

(4) the justifications for the amounts that are requested and eventually ordered to be paid.

My amendment further asks GAO to report cases that are dismissed and provide information describing the reason or reasons for the dismissals.

While it is Congress's duty to address the needs of our citizens by enacting sensible legislation, we are also responsible for monitoring the legislation we enact and determining whether we have truly responded to the needs of our citizens.

For this reason, and all reasons previously stated, I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

Mr. Chair, does the gentlewoman have any additional speakers?

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will close at this time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewomen from Ohio and from New York. I thank Congresswoman Wagner. I thank Congresswoman Lofgren for her concern, as evidenced by her statement, but I want to focus on building blocks, and I want to say to fight for us in the coalition of 20 that I met with.

My promise is that we are in building blocks. We are going to build on what we are doing today, and we are going to continue to mount the assault on sex trafficking and human trafficking, and we are going to literally wipe it out.

We are going to wipe it out because of Shaundra. We are going to wipe it out because of this young, beautiful lady, 16 years old, Desiree. We are going to wipe it out because of Desiree. We are going to wipe it out because of J.S. We are going the wipe it out because Desiree was found beaten, stabbed to death, after being advertised as a prostitute on Backpage. We want her mother to know that we are outraged that children are treated in this way.

My amendment will be the guidepost: Is what we are doing working? It will provide a report on the amounts of damages awarded, the restitution awarded, report the amounts that are requested by victims and the government on their behalf, the nature and description of the losses that are claimed and proven, the justification for the amounts that are requested and eventually ordered to be paid.

My amendment asks GAO to report cases that are dismissed and provide information to describing the reason for those dismissals. We don't want anything to go under the rug. Our children are too important. I would ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

And in conclusion, I would say to those who I met with, to those groups around the Nation meeting in local communities thinking that they are alone fighting this dastardly act of sex trafficking and human trafficking, and, of course, a moneymaker like Backpage, you are not alone, we are starting today, we have done work before, and we are not going to stop. I will work with you for the ongoing blocks that are going to continue to stamp out online sex trafficking and human trafficking. With that, I ask for support of the legislation and my amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the legislation before us, I wish to compliment our new colleague, Senator Jones, on a superb maiden speech. I thought he was so gracious when he remembered Senator Heflin. I served with Senator Heflin, and I think Senator Jones is going to be very much in that tradition. I want to take a quick minute and commend our new colleague for launching his time in the Senate in an extraordinary way.

Amendments Nos. 2212 and 2213

Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 2212 and 2213, as provided for under the previous order, and I ask unanimous consent that they be reported by number.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my hour begin now for speaking on this subject. We are a bit behind, but not much. I ask unanimous consent that the hour that has been assigned to me begin at this time.

Mr. President, I stand on the Senate floor today in firm agreement with my colleagues that the Congress must do more to combat the scourge of sex trafficking. It is a profound and tragic failure of American institutions that trafficking continues to plague our country and, in fact, has actually increased.

Federal law enforcement has failed to root out and prosecute the traffickers, even when they have been operating in plain sight. So, too, have the big internet companies failed when it comes to sex traffickers who operate on their platforms.

I fear that the legislation before the Senate now is going to be another failure. I fear that it is going to do more to take down ads than to take down traffickers. I that fear it will send these monsters, these evil people who traffic beyond the grasp of law enforcement to the shadowy corners of the dark web, a place where every day search engines don't go, and it is going to be even easier for criminals-- these vicious traffickers--to find a safe haven for their extraordinarily evil acts.

In many respects, this debate mirrors one the Congress went through a little bit more than 20 years ago. Back then, I think it would be fair to say that not many Senators knew much about the internet. In 1995, this body had a laudable goal. The Senate said it wanted to protect kids from accessing pornography online, but the result of those good intentions was, unfortunately, a bad policy--a policy called the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Behind that policy was a fundamental misunderstanding of both the architecture of the internet and the modern application of the First Amendment. The law didn't just go after those targeting pornography to minors. It took speech that was legal in the real world and made it illegal online. And it produced a paradise for the legal trickster, creating new ways to sue over speech and adversely affecting scores of Americans, medical providers, artists, writers of literature, and more.

As should happen with poorly written policy, all but one part of the Communications Decency Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. The one piece of the law left standing was section 230, which I coauthored with former Congressman Chris Cox. What section 230 was all about was laying out the legal rules of the road for the web. There were innovative new businesses sprouting up all over and novel forms of communication and media connecting and informing people in new ways. But it seemed clear that a quick way to strangle this promising set of developments in their infancy was for these new companies to be held legally liable for every piece of content that users posted on their platforms.

When section 230 was written, nobody could have foreseen all of the effects. Here is what we did know back then. First, we wanted small businesses to start out focusing on hiring engineers, developers, and designers rather than worrying about how they had to hire a team of lawyers.

Second, we wanted to make sure that internet companies could moderate their websites without getting clobbered by lawsuits. I think Democrats and Republicans would agree that this is a better scenario than the alternative, which means websites hiding their heads in the sand out of fear that they would be weighed down with liability.

Third, we wanted to guarantee that bad actors would still be subject to all of the Federal laws. Whether the criminals were operating on a street corner or online wasn't going to make a difference, and we were determined to state that explicitly.

Fourth, we wanted to protect the internet from the whims of State and local legislators. This body has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

I would ask any of my colleagues to offer an example of how something could be more interstate than the internet.

It may not satisfy some publicity-seeking local official when we talk about the Federal Government's role here, but there is no question that the role of the Congress, in its leading on something that is clearly interstate in nature, is in the best interest of the American people.

For the most part, the framework worked better than I ever imagined it would. As a result of section 230, the small, gutsy entrepreneur-- say an entrepreneur in North Carolina--who has a big dream of working out of his garage has a real shot at succeeding. Marginalized groups of vulnerable Americans have a better opportunity than ever to make their voices heard because of section 230, and small nonprofits have the ability to take their causes nationwide.

One scholar, David Post, even wrote that the 230 law created $1 trillion worth of economic value in the private economy. He said: ``It is impossible to imagine what the Internet ecosystem would look like today without it.''

My wife saw that article, looked at me and said: Well, dear, even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn.

Setting aside spousal kidding, to illustrate why the protection that comes from section 230 is so important, I turn next to what things would be like without it.

Imagine if you are starting a forum site that is dedicated to discussing knitting. If ever there were a topic that sounded drama free, that would be it. Yet suppose somebody goes on the site and shares a pattern he didn't have the right to share. Suddenly, your website is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit. Maybe the controversy--knitting versus crocheting--gets overheated, and the users start trading barbs. Suddenly, you have people slinging defamation suits at your itty-bitty forum host. Then somebody is injured by an automatic needle threader he reads about in a comment thread. Suddenly, you are a codefendant in a liability suit--all because you didn't have the protection of section 230.

Imagine how hard it would be to launch a platform that would be open to the discussion of any topic when even the simplest, most narrowly focused website on the internet can become a magnet for lawsuits. There are not enough lawyers in the world to handle all of that litigation, and my sense is we will have a lot of constituents who will say: Thank God.

In the absence of section 230, the internet as we know it would shrivel. Only the platforms that are run by those with deep pockets and an even deeper bench of lawyers would be able to make it.

Moreover, section 230 is not just about hobbies and commerce. It protects the coordination of free speech, particularly among vulnerable groups of Americans. That is the reason organizations like the libertarian Cato Institute, the progressive Human Rights Campaign, and the ACLU have voiced serious concerns about the legislation before the Senate. You sure don't see those three groups lined up side by side very often, but they are here now. It is because, without the protections of section 230, civic organizations that exercise their right to free speech could be cowed by their more powerful political opponents.

For this example, imagine that a nonprofit organizes a campaign in support of a local ballot measure. It uses social media to build awareness and promote upcoming rallies and events with online discussion boards. Yet, without section 230, powerful interests that are opposed to its work can just swoop in and effectively silence that nonprofit with an onslaught of litigation. Hostile individuals could pose as supporters and make comments on the nonprofit's website that would expose the group to liability suits. I think it is pretty obvious that there would be an enormous, chilling effect on speech in America.

I ask unanimous consent that the statements from the Cato Institute and the ACLU that are in opposition to the legislation now before the Senate be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the fact is that section 230 was never about protecting the incumbents. I have spent my time in public service taking on a wide array of powerful, established interests. When I wrote this policy, I never envisioned a Facebook, but I did hope it would give the little guy and

his startup a chance to grow into something big. The bottom line--the central point here--is that it worked.

Despite the fact that section 230 undergirds the framework of the internet as we know it today, there is a significant effort underway to try to take it down, to collapse it. That is, largely, because the big internet companies--the biggest ones--have utterly failed to live up to the responsibility they were handed two decades ago. I am going to explain exactly what I mean.

For these big companies, section 230 is both a sword and a shield. It offers protection from liability, but it also gives companies the authority and, more importantly, the responsibility to foster the sort of internet Americans want to be proud of. In years of hiding behind their shields, these big technology companies have left their swords to rust. Too many companies have become bloated and uninterested in the larger good, and when they have taken positive steps, as Wikimedia has, for example, their practices haven't been adopted by their peers.

I will describe one case study that was reported last week by the tech news website Motherboard.

In 2012, the website Reddit, on which individuals form communities where they share and discuss content, cracked down on users who posted nonconsensual photos of women. These have come to be known as ``creepshots.'' The website Tumblr did not sufficiently police the same inappropriate content, so these reprehensible communities simply relocated from Reddit to Tumblr, and this creepshot problem lived on. That is how easy it is for the creators of vile content to move from one platform to another.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously observed that he couldn't define hardcore pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. Congressman Cox and I may not have known exactly what content we intended for sites to be able to take down when we wrote section 230, but I sure know it when I see it. Far too often, the big internet companies refuse to know it even when they see it.

A huge amount of that which populates social media networks each day is every bit as destructive and socially corrosive, if not more so, than the pornography at issue in that famed Supreme Court case. It is the creepshots, the sex trafficking ads, the conspiracy videos about school shootings, and anti-vax nonsense--nonsense that endangers the public health and more.

The tech giants state that no one could track the millions of posts or videos or tweets that cross their services every hour. Nobody is asking them to do that--nobody. Section 230 means they are not required to fact-check or scrub every single post or tweet or video, but there have been far too many alarming examples of algorithms that drive vile, hateful, or conspiratorial content to the top of the sites that millions of people click on every day. Companies seem to aid in the spread of this content as a direct function of their business models.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect some greater responsibility from these giant, multibillion-dollar corporations that were able to thrive as a result of protection that they were guaranteed by law. That was the idea behind section 230. That doesn't carry any obligation to suppress free speech, but it is definitely about being a responsible citizen, a responsible member of the community.

Sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Tumblr constitute the entire internet for millions of users who click through the same group of sites every single day. They have an undeniable role to play in fostering a civil environment. Their failure to do so could very well mean that the internet looks very different 10 years from now, not just for those who spread hateful and conspiracy-driven filth, but for the millions of decent people who use the internet to learn, to find entertainment, and to keep in touch with loved ones.

There was a time when the biggest internet companies had mottos like ``Don't be evil.'' Perhaps it is time for them to aspire to a more modest motto: ``Don't spread evil.''

With all of that said and done, it is not just the internet companies that fail to properly respond to the challenges of our times. When it comes to sex trafficking, which is the underlying issue the Senate is working on today, our country has failed the victims at almost every level.

(Mr. COTTON assumed the Chair.)

For example, the Justice Department could have and absolutely should have investigated the website backpage years ago for its role in promoting sex trafficking; but the fact is, the Federal Government fell down on the job.

Backpage's activities were no secret. In the absence of action by the Department of Justice, a Senate subcommittee, led by our colleagues Senators Portman and McCaskill, conducted their own investigation and subpoenaed key documents. Among those documents were emails that appeared to show that backpage was actively working with sex traffickers to create advertisements. That meant backpage was not due protection under section 230. In fact, a lawsuit in Boston was given the go-ahead based on that precise finding. It has been widely reported that the Justice Department now has its own investigation underway, although it is coming years and years too late. This should have happened eons ago. This is only one example of where the government's efforts have fallen short.

Now, following what I have described, the twin failures of the big technology companies and Federal law enforcement, this body is responding to a very serious moral challenge with flawed policy changes. In my view, the legislation before the Senate will prove to be ineffective, it will have harmful, unintended consequences, and it could be ruled unconstitutional.

I take a backseat to no one when it comes to policies that fight sex traffickers, bring them to justice, and help the victims of their hideous crimes. I have used my position on the Senate Finance Committee to be one of the authors of laws that support victims and provide ongoing funding paid for by those convicted of crimes against children. I have worked with our colleagues, Senator Cornyn, Senator Portman, Senator Klobuchar, to write laws to improve the child welfare system to help prevent kids from becoming victims in the first place. I put my record up against any Member of this Congress when it comes to passing laws that while definitely not going far enough, begin the effort to provide the tools to fight this scourge, but the bill before us today is not going to stop sex trafficking. It is not going to prevent young people from becoming victims, and I am going to describe why that is the case.

First, as I mentioned earlier, the Department of Justice takes the view that an important provision in the bill is unconstitutional. In my judgment, that is another issue that Congress ought to address before sending a bill to the President's desk, but instead it looks like everybody will drive it through as is.

Second--and this is an astounding development--the legislation before the Senate is going to make it harder, not easier, to root out and prosecute sex traffickers. Let me read what the Department of Justice has said recently that proves that this bill is going to make it harder to root out and prosecute sex traffickers. The Department of Justice recently said this legislation would ``effectively create additional elements that prosecutors must prove at trial.'' Colleagues, I will just state we are heading in the wrong direction if we have legislation that would raise the burden of proof in cases against sex traffickers. Imagine that, with nationwide concerns about the evils of sex trafficking, the Department of Justice has said this bill would actually raise the burden of proof in cases against sex traffickers.

The Department of Justice wrote a letter to Chairman Goodlatte of the House Judiciary Committee that lays out the concerns I have just described.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Justice Department letter.

Mr. President, that is not the only problem when it comes to enforcing this law. The bill before the Senate is focused on taking down online advertisements, not on catching criminals or protecting victims. Taking down the ads doesn't mean the pimps and predators will stop and say: Oh, good; we see what the Senate is doing. We are now going to start following the rules. When the ads come down, colleagues, the criminals will go as fast as they can to the darkest corners of our society. Instead of stopping trafficking, the bill is going to push it to the dark web, the dark alleys, and overseas. You can't get to the dark web with traditional search engines.

Career Federal law enforcement officers, the expert investigators, are the people who know how to root out the traffickers under these circumstances. They have expertise that State and local law enforcers don't have. So my view is, by handing new authorities to local officials, the bill moves in the wrong direction.

In my view, the right approach is to make sure career, expert Federal law enforcement officers and investigators have the resources they need to get the job done. One of the amendments I will be offering today provides $20 million a year for 5 years to the Attorney General to spend in coordination with the FBI and Homeland Security to investigate and prosecute those who criminally facilitate sex trafficking. The bottom line, if Senators want law enforcement to do a better job of stopping those like backpage, my amendment gives the right people the resources they need to bring these monsters to justice.

I heard my colleague from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, a good friend, talk at some length about how important it was to have resources to fight the scourge of these traffickers who get more and more sophisticated. They are people who are very clever about staying out in front of the law. When they are on the dark web, it is going to take resources to fight them and put them behind bars. So our colleague from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, sure ought to be for this amendment because this amendment offers real money right now to prosecute these monsters and get them behind bars.

Finally, the bill before the Senate punches a hole in the legal framework of the open internet. I don't every single day quote the editors of the ``Wall Street Journal,'' but I have always had a motto that I will shout out anybody when they are right. The Journal recently summed up the impact of the bill. They said this is definitely going to be an online ``lawsuit bonanza.'' They predict any website that ``should have known'' criminal activity took place on its platform will be a target for lawsuits. Any message board or chat room where users interact with each other can become a new target for litigation.

Without specific protections for companies that make good-faith efforts to find and stop criminal behavior on their platforms, this legislation could actually punish companies that try to moderate their users' posts but let something slip through. Just by looking for illegal material, a website could be setting the table to be sued over anything they didn't find.

The second amendment I will be offering would clarify this issue. It is what is known as the Good Samaritan clause, and we felt strongly about it several decades ago. The companies decide, as a result of a poorly written bill, that their only option is to put their blinders on and ignore vile, illicit content. That is bad for everybody except for the criminals. So I want to eliminate that uncertainty, and I want particularly these small startup companies that are so important for our future to know, without a doubt, that they have the right to moderate the content users post.

So, in technical language, what this amendment says is, neither the presence nor the absence of an attempt to moderate content online can, by itself, trigger liability.

The Journal raised more than the Good Samaritan issue. Just as bad, by passing this exception to section 230, courts might make it harder to prosecute websites for other crimes. Here is what the Wall Street Journal editor said: ``If Congress provides a carve-out for sex trafficking, courts might conclude that Section 230 was intended to be applied narrowly for other crimes and make it harder to prosecute websites [that are] complicit.''

I do fear this bill is going to set off a chain reaction that leads the Congress to cut away more categories of behavior from section 230, dismantle the legal framework that has given the United States the position as a tech economy superpower. This position did not happen by osmosis. It happened because 20 years ago there was an effort to try to lay out a sensible legal foundation, a sensible legal basis for the internet, and that is what is under attack today.

If this legislation that chips away at section 230 is a bad idea for the internet, if you are following this debate, you probably want to know why the biggest internet companies are big cheerleaders for it-- the big companies like Facebook. It is because it will pull up the ladder in the tech world, leaving the established giants alone at the top.

As I said, section 230, from the beginning, was all about giving the little guy the best possible chance to succeed. That is what this has always been about. The big guys can take care of themselves. We want to have a policy that encourages innovation for the startups. That has been a bedrock of my time in public service. Chipping away at the law that is going to curtail the culture of innovation and bare-knuckled competition that has been the defining characteristic of the internet for more than two decades doesn't make any sense to me.

The companies that have reached the top of the internet's economy are kind of worried about whether they are going to be able to keep their place at that altitude. Regulators once feared that Microsoft would dominate the way Americans interacted with the internet, but then a little company called Google appeared on the scene. Facebook, a half- trillion-dollar company got out of its infancy by displacing a competitor called MySpace.

I think colleagues ought to know that these established companies would do just about anything to avoid being displaced themselves. Facebook is trying to make clear that they will do just about anything not to become another MySpace.

Today, Facebook is under attack for allowing the Russians to interfere with our elections. They are under attack for giving hate groups a platform to spread their bile. They are under attack for giving conspiracy theorists, through their algorithms, a platform to lure in the unsuspecting. They are under attack for collecting, monetizing, and storing far more personal information than their users ever suspected. It is a great tool for connecting with family and friends, but it is also something a small team of well-caffeinated coders could duplicate and improve upon in terms of its functionality without a lot of difficulty and without some of the baggage Facebook has picked up over the last 6 months.

So how do they stay on top? One way is to acquire the competition. Young people always tell me that nobody under 30 uses Facebook. The new generation certainly uses Instagram, so they might not even know that it is part of the same megacompany bought out by Facebook. But you can't buy everybody, so then you go to the oldest trick in the book-- make it harder for new companies to get in the game. You don't have to compete if there is no competition, and that is where this legislation comes in.

If internet startups are no longer protected by section 230 and they are exposed to the threat of near constant litigation, it is going to be a lot tougher for them to secure injections of funding and grow. Fewer venture capital firms will be willing to risk their deep pockets if their early-round investments are swallowed up by legal fees instead of paying for coders. But in the eyes of the giant, established corporations, a world without section 230 isn't seen as much of a threat. The $50 million a year in liability statements for these big companies is a drop in the bucket for them. It is the cost of doing business. And it is an added benefit if the cost is too high for new companies to be able to get in the game.

The biggest of these internet companies are trying to hold on to their position at the top with all their might, and they are certainly very interested in using the government to do it. That has been true of a lot of industries before them, and it should come as no surprise that it happens again in the technology area.

The Facebooks of the world will tell you how important section 230 was to the innovation of the last 20 years. Yet there are technology companies like IBM that haven't done a lot of innovating for the last 20 years that want to see section 230 done away with entirely for trumped-up reasons. So, for business, let's not mistake what this debate is all about for a lot of these big, multinational companies. It is not about right or wrong; it is about dollars and cents.

So what does the future hold? As the Wall Street Journal observed, a lawsuit bonanza is in the works. It is pretty ironic that a Republican Congress and a Republican President are going to create the biggest new source of opportunities for trial lawyers in decades.

For the technology business, this bill means bigger is better--not better for innovation, not better for consumers, but better for the profits of those lucky enough to have reached the top of the mountain first.

It is safe to expect a slew of proposed new exceptions to section 230. When somebody is injured, they and their families want recourse, but our legal system is woefully bad at delivering justice. It is unfortunately far better at facilitating deals--often unjust deals-- because numbers are far easier than doing right. This failure means that a line of injured parties will be petitioning to seek the sort of recompense only their Member of Congress can provide.

For America, section 230 is very likely the reason we have a multitude of billion-dollar internet employers and the Europeans have exactly zero. Where countries aren't hiding behind the trade barrier of the great firewall or other artificial market forces, American innovation has won out over the rest of the world.

I think it is pretty hard to see our country thrive and prosper without the kind of legal foundation I have described today, without these 230 protections. And a whole host of scholars have pointed out that this is a unique law in the world. It is the case where the United States got the temperature right from the beginning, and it has led to our dominance in tech. But if the United States goes out and puts all those cracks--those potential cracks, the real cracks--into the foundation of section 230, I would wager that there are plenty of other countries that are going to change their laws to siphon away our companies and take the jobs they create.

The fact is--and I am not sure we in the Senate think about it every day--we are in a fight for the internet literally every day. Our internet companies aren't engaged in the fight. Their interest is currying favor with nations with which they wish to do business. The Chinese, the Iranians, the Russians, even our European allies are maneuvering to impose a more repressive view of speech and expression on individuals around the world, and unfortunately it has a lot of allies here at home.

Free speech has never been free, and it is often not popular. It was wrested from the grip of a dominating state, and it ought to be--it must be defended by every generation, lest the state reclaim control.

Today, in my view, the Senate is looking at taking a real step backward and down a path that this body will regret.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I believe strongly that Congress must do more to combat the scourge of sex trafficking and bring these monsters to justice and actually put them behind bars.

I have heard my colleagues from the other side talk again and again about how more resources are needed to fight this evil. This is the only proposal offered to actually put more dollars into the hands of prosecutors to get the criminals behind bars, and it is going to be harder to prosecute them now that they have moved to the dark web.

My colleague has said that prosecutors are against it. It is because my colleague has worked as hard as he could to tell prosecutors that if anything like this is added, it is going to die in the House. Let me just tell my colleague that when we put in more money to prosecute these monsters and it passes, the other body will pass it in about 15 minutes.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the only amendment that actually is going to put these criminals behind bars because we are putting real money into that effort.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the body for 1 minute.

Mr. President, in my view, it is clear that when colleagues face so much political headwind, they don't feel comfortable supporting something I know they all believe in very deeply. I believe every Senator believes there ought to be real money to go after sex traffickers. I have spoken to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and they have taken a real pounding on these amendments. My sense is that there would also be opposition to what I think is another practical, good idea, which is the Good Samaritan amendment.

As I have stated, because I anticipate having to turn back to this topic in short order after the effects of this bill become clear, I am going to save this topic for a vote at that time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 2212.

Mr. President, with that amendment having been withdrawn, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to the vote on passage.

Mr. President, as I stated several hours ago, I stand firmly with colleagues who believe more must be done to fight the scourge of sex trafficking and, particularly, to put these monsters behind bars. The bill before us, in my view, takes a flawed approach. What is going to happen is that the criminal sex trafficker is going to head toward the dark web. This is a place you cannot access with a traditional search engine. It is going to be harder when they are in the shadowy corners of our country, of the internet, in order to prosecute them. It is also going to chip away at the foundation of the net, which is so important for vulnerable people. It is why the Human Rights Campaign Fund has made it

clear that they are opposed to the bill. We shouldn't be putting at risk vulnerable groups and small startups.

Given that, I believe that this bill, which will clearly pass, will be something the Senate will come to deeply regret. I will be opposing the bill.

Mr. President, first, let me begin by expressing how honored and humbled I am to be a Member of this body and to represent the great State of Alabama.

Fresh out of law school in 1979, I began my career right here, working as staff counsel to Senator Howell Heflin on the Judiciary Committee. From when I served as a staffer, there are only three Members of the Senate who continue to serve today--Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, and Senator Cochran. Two of those three, Senators Hatch and Cochran, will be retiring this year--Senator Cochran, in just over a week--and a grateful nation thanks them for their service.

For me, personally, I am honored to have come full circle with them, from a young staffer to a junior colleague, and I wish them well in their life after the Senate.

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for welcoming me to this body, many of whom are here with me today, braving the wintery weather outside. Thank you for your friendship, your advice, and your willingness to include me and my staff in the great work you are doing.

I particularly want to thank my senior colleague from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and his staff. I appreciate their graciousness and patience in helping me as I navigate my new role as a freshman Senator.

I thank my family: my amazing wife Louise; incredible kids, Courtney, Carson, and Christopher, who so fully supported me in my quest to reach the Senate but more importantly in my life. I have grown with them and certainly because of them; of course, my sister Terrie; wonderful parents, who I am blessed to have around today; and my grandparents who are not. They instilled in me the values of family, faith, patriotism, respect for others, and a work ethic that has guided me throughout my life.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to pay special tribute to my mentor and former Senator whose seat I now hold-- the late Howell Heflin of Alabama. He was a remarkable man whose large, lumbering frame and southern drawl would often mask his amazing intellect. His compassion and sense of justice for his fellow man forged a path for myself and so many others who worked for him over the years.

He came to the Senate in 1979, at a time when bipartisanship was more than just a campaign slogan or a sound bite. In those days, when Senators spoke of bipartisanship, they truly meant it. They would never compromise principles but would compromise with their colleagues on the serious issues of the day in order to move this country forward.

By the time he left the Senate in 1997, Senator Heflin sensed a change in the political climate, and he was concerned about it. In a parting essay he wrote:

Our Constitution itself came about through a great series

of compromises; it was not written by ideologues who clung to

``their way or no.'' Compromise and negotiation--the

hallmarks of moderation--aimed at achieving moderate,

centrist policies for our country, should not be viewed as

negatives.

This leads me to the reason I rise today. I want to speak about an issue that has evaded the broad bipartisan discussions and moderation that Senator Heflin spoke of. Instead, it seems to have been an issue where folks quickly take sides and often criticize those with whom they disagree.

It is time that we have a serious, pragmatic, and practical discussion--not a debate or negotiation but a dialogue on the steps that we can take to reduce the harm caused by gun violence in this country.

I know with just those words, people across this country may have already started reaching for their phones to start tweeting or posting without another word and without knowing where I might stand on this issue. That just seems to be the way it is in America these days, which is so unfortunate, because once you take a side, it is hard to come off.

In the wake of yet another mass shooting and the rising voices of young people across the country, it is our responsibility and our duty to have a serious discussion about guns and gun

safety, but that conversation has to be twofold. We must acknowledge the deadly consequences that can follow when a gun is in the wrong hands but also recognize and respect the freedom to own and enjoy guns by law-abiding citizens, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Before I jump into the actions I believe we can take today, I want to go back and explain a little bit about where I come from.

Growing up in Alabama, I learned to shoot from my father and grandfather. I was not much of a hunter in my youth, but whether it was cans or bottles on a tree log or the occasional skeet, we simply enjoyed shooting and always had a few guns in the house. The distinction between a hunter and someone who just enjoys guns and shooting is significant.

To this day, I still have my father's old .22 rifle, my grandfather's pistol that he gave me, and a couple of rifles and shotguns I got as presents as a kid, but my interest in hunting began to grow when my youngest son Christopher was born, 20 years ago this past Monday. At an early age, he was fascinated with guns and hunting, so with my wife's blessing, I took up the sport so he could learn gun safety and conservation from me. Today I think I am more passionate about it than he is.

I consider myself an avid hunter--deer, turkey, quail, whatever the season might be in Alabama. With the campaign last year and transition into this office, this past deer season was somewhat of a bust for me, but with the start of turkey season, I am anxious to get back into the woods.

Frankly, I also enjoy guns. I enjoy shooting them. I like how they are made, the power, and their history. I own many of them, all stored in a locked gun safe that, quite frankly, is larger than what my wife initially approved of a number of years ago. Collecting them and shooting them at the range or hunting is a bond I share with my son Christopher and with many of my friends.

So while I know that guns and gun control are difficult issues in this country, I can tell you they are complicated for me, too, but as a U.S. Senator today, a Member of the legislative branch of government, I have many obligations, and I believe the first obligation of government is to protect its citizens.

We spend unimaginable amounts of money fighting our enemies abroad and terrorists who would attack us at home. Yet, on many levels, we fail our children and grandchildren every morning when we pack their backpacks and send them into harm's way or when they pick up what they think is a toy or a really cool weapon that they have seen on television or in the movies and it turns out to be a killing machine that they should have never had access to and don't know how to handle.

We fail the abused women, men, and children of our society when we let our family and relationship problems lead to a murder.

We fail parishioners in church, employees at work, and concert and theater goers when they are caught off guard by a hail of bullets from a disturbed individual.

We fail those who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time when street violence breaks out and a stray bullet takes an innocent life.

We fail veterans and others in society suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress and other mental disorders who decide that life is simply not worth living.

We fail people of every walk of life, of every age, and in every corner of this country, every day.

Gun deaths continue to rise. In 2016, over 38,000 people died in this country because of gunfire. Almost 15,000 of those deaths were homicides. Almost 23,000 were suicides--epidemic-type numbers--and nearly 500 were accidental.

We have failed in Alabama, too. In the last few weeks, we lost a police officer in Mobile who was shot and killed when responding to a domestic dispute. We lost a 1-year-old boy who was accidentally shot in the back by his 2-year-old brother with their parents' gun. We lost a beautiful, young 17-year-old girl who was about to head off to college because one of her classmates brought a gun to school and he was showing it off when it was accidentally fired.

We lost a dedicated nurse at UAB Highlands Hospital when a disgruntled former employee showed up at the hospital and opened fire.

Just yesterday, as I was finalizing these remarks, I learned that a former client of mine was shot and killed by his girlfriend's brother as he was picking up his 3-month-old baby from a visit.

The list could go on. Similar tragedies take place every week in every one of our States.

These stories don't grab national headlines, but they are examples of the gun violence that has become commonplace in our communities.

In 2016, Alabama had the second highest rate of gun deaths in the Nation. That means that 1,046 Alabamans were killed by gun violence that year. Worse yet, our gun deaths increased by a staggering 34 percent between 2005 and 2016.

As a former prosecutor, I worked closely with law enforcement. I have seen firsthand what weapons in the wrong hands can do to families, communities, and society. When I was a U.S. attorney, we had a program called Isolating the Criminal Element, and we tried to crack down on illegal weapons in our communities.

As most of you know, my career has been defined by prosecuting the killers of children. It was September 15, 1963, when a bomb placed outside the ladies' lounge window of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham exploded, killing four beautiful young girls. I wish I could turn back time and do something that would have prevented it altogether. Had I or anyone else, at that moment, it might very well be one of those young girls giving this speech today and not me.

I stand in that moment now, and so do you, and so does our country.

I believe we have finally reached a tipping point regarding gun violence now--not because of the shooting in Parkland, FL, but thanks to the millions of young voices across this country, led by students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Much like the students who took to the streets of Birmingham in 1963, who were attacked by firehoses and police dogs, who awoke the conscience of America to civil rights, these young men and women are awakening the conscience of America regarding gun violence. I am pleased that one of those young men, Alfonso Calderon, of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is with me here as my guest in the Gallery today.

We could spend days in this Chamber debating the meaning of the Second Amendment. We could let our Nation further divide itself while more lives are lost. We can fret about what people are saying about us on social media or whether we might lose campaign contributions. We can again choose the path of inaction in the face of yet another mass shooting and expect different results, or we can take another path.

Let's find what we can agree on, act on it, and begin to make our country a safer place. We can be reasonable here because we all want the same thing--a safer country, a safer world.

At its core, the Second Amendment was an effort to protect Americans. Let us do the same.

But in order to do that, we need to build more trust in this body and encourage camaraderie. More importantly, we need to fundamentally change the way we talk about difficult issues in our country and set an example for our fellow Americans to follow and to dial down the rhetoric.

Remember that ``for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'' is not just one of Newton's laws of motion, but it is also one of political rhetoric. Extreme views promote equal but opposite extreme views.

For those who want more gun restrictions instead of focusing your energy on banning a certain weapon--which, frankly, as a practical matter, just simply cannot pass this Congress--focus instead on efforts to keep those weapons and others out of the hands of those who would do us harm. You can't simply demonize the NRA and pro-gun groups.

While I know that these groups sometimes take what many, including me, consider extreme positions, they also represent millions of law- abiding gun owners who are concerned that their

right to bear arms is at risk. For millions of Americans, gun ownership and enjoyment is a cultural issue with deeply held beliefs. Addressing that issue is simply not like regulating stock transactions or cutting taxes.

To those who would seek to maintain the status quo, like the NRA or anyone else, please stop using scare tactics to try and convince law- abiding gun owners that the Federal Government is hell-bent on taking their guns away. That is simply not going to happen and everyone knows it.

We also need to get past the idea that more guns in society will make us all safer. The statistics and the data simply do not support that. We don't need guns in the hands of schoolteachers.

Simply having more ``good guys with guns'' is not a solution. Americans just simply do not want to return to the days of the Wild West.

This topic, like so many others, has become a space that is less about having a thoughtful conversation and instead has evolved into a clash of cultures. As leaders, we must reject the ``us against them'' mentality because, ultimately, we are all Americans who are united by a common bond of shared values and love of country.

There will always be forces that seek to sow division and discord. Our challenge and our mission are to prevent them from succeeding.

We can seize this moment by changing the conversation in our country. Let's start a productive dialogue and work toward a comprehensive bill that includes ideas that we should be able to agree on. There are already a half dozen proposals in this body that have bipartisan support. My friend from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, outlined them just the other day, but they bear repeating here.

Ban bump stocks and make it a crime to possess and manufacture them, as Senator Feinstein has proposed. The President and the Department of Justice should be commended for taking the first steps through regulation, but the Senate of the United States of America should go on record about this deadly accessory.

We should pass the Fix NICS legislation proposed by Senators Cornyn and Murphy. The NICS system is only as good as the data that goes into it. Their bill would block bonus pay for political appointees who fail to upload records to the NCIS system and reward States that follow the uploading plan. It would create a ``domestic abuse and violence prevention program'' to give States the ability to share information to prevent someone convicted of a domestic violence crime from purchasing a gun. Fix NICS is a good start toward overhauling our background check system and, as Senator Murphy said the other day, it is a good base bill on which to build.

But, frankly, we have to do more on background checks. We have to require background checks on all gun sales, whether it is at a gun show or over the internet or between individuals. It can be as simple as going to a licensed dealer or a local police station to have a background check run on a prospective purchaser or a transferee. It may be inconvenient, but it will save lives.

With universal background checks, however, I would also suggest a couple of companion measures. For instance, in my view, it is entirely appropriate for a family member to sell or give a gun to another close family member, as they should be presumed to know whether their relative is prohibited from having a gun.

We can consider other exceptions for those who can produce a valid concealed carry permit or between law enforcement officers. But in carving out those exceptions, we should also increase both civil and criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly transfers a gun to a prohibited person and provide the necessary funds to the Department of Justice to prosecute those individuals when appropriate.

We can also take steps to deter prohibited individuals from even trying to purchase a gun. Senator Toomey's NICS Denial Notification Act would allow reporting to State and local authorities when someone has tried to purchase a gun and has been denied, and it would require DOJ to report to Congress on such prosecutions. To his credit, Attorney General Sessions has announced that the DOJ will vigorously prosecute those who make false statements in connection with their background checks. We should ensure that he has the resources to do so.

We should close the so-called Charleston loophole, as proposed by Senator Blumenthal. This loophole allows a purchaser to receive a firearm after 3 days, regardless of whether their background check has been completed or not. We can create certain exceptions for concealed carry permit holders and others, but no one should be allowed to take possession of a firearm until they have cleared a background check.

Current law prohibits a firearms dealer from selling a pistol to anyone under the age of 21. That has been the law for many years, without any real challenge. The same logic behind this prohibition should apply to the sales of pistols and semiautomatic weapons to those under the age of 21.

Senator Klobuchar has filed a badly needed piece of legislation to expand the definition of domestic violence to include dating partners and eliminate the ``boyfriend'' loophole that allows certain dangerous individuals to access guns and evade laws meant to protect domestic violence victims.

We can implement at least a 3-day waiting period for the purchase of any pistol or semiautomatic weapon, and we can increase penalties for those who steal firearms. States that have implemented waiting periods have seen significant decreases in suicides.

We can also repeal the Dickey amendment and open the door for new research on gun violence prevention. No one--no one--is happy when innocent people die because of a gunshot, and law-abiding gun owners should not be afraid of studies on how to reduce the number of gun deaths in this country.

We can do more to stop mental health issues from turning dangerous by allowing law enforcement or family members to seek a court order when an individual poses an extreme danger to themselves or others and prevent them from getting access to firearms. Senators Feinstein, Blumenthal, and Graham have all proposed versions of the extreme risk laws.

For too long, gridlock and partisanship have stood in the way of compromise. But I didn't come here to do nothing, and I don't think any of you did, either.

Today we face a difficult problem but not an insurmountable one. To find solutions, we must demand courage of ourselves and one another.

As history has shown, we face greater consequences with inaction-- certainly greater consequences with inaction on gun violence.

So I have asked all of us to consider this question: What is our collective legacy as representatives of the American people and the Members of this hallowed institution? I believe it is to leave this body and our country better than we found it. We can only do that if we rise together to confront the unknown.

I have given talks all over the country about the prosecutions of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, and I am always reminded of a passage from the poem ``The Cure at Troy,'' which was written by the Irish poet Seamus Haney as a tribute to Nelson Mandela. My friend Vice President Biden often quotes this passage, where Haney wrote:

History says, don't hope on this side of the grave. But

then, once in a lifetime the longed-for tidal wave of justice

can rise up, and hope and history rhyme.

With the convictions of two former Klansmen for the murder of those four young girls, the longed-for tidal wave of justice rose up, and hope and history rhymed in Birmingham, AL.

For me, and I hope for you, when I walk the halls of the Senate Office Buildings and I come through those double doors onto the Senate floor, I realize that every day we, as a collective body, have that same opportunity. Whether it is for Dreamers or voting rights or victims of sex trafficking or, in this case, our children who are demanding action on gun violence, we have the opportunity to build that tidal wave of justice and have hope and history align. But we have to have the courage to seize the moment.

I don't have all the answers on how to do it, but I am willing to work with each and every one of you to find them because that is why we were sent here--to find those answers, so that the tidal wave of justice will rise up.

Please, let us work together to make it happen sooner rather than later.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy on this legislation with some of my leadership colleagues who are present: first, Senator John Thune, the chair of the Commerce Committee, who has been very involved in this issue; Senator Richard Blumenthal as well, who is the coauthor of the legislation and cochair of the trafficking caucus; Senator Claire McCaskill, who is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Investigations; and Senator Heidi Heitkamp, one of the original cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues this morning in this Chamber as we begin the process of debating the amendments that are being offered and moving toward a final vote on this important legislation to deal with sex trafficking which, unbelievably, in this century and in this country is actually increasing. All of the experts say it is increasing because of the presence of these organizations online that are using the ruthless efficiency of the internet to sell women and children.

It is fitting that this group is bipartisan, because this process has been bipartisan in coming up with this legislation all along. It is really the culmination of 2 years' worth of work--a lot of great work and investigations being done by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, as well as good work being done by the Commerce Committee through regular order. We would not be on the verge of sending this bill to the President's desk without the hard work of every Senator who will be on the floor this morning.

I would also like to briefly recognize a sixth member of our group who cannot be here but whose passion about this issue means that although his presence is not here, it is felt; and that

is Senator John McCain. Both Senator McCain and his wife Cindy McCain have taken on this issue of human trafficking through the McCain Institute, and Senator McCain, through our work on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, also helped us with this legislation. We wish they could be here for the final vote on this bill. I know John McCain is watching right now and wishing he could be here with us, and we look forward to his return to this Chamber. I thank them on behalf of all of us for their hard work on this issue over the years.

We will hear from my colleagues today on a number of things we have done in Congress in this process of putting together the right legislative fix to be able to take away an immunity, unbelievably, that some of these evil websites currently have under Federal law to be able to sell people online. We will hear about the 18-month investigation into online trafficking by backpage.com by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. We will hear stories about online sex trafficking and some of the injustices experienced by some of the victims and survivors who have come to us back home in our States and who have come to testify bravely in the U.S. Congress.

We will hear about some of the calls from courts around the country asking us to pass legislation to fix this problem; the prosecutors, the U.S. attorneys, the people back home who are eager to prosecute these cases but can't because of Federal law.

We will hear about the work of the Commerce Committee, as I said earlier, helping us come up with a commonsense target bill through the regular order to be sure we would have not just the best legislative product but that we would have buy-in from Members of both sides of the aisle.

I commend Senator John Thune for doing that. He chairs the Commerce Committee, which held a hearing on this legislation--SESTA--last September. It actually was reported unanimously out of committee after making a few changes to the legislation which clarified the intent in a positive way.

I yield to my colleague John Thune.

Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague from South Dakota, who has been at the forefront. Getting this bill through the Commerce Committee with a unanimous vote, frankly, exceeded expectations. Many on the outside thought this might be an opportunity for many who are against the legislation to stop the bill but instead we were able, through testimony, to show that this is a commonsense, targeted approach that will make a huge difference in the lives of the people we represent, without affecting the freedom of the internet. That is the right balance Senator Thune helped us to get.

I see that my colleague Senator Blumenthal is here, whom I talked about earlier. He is a coauthor of this legislation and also a former State prosecutor who took on trafficking cases, and so he has a professional background in prosecuting these cases and, therefore, joined me in ensuring that this legislation allows for our State and local prosecutors, who are going to take many of these cases, to be able to sue these websites that are selling people online using the current shield in Federal legislation. But after this legislation, prosecutors will be able to successfully prosecute to stop this criminal activity.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Blumenthal.

I thank my colleague for his comments and, more importantly, for his leadership all the way through the process of drafting the legislation.

I am now going to yield to one of my other colleagues. It looks like Senator Heitkamp will be next to speak. She is from North Dakota, not South Dakota, as we talked about earlier with Senator Thune, and she has a similar passion for this issue and has been involved in this issue for many years and is also on the committee in which we did the PSI work we talked about earlier. I appreciate her being one of our six original cosponsors, helping us to draft this targeted, focused legislation that deals directly with the problem we have seen around the country, which was discussed by Senator Blumenthal.

With that, I would like to yield to my colleague Senator Heitkamp.

I thank my colleague for the expertise and experience she has brought to this effort. As she said, in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, we spent 18 months digging deep, trying to figure out why this was happening, why we had an increase in trafficking in this country in this century, and increasingly we were told that this was because of the internet, moving from the street corner to the smartphone. Trafficking survivors and victims told us this, but so did the experts.

Senator Heitkamp jumped in, and the leadership of that subcommittee included Senator McCaskill. She is no longer the ranking member. She has gone on to bigger things--to be ranking member of the full committee--but during this investigation of 18 months, she was the ranking Democrat on our subcommittee, and I appreciate working with her there. She is a former prosecutor. She knows how to dig deep for this information, and she had a good staff. She also was very helpful to us in helping to enforce the subpoenas.

I will let her tell the story, but this is really incredible. We knew this one website, backpage.com, was engaged in this effort because we heard about it all over the country. In my home State of Ohio, women and girls would say they were trafficked on backpage. If I talked to a dozen victims or survivors, 10 would say backpage. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children said that 75 percent were backpage. Another group said: No, it is 80 percent.

In other words, we knew this was happening, but we couldn't get the information because although we subpoenaed documents and subpoenaed their testimony, they refused to show up and refused to give us documents. We had to go through an extraordinary process. I will let Senator McCaskill talk about it, but for the first time in 21 years, this Senate did something that was critical to our investigation. I want to thank her for her hard work, and I would like to yield time to her to talk about it.

Madam President, I thank Senator McCaskill. She is absolutely right. We are grateful to the entire Senate for jumping in on this because we would not have gotten to the bottom of this without our having gotten the Senate to decide for the first time in 21 years this question: Are we going to enforce the subpoena or not? People stepped up. As a result, through the court system and with the sanction of criminal liability as a possibility, we were able to get these folks to come forward and provide this information.

They never really testified. They came forward, and they claimed their Fifth Amendment rights, but at least we were able to get 1 million pages of documents--1 million pages. Then we sifted through 1 million pages of documents to discover, lo and behold, that these people actually knew what they were doing. In fact, they were altering ads. They would get an ad from somebody who was selling an underaged girl. The ad would read something like ``schoolgirl'' or ``cheerleader'' or ``young girl.'' They would then edit that ad to take out those words that would indicate what was going on, and they knew it was going on. Then they would place the ad anyway. In other words, they would make the money, make the profit, knowing that they were selling an underaged girl online. They were also destroying the evidence that, later, law enforcement could use in going after these people.

This is evil, and this has been happening. We have heard the stories. We have talked about Yvonne Ambrose. We have talked about Kubiiki Pride. We have talked about Nacole S. We have talked about some of these mothers and their daughters who have gone through this horrific situation. You also heard earlier about Desiree. This was the 16-year- old who was being sold on backpage, and on Christmas Eve, she was murdered. Imagine getting that call as a parent.

We have talked before about the testimony we received in the committee with regard to the 14-year-old girl who had gone missing. Kubiiki Pride is her mom. Kubiiki Pride said she had been

missing for several weeks when someone finally told her: Why don't you check on backpage.com. So she did. She went on backpage.com and found her daughter, who had been missing for weeks. Imagine the mixed emotions there--the relief of finding her daughter but her horror in seeing the explicit sexual photographs of a 14-year-old who was being sold for sex.

She did what you would do as a mom. She called backpage immediately and said: I found my daughter on your website. She is 14 years old. Thank you for taking down that ad and helping me to connect with my daughter.

The answer from backpage.com was this: You didn't pay for the ad. We will not take it down.

Again, talk about evil. Think of the heartbreak.

Then, later, when she was reunited with her daughter, she was one of those brave moms and her daughter was one of those brave victims who said: Do you know what, we are going to file a lawsuit and go public with this and talk about our experience--the trauma that this young, 14-year-old girl had gone through in having been repeatedly raped by older men--and we are going to hold these websites accountable.

Do you know what happened?

The court system said: I am sorry. Under a Federal law that was passed by the Congress--a 21-year-old law--this website is not culpable. It has a shield. It has an immunity.

That is why we are here today.

Justice cannot always be seen, but its absence is felt, and the absence of justice is exactly what we are trying to address here today.

You have heard from my colleagues, and I appreciate all four of them for speaking up and talking about their experiences and how we got to this point. We may hear from a couple of other colleagues later today who were part of helping us put together a sensible approach that targeted this activity. Sure, we have freedom of the internet on the one hand, but on the other hand, this is criminal activity that cannot continue to go on here in America, in this century, at this time.

Again, as we have learned, this is where you see the increase in trafficking. You not only hear this from the experts who give us their data that show huge increases in trafficking reports, but you also hear it and feel it from the victims and the survivors whom I have met with in Cleveland, in Cincinnati, in Columbus, in Dayton, in Akron. They have told me the same story, which is: Yes, I was sold online. It is very efficient.

One 9-year-old girl was sold online by her father. I first met her when she was almost 20 years old and had finally escaped from the clutches of her own father.

Think about that--backpage's going from sporting event to sporting event around the country and, online, one being sold many times on a single night with the efficiency of the internet.

This is legislation that is overdue, in my view, and it is required. The courts have told us that. The district attorneys have told us that. The attorneys general have told us that, and 50 of them sent us a letter, writing to make this change. They have all said: Congress, step forward. They have not just invited us to do it; they have welcomed us to pass this legislation to give these families the justice they deserve and to give our prosecutors the ability to go after them.

One thing that I hope has been made clear from the other comments we have heard today is that one of the important parts of this legislation is to simply allow these local prosecutors we talked about earlier to take these cases while using the Federal standard rather than just relying on the Department of Justice.

Having said that, sifting through those 1 million pages, our report, with all the documents we received, you can go online to see this at the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI.

We did provide this to the Justice Department. We did provide this to the prosecutors around the country who were interested. We did provide it to others who are pursuing lawsuits so they have information now that they never had before, but we also need to change the law, and that is what we are about to do today.

You heard from my colleagues about the amendments that are likely to be offered. There are two amendments. The first amendment is one that is going to be called a moderating amendment, meaning that if somebody is on their website moderating the website, cleaning up the website, they should be given a good-faith acceptance. Let me just be clear. This amendment is a poison pill and will make it easier for those sites that are involved in sex trafficking to continue to do so.

Right now, under current law, there is a good-faith exception. There is a Good Samaritan exception under current law. We actually restate that in our legislation, to be absolutely clear, that if you are one of the good guys--a website online--who wants to be sure your site is not going to have these girls being sold that we talked about earlier, that you should be protected. However, this legislation, having restated the Good Samaritan provision, also says that if you are one of the bad actors, you don't have that protection. The first amendment that is going to be offered includes protections for some of the bad actors. It purposely strips the good-faith element, and I believe it would assist online sex traffickers rather than hold them to account.

For instance, if backpage or another website filters for illegal content and, as a result, learns that their site is being used for trafficking but ignores that activity, I think this amendment would say that evidence could not be considered in a case against backpage. To me, that is wrong, and I hope the first amendment is going to be handled appropriately, which is to say, we don't want to weaken this bill or have a poison pill in here.

By the way, the law enforcement community represented nationally by their associations agrees with us, as do the victims groups, as do the groups who are concerned about the effect of trafficking on girls, women, and boys online. So we are together on this with all the outside groups.

The second amendment is going to be asking for additional Department of Justice resources specifically to combat online trafficking. I support funding to investigate and prosecute traffickers, of course, but we have to appropriate that funding in the proper manner. This amendment would be subject to a budget point of order because it is not going through the right process. The right process is the bill we are taking up the day after tomorrow, which will be the spending bill.

In fact, there are three budget points of order that the Committee on Budget in the U.S. Senate has found against this amendment. This amendment is subject to points of order. Every law enforcement group in the country opposes the amendment because as law enforcement said, it is a poison pill that is dead on arrival if sent back to the House. We have to defeat these amendments in order to have this legislation move forward. I hope my colleagues will all stick with us on that as they stuck with us through this process of getting the information, coming up with the right legislation, being sure we have the opportunity to take it to the floor and get it to a clean vote, get it to the President's desk and get it signed, and starting in a couple of weeks to be able to make a difference in the lives of the people we represent, stopping the online trafficking that is occurring and providing justice to those who are victims and survivors and ensuring that, indeed, justice can be served.

One of my colleagues has joined us on the floor. Senator Nelson is the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee that took up this legislation and clarified some points in the legislation. By the time he was done with it--and, by the way, he was a cosponsor of the legislation long before that--but by the time the Commerce Committee was done clarifying the legislation, listening to the testimony from both sides, he received a unanimous vote in committee. That doesn't happen very often, and I appreciate Senator Nelson being on the floor today. More importantly, I appreciate his leadership on the issue.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent additional material be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is in relation to an amendment that has been offered by my colleague Mr. Wyden. It has to do with funding for the Department of Justice dealing with trafficking. I appreciate the intent behind it, but I will tell you, as one of the letters from the law enforcement community, who are opposing this amendment, said, this is a poison pill. This will derail this in the House of Representatives.

We have law enforcement from the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and from all of the national groups opposing this amendment because they believe it is so important to pass the underlying legislation and to do it now to provide the justice that the victims of human trafficking deserve.

Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation. Most of you are cosponsors already. It strikes the right balance. It helps to allow victims to get the justice they deserve and, lastly, to hold these websites accountable through prosecution, while at the same time protecting the free and open internet.

I would like to yield my remaining time to my coauthor and colleague Senator Blumenthal.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for her leadership on this important issue.

Mr. Chair, as the co-chair of the Victims' Rights Caucus with my colleague Congressman Ted Poe, I am a proud cosponsor of this important legislation for victims in America who have suffered from these crimes.

A free and open internet, we all believe, is essential to economic growth, entrepreneurship, and enterprise in the 21st century, and America leads the way. This new technology age has reshaped our lives and allowed for greater access to learning, greater ability to shape our own futures as Americans, and with economic benefits we could not have imagined 15 years ago.

Sadly, there are some people who look at these freedoms and the openness of the internet and see ways to exploit, abuse, and prey on innocent children and teenagers in the name of profit. It is outrageous, and it is a crime. I am speaking of the scourge of sex trafficking, which has impacted the lives of too many young people in the San Joaquin Valley that I represent and throughout America.

Today, here in Congress, we look squarely at traffickers, pimps, and victimizers and say we must do a better job in protecting our citizens. As a result of this legislation, our laws will no longer be manipulated and used as a cover for their abuse. No longer will these people be able to hide behind the shield that the internet provides you when knowingly contributing to this horrible crime.

The Fresno Bee, a local daily newspaper in the San Joaquin Valley, recently ran a 6-week-long series about human trafficking in the Valley. The paper reported that nearly every 16-year-old girl in Fresno has been approached at one time or another by sex traffickers. Imagine that: nearly every 16-year-old girl in our county.

Police have seen sex trafficking victims from every high school in Fresno County and most of the junior high schools. It is horrible. This is a tragedy, and it cannot and should not be allowed to continue.

Today, we say it is time to make important changes. This legislation does that. It will help protect our children and provide them the ability to confront their abusers.

Mr. Chair, as I had said, it is time to make these important changes, and this bipartisan legislation does that. It protects our children, providing them the ability to confront their abusers, including those who knowingly promote and advertise these crimes.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman, and I am thankful for the bipartisan leadership in this effort.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record these excerpts from a series of articles entitled ``Slaves of the Sex Trade'' by Rory Appleton from the Fresno Bee: ``Don't kid yourself. Sex slaves are all around us--and you may know some of them'' (November 2, 2017), ``She was a hospital worker. He sold her for sex before, during and after her shifts'' (November 2, 2017), ``Police: 'Every 16-year-old girl in Fresno' has been targeted by sex trade recruiters'' (November 9, 2017), ``Once sold for sex, she now helps lead the fight against human trafficking'' (November 15, 2017), ``How do you rescue women forced to walk the streets at night? It's not easy'' (November 16, 2017), ``To break the cycle of children sold for sex, the legal system is trying something new'' (November 28, 2017), ``All of us must help beat the scourge of human trafficking. Here's what you can do'' (December 7, 2017). The full series can be found at http://www.fresnobee.com/news/ special-reports/human-trafficking/.

These seven articles demonstrate the impact of sex trafficking on our communities. I commend the Fresno Bee on their important reporting.

[From the Fresno Bee, Nov. 2, 2017]

Don't Kid Yourself. Sex Slaves Are All Around Us--and You May Know Some

of Them

(By Rory Appleton)

Rebecca Rodriguez-Brown still remembers the room where he

imprisoned her--the charming man she met and fell in love

with while still a teenager. She mapped it out with her hands

as she sat in a central Fresno office nearly 20 years later.

``They would have a little microwave there, and they would

have a little ice chest right there by the sink,'' she said.

``I still remember the color of the ice chest.''

Rodriguez-Brown isn't sure whether the room was in an

apartment or hotel. But she does remember that for seven

months she was kept in this room under guard and forced to

perform whatever sex act the strangers entering the room

asked for. The room was punishment for refusing to do the

same at her trafficker's home. Her captors brought her all of

her meals. If she defied them, she'd be beaten--sometimes

with her hands bound.

The Bee normally does not identify the victims of sexual

assault, however Rodriguez-Brown agreed to be named.

Her story is not uncommon in Fresno, or anywhere in the

world. It is one of cyclical abuse, habitual arrest and

unspeakable trauma. Women and children are bought and sold

every day in Fresno--online, in street corners, while at

school. They are raped, branded and beaten. They are taught

that they are the problem, not the people who force them into

this life--causing psychological scars that may never heal.

It is what many refer to as ``modern-day slavery.''

Full article is available at: http://www.fresnobee.com/ news/special-reports/human-trafficking/article182090031.html ____

[From the Fresno Bee, Nov. 2, 2017]

She Was a Hospital Worker. He Sold Her for Sex Before, During and After

Her Shifts

(By Rory Appleton)

At her lowest point, the days seemed to stretch on forever.

Eight hours a day as a hospital administrator, five hours--

sometimes more--as a prostitute.

He would wake her up at 4 a.m. to walk the streets. She

hated it--not that the house calls were much better. But when

she begged to stop, he would convince her the fault was hers.

Eventually, she would apologize and allow him to drop her off

before the sun was up.

``He wanted at least $300 before I went to work at the

hospital,'' she said.

So she would work the streets for three hours before

starting an eight-hour day scheduling appointments in the

nephrology unit of a San Diego hospital--a job she had

enjoyed before she met him. He eventually forced her to have

sex with men during her lunch break, in addition to before

and after work. On the weekends, he took her to neighboring

cities--a common tactic to avoid law enforcement or reach a

new clientele.

``If it were up to him, I would have never slept,'' she

said.

The mood-altering drug Xanax helped with the anxiety

stemming from the intense guilt she felt. She was ashamed to

talk to her friends and family--not that she could have if

she wanted to. He had her phone now, and he made sure she

never heard about her mother's attempts to contact her.

This woman, now 34, is one of thousands who are sex-

trafficked in California each year and one of hundreds of

victims now living in the central San Joaquin Valley.

Full article available at: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/ special-reports/human-trafficking/article182089821.html ____

[From the Fresno Bee, Nov. 9, 2017]

Police: `Every 16-Year-Old Girl in Fresno' Has Been Targeted by Sex

Trade Recruiters

(By Rory Appleton)

It was about 2 p.m. on a Tuesday when the 15-year-old girl

left her central Fresno hotel room. She climbed into a car

driven by a stranger, who would take her to another stranger

with whom she had agreed to have sex for money.

If it had been a few minutes later, the girl could have

easily blended in with children walking home from school. She

was not dressed provocatively; she wore a red Fresno State

sweatshirt and jeans. She was not wearing excessive makeup.

She carried a backpack.

Who knows how many times she had followed this pattern--

strange men and strange cars. Online advertisements showed

her in various states of undress.

That's how the vice unit of the Fresno Police Department

found her. Today, these strangers were both undercover

officers. Tonight, she will be safe.

``She said she hasn't eaten in five days,'' Sgt. Curt

Chastain said. ``No real family--an unreported runaway. She's

in the sex trade to survive.''

``She wants help,'' he continued. ``She wants to be in

school, but mom won't sign her up.''

One of Chastain's undercover detectives confirmed this is

not a rare occurrence.

``I've had (sex trafficking) victims from every high school

in Fresno County--and most junior high schools,'' the

detective said. The Fresno Bee is not identifying him due to

the sensitivity of his work. These traffickers, he added, use

a variety of tactics to lure children and young women into

``the life.''

Full article available at: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/ special-reports/human-trafficking/article183592286.html ____

[From the Fresno Bee, Nov. 15, 2017]

Once Sold for Sex, She Now Helps Lead the Fight Against Human

Trafficking

(By Rory Appleton)

Arien Pauls doesn't look like someone who's been through

hell.

She flashes an easy smile as she speaks. Her voice is soft,

but her words are deliberate and flow with eloquence. She has

a distinct rockabilly style, with one arm bearing a tattoo

modeled from Disney's ``The Little Mermaid'' and a hair clip

featuring two large pink roses.

Looking at her, it's hard to imagine that a man she loved

forced her into slavery. For four years, Pauls was sold for

sex on streets and in hotel rooms across the western half of

the United States. She was barred from contacting her friends

or family. She was arrested multiple times and treated like a

criminal--a stigma that even now, five years later, is

difficult to shake.

Her worst moments seem unimaginable.

Pauls' trafficker--a man she believed to be her boyfriend--

refused to take her to a hospital when one of the men he sold

her to raped her. When she became pregnant with her

trafficker's baby, he forced her into an illegal, late-term

abortion. When her reeling body began to produce breast milk

after the abortion, her trafficker saw it as a moneymaker:

Those with certain fetishes would pay extra now, he told her.

It took a daring late-night escape--her trafficker's SUV

roaring behind her getaway car on a Las Vegas street--to get

out of that life. But once she returned to Fresno, her arrest

record kept her from working in her chosen career, and she

has struggled with the mental scars inflicted during her past

life.

Full article available at: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/ special-reports/human-trafficking/article184943988.html ____

[From the Fresno Bee, Nov. 16, 2017]

How Do You Rescue Women Forced to Walk the Streets at Night? It's Not

Easy

(By Rory Appleton)

For decades, the women rescued from the hotel rooms and

apartments in Fresno where they had been raped, beaten and

forced to have sex with strangers for money had few

alternatives.

The first--and it was seldom optional--was jail. They could

also go to rehab, provided they had a drug problem. But more

often than not, they returned to the sex trade.

That is no longer the case.

In 2012, human trafficking became a crime in California,

carrying with it new language for dealing with the crime and

harsher penalties for traffickers. Local law enforcement

found success against traffickers by treating girls and women

in the sex trade as victims, not complicit criminals.

Over the past few years, a growing network of advocates has

added new avenues of help for the hundreds of women who are

trafficked. These groups have provided victims with shelter,

counseling and the tools to rebuild their lives.

Many who work with human trafficking victims consider the

practice to be modern-day slavery. If that's true, this

advocacy coalition is the underground railroad.

Full article available at: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/ special-reports/human-trafficking/article184943793.html ____

[From the Fresno Bee, Nov. 28, 2017]

To Break the Cycle of Children Sold for Sex, the Legal System is Trying

Something New

(By Rory Appleton)

Defense attorney Kristin Maxwell remembers when a client

came to her Fresno office shortly after being discharged from

a hospital.

The teenage girl had been beaten, raped and dumped in a

neighboring county. Police found her unconscious, lying naked

in an alley.

``There are some parts of the body that bruise easily, and

some that don't,'' said Maxwell, who's worked in the Fresno

County Public Defender's office for 11 years. ``Looking at

her, you knew she had been through it. She had been beaten

really badly.''

This case stands out for its brutality, Maxwell said. But

it was the sheer number of human trafficking cases crossing

her desk when she took control of the Public Defender's

juvenile office in 2015 that shocked her into action.

The legal community has partnered with advocacy groups, law

enforcement and the Fresno County Probation Department to

improve the criminal justice system in an effort to get

children out of the sex trade permanently. Their work will

soon bear fruit: On Jan. 19, Fresno County's juvenile court

will establish a courtroom dedicated solely to human

trafficking cases.

This new court--patterned after similar courts in

Sacramento, Los Angeles and other California counties--will

allow a judge with specialized training to work with the

various partner agencies to ensure children caught up in the

sex trade receive help that's customized for their needs.

Full article available at: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/ special-reports/human-trafficking/article186937063.html ____

[From the Fresno Bee, Dec. 7, 2017]

All of Us Must Help Beat the Scourge of Human Trafficking. Here's What

You Can Do

(By Rory Appleton)

Pimps have ensnared Fresno middle-school students who were

selling their bodies for extra spending money. Young women

have been tricked, blackmailed and forced into having sex

with strangers to support men they believed were their

boyfriends. People--especially children--with low self-

esteem, mental illness, unstable home lives or living in

poverty are the preferred targets of an industry operating in

the shadows.

Human trafficking is a complex issue. Police, advocacy

groups and the Fresno legal community have formed a unique

partnership to tackle the growing problem in new ways. But

what can the rest of Fresno do to fight human trafficking?

Talking to your children or younger family members about

the issue can educate them

and help keep them out of harm's way. Nonprofits that help

trafficking victims would welcome financial donations.

Residents can urge governments to allocate more resources to

those policing and prosecuting traffickers. And far larger

strides can be made to address a major underlying issue in

the sex trade: the people, mostly men, who buy sex.

Full article available at: http://www.fresnobee.com/news/ special-reports/human-trafficking/article188526804.html