House committee hears expanded anti‑trafficking package, including new training, AG council and tougher penalties

Representatives Jeff Myers and Ed Lewis told the Missouri House Committee on Children and Families that two companion bills—House Bill 1946 and House Bill 2273—aim to tighten the state's legal response to human trafficking and child sexual exploitation and to centralize training and coordination under the attorney general.

Myers, a former state trooper, said he introduced the measure to help victims. "One of the reasons I came to Jefferson City was work on legislation like this," he said, describing the bills as intended to "make a difference" for victims held by manipulation, coercion or violence. Lewis said the consolidated bill runs 65 pages largely because it replaces older language across statutes and folds in previously passed provisions.

The package has three main strands, sponsors told the committee: changing statutory language to refer to "child sexual abuse material" rather than older, stigmatizing terms; creating a statewide council and an attorney‑general‑led training committee to coordinate law enforcement, child advocacy centers and social services; and raising penalties and procedural powers for prosecutors. Lewis pointed to a provision that would allow prosecutors in smaller counties to request assistance from the attorney general's office for complex CSAM prosecutions and said the bill would extend a civil statute‑of‑limitations from 10 to 20 years in some cases to give victims more time to bring claims.

Advocacy groups and frontline providers unanimously urged passage at Wednesday's public hearing. "Changing language matters," Jessica Sites, executive director of the Missouri Network Against Child Abuse, told the committee, praising the plan to fold training into a centralized council and noting the attorney general's office has designated staff ready to lead.

Survivors and service providers framed two related priorities: reduce demand and improve identification. Neil Getzlo, a former buyer who now works in education and recovery, urged tougher penalties for buyers, saying the change would deter repeat purchasers and reduce demand. "Buying *** is not welcome here," he said. Several witnesses argued elevating patronizing prostitution from a misdemeanor to a felony would make it more likely buyers face consequences and would allow tracking at a statewide level.

Dan Ingham, director of policy at the Attorney General's Office, told the committee the AGO supports the bills and "stands ready to lead the statewide council" and to chair the training committee, noting an already planned training in Kansas City with more than 100 law enforcement attendees. Sponsors also said budget language enacted last year already placed money in a fund intended to support anti‑trafficking awareness and an executive director position, which they said would limit new appropriations in the short term.

Committee members pressed sponsors on details: whether AI‑generated images and digitally manipulated depictions would be covered, how training hours would be allocated across professions with differing licensing cycles, and whether definitions around consent and commercial exploitation were sufficiently clear. Representative Prouty pointed to RSMo 573.01 (current statute referenced in testimony) as already covering certain digitally generated depictions; sponsors said they would consider explicit AI language but that existing statute language would likely reach many computer‑generated images.

No votes were taken during the hearing. Multiple witnesses urged that central coordination and training be implemented quickly and that funding be preserved so training can reach EMTs, law enforcement, foster‑care staff and prosecutors. Sponsors said they will work with prosecutors and the attorney general's office to refine statutory language and implementation details before committee action.

The committee closed the public testimony portion on both bills after more than a dozen advocacy and survivor witnesses called for swift legislative action.

The committee did not take action on the bills at the hearing; sponsors said they expect to return with possible amendments and further technical clarifications.