U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–445 PDF 2016

S. Hrg. 114–179 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVESTIGATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE A. BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

JOHN P. KILVINGTON, Minority Deputy Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

BENJAMIN C. GRAZDA, Hearing Clerk 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

BEN SASSE, Nebraska 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

BRIAN CALLANAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

MARGARET DAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 1 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 4 

Senator McCain ................................................................................................ 14 

Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................................ 16 

Senator Lankford .............................................................................................. 17 

Senator Ayotte .................................................................................................. 20 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 31 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 35 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

Yiota G. Souras, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children ....................................................... 7 

Darwin P. Roberts, Deputy Attorney General, The Washington State Attorney 

General’s Office .................................................................................................... 9 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Roberts, Darwin P.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Souras, Yiota G.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

APPENDIX 

Staff Report .............................................................................................................. 53 

Statements submitted for the Record: 

A. Brant Cook, Director, Crimes Against Children Initiative, Office of 

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine ......................................................... 249 

Karen Friedman-Agnifilo, Chief Assistant District Attorney, New York 

County District Attorney’s Office ................................................................ 253 

(1) 

HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVESTIGATION 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2015 

U.S. SENATE, PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 

room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rob Portman, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Portman, McCain, Lankford, Ayotte, Sasse, 

McCaskill, Tester, and Heitkamp. 

Staff present: Mark Angehr, Mel Beras, Eric Bursch, Brian 

Callanan, Mark Iaskowitz, John Cuaderes, Margaret Daum, Liam 

Forsythe, Stephanie Hall, Crystal Higgins, John Kashuba, Amanda 

Montee, Victoria Muth, Brandon Reavis, Brittney Sadler, Sarah 

Seitz, Molly Sherlock, Kelsey Stroud, Matt Owen, Andrew 

Polesovsky, Stuart Varvel, Thomas Caballero, Myles Matteson, 

Samantha Roberts, and Chris Barkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. Thank you all for being here this morning. We were waiting until all the documents were circulated. This 

hearing will now come to order. 

Senator McCaskill and I have called this hearing to address the 

difficult but really important subject of sex trafficking. Over the 

past 7 months, this Subcommittee has conducted a bipartisan investigation into how sex traffickers increasingly use the Internet to 

advance their trade and to evade detection. The aim of this investigation is very straightforward. We want to understand how lawmakers, law enforcement, even private businesses can more effectively combat this serious crime that thrives on this online black 

market. 

As Co-Chair of the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking 

and, maybe more importantly, as someone who represents a State 

that has experienced some abhorrent sex-trafficking networks, and, 

maybe most importantly, as a father, this is an issue that I feel 

strongly about and have worked on over a number of years. 

I have spent time with those dedicated to fighting this crime and 

those victimized by it. For victims, the toll of sex trafficking is 

measured in stolen childhoods and long-lasting trauma. For traffickers, it is measured in dollars, often a lot of dollars. It is a problem that I believe Congress should pay more attention to. 
2 

Precise data is hard to come by because this market exists in the 

shadows. But experts tell us that there were as many as 27 million 

victims of human trafficking last year, including 4.5 million people 

trapped in sexual exploitation. In the United States, about 8 of 

every 10 suspected incidents of human trafficking involve sex trafficking—80 percent—that is, the sale of minors or forced sale of 

adults for commercial sex. 

Sex traffickers prey on the vulnerable. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reported that more than half of sex-trafficking victims are minors, and the problem appears to be getting worse. 

Over the last 5 years, the leading authority on child exploitation, 

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), 

whom we will hear from later today, reported an 846-percent increase in reports of suspected child sex trafficking. NCMEC says 

that increase is ‘‘directly correlated to the increased use of the 

Internet to sell children for sex.’’ That is what this hearing is all 

about. 

Traffickers have found refuge in new customers through websites 

that specialize in advertising so-called ordinary prostitution and 

lawful escort businesses. A business called ‘‘Backpage.com’’ is the 

market leader in that industry, with annual revenues in excess of 

$130 million last year. With a look and layout similar to the better 

known Craigslist.com, Backpage has a special niche. According to 

one industry analysis in 2013, $8 out of every $10 spent on online 

commercial sex advertising in the United States goes to Backpage. 

Some of that advertising is legal work. Much of it is illegal. A Federal court in Chicago noted this year, from that Backpage’s ‘‘adult 

services section overwhelmingly contains advertisements for prostitution, including the prostitution of minors.’’ 

The public record indicates that Backpage sits at the center of 

this online black market for sex trafficking. The National Center 

tells us that Backpage is linked to 71 percent of all suspected child 

sex-trafficking reports it receives from the general public through 

its CyberTipline. So think about that: 71 percent of all the suspected child sex-trafficking reports that the center gets are related 

to Backpage. 

According to a leading anti-trafficking organization called Shared 

Hope International, ‘‘Service providers working with sex-trafficking 

victims have reported that between 80 percent and 100 percent of 

their clients have been bought and sold on Backpage.com.’’ It is 

easy to see why the National Association of Attorneys General 

(NAAG) describe Backpage as a ‘‘hub of human trafficking, especially the trafficking of minors.’’ And we will hear more about that 

today. 

A recent study of press accounts reveals that scores of serious 

crimes are linked to Backpage. Shared Hope International has 

catalogued more than 400 reported cases of children being trafficked using Backpage.com across 47 States, and the Permanent 

Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) staff has identified at least 

13 reported cases of child sex trafficking in my home State of Ohio 

alone linked to Backpage over the past 4 years. 

On this record, PSI saw a compelling need to better understand 

the business practices of Backpage.com, especially the efforts it 

takes to prevent the use of its site by sex traffickers. That seems 
3 

very reasonable. We thought it might be simple enough because 

Backpage holds itself out as a ‘‘critical ally’’ against human trafficking. The company has stated that is ‘‘leads the industry in its 

review and screening of advertisements for illegal activity,’’ a process it calls ‘‘moderation.’’ 

Backpage’s top lawyer has described its moderation process as 

‘‘the key tool for disrupting and eventually ending human trafficking via the World Wide Web.’’ But Backpage has refused to turn 

over documents about this key moderation process that it touts, as 

well as other relevant aspects of its business. 

Specifically, the company refused to comply with an initial subpoena issued by the Subcommittee on July 7, saying that it was 

overbroad. Senator McCaskill and I then agreed to withdraw that 

subpoena and issue a new, more targeted subpoena designed to accommodate some of Backpage’s concerns, but the company again 

refused to comply. 

Defiance of a Congressional subpoena is rare and it is serious. 

Backpage has tried to excuse its noncompliance based on its sweeping claim of constitutional privilege. The company’s argument is 

vague, but it can be summed up this way: Backpage says that the 

First Amendment to the Constitution shields it from this investigation of advertising by sex traffickers because it also publishes some 

lawful advertisements that are protected speech. 

It is an interesting argument. It has no support in law or logic. 

In a detailed ruling on behalf of the Subcommittee, Senator 

McCaskill and I explained why Backpage’s legal argument is without merit. We also explained the great care that PSI has taken to 

protect any potential First Amendment interest at stake here. We 

have made that ruling publicly available today on PSI’s website, 

and I encourage you to take a look at it. 

After overruling Backpage’s objections, Senator McCaskill and I 

ordered the company and its Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to 

produce the documents we asked for by last Thursday, November 

12. That day came and went with no response. The next day, 

Backpage again informed PSI that it would not comply. But at the 

same time, Backpage made quite a show of producing certain cherry-picked documents favorable to the company, along with a 

16,000-page pile of material and documents that the Subcommittee 

does not need and is not seeking. 

We do not think Backpage’s response to the subpoena has been 

in good faith. It is fine for parties to have legal disagreements with 

us about constitutional privileges or the appropriateness of particular requests. We treat these objections very seriously. But 

Backpage has done more than just raise a legal objection to producing certain documents. Just last week, Backpage’s lawyers told 

PSI that the company had not even bothered to look for the documents responsive to the subpoena which means Backpage does not 

even know what all it is refusing to produce, much less why these 

documents should be protected by the First Amendment. 

PSI was disappointed with Backpage’s noncompliance, but we 

were not deterred. Through other sources, including a contractor 

that Backpage outsourced its ad screening process to, we sought to 

learn more about the issues under investigation. In a bipartisan 

staff report released today, we have outlined some preliminary 
4 

findings and further questions that need answers. The report reveals that Backpage has had a practice of editing some advertisements by deleting words and images before publication. This is important because changing the appearance of a published ad obviously does not change the advertised transaction. 

The staff report finds that in some cases these editing practices 

likely serve to conceal evidence of the illegality of the underlying 

transaction. That finding raises some very serious questions. We 

want to know more about the purpose and effect of these editing 

practices, which is why we issued a subpoena to Backpage for documents that could tell us whether and how Backpage deletes text or 

images that could alert law enforcement about a crime being advertised. When that failed, the Subcommittee tried to take the testimony of two Backpage employees in charge of its moderation practices, but they refused to testify on the grounds that it might incriminate them. Nevertheless, we continue to seek documents from 

Backpage that would allow us to understand this and other aspects 

of its screening process. 

In a moment, Senator McCaskill is going to describe our other 

findings in greater detail. At the close of today’s hearing, we will 

address the next steps the Subcommittee plans to take to enforce 

the subpoena that Backpage has violated. 

I am grateful to our Ranking Member, Senator McCaskill, and 

her staff for their shoulder-to-shoulder work with us on this bipartisan investigation. I would now like to turn to her for her opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Chairman Portman, for holding 

this hearing, and thank you for the strong working relationship we 

have on this Committee. 

Four months ago, a 15-year-old girl walked into Cardinal 

Glennon Children’s Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri, and asked for 

help. Along with four other girls between the ages of 12 and 18, 

she had been sold for sex at truck stops across Missouri, Florida, 

Texas, and New Mexico for almost 2 months. She was lucky to be 

alive. According to her police report, another girl traveling with her 

during those months had died in her arms. 

The 15-year-old girl who walked into Cardinal Glennon, like the 

majority of children who are sold for sex in the United States 

today, was trafficked using Backpage.com. Throughout the Subcommittee’s investigation, we have received information indicating 

that Backpage has built a hugely successful business in part by 

posting advertisements of children and other victims of human 

trafficking on its website. And despite knowing that its website has 

hosted advertisements of children being sold for sex, Backpage has 

apparently signaled to its moderators that those ads should remain 

on the site. 

In April 2012, for example, Backpage initially told its outside 

moderators that they should ‘‘fail’’ or remove ads containing references to certain sex acts and words, including ‘‘school girl,’’ 

‘‘teen,’’ ‘‘human trafficking,’’ and ‘‘yung.’’ 

Two days later, Backpage reversed that policy. The employee responsible for moderation issued clarifications regarding the banned 
5 

words. He instructed that moderators should no longer delete ads 

that use ‘‘young’’ or misspellings of ‘‘young.’’ Those deletions were 

capturing too much volume, he explained, because there were too 

many legitimate uses of the word to warrant a removal every time. 

Instead of deleting advertisements for services with ‘‘young,’’ the 

Backpage employee instructed moderators to send the ads to him 

for additional review. 

We do not know how many, if any, ads were removed following 

that additional review. We do know that Backpage instructed its 

moderators to be very cautious about deleting ads. According to the 

manager of the moderators, ‘‘The definition of underage is anyone 

under the age of 18. But for the purposes of making reports, we 

err on the side of caution and try to report anyone that looks under 

the age of 21.’’ Importantly, guidance from Backpage emphasized, 

in all capital letters, ‘‘IF IN DOUBT ABOUT UNDERAGE: the 

process for now should be to accept the ad,’’ and ‘‘ONLY DELETE 

IF YOU REALLY VERY SURE PERSON IS UNDERAGE.’’ That 

was in all caps. 

The result of Backpage’s guidance of course, is the site contains 

innumerable advertisements for sexual transactions with children. 

The National Center for Mission and Exploited Children, for example, reports that 71 percent of the child sex-trafficking reports it receives involve ads posted on Backpage. And according to Shared 

Hope International, service providers working with child sex-trafficking victims have reported that between 80 percent and 100 percent of their clients have been bought and sold on Backpage.com. 

We have also learned that Backpage has failed to preserve information that would help law enforcement and other entities locate 

victims and put pimps and traffickers in jail. Backpage has also 

failed to implement other free, widely available technologies that 

have helped law enforcement build cases against suspected sex 

traffickers. Moreover, Backpage representatives and third-party 

consultants have informed the Subcommittee that Backpage moderators edit and delete content in ads in ways that may conceal evidence of illegal activity from law enforcement. 

The Subcommittee has also found that Backpage’s business 

model has been highly profitable. Based on information obtained by 

the Subcommittee, Backpage had net revenue of $135 million in 

2014 and is expected to net more than $153 million this year— 

nearly all of it profit. The company’s fair market value, taking into 

account its lack of marketability, is approximately $430 million. As 

a former sex crimes prosecutor, I know that behind these cold financial statistics are survivors traumatized from abuse and degradation and families suffering through years of terror and uncertainty concerning the fate of their loved ones. 

Today I hope to hear from our first witnesses about the impact 

of Backpage on the efforts of law enforcement officials and advocacy groups to curb sex trafficking in the United States. I am confident that their testimony will make clear the importance of Subcommittee efforts to press Backpage for information on its operations and procedures. 

I also hope that we will at some future date finally have the opportunity to question Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer who received a 
6 

1The Majority Staff Report appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

2The prepared statement of Mr. Cook appears in the Appendix on page 249. 

3 The prepared statement of Ms. Friedman-Agnifilo appears in the Appendix on page 253. 

subpoena to appear before the Subcommittee today but has refused 

to attend. I have many questions for him. 

I thank the witnesses for being here today, and I look forward 

to their testimony. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Senator McCaskill, and thank you 

for your partnership in this investigation. 

Senator McCaskill mentioned the report. Without objection, the 

staff report1 and some associated correspondence are ordered to become part of the record. 

Senator PORTMAN. With this, we are going to turn to our first 

panel of witnesses and then have the opportunity for Members to 

ask questions. 

We are pleased to be joined by Yiota Souras. Yiota is Senior Vice 

President and General Counsel (GC) of the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children, the group we have been talking 

about, the Nation’s leading authority and resource on issues related to missing and sexually exploited children. For over 30 years, 

NCMEC has provided valuable services to law enforcement and the 

criminal justice community with the goal of eliminating child sexual exploitation and reuniting families. It has assisted law enforcement in recovering over 200,000 missing children, including assisting with the rescue of a missing child in Cleveland, Ohio, just earlier this month. We appreciate what you do. 

I am also honored to have with us today the founder of NCMEC. 

Many of you know John Walsh, who is here with us in the room 

this morning, who has been a good adviser to me and to this Subcommittee. 

We are also pleased to be joined by Darwin Roberts. Darwin is 

the Deputy Attorney General with the Washington State Attorney 

General’s Office where he supervises the Criminal Justice Division, 

among other units, and is the office’s lead attorney for human-trafficking issues. The State of Washington has been recognized as a 

leader in its efforts to combat human trafficking due in large part 

to the work of the State AG’s Office. The Polaris Project, a highly 

regarded national anti-trafficking organization, gave Washington 

the highest ranking for its anti-trafficking efforts last year. From 

2005 to 2013, Mr. Roberts also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. 

We appreciate both of you being here this morning. We look forward to your testimony. 

Without objection, we are also going to make part of the record 

the written testimony submitted by Brant Cook,2 who is the Director of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine’s Crimes Against Children Initiative. Ohio has also been at the forefront of this issue 

under the leadership of former Senator Mike DeWine. 

Senator PORTMAN. We are also going to, without objection, make 

part of the record the testimony of the Chief Assistant District Attorney for Manhattan3, who has also been engaged and involved in 

this issue with us and the Subcommittee. 

Senator PORTMAN. To the witnesses, it is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses, so at this time I would ask 
7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Souras appears in the Appendix on page 38 

you both to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear 

that the testimony you are about to give before this Subcommittee 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Ms. SOURAS. I do. 

Mr. ROBERTS. I do. 

Senator PORTMAN. Let the record reflect the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. All of your written testimony will be printed in 

the record in its entirety. We ask that you try to limit your oral 

testimony to 5 minutes. 

Ms. Souras, we will hear from you first. 

TESTIMONY OF YIOTA G. SOURAS,1 SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

AND GENERAL COUNSEL, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN 

Ms. SOURAS. Thank you. Chairman Portman, Ranking Member 

McCaskill, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be 

here this morning on behalf of the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children. 

Let me take a moment to thank you for your efforts to investigate the crime of child sex trafficking and potential solutions to 

combat this horrible crime. I am joined today by NCMEC’s cofounder, John Walsh, and our incoming CEO, John Clark, former 

Director of the U.S. Marshals, who are here with me to underscore 

NCMEC’s support for the Committee’s work and our dedication to 

preventing child sex trafficking and assisting survivors and their 

families. 

We are here to talk about the online lucrative sale of America’s 

children for sex, which in our experience occurs most prominently 

on the website Backpage.com. Every year in the United States, 

thousands of children are sold for sex and repeatedly raped. Child 

sex trafficking victims are boys, transgender children, and girls. 

We see victims as young as 11 years old, with an average age of 

15. Many of these children are moved constantly from city to city, 

sold for sex up to 10 times a day, and tattooed by their traffickers, 

literally branded for life. 

Child sex trafficking is the rape of a child in exchange for something of value. Buying, selling, or facilitating the sale of a child for 

sex is always illegal. Child sex trafficking is not prostitution, and 

it has no relation to legal sexual activities between consenting 

adults. When NCMEC talks about child sex trafficking, we are 

talking about illegal activity that is not protected by the First 

Amendment. 

Technology has fundamentally changed how children are trafficked. Today an adult can shop from their home, office, or hotel 

room, even on a cell phone, to buy a child for sex. There are advertising websites, notably Backpage, that are online marketplaces to 

buy and sell sexual experiences. Some may be legal, but most are 

not. 

NCMEC operates the CyberTipline, the Nation’s reporting mechanism for suspected child sexual exploitation. Since 1998, we have 
8 

received over 45,000 reports relating to suspected child sex trafficking. A majority of these reports involve ads posted on Backpage. 

In our experience, child sex trafficking often begins with a missing child. So far this year, more than 1,800 missing child cases reported to NCMEC have involved possible child sex trafficking. Because there are so many child sex-trafficking ads on Backpage, our 

staff search Backpage first when a missing child is at risk for being 

trafficked. 

At NCMEC, we routinely work with online companies to help 

them make sure their websites are not misused to harm children. 

We met with Backpage at their request after they started voluntarily reporting some ads to us in 2010. During this time, Backpage 

publicly represented that it wanted to do everything possible to 

stop child sexual exploitation on its website. 

At our last meeting, in 2013, Backpage was frustrated with 

NCMEC for not promoting their asserted efforts to curb child sex 

trafficking. We have not met with Backpage again because it 

seemed they were more interested in trying to publicly claim a 

partnership with NCMEC on these issues rather than reducing the 

sale of children on their website. 

During our meetings with Backpage, we recommended many 

steps they could take to reduce the possibility children would be 

sold for sex on their website. Backpage declined to adopt most of 

these recommended measures. Here are just two examples. 

Backpage does not consistently remove ads it has reported to 

NCMEC, even when the ad is reported by a family member of the 

child, begging for assistance. Here is a report and what one Mom 

and Dad wrote to Backpage: ‘‘Your website has ads featuring our 

16-year-old daughter . . . posing as an escort. She is being pimped 

out by her old boyfriend, and she is underage. I have emailed the 

ad multiple times using your website, but have gotten no response. . . . For God’s sake, she is only 16.’’ 

We raised this issue repeatedly during our meetings with 

Backpage, but were never told why some ads remained live on the 

site after being reported. 

Backpage also has more stringent rules to post an ad to sell a 

pet, a motorcycle, or a boat. For these ads, you are required to provide a verified phone number. Even though Backpage knows its 

site is used for child sex trafficking and after our repeated recommendations, Backpage still has not implemented any form of 

verification to post an escort ad. 

Today Backpage still voluntarily reports some child sex-trafficking to NCMEC, but they have not taken basic measures to disrupt the online marketplace of sex trafficking they have created. 

There is no reason to believe suspected child sex-trafficking ads 

on Backpage have decreased. However, Backpage’s number of reports this year has shrunk to less than half the number of reports 

in 2013, the same year we had our last meeting and the same year 

NCMEC filed an amicus brief in support of child victims in the 

lawsuit against Backpage. 

Before I close, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous efforts of many other advocacy groups, many of whom are here in the 

room today, and the attorneys who are working on civil court cases 
9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Roberts appears in the Appendix on page 48. 

in Massachusetts and Washington to end the devastating online 

business of selling children for sex on websites like Backpage. 

Mr. Chairman and other Members, I thank you for the chance 

to share this information regarding child sex trafficking and 

Backpage, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Souras. 

Mr. Roberts, we would now like to hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF DARWIN P. ROBERTS,1 DEPUTY ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, THE WASHINGTON STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S 

OFFICE 

Mr. ROBERTS. Good morning, Chairman Portman, Ranking Member McCaskill, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear here today. I am appearing on behalf of 

Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who appreciates the invitation 

and regrets that he was not able to come here in person. 

I am proud to be here representing Washington State, which has 

been recognized as a leader among the States in fighting human 

trafficking at the State level. We were the first State to make it 

a crime to commit human trafficking at the State level, and, of 

course, our State definition of ‘‘human trafficking’’ matches the 

Federal in that the use of force, fraud, or coercion for forced labor, 

involuntary servitude, or commercial sex acts is classified as 

human trafficking. And, of course, the commercial sexual abuse of 

a minor is any use of a minor in a commercial sex act, because minors are recognized as not being able to consent legally to engage 

in any sort of sex act with an adult, much less a commercial one. 

While we appreciate the Chairman’s credit to the Attorney General’s office for the work we have done, I think I would be remiss 

if I did not emphasize that we have an entire community of folks 

doing really good work in Washington State, and if it were not for 

all of our partners in law enforcement, the nonprofit community, 

and other government agencies, we would not be close to where we 

are today. 

Washington has had the experience of becoming involved in litigation with Backpage.com in the course of our efforts to prevent 

the use of the Internet for human trafficking and the commercial 

sexual exploitation of children. In 2012, the State of Washington 

passed a law that aimed to criminally punish any person who, 

using the Internet, ‘‘knowingly publishes, disseminates, or displays, 

or causes directly or indirectly to be published, disseminated, or 

displayed any advertisement for a commercial sex act which is to 

take place in the State of Washington, and that includes the depiction of a minor.’’ 

Backpage.com led a challenge to this law before it could be implemented. The Attorney General’s office attempted to defend the 

law in court, but the U.S. District Court in Seattle ruled that the 

law would be enjoined on the grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague under the First Amendment and also likely preempted 

by the Communications Decency Act (CDA). 

Almost simultaneously with this ruling by the U.S. District 

Court, though, a lawsuit was filed in Washington Superior Court 
10 

in Pierce County Tacoma alleging that Backpage, in fact, had done 

more than just be a site that hosted the posting of ads, as they 

claimed in order to invoke their immunity under the Communications Decency Act. In that case, several minors who alleged that 

they were, in fact, prostituted using Backpage.com sued, alleging 

that Backpage had essentially, by several means, including making 

themselves a market leader—in other words, the go-to site for online prostitution ads—by using terms like ‘‘escorts,’’ euphemisms 

widely recognized as telling consumers that prostitution is the kind 

of service that they could purchase on this website, and by using 

what the plaintiffs terms ‘‘sham efforts at self-policing’’ to allegedly 

try to keep ads for underage individuals off the site, that by doing 

this Backpage.com had moved beyond the mere facilitation or posting of the ads and, in fact, itself was materially contributing to the 

use of its site to sell minors for sex. 

Our Attorney General’s office filed an amicus brief in support of 

these plaintiffs when their case went to the Washington Supreme 

Court, and on the posture of the Backpage’s initial motion to dismiss, we argued that, in fact, the plaintiffs should be allowed to 

conduct discovery to determine whether Backpage was materially 

contributing as the plaintiffs alleged. The Washington Supreme 

Court this fall ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and that case is now 

proceeding to discovery. 

We are aware that in the court of this litigation and others, 

Backpage.com has repeatedly asserted that law enforcement is best 

helped if Backpage remains open as a website for the posting of 

adult services-type ads and works with law enforcement, as they 

put it, to try to prevent minors from being trafficked using their 

site. These commitments sound positive as stated by Backpage, but 

the Washington State Attorney General’s office and others is not at 

all certain whether these commitments are at all sufficient to do 

the kind of work necessary to prevent individuals from being trafficked on the site. 

During this entire period, even as Backpage has said this, there 

have been repeated, numerous instances of children being trafficked on Backpage, as Ms. Souras just cited. So the question for 

the Attorney General’s office is: What is Backpage doing? What are 

their goals? How effective are their techniques? Are they doing everything they can? Is there more they could be doing? What are the 

costs of their compliance to them internally relative to the significant revenues, as the Subcommittee cited, that they are making off 

these ads? 

So for all of those reasons, the Washington State Attorney General’s office hopes that Backpage.com will respond to the Subcommittee’s subpoena and will shed more light on how exactly it 

claims to be working to prevent the sex trafficking of minors. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions as 

well. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Roberts. I appreciate both of 

you for your testimony. Your perspective is really valuable to the 

Subcommittee, and I think we are going to have some very interesting dialogue now. 
11 

We are going to begin with 5-minute question rounds so that 

every member has got an opportunity, and we will go as many 

rounds as necessary to get the questions answered. 

I would like to start with just making the statement that it appears from what both of you have said that technology has fundamentally changed the way children can be victimized through 

sex trafficking. That is the fundamental truth that we are hearing 

here, and it is something the Subcommittee certainly found, and 

you can see that in our report. 

Ms. Souras, let me start with you. I, as you know, have deep concerns about this notion of editing advertisements, and we have had 

in our report, as you will see, some evidence of that. Let me ask 

you first, how prevalent are advertisements for sexual exploitation 

of minors on Backpage.com in your experience? 

Ms. SOURAS. Mr. Chairman, as I testified to a few moments ago, 

Backpage actually is the first place that NCMEC searches when we 

have a missing child case where there is suspicion that the child 

is being trafficked. That is because even though the child may also 

have a trafficking ad on another site, they will always have a trafficking ad on Backpage if they are being trafficked. So between 

that and then the numbers of reports that we have received, as I 

mentioned, over 45,000 reports of child sex trafficking, with a predominant number of those either from the public or otherwise 

being reported on Backpage ads, it is clear to NCMEC that 

Backpage really is the primary marketplace online for these ads. 

Senator PORTMAN. You said over 70 percent of all suspected child 

sex-trafficking reports that you receive on your CyberTipline are 

related to Backpage? 

Ms. SOURAS. From the public, that is correct. 

Senator PORTMAN. Amazing. On the subject of underage victims, 

I want to turn your attention now to one of the many emails our 

investigation has uncovered. This email is from the company that 

Backpage used to outsource the job of screening its advertisements. 

It is a process, as I said earlier, that Backpage calls ‘‘moderation.’’ 

In the email, that company instructs moderators who had the job 

of reviewing and editing the ads, including how to handle ads for 

victims that look underage, the ad instructs moderators—and I 

have got this here. You can find it, by the way, if you want to look 

in the appendix to the report on page 122. 

The email instructs moderators that if they are in doubt about 

underage, the process should be to accept the ad. The process 

should be to accept the ad if you are in doubt. 

It also cautions moderators that they should ‘‘only delete [ads] if 

you [are] really sure [the] person is underage.’’ It seems to me 

there is a bias there, but let me ask you, Ms. Souras: Does it sound 

like instructions a company would give if it was really concerned 

about everything it could do to keep kids off the Internet? 

Ms. SOURAS. No, absolutely not. If a company really has a sincere interest in trying to deter and remove child sexual exploitation, including child sex-trafficking content, from its website, 

then it will undertake a number of preventative measures early on, 

and it also will deal with ads such as that likely will be picturing 

children or minors. It will not allow that content up, and it will re-
12 

port that content as well. It will not take a half measure such as 

noted here. 

I will add, just glancing at this email, this is very similar to what 

Backpage had told NCMEC was part of its moderation process regarding children that, quote-unquote, might appear to be young. 

Senator PORTMAN. As we talked about, Backpage has a practice 

of editing images and text out of certain ads before they publish 

them. One of the obvious concerns I see here is that when you edit 

an ad and change its wording, of course, you are not changing the 

underlying transaction. You do not change the potential for the underlying crime that is being committed. 

I have a few questions for you. To start, were you aware that 

Backpage moderators edited ads in this manner? 

Ms. SOURAS. We had had previous conversations with Backpage 

regarding the editing of ads as it pertained to photographs. We do 

not recall any discussions with Backpage about moderators actually editing text of the ads. We had been told by Backpage that 

when an ad came in, often with multiple photographs, if there was 

a photograph that they deemed to be a violation of their terms of 

service, containing nudity, for instance, or graphic sexual activity, 

that photograph would be pulled, and then the ad would move forward into the posting process. 

Senator PORTMAN. So let us assume that the evidence that we 

have uncovered is accurate and there is this kind of editing. What 

concern does that practice give you? 

Ms. SOURAS. It is incredibly troubling, Mr. Chairman, as you 

noted, on a number of grounds. One is that it definitely obfuscates 

the illegal activity that is the intent of that ad. If somebody is posting an ad and saying this is a 15-year-old or providing other information that it is a minor who is being sold for a sex act and 

Backpage merely strips the age component out or whatever the 

other indicia of youth might be, or being a child, that is definitely, 

as you noted, hiding the crime before it goes public. 

To me, also, from a legal standpoint, it could very much create 

concerns about whether Backpage is still in its publisher category 

or is it shifting now into becoming a creator in some ways of these 

ads as well. 

Senator PORTMAN. I would just say my time is coming to an end, 

but I also think it makes it harder for you to find these kids. It 

is harder to rescue children, because when you do not have the full 

ad, when they are giving you this edited version rather than the 

complete record of the ad, including the photo and all the original 

text that might have existed prior to the editing which would help 

you, it makes it more difficult for you to rescue these kids. Isn’t 

that accurate? 

Ms. SOURAS. That is absolutely correct. If we are able to receive 

all the photographs and all the text, the additional information, 

whether it is a photo that might include the face of the child, which 

could obviously benefit greatly the identification of that child, or 

other information such as a phone number or an email address 

that is in the original ad that might have gotten stripped by the 

Backpage moderator, that sort of information is crucial for law enforcement to rescue that child and also to pursue the individual 

that is selling that child for sex. 
13 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Ms. Souras. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Can you explain, Ms. Souras, your testimony that there are more stringent posting rules for selling a motorcycle than selling a 12-year-old? 

Ms. SOURAS. I really have no explanation for that, Senator. It is 

what we were told when we met with Backpage. It is what is the 

reality of how you go about posting an ad currently. During our 

meetings between 2010 and 2013 with Backpage, we constantly 

asked there to be some form of Know Your Customer, at least know 

who the individual is in that ad, knowing the high incidence of 

child sex-trafficking ads on that website. We pointed out the fact 

that they are able to do this on other ad sections, such as pets and 

motor vehicles. And we did ask why they could not incorporate that 

element into their escort ads as well. We never received a satisfactory answer. 

Senator MCCASKILL. What was their answer? What excuse did 

they have? 

Ms. SOURAS. They often would say they would look into it, they 

would discuss it at the next meeting, it would be re-raised at the 

next meeting, and it would be as if it was the first time we were 

raising the issue. There was never a satisfactory response. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So the sex ads are the only place where 

they do not require verification? 

Ms. SOURAS. I have not looked at all the other ad categories. We 

have done, obviously, a lot of deep-dive research on the escort ads 

themselves, and we have noted variations between ads. But there 

are many categories of items for sale—apartments for rent, jobs, et 

cetera. So I cannot answer that with specificity. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That brings me to my next question. Have 

you all done the math? And maybe the staff is busy working on 

this. What percentage of the ads on Backpage are sex-related 

versus the other kinds of advertisements that they pretend they 

are interested in? 

Ms. SOURAS. NCMEC has not. I know other groups have done research on the ads that are on Backpage. NCMEC is really responsive to our cases, so when we receive a child sex-trafficking report, 

an exploitation report, we go to Backpage on that report. Similarly, 

when we have a missing child case where the child may be trafficked, we go to Backpage for that child. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It appears that they are engaging—and, of 

course, we are trying to find out. That is what this is about. We 

are trying to find out the facts. It appears that this is a very important part of their business model because I do not think anyone 

could say this is not high risk. So if you are engaging in high-risk 

activity, it is usually because it has a great deal of impact on the 

bottom line. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Roberts, as I said, this hearing is not about 

reaching conclusions about Backpage, about what they have or 

have not done. Instead, it is about affirming the legitimacy of this 

investigation and the legitimacy of the questions that we are asking and that we demand answers to as the U.S. Senate. 

In fact, in your amicus brief that you filed with the Supreme 

Court of Washington—both in your amicus brief and the NCMEC 

amicus brief—you explain the importance of receiving much of the 
14 

same information that we are seeking. You stress the records of 

Backpage’s ad screeners and its protocols for creating an ad, 

screening for and rejecting ads offering children, and flagging and 

banning repeat offenders. 

Can you explain why it is so critical for anti-trafficking efforts for 

Backpage to produce this kind of material and why our efforts to 

get this material is so essential and why we should spare no procedural effort to get at these facts? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Absolutely, Senator, and thank you again for making this effort. Without understanding what is going on, we cannot 

understand whether they are putting in sufficient effort to solve 

the problem. And, again, because Backpage continually invokes 

their own efforts to block children from being advertised on their 

site as the reason that they should be allowed to continue operating freely in this area, even as they litigate vigorously to protect 

themselves from laws and lawsuits that might hold them accountable, that attempt to hold them accountable for having trafficked 

children on their website they invoke these protections. So we need 

to know precisely what these protections are. What are they doing? 

How significant are they relative to the overall volume of 

Backpage’s business? 

I think it is important for regulators and members of the public 

to assess how much is Backpage putting into compliance. I mean, 

if this is a tremendously profitable business for them, what is an 

appropriate amount for them to spend trying to keep children from 

being sold for sex? 

Senator MCCASKILL. They are claiming protection under the law 

while refusing to give the people who represent the law the facts 

that would, in fact, support their claim. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Right, and that is obviously—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. They are basically saying, ‘‘You should trust 

us. We are not going to give you any information.’’ Has Backpage 

ever produced the documents the National Association of Attorneys 

General requested of them in 2011 and 2012? Has that information 

ever been produced? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I do not believe so, Senator. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Senator McCain. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN 

Senator MCCAIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank all Members for their involvement in this really distasteful 

issue but one of transcendent importance. I would like to especially 

thank Senator Heitkamp for her significant involvement and advocacy for the children on this really unsavory, unpleasant aspect of 

America that seems to have grown over time with the ability to use 

technology. 

Mr. Chairman, I have been a Member of this Subcommittee for 

many years. I have never known of a witness to refuse a subpoena, 

and I am sure that you will take the necessary action to ensure 

that that is not done with impunity. And I applaud you for your 

actions. 
15 

This is all about money, isn’t it, Mr. Roberts? Eighty percent of 

their revenue for Backpage can be directly derived from their commercial sex advertising? We are talking about money, aren’t we? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It appears so, Senator. 

Senator MCCAIN. And this is the most egregious example of that, 

but it goes on with other websites around the country. This just 

happened to be the most egregious. In fact, two Federal courts have 

reached the conclusion that they are in violation of law. 

What do we need to do about the whole situation, which is to 

some degree the result of increased technology and means of communication? What do we need to do? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It is a very complicated question, sir. I can tell you 

about some of the efforts that are taking place. The King County 

prosecuting attorney’s office, which is the prosecuting attorney for 

Seattle, the largest office in the State of Washington, is doing some 

real cutting-edge work in this area. 

Senator MCCAIN. What about the U.S. Attorney General? 

Mr. ROBERTS. It has been a couple years since I was with the 

Justice Department, sir. I know that at least in Washington State 

the Department of Justice—— 

Senator MCCAIN. So you do not know of any Federal active engagement? Do you, Ms. Souras? Do you know of any? 

Ms. SOURAS. No, sir, I do not. 

Senator MCCAIN. So you do not know of any priority with the Attorney General of the United States? 

Ms. SOURAS. I am not aware of any at this time. 

Senator MCCAIN. Mr. Chairman, maybe one of the results of this 

hearing could be to increase the priority of this issue with—since 

it is a national issue. 

Please proceed, Mr. Roberts. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Senator, I was just going to mention that our local 

prosecuting attorney’s office is working on a project that seeks to 

inhibit the online demand for persons seeking sex, particularly 

with minors, by placing targeted advertisements online. In the 

same way that Backpage apparently seeks to become the first 

search result when someone searches for an adult services-type ad 

online, the prosecuting attorney’s office is placing ads that ask people, ‘‘Do you really want to be buying sex?’’ and try to expose them 

to some of the negative effects that take place when they participate in the commercial sex economy, describing that women often 

are not there willingly, that there is a great deal of exploitation, 

violence, harm, trauma that comes from these efforts. And that has 

been supported in part by grants from private sources, and we believe it has some potential to hopefully make some impact. 

Senator MCCAIN. So the fact that this has such a devastating effect is the hook, really, that should lead to every attempt being 

made to stop this evil. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes, sir. 

Senator MCCAIN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that 

maybe we could, all of us on this Committee, maybe send a message to the United States Attorney General that we need some priority on this issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses. 
16 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Senator McCain, and good point. 

Senator Heitkamp. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member, for this very important hearing. In the halls of Congress, 

we frequently represent and talk about some of the most powerful 

people in America, what we are going to do with the large banks, 

what we are going to do, and today we are talking about the most 

vulnerable people in America, small children, basically being exploited, being captured, and being sold as sex slaves. What could 

be more horrific than that? 

And we are told by an organization like Backpage.com that they 

are doing everything, they are trying as hard as they can to prevent this horrible thing from happening to children. I think today 

we are saying, ‘‘You need to try harder. And if you were truly trying as hard as what you could, if you truly cared, you would be in 

this room with us talking about how we could, in fact, attack this 

problem.’’ 

They are not in this room because they are not in this fight with 

the rest of us. They are not here to protect children. They are here 

to make money, as Senator McCain talked about. 

And I want to just kind of tell you what we are seeing in North 

Dakota, because a lot of people think that this is something that 

is removed, it is a city issue, it is something that big cities experience. But in North Dakota, this issue has hit us, and it has hit us 

hard, because Backpage.com allows it to be invisible. There is nobody walking the street corners. It is invisible. 

And so just yesterday, to give you a sense of where we are, just 

yesterday 69 new ads for ‘‘escorts’’—and I put that in quotes—posted on Backpage in North Dakota alone. Sixty-nine. 

And I want to tell you a story. Earlier this year, a 14-year-old 

Las Vegas runaway was rescued from traffickers in Minot, after 

her mother saw emails in her inbox, her email inbox, basically advertising her, answering an ad that had been posted on 

Backpage.com. 

Last summer, right across from Fargo, North Dakota, in Moorhead, Minnesota, the local law enforcement officials responded to 

a posting on Backpage.com and found a 13-year-old runaway from 

Minneapolis who had been trafficked for sex. 

Now, are we to assume that these are the only minors who ever 

appeared in North Dakota on Backpage.com? Well, you would have 

to be quite naive and foolish to assume that is the fact. And you 

would have to be quite naive and foolish to believe that we really 

have a partner in solving this problem at Backpage.com. We do not 

have a partner there. We have somebody who is, I believe, not participating in solving this problem but, in fact, capitalizing and becoming filthy rich—and I use the word ‘‘filthy’’ honestly—filthy rich 

on Backpage.com. 

So one of the issues that I want to explore in the time that I 

have left is basically the issue of metadata, because we have talked 

a little bit about, scrubbing the ads, rewriting the ads. But it is my 

understanding that metadata is also being scrubbed off these ads, 

which then eliminates some opportunity for actually tracing back 
17 

to the source where these ads are. And this is a question for either 

one of you to explain how metadata is being treated on 

Backpage.com as it relates to escort advertising. 

Ms. SOURAS. Senator, your understanding is correct. When 

NCMEC receives a Backpage ad that has been reported, there is 

not metadata in back of that ad. Metadata, like an Internet Protocol (IP) address or other types of electronic data information, is 

incredibly relevant and important as far as identifying location, geographic location, and other types of information that may be pertinent to connecting the individual who took that photograph with 

the actual photograph and the location of that individual. Without 

that information, it is often very difficult for NCMEC, certainly for 

law enforcement, to start to connect that child to that photo. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Do you see metadata being removed from an 

advertisement for a car or anything else on Backpage? Do they 

take the metadata off those ads? 

Ms. SOURAS. We do not see those ad photos in the same way, so 

that would be a difficult question for me to answer. 

Senator HEITKAMP. OK. Mr. Roberts. 

Mr. ROBERTS. In response to the Senator’s question, I would just 

add metadata can be especially important in trafficking prosecutions because what a lot of people do not realize—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think we all understand how important it 

is. Would there be any legitimate business purpose for removing 

metadata from the advertisement? Commercial purpose? 

Ms. SOURAS. It is storage intensive, so there is an investment 

that might be required of servers and—— 

Senator HEITKAMP. And storage is so expensive these days, 

right? 

Ms. SOURAS. It is getting cheaper. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Yes, it is very cheap. And so let us not pretend that this is about storage, quite honestly. 

I know I am out of time, but I want to give a shout-out to a great 

partner who has put her reputation and has been a great partner 

to the National Center for Missing and Exploited People, and that 

is Senator McCain’s wife, Cindy McCain, who has been absolutely 

a champion and I think has done more to raise the issue of 

Backpage than almost anyone else in this country. And so she is 

a great partner to have and a fierce champion for children in this 

country. And so we are grateful that even though she is not at this 

dais, she is definitely here with us today as we address this issue. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Senator. She was here in the form 

of her husband, and when I asked Senator McCain whether he 

could come by today, he immediately said, ‘‘Of course I am going 

to come because of Cindy.’’ And she has been great in raising 

awareness for this issue. I have spoken with her at conferences, 

and she has spent a lot of time and effort internationally as well 

as here in this country on this issue. Senator Lankford. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD 

Senator LANKFORD. Well, thanks for the work. Thanks for all you 

are doing. As a Dad of two daughters, this is important to me, as 

it is important to everyone else on this dais, as it is important to 

the Nation. This is an issue that has to be confronted. This is a 
18 

dark spot in our country that we have to be able to both shine light 

on and to be able to deal with in the days ahead. So I appreciate 

what you are doing because I can only imagine it is very difficult, 

hard work, and it is painful to be able to see the images and be 

able to walk this through with a lot of families. So just from us to 

you, thank you for what you are doing for a lot of families around 

the country. 

What is the cost of one of these ads on Backpage? How much is 

a child worth nowadays to run on an ad? 

Ms. SOURAS. Senator, Backpage rigorously calibrates its ads according to the geographic location. So in some large cities, like 

Manhattan, in New York, an ad can go for upwards of $18 or 

more—Boston, Miami, et cetera. In a smaller town, they will calibrate lower to satisfy the customer demand there to a few dollars. 

Senator LANKFORD. So a child ad could be a few dollars, or it 

could be $18 or $20? 

Ms. SOURAS. To purchase the ad, yes. 

Senator LANKFORD. To purchase the ad, right, to be able to put 

this up, to be able to get this service online. 

Ms. SOURAS. That is correct. 

Senator LANKFORD. So Backpage is obviously not the first that 

has dealt with this. Other locations have, other websites have. Give 

me an example of other websites and how they have dealt with this 

and how they have responded once they learn that child sex trafficking is happening on their site. How have other entities responded? 

Ms. SOURAS. Most entities deal with this issue, and as we know, 

almost anything can go up on the Internet. 

Senator LANKFORD. Correct. 

Ms. SOURAS. So everyone is subjected to this threat. However, 

what a responsible corporate entity does is it takes tremendous 

preventative measures. So it has real moderation, it has real review of its ads. 

Senator LANKFORD. So give me an example of that. What does 

real moderation look like? What have other sites done to say, ‘‘We 

want to make sure this does not happen here, so we are going to 

do this’’? What are they doing? 

Ms. SOURAS. They often use hashing technologies or other types 

of technologies such as PhotoDNA, which is a Microsoft product. It 

enables someone to take basically a digital fingerprint of an image 

so that they, as they get new ads, can screen new photographs. If 

they get a hit off an ad that they know is a trafficked child, it immediately comes out. It does not get posted. It reduces the moderation cost as well. It is much faster, more efficient. 

They also have well-trained moderation staffs. The sort of instructions that were being provided to the moderators that the 

Chairman went over are not the type of instructions that, again, 

responsible companies with professional moderators utilize. 

Senator LANKFORD. So how expensive is that software? Is that 

millions of dollars to be able to purchase software like that? 

Ms. SOURAS. No, it is not. 

Senator LANKFORD. So give me a ballpark figure. 
19 

Ms. SOURAS. Hashing technology generally is a very low cost to 

no cost. There are some costs to implement, of course, into a company’s systems. The PhotoDNA product is provided at no cost. 

Senator LANKFORD. OK. 

Mr. ROBERTS. Senator, in response to your question about the 

relative cost, you might be interested to know our local law enforcement has been involved in placing sting ads onsites, including 

Backpage, that appear to be advertisements for young persons who 

could be bought for sex. And in response to one of these ads that 

might cost $18 or so, law enforcement sees literally hundreds of potential responses within a few hours of it being posted, which 

should give you some impression of why it is so lucrative for the 

traffickers. 

Senator LANKFORD. So knowing all that and what you are trying 

to do in Washington State—you all have been at this for a while— 

how do you measure success? How do you measure progress, that 

we are achieving progress because we are seeing this? What 

metrics are you looking for? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, it is difficult to measure in part because we 

do not have great statistics as to what is going on, and that is one 

of the things that we as a State have been emphasizing, is that we 

need to better study what the scope of the trafficking problem is. 

Our indication based on our most recent study from about 2008 

locally was that we believed we had something in the neighborhood 

of 300 to 500 minors being trafficked for sex on an annual basis 

in the Greater Seattle area. So if we could improve upon those 

numbers the next time we took a survey, we would know we were 

making progress. In the meantime, we just have to intercept as 

many child victims as law enforcement has the resources to do. We 

wish we had more resources. 

Senator LANKFORD. So you are bailing water at this point on a 

ship that is taking on a lot of water, and you are bailing basically 

for staying afloat. That becomes the key. So I assume, as you mentioned before, you have a lot of partners working on this, nonprofits, churches, other agencies. The question from Senator 

McCain about the U.S. Attorney and the Department of Justice, I 

would hope that they are stepping in full force on this as well, 

though it sounded like it was unknown what role they are playing 

at this point. We can ask them, and obviously they can tell us what 

they are doing on this. But are there partners that are missing? Industry obviously has to be one of those partners. We are asking 

Backpage to actually be a responsible corporate citizen, to actually 

take on something that is clearly illegal away from their business 

model. What partners are you missing? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Industry is improving quite a bit, sir. There have 

been efforts in the hospitality industry to train staff members on 

recognition of trafficking situations. We definitely would like to see 

better responses from organizations like Backpage. 

I would say in the Seattle area there is a very strong presence 

led by the local U.S. Attorney’s office, and there has been grant 

funding by the Department of Justice for that effort. The Washington Coalition Against Trafficking and the Washington Anti-Trafficking Response Network both have significant Federal funding 

and significant participation from Federal law enforcement, includ-
20 

ing the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). So we feel that the Federal Government 

and the Justice Department are a valuable partner in the State of 

Washington. 

Senator LANKFORD. Good, as they should be in this area especially. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Senator PORTMAN. Senator Ayotte. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AYOTTE 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I wanted to ask, Ms. Souras, about the Communications Decency 

Act, and as I understand it, Backpage is trying to hide behind this 

act, and I want to understand, as I look at—as we—and I am very 

glad, by the way, that the Chairman and Ranking Member are 

doing this investigation because I think it is incredibly important. 

But I want to understand how under that particular act Backpage 

can rely on that act to shield itself from the activities that, in my 

view, seem to be very clearly facilitating trafficking in children and 

other illegal activities. So you are lawyer. 

Ms. SOURAS. Yes. 

Senator AYOTTE. I wanted to get your thoughts on this. 

Ms. SOURAS. Thank you, Senator. You are correct. Backpage has 

really used the CDA as a flag, as a shield against the current lawsuits and threats of prosecution that may have arisen from time to 

time. Their basic argument under the CDA is that they are a mere 

publisher, so a bulletin board that someone might put up in a supermarket; they are not responsible for the note cards that people 

put on that bulletin board selling certain items. 

That seems very unrealistic when we are thinking that the item 

for sale here is a human being and potentially a child. But that is 

the basic component under the language of the CDA, which is a 

fairly old statute, was created really to engender growth and encourage growth of the Internet, and it serves a tremendously important purpose in that regard, but did seek to protect Internet 

providers from, let us say, rampant defamation suits and things of 

that sort because there was so much public content going on to 

some of these sites. So Backpage takes advantage of that and says, 

‘‘We are a mere publisher. We just provide the mechanism. We are 

not responsible for what people put on.’’ That is why some of this 

information that I understand is coming out of the Committee’s investigation regarding the editing of ads is crucial and I think will 

be an area that many attorneys and prosecutors will be focusing 

on after this hearing. 

Senator AYOTTE. In other words, information that they themselves may be editing ads so, therefore, are quite aware of the content of the fact that what they are posting is involving the illegal 

solicitation and horrific solicitation of children and other illegal activities, other trafficking activities that are against the law. 

Ms. SOURAS. Absolutely, and are also crossing that boundary between a mere publisher and participating in the creation of that ad 

through their editing. 

Senator AYOTTE. So you mentioned the CDA, and they are using 

it as a shield. Obviously, we have talked today, as I understand 
21 

your testimony, that other providers certainly are not using the 

CDA in the way that Backpage is and are taking more affirmative 

steps to make sure that there are not these times of horrific, illegal 

ads on their sites. Isn’t that true? 

Ms. SOURAS. That is correct. 

Senator AYOTTE. So there is a huge contrast there. Do you think 

that we as a Committee, as we look at this issue, need to revisit 

or look at the CDA and how it is being used in light of the current 

State of the Internet given that it is an older statute and given 

that we have this Backpage using this statute in a way, obviously, 

they are posting these ads of trafficking of children, which is just 

appalling? 

Ms. SOURAS. I know there has been tremendous discussion on 

the Hill, in the Senate and the House, regarding the CDA, especially with a focus on anti-trafficking measures. NCMEC has been 

very involved in speaking with a number of members and their 

staffs regarding the CDA and how is it that it could be, let us say, 

brought up to date a little bit or altered a bit so that unique sites 

like Backpage who are not going to undertake the usual corporate 

protections could not see that as a defense for them. 

Senator AYOTTE. I am a strong proponent of obviously all the 

Internet and the entrepreneurship and great things we have seen 

from it. But I cannot believe that when the CDA was enacted, the 

lawmakers who passed it could have envisioned a website like 

Backpage and really they are using this as a shield for disgusting 

types of illegal activity being posted there. So I hope that we will 

look at that issue as well as a Committee to make sure that they 

cannot use this statute in an improper way as a shield. 

Thank you. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Senator Ayotte. 

We will go another round, if that is OK. I know that there are 

Members who are still here who have questions, and I certainly do. 

Again, we appreciate your testimony so far, and it has been troubling in the sense that you have made it clear that this technology 

is increasing the risk to our kids and that you are not getting the 

cooperation that you certainly sought, which is unfortunately what 

the experience has been with this Subcommittee in lack of cooperation. 

You did testify that over the course of 3 years, Ms. Souras, you 

worked with Backpage regarding child sex trafficking on its 

website and provided them with a number of specific recommendations of how they could utilize their available technology but do it 

in a way that would reduce child sexual exploitation. I think you 

have mentioned a couple of those today, but I would like you to tell 

us specifically what recommendations did you make that Backpage 

chose not to adopt. 

Ms. SOURAS. Certainly the most egregious one is the one I mentioned, which is that they do not remove an ad even after they 

have reported it for child sex trafficking, and even if a parent has 

written in and said, ‘‘This is my child in this ad.’’ So that certainly 

is the most egregious. 

Also, their failure to really introduce any one of a variety of, 

again, the Know Your Customer or the verification models. We are 

all on the Internet, and we know if we go to even a cooking site 
22 

for a recipe or to make a purchase, we often will be required to authenticate ourselves in some way, put in an email or a mobile number and get a text to verify back that we are who we are and then 

we can proceed to use that content on the Internet—very simple 

mechanisms used for very innocuous content. As the Senator mentioned, this is very high risk content when you are talking about 

escort ads and its proclivity for misuse in trafficking and especially 

in child sex trafficking. 

So one thing we recommended was validation of a telephone 

number, a mobile number, an email address of some sort. They 

have not done that to our knowledge. 

Also, the capture and reporting through the CyberTipline of the 

IP address, again, when you do not have the metadata, an IP address is crucial to try to locate the geographic location of that ad. 

Especially for a trafficking crime when a child is moved from city 

to city, IP addresses could enable you to better track where that 

child is being trafficked. 

Again, as I mentioned before, the use of a variety of different 

types of hashing technologies, PhotoDNA or other commercial 

hashing technologies, but really utilizing it, not simply hashing 

your photographs and keeping the hashes dormant. You must utilize those hashes if you are really going to have a successful prevention mechanism to screen your ads, to try to prevent content 

that you know has been reported as child sex trafficking from ever 

going up, so a moderator is never seeing that ad and making the 

call, is it really too young or not, in the words of the Backpage 

managers. 

Also, again, just flagging the various identifiers in an ad. An ad 

can have a cell phone, a location, a pet name of some sort, an email 

address—these are important identifiers. Traffickers often are marketing various girls or boys on the website for trafficking. By capturing that information from one ad and using it to screen through 

the other ads on the system, Backpage would be able to link ads 

that might all be connected to one trafficker—another suggestion 

that NCMEC made which Backpage to our knowledge has not 

adopted and told us that it would not adopt. 

There are a few others. Those are some of the primary ones. 

Senator PORTMAN. Well, thank you. And all those would go toward you being able to rescue these kids, all of us being able to 

rescue our children. They also go to law enforcement, though, and 

being able to prosecute these cases. 

Ms. SOURAS. Absolutely. 

Senator PORTMAN. The first example you used of them not pulling ads, earlier you said that a mother finally sent them an email 

saying, ‘‘For God’s sake, she is only 16.’’ So for all of us who are 

parents or grandparents, think about that. ‘‘For God’s sake, she is 

only 16.’’ And yet they refused to pull the ad. 

And with regard to finding these children, again, you all have 

been very helpful to us in Ohio. We appreciate that, and we have 

worked with you on legislation to help finding exploited children 

and missing children. But think about that. Not being able to provide that information to law enforcement means you cannot find 

many children who otherwise could be able to be found. Again, the 

heartbreak of knowing that that information is out there some-
23 

where, and yet a supposedly legitimate commercial concern will not 

provide you the information or provide it to law enforcement to be 

able to find your child, to me this is what this hearing is really all 

about. It is about these kids and about this practice that keeps you 

from doing your job at the National Center, but also keeps so many 

parents and grandparents from being able to save their children 

and rescue their children. 

With that, Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Roberts, could you briefly outline for 

the record why you believe Backpage operates outside the immunity of the Communications Decency Act? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Well, Senator, I do not have enough information 

yet to definitively say one way or the other, but the concern that 

we expressed in our amicus brief is obviously that they are exceeding the bounds of the exemption. In other words, by actually participating in drafting the ads, by making themselves a go-to location for ads advertising prostitution among such sites, and by 

crafting essentially the message that is being sent to try to keep 

it so that it does not involve or does not appear to involve—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Children. 

Mr. ROBERTS [continuing]. Child trafficking. Exactly. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So their engagement in editing and shaping 

the content is at this point—because we are all hitting walls in 

terms of getting good information from Backpage—is the reason. 

So assuming that we eventually through legal processes get the 

information, I am assuming that this is the kind of factual scenario 

that could, in fact, lay an adequate foundation for the Racketeer 

Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO). Would you agree with 

that? 

Mr. ROBERTS. I think that is a possibility. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Because this is an enterprise. This is not 

one activity. This is an enterprise of activity. 

I want to give a shout-out to you and your colleagues and the literally hundreds and hundreds of prosecutors across the country 

that are prosecuting these cases against traffickers, against pimps, 

and against customers. I appreciate the comments of Senator 

McCain, but I know for a fact that there are many U.S. Attorney’s 

Offices that are actively engaged in a cooperative fashion with local 

law enforcement and bringing these cases. The case I referenced in 

my opening statement was, in fact, filed by a U.S. Attorney’s Office 

against the two traffickers that were taking these young girls from 

truck stop to truck stop. 

By the way, these pimps that take these girls from truck to truck 

call them ‘‘lot lizards,’’ for the record, which is as distasteful as the 

underlying practice of pimping these young women out. 

One of the things that is interesting to me is how many stings 

go on on Backpage. It is the go-to place for law enforcement to 

place sting ads, and there are literally thousands of cases moving 

through the criminal justice system right now where customers 

have been caught in stings. 

Have you all tried at NCMEC ever to place an ad in the section 

of Backpage saying to people who are interested in escorts and sex, 

‘‘You should know this site is a No. 1 location for sting activity, and 

you have a high likelihood of being prosecuted’’? Has anybody ever 
24 

tried to place that ad? Because it seems to me that we have two 

problems here. We have the Backpage problem, we have the criminal element of traffickers problems, and then we have the demand 

problem, and the fact that too many people believe they can do this 

in anonymity, that they can try to access young children through 

the Internet. 

What efforts have you been privy to, Ms. Souras, of the various 

organizations that are trying to do good in this area to inform 

would-be customers that the chances that they are responding to 

an ad that has a law enforcement officer on the other side go dramatically up when they think that they are going to be successful 

at being anonymous? 

Ms. SOURAS. Thank you, Senator. I am certainly aware that some 

of my nonprofit colleagues at other organizations do engage in that 

kind of advocacy, or attempt to on Backpage. It is my understanding that some of the organizations that have tried to place 

messages such as you just detailed, those ads have been blocked 

from the escort section or removed at some point. So it is very difficult for a nonprofit organization to place an advocacy message or 

a public awareness message for a potential buyer on Backpage. 

That is my understanding. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, then we need to make sure that, as 

we try to get information from Backpage, we include that question: 

How many times have you blocked an ad informing would-be customers that there is a likelihood that the ad you may be responding 

to may, in fact, be law enforcement? 

Ms. SOURAS. Absolutely, and I am happy to refer the Committee 

to some of those nonprofits. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That would be terrific because, factually, I 

think as a prosecutor, that would be very important to a case I was 

trying to bring. 

Mr. ROBERTS. And, Senator, placing ads of that type is one of the 

efforts of the King County prosecuting attorney’s office. However, 

I believe they have been focusing on purchasing ad results from 

search engines, like Google and Microsoft. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. I know there are lots of different avenues to try to get at this incredible problem. Well, thank you. I 

think you all have made a very powerful case as to why it is important that we be tenacious and refuse to give up. And let me just 

say for the record that I know how dedicated the Chairman is to 

this issue; I know how dedicated I am to this issue; I know how 

dedicated Senator Heitkamp is to this issue. And if Backpage 

thinks they are going to go quietly into the night, they are sadly 

mistaken. 

Senator PORTMAN. Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator HEITKAMP. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to maybe give 

another shout-out to an organization called Truckers Against Trafficking. They are working to deal with kind of a culture that needs 

to change within that subset, and they are doing terrific work in 

terms of educating and hopefully are making strides along with the 

rest of you in addressing the demand problem, because we know 

even as reprehensible as what all of this is, as long as there is a 

demand, we are going to find the next iteration, the next generation, and so we need to be on top of that as well. 
25 

Senator Ayotte and the Chairman and Ranking Member, as we 

look kind of going forward, we are looking at things that we can 

do today. We are going to continue to be as tenacious as what we 

possibly can on this investigation. But I want to talk about maybe 

a couple ideas that could add to the effort here legislatively. And 

I think, Ms. Souras, in your testimony you mentioned the fact that 

current Federal law requires entities defined as electronic service 

providers report apparent instances of child pornography that they 

are being made aware of. So that is Federal law. But the same requirement does not exist for apparent instances of child sex trafficking. 

Why do you think that is? Do you think it would make a difference if that law were changed to include child sex trafficking? 

And has this issue ever been raised before Congress? And has there 

been a broader discussion? Is this an additional tool that we could 

be using and looking at? 

Ms. SOURAS. At NCMEC we think this would be a tremendous 

additional tool. I think historically it was not in the initial statutory requirement that you reference, perhaps for a number of reasons. Perhaps the focus was not so much on instances of online 

trafficking as it was on child pornography at that time, and it has 

done wonders to address that problem. 

I also think child-trafficking ads or content are somewhat inherently more difficult to identify than a child pornography image 

where you simply have a photo and you know if it is apparent child 

pornography or not. A child sex-trafficking ad or content will be a 

mixture often of text and ads, photographs as well. 

That being said, we have had some anecdotal discussions with 

staff on the Hill regarding that gap, that small gap in the reporting 

statute. It is a change and a further discussion that NCMEC would 

welcome participating in. We believe if there is a requirement to 

report, again, only apparent or child sex-trafficking content that a 

server may become aware of—they have no obligation to search, of 

course, for any of this content. If they did start reporting that to 

NCMEC, it would not only increase our ability to provide that information through to law enforcement and assist families and victims in the process; it also, I think, would go very far to assisting 

in our prevention measures. We would see more ad content and be 

able to develop prevention measures that would address the content we are seeing. 

Senator HEITKAMP. And legitimate actors would err on the side 

of advancing that kind of content. Correct? 

Ms. SOURAS. Yes, correct. 

Senator HEITKAMP. People who really cared about this problem 

would, in fact, welcome an opportunity to have someone who is a 

partner with them to stop this from happening. Correct? 

Ms. SOURAS. Absolutely, yes. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I want to, I think, really thank all the advocacy groups and all of you who have been on the front end of this, 

who have been toiling, and we know that this is not just a problem 

for our country. But as we work through these as a defender of the 

First Amendment and as we work through that balance, the work 

that we do here is work that will have repercussions not just in our 

country but across the world. 
26 

And so I really want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member for making this a priority for the Committee, and I want 

to thank you for your testimony. It has been great to see you all 

again, and if there is anything more that we can do or that you 

think of, I hope that you will reach out either to the Committee or 

individual Members who have been working on these issues. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp, and thank you 

for your leadership on this. And as you can see, all of my colleagues 

on this Subcommittee have a passion for this issue, an intense interest. I think what we have been able to find today are some very 

specific ways in which to deal with the online issue, and, Ms. 

Souras, in particular, your laundry list of things that you have 

asked Backpage to do that they have not done certainly would help 

both in terms of finding missing kids, as we say, prevention, as you 

say, and in terms of law enforcement and prosecutions. There are 

also other things that can and should be done with regard to sex 

trafficking. We did pass legislation, as you know, here in Congress 

that was signed into law earlier this year. You were very involved 

with that, and you worked with us particularly on some of the 

missing children issues who are the most vulnerable to trafficking, 

but also the demand side issue. We really ought to make some 

progress at the Federal level for the first time in 15 years. And 

then, finally, we were able to change some of the Federal—the bias 

in the legislation to say that these young women and men, girls, 

boys, who are involved in this are indeed victims and should not 

be treated as criminals but, rather, as victims so that we can deal 

with their trauma, which, as you said earlier, is long term, sometimes lifelong. 

And so this is, I think, an opportunity for us not just to talk 

about Backpage and the obvious disappointment all of us have and 

their inability to be here today, but also their unwillingness to cooperate more generally with this issue. But it is also a chance to 

talk about efforts we can take going forward to combat sex trafficking and to try to put an end to sex trafficking in this country. 

So we thank you very much, both of you, for your testimony this 

morning. Mr. Roberts, thank you for your hard work. I know you 

will keep it up nationally, working with all the Attorneys General. 

And, Ms. Souras, and for John Walsh and John Clark, who are 

here from the National Center, thank you for your leadership on 

this, and to all the groups who are out there in the trenches working on this issue every day, and a particular shout-out to those who 

are embracing these victims and helping them to get through this 

trauma. Having met with victims in Ohio, some of whom are only 

recently going into a treatment and recovery process, others who 

have been at it for years, this is the most heartbreaking and difficult part of this whole process. And so thanks to all those groups 

that are involved, and individuals. 

We would excuse you, and we are now going to call the second 

panel. 

[Pause.] 

I would like to call the CEO of Backpage, Carl Ferrer. 

[No response.] 
27 

We had hoped Mr. Ferrer would be here, but he has refused to 

come. And we have talked a lot about the underlying sex-trafficking issue here this morning, a horrific practice. It goes on, 

sadly, here in the 21st Century, really one of the great human 

rights causes of our century. 

We have also talked about the fact that we have not received cooperation from Backpage in looking into some very legitimate questions that have been raised, and our report lays out enough evidence to make it clear why we need the information. 

At this point in the hearing, we had planned to hear testimony 

from Backpage’s CEO, Mr. Carl Ferrer. Mr. Ferrer has been under 

a legal obligation to appear before the Subcommittee since October 

1, and the Subcommittee notified him by letter on November 3 that 

his appearance was scheduled for this morning. 

The same day we sent the letter, the Subcommittee staff called 

Mr. Ferrer’s lawyers to confirm that Mr. Ferrer should plan to appear and that we could not accept logistical excuses for not showing 

up. Mr. Ferrer’s lawyers did not mention any conflict of interest. 

Last Friday, less than a week ago, Mr. Ferrer’s lawyers asked us 

to excuse his appearance because he was traveling and that, if 

called to testify, he would plead the Fifth Amendment. They did 

not say it would be impossible for Mr. Ferrer to appear. The Subcommittee denied that request on Monday. 

A witness has the right to refuse to answer questions that may 

incriminate him, but that right belongs to the witness, not his lawyers. It is appropriate to require a witness himself to appear, hear 

the questions put to him, and to exercise his constitutional right 

not to answer any questions he believes in good faith may tend to 

incriminate him. Again, as I said earlier, this Subcommittee would 

respect any valid assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege. But 

there is no privilege not to show up. 

Yesterday, around noon, however, Mr. Ferrer’s lawyers wrote to 

Senator McCaskill and myself informing us that Mr. Ferrer would 

not appear today because he is on an international business trip. 

This is truly extraordinary. You heard from Senator McCain earlier 

who said that, in his many years on this Subcommittee, he has 

never seen a situation where a witness simply refused to appear. 

It is not acceptable for a witness under subpoena to wait until the 

day before his appearance to announce unilaterally that he will be 

out of the country and refuse to appear. 

Senator McCaskill and I, of course, are conferring about next 

steps, but we both consider Mr. Ferrer’s refusal to appear here a 

clear act of contempt. 

I would now like to turn to Senator McCaskill if she would like 

to add a few words on this point. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, the laws of this country should apply 

to everyone, and we should take all steps necessary to make sure 

that we fulfill our obligations under the law. And under the law, 

the Senate is entitled to ask witnesses to appear before it and for 

them to answer questions and provide information. 

So I think it is important that we be steadfast in our resolve to 

get the information that we need in order to make sure that the 

public policy in this country is effective when it comes to children 

being victims. This is not an exercise in having a hearing. This is 
28 

an exercise in making sure that we have done everything in the 

law to protect children. It is not any more complicated than that. 

And any witness who refuses to answer the lawful requirement of 

testimony and providing information must be held accountable for 

that. 

And so we will be careful and cautious about using the procedures available to us, but we will use them to ensure that this effort is robust and informed and that ultimately the result is that 

more children and more families feel the comfort that their government is doing everything it can under the law to protect them. 

Senator PORTMAN. I thank the Ranking Member. And as you see, 

we are partners in this effort, and we will not be deterred. 

I would also like to thank the Chairman of this Committee, the 

full Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

(HSGAC) Chair and Ranking Member for their help. Senator Johnson and Senator Carper have not just supported our efforts this 

morning. They have released a joint statement which commends 

PSI efforts in this regard, and I would now like that statement to 

be made part of the record. They are supporting us not just on the 

important work we are doing to combat human trafficking, but also 

with regard to any actions we might take with regard to Backpage 

and their unwillingness to cooperate. 

Senator PORTMAN. We began this bipartisan investigation with a 

very simple goal: better informing Congress about the issue of sex 

trafficking, how to combat it through smart reforms, including legislative actions. We will not be deterred from that inquiry. If 

Backpage fails to change course and comply with the Subcommittee’s subpoena, the appropriate next step is to pursue contempt 

proceedings. This is a step the Senate has not taken in 20 years— 

as I said earlier, this is extraordinary—and PSI has not taken for 

more than 30 years. But, regrettably, Backpage’s conduct has invited this very unusual action. 

When dealing with a party acting in good faith, we would be inclined to pursue what is known as civil contempt. That involves a 

resolution authorizing the Senate Legal Counsel to bring a civil 

lawsuit to compel Backpage to comply. But I think I speak for Senator McCaskill and myself when I say this case appears to be more 

serious than a good-faith disagreement. It is not about questions of 

privilege. 

As I noted, Backpage’s lawyers have told PSI that the company 

has not even bothered to search for and identify the documents responsive to the subpoena. And with no lawful excuse, the company’s CEO has defaulted on his obligation to appear before the 

Subcommittee today. 

These are not actions of a party acting in good faith. He could 

have come. He could have pleaded the Fifth. He chose not even to 

come. Rather, it is evidence of willful defiance of the Senate’s process. 

For those reasons, after consulting with our staff and Senate 

Legal Counsel, Senator McCaskill and I believe this case may justify a referral to the Department of Justice for criminal contempt. 

We will consider the appropriate course in the next few days. 

Again, I would like to thank the witnesses and my colleagues for 

their participation today in this very important hearing. The hear-
29 

ing record will remain open for 15 days for any additional comments or questions from any of the Subcommittee members. 

And, with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 

Æ