39–006 

113TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 10 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

1POLARIS 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-revenuecrosses-craigslist-benchmark/. 

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. § 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

H.R. 4225 clarifies that the existing Federal sex trafficking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1591, extends to traffickers who knowingly sell sex 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

3See, 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.’’ 5 47 U.S.C. § 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). 

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. § 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

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. 

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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

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 governVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:03 May 16, 2014 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR451.XXX HR451

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

ment 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. § 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. § 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. § 1591 to include the advertising of 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

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. § 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 

* * * * * * * 

§ 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, øor 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, øor obtained¿ 

obtained, or advertised had attained the age of 14 years but 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

1 18 U.S.C. § 1591 (2014). 

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. 

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. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

2 18 U.S.C. § 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).’’ 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/Chapterl07.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/Chapterl04.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/statisticslinmateloffenses.jsp. 

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. 

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

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

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. 7Michael 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. 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-reauthorizesbipartisan-over-criminalization-task-force. 

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. 

This is one reason why the Committee’s bipartisan OverCriminialization 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. 

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 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

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. 

Æ 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with HEARING