[House Report 113-451]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
113th Congress } { Report
2d Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { 113-451
=======================================================================
STOP ADVERTISING VICTIMS OF EXPLOITATION ACT
OF 2014
_______
May 15, 2014.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goodlatte, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4225]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 4225) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide a penalty for knowingly selling advertising that offers
certain commercial sex acts, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 3
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 3
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 7
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 7
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 7
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 8
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings.............................. 8
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 8
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 8
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 9
Dissenting Views................................................. 10
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Advertising Victims of
Exploitation Act of 2014'' or the ``SAVE Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. ADVERTISING THAT OFFERS CERTAIN COMMERCIAL SEX ACTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1591 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended in subsection (a)(1), by inserting after ``obtains,'' the
following: ``advertises,''.
(b) Mens Rea Requirement.--Section 1591 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended in subsection (a), by inserting after ``knowing, or''
the following: ``, except where, in an offense under paragraph (2), the
act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising,''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1591(b) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or obtained'' and
inserting ``obtained, or advertised''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or obtained'' and
inserting ``obtained, or advertised''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R 4225, as amended, clarifies that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591,
which criminalizes the knowing sex trafficking of minors and
others through force, fraud, or coercion, can be violated when
a defendant knowingly advertises a victim for a commercial sex
act. This provision requires the government to prove that
defendants accused of benefitting financially through the sale
of such advertising knew that the victim was a minor or a
victim of force, fraud, or coercion. The bill is technology
neutral and applies to both advertisements online, as well as
traditional advertisements.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Pimps and traffickers sexually exploit children through
street prostitution, in adult strip clubs, brothels, sex
parties, motel rooms, hotel rooms, and other locations
throughout the United States. The growth of the Internet and
other technological advances, including mobile smartphones, has
unfortunately been misused by these criminals to facilitate the
commercial sexual exploitation of children. Specifically,
criminals use these technologies as a convenient way to market
these victims to potential purchasers. Individuals can now use
websites to advertise, schedule, and purchase sexual encounters
with minors. According to the Polaris Project, U.S. law
enforcement has identified online advertisements as the primary
platform for buying and selling sex with minors, and an FBI
study found more than 2,800 minor victims were advertised on
just one online advertisement service in 2008.\1\ It is
estimated that revenue from online advertisements of
prostitution generally (not just involving minors) surpassed
$45 million last year.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\POLARIS PROJECT, INTERNET BASED HUMAN TRAFFICKING, http://
www.polarisproject.org/human-trafficking/sex-trafficking-in-the-us/
Internet-based.
\2\AIM GROUP, ONLINE PROSTITUTION-AD REVENUE CROSSES CRAIGSLIST
BENCHMARK, July 2013, available at http://aimgroup.com/2013/07/10/
online-prostitution-ad-revenue-crosses-craigslist-benchmark/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4225 clarifies that the existing Federal sex
trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591, extends to
traffickers who knowingly sell sex with minors and victims of
force, fraud, or coercion through advertising, as well as
people or entities that knowingly benefit from such
advertising. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, when a
Federal statute contains an explicit mens rea provision, that
standard applies to every element of the offense.\3\ Under
current law, the government can show that a defendant either
knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that a victim was a
minor or involved through force, fraud, or coercion. H.R. 4225
as reported requires the government to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that a defendant who benefits from the
advertising of a trafficking victim under 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1591(a)(2) knew that the advertising involved a victim who
the defendant knew was a minor or a victim of force, fraud, or
coercion.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See, e.g., Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646
(2009); United States v. X-Citement Video, 513 U.S. 64 (1994).
\4\``Knowingly'' does not have a uniform Federal definition. The
Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits define ``knowingly'' as meaning a
defendant committed a criminal act ``voluntarily and intentionally, and
not because of mistake or accident.'' Fifth Circuit Instruction 1.37;
Tenth Circuit Instruction 1.37; Eleventh Circuit Instruction 9.1A. The
Seventh and Ninth Circuits employ an instruction to the effect that
```knowingly' . . . means that the defendant realized what he was doing
and was aware of the nature of his conduct, and did not act through
ignorance, mistake or accident.'' Seventh Circuit Instruction 4.10;
Ninth Circuit Instruction 5.6. Other circuits have taken a case-by-case
approach to the definition of ``knowingly.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4225 clarifies that people who advertise sex
trafficking can face criminal liability. The bill is technology
neutral and applies to both advertisements online, as well as
traditional advertisements. Under current law, Section 1595 of
Title 18 extends the possibility of civil liability to
defendants who violate Section 1591. However, under Section 230
of the Communications Decency Act,\5\ online publishers of
third-party advertisements are generally immune from civil
liability for such advertisements.\6\ H.R. 4225 does nothing to
disrupt or modify the civil immunity already provided by
Section 230.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\47 U.S.C. Sec. 230.
\6\Courts generally apply Section 230(c)(1) immunity where: (1) a
defendant is a provider or user of an interactive computer service; (2)
the defendant is being treated as a publisher or speaker of the
challenged content for liability purposes; and (3) the content at issue
is information provided by another information content provider. Courts
have overwhelmingly found that defendants that provide access to online
content are providers or users of an interactive computer service as
broadly defined by section 230, and accordingly immune from civil
liability. See Chicago Lawyers' Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc.
v. Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666, 668 (7th Cir. 2008).
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R.
4225.
Committee Consideration
On April 30, 2014, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 4225 favorably reported with an
amendment, by a rollcall vote of 24 to 3, a quorum being
present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following rollcall votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 4225.
1. An amendment by Mr. Scott to add a provision amending
the potential penalties for offenses in this section involving
advertising. Defeated 8-20.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI).................... X
Mr. Coble (NC)................................. X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................ X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................ X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT).............................. X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC)................................. X
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................ X
Mr. Holding (NC)............................... X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL).............................. X
Mr. Smith (MO)................................. X
[Vacant].......................................
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member.......... X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................ X
Mr. Scott (VA)................................. X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Ms. DelBene (WA)............................... X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI).............................
------------------------
Total...................................... 8 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Motion to report H.R. 4225 favorably, as amended.
Approved 24-3.
ROLLCALL NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Goodlatte (VA), Chairman................... X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr. (WI).................... X
Mr. Coble (NC)................................. X
Mr. Smith (TX).................................
Mr. Chabot (OH)................................
Mr. Bachus (AL)................................ X
Mr. Issa (CA).................................. X
Mr. Forbes (VA)................................ X
Mr. King (IA).................................. X
Mr. Franks (AZ)................................ X
Mr. Gohmert (TX)............................... X
Mr. Jordan (OH)................................ X
Mr. Poe (TX)................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz (UT).............................. X
Mr. Marino (PA)................................ X
Mr. Gowdy (SC)................................. X
Mr. Labrador (ID).............................. X
Ms. Farenthold (TX)............................ X
Mr. Holding (NC)............................... X
Mr. Collins (GA)............................... X
Mr. DeSantis (FL)..............................
Mr. Smith (MO)................................. X
[Vacant].......................................
Mr. Conyers, Jr. (MI), Ranking Member.......... X
Mr. Nadler (NY)................................ X
Mr. Scott (VA)................................. X
Ms. Lofgren (CA)............................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee (TX)........................... X
Mr. Cohen (TN)................................. X
Mr. Johnson (GA)............................... X
Mr. Pierluisi (PR).............................
Ms. Chu (CA)...................................
Mr. Deutch (FL)................................
Mr. Gutierrez (IL).............................
Ms. Bass (CA)..................................
Mr. Richmond (LA)..............................
Ms. DelBene (WA)............................... X
Mr. Garcia (FL)................................
Mr. Jeffries (NY)..............................
Mr. Cicilline (RI).............................
------------------------
Total...................................... 24 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 4225, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 14, 2014.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4225, the ``Stop
Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act of 2014.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 4225--Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act
of 2014.
As ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary
on April 30, 2014.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 4225 would have no
significant cost to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill
could affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any
effects would be insignificant.
H.R. 4225 would clarify the current laws against sex
trafficking with regard to the advertising of such acts. As a
result, the government might be able to increase the number of
successful prosecutions in these cases. CBO expects that the
bill would apply to a relatively small number of offenders,
however, so any increase in costs for law enforcement, court
proceedings, or prison operations would not be significant. Any
such costs would be subject to the availability of appropriated
funds.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 4225
could be subject to criminal fines, the Federal Government
might collect additional fines if the legislation is enacted.
Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited in the Crime
Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO expects that any additional
revenues and direct spending would not be significant because
of the small number of cases likely to be affected.
H.R. 4225 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz.
The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Duplication of Federal Programs
No provision of H.R. 4225 establishes or reauthorizes a
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of
another Federal program, a program that was included in any
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance.
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings
No provision of H.R. 4225 directs a specific rule making
within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 551.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
4225 clarifies that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591, which criminalizes the
knowing sex trafficking of minors and others through force,
fraud, or coercion, can be violated when a defendant advertises
such a victim for a commercial sex act.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 4225 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Section 1. Short title. This section cites the short title
of the bill as the ``Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation
Act of 2014.''
Section 2. Advertising that Offers Certain Commercial Sex
Acts. This section expands 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591 to include the
advertising of commercial sex acts involving a minor or an
individual engaged in such an act through force, fraud, or
coercion. Additionally, this section adopts a knowing standard
for those accused of benefitting financially or otherwise from
the sale of advertising these individuals under 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 1591(a)(2).
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART I--CRIMES
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 77--PEONAGE, SLAVERY, AND TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1591. Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion
(a) Whoever knowingly--
(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
or within the special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices,
harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, or
maintains by any means a person; or
* * * * * * *
knowing, or, except where, in an offense under paragraph (2),
the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is
advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of
force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in
subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be
used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or
that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will
be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished
as provided in subsection (b).
(b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is--
(1) if the offense was effected by means of force,
threats of force, fraud, or coercion described in
subsection (e)(2), or by any combination of such means,
or if the person recruited, enticed, harbored,
transported, provided, [or obtained] obtained, or
advertised had not attained the age of 14 years at the
time of such offense, by a fine under this title and
imprisonment for any term of years not less than 15 or
for life; or
(2) if the offense was not so effected, and the
person recruited, enticed, harbored, transported,
provided, [or obtained] obtained, or advertised had
attained the age of 14 years but had not attained the
age of 18 years at the time of such offense, by a fine
under this title and imprisonment for not less than 10
years or for life.
* * * * * * *
Dissenting Views
INTRODUCTION
H.R. 4225, the ``Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation
Act of 2014,'' amends the Federal sex trafficking statute\1\ to
prohibit the advertising of certain commercial sex acts. We
agree with the bill's laudable goal of prosecuting those who
facilitate sex trafficking, but disagree with its mandatory
minimum sentencing provisions because of the serious public
policy concerns it presents. While the acts prohibited by the
legislation will often warrant long sentences, mandatory
minimum sentences are the wrong way to determine the punishment
under this or any other criminal statute. Specifically,
mandatory minimum sentencing distorts rational sentencing,
wastes taxpayer money, and even when applied to serious
offenses, often leads to sentences that are not appropriate
under the facts of particular cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how well-intentioned H.R. 4225 may be, we do not
believe these significant public policy concerns can be
disregarded. An amendment rejected during the markup would have
ameliorated our concerns by clarifying that mandatory minimum
sentences would not apply to the new offense, while still
providing that offenders could be punished under the maximum
penalty. Unfortunately, without this important change, we
remain unable to support this legislation and accordingly we
dissent from the Committee views on this legislation.
DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
H.R. 4225 is primarily intended to prevent the advertising
of acts of commercial sex trafficking using the Internet. The
bill amends section 1591 of title 18 of the United States Code,
which deals with the Federal crime of sex trafficking, to
include advertising of certain commercial sex acts as a
punishable offense. Section 1591 currently prohibits actions
such as recruiting, enticing, harboring, transporting, and
providing victims or benefitting financially from commercial
sex acts involving minors, or adults who are forced or coerced
into participating in the acts. H.R. 4225 amends section 1591
to include advertising in its penalty provisions, which impose
mandatory minimum sentences of ten or 15 years, depending on
the circumstances of the crime.
An amendment agreed to in the markup clarified that the
mens rea standard for the newly-created offense of advertising
would require that the offender must have acted ``knowingly''
with respect to whether the victim was a minor or, if an adult,
the adult's participation in the acts were forced or coerced.
For other offenses under the statute, one may be punished for
acting ``knowingly'' or ``in reckless disregard'' of these
facts related to the victim.
CONCERNS WITH H.R. 4225
By adding advertising to the list of prohibited conduct
related to sex trafficking, H.R. 4225 may subject a range of
communications providers and facilitators to mandatory minimum
sentences. Regardless of the nature and circumstances
surrounding the offense, the role of the offender in the
particular crime, and the history and characteristics of the
offender, H.R. 4225 would require a judge to impose a 10- or
15-year sentence. Even if everyone involved in a case, from the
arresting officer, prosecutor, judge, and victim, believes that
the mandatory minimum would be an unjust sentence for a
particular defendant in a case, H.R. 4225 would require that it
must be imposed.
The imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence of ten or 15
years is particularly troublesome when one considers the
possible scope of defendants who could be prosecuted under H.R.
4225. Notably, the prohibition on advertising does not
explicitly apply only to a sex trafficker who places an ad, and
could conceivably be applied to individuals and entities who
facilitate, but have a minor role in, publishing the ad. Those
who are employed by a venture that benefits financially from
the ad, but whose role in the organization does not place them
in the chain of decisionmaking with respect to acceptance or
publishing of illegal ads could also be prosecuted under the
bill.\2\ As some Members discussed at the markup of the bill,
there may be circumstances in which all of the employees of a
communications company, including receptionists and maintenance
workers, know that the venture publishes such advertisements
but look the other way, and could be held liable under these
provisions but whose culpability would certainly not warrant a
mandatory minimum sentence of 10 or 15 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591(a)(2) (2014) subjects to liability ``whoever
knowingly--(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value,
from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described
in violation of paragraph (1).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory minimum sentences are the wrong way to determine
punishment under the Federal sex trafficking statute, or any
other statute. Mandatory minimums not only lead to unjust
outcomes for individuals, but also have serious systemic
consequences by contributing to the problem of
overincarceration. As of September 2010, 75,579 Federal
prisoners-- more than one-third (39.4%)--were serving mandatory
minimum sentences.\3\ This represents a 155% increase from the
number of Federal prisoners serving mandatory minimum sentences
in 1995 (29,603).\4\ Since Congress enacted harsh mandatory
minimums in the 1980s, the Federal prison population has
exploded by over 800% to more than 216,000 inmates today.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\United States Sentencing Commission, Report to Congress:
Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal System, at 148
(Oct. 2011), available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/
default/files/pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-
minimum-penalties/201110
31-rtc-pdf/Chapter_07.pdf.
\4\Id. at 81, available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/
pdf/news/congressional-testimony-and-reports/mandatory-minimum-
penalties/20111031-rtc-pdf/Chapter_04.pdf.
\5\Bureau of Prisons, Historical Information, at http://
www.bop.gov/about/history/ and Inmate Statistics: Offenses, at http://
www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, higher than warranted sentences resulting from
mandatory minimum sentencing strain public finances. For
example, the average cost of incarceration for a Federal inmate
in fiscal year 2011 was $28,893.40.\6\ In fact, the U.S.
Department of Justice has referred to the increased year-to-
year spending on Federal prisons as ``unsustainable'' and a
threat to public safety.\7\ For fiscal year 2014, close to a
third (28.8%) of the Justice Department's $27.7 billion budget
is earmarked for Federal prisons and detention.\8\ Every dollar
expended on lengthy mandatory minimum incarcerations is a
dollar that cannot be spent on crime prevention, victim
services, training, investigation, and prosecution.\9\ Absent
smarter sentencing policies and reformation of mandatory
minimum sentences, prison populations and their associated
costs will continue to escalate.\10\ We need to take steps to
ensure that sentences are appropriately severe, but are not set
beyond levels that no longer serve legitimate criminal justice
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Bureau of Prisons, Annual Determination of Average Cost of
Incarceration, 78 Fed. Reg. No. 52 at 16711 (Mar. 18, 2013), available
at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-18/pdf/2013-06139.pdf.
\7\Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, Top Management and
Performance Challenges Facing the Dep't of Justice--2013, at http://
www.justice.gov/oig/challenges/2013.htm.
\8\U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, Summary: Fiscal Year
2014 Omnibus Appropriations Bill 5-7 (Jan. 13, 2014), at http://
www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?meth
od=news.view&id=5aa8e660-f52e-4074-945f-9618eb963ae9.
\9\Id.
\10\Horowitz, supra n.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one reason why the Committee's bipartisan Over-
Criminialization Task Force was authorized in 2013 to ``assess
our current Federal criminal statutes and make recommendations
for improvements.''\11\ While the Task Force considers a range
of issues related to the criminal justice system, including the
penalties in the Federal criminal code, we should not, as this
bill would do, expand mandatory minimum sentencing at a time
when reform is necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary,
Press Release, Feb. 5, 2014, available at http://judiciary.house.gov/
index.cfm/2014/2/house-judiciary-committee-reauthorizes-bipartisan-
over-criminalization-task-force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An amendment offered by Representative Robert C. ``Bobby''
Scott (D-VA) that would have addressed these significant
concens was defeated by a vote of 8 to 20 during the markup.
The amendment would have removed application of the statute's
mandatory minimum prison sentences to advertising and instead
allow a judge to apply an appropriate sentence under the
circumstances of the case up to the statutory maximum of life
in prison. Given the complicated nature of internet
communications networks and other forms of advertising, which
would be affected by this bill, the role of the judge in
evaluating each case is particularly important. While long
sentences may be appropriate under the facts of a particular
case, Congress cannot know the facts of every case in advance.
Removing mandatory minimums while still permitting the lengthy
statutory maximum penalty of life imprisonment, as
Representative Scott's amendment would have done, would provide
the appropriate spectrum of sentences for culpability and
proportionate punishment.
CONCLUSION
We must do more to combat sex trafficking by taking steps
such as strengthening our laws and providing additional
resources for law enforcement and victim services. In our haste
to combat this tragic crime, however, we must also consider the
public policy implications of our legislative actions.
Unfortunately, the mandatory minimum penalties provided in H.R.
4225 would make it an inflexible and often inappropriate means
of addressing the range of those who could be prosecuted under
the statute.
For the foregoing reasons, we must respectfully dissent.
John Conyers, Jr.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.