U.S. State Attorneys General

It's always a roll of the dice when you try to rely on report language or legislative history.

I don't remember 1996 ever believing that my vote, my yes vote, meant that I was going to allow 21 years later for kids to be sold out there through the Internet for sex.

If we don't have the tools, the only winners are those who go to the Internet.

In fact, recently, 49 of my colleagues--representing nearly every U.S. state--signed a letter to this Committee urging Congress to act.

I therefore applaud the current efforts to make clear that the Communications Decency Act does not bar states from pursuing these important prosecutions.

It's important to thank the tech industry. As all of you know, many in the tech industry have stepped up to be partners with law enforcement and child advocates to combat human trafficking.

It's the rubber hitting the road, Senator, and we're facing it all the time.

The broad reach of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act even applies to those alleged to support the exploitation of others by human trafficking.

S. 1693 is a serious effort to balance the virtues of a free and open Internet with the bedrock American value that our children are our greatest asset, each one of them, and we must hold those who exploit them accountable.

It's up to us. Because of this interpretation of the law over the last 20 years, only the Congress can fix this injustice.

I think everyone should realize here, at least from the perspective of attorney general or a district attorney, we have to prove criminal intent.

This bill is about protecting our most vulnerable. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue.

I therefore support passage of S. 1693 and its amendments to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

There's too much money. They're not going to stop. There's just too much money.

The fact that instances of human trafficking and sex trafficking are actually increasing in this country in this century is an outrage.

This knowing standard, by the way, in our legislation is a high bar, as the lawyers around this panel know.

Support is growing for the legislation.

How does something like this occur over an extended period of time?

Increases in operational tempo coupled with the limited number of ships and sailors likely lead to more deployments of longer duration.

So, I would be interested to know what you're doing with your control and operational and schedule pressures to address these concerns that have been raised in this hearing.

So, what are you planning to change that situation?

The Optimized Fleet Response Plan, the new fleet deployment and maintenance model, appears to be falling short.

If we're aware that a ship is not certified and ready to deploy, that ship should not deploy.

Our Service Chiefs, including the Chief of Naval Operations, have testified repeatedly that the Budget Control Act and sequestration are endangering the lives of our men and women in uniform.