Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, at the very start, I am grateful, and I praise my cosponsor, Senator Portman, who has helped to lead in the championing of this measure. He has really been steadfast in the face of a lot of challenges. It was a difficult bill to draft and then to redraft and change again in response to suggestions that we received from friends and adversaries, but Senator Portman has been really stalwart throughout it.

I join him in thanking our partners, Senator McCaskill, Senator McCain, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Cornyn, and, of course, Senator Thune, who is the chairman of the committee, and Ranking Member Nelson.

This road began for me more than 10 years ago when I was the State attorney general in Connecticut, and I wanted to pursue legal remedies against the websites. Back then, it was craigslist or MySpace that promoted sex trafficking and prostitution as well as pornography. My staff informed me that there was a provision of Federal law--section 230 of the Communications Decency Act--that would stop me in my tracks. Indeed, it has stopped others, most recently some of the survivors of sex trafficking who were told by a Federal court of appeals, in effect, that what happened to you is outrageous, and there should be a remedy for you, but section 230 of the Communications Decency Act blocks your day in court. It closes the courthouse doors to you in your seeking a legal remedy.

Along the way, there were many who said to Senator Portman and to me that we could never pass this legislation because it would hold trafficking websites accountable. They said the opponents of this change were too powerful, too big, too entrenched. They said the victims and survivors were too powerless, too invisible.

We have met them. We know their stories. They are heartbreaking. They are children--some younger than the pages in this Chamber today--who have endured torture that is unspeakable and unthinkable for anyone of any age, and they deserve their day in court, rights, and remedies-- real remedies that make the rights real.

So I thank Senator Portman, and I thank, as he has also done, those survivors who have come forward and been the faces and voices of our cause. Their courage and strength and that of their family members have enabled us to reach this point.

I emphasize that this measure is very carefully and narrowly written to address a specific harm, and I want to take a couple of minutes to correct any misunderstanding that there may be in this Chamber.

First, some of the legislation's critics have claimed it will impose liability on the so-called Good Samaritan. In reality, this bill explicitly preserves subsection 230(c)(2)(A) of the Communications Decency Act, commonly called the Good Samaritan provision. This provision ensures that websites cannot be held liable on account of actions taken in good faith to restrict objectionable material. SESTA is crystal clear on this point. A website operator's good deeds cannot be used against him.

This measure is also technology neutral. It imposes no requirement that website operators use a particular technology to screen their sites for objectionable content. They are free to use whatever technology they wish. That is why the Internet Association and its member companies support this legislation. They know that if technology companies work to prevent human trafficking and not to profit from it, they have nothing to fear from this measure.

I understand that an amendment has been offered to restate SESTA's Good Samaritan provision. Even if the amendment only protected Good Samaritans, it would be unnecessary and potentially confusing to the courts. I emphasize that point. It would obfuscate and confuse the good intent of the Good Samaritan provision. It would also derail this widely popular legislation by sending it back to the House, where special interests will have another chance to kill it. Unfortunately, this proposed amendment--perhaps unintentionally--would not simply protect Good Samaritans; it would also protect websites that operate in bad faith. It would also protect websites that identify sex trafficking ads and then leave them up in order to continue profiting from them.

I will briefly talk about one other amendment that has been offered-- again, while being well-intentioned--that threatens to derail this legislation.

The amendment would provide additional money to Attorney General Sessions to investigate and prosecute websites that criminally facilitate human trafficking. I believe law enforcement ought to have additional resources. I firmly support more funding to investigate and prosecute this criminal activity, but this bill is not the means by which to do it.

In fact, law enforcement and the community against human trafficking are strongly against these amendments. Let me repeat. These law enforcement groups include the Fraternal Order of Police, the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, the FBI Agents Association, and I could go down the list. In fact, there is no need to.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, my colleagues should take heed of what these groups are saying because they see through the potentially derailing impact of these amendments.

I close by again thanking my friend and partner, Senator Portman, as well as Senator McCaskill, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Cornyn, and Senator McCain.

This measure is truly bipartisan, as it should be. There is nothing partisan about sex trafficking. There is nothing excusable or tolerable about it. I hope the Senate will do its job tomorrow and send this legislation to the President's desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source