within moscow now and the people making this decision i would venture to guess and i don't know and i'm pretty certain that they, themselves are looking at this dynamic and there's two opposing schools of thought. one group is pushing hard for more aggressive action. another group is partly saying, these sanctions are going to hurt our pocketbook and our ability to do things. like this, we should not underestimate how important the asian market rts going to be for russia's future short term ability to export energy. and, in fact, the estimates are going to be become leading and to do that, they have to have the capacity and they have to explore and i pointed to the fact they're going to struggle in eastern siberia and some of these gas deposits have high amounts of helium and that requires extensive work and they need access not just to financing but western technology and that leads me to as we view this dynamic they're having this debate in moscow about worried about sanctions but we have this group pushing for more -- and i

would guess despite all the assistance they're getting some of the separatists feel like moscow isn't enough they want them to do who. given all these preeshs it's my view the best way to influence this in the direction we'd like to see it head is not simply to threaten sanctions to but to make clear what those sanctions would look like so it's not a guessing game about what will happen if they do this. they know, in fact, what it would look like and i know the ideal scenario is we do it and others will join us in it. but my sense of it is that potentially the best way to ensure that is through american leadership. if america is willing to -- at least american congress is willing to graphically spell out what the specific consequences will be of specific actions, automatically, not what the president may decide to do, it would strengthen our hand in that regard. mr. hadly, i think you said we would be getting close to that point so i hope you would both expand and if time permits.

i had an issue related to russia but not directly to ukraine and it may seem like it's out of left field but i'm curious given the amount of knowledge you both havebility russia, what do you think the response would be given the events in iraq that have happened recently if the syrians ask the russians to conduct their strikes in syria against isil? how opened would that be to that sort of measure? that's a separate question 57d i want to focus on the specific sanctions by congress would further the direction of the decisionmaking in moscow. >> i'd make three points. one, i think your description of his strategy is accurate and it's very, very important that it be seen to fail. because if it succeeds he'll do it again elsewhere. when he went into georgia in 2008, we all said -- today georgia, tomorrow crimea and the

day after, the baltics. he's two-thirds of the way there. one, it's important to fail. go, i think it would be very useful as i said in my opening comments, to have that kind of roadmap. if he takes these activities or fails to stop what he's doing, these are the kinds of sanctions he would face. i think that would be a useful thing. i would hope, though, as much as possible, we could coordinate it with the european so that angela merkel would be leading the europeans so they would follow our roadmap. it doesn't say we don't do it without them but it will be more effective and we can bring them along. third with -- >> they're probably in a good mood in germany after last night's game. we should jump on that. >> they may be even better after the finals. third, i'll go back to what i said before. this is not only about sanctions. but if we're going to be effective against putin's strategy, we need the other six

or seven items that i outlined in my statement that are elements of a comprehensive long-term approach to this problem. that's what we need. sanctions, yes. but take a look at the other things and let's be moving out on the other elements of a comprehensive policy. >> i agree very much. >> what's your view on the syrians acting them to conduct -- >> the first question that comes to my mind is where would they stage it from? you know? they will have the seaborn capability for air operations that we have. so it would have to be done in some fashion from russian territory. >> or from syrian territory that the syrians -- >> well, what facilities are really available for them on syrian territory? >> other than the seaport the naval seaport.

would they be toempted to do it? i rather suspect not. i think the russians are going to avoid an entanglement with the whole host of issues that are being unleashed in the middle east. and they much prefer us to become more entangled. this is one of the reasons why i've been urging restraint on our part. because it seems to me that these are issues that are not likely to be solved entirely by the use of force and certainly we've already learned from both afghanistan and iraq that the use of force in these very complex ethnic religious national circumstances is very, very costly and unpredictable a undertaking. >> it's a murky area and press reports say that russian su-22's a flying strikes in iraq. that's press reports. it's unclear are they flown by

iraqi pilots? by russian pilots? or iranian pilots? this is a murky and confused situation. >> well, thank you both for your insights and expertise. it's an tremendous value to the committee. with the thanks of this committee, this hearing is ayour honor,ed. -- this hearing is adjourned. bernard kerik joined us "today" show to talk about his time on the police commissioner and then later his incarceration serve three years in federal prison. >> as a cop and a law enforcement officer you have a job and your job is to take bad guys off the streets.

you don't necessarily think what happens to them in the long run. and don't get me wrong, i put people in prison. i put people in prison for a long time and years, 20 years, 30 years, life. some for life. is except these were really bad people that did bad things. they tried to kill me. they shot my partner. they killed men that i worked with. i seized tons of cocaine from them. millions in drug proceeds. but then i went to prison and i met these young men that were sentenced to 10, 15 years for minor drug offenses. i met commercial fishermen that caught too many fish. i met young men trying to buy their first home that enhanced their income on a mortgage application and were charged with bank fraud and sentenced to 18 months or two years, three years in prison.

i never realized, never even thought about, those types of circumstances. we've evolved into a society where we now fake a number of irregulartory issues and turn them into crimes. turn that conduct into criminal conduct. and i'm not saying these people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. but a commercial fishermen that catches too many fish? fine him. penalize him in some way. but to make him a convicted felon, to take his license away, i was with a man that had been fishing since he was 17 or 18 years old. he was now 55. he owned his own business for the last 40 years. he lost his business. he lost his license. he lost his life. his family was an public assistance. because he caught too many fish. fine him.

you now turned him into a convicted felon. the guys in the prime years of his life. he now can't work. can't get a job. has no business. pace no taxes. can't take care of his family and i just don't -- i don't see that as just. >> you can watch our entire discussion with former new york city police commissioner bernard kerik tonight starts at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. the national governor's association quicked off their three-day summer meeting in nashville today. tomorrow, on california span will continue live coverage from the nga summer meeting with a discussion on income reform. that starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and that will be followed at 11:45 eastern with a look at education and job training at the nga. and then, in the afternoon at 3:45 a discussion on homeland security issues with the chair and vice chair of that committee, governors jay nixon of missouri and ric snider of

vermont. all live tomorrow on c-span. this weekend on "newsmakers" arizona congressman discusses immigration, border issues and the progressive agenda in congress. newsmakers airs on sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and the senate on c-span2 here on c-span3 we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events and on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv. with programs that tell our nation a story including six unique viers. the civil war's 150th anniversary. visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts, touring museums and historic sites to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past.

the history bookshelf. the president says, looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief. lecturers in history with top college professors delving into america's past and our new series "real america" films from the 1930's to the '70s. c-span3 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. 40 years ago, the watergate scandal led to the only recession cigarette nation of an american president. throughout this month and early august, american history tv revisits 1974, and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend, hear the supreme court oral argument, united states v nixon as the watergate special prosecutor contests the president's claim of executive privilege over his oval office recordings. >> the president may be right in

how he reads the constitution. but he may also be wrong. and if he is wrong, who is there to tell him so? and if there's no one, then the president, of course, is free to pursue his course offer erroneous interpretations. what, then, becomes of our constitutional form of government? >> watergate, 40 years later. sunday night at 8:00 eastern on american history tv on c-span3. coming up next for you is a senate hearing looking at child trafficking and ways to identify and prevent a practice known as rehoming. in which parents transfer custody of their adopted children over the internet by passing the government's child welfare system. witnesses include the homeland security department's children's bureau associate commissioner as well as the reuters reporter whose five-year investigation

helped to bring the issue to light. this hearing lasts about 90 minute minutes. good morning, everyone. the senate subcommittee on children and families will now come to order. today's hearing is titled "falling through the cracks. the challenges of prevention and identification in child trafficking and private rehoming." i want to thank all our witnesses whom are here today to testify and i look forward to hearing your testimony and i know many of you have traveled many miles to get here so i do appreciate your attendance. and i also want to thank our ranking member, senator for

joining me today to address this very important issue that we're going to be discussing in the hearing today. we're here to discuss the significant challenges that we face in the effort to prevent child trafficking and private rehoming. and to identify and support the children who have been victims of these types of abuse. too many child victims today are going unidentified, misidentified or underreported. and as we'll see, one of the reasons for this, is the lack of education and training for our educators who many times are on the front lines and see these children. our health care providers, who see these children as they pr t present for a number of reasons and then our social workers. but with appropriate guidance these dedicated professionals can play a critical role both by helping to prevent these practices and by offering potentially, life-saving assistance to those children who

need it the most. there are thousands of children, some accounts show up to 300,000 that are being trafficked here in the united states. these young victims are often hidden in plain sight and in many cases they are still attending school which makes it particularly important that our educators can recognize the signs of a trafficking victim and then respond accordingly. this can be hard to fathom. it was really hard for me, personally. but the average age of a child trafficking victim in the united states is between 11 years old to 14 years old. these are very young, vulnerable children. girls at this age are particularly vulnerable. they may face trouble at home and then become susceptible to pressure from their peers or by manipulation by a trafficker. this happened to a young girl from a town in coastal north carolina.

she was attending school during the day but in the evenings, a man whom she believed was her boyfriend, was actually selling her to other men for sex, often m multiple times each night. it wasn't until she was questioned at school one day that authorities found lingerie in her book bag and her story then came to light. that is why it is so critical that our educators understand this horrific problem and recognize the signs in youth that they work with every day. they can help make our students aware of the dangers and then the educate them so they are not so vulnerable. similarly, our health care providers need to have appropriate guidelines and screening practices to recognize trafficking victims in their care. as we're going to hear today, the health care response needs to be further developed to address the shortage of education and training for our

providers. if they're aware of the problems they face additional problems when working with trafficking. they are hesitant to disclose snare experiences for fear of repercussions by the individuals who are their traffickers. this also happened to a 14-year-old girl that has been reported to me. her trafficker had branded this young girl with a tattoo, as if she was his possession and then advertised her services on back page. when authorities found her hiding behind a dumpster, she had been severely rape and traumatized. but when she was finally brought in to receive care she was so afraid of her trafficker that she recanted her story and then was referred to law enforcement for prosecution. instead of receiving the health care services that she so desperately needed, unfortunately, these instances are not unique. child traffic is prevalent in

all of our communities and it will take all the community stakeholders to come together to address this problem. but we need leadership from the federal government to help raise this awareness about the issue and to lead the way in developing the practices and procedures that will increase the prevention efforts and help improve the identification of our trafficked youth. last december, i introduced bipartisan legislation to address this growing problem of child trafficking with senator rue rubio called the strainging of the child response to legislation act. this would fill some of the gaps in the current system by providing professionals with the tools that they need to identify, document, educate and council child victims of sex and labor trafficking. it would also amend the child abuse protection and 2r50e789

a treatment act to maybe sure they properly identify, serve and report children and allow law enforcement to be better able to traffic them and there are many ways in which this problem needs to be addressed but this hearing will be the first to explore how educators and health care providers can respond to child trafficking. then the second topic of this hearing is the issue of private rehoming of adopted children. that was a new word for me in the last year or two. and i'm pleased to hold this hearing as it is the first hearing in the senate on the topic. the practice of "rehoming" first came to light last september when megan too. ooey, who was here with us today, a reporter for reuters, she published her findings with an investigation during which she examined more than 5,000 messages posted over five years on a yahoo! group site that was

disruption." she identified 261 adopted children who were, quote, advertised online by their new families and in many cases rehomed into the care of adults who, too often, had a history of negligent, abuse or sexually exploiting other children. they exploited several adopted parents who rehomed their children with a simple transfer of a power of attorney document, thus, circumventing the protections of our child welfare system and jeopardizing those children's safety. not surprisingly, many of the children involved in this unregulated transactions suffered from behavioral, emotional and health issues. these are heart-breaking stories. and they involve children that too often, had come into contact with our school employees or with health care providers who, despite their best efforts, were unable to offer these children the help that they needed because these individuals had

not been trained to recognize these warning signs and i'm hopeful. >> our discussion today will shine a light on this growing problem. so that we can work together to ensure that professionals and education and health care, who are in contact with these children, are prepared to offer them the help that they need. with adequate training, these dedicated individuals can help begin to identify the signs and symptoms in children and then, to help report them as potential victims. and make sure that at-risk children don't slip through the cracks and become victims in the future. to help us understand the challenges of prevention and identification of the victims of child trafficking and private rehoming, we're going to hear from a group of our distinguished panelists this morning. they'll share with us their stories and insights and the work that they've done on these issues to help both prevent the proliferation of these types of abuse and then, also, obviously,

to help these children and young people who have been the victims. to our panelists, i ask you to keep your oral statements your opening statements to five minutes. and i also thank you for your excellent written statement, which have been submitted to the record. senator enzy, i would love to hear your opening comments. >> thank you madam chairman and thank you for holding this important hearing to discuss the issues surrounding identification and prevention of child traffic and rehoming instances in our country. most of a us say how ask this happen in america? we want something better for future generations for our children and grand children and i believe these sentiments hold true particularly for those of this future generation whose outcomes are in danger. i think we can all agree there's no greater bipartisan issue than the mutual desire to keep children safe and healthy and

protected in loving homes. to thend, several committees wi take up the issues of concern in the child, trafficking and rehoming spheres. i'm eager to retackle this by discussing these issues including discussion of what processes are currently in place in our schools and health care sector to identify children who may be victim of trafficking and start talking about how we can increase the number of children who are preventatively identified. one of our witnesses today is from a school in san diego that's practicing a plan that has worked. dating back to my days as mayor, the city of gillette, wyoming, i learned and have always believed folks at the local level can best solve most of the problem we face so i'm eager to hear how schools and states can collaborate to better address children who are in danger of becoming or already trafficking victims. rehoming is also a relatively new topic of discussion in congress. today, the focus will largely be on education and taking a look

at this issue and its prevalence in engaging in a dialogue about what the federal role is in this space. at the end of the day our goal is to have better outcomes for our nation's children and youth. that's my goal and the goal of many of my colleagues. i'm hopeful we can use this opportunity to gather and share information and learn from states while encouraging state collaboration and work together on substantive issues. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you, senator. i am so appreciative of the work that we have done together on these issues. and i thank you for your help and support. now we'd like to hear from our witnesses. our first witness is miss ju yung change. the children's bureau with theites department of hechlt and human services. our next witness is abigail english from my home state of north carolina. she's a lair, researcher and an

advocate and is currently the director for the center of adolescent health and law at the university of north carolina at chapel hill. recently ms. english was a member of tins stut 06 medicine and the national research committee which issued the report titled "confronting commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of minors in the u.s." following ms. english is janee latrell. she's an assistant principal at the grossmont junior high school in san diego, california. after recognizing that children in her school district were being suggested to child sex trafficking, approximately four years ago, ms. latrell and her colleagues partnered with local law enforcement, developed training for teachers so professionals in the classrooms are now able to recognize the warning signs and connect the at-risk students to the critical sport h support services that

they need. and then finally, we have miss megan tooimplt ooey. investigative reporter for reuters in nosh who wroes the investigative series that first highlighted the practice of private rehoming. so we'll begin with ms. chang and please limit your opening remarks to five minutes and once each of you have concluded then we'll begin the question and answer period of the hearing. >> thank you, their woman hagan and thank you for inviting me to testify today. i'm the associate commissioner of the children's bureau where yooefr see the federal foster care and adoption assistance programs as well as a range of prevention and post permanency initiatives. i'm pleased to have this opportunity to share with you the department of health and human services response to two very serious issues confronting the field of child welfare. the practice of adoptive parents rehoming their adoptive children and human trafficking.

i'll start with my comments on rehoming. many of the stories highlighted in this the reuters investigative series described parents who are unable to meet the complex emotional and behavioral needs that emerged from their children post adoption. these parents turn to online forums to advertise and facilitate the placement of their children without the benefit of safety and criminal background checks or a home study to determine the appropriateness of the placement. the reuters art cal suggests that children advertise on these message boards are often placed in unsafe environments and are highly vulnerable to exploitation. parents have a legal responsibility to protect and care for their children. delegating responsibility for a child to apotentially unfit and unsafe individual 24r50u a power of attorney does not insulate parents from state laws regarding imminent risk of

serious harm. i want to be clear. the practice of rehoming is unacceptable. it is clearly an act of abuse and neglect and i had should receive the full attention of child welfare agencies. many of the key legal requirements related to child abuse and neglect, guardianship and power of attorney as well as adoption are determined by states. federal law require states have a process to receive and respond to all allegations of allegations of neglect and it provides a minimum definition state laws actually determine what constitutes abuse, negligent, abandonment or exploitation of children. the reuters' article brought to our attention the need to provide guidance to states on how to respond when parents place their children in dangerous situations and it also highlighted the need for enhanced preparation, support and post adoption services for all adoptive families. the children's bureau released new guidance to states on may

30th of this year in the form of an information memorandum to help support children and families affected by disrupted adoptions. through the im, we encourage states to review their laws that govern these yourself to ensure that the issues that arise through the practice of rehoming are adequately addressed. we also encourage states to promote the available of post adoption services and resources through various means of outreach and information sharing to the adoption community and most importantly to provide support before families are in a state of crisis. the children's bureau has also issued two funding opportunity announcements this spring related to the enhanced development and available of post adoption services that would be available for all adopted children and youth. i'd like to now turn my focus to the issue of child trafficking. hhs is committed to ensuring the victims of all forms of human

trafficking have the access to the services ands they need to foster health and well being, abused and neglected children are unfortunately, vulnerable to trafficking. some trafficked children have had contact with child welfare in some form and some are current or previous wards of the state. in order to better understand and serve child victims of human trafficking child welfare agencies are strongly encouraged to build their capacity to work with victims of human trafficking. capacity building should include areas like institutional education, staff training, supporting policies and procedures, appropriate screening and assessment tools. resource, development and data collection and analysis. with coordinated efforts in these areas, we hope to decrease vulnerability in trafficking among children and youth and to eequipment systems and services to identify and intervene early to address the needs of

victimized young people. the children's bureau is committed to providing information to states and service programs to build greater awareness and better response to the problem of child trafficking. and in september of 2013, we published a guidance to states and this year we will award grants that are designed to continue the development of child welfare system's response to human trafficking through infrastructure building and a multisystem approach with schools, law enforcement, juvenile justice, courts, run-away and homeless youth programs and other necessary service providers. the administration looks forward to working with you to address both of these crucial issues and improve services to some of our most vulnerable young people. again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, ms. chang. police english? >> thank you, senator.

thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. my name is abigail english and i'm director of the center for adolescent health and the law in chapel hill, north carolina. the sex trafficking of children and address he sents represents profound violations of their human rights. the physical, emotional, social and legal burden on the victims and survivors is severe and can have life-long even life-threatening consequences. in 2012 and 2013, i was privileged to serve as a member of an iom institute of medicine and national research council committee which published its comprehensive report in 201 confronting commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking of minors in the united states. and 2010 and 2011, i was a fellow at the radcliffe institute for advanced study at harvard university conducting research on sexual exploitation and trafficking of adolescents.

the iom committee's deliberations were guided by three fundamental principles. one, commercial sexual exploitation and soaks trafficking of minors should be understood as acts of abuse against children and adolescents. two, minors who are commercially sexually exploited are trafficked for sexual purposes should not be consider criminals. and three, identification of victims and survivors and any interventions should do no further harm to any child or adolescent. the iom committee also concluded that efforts to prevent, identify and respond require better collaborative approaches and must confront demand and hold accountable the individuals who commit and benefit from these abusive acts and crimes. although accurate nationwide prevalence estimates based on reliable evidence are not available, the iom committee

concluded that the available evidence does suggest that commercial sexual exapproximately station and sex trafficking of minors has been reported in every region and state and that victims come from diverse backgrounds in terms of geography, income, race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation. nevertheless, some populations of children are likely to be a heightened risk for victimization. these include children who have been sexually abused, youth who lack stable housing, sexual and gender minority youth. youth who have used or abused drugs or alcohol and youth who have experienced homelessness, foster placement or juvenile justice involvement. the iom kochl found health care professionals can play an important role in the prevention and identification of children and adolescents who are victims or who may be at risk of

commercial sexual exploitation and sex trafficking. however, numerous barriers exist to limit identification. these barriers include a lack of understanding and awareness, the lack of disclosure by victims. and a lack of established screening practices, policies and protocols to guide health care professionals. such practices, policies and protocols do exist for child abuse and domestic violence, which could provide a basis for developing ones for sexual exploitation and trafficking. health care professionals also have a role to play in treatment. in order to provide effective prevention identification and treatment for victims and survivors, health care professionals require specific training and tools. educators of school personnel also can play an important role in the prevention and identification of children and adolescents who are victimized

by or at risk for commercial sexual exploitation. and sex trafficking. similar to the ways in which school-based health education initiatives have been used, for example, to promote physical activity, reduce tobacco use, promote healthy sexual behaviors, reduce dating violence and reduce alcohol-impaired driving schools could develop prevention initiatives directed to the reduction and remediation to the commercial sex exploitation and extrafficking. in order to ensure prevention and 0i6gs effoidentification efs to no home appropriate services must be available to which victims and survivors can be referred if and when they are identified. more thorough evaluation of trauma informed care is warranted and emergency shelter and short and long-term housing are particularly scarce. without appropriate services,

victims and survivors are at risk for re-exploitation and repeat trafficking. finally, in a majority of states it's still possible for prostituted, exploited and trafficked children to be arrested, prosecuted and detained and incarcerated for sexual offenses like prostitution or for related offenseslike loitering or drug offenses, even if they were being exploited or trafficked. a growing number of states are enacting laws often referred to as "safe harbor laws" to redirect exploited and trafficked children and adolescents out of the jaifl and criminal justice system and into the child welfare system or to other services. the iom report recommends that all jurisdictions develop laws and policies designed for this purpose. thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. and i look forward to your questions.

>> nauj can be miss english. ms. latrell? >> thank you senator hagan and other members of the committee here today. my name is janae latrell and i'm currently an assistant principal in grossmont union high school district. i've spent my entire career developing and implementing programs and services to address the social and emotional needs of students especially the most vulnerable and working to create policies, services and learning environment viermtds to support physical and emotional safety of students. for the past years, my attention and focus has been on the issue of child sex trafficking and it is an honor to be here today to testify about the prevention and early identification work that we've done in grossmont union high school district. schools can and should be safe havens for students and even more so for some whose lives are otherwise characterized by instability, and lack of safety or security. and these cases, school personnel are uniquely well positioned to identify and report suspected abuse and connect students to services. actions that can prevent

trafficking and even save lives. everyone who is part of the school community, administrations, bus drivers, maintenance personnel, foot service workers, resource officers and others, have the potential to be an advocate for child victims of human trafficking but first they must learn the indicators of the krooirm, its warning signs and how to respond when a student is an apparent victim. along with our partners, law enforcement, child welfare and social services, we have developed a program. it includes four key components. increase staff awareness and education on the inkay tors and nature of the crime. two, increase student awareness of the risks and realities of trafficking. three, clearly articulated district policy and protocol for identifying a suspected victim, responding to a diggs closure from a suspected victim. and four, strong working partnerships with law enforcement, child welfare, probation and social services. in february, 2008, committed to

the concept of effective inner agency and information sharing our community worked with dr. james pepperdine professor and nationally recognized expert, to create an information-sharing agreement. this agreement allowed for sharing of information across our systems and helped us to identify our first student victim of child sex trafficking. since that time, our partnership has identified countless victims and survivors of child sex trafficking. and we've educated and protected numerous potential victims. we've learned the magnitude and scope of the problem is greater than any one of our systems realized and it is definitely more challenges than any one system can address alone. we've learned that schools play a critical role in protecting students and need the proper training and support in order to do so. beginning in the fall of 2010, we developed a comprehensive staff training for all school personnel about the dynamics of child sex trafficking, the scope of the crime, warning signs, campus impact and it clearly

identified -- clearly defined course of action on how to respond. along with our partners we developed a protocol for response from a staff member confirms or suspects a student is a trafficking victim. we have trained our counselors on how to provide trauma-specific services and when to bring in outside experts to support a student impacted by sex trafficking. we've also partnered with national and local experts to develop a prevention curriculum for students and most importantly we develop mechanisms and infrastructure for collaboration among public agencies and other stakeholders while building upon the successes and structures, processes and relationships already in place. in closing, i would like to share actual quotes from sex trafficking survivors when asked their opinions when asked how schools should address this issue. quote, i know my teacher knew something was wrong with me. on a few occasions she saw me getting out of my pirp's car before school. i would catch her looking at melike she was trying to figure out what to do with me.

i wish she had done something. quote, watch it and address it. we know you're aware it's lapping. quote, educate all staff about the warning signs. if i knew i had someone to turn to,, i would have done so. quote, don't give up on us when we get in trouble. work with us to figure out whooi things are happening. student victims need schools across the nation to be trained on identification and response and in many cases the adults on campus are the last responsible adults to touch these young people's lives before they are victimized or lost to this crime. thank you for the opportunity to speak and i look forward to questions. >> thank you, ms. latrell. ms. tooey? >> thank you, chairwoman hagan and ranking members for inviting me to testify today. start 2012 i began to examine disrupted adoptions. cases in which parents conclude they cannot success fly raise an adopted child. during my researches i discovered a : destine you're

world where some parents solicited new families for children they no longer wanted. in internet forums on yahoo! and facebook, the boths from these parents were strike aring. quote, i'm totally ashamed to say it but we truly hate this boy, one woman wrote of the 11-year-old son she don'ted from guatemala. i would have given her away to a serial killer i was so desperate said another parent of her adopted daughter. these parents were not simply venting they were actively offloading children. it's called private rehoming a term used by people seeking new homes for their pets. what we didn't know, what no one knew was how often this was happening and what had become of the children who were given away. because parents handled the custody transfers privately, often with strangers they met online and often, through nothing more than a notarized power of attorney, no government agency was involved. and none was investigating the practice. the federal government estimates that overall, about 10 to 25% of

adoptions fail. but no authority systemically tracks what happens to children after they are adopted domestically or internationally. to quantify the frequency of rehoming we conducted a deep dive on one of the online forums where this activity was taking place. we meticulously examine ford than 5,000 messages posted on the yahoo! bull ten board going back five years and built a database to help us process our findings. we discovered that over that five-year period, in this one forum alone, a child was offered to strangers on average, once a week. the activity span the nation. children in 34 states had been advertised. many were transferred from parents in one state to families in another. and at least 70% were said to have been adopted overseas. and many were said to suffer from physical and emotional and behavioral problems. it was clear from the online descriptions abused children that they were among society's most vulnerable. child, eyes experts pointed out that their backgrounds and the

manner in which they were advertised made them ripe for exploitation. beyond the database we pieced together more than a dozen cases of rehoming. i traveled around the country gathering records and interviewing parents and adoptees. these are three examples of what i found. after determining that the 10-year-old boy she adopted from the foster care system was too troubled to keep, a wisconsin mother solicited aid new family for him on a yahoo! group. i couldn't stand to look at him anymore, she told me. i wanted this child gone. within hours the mother handed the boy off in a hotel parking lot to a woman whose biological children had been permanently removed from her care. and to a man who is now in prison for chooild pornography. this couple lives in ill nye at the time, drove the boy home with them with the wisconsin mother having no idea who they'll really were. she had no idea that the illinois woman's children has been removed after officials determined she suffered receiver siechk atrick problems as well

as violent tendencies or the man had an affinity for yooung boston he later shared with an undercover agent in a pedophile chatroom. thewoman believed their assurances that they were good people with good intenses. in another case, a russian girl thought her adoption by an american couple would bring a world of happiness. my picture was i'm going to have family and go to school and i'm going to have friends. and she's now 27 and told me less than a year after bringing her home, her adoptive apartments gave up trying to raise her. they turned to the internet and sent her to three different homes over the course of six months. none wanted to keep her. in one home, she says she suffered physical abuse and in another, she says the father molested her. she was sent to a michigan psych atrick facility at the age of 13 after her adoptive apartments refused to take her back. officials characterized her trouble this is way. substance abuse, domestic violence, separation from parents, sexual and fizz kalg abuse, verbal, emotional abuse,

attachment and mental health issues. to her the situation seemed bleak. my parents didn't want me. russia didn't want me. i didn't want to live, she told me. another girl was adopted from haiti at 13. she told me she also suffered suicidal thoughts as she was passed among four families within two years. the familiar family to take me lived in ohio. she says she was one of 33 children and that the environment was chaotic. the third family abruptly sent her away after she brought to wlooirt allegations of sexual abuse of children in the home. now 18, she says the feelings of abandonment tool a toll. in addition to suicidal thoughts she developed an eating disorder. many of the young people i interviewed told me they had felt voiceless and alone. few had found anyone to advocate on their behalf. what is remomehoming happen? parents said they had few options as they tried to raise children with behavioral problems. adoption agencies refused to help.

residential treatment centers were expensive and some parents feared they would be charged to, yourself or neglect if they relir relooirng wished their child. as our investigation showed rehoming allowed abusers and others that escapedout any to easily, toin children. what are the obligations of rememberses on which the rehoming forums have taken place? it depends on who you ask. when i informed yahoo! of the activity i saw on user groups the company swiftly took down the sites. facebook allowed a similar forum to continue operating after we exposed it. is it legal? the answer is complicated. no state or federal blau specifically prohibits rehoming. some states prohibit the advertising and custody transfer. the laws are confusing and frequently ignored and airily have criminal sanctions. since our investigation at least four states, wisconsin,

louisiana, okay colorado and florida have enacted new restrictions on child advertising, custody transfers or both. the sfon sore of the wisconsin bill called remomenting, quote, a gaping hole that allows children to be placed in unsafe situations with dangerous and sometimes, life-threatening outcomes. in terms of a federal response, the congressional research service issued a report recommending ways congress should restrict this. the government accountability office will begin studies state and policies of to this. at the request of one of the senators four gral departments have been meeting to identify ways to address rehoming. senator wyden expressed shock that advertising children online does not seem to violate any federal laws. some child advocates say a federal law should place uniform restrictions on advertising of children and require that all custody transfers of children to nonrelatives be approved by a court. they say differing state responses aren't adequate to address what is largely an interstate practice. other advocates are seek more

government support for struggling adoptive families and more scrutiny of perspective adoptive parents. thank you for the opportunity to talk about this issue. unfortunately i can only give voice to some of the young people there remain many unaccounted rehomed children whose whereabouts are unknown. >> thank you. i thank all of you for your testimony. now we'll begin a series of questions. we'll take eight minutes per senator. and miss chang, from the personal stories that miss twohey shared concerning rehoming, it seems that families feel they have nowhere to turn. when their adopted child requires a different amount of support and services beyond their skill set. can you tell me what hhs can do to share information about trauma informed care with adoptive parents and front line workers including health care

provider and educators? >> yes, thank you, senator. i think there's a lot we can do to share information on what is effective in helping families who have adopted children provide evidence-based interventions that have been successful in helping deal with children with social and emotional behavioral needs. i do think it's important to point out, however, that most adoptive families and many of whom struggle with some of the same issues do not feel lake this is a choice that they would ever have to make. they do go and provide and seek and find assistance for their children. and i think most adoptive families and relative caregivers, as well as foster parents are loving families who really do provide for their children. >> certainly. and obviously we're talking about those situations where the stories that we've heard this morning and have read are just on the other end of that

spectrum. miss english, i wanted to ask you from the reports that you described, one of the challenges is often the lack of data and the lack of evidence that would inform the work of the federal, state, and local governments trying to address child trafficking. what can be done to improve the evidence gathering, the data collection so that the federal, state, and local policyholders can better address this problem? and then also i'm concerned about what can the health care providers and school personnel help overcome the challenges of the victims being afraid to disclose their stories? >> thank you, senator. the iom committee identified a number of different ways in which data gathering can be improved, and i'll say at the outset that there are several different kinds of data that

need to be gathered and evidence that needs to be built. first of all, we do need more data about who the children are who are being exploited and trafficked so that we can tailor identification tools and prevention strategies specifically to those who are at greatest risk -- >> can you give an example? >> and so the committee, while it said that trying to refine a national prevalence estimate was probably not the most appropriate strategy, conducting research on specific subpopulations of youth is something that could be supported by the federal government and would enhance the development of appropriate prevention tools and identification tools. in addition, we do not have evidence-based tools for identification and training. and there are a few examples of

training efforts and tools for identification that have promising -- are promising, but we need much more evaluation of those and other tools. for example, in houston, there are efforts, training efforts under way. in atlanta, there are specific child-oriented training efforts that have been implemented by a nonprofit coalition and the governor's office. and the polaris project, a nationally funded project, has an online training initiative. but all of those efforts could benefit from further evaluation, and similarly some of the tools that have been developed by places like asian health services in oakland and other

health care organizations and sites would benefit from evaluations so that they could be taken to scale and used in other settings. >> thank you. miss littrell, you actually set up a program. you said shortly after you set it up with coordination between different groups you actually helped identify your first victim. can you talk about how successful this program has been at your school? and what recommendations would you make to other school districts? what advice would you give them? and then sort of to wrap it up, how can the federal government help support the programs, the program that you put in place at your school? >> sure. thank you for the opportunity to clarify. actually, we developed an information-sharing agreement which was with our school district, six other school districts, child welfare, probation, and three law enforcement agencies -- >> six other school districts?

>> correct. >> okay. >> once we developed that information-sharing agreement, that's when we immediately identified our first survivor of sex trafficking because now all of the partners were at the same table. all of the stakeholders, all of the agencies that were working with the same families, were now able to talk openly and collaborate and understand what part we were seeing in relation to the whole. >> one other point -- obviously these are children. so this is all private information that is not public. >> correct. >> right. >> so it's -- what we're seeing in schools as well as what the probation officer might be seeing with one of our students as well as child welfare. so we're all touching that young person's life, but we weren't discussing openly and collaborating in a way that helped us understand what it was we were seeing. once we developed that information-sharing agreement, that's when we were first able to identify what was happening systematically, at least in our community, in what i've discovered across the nation was child sex trafficking.

once law enforcement really alerted us to the prevalence, the scope, and how -- the age that you discussed earlier that this was happening, we started moving to action. we as a school district did not want to wait until it was happening in our schools. we wanted to be at the front line and to keep this off of our campus. we know schools are where -- we just represent and reflect what's happening in the community. unfortunately, with this happening in the community, it's also happening to our students. so because of that, we worked with our partners, the experts, to create a systemic, comprehensive training for all of our administrator, our campus supervisors, nurses. what we discovered through research and as well as our own experience was disproportionately this was happening to children in the foster care system. children with disabilities. so we made sure those relevant staff were trained not only on warning signs but what to do. we know that our staff and schools are --

>> why don't you walk me through a situation of what to do? >> okay. so if we suspect, if a teacher suspects that they have a student that might be trafficked, they understand some of the warning signs. they then bring that concern to a staff member, typically a counselor who has received more in-depth training on how to engage a potential victim, how to actually have discussions to hopefully have that victim feel comfortable in disclosing what's happening. we've trained our administrators so when they are in the situation you shared earlier, when they're engaged with a student and in the case you shared they were in a backpack and discovered lingerie, when we're doing some of the standard businesses on campuses, we discovered different warning signs and flags. so if we suspect we have a victim, we work with that student as best as we can, we determine if we actually have a larger campus issue. if this student's being trafficked, if there's other students, if maybe the exploiter is approaching that student to and from school, we then, depending on the situation, work with communicating that to the

parent or guardian. we work with law enforcement, hopefully that that student will feel comfortable to share the information regarding the exploiter with law enforcement. we make sure that that student and family are getting the appropriate services in the community and oftentimes on campus. that way we can keep disproportionately the female students i'm talking about, we can keep her connected to a campus. >> thank you. my time is up. ms. twohey, i'll get you on the next round. senator enzi? >> thank you, madam chairman. this has been fascinating. reading the testimony was also very interesting, of course in a lot more detail. but miss chang, in your testimony you mentioned adoption disruptions and adoption dissolutions. can you explain the difference between those terms for me? >> sure, senator. so typically when we talk about adoption disruptions, we think about what happens during the process leading up to an

adoption. so we think about children in foster care, the process to be adopted can take, you know, up to two years in some instances. so sometimes during that process of moving toward adoption finalization there may be a disruption that prevents that adoption from being finalized. it may be due to the child's behavior, needs that a parent decides they aren't equipped to handle. other times, adoption dissolution refers toip typically to after an adoption has taken place. that may be a foster adoption, an overseas adoption, a domestic adoption, for whatever reason a parent decides that they are no longer able to care for that child. so we talk about that as an adoption dissolution. >> thank you. miss english, you mentioned the health providers have some

protections on abuse. but the protections were the same protections were not available for trafficking. could you elaborate on that a little bit more? >> thank you, senator enzi. what i was intending to clarify was that health care professionals are accustomed to identifying children who have been victims of child abuse and also victims of domestic violence. that those protocols and identification tools could be useful in developing similar tools for the identification of victims of trafficking. you have, however, raised an issue which i think is of great significance, and that is that health care professionals are

currently mandated to report instances of child abuse to child welfare and/or law enforcement authorities. and there is some lack of clarity in the laws around whether child sex trafficking is or is not included within that mandated reporting. in some states, mandated reporting extends only to abuse that takes place by a family member or a caretaker and not by a third party. in some states, however, it does extend to third parties. and a small number of states has -- have begun to enact specific provisions to include child sex trafficking within their child abuse reporting laws. there's also some concern on the part of health care professionals that if they report young people who have been victims of sexual

exploitation and trafficking, that may contribute to the distrust and reluctance those young people have to disclose their victimization to the health care professionals that are treating them. >> thank you. miss littrell, in your plan, your point number two was educating parents and students on risks and realities. how do you go about doing that? is there reaction from the community against that kind of discussion? >> there's obviously a concern from the community when you are talking about their children and the potential harm of their children being sex trafficked. that's where our partnerships are really important. we in the schools work with law enforcement, as i shared earlier. law enforcements are really the experts in what is happening in our local community. what does the recruitment look like? what gangs are involved in this? how is the exploited youth being victimized?

is it online, is it in certain pockets of the community? we as the schools partner with law enforcement in hosting public awareness events, hosting some educational opportunities to alert what are the warning signs, what are the risks, how to best protect their children. we in schools are ready to take in reports if they have concerns and if they are worried about either their child or even one of their child's friends or other classmates. so we felt really, really strongly that the best thing for us to do in schools is to be alerted and educated, so wherever we receive a referral, whether it's law enforcement or a family coming forward or student disclosure, we are ready to move to action and able to help that young person immediately. >> thank you. miss twohey, this re-homing is a new thing to a lot of people.

it's something pretty new to me. is re-homing limited to adopted families, or did you find examples of people re-homing their own kids? >> yeah. well that's a great question. and what i can tell you is the manner by which people re-home children is not something that would be limited to adopted children. anybody can basically in most states turn over a child to a stranger met on the internet with nothing more than a notarized power of attorney saying the child is now in this stranger's custody. whether it's for months or until the child turns 18. people can do that with an adopted child, people can do that with a biological child. we examined re-homing. we investigated it for 18 months and basically combed these internet forums where children were being advertised, and i didn't find a single offer of a child, of a parent offering

a biological child. it was primarily people who had adopted children from foreign countries, and also people who had adopted children from the foster care system. >> do you have any suggestions for people adopting kids from foreign countries as a result of your effort? >> yeah, well, you know, as a journalist, my job is to cleollt the facts and report them. so what other people in the course of doing my reporting -- certain things came out with regards to international adoption. this is something, this is an area that had been largely unregulated until 2008 when there were the first federal regulations of some international adoptions that took effect. those regulations said in order to adopt you had to undergo ten hours of training if you wanted to adopt a kid from certain foreign countries. for many of the other international adoptions there was no training requirement. so i talked to people who had adopted children from foreign

countries and hadn't really undergone any real preparation. so contrast that with the training that's required if you want to adopt a child out of foster care system. that can be dozens of hours of training. as i understand it, sometimes people undergo that training and say, you know what? i've got a good hard look at what's in store and i'm not going to, i can't move forward. i think one of the things that has come up is the training requirements. in terms of the quality and quantity of training that's required. also, the support that's available for struggling adoptive families when their adoptions go south, both internationally and domestically. >> thank you. my time has expired. i'll cover more on the training and resources next round. >> thank you. senator murphy? >> thank you very much, madam chair. miss twohey, you talked about the fact that states are

starting to amend their laws to provide of greater protection. can you talk about what you have found in your research to be the beginnings of best practices at the state level when it comes to protecting these children? one of the easy things that would seem to be a common sense requirement would be that the family has to go to court in order to get authorization to move a child that they had to go through the custody process in the first place to get. so what have you found to be the best ways that states can start to amend their laws to deal with this issue? >> so, you're correct. the child welfare system has been largely regulated by individual state laws. and in the course of my reporting, i discovered that in some states, you know, there are restrictions on who can go on the internet and advertise a

child for adoption or another type of custody transfer. some states say this is, you know, you have to have a licensed agency has to do that advertising of the child to ensure there is oversight of those involved. other states there are no restrictions on the advertising of children. i would also point out that a lot of these state laws on the advertising of children, i believe, have assumed that the children being advertised are newborns. young moms who don't want to keep their child and want to put the child up for adoption right after it's born. i don't think those laws basically were crafted with the understanding that in 2014, you'd have people advertising children who are 12 years old, who are 14 years old. the states vary when it comes to the advertising of children and also the custody transfers of children. there are now states that have, since our series came out in september, enacted new

restrictions on the custody transfer of children saying if you are going to transfer -- this is another situation where you had, i think that the state laws were such that they assume if you were going to transfer custody of a child through a notarized power of attorney going off to military service or going to the hospital, you would be doing that to a trusted relative or close friend of the family. i don't think that those state laws basically took into account that in 2014 you would have people transferring custody of their child to a stranger they met on the internet. now you've got some states saying if you are going to transfer custody of a child to a non-relative for longer than a year, you have to go through the court and make sure there's oversight of that. those are two things springing up at the state level as a way to address this. as i said, there are other people, child advocates pointed

out that this patchwork of varying state laws is never going to add quequately protect children and need a federal law that's going to require uniform advertising standards and, you know, regulation of custody transfers. >> so, miss chang, let me ask that question of you. your testimony references the fact that most all of this law is at the state level, but that certainly makes sense. that to the extent that re-homing is happening over the internet, it's crossing state borders. that that necessitates, even requires federal response. what do you think of that suggestion? >> i certainly agree with ms. twohey. the situation of re-homing by adoptive parents is something that most law makers never anticipated. if we think about the rights of parents to care for their children and make decisions about where they will live, where they will be placed, i don't think anyone anticipated this. i certainly think there's a lot of confusion about what legal

custody or power of attorney documents even mean. what kind of responsibility that confers and what responsibilities parents have to maintain. so i think guidance from the federal level about this new type of situation is certainly important. >> is there -- we talked about the fact that there are plenty of situations in which biological parents end up transferring custody of their children for a variety of reasons. there is no oversight at the federal or state level. is there a reason to treat adoptive children differently than biological children when it comes to the transfer of custody? >> i don't think so. it's really important for all of us to remember that a child who has been adopted is a part of that family now. they should be treated by the family and by law in the same way. i think children -- the question is how do we best protect children from parents who may place them in a dangerous situation?

i think that's the question we need to think about. i don't think we want this situation to lead us to treat adoptive families, including parents and children, differently. >> but what do you make of ms. twohey's investigation which suggests there is a differential in terms of how they're treated? in all the cases she found about the online advertising of children for re-homing, not a single one of them was a biological child. i certainly understand your argument, which suggests begin the expectations we have of adoptive families, we certainly have an interest in avoiding a double standard, but it suggested for a subset, and probably a very small subset of adoptive parents, there may be a different standard. what do you think about the evidence that she's uncovered as to the rate of adoptive versus biological parents that are advertising on the internet? >> you know, it's hard for me to say because i don't know what the mindset was of these folks

making these poor decisions. i do think that obviously when they adopted a child, they did not take that responsibility of becoming a parent in the way i think it was intended. certainly, i think it's important for laws to be clear about how children should be -- when they're placed outside of a parents' home, what types of laws and regulations should guide that. that should be equally true. because it didn't happen in this instance, in this investigation, doesn't mean it's not possible. i think the fact that parents, whether adoptive or not, aren't clear that this is not appropriate behavior. we need to talk about this as a society. the creation of tools like the internet that allow people to share information in this way, that promotes that this may be acceptable means we need as a society to respond to that and be very clear that this, in

fact, is not appropriate behavior. >> you mentioned in your testimony that you are encouraging states to review their laws. are you providing them with recommendations as to how to change their laws? >> in the information referendum that i referenced, we don't have specifics in that, but we're certainly providing technical assistance and guidance to states. i'm having conversations with them. it's still early in the process of seeing what states are doing. as miss twohey has referenced there are four states who have changed their laws. we are also in the process of learning what might be best in how to respond to this. >> i hope that you'll keep open the possibility of having a specific standard for the transfer of custody of adoptive children. i think you're right. we should approach this carefully and we certainly want to be careful not to adopt differing standards. but if the evidence suggests the problem is specific to adoptive children, then it may be that we need to tailor our response to that group of children, as well. thank you.

madam chair? >> thank you, senator murphy. >> madam chair, thank you for this hearing. thank you for the hearing. we're grateful for this opportunity to talk about a whole range of issues. i know that i wasn't here for the testimony, but i've become familiar with some of the work in the testimony that our witnesses have provided today. i wanted to focus in a broad way. i've worked very hard in this area to bring more attention to these issues. the gaps in our child welfare systems, problems we have. i have legislation entitled to speak up to protect every abuse kid act. it's really to focus on this problem that we have where we have varying degrees of what mandated reporters must do.

in some ways, a multiplicity of standards instead of having one federal floor on what should constitute a mandate to report or protect -- or to report instances of child abuse or suspected instances. so all of this comes under a broad umbrella. i was particularly disturbed as we all are by some of the issues you've all raised in your testimony. i wanted to start with associate commissioner chang on the question of -- and get your perspective on when you have a delegation of authority in these instances, and you have that delegation of authority, do you have the possibility or have you seen in your work that the child will have legal problems down the road?

is that something you've spoken to already today or is that something you haven't been asked about? >> thank you, senator. it isn't something i've spoken to. certainly in our look into this process of delegating authority, that question does come up. i think that's one of the things that's troubling is that there is such variation among states about what that delegation of authority actually means, what responsibilities carry. we know that when we have legal guardianship that that does come with certain delegations of authority that comes with responsibilities, as well. a lot of what we, i think, are talking about is often done kind of outside the scope of legal scrutiny and authority. so there is a question that rises. if you don't go through the court process to get a legal guardianship of a child, what responsibilities do you then have for that child? so i think it is something that states really need to think very carefully about.

>> just on the subject of states, in your experience, have you seen whether or not many states have acted to expand access to post-adoption services following these reports of private re-homing? >> that's a great question. so we know that before the story came out approximately half of all states have reported to us that they do regularly offer post-adoption services, not only to children adopted out of the foster care system but also those adopted through private adoptions or internationally. the challenge remains that there are very limited dollars available to states to use to support post-adoption services. another way to think about post-adoption is really prevention. these are services designed to help parents struggling with their children whether they're

adopted or biological. the reality is in our child welfare system, we do not invest as much in preventive services as we do after the crisis occurs. so this is a real challenge across all states. >> i was going to get in a moment to some of your suggestions you may have already outlined. some of them bear repeating at a hearing like this. any cases that you're aware of where parents rehoming their children who are then criminally prosecuted, what's the basic metrics on that in terms of criminal prosecution? >> sure. it's a great question. it's one of the questions i asked miss twohey after i read her article. it's one of the reasons we issued our memorandum. because there seemed to be confusion among child welfare

agencies whether or not what these parents were doing constituted abuse and neglect. when we looked at the minimum federal definition of abuse and neglect it seemed clear this activity fell within that scope. so we wanted to make sure it stays. that is how we saw these acts, they need to take careful look at state laws to ensure they were responding adequately. this is particularly important because if a parent is deemed to have abuse or neglected their child because they engaged in re-homing, that means they're going to be in the abuse and neglect registries. if they try to go out and adopt again, that will be a notice to any private adoptive agency as well as public child welfare agencies about the behavior of this parent. we think that's critical. >> madam, one question of miss twohey. i want to allow the panel to go one by one if you choose to. in terms of the recommendations you have for next steps. often we have hearings and we

explore an issue at great length and sometimes forget to come back and say what are the two or three steps you hope we would take? sometimes the recommendations do something here but don't push on this end. anything the panel would want to offer in terms of steps you hope would result from this hearing? either especially, obviously, federal legislation or action. >> thank you, senator casey. i would like to see coming out of a hearing like this guidance from the federal government to states but also to other entities at the state, local and in the private and commercial sector about the kinds of evaluation that needs to take

place of existing training and tools for the health care and educational systems, but also the development of further models and looking toward the child abuse and the domestic violence arenas for a basis for developing those models. so to the extent that the federal government can provide standards and guidance and ultimately funding for evaluation and development of models that would be a great step forward. >> guidance rather than unfunded mandates, huh? thank you. yes, miss littrell? >> i would like to make two suggestions. there's 15,000 school districts in our nation. while education is a state responsibility, the federal government has done a lot of leadership in the area of human trafficking, whether the blue

campaign, the department of education to write an educator's guide that will be distributed in the fall to schools across the nation. anything we can do incentivize or mandate for schools to make this a requirement as has been discussed by our other panel members, it's very confusing for mandated reporters. all educators are mandated reporters, of what to do when they suspect a child is being a trafficked victim and what actions should be taken after that? so that goes to my next point. anything we can do in the area of grant funds or supports so communities can rally together cross-jurisdictionally, cross-disciplines to figure out what's happening in their community and what should happen in their community. so for us it would save schools healthy students grant which allowed for this initiative to begin. we completely sustained it when we lost the funds five years ago when they sunset it. anything to encourage this and

provide financial support. >> thank you. miss twohey? >> once again as a journalist, i can't share my opinion, i can only share the facts as i've gathered them. i think that in terms of what can be done to address re-homing specifically, you're looking at sort of two things. one, what can be done to prevent it? and on that front you're looking at scrutiny, perhaps more scrutiny of perspective adoptive parents. the quantity and quality of training requirements for families who want to adopt. that's one of the things that experts and other child advocates have brought up, as well as the support services for struggling adoptive families. that those two things could really help prevent rehoming. then you move on to the question of what happens when families decide that they are going to privately re-home? there you're looking at this

what right now is a patchwork of state laws with regard to the advertising of children and custody transfers of children. and there aren't any uniform regulations, aren't any uniform standards on how children can and should be advertised in print or specifically online. and there aren't any uniform standards here in this country on what should happen when somebody decides they want to transfer custody of a child to a stranger they meet on the internet. i think the congressional research report, congressional research services report pointed out congress does have an opportunity to act. that the interstate aspect of rehoming and the fact the internet is involved presents congress and the federal government with an opportunity to step in. and that's something child advocates have called for. >> thanks very much. thank you, madam chair. >> senator casey, thank you for

your questions and your bill that you're also working on similar to this issue. miss twohey, i wanted to get back to you. did you actually have any of the parents that you might have spoken with in your research, did any of them receive charges of neglect or abuse in their advertising? >> yeah. that is a great question. i've been looking at this issue for now more than two years. and have covered a variety of cases in which adoptive parents re-homed their child and cases that were either prior to my reporting brought to the attention of authorities, certainly came to the attention of authorities after my stories, and not in one single case has an adoptive parent been charged with abuse or neglect or any criminal charge as a result of their rehoming activity.

in some states where there are restrictions, and this includes states where there are laws that do restrict advertising of children and the custody transfers of children. lots of times local law enforcement has said they didn't know those laws existed. and if they did exist, they didn't have criminal actions attached to them so they didn't feel like they could take action. >> thank you. miss littrell, in your school systems, have you had cases of the re-homing that you're aware of? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> i know in many instances miss littrell, grandmothers end up taking over custody, not really custody, but raising their grandchildren because the daughters are drug abused and whatever situations might occur. so in that case, it's my understanding that the school systems need to have power of attorney in that case.

and us just curious, in your situation, i would think you would have grandmothers that are responsible for their grandchildren. can you elaborate on that? do you know what the school actually requires of a grandparent to -- and then i'll give you the other question. >> sure. we actually have a variety of different family members who are raising family members for the whole range of reasons. what we require is proof that that parent or guardian has the legal right to register that student. >> which is what piece of paper? >> any kind of court order, it can be as simple as a caregiver affidavit where the -- i'm sorry, in this case, a grandparent or aunt or whomever actually just has to sign and let us know that that parent has an affidavit and is saying that day are the legal guardian for the student in order to be able to register them. >> that affidavit is not court sanctioned? >> correct. >> i think that in many cases some people are concerned that

if we go through the process of requiring court approval on any case where they're raising the children, that if it's not an immediate family, that it has to be court approved. that there are just so many situations where that would prevent family members or friends from stepping in and helping. but at the same time i think we've seen unbelievable examples of what you all have described today of what happens when there's advertisement or whomever might be the responsible person in this situation who really cannot help that young child and then obviously many numerous things happen. miss chang, do you have any suggestions on what states or school systems need to require in this situation or miss littrell, you also. miss chang? >> sure. so, you know, we feel very strongly that state laws need to be clear about what the parents'

responsibility is. even if they do transfer legal custody. that is the care and custody, the care and protection of their child. 17 states have defined abandonment within their definition of neglect. 17 other states defined it separately from neglect. and so thinking about, you know, a parent might temporarily place a child with a friend because they're going overseas to serve in the u.s. military. but you would still expect that that participant has a relationship with that child, they stay in touch with that child. they regularly communicate. and they're ultimately responsible for having placed that child in a safe, appropriate placement. i think that's one of the immediate things that we want to make sure states are thinking about. are they clear in their law about what a parent's responsibility is to make sure that initial placement is safe and that they are maintaining

regular contact. >> miss littrell. >> under mckinnie/vinto, we removed some of the barriers that have historically been there. if an unaccompanied youth walks in our doors we'll work with him or her to get them registered immediately. if a family is homeless and the story they're telling us is they're homeless and don't have the documentation, we will immediately get that student registered. >> were there any cases where you had spoken to parents and they had gone through training through their adoption agency on what they could do to improve the situation or do you know if they actually sought help before they began advertising their children? >> sure. that's a great question. some of the parents felt like -- some of the parents had undergone training. others had undergone very little training. sometimes they didn't feel -- in all these cases, the parents felt like they weren't prepared for the emotional behavioral

problems that these children brought with them. >> did they get training once these emotional behaviorals came forward, did they then seek training and help in the system? >> in some cases they sought therapy. in other cases, they did have interface with the child welfare system. and they often felt like they got no help and that if they wanted to relinquish their child to the state, that they were going to face, you know, that they would potentially face charges of abuse or neglect. one family didn't want to pay the child support that would be required to relinquish their adopted daughter to the government child welfare system. they were told if you do this you'll have to pay child support until the child turns 18 and the adoptive family didn't want to do that. >> thank you. senator enzi? >> thank you, madam chairman. this has been very enlightening,

and there does -- been some good suggestions for some things we can do at the federal level. one of the things i always worry about, of my years of legislating, i've noticed if it's worth reacting to, it's sometimes worth overreacting to. there are some state concerns out there, i'm sure. miss littrell, how important is it for the local districts to have some flexibility in developing these plans that you had? >> i think there's definitely some best practices that should be followed across the nation. however, how a school district works with their local law enforcement, their local stakeholders will really depend on what is present in their community. rural communities may not have the same level of resources or same number of resources as say, urban communities. how recruitment and trafficking happens in one community also varies a little bit, but as i worked with the department of ed

to write the guide for the nation on addressing sex trafficking in schools, what i found was actually there is a lot of commonalities. it's much more similar than dissimilar. the recruitment, the grooming and what needs to happen in a community. so, having said that, best practices i think should be offered to communities and some kind of guidance for who should be at the table and what steps should be taken can definitely assist those communities from having to reinvent the wheel or start at ground zero. >> very good. i look forward to seeing that report, too. miss english, in your testimony, you cited the oakland unified school district as a good example. can you give us a little more detail on what that school district is doing? >> yes. thank you, senator enzi. the oakland unified school district has partnered with the school-based health center that

is operated by the alameda county health department to provide both training to individuals in the school setting to begin identifying young people who are victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking. and also to provide services including referrals for any students who are identified as being either at risk or victimized by sexual exploitation and trafficking. alameda county is one place in the nation that has developed some really fairly advanced services for the victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking, and the unified school district partnered with local community resources to learn from those practices and to share them within the school

district and also to make sure that their students get referred to appropriate services when they're identified. >> thank you. i'm the accountant in the senate, and i have a tendency to ask some detailed number questions, but i've learned not to do that in hearings. so i hope that we'll have an opportunity to submit some questions in writing so we can get some of the numbers that might help with the testimony that we've had. >> certainly. >> i thank you. >> thank you, senator enzi. miss littrel, i have one further question for you. in your experience with the situations of child trafficking, has law enforcement actually indicted a trafficker in one of your situations? >> multiple times. >> multiple times. good. very good. i just want to thank all our witnesses for being here today, for traveling here, for your testimony, for your involvement in both the child trafficking

issue and then the re-homing issue that has been brought to light. thank you to you, miss twohey. and i just, you know, we've heard from all of you. we've heard these issues. these exploitative issues specifically concerning our children and the private re-homing. they're such serious problems, and they're taking place right now, right here in our communities and in our country all across every state, and obviously to our children. so i want to also thank the many groups and the many individuals who contributed their experience and their expertise to this hearing. in particular, i want to thank the north carolina coalition against sexual assault, the on eagle's wings ministries in charlotte, the salvation army in raleigh, the st. joseph's school in brooklyn, new york, and the alliance to end slavery and trafficking. and the victims, obviously, the victims of both trafficking and

re-homing that have been interviewed by my staff. these serious issues. and i do think there are numerous examples of what our states are doing to combat these issues and to work best within our current agencies to help not only the parents, but obviously the victims and then the coordination between the schools, the health care professionals and our law enforcement, to bring to justice the individuals who are committing these trafficking acts, then to really treat the young people who are being trafficked as victims and not criminals. so this hearing will remain open for ten business days after today for any other senators to submit questions to you, to submit statements for the record. and once again, i appreciate everybody's time and attention to this very important issue, and this meeting is adjourned.

bernard kerik joined us on with the washington journal "today to give his perspective on the criminal justice system, both as his time as new york city police commissioner and later incarceration serving tie in federal prison. >> as a cop, law enforcement, you have a job and your job is

to take bad guys off the streets. you don't necessarily think what happens to them in the long run, and don't get me wrong, i've put people in prison. i put people in prison for a long time. ten years. 20 years, 30 years. life. some for life. except these were really bad people that did bad things. they tried to kill me. they shot my partner. they killed men that i worked with. i seized tons of cocaine from them. millions in drug proceeds. but then i went to prison and i met these young men that were sentenced to 10, 15 years for minor drug offenses. i met commercial fishermen that caught too many fish. i met young men trying to buy their first home that enhanced their income on a mortgage application and was charged with bank fraud and sentenced to 18 months, 2 years, 3 years in prison.

i never realized -- never even thought about those types of circumstances. we've evolved into a society where we now take a number of regulatory issues and turn them into crimes. turn that conduct into criminal conduct. and i'm not saying these people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions, but a commercial fisherman that catches too many fish, fine him. penalize him some way. but to make him a convicted felon, to take his license away. i was with a man that had been fishing since he was 17, 18 years old. he was now 55. he owned his own business for the last 40 years. he lost his business. he lost his license. he lost his life. his family was on public assistance. because he caught too many fish.

fine him. you now turned him into a convicted felon. the guy's in the prime years of his life. he now can't work. can't get a job. has no business. pays no taxes. can't take care of his family. and i just don't -- i don't see that as justice. >> you can watch our entire discussion with former new york city police commissioner bernard kerik tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. the national governors association kicked off its three day summer meeting in nashville today. tomorrow on c-span, we'll continue our live coverage with a discussion on health care. that begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern followed at 11:45 with a look at education and job training. in the afternoon at 3:45 eastern, a look at what can be tone to help veterans in seeking employment and transitioning back to civilian life.

governors jay nixon of missouri and rick snyder of michigan lead that discussion. that's all live saturday over an c-span. this weekend on "newsmakers" arizona congressman raul grijalva discussions immigration, border issues and the agenda in congress. "newsmakers" "airs sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. let our republicanism so focused and dedicated not be made fuzz ciy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels. [ applause ] i would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

[ applause ] thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. and let me remind you, also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. [ applause ] >> senator goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 republican national convention. this weekend on "american history tv's" "reel america" sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on

c-span3. now you can keep in touch with current events from the nation's capitol using any phone, any time, c-span audio, simply call 202-626-8888 to hear forums and today's "washington journal" program and listen to a recap of the day's events at 5:00 p.m. eastern on "washington today." hear audio of the five network's sunday public affairs programs beginning sundays at noon eastern. c-span radio on audio now. call to 2-626-8888. long distance or phone charges may apply. up next a discussion of how robotics with technological differences from the internet will change the field of cyber law. we hear from two law professors from the university of washington and temple university in philadelphia. part of a robotic conference hosted by the university of miami law school. this is about an hour, ten

minutes. >> okay. so robotics and the new cyber law. when i saw that title of ryan's paper i thought, you know, uh-oh, new cyber law? i'm still trying to get my hands around the old cyber law and now there's a new one coming. okay. up to it. i read on and say that that's not quite like that. ryan is not pushing aside the old cyber law or thankfully the old cyber lawyers and cyber law professors for some new cyber law. and let me just say actually before i sort of dive into this, sort of an apology in a sense. it's a very nuanced and complex argument that he has that i will get to in a moment. these are issues i've thought a lot about and have a jumble of ideas about. so it may come out a little bit as a jumble as we go forward. so ryan's focus, of course, is

on robotics or robotics and the law. the study of robotics. how we should think about robotics and the challenges that it presents to the law. what are the questions we should be asking? and let's focus on these now as the field is just getting started. and his thesis is that robotics law, the study and practice of the legal issues raised by robotic technologies, should be absorbed into or become brought within, become part of the larger sort of cyber law project. which up to now has been the province of lawyers and scholars and legal academics studding the legal issues, of course, raised by internet technologies. very different set of technologies. i'll summarize his argument in a moment, but before i do so, just a comment. some of you, especially those of you who are not legal academics,

may be disposed to think of this as insignificant as kind of inside baseball, who cares what you call it, call it robo law or cyber law or technology law or whatever. just get on with it. you know, all this angels on a pin nonsense, get rid of that and get on to the issue. but i'm actually very much with ryan on this. i think the questions he's asking really are important. this stuff actually matters, and it might even matter a lot. the law is going to confront the new challenges posed by robotics technology one way or the other and it will matter which communities with which set of tools and knowledge and pre preconceptions and understandings step up to try to meet those challenges and answer those questions, and thinking about it now makes a difference. there's a path dependence to all this. at the early stages of the development of a domain, it

could well set the direction for many years to come and as a sin nektky, one of my favorite words, >> that reproduces the whole. very useful word in a fratful universe, like the one that we live in. as a senecty for this problem, the one that illustrates the whole, the question is whether ryan, or others, can post questions about robotics law on cyber prof. cyber prof, fur those of you who are in legal academics, i need not to tell you, is a place, but an important place, where cyber academics gather to discuss the issues of the day. it's been a very important feature of the development of cyber law.

over the years, important things have gotten discussed there. and a question that was posed is whether it's appropriate in a sense to raise robotics questions and to get cyber law to look at it and turn upside down. his argument proceeds in three steps. he talks about cyber law, the law meets the internet, the law meets robotics or is about to meet robotics or will surely meet robotics and part three is the connections between those two. so the development of cyber law. when the law met the internet, what happened. how did the conversation about the then-new legal issues proceed. was it organized when faced with that particular disruptive technology. ryan finds much to praise there, i'm happy to say. the cyber law community says identify the core features, what he calls the essential qualities

of the objective study, the pcip network and its constituent sub networks. the cyber community identified early on. the central tensions that these would pose for law in legal institutions, these essential qualities that he labels connection, community and control. connection meaning the astonishing degree to which we were all suddenly in instantaneous communication with everybody else. one to one, one to many, many to one, which led to a series of questions, obviously, about the freedom of speech, less obviously about the protection for property and copyright, in particular. the essential quality of community, is sudden ability for collaboration and communication and confrontation among and between groups of all sizes

largely ind p lly independent o physical location. obviously, and contract formation, a little less obviously. and finally, the central quality of control, the co-kpexistence the internet of democratization and decentralization and also a wonderful phrase from his paper, exquisite new forms of surveillance and control which, again, lead to a series of core questions about privacy, about power, about property and accountability. and the cyber law conversation worked pretty well. i think that's ryan's point in part one, and i agree with it. the internet is more familiar and mature today, at least he writes, at least in part because of this 20-yearlong conversation which, again, quoting, has paid

dividends in structure and clarity. you know, we figured some stuff out. at least we got the questions right. if not the answers, and i'll return to that in a minute. so that's part one, cyber law, the development of cyber law. part two is about robotics, this new disruptive technology on the horizon that will generate a distinct catalog of legal and policy issues. so he organizes the central tensions of robotics law along different axes of cyber laws. our community, connection and control. i found this part as a stranger to robotics in the law, not having thought much about it and found it particularly

interesting and insightful and helpful. i i think that's part of his definition from the robot. although i gather from the last couple of days, it may not be everybody's definition. but he has, again, in this wonderful phrase, robots combined the generative promiscuity of data with the capacity to cause physical harm. this leads to a host of physical questions about agency, liabili liability, questions as he recognizes are quite foreign to cyber law. he goes out. and the third seshlt quality identifies a social meaning that the law distinguishes very importantly between individuals and two ordinarily distinguishes

between individuals and their tools, between the an mitt and inanimate. sdis entangling persons from intimate. i'm finding this all quite fascinating. i think he's right about the cyber law side. and it sounds plausible on the robotics side. emergence embodiment and social meaning. part three brings them together. notwithstanding these differences in focus and subject matter robotics law can best be conceptualized as a part of cyber law. that within cyber law to host

this new conversation that is about to begin with this disruptive technology. i'm bringing a little bit of cyber space into this room. asking for a place at the cyber law table, it says where a very interesting conversation is taking place and i'm throwing them away out into the cold. go build your own boat. i pulld it out. it's really hospitable. it's a violation of what the ancient greeks call zenea. a guest host relation. and zeuss deals very harshly

with people. i don't think the fit is a good one. i think the conversation ryan wants to have will flourish best actually outside the confines of cyber law. i've heard a lot of fascinating legal issues, questions, being debated here over the past 24 hours. the jurisdictional questions at the heart of cyber law are in the deep background here and not the focus, the free expression questions of the cyber law. they don't seem to be at the center of the issues you are grappling with. i don't even think ryan disagrees, actually, with me. i don't think he thinks robotics law is a part of cyber law. commentator cans do two things.

you can turn to the author and say here's what you should think, dummy. or, more deliciously, they can say here's what you actually think. i'm in the latter. here's what you actually -- here's what ryan is talking about. ryan is talking about this conference. which not, quince dent coincide started by cyber law. this feels to me, this conference, very much like a cyber law conference in 1995 or 1996 in the following ways. many more questions and answers. hard to know sort of sometimes what factoid over here is connect today what factoid over there, how these things will interrelate. there are no real experts yet. nobody can claim this deep expertise in these issues

because the expertise is being developed as we speak. there's a tension about what might emerge in the next few years. efb is looking ahead to see what's coming. talking about things, some of which will never come, some of which will come in two weeks. ro lots of conversation about interdisciplinary lives. the line between the inspired and the insane is very difficult to discern. it's either crazy or is quite brilliant. very hard to know. a lot of talk about definitions, sort of fundamental definitions. there is a gee wiz quality to it. i use that as a compliment. you know, these days, if you go to an internet law conference, you go to a copyright law conference, there's a lot less gee wiz and