Transcripts For CSPAN3 Senate Committee Considers Sex Trafficking Crime Bill 20170923

Cspan2s book tv. Now Senate Commerce Committee Hearing concerning legislation to combat sex trafficking. A section of the bill would allow victims to sue Internet Companies that facilitated these crimes. This is two hours and 20 minutes. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today for our hearing on s1693, the stop enabling sex traffickers act of 2017, our second Committee Hearing on Human Trafficking this year. Particularly thankful that well have the benefit of hearing from Yvonne Ambrose who will share her heartbreaking family story us with. Well also hear from senators who will offer their perspectives about the current state of the law and the proposed changes. Well then have the opportunity to hear from our kpeexpert witn whos will share their opinion and will raise some questions. Last month senators portman and bloom enthat will introduced the act of 2017 with a Bipartisan Group of more than 20 cosponsors, a number that has grown since then and which includes eight members of this committee. As many already know this bill would amend section 230 to bring to justice web sites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is an evil that affects every Community Across america. I think everyone agrees that more must be done to address this hor endous problem. Thats why the conversation were having today is so important. As i mentioned earlier this year, this Committee Held a hearing to examine ways that our Transportation Providers and supply chains with fight the sex trafficking in the United States and slave labor in the global economy. That same week senators introduced two bills to address Human Trafficking prevention and enforcement and transportation. Im proud that both bills passed the full Senate Last Week and im hopeful the house of representatives will act soon to send the bills to the president s desk. There, is however, more that can be done. En that brings us to the legislation before us today. We know where this activity is taking place online, Law Enforcement can better monitor it and fight it. There are many positive stories to be told about how Internet Companies work with Law Enforcement and victims rights organizations to fight sex trafficking. But i believe that these Companies Like the rest of us have an obligation to do more. They will tell us about the work that specific companies do and will do to fight those who use their platforms for evil. Well hear from California Attorney general and Law Enforcement. Can also speak to the recent request by 50 state and territorial attorneys general to be allowed to enforce the respective criminal laws pertaining to sex trafficking in this arena. Representing the National Center for missing and exploited children, clearinghouse related to child sex trafficking and as the coordinator of the National Response related to problems with missing and exploited children. Mr. Goldman is a law professor at Santa Clara University who analyzed laws and impacts on the internet and able to speak about the potential legal consequences of the proposed changes contemplated by this legislation. I want to thank all of you for being here and for the advocacy and work youre engaged in. These are issues often difficult to discuss but i believe this committee provides an appropriate venue for serious situations and difficult matters. I appreciate your participation in our discussion. Finally, before i turn to Ranking Member nelson for his opening statement, senator mccain hoped to join us today given his long leadership on efforts to combat Human Trafficking but unavoidable conflict with the Armed Services committee which he chairs. Without objection, senator mccains statement will be included in the record and i would note were honored to have mccain with a number of extinguished guests with senator highcamp. Ill turn to senator nelson for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As we have this hearing today, there is an untold number of women and children in the u. S. That are being at this moment sold into sexual slavery via the internet. In just using a few clicks, victims from all walks of life and parts, all parts of the country are being forced to endure brutal and unspeakable crimes. Let me repeat. Women and children are being forced into sex slavery in modern day america and it could very well happen to someone that you know. If thats not a wakeup call, then i dont know what is. And sadly, its the truth that my fellow floridians tragically know all too well. According to the Human Trafficking hotline, florida ranks third in the country for the number of cases reported last year. The question before us today is simple. Why arent we doing everything we can to stop this heinous practice . Were talking about modern day slavery and our children are the ones that are at risk. The bill we have before us today would help us shut down despicable web sites that promote sexual trafficking. Dont kid ourselves. The shady and highly profitable web site operators know full well how their sites are being used. Whats more, theyre hiding behind a decades old legal shield in federal Communications Law to immunize themselves from prosecution. This bill, by the two senators here and a host of others that the chairman mentioned would eliminate this safe harbor for sex traffickers and allow state attorneys general and prosecutors and victims to go after the web sites that knowingly provide a platform for sex trafficking. It would not, as some claim, take a sledgehammer to the internet. Weve got to take a stand. Rather, instead of a sledgehammer, it takes a common sense, responsible, and targeted approach. One that the courts tell us that we can take to limit the scope of the current law and help in the courage of child sex trafficking on the internet and while some stake holders have concern about this bill, i strongly believe that we cannot sit idly by any longer while the web sites aid and abet child sex traffickers. The cost of inaction is way too high. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator nelson. Senator nelson mentioned, were joined today by two colleagues in the senate and the lead sponsors of the legislation. Were privileged to welcome senators portman and blumenthal. A member of this committee, but we look forward to hearing from each of you about your legislation and ill start on my left and right with senator portman and senator blumenthal. Senator portman, welcome. Thank you, senator. I appreciate your commitment to combatting this horrific crime of sex trafficking. I want to thank my colleagues around the panel. Many of you stepped up early on, sponsored legislation and played a Critical Role in us getting to this point. We have passed legislation thats been part of that over the years. On sex trafficking that we have in our history, but the reality is its on the increase. Its for one reason. According to all the experts, and thats online sale of girls, children, women. So weve got to face that reality and deal with it. Again, i appreciate the fact that youre having the opportunity to hear not just from us and i appreciate my colleague being here, senator blumenthal are cofounders of the caucus on trafficking and partners this this effort but youre going to hear from victims too, as i understand it. Here to talk about her tragic personal story. And its heartbreaking, and as a father of three and many partens around the panel here today, its unimaginable this going on in the 21st century. Thank you to all the witnesses but particularly, yvonne for sharing the story with us. This increase in sex trafficking is a stain on our national character. It is. The fact its going on in this country at this time based on the information weve received from Law Enforcement and Law Enforcement, by the way, strongly behind this legislation. As you know, theyve endorsed it across the board. The district attorney, the f. O. P. They said the increase is real and primarily based on this increase on the internet. The Tech Community does not deny that. For example, a google executive wrote an oped earlier this spring saying, quote, technologies roll and Human Trafficking cannot be ignored. The sad reality is three out of four sex trafficking victims in the United States exploited online. And predators often make their first connections to victims on the internet. This is a google executive. I believe google wants fight back against traffic and i think shes right. I see this reality myself as i visit with survivors and im sure all of you have had this experience back home in talking to victims and survivors. Repeatedly they tell you the same page. Drugs are usually involved as well. Traffickers told me, and victims told me and this comes from probably a half dozen different victims the same thing. This has moved from the Street Corner to the smartphone. Thats where its moved and this ruthless efficiency. Last month, i spoke to some victims in youngstown, ohio, and back page came up because thats how they were trafficked. A young woman told me she was first sold on back page at age 9. She told me her father would take her from city to city from major sporting events and seller up to 20 times a day. Ruthlessly efficient. With Ranking Member clara mccaskill, spent the last couple of years investigating back page. We took a deep dive. We found unfortunately that the web site is far more complicit in these crimes than anyone previously thoulgght. Knowingly involved in illegal sex trafficking and covered up evidence of its crimes in order to increase it profits. Thank you for voting to take them into contempt. Thanks to the senate for the first time in 21 Years Holding a private actor in contempt of congress and we were successful in getting a million documents that showed clearly that they were actively and knowingly involved in illegal sex trafficking. Despite these facts, efforts by traffic survivors and Law Enforcement to hold back page accountable have failed repeatedly. Why . Because courts around the country ruled that back page brought immunity under a federal law, the Communications Decency act. Law that has not kept up with the times. I dont think it intended to shield anyone for responsibility for serious federal crimes much less sex trafficking. Looking at the legislative history, the goal is to protect web site operators acting in good faith and that makes sense. Who lack knowledge that third parties were posting illegal or harmful content on their sites. We all believe in free speech. I think everyone on this panel believes we ought to have Internet Freedom but the Communications Decency act never intended to engage thothose wit. And all encome passing immunity for back page that knowingly engage in sex trafficking. Judge across the country, by the way, made it clear its congresss responsibility to fix this law. They have invited us to fix this law. The first court of appeals recognized back pages role in the horrific crime of sex trafficking but the court ruled it hands were tied saying the remedy is through legislation, not litigation. And just last month, a court in sacramento threw out charges against backpage because of the Communications Decency act and if and until Congress Sees fit to amend the immunity law, the broad reach of section 230 against the act even applies to those alleged to support the exploitation of others by Human Trafficking. Up to us. Because this interpretation of the law the last 20 years only congress can fix this injustice. Thats why weve introduced this legislation. Its bipartisan, its common sense, targeted. Its called stop enabling sex traffickers act. First, allow sex trafficking victims to get the justice they deserve against web sites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking against them. Secondly, it would allow state and local Law Enforcement to prosecute such web sites that violate sex trafficking laws. Attorney general of california will talk about that. This knowing standard, by the way, in our legislation is a high bar. As the lawyers around this panel know. They have to be proven to have knowingly facilitate and supported or assisted in online sex trafficking to be liable in the first place. Because the standards are so high, good tech actors and targets rogue online traffickers like back page. Our bill preserves the Good Samaritan provision that protects good actors who screen for offensive material. I believe google, facebook, and other legitimate web sites do that and they should have that Good Samaritan protection. Thats in the law. Support is growing for the legislation, as i mentioned, weve got lots of support for Law Enforcement community. Also dozens of survivor groups. Some pehere today, trafficking coalitions, faith based groups. We appreciate the prominent parts of the Tech Community. 21st century fox endorsed it. Hewlettpackard, enterprise, walt disney company. Theyve all joined in this mission to stop this criminal sex trafficking online. 50 attorneys general from across the United States recently urged congress to support this legislation. Again, well hear from California Attorney general. But let me say this. The fact that i know stances of Human Trafficking are actually increasing in this country, in this century is an outrage. Its a disgrace and history will judge us on how we respond to it. Silicon valley holds itself out as being more than just another industry. Rather, a movement to make the world a better place. In so many ways, the internet contributed positively to our world. But the selling of human beings online is the dark side of the internet. It cant be the cost of doing business and it doesnt make the world a better place. And theres something we can do about it. This legislation will help this committee can act to stop criminal sex trafficking online. Thank you for allowing me to testify today, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator portman. Senator blumenthal. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member for bringing us today on this very important sub aject and thk you both for your personal commitment to action on this important topic and i also want to thank senator mccain. I just left him at the Armed Services committee which he chairs and a very important hearing going on there now, so i know he will try to be here if he can, but Sidney Mccain with us today and shes been a tireless and tenacious advocate on this subject, so i want to thank her as well. I particularly want to thank our colleague. A third of the senate. Many members of this committee who have cosponsored this bill. Joining senator nelson, klobuchar and capito and lee. I want to thank others who have not yet joined it. We are talking very diligently with senator harris, for example, as well as senator cortes and senator booker. Senator shotsment othe. Others helping us to clarify and make this legislation even more precise and i look forward to continue our work with this group to make sure that the language achieves our goal without any unintended or unforeseen consequences. I want to finally join the survivors who were with us today. Yvonne ambrose. We are here in large part because of three incredibly courageous young women. These three women were each 15 years old when they were first sold for sex. They were sold invisibly, but in plain sight. The ads that sold them used coded language to indicate that they were in fact under age. Over the course of roughly four years, they were raped thousands of times. In 2014, these three young women had the courage to go to court. They brought a lawsuit against back page for facilitating sex trafficking. The First Circuit reviewed their case and as senator portman said, they called this an outrage. They used that word. Outrage. But they said that there were no remedies. There were no legal claims that could be recognized in court because of this section in the law. Section 230 of the Communications Decency act. Nothing could be done for them. The court, in effect, said to us, the congress of the United States, you made this mess. Now fix it. These women are in a legal black hole without justice. Congress must fix it. Thats why were here. This problem is hardly new or novel. My efforts against sex trafficking began a decade ago when i led a coalition of 39 states with the online classified company craigs list for facilitating and profiting from sex trafficking. Took down its Adult Services section. We won the battle but the war was far from won. As purchasers of sex moved away from craigs list, they went to backpage. Com. The National Center for missing and exploited children which i should note is represented here today, reported an 8800 and 46 increase in reports of sex trafficking between 2010 and 2015. In other words, after craigs list settled, there was an 846 increase in sex trafficking over those five years and it was directly correlated to the increased use of the internet to sell children for sex. In 2016 alone, the national Human Trafficking hotline received 5,551 reports of sex trafficking incidents sh. Shutting down a web site is not enough. Shutting down backpage is not enough. We need to pass this measure. If we fail to do so, if we fail to close this gap, we become complicit and those numbers, by the way, underestimating them. This problem. Those require the same courage that the young women to break the stigma and shame of acknowledging they have been sold for sex. When the critics of the legislation say there will be a de deluge of lawsuits, frivolous claims. Think about it for a moment. Survivors have to come forward and establish their standing under the law by making the case that they have been sold for sex. There will be no deluge of frivolous lawsuits as a result of this measure. Time to say no more. Congress must stop allowing web sites to profit from sex trafficking. Senator portman has outlined the provisions of the bill. They are narrowly targeted and carefully crafted. We are working to make them even clearer and more precise to avoid unintended consequences. I understand some of the Companies May wish to continue to shield from liability that they have. Companies rarely welcome additional legal accountability. I understand that point but this is about social and moral responsibility. As well as giving survivors and victims a day in court. It is time to open the courthouse doors to victims of sex trafficking who have been sold into slavery as a result of ads that right now can enjoy absolutely immunity for sites that knowingly facilitate, support, or assist. Knowingly facilitate, support, or assist. Its a high bar. These companies should be compelled to meet it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator blumenthal. And again, thank you to both of you and senator portman and the cosponsors of your legislation for your strong advocacy and for the conversations that you have entered into with members of this committee and others of the senate to try to make sure we get this right but certainly, we all recognize and need to act and we appreciate your leadership on this. Thank you for being here. But now recognize another colleague of ours, senator wyden. Great state of oregon and appreciate you, senator wyden, being here and sharing your perspective. Thank you very much to senator nelson and i come as an alum of this committee and as one of the coauthors of section 230 of the Communications Decency act. Numerous experts, obviously, have pointed out that section 230 was absolutely necessary to bring our legal system into the 21st century. This has been the Legal Foundation for the growth of the internet, particularly in areas like education, jobs, and a platform for free speech around the world. I believe it ought to be kept in tact. 20 years ago, it was in recognition of the fact the internet was going to change everything. The way we interacted with things. But we could influence how it came about. The key question, mr. Chairman and colleagues, would there be an internet dominated by private networks with the worst impulses of human beings going on in impenetrable dark corners or would the internet be a platform where such impulses would be exposed to sunlight and the law . Thats why we made it Crystal Clear that absolutely nothing in the 230 statute protects against violation of federal criminal law and more importantly, nothing in the statute protects individuals from the full force of the law with the evidence of crimes online. That exposed much of Human Behavior we might prefer to remain hidden. Its exposed much in Law Enforcement already knew about but its exposed them and the question now is issue and youve touched on this mr. Chairman, how do you respond . Do we react like politicians . But act with resolution and purpose with Law Enforcement with the resources to effectively attack this horrible scourge that is far older than the internet and we end up actually aiding the victims of the horrendous crime. Its not whether to make it innovation and opportunity but how to address how to identify and lock up these horrible criminals who use the net as theyve abused a thousand before them to create victims and destroy lives. If Law Enforcement needs more resources and hold responsible. Those who might cynically design to profit from illegal behavior under the guise of providing a Legal Service and i have fought alongside many of you on this panel and senate to end sex trafficking of survivors of trafficking by getting those resources to the key enforcement officia officials and ill provide strong protection and support to survivors to stop this kind of exploitation. I believe that the legislation being considered today is the wrong answer to an important question. Wasnt very long ago members of the contract. Protecting incumbent industries from smothering the innovators. I dont think anybody on the committee today says, hey, lets undermine this thing that created a trillion dollars worth economic value. That is part of the question being considered today. America may have played the biggest role in creating the net, but important to the discussion today, the barriers to entry are very, very low. The reason another nation with like china or india with a functioning Interactive Network before us like say, france, failed to dominate the net is our foundation of internet laws that kept lawyers and politicians and tax collectors from hobbling innovation and hobbling growth. Sad to say theyre at work right now. And developers and designers before they went out and hired a team of lawyers. Second, i wanted to protect god good actors to take them down without being liable for everything. Thats better than having web sites hide their heads in the sand. And third, absolutely essential to me, my bottom line is making sure that bad actors would still be subject to federal law and protecting that startup from discriminatory state law is vital but it is equally important to make sure criminals of all kinds are held accountable. As you consider making changes to section 230, i hope you keep looking out for that person we were talking about 20 years ago. The little guy. The person who was taken a big risk. Technology has been important for the last 28 years and we need to make sure that we have policies like section 230 in place to make sure it stays that way. I think this committee in its tradition has always been to pursue the regular order when it considers changes and i look forward to have the opportunity to talk with you, our friends senator nelson, all of our colleagues as this debate goes forward. Thank you, senator wyden. Thank you to our colleagues for being here this morning and informing everybody that a vote has been called. So were going to keep rolling here and try to figure out a way to juggle the chairs so we can continue to hear from the people here and i want to invite up now to share her very personal experience with us, miss Yvonne Ambrose. Shell be next. Miss ambrose, welcome to the committee. Thank you for your willingness to share your personal story with us. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you so much, senator and Ranking Member nelson and members of the committee for inviting me to come and testify. When you have your first child, it changes your life. You become a different person. Your world revolves around them. You get butterflies every time you kiss their little feet. Every time you hold their hand. Their smile brightens your whole life. Your life revolves around this person and you would give them the world if you could. You think youll have forever with them, so you start planning for their future. My daughter was born march 29, 2000 at 2 52 p. M. She was the light of my life. My first born, my only daughter. My heart, my world. And desiree made me a better person because she was a beautiful person. She had the brightest smile that could light up the room. And with your permission, i would like to share a photo of her with the committee. Okay. During her school year, made friends everywhere she went. Whether it was on vacation, at school, church, boys and girls club or Walking Around the mall, everyone wanted to be her friend. She was loved by all and everyone she encountered, she loved as well. She was a bright student. Great athlete, and took joy in helping others. Grammar school, won numerous awards for academics, citizenship, athletics and volunteered within the community. Desiree had dreams of one day becoming a physician in the u. S. Air force. She attended air force Academy High School on the south side of chicago with hopes of graduating and going to captain school in colorado to help further her dream. Her future was very bright. Desiree was a good person who just wanted to be loved and accepted by all. Desiree struggled in the last year of her life. She was bullied for her diverse racial background and tried to fit in with her friends. She knew she was loved by family and friends but looked for love and acceptance anywhere she could find it. She was only 16 years old and just wanted to make friends. We now know that adult found on social media, reached out, pressured her and used her to make money. She was preyed on and sold online by pimps who took advantage of her. Desiree didnt know what backpage. Com was or the harm that would come from this web site. On december 23rd, 2016, a 32yearold man by the name of Antonio Rosales was looking through backpage. Com for a child to have sex with. Just like countless others before him, they knew this was a web site they could go to to engage in sex with minors. He knew backpage. Cc wom was the site to go to have underage sex with. And came upon a picture of my 16yearold daughter. Posting new girl in town looking to have fun. Which was posted by her pimp, desiree was driven to antonios resident by the pimp with intents of having sex with a 32yearold man, a man twice her age. This was the last night of my daughters life. And her pictures were posted and moderated by backpage. Com and this was the reason for her demise. On christmas eve, december 24th, 2016, desiree, my baby was brutally murdered and now my life has changed forever. She had been beaten, raped, strangled, and if that wasnt bad enough, he slit her throat. All because she said no, she didnt want to do this again. She screamed for help and there was no one around to help her. Desirees death should have never happened. The sex trafficking of minors should not be happening in our country. Taking advantage of our children on the internet has become such a common thing in this country that people turn another cheek because they dont want to believe its happening right here in our back yards. This is not a race, gender or economic problem. This is a people problem. A human problem. If there were stricter rules in place for postings on these web site, my child would still be alive with me today. The truth is, backpage. Com and other sites are making millions of dollars by exploiting our children and allowing them to be taken advantage of by predators. If we dont speak up now, these web sites will continue to profit off trafficking our babies. It could be your child, your niece, your nephew, your cousins, your friends children next if you dont stop this. A tragic death of my baby girl made me take a step back and think about her life. She was a good person. A good student, had a great personality. She gave her all to make sure that people were happy. She even had a tattoo on her arm that said, be the change that you would like to see in the world. The day my baby was taken away from me was the worst day of my life. Hurt and pain that my family is unimaginable. I struggle to believe a loving and talented girl like desiree is gone from this earth because an act such as allowed the internet to exploit her and section 230 is standing in the way of justice for my child and other jane does out there like her. Backpage. Com and other Companies Like this must be held responsible for what they have created. Im sure when this act was put into place in 96, the internet was in its infancy and it was not intended to allow companies to legally sell children on the internet, but somehow, a dollar has become more important than a human life. If youre going to fix this problem, fix it. I was supposed to make this transition from this earth before her. Parents are not supposed to bury their children. All of the plans we made together for her life will never happen. I would not wish this pain and hurt on my worst enemy. And i pray that desirees life can make a difference so no one has to ever endure this pain again. Im asking you, u. S. Senate, to amend section 230 and be the change you want to see in this world. Not only for the justice for desiree, but for all the countless jane joes out here and the other little girls to come who dont have a voice. We have to be the change now to protect our babies from web sites like backpage. Com that open the door for predators without any accountability. My name is yee von ambrose and im the mother of the late Desiree Robinson. And im asking you, the u. S. Senate, to change section 230 and support the Bipartisan Legislation to stop enabling sex traffickers act. Not only for my baby, but for the protection of yours and others to come. Thank you, miss ambrose, for sharing a very compelling and powerful way and helping personalize the issue that were dealing with for all of us here on this committee this morning. Thank you for being here. Thank you. I invite our next panel to come forward. We have the attorney general of california, mr. Javier baserra. Welcome. And school of law and miss Abigail Slater who was a general counsel at the Internet Association and miss yota sorz. We want to welcome all of you to the panel and thank you in advance for the testimony youre going to share with us and we will start on my left and your right with the attorney general bacera and well proceed from there and if you can, as much as possible, find your oral remarks to five minutes. Well ensure your entire statement is included part of the record but will enable members of the committee to have time to ask questions. General, welcome back to congress and great to have you here. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and to Ranking Member nelson and to all the members of the committee, thank you for letting me join you today. A pleasure to be back where i spent more than 24 years of my career. I want to thank, first of all, senator portman and senator blumenthal, the sponsors of this legislation, 1693, for hard work and tenacity. To my senator, senator harris, i want to thank her for the work shes done over the years, previously, as the attorney general for the state of california before she became now our u. S. Senator joining senator feinstein here in washington, dc. Its important to thank the Tech Industry as all of you know, many of the Tech Industry have stepped up to be partners with Law Enforcement and child advocates to combat Human Trafficking and certainly, we have to thank our tireless advocates who somehow give hope so many children and critical survivors of sex trafficking. But most of all, i want to thank the men and women of Law Enforcement who stay in the ring even though weve got one hand, if not both hands tied behind our back in this fight against child sex trafficking. 1693 is a serious effort to balance the virtues of a free and open internet with the bedrock of American Value that our children are our greatest asset. Each one of them, we must hold those who exploit them accountable. Balances on one hand that communication decency act in promoting the internet and innovation and on the other, the swift and lucrative migration of sex trafficking from the pavement to the internet. F1693 goes to the heart of when the critical concerns 49 state generals and i expressed in a recent letter to congress the need to clarify the communication decency acts so there is no mistake about the authority of state and local prosecutors to prosecute those involved in online child sex trafficking. Human trafficking is one of the Fastest Growing criminal enterprises worldwide. The internet has made it so much easier, faster, and safer to make big bucks. Pimps use virtual brothels to sell Vulnerable Children online on a daily basis. As much as weve all tried to do our best, whether its congress, the Tech Community, Law Enforcement, were losing the fight against sex trafficking which means were losing our children. Ask Yvonne Ambrose. Heres my plea. Be thorough but courageous like the kids who overcome the trauma. Were all here ready to help however we can to get a bill that gets the votes. Second, dont let sex trafficking or our children believe that were going to allow people who traffic in sex with our kids hide in plain sight on the internet. And lets not let ignorance of the law be anyones excuse. Three, dont be dissuaded. Regardless of what anyone says, prosecution for sex trafficking requires criminal intent. No one can be convicted for acting in good faith. Four, amending the 21yearold communication decency act is not a sin. Even the constitution was amended within 14 years of its adoption. And thats, of course, when we accepted the First Amendment and the remainder of the bill of rights to the constitution. And i must also mention, having served in this body for 24 years, that here in the senate and the house, you have the power of congresss legislative record to the changes you choose to make to the cda. Remember that the cda is older than all of the children were fighting to protect. So lets look at the cda with fresh, but experienced eyes. The First Amendment in the cda will continue to stand the test of time. But you cant yell fire in a theater. You cant sell kids on the street for sex. And you shouldnt be allowed to traffic children for sex on the internet. Its time clarified the Communications Decency act to prosecute those who sell our children for sex. The senate bill 1693 gives us a chance to save our children from the unspeakable exploitation we can only imagine and for that reason, mr. Chairman, ill work as hard as i can with you and all of those who believe its time we finally amended the communication decency act to protect our children. Thank you, general. Great to have you back with us today. Mr. Goldman up next and ill vote and senator will have the gavel in a moment. Chairman thune, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify about the stop enabling sex traffickers act of 2017. As weve heard today, sex trafficking is a horrific crime and applaud congresss ongoing efforts to combat it. Im concerned that sesta is not the right solution but counterproductively lead to more online sex trafficking promotions. Instead of stopping, it will help them proliferate. Why its worked so well, when i started practicing law, internet law in 1994, before congress enacted section 230, we advised Online Services to handle Third Party Activity in one of two ways. The service could either, one, accept it would be fully liable for Third Party Content and manage the risk by exercising editorial control through screening or other costly and cumbersome procedures or two, take minimal steps to moderate the Party Content and thereby avoid knowledge that might lead to liability. Section 230 with that advice and instead allows Online Services to safely adopt a wide range of moderation practices between the two extremes. By reducing costs and liability exposure, section 230 spurred new Innovative Services and fostered their growth contributing to the internets success. Virtually every waking hour of every day, we use Online Services thanks to 230. Because of section 230, Online Services today voluntarily take many steps to suppress socially harmful content that could include false and malicious content, sexual material, unlawful but wanted content and without liability for whatever they miss. Posts postsesta, some conclude they cant achieve this accuracy or moderation would make it impossible to serve their community. In those cases, would reduce or eliminate the current moderation efforts. More services do less to moderate their Party Content, well see more socially harmful content online that would have been moderated today. Some Online Services are actively suppressing sex trafficking will stop the efforts to the unintended consequence to foster expansion of online sex trafficking promotion. Sesta tries to focus by focusing on bad actors who promote sex trafficking. This doesnt work because only some sex trafficking promotions clearly selfidentify as such. Sex trafficking promotions can take less obvious forms such as online prostitution ads, ads for Adult Services that are legal and indeed, every type of user content from videos to dating profiles to message board comments to tweets and use coded phrases and euphemisms to mask their promotional objective. As a result, Online Services cant magically find and eradicate only the online sex trafficking promotions. Automated filters are costly and suffer from high error rates. Furthermore, if the services decide to moderate their content, they will have to undertake the larger and harder effort to review the entire universe of Third Party Content. Even content that lacks obvious red flags to find every impermissible promotion. It doesnt limit self to bad actors but applies to the entire internet and forces those who do moderation to comprehensively review all the content they receive. Finally, sesta isnt necessary to fight online sex trafficking promotions. Expressly does not apply to federal criminal prosecutions. Congress has enacted numerous crimes against sex trafficking in its promotion including most recently, the savac this passed on backpage. If the department of justice prosecutes backpage or any other sites for the crimes they have committed, whether the save act or based on other crimes, section 230 will not shield them. A federal grand jury is investigating back page. Congress should wait for the results of that investigation which i hope will come soon to identify if any gaps exist in the law and how congress should respond. Sesta is a complex law complicating important social issu issues. Im grateful that this is paying attention to it. Thank you, professor goldman. Chairman thune, thank you and members of the committee. Honored to be here today on behalf of the National Center for missing and exploited children. First, let me say how pleased i am to appear alongside most valued partners representing Law Enforcement and the Technology Industry. Could not sustain its mission to protect children without the heroic efforts of Law Enforcement to remove children from danger and prosecute those who harm them including the ongoing work of attorney general basera to protect children in the prosecution of backpage. Com. Just important are the significant contributions of the Technology Industry to support child safety online. Technology company such as google, facebook, microsoft and others have devoted tremendous resources to reduce Child Sexual Exploitation on their platforms. Designated as the National Clearinghouse on issues related to missing and exploited children including victims of child sex trafficking. Based on our experience, ncmec has reduced sesta that will ensure access to child sex trafficking victims and hold online entities legally responsible when they knowingly assist a sex trafficking child. Chif children are trafficked for sex and increasingly on the internet. Weve received more than 9,700 reports this year of suspected child sex trafficking to our cyber tip line. Over the last five years, 81 of ncmecs child sex trafficking reports have related to the trafficking of a child for sex online. More than 73 of these reports for members of the public concern an advertisement on backpage. Com. Under current law, web sites can commit these crimes with virtual impunity even when knowingly facilitating the trafficking of a child. In case after case, child sex trafficking victims have been deprived of their day in court against every entity including web sites that knowingly support their trafficking. Congress has acted to protect children from sex trafficking through the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act or tvpra and every state has a corresponding trafficking statute but these laws have proven inadequate based on the courts current interpretation of the Communications Decency act. Congress enacted the cda over 21 years to protect Online Companies from liability when they host Third Party Content or engage in good faith efforts to regulate explicit material. Courts struggled and failed to reconcile the cdas narrow immunity with the tvpras criminalization of sex trafficking. The past seven years, over 20 legal cases filed involving backpage. Com. Time and time again, courts have acknowledged the horror of the allegations made by child sex trafficking victims but held themselves powerless to act under the cda. Courts across the country called on congress to clarify the intersection between valuable cda immunities and the strong laws against human sex trafficking. Ncmec worked closely with children victimized by online sex trafficking whose cases have been dismissed based on the cda. We have witnessed the anguish of the children suffering and have heard their hopelessness when the courts dismiss their cases. We cant rely on a 1996 law to solve a 21st century problem. We need to be smarter and more sophisticated in protecting children and this is the approach sesta takes and why sesta is the first bill to amend the cda that ncmec endorsed. We believe its strooiking an important balance with providing the day in court with the underlying protections of the cda. Ncmec supports sesta because child trafficking victims may se seek Civil Penalties. And protect children in their own communities by prosecuting online entities that knowingly supported trafficking and third, online entities may be liable for trafficking if they knowingly support, assist, or facilitate the trafficking of a child for sex. We are encouraged by the continuing dialogue including at this hearing to further understanding of the proposed legislation and ensure it fulfills its mission to protect children. We welcome the opportunity to provide Additional Support as sesta works through this process and very important issues. Thank you. Chairman thune, Ranking Member nelson and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Abigail Slater and represents more than 40 of the worlds leading Internet Companies. On a personal note if i may, id like to acknowledge the testimony of miss ambrose here today and to convey my sympathy to her on her loss of her lawyer desiree, no family should have to suffer what mrs. Ambroses family suffered. There are three overarching points i would like to make today. First, the legitimate Internet Companies, the Internet Association represents are 100 committed to the fight against sex trafficking. Our objective is to help stop these crimes from occurring from the first place so theres no more victims. We support targeted legislative changes including changes to the Communications Decency act that would allow victims and survivors to seek justice against bad actors that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. As one of the mothers interviewed in the i am jane doe documentaries, i want my daughter to hold her head up high and know one nun none of t her fault. Every mother should share this sentiment. Psi report from earlier this year, a grand jury was convened in phoenix to look at backpage. Coms conduct under existing criminal law and agree its time to bring backpage to justice. The second poichnt today, legitimate companies are key partners to fighting sex trafficking. Part of the solution to this problem in the partnership between Law Enforcement and companies is key to ending the underlying criminal behavior. This partnership manifests in several ways. First, legitimate Internet Companies have community guidelines, proactive endorsement practices to remove content that promotes sex trafficking. The power of good actors online is in many context, the most powerful tool against bad actors online and legitimate Internet Companies long since partnered with nongovernmental organizations such as ncmec to combat sex trafficking. These are both Companies Financial resources as well as engineering talent to develop technological tool to combat this heinous crime. I elaborate on the tools in my written testimony but i did want to highlight one in particular. Its this spotlight tool developed by thorn that supports from several ia member companies. Spotlight is a webbased application used to detect and help rescue victims of sex trafficking. Today, spotlight is used by 4,000 Law Enforcement officers at over 700 agencies nationwide. More importantly, it is used to identify over 2,000 perpetrators of sex trafficking. Understanding the positive role such as that developed by thorn plays in providing solutions so sex trafficking with my third and final point. The legislation undermining the ability of legitimate Internet Companies to do the right thing and invest innovations and best practices that target criminal activity will only weaken the fight against this heinous crime. Sesta is a well intentioned response to a terrible situation and unfortunately, as currently drafted, sesta has civil liability that creates legitimate actors. My written testimony provides greater detail but i provide a few keys with how its drafted and section 230 of the Communications Decency act for your consideration. First, we are considered that sesta creates a vague knowledge standard that will skew intentions for good online actors to keep in place existing efforts to combat crimes including sex trafficking for fear of legal liability and second, concerned that sesta creates uncharted state jurs deposition exhibit no. Ov jurisdiction. And opens up liability for frivolous lawsuits that do little for victims of sex trafficking. While we acknowledge reasonable minds can and do differ, i should add for the record these concerns are the consent position for legal scholars as well as Civil Society groups who share our concerns about sesta. Internet association said a more tailored bill that truly targets actors such as backpage. Com without undermining the ability of legitimate actors to help combat sex trafficking is possible and we stand ready to work with the committee toward this goal. In conclusion, i want to be clear. We do not have to choose between justice against backpage. Com and protecting legitimate Online Services. This is not a binary choice. There is also no single solution. Fight against sex trafficking requires a multipronged approach and a committed partnership with government and private sector. Again, thank you for allowing me to testify and i look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Slater and we appreciate the testimony of all the witnesses on this critically important issue. Senator nelson. General, lets get right to the nub of the question. The opponents of the bill argue that its not necessary to modify section 230 which would allow state and local Law Enforcement and victims to pursue those who assist and facilitate online sex trafficking. The opponents argue that the existing statute already provides justice with adequate authority in order to go after those wrong doers. Rebutt that argument so we can pass this bill. Senator, i would ask each and every one of you to come to sacramento with me where we are in prosecution of backpage. We file 36 counts against backpage, 11 of them for pimping, sex trafficking part. And 25 more based on Money Laundering and conspiracy. You heard senator portman mention the ruling of the sacramento judge recently in the case about a month ago where he said and ill quote as well, speaking about section 230 and its broad coverage shield against prosecution of those involved in sex trafficking. The judge said the broad reach of section 230 and the Communications Decency act even applies to those alleged to support the exploitation of others by Human Trafficking. Based on that, the judge dropped every single count relating to sex trafficking and we are now left to prosecute based on the conspiracy charges and Money Laundering which well vigorously do but back page has been spoken about over and over again. More than just engage in conspiracy and Money Laundering from our perspective. If we dont have the tools, the only winners are those who go to the internet. This is no longer the brick and mortar stuff and actually never Good Business on brick and mortar because it was on the run, on the streets but now the internet is an easy way to make money in this enterprise and we need the tools to go after these folks. We fight with two hands behind our back. Let me ask you and miss soras. The opponents to the bill say this is going to end the internet. Theyre going to say, its going to end the internet economy. Give us the argument against that. Miss soras . At knincmec, we have decades technology. They have provided tools and partnered with us in a collaborative manner to participate in ridding the internet of Child Sexual Exploitation material. There are good actors on the internet and actors that will always make extra efforts in collaborate with others to make sure that harmful contact on the internet. They do that for business purposes and altruistic purposes as well. The narrow scope of the bill is drawn to ferret out and shine a spotlight on those bad actors. Those who are not screening or not engaging with others. Let me come back to you, general. So the argument is going to come, well, its not going to allow post reviews. Family pictures or comments because of the fears of liability. Rebutt that. I dont know what menus youre reading but this is not what were going after. Senator, i think everyone should realize at least from the perspective of the attorney general or district attorney, we have to prove criminal intent. We cant win a prosecution unless we can show that the individuals were prosecuting like back page had the internet, the knowledge to do what theyre doing. The legislation that you have before you is very narrowly tailored. It goes only after sex trafficking. The broad exemption from any type of lawsuit, for those who provide Online Services remains. If only its sex trafficking and ive got to prove that its sex trafficking and that the defendants intended to violate that law. All right. Any one of you explain why this change in the law is so important in the larger fight against child sex trafficking. Against child sex trafficking. I think miss ambrose can tell you the most important reason why. I agree, its fairly dr. Matic. Its the rubber hitting the road, senator. Were facing it all the time. We have another prosecution going on right now, only because we have evidence of the street pimping that occurred. We have another prosecution going on there were young girls, most of them under the age of 16, who were being taken from the central value of california and marketed in Southern California in the bay area of california and we found out and backpage was part of this operation. Were going after them. Weve got evidence, but if you have to depend on going after those based on the internet, its near impossible. Thank all of you for coming forward and especially to miss ambrose. Thank you, senator nelson. Senator blount. Thank you, chairman. Attorney general becerra, good to see you again. We served together a long time. Fun to watch you take this responsibility. Its a big one. I know youre looking at this and lots of areas. In our state, attorney general holly has been investigating backstage as well. They actually sued him and the office, taken them to court using section 230. Have you seen that same kind of response from backstage . Weve seen that on a number of occasions. They affirmatively act because they feel empowered to use section 230 to defender themselves and use it as an offense. Do they use that to suggest that your prosecution is frivolous . What do they how do they use their defense of 230 . For the most part, theyre saying, you cant touch us. The courts rulings unfortunately seem to imply that in many cases. We believe the courts have misconstrued what section 230 was meant to say. I remember, i was here in 1996, like you, when we voted on the telecommunications act, which was the Communications Decency act was part of the telecom act. I dont remember in 1996 ever believing my yes vote meant i was going to allow, 21 years later, for a kid to be sold out there through the internet for sex. Do you have any records that would indicate the victims of sex trafficking in one way or another involve backpage as a specific entry level to that world as it relates to victims . We do, senator. As the National Clearinghouse we are the recipient of reports relating to Child Sexual Exploitation including child sex trafficking. Over the past years, 73 of those relating to sex trafficking involve a backpage. Com advertisement. 73 . Yes, sir. I think you covered this in your testimony. If this legislation would pass, how do you specifically think it would help in your effort to save kids from sex trafficking and others from sex trafficking . I think there would be two immediate benefits. In one way, ncmec is a Victim Advocate and speaks for the voices of victims and would provide victims and incredibly powerful tool to come forward and seek civil remedies against the company that has actively participated in their trafficking. We believe in that right. It is a right that also exists for children who have been victimized through child pornography. Its a very powerful right to give victims, very empowering. On the second side, from an operational perspective, i think it goes without saying and its been said previously in this hearing, this is not a backpage bill, children are not sold for sex only on backpage. We talk about backpage because it is the largest website and captured the markets share. When it goes away there will be others. Our hope is with the change to the cda, there may be others with criminal intent and others in this way, they realize now there is a legal bar to entering that marketplace. There is no such legal bar now. Back page is the example for that. Our hope is that others coming up behind back page will not enter that market or will be more immediately prosecuted both at a federal and state level. Miss slater, do you have a problem with us doing something that would reopen that legal pathway for people who have been victimized and the internet becomes the path bay . Thank you for the question, senator. At Internet Association we stand behind the goals of sesta. We want to see an end to sex trafficking online. We would like to live in a world where there are no more victims of sex trafficking. I want to say that up front. Where we have difficulty with sesta as currently drafted it is overly broad in several respects. We have stated publicly we would support a specific amendment that would allow victims to sue for Civil Penalties in court to seek redress for the horrible things that have happened to them. We are in discussions with several members of the committee. We heard those discussions on Civil Penalties . Yes. And other. Let me go to mr. Goldman. Do you want to respond to that same topic quickly . As miss slater said, i do think it is important for the committee to continue its work on sex trafficking promotion. Sesta itself is a solution, as some of the problems regarding when a site has knowledge. Knowledge doesnt come in a zero one format. Because of the different ways sites might moderate, they might be exposed to different kinds of information that could lead to the knowledge. Thats the dilemma that creates the decision for them, are they going to take action or not. Thank you, chairman. Senator duckworth. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to take a moment again to thank miss ambrose for her courage and willingness to share her familys tragic story. Without a doubt Desiree Robinson story sharpens my personal resolve to find a resolution to move us forward. Its difficult to fathom miss ambroses pain and anger, to know thousands of others across the nation have shared her grief. As a mom of a 2 1 2yearold girl i am grateful for her willingness to speak us to today. Every year, thousands of sex trafficking cases are reported across the u. S. According to the national Human Trafficking hotline, 106 of those cases were in illinois. This year at least an additional 75 cases have been reported in illinois. Just reported. These statistics are truly alarming and worse yet they reflect only a fraction of the problem. Miss soaras, you highlighted ncmec has received 6,000 reports of sex trafficking on the tip line and underreported nature of child sex trafficking crimes. Do you have any sense of the full scope of these crimes and are there any existing mec si s mechanisms that could better understand the scope of these crimes. Police ambrose said the kids are coming home the end of the day and getting pimped out. The families dont know and victims are being threatened with the safety of their families to keep quiet. How do we even get our arms around what the full scope is . Thank you, senator. It is a very difficult problem. We take the position we rely on our own numbers. There are quite a few numbers out there and call centers and hotlines that receive these types of reports. Currently, its important to understand theres no requirement that incidents of child sex trafficking be reported to the National Center as a clearinghouse on those issues. The reports we receive are voluntary. It is wonderful we do receive the volume we have. Because its not mandatory that is another reason we know it is not near the full number. The other complicating factors, as you mentioned, many of these children are still in their homes. They may not necessarily have left, may still be in school to some extent. It is very difficult to identify. Also, to have those adults who are in place, whether parents, communities, teachers, medical workers, be cognizant of the potential warning signs that a child might be being trafficked. Its an area we focus on a great deal in our prevention and education work as well as the operational work we do, we obviously would like to be able to intervene and help communities intervene before a child is lured into trafficking, before they end up on backpage or another website. Is there anything Health Related agencies, you mentioned federal Law Enforcement agencies can help as to paint a clearer picture, since theres no national mandatory reported clearinghouse . I think every Law Enforcement agency certainly keeps its own numbers and statistics that are very valuable, but, again, there is an issue with these victims reporting, or also communities identifying what they are suffering truly as trafficking. There is a bit of a disconnect. I would go back again to the importance of education and the realization that this happens in every community. In Law Enforcement, sees or hears or a teacher feels like they are hearing or seeing a situation involving a child who might be trafficked, they need to acknowledge that would be what is happening. Again, i think there is a resistance often to accepting this dow jones happen in every large and Small Community in the u. S. I would say education and awareness again. Thank you. Attorney general becerra, a pleasure to have served with you. Most leaders who think section 230 would strengthen the hands of prosecutors. Aside from the legal insufficiencies i hope sesta will address, what additional barriers limit your ability to attack sex trafficking head on . I will tell you california has pretty decent law when it comes to this issue. Our biggest obstacle is sesta and we cant move forward on the sex trafficking and pimping charges because of the court ruling saying the section 230 protection makes it impossible to move forward. If we could get past that we could help so many kids so much quicker. Do these websites actively help the people posting change the wording of the ads in order to skirt the law . Weve seen evidence of that. Thats the disturbing part. Thats a knowing act. Thats where we could go after someone under a bill like 1693. Without the authority to do so were constantly told by too many courts you dont have the authority. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, senator duckworth. Senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to all the testifiers and members who testified before. The purpose of sesta is to enable civil and criminal prosecution against bad actors. We obviously want to provide space and not deter proactive action by good actors doing the right thing to mitigate sex trafficking on the platforms. Id like to ask each of you, theres a conversation going on whether report language clarifying the law is intended to apply to those actors who enable sex trafficking and not to those who promptly act in good faith to address a violation. Im wondering if that would be sufficient, if you think that that would be enough for council to hang their hat on some of these big platforms who want to do the right thing but at least in this conversation are worried their knowing at all triggers the knowing part of the statute, wondering whether report language would suffice in your view. Ill start with the attorney general. Thats an excellent question. I will tell you that its always a rolling of the dice you try to rely on report language or legislative history. We see the language communication decency act has been interpreted by many many courts to preclude state and local Law Enforcement from moving forward on the state prosecution. Thats an interpretation of law i would disagree with. I believe we have the authority right now. If we had report language, would that help . That would probably get tested quite frequently in court. I cant tell you i would have the confidence that would be enough. Everyday that we dont do something there are more kids who are being exploited. Mr. Goldman. Thank you. The report language, i agree with attorney general becerra wouldnt override the express language in the statute. If Congress Wants to Say Something it should say so as clearly as possible. I want to reiterate the knowledge standard, especially in the case of civil claims, is a new thing for section 230. In general, section 230 has not had a civil exception. Its been predicated on knowledge. The owning up of the door to looking at precise knowledge will be something we havent seen before. Because of that, were going to have a lot of questions. What exactly did the site know and when. How do we characterize that for Legal Standards. Those are all new questions for us. To probe a little deeper on the knowing standard, when we imagine the knowing, we imagine the individual instance of sex trafficking, we imagine the instance senator duckworth was talking about, someone was being coached what language to avoid, in other words, were imagining backpage or some similar enterprise or instance. The worry from some of these big platform companies, i dont frankly know whether its legitimate or not, theyre saying were so large it would be accurate to say we know as a general matter bad stuff happens on our platforms because we have billions of users. The question becomes if were not trying to create an affirmative obligation for an internet platform to essentially police all of their platform and we are really going after the people whose primary enterprise is to make money off of this criminal enterprise, then can we craft a statute that holds harmless holds harmless the wrong word, understands theres a balance here . Thank you for the opportunity to clarify and follow up on that. We could create such a standard but we without want to be extremely explicit exactly when that knowledge occurred. Otherwise there would be lots of discussion and debates over you knew it based on you having taken this step or that step or inferentially you should have known or constructive knowledge, you should have been realizing what was taking place on your site. Owl of those become the basis of which there will be plenty of disputes. Clarification from congress of exactly what constituted knowledge would be extremely helpful if you go down that route. Let me go down the line. Miss soares. From our purview, that provision in sesta is sufficiently narrowly drafted. I know were talking about knowledge. The language is knowing conduct by an individual or entity that supports or facilitates human sex trafficking. Something more is required. We could debate what is conducts in the context of an online platform. I want to make sure were clear it is not a blanket notice type standard. That being said i acknowledge there could be complex specific Business Practices certain platforms might utilize where they fear they could fit within that definition. I think thats where the nuance of the discussion could come from and i would applaud the continuation of those discussions with senators portman and lumen thats discussions. Im over time. Should i take this one for the record . You have another one . No. The last answer. No, go ahead, miss slater. Go ahead. I would echo mr. Goldmans sentiment and section 34 though conduct that facilitates and assists. To our members having reviewed the text this seems to be a more troubling difficult standard to manage than the existing sex trafficking law standard. We heard senators blumenthal and portman talk earlier about a tighter standard. Our members would be willing to talk with committee staff, individual offices how we can improve that language in section 4 in a way that meets our shared goal, which is to deal with this heinous crime. Mr. Chairman thank you, senator schatz, next up. Thank you for holding this important hearing and to all the witnesses for being here today. This is an issue ive been working on for some time including working as governor of New Hampshire with both parties to strengthen our laws against Human Trafficking. I also want to take a moment to recognize Yvonne Ambrose for her courage which really reflects the courage of all victims and survivors who come forward to shed light on the evil of exploiting people for sex. Sadly, that includes children like Desiree Robinson. My mom taught history at my local high school and she always used to say what kids need more than anything else is to have a grownup in their corner. Im glad today the United States senate is working at doing that, being the grownups in the corner for our children. Im cosponsoring this legislation because i support the goals of this bill that victims of sex trafficking is possible and hold bad actors like backpage accountable and liable. I know were having conversations going back and forth about ways we can improve the bill. Thats part of todays purpose, to hear different perspectives. I want, as a cosponsor, to encourage these conversations to go forward. Perhaps with that, i think the attorney general was about to add answer senator schatzs question. Id really like to hear, i think wed all like to hear some specifics how we can make this law as effective as possible without the unintended consequences weve heard today. Senator, thank you for a moment to also respond to the question from senator schatz. Lets first acknowledge theres so many stakeholders within the Tech Community who have stepped up and are doing what they can, but you have to have a concerted effort by all. Its so easy to hide in the corners. Let me see if i can give you some comfort about amending the cda. If its tough to have a knowing standard or company in the internet space to know whether they will be found liable or not because they may be accused of knowing think about what the standard then is for me and my prosecutors if i have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they knew. We can i mend the decency act and do it narrowly. We make it very difficult for prosecutors to shotgun this and go after people all over the place. You have to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt these folks knew what they were doing, otherwise they cant prove criminal intent. If youre concerned about that stakeholder and the Online Community not know whether he or she could be accused, think about the standard i then have to face if the doubt is the uncertainty lies there in the evidence. I have to have strong evidence i can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Thank you. I would encourage professor goldman and miss slater, i thank you for your comments. Because my time is running low i would encourage you and your members to be very specific about what good language would actually look like rather than raising objections. But before my time runs down, i did just want to turn to miss souras. We know online sex trafficking has affected people all over the country. It certainly has in my state. One case that received National Attention in the past you years was a girl named emily, who ran away from home. She was being advertised on backpage by a pinch for sex all across new england in New Hampshire. She was 15 years old. Im grateful she was located. But my understanding is that under current law neither she nor other teenage victims of online sex trafficking can seek justice against the companies that enabled their exploitation. We heard a lot today about how to change the laws and the impact the changes would have on companies such as backpage. Can you speak for a minute about the impact of being denied the ability to seek justice has on survivors such as emily . Thank you, senator. It is something we certainly witness as victims move from recovery and decide to bring a legal action. It is an incredibly empowering and revitalizing in many ways aspect of their recovery. Theyre able to stand up and say, this happened to me and it was wrong and someone should pay for that in some way. The ability of victims to do that, as we see victims have the ability to do that in child pornography cases which certainly shares some victimology symptoms to child sex trafficking, is incredibly important and empowering for these victims. It also is an acknowledgement society recognizes the harm done to them that it was not their fault and also they can move forward with their lives. Its incredibly important. Thank you for your work and testimony today. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, senator hassan. Senator booker. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Clearly, this is modern day slavery. It is at a scale that most dont understand, that this is a multibillion industry, with sophisticated individuals engaging in the most heinous actions of humanity. It is something im encouraged to see a commitment in a bipartisan fashion we have to erase the scourge of slavery from our country. It exists in every state and every type of community and has now grown far more sophisticated and enabled by the internet. Im appreciative of this hearing and sense of urgency. I want to try to get to the root of what seems to be the balance people are trying to are trying to achieve, which is to give great leaders in Law Enforcement like general becerra the tools necessary to bring evil people to justice. I hear a lot of other arguments not wanting to undermine good actors and what theyre doing. Miss souras, in response to mr. Schatzs inquiry, you seem according to the knowledge standard you seem to have concerns you could go too far, you have to strike a balance, is that correct . Senator, i think the knowledge standard, lets say, as drafted in sesta, is already sufficiently narrow. It targets very specific activity to knowingly assist, support or facilitate the selling of a human being for sex. I do not think that is the sort of broad category of knowledge that could create an inadvertent its a pretty High Standard in the legal sense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes. Miss slater, how do you respond to that . I appreciate your leading with compassion and empathy and disgust at whats been going on and your belief something needs to be done at the federal level to address this. But do you disagree with miss souras about that, that the knowledgeable standard as written now in the legislation is too low of a standard and good actors will be caught up . Thank you for the question, senator. As i mentioned previously, the standard in section 4 of sesta currently drafted is different from existing federal sex trafficking standard. We did hear from senators portman and senators blumenthal that the standard they were talking about in their opening remarks was the higher standard. So were happy too have discussions about that and seek that clarification with the drafters of the bill. We do absolutely share the goals of this committee and the senate we should Work Together to seek to put an end i understand. Im trying to get to the details now. What specifically would you want to see changed when it comes to the knowledge standard . Can you be very granular for me . I understand your intentions and the nobility behind them. Im trying to understand whats wrong specifically with the knowledge standard, as stated in this legislation. Today the bill says knowing conduct, et cetera, the standard we previously talked about and the standard that senator portman and senator blumenthal referred to is knowingly facilitates and assists sex trafficking. The advice i am getting from Legal Counsel at the company is those are two Different Things and theyre seeking to clarify that difference. Again, were happy to talk to any members of the committee or individual staffs. Thank you. Mr. Goldman, can you give me something very specific in how this might put a chillmiss slatter represents large companies, obviously theres large startups out there. Can you tell me how this would put a chill on a small company, entrepreneur, standard for Law Enforcement is a very High Standard to meet . Thank you for the question. Just to clarify, theres criminal and civil provisions. Civil provisions would not be subject to the same burden of proof attorney general becerra talked about. We have two Different Things were talking about simultaneously. Thats one of the confusions i have. Knowing conduct is different than knowing that an ad was promoting the victim of a sex trafficking of a sex trafficker. By focusing on knowing conduct, it actually focused on the conduct, not on knowing that there was an actual legal violation taking place. Right there, it seems an opportunity for us to clarify. If we mean that they have to know about the violation, we should make that more clear. Otherwise, when we talk about knowledge generally, sites will take a number of steps to either reduce their knowledge which means they will turn off particular sections of their websites or adopt filtering that will filter out more than the legal violation or simply decide we will do nothing and therefore we could not possibly have knowledge of anything. Out of respect for my colleagues i need to stop. Youre saying the civil standard, it will be lower and invites civil lawsuits, not youre not concerned about state and federal Law Enforcement . I have other reasons to be concerned about state attorney general prosecutions here. The civil standard here would not be subject to that high level of proof we would expect from a criminal prosecution. Thank you. Senator booker. Next up is saturday cortez. Thank you for the conversation today. Let me just start off. I think like senator booker, im trying to really understand and get down to where we can come to agreement on this legislation i think is so important that we pass it. Let me start here. Under section 230, as its written now, the federal government, federal Law Enforcement has the authority to go in and shut down a website for sex trafficking, correct . Im going to open it up to anybody. Is that correct . Yes. The federal government has the ability to criminally prosecute. Thats what they have now and that has not impeded any freedom of speech or involvement of the internet, correct . I will open it up to anybody. Is that true . Im going to give you an affirmative to that. I havent heard anything differently. What were doing right now and what i understand is that because sex trafficking is so prevalent of our kids and Law Enforcement that occurs, we are looking for the allowance of state Law Enforcement to also pursue and shut down these sites when sex trafficking is occurring, is that correct, general . Senator, from my perspective, yes, im looking for the authority to do what federal prosecutors can do courts are denying me right now. I believe under the statute i should have the authority but its been construed differently. The only thing were doing is open the door to allow local Law Enforcement and state Law Enforcement to do the same thing the federal Law Enforcement has to do under this, to shut down those sex trafficking sites, correct . Thats the principle reason im here. Thats why as attorney general i signed onto a letter in 2013 to change the 2 30 cda and 230 cda and i continue to support it. With respects to section that i think is overly broad. The knowledge piece were looking for is in the usc itself, section 1591. General becerra couldnt have said it better. If were going to prosecute. That mens rhea knowledge is already in the criminal statute. Thats what were looking to do and the only piece here. In the case law i have seen as attorney general when i was pursuing these sex trafficking cases, theyre looking at 23, and state law is preempted by federal law and we dont have this ability. There is so much sex trafficking going on, let me just tell you, this is a crime that is so prevalent. Thank you, miss ambrose for being a voice. Because it is not an easy thing for you to get up here and tell your daughters story. Your story is one ive heard too many times in my state as attorney general. This is an issue that we have to stop. We have to stop it. It is not just for federal Law Enforcement to stop it, it is for all Law Enforcement, state, local, to take action. Thats all were asking is that state Law Enforcement have that ability because it is so prevalent. So the goal were trying to do is limit it to sex trafficking only so that there isnt the concern i hear and some unintended consequences that may occur with some of the agencies that ive talked to, with respect to the website. Mr. Goldman, ive only got about 1 26 left. I understand you have concerns with states having that authority. I ask why. Correct. Thank you. So the question is why do i have to the reservation that state attorney generals enforcing the law, there are two different issues in the bill. One is the bill would authorize state crimes to be newly enforced in addition to federal crime, theres some overlap between the two. Now, we open up the door to a whole bunch of new laws not previously enforced against the Internet Community. Those laws havent been approved by the rest of the internet, theyve been approved by that state, those states voters. The attorney general has been approved by that states voters. The effort to impose these other crimes on the rest of the internet creates a possibility the state itself, the people that arent in that state are having the laws applied against them in ways they may not have had a chance to vote on. If we are limiting to where the state can pursue an action pursuant to 1591 that will limit what they can do and the action they can take. Would that satisfy your concerns . That would certainly help make sure were applying a single federal standard instead of a heterogenous set of laws. My time is up. Thank you, this is such an important topic. Ive worked with my colleagues and now general becerra trying too change this. Many advocates in this room, Police Mccain and hearing today. Thank you. Appreciate your good questions. And next up is senator cant well. I appreciate my colleagues from nevada questioning in the issue. Ift to ask you attorney general about what else we need to do to address this problem. I have worked in the past with both Tech Companies and interpoll on trying to create better tools to use the web as an investigation for crime scenes. So that Law Enforcement no what to be looking for, the challenges they face. What else do we need to do . As someone who comes from a state i know theres trafficking. The i 5 corridor the central part of the state. From sporting events to las vegas activity. What else we need to do to give the tools to Law Enforcement beyond what were talking about here today . Certainly try to provide the services and help that some of the other advocacy agencies having doing. Theyre doing it on a shoe string budget. Saving lives. Rehabbing kids. More we do for them the greater chance that someone with the trama will survive. Secondly remember how tough it is to file a lawsuit. Civil lawsuit. It is not easy to be a beat a Company Making million offense dollars on the internet. When youre an average person who knows your child was taken advantage of and exploited. Its really tough to manage a case against a company with lots of lawyers. Third, if we cant even prosecute you could give the federal department of justice a much larger budget so they wouldnt have to pass on trying to prosecute all the various cases throughout the 50 states and territories. They cant go after everybody. Thats why you have 50 state attorney generals. Thats why we have in california 58 district attorneys in the 58 counties. We can do some of that. We cant unless we have the authority. To do it under the communication decent si act. Probably the best thing to do if we want to break the log jam is give us the thor to descend on these folks. If we can prosecute its better to prosecute criminally than civilly. And see if we can get monetary damages. Im sure the problem has existed sans this vehicle. And we want to make sure were fighting on every opportunity. One thing that we want to do is enhance the communication. So that Law Enforcement has the tools. As i said, we have been involved in other things where interpoll and Tech Companies were working together. To try to help deinformation. So we were following the trail to find the people and stop them. Im interested in the noninternet side too. Its such a pervasive problem. I want to make sure weaver giving Law Enforcement the tools necessary. So we dont always get you here to ask that question. Thank you for that. Thank you. So on the the identification side, are there things we can be doing in the local community to identify individuals and net works . A lot is being done. I will tell you im amazed at the amount of work. Mostly because you have concerned parents who find out their child was involved and theyre working with organizations. There are a great number of individuals and companies within the Tech Community that stepped to the plate to try to be supportive and help people understand how to do this. And a lot of local governments have formed task forces to work in a collaborative manner with stake holders. A lot is being done. If you hit the roadblock every time of trying to prosecute or get civil action taken. Its impossible. I get you there. I want to build all the opportunity that we have. Thats the point. And youre mentioning this information flow, we have had former colleagues who have taken a big role in this in my state. We want to make sure that the work thats being done to help elevate the discussion is there. If you think theres something on like a help net work line to identify more of these thipgs so we can go in and that would be helpful. Thank you. Thank you senator. Another vote has been called. I have senators, young and u daul. If we try we can probably wrap things up. And get everybody in time for the vote. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In order to give my colleagues perhaps more of a chance to question, im not going to make further remarks. I have said why i so strongly support this legislation. Which i have helped to craft. And we tried to do it carefully. And we tried to listen. To the industry. We have tried to listen really closely. To some of the concerns they have raised this morning. By mr. Goldman. For example the idea that this legislation will cause sex trafficking to proliferate, hard to believe. What do you think . And will this measure cause sex trafficking to prolit rate . I cant agree with what professor goldman has said. I think its just the opposite. If we have a standard in place, then i believe the stake holders within the Internet Community will come forward. In ways that we have seen before. But even more vigorously. Because theyll understand what the standard is. Thats important to make it clear for folks. The most important thing, senator booker pointed this out. We need to get the opponents of the measure to explain in detail what they would propose in place. Otherwise its always a moving target. Its whack a mole. Someone needs to give us a better bill. We have urged and welcomed their participation and only recently have they begun making suggestions. In one proposal, they would in effect either drastically curtail or eliminate the role of state attorneys general or other state Law Enforcement. I know what i think is a attorney general who served for 20 years. Maybe i can ask you on behalf of attorneys general, at least on behalf of yourself, why its important for attorneys general to continue in the role they have along with state Law Enforcement . Thats our responsibility. To protect the people of our state. As you know as a former attorney general, it is not easy to get 50 attorneys general to sign onto the same letter. And thats how powerful this is. Because we have seen how many lives are being impacted by not being able to move forward. You have been very eloquent and powerful in your testimony today. Senator harris. Your predecessor has been very helpful in clarifying some of the issues on this bill. Im going to be very blunt, there are times when the United States department of justice fails to be as aggressive as it should be. Either because it doubts the legal merits of a potential prosecution or civil claim, or its simply lacks leadership to do so. Thats where state attorneys general are so very important. Thats why we have a federal system. Because states have a responsibility to protect their people. And enforce the law. And in this instance as in the antitrust area and other areas the coordinated approach i think is tremendously important. We do welcome suggestions from the industry and let me ask mr. Goldman. Do you believe this law would cause sex trafficking to proliferate . Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. Indeed my concern is that we already see a number of efforts on the part of legitimate players to reduce the sex trafficking promotion. And to the extent any of those companies aside i am better off turning off my efforts across the board to try to reduce the knowledge i have. Than actually creates a larger number of zones where the sites will no not be taking efforts we want them to take. An environment where theres more places to occur. I have a higher opinion of the industry than you do. I really believe that this law will raise the bar, will increase consciousness, and that far from trying to evade or in effect deny themselves knowledge. So as to avoid any accountability. They will be more energetic. I absolutely really believe that most of these Companies Want to do the right thing. And that this law will give them an increased incentive to do so. Theres no doubt that the legitimate players will do everything they can to not only work with the Law Enforcement and other advocates to address sex trafficking, but will probably do more than they do today. At the same time the industry is not just a big player. Its a large number of smaller players who dont have the same kind of infrastructure and for them they have to make the choice, can i afford to do the work youre hoping they do. I believe the out out lirs will be thanks so much for the panelist and the stake holders who are working so hard to help us find Common Ground here. I was touched i was moved as i think everyone was by ms. Am broes testimony. We have to do Everything Possible to mitigate and ultimately Human Trafficking and sex trafficking. This hits home as it does for all of my colleagues. In the state of indiana, tips to our Human Trafficking line went up four fold from 2014 to 2016. In Law Enforcement specifically cites one web site back page. Com is fuelling some of the growth. So i feel an impartive for us to act and i share the goals. That those who put this legislation together have details are really important. And so i have confidence that parties can come together and if were open on one hand to a careful reassessment of section 230. That might be provide greater power to our state ag to go after the back page. Comes of the world. On the other hand we have to be open to a careful reassessment of ses ta. To take into account legitimate concerns that were expressed by professor goldman and ms. Slater. Here today. Can we bridge the divide, i think were close here. Im going to ask a question about this what strikes me as a new standard. Knowing conduct. Its a new standard to the definition of participating in a venture in the federal law. I want to better understand the implications created by the knowing conduct standard. Its been couple years practicing law. We have intent on one end, strict liability on the ere end. Gross negligence and negligence and recklessness and so help me understand. Is this knowing conduct standard somewhere in between intent and negligence, mr. Goldman . Thank you. For that question. Because i am too not clear what the knowing conduct standard refers to. Where it would fit on the spectrum. To me reading it on its face it would only modify the conduct, not whether understanding that conduct caused any legal violation. So, i dont know i would call strict liability, but in a sense as long as you know the conduct youre taking the consequence maybe unknown and still create liability. Senator, because my focus has been on criminal prosecution, for me the standard will always have a clear sense of knowing. I cant prosecute someone sdp get a conviction unless they knew what they were doing. And so for me the bar is as high as it gets. Having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats why i believe in this particular case we can make an amendment. And not damage those who are truly trying to grow and innovate based on that protection they get from lawsuits. You envoeked the possibility that a sort of constructive knowledge could be imputed. To those who put up a web site. Constructed knowledge look up the definition on the web. A person is presumed by law, that can be dangerous. A person is presumed by law to have this knowledge since the knowledge is obtainable by the exercise of reasonable care, reasonable care is the sort of care that in a person would ordinarily exercise if they were a prudent and rational person. Under similar circumstances. This gets its ab strus stuff. Is there a way to bridge the divide between the concerns of what ill characterize as your side and those pushing for an aggressive approach. I think were all talking about the same thing. Im not sure we agree what language will get there. If were talking about knowing theres a sex trafficking violation taking place, that knowledge to me would be something that would be consistent with the attorney general standard. But would i think be much clearer standard for the services to act under. Okay. My time is winding down. Well count me in as someone who wants to constructively work towards a conclusion here. And find that sweet spot so we can protect our young men and women. In this country. And prevent this horrible predags that continues to grow in the state of indiana and beyond. Thank you, senator young. Ill have to go vote here. Senator sullivan is coming back wants to ask a question. May have him take us out. I want to ask ms. Slater. I know the issue of civil liability has been discussed at some length. Could you provide some more clarify about what such an amendment would have to lock like to receive your Organization Support . Certainly, senator. Thank you. Currently under existing law, ill be specific here. Its 18 usc 1595. Victims of sex trafficking can seek penalties. Against the perpetrator of the crimes against them. There is a carve out for that for section 230. And we support an amendment to section 230. That would make that path possible for victims. Let me just say in kind of closing this out, that this has been really i think the hearing has been very helpful. A lot of good testimony and i would encourage you and the companies you represent to continue to be at the table and figure out if theres a way we can resolve the what some acknowledged are perhaps unintended consequences in the current draft of the bill. But ghettoet, to a place where n move forward. This is an area where we need to provide clarify. Its up to us. To clarify the issues involved in litigation. I happen to think theres path forward to do that. Based on what i have heard today. I want to encourage you and your companies to be able to sit down with sponsors of the bill and for us to be able to work with colleagues to get to a result. I thank you all for being here. A great hearing. With very valuable input. And well look forward to taking all of it into consideration as we move forward. Ill flip it now to senator marquee and sullivan you can probably wrap it up. Thank you. Thank you for having this important hearing. There is a quality to the internet. It can simultaneous enable and enobl. Or degrade and debase. Obviously sex trafficking is at the top of the list. Of degrading and debasing activity. Which occurs on the web. And historically, what has happened is there has been an incentive for companies to take voluntary action to deal with the issues. To be empowered to be able to deal with the issues. And those, thats selfincentivization is something that clearly is now being called into question. And the issue is how do we construct a balance that allows us to deal with this issue, and to potentially give authority to attorneys general to be able to act. So, its good to see you, attorney general. My good friend. Can you talk about what that power is in that we can understand and why its necessary to put that on top of the already existing powers . As has been stated earlier, federal prosecutors have the authority right now to criminally prosecute those who violate section 230 the communication dean decent si act. Who go above and beyond with the regard of sex trafficking to children. The difficulty is federal prosecutors have proven theyre not going to go everywhere and do every case. Thats why you have the 50 state attorneys general. The district of columbia attorney general and other territories. You have in california 58 district attorneys and 58 counties. Were prepared to do that. Because theres no reason to let a case drop if the evidence is strong. That you have criminals who are preying on children. And we would simply like to have the authority that i believe we have under the statute. But based on interpretation by various courts, they dont agree. Whats wrong with the attorney general said. In terms of goals, perpetrators like back page. Com should be brought to justice. A grand jury convened to do just that. And supported by evidence from the senates report which issued earlier this year. Which contain over a million pages of documents from back page that out line and documented and evidenced its criminal conduct. And facilitying sex trafficking. Whats wrong with what ms. Slater said . We applaud the efforts of the federal government and the grand jury. Well follow that closely. The problem is simply too large. These are large complicated cases. Theres not one web site. We know this. We talk about back page. There are dozens of web sites, there will be dozens more in the future. These are complicated cases to put together. Victims do not come forward easily. They have long periods of recovery. Some of the issues that we have highlighted throughout the hearing. The volume is too high. Perhaps 1996 it was reasonable to assume the activity on the internet was much less. Of course the criminal activity was much less significant. Thats not the case anymore. More criminal Law Enforcement resources are needed. Thank you. Mr. Goldman, you disagree. Wheres your disagreement with her . The only thing i would add is that the doj has already gone after two other sites there have been promoting online prostitution. And successfully able to shut down both under existing federal law. No issues with section 230. So i think we have to note that the doj is paying attention to this area and taking action. Okay. Coming back to you again. Youre saying its not adequate. That mole will pop up in another hole. Well whack it. And pop up, theres too much money. You need more hammers. We thank you. This is an issue we have to resolve. A youre giving us a good education on the problem. And on where the potential avenues can be created. And in order to Work Together on a by partisan basis. I want to thank the chairman. I offer my cooperation to the chairman. To try to work this thing through. So we can find a consensus resolution of it. We thank you for your compelling testimony today. I yield back to the chairman. Thank you, senator. I want to thank the witnesses. I will be your last questioner today. You have done a great job on the panel. All of us deal with this heinous issue in different ways. My state of alaska some of you may have seen this recent report sponsored by kCovenant House tht looked at ten cities for Homeless Youth. Almost onethird Homeless Youth in different cities across america are have been trafficked. And its astounding statistic. So im going to ask without objection that the report be placed in the record. I believe the Covenant House will submit testimony for the hearing as well. But attorney general, i want to get back to the question. I this its a really important one. That senator marquee was talking about thats in the bill. Im a cosponsor. Ill put my cards on the table. On the issue of resource and prosecution. In my experience as a former ag, in alaska. We had a couple cases with regard to sex trafficking relating to the man act. The federal law ta makes it a crime to conduct sex trafficking across state lines and it was a frustration for me the ag because we had cases where there was evidence there, very clear evidence. State prosecutors state investigators were ready go, for whatever the reason the feds werent. One of the first bills i introduced in the senate last congress and it got passed into law, signed by president obama part of the broader Human Trafficking bill that we got. It was called the man act cooperation act. What it said was if there is evidence that a state ag brings to the feds, to be cross designated, to pursue a man act violation. That the attorney general of the United States shall cross designate for example you. For man act violations. Im trying to get the word out to ag. Spread the word. Thats a new power you have in the attorney general of the United States can only say no to that cross designation if it would quote under mine the administration of justice. And then the attorney general would have to sends you if you were requesting a detailed explanation of that within 60 days. So its an enormous power on sex trafficking for ags. Which is why i think very strongly your point and the others here on the issue of allowing state officials to bring these prosecutions. In my experience particularly in man act cases, theres so much of that going on and the feds only have so many resources. I would welcome any of you to talk about that. Whether its man act or the provision in this law. Its absolutely essential. Its not trying to ewe serp the poour the its trying to bring resources to a big problem in the country. I think ags like you who are motivated on this can do that. You can do it on the man act right now. Go use that new law. You can do it here. Its important. So again id like to open this up to all witnesses. Just on this question. The pros and cons of that provision in this bill. You see why i think its important. And id love to hear from either side on this. Why you think its important or why you think it would be a problem. Senator, first of all thank you for your service to the people of alaska. And this country. Both as attorney general now senator. For the good effort to try to help those of us who would like to have the authority to go out there and prosecute the cases. You have it on the man act now. Amen. Well spread the word. I will say what i have been saying. Its were not interested in trying to especially not in california, of trying to slow down just the innovative explosion that you see going on in the internet. We want that to go on. California benefits from it. We have to do something to help our kids. And people like ms. Am broes. Simply allowing us to do what the federal government doesnt have the resources to do would be plain smart. Were not trying to take a case from the federal government. They want to got at it, great. If they cant were ready to step in. Try to rebut. This is a resource issue. If you think that we have the prosecutors that we need to go after all crimes, i think the facts would deck at a tiictate. Whats your rebutle. The federal standard helps clear up some of the confusion about the existing bill. So right away ask a different question the bill has asked us. Thats a helpful question to ask. Youre okay with state prosecutor under a federal standard . That helps. Thats what the man act provision does. I think thats a helpful direction to take the conversation. It cleans up one of the ambiguity in the bill. We have a question of what the Legal Standard will be prosecuting. To what extent it will be clear enough to them we are only targeting the quote pack pages of the world. Ror or a larger university. Standards will be dictated by the law. Right . As long as the standard is dictated by the law. And we have a showing of the knowledge that we have discussed earlier in the hearing, that will help restrict the ability of people to interpret that in different ways. Unless thats clear theres different serp interpretations that can be possible. I want to come back to the idea that though the doj is strapped for resoirss, they have been putting resources on this topic. I want to make sure we havent lost site of the good work they are doing. Are they doing enough . Thats a question i would like to know more about. Senator, i would quickly the case number that we see at the National Center. This year so far 9700 reports of suspected child sex trafficking. Thats a tremendous volume of children. They need the assistance and the support of the state attorney generals. In addition to the federal government. Thank you. Do you have a view on that one . I think that it should get all the resources it needs to do the good work. It gets a lot of resources from companies whether thats through engineering talent, through financial resources, developing technology. That help track down perpetrators of sex trafficking. And locate victims. And if i may add a personal note. I spent ten years doing investigations and litigation on behalf of the federal government. I do firmly believe if theres one thing the federal government does well is litigation. I would like more resources go to doj to prosecute the cases. I think more resources is a common theme. Probably with every senator and witnesses. But this problem is growing and its so significant that more resources can mean not just federal resources, but the good offices of state ags. Its a powerful resource. And i think its a key component of the bill. If the standard remains the same. Which it does under this legislation. I think having more prosecutors is actually quite an Important Development here. Listen, you have been very tissue you have done a good job on a tough topic. We appreciate you taking the time. The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During this time. Senators are asked to submit any additional follow up questions for the record. Upon receipt we would respectfully ask the witnesses to submit their written answers. To the committee as soon as possible. Thank you again for testifying today. This hearing is adjourned. [ inaudible conversation]