Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 298, S. Res. 299, and S. Res. 300.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, as we have just seen, there is no more decent or honest Senator in the U.S. Senate than the Senator from Wyoming who just spoke, and that is why we were able to expedite the process tonight. It may seem like we are here late, but, frankly, we all expected to be here until 2 or 3 or 4 in the morning, and instead we worked things out. He is an example of why we did, both in committee and on the floor. Senator Enzi was able to work with people, be fair, honest, and that pays off. It gave everybody a fair shot. I will also say he has produced a budget that does balance, which I think most Americans agree with. As he said so well, the budget is a framework. So the budget itself does not have the specific policies in it. In fact, those have to go to other committees to be passed and then will be passed by the full Senate and the House and signed into law by the President. What it does do is it prepares this body to do something really important and really exciting, and that is the opportunity to reform our broken Tax Code. It is so important because it will give us a shot in the arm, in terms of our economy. It will get this economy moving again, and it is going to help people who have been left behind in this economy. Really, when we look over the past 15 years, so many people whom I represent and who are represented by the other Members in this Chamber have not seen their wages go up. In fact, they have been flat, and what has gone up are expenses--healthcare expenses more than any, frankly. It is the biggest single increase people see in their family budget but also food, medicine, and tuition. We have seen flat wages, not more take-home pay, and higher expenses. What we have an opportunity to do in this tax reform bill--that is a framework, not a mandate--that was made possible by the budget that was passed tonight is we have set the stage for commonsense tax reform that is essential to this effort to grow our economy and create more and better jobs and increased wages for middle-class Americans. We heard a lot of discussion about it adding to the deficit. I will just add to what has been said already. If we do this tax reform right, it will not add to the deficit. In fact, I strongly believe it will reduce the deficit over the next 10 years. Why do I say that? I am going to talk for a second about some of the things that are in good pro-growth tax reform that we are planning to implement that will actually grow the economy that will result in more economic activity and more revenue coming into the Treasury. If you assume, as the Congressional Budget Office does, that we are only going to grow this economy 1.9 percent, which is a pretty paltry amount over the next 10 years--way below what the average has been for the past 30 years--then let's say all this tax reform we are doing only grows the economy by a little bit more. Let's say .4 percent. So instead of 1.9 percent, let's grow the economy at 2.3 percent. That is a conservative estimate, I believe, based on the kinds of things we are talking about. That will mean we actually not only have a revenue- neutral tax proposal, but we begin paying back some of the national debt by having the deficit, once again, as it was in the years 2000 and 2001, be on a unified basis at a zero deficit. This is an exciting opportunity to help people be able to seek their goals in life but also to actually help with regard to the budget deficit. I agree with the chairman on that. I think we have an opportunity, if we do the right tax relief, to really help to get the budget deficit down. How does this comprehensive tax reform help the middle class? We talked a little bit about this today. Some offered amendments. I offered one with regard to the business tax side of things, but I think it does it in three ways. First, it immediately helps the family budget by cutting middle-class taxes. So everything that has been laid out in terms of the proposals tonight on the tax side, we can talk about the fact that for families who are working families in this country who are making $30, $40, $50, $60,000 a year, those folks will see a reduction in their taxes which will help the family budget. The Tax Code, of course, is very complicated, too burdensome. One thing we are proposing is to double the standard deduction. That means for people who take the deduction now--and about two-thirds of the people I represent do--they will be able to have a doubling of that, from $12,000 for a family to up to $24,000 for a family. That is a 0 tax bracket for the first $24,000 in income. That is significant middle-class tax relief. Second, we are going to expand the child tax credit. That is really important, not just to provide relief but to help families with kids be able to afford childcare. Finally, we will adjust the bracket so people who are beyond the standard deduction, double or nothing, and who don't take advantage of the child tax credit also get tax relief. So these are ways in which folks are going to see immediate help for the family budget, but it is more than that. It is more than that. I think, frankly, the most significant part of this reform is going to be giving the economy that shot in the arm and helping to increase jobs and improve wages. That is going to happen, I think, through the business tax relief that we have talked about. First, with regard to smaller companies, the so-called passthrough companies, about three- quarters of the companies in America pay their taxes as individuals. This is the corner drugstore; this is the small manufacturing business in your town. Those folks are going to see a reduction in their taxes on their business income so they can invest more in that business and create more jobs, and a lot of the growth is going to come from these smaller businesses. That is the 25-percent rate people are talking about as compared to, say, a 35-percent or higher rate for individuals. That is something that is fair, in part because we are also going to lower the rates for people who are in the larger businesses. These are the C corporations that are being talked about. That rate has to come down. If it does not, America will continue to lose jobs and investment overseas, and that is what is happening right now. Just in the last 24 hours, another major American company announced that they are inverting; in other words, they are going overseas. Why? Because of the Tax Code. It is amazing that the Tax Code that this Congress is responsible for improving is so bad that people are actually voting with their feet and leaving the country and taking jobs and investment with them. We have done research on this, we have had investigations on this, and we know what is happening. We know, as an example, that because of our Tax Code, there are almost 5,000--4,700 companies just in the last 13 years that have become foreign companies that otherwise would be American companies. Think about that. That is the Ernst & Young study we recently saw. This is amazing. We know for a fact that it is not just about these companies leaving America and going to other countries and doing these so-called inversions--becoming a foreign company--but it is also foreign companies coming here and taking over U.S. companies, and, again, what is happening here is that jobs and investment are going overseas. Why is this? Well, it is for a couple of reasons. One is that American companies now have the highest tax rate in all of the industrialized world. So the 35-percent tax rate you hear about, that is a high rate compared to every other country in the world that we do business with. That is a negative, but it is also how we tax. We tax in a way that discourages us from bringing profits back to America to the point that, unbelievably, there is between $2.5 trillion and $3 trillion--and some say more--of earnings stuck overseas, locked out of America, which could come back here to expand plants, equipment, and jobs, to actually get this economy moving. This is a huge opportunity for us. We don't want to see these companies go offshore. We want to see them come back. Trade policy is important. Regulations are important. Worker retraining programs are important. Healthcare cost containment is important. But nothing is more important than fixing this broken Tax Code if we are going to see the kind of economic growth and improvement in wages that we all hope for. There have been a lot of studies done on this, and they say that we haven't changed our code since the mid-1980s, but every other one of our competitors have. They have all lowered their rates, and they have all gone to a system of taxation that is more efficient to get this money back to their countries. In 1986, Ronald Reagan was President. He made some great changes. That was 31 years ago. Things have changed a lot since then. By the way, back then Pete Rose was still playing for my Cincinnati Reds. That is how long ago it was. It is time for us to update this Tax Code, to modernize it, and to bring back those jobs and that investment. We can do it. We can do it because of what happened tonight. This creates the framework for us to able to do this. In a recent business roundtable survey of 150 American companies-- these are the CEOs--82 percent said that tax reform that we are talking about will prompt them to increase capital spending. Three-quarters of them--76 percent--said that it is going to increase hiring. And with this reduced tax burden, businesses are going to have the money to invest in their workers. I will tell you, with the tighter job market that is out there now as the economy has begun to improve, this will increase competition for workers, and this will increase wages. We know that is going to happen. Every economist agrees that this kind of tax reform is going to change behavior. Some might think it doesn't improve the economy as much as others do, but everyone believes this will incentivize us to create more jobs and improve wages here in the United States of America. There is a group called the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan group up here that we work with. They have a study that says that as much as 70 percent of the benefit from that lower corporate rate is going to go to the workers in terms of higher wages, better benefits. That is the way we are going to help the middle class also--not just with regard to the tax relief directly but with regard to helping to improve job creation and increase wages. So I am excited about this. I think it can happen. I think it is something that is long overdue. I think it is something, frankly, that should be bipartisan. This was what the Simpson-Bowles proposal, which was a totally bipartisan proposal, said we ought to do. In fact, they took the top rate down to 28 percent--lower than anybody is talking about here. But they said that we should go to this kind of taxation we are talking about in terms of international businesses, in terms of corporations, in terms of creating jobs. Two years ago, I worked with Chuck Schumer, who is now the Democratic leader here in the U.S. Senate, and we were asked to cochair a working group on taxation--particularly folks on the international side--and we came up with a consensus, which said that we have to fix this broken Tax Code. It is not working, and we need to bring this money back. We need to bring these jobs back by going through this kind of system we are talking about, a so-called territorial system. In the past, this has been bipartisan, and my hope is it can be again. Yes, the budget provides the framework for us to get this done, not on a 60-vote basis but a 50-vote basis. But we should do it with more than 60 votes. We welcome input from our Democratic colleagues. I believe, in the end, this will be bipartisan because I do believe that the vast majority of Americans out there, as they understand this tax reform proposal will say: Yes, I think middle-class tax relief makes sense, and, yes, I think we should be bringing back the jobs and the investment to this country. I think that is going to be something that Members will hear across this country and across this aisle. When they do, I believe we will have the opportunity to have the kind of commonsense, bipartisan tax reform we need in this country. We need to do it to be able to have a thriving American middle class, and we need to do it to have a stronger America. I am excited about this opportunity. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mr. President, I yield back my time on that, but I have another matter that I need to do, the closing business.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak on amendment No. 1422, which is a commonsense and, up to now, bipartisan approach to international tax reform. It simply says that under this budget we would do international tax reform. It would create incentives to have more jobs here in this country. Those are incentives for both U.S. companies and foreign companies to create jobs here in America. This is not a partisan issue; it has been bipartisan. In fact, it was part of the Simpson-Bowles provisions with regard to tax reform. Only a couple of years ago, I cochaired a working group on this issue with the now minority leader, Senator Schumer, where we came up with a proposal which said that the international system is broken and that we need to move to one like the one we are talking about in this amendment that brings back jobs. One of the problems is that the current Tax Code actually encourages companies to keep their money offshore. We think we could bring back a lot of that money. There is probably $2.5 to $3 trillion locked out offshore. But it is worse than that. It also leads to American companies being taken over by foreign companies and these inversions we have heard so much about. In the last 24 hours, we had another major inversion. Companies that have household names are picking up and leaving our country and taking their jobs and investment with them. This amendment is common sense, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, October 23; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 2266, with the time until 5:30 p.m. equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; further, that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, the pending cloture motion ripen at 5:30 p.m.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Nebraska, and our hearts go out to those victims of the hurricane now in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, following the terrible devastation in Texas and Florida. These are American citizens who deserve our assistance and urgent help. I am glad to hear there is now more support mobilizing on the island. I would like to associate myself with the comments of those who talk about the need to move quickly to save lives.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Bob Mills as the 67th recipient of the Dayton Region's 2017 Citizen Legion of Honor Award from the President's Club. As founder of Synergy Building Systems and Mills Development, Bob Mills' leadership and vision for quality development in and around the I-75 and I-675 corridors has made a tremendous impact on the economic vitality of the region. More than a dozen corporate and not-for-profit boards have benefited from Bob Mills' leadership over the years, including Greene Memorial Hospital, the Air Force Museum, Wright State University Foundation, and the Dayton Development Coalition. He has been recognized for his generosity by the Dayton Regional STEM School, Beavercreek Chamber of Commerce, the American Cancer Society, the Leukemia Lymphoma Society, and as the recipient of the Mathile Community Award. Maybe most impressive, Bob Mills and his family created the Gala of Hope Foundation and have raised more than $6 million to fight cancer and improve cancer care in the Dayton region by providing grants and funding for patient care, families, caregivers, and research. Additionally, he and his family have worked tirelessly to support Dayton Children's new patient tower which supports local children's needs for important healthcare services. I would like to honor and congratulate Bob Mills for his many contributions to his community and our State.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for the report from his State and for his words about the devastation in Puerto Rico. Our hearts go out to those in Florida, Texas, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. We do have a responsibility to respond quickly. They are responding to some devastating storms, especially when they are combined. Our thanks also go to the first responders and the many volunteers, including some in the State of Ohio and those from my hometown, who stepped forward to help the people in need. It is extraordinary. Again, I look forward to working with my colleagues to come up with additional assistance as we have done already for some of the initial damage in Texas. There is so much more now that we must do. Tribute to Tim O'Neill Mr. President, I rise today to talk about one of our colleagues here in the Senate, who has an inspiring story and is celebrating an important anniversary this week. I want to mention this week Doorkeeper Tim O'Neill, who works with us in the Senate and celebrates 27 years of Government service. He has been a doorkeeper since 2010, during which time I have had the pleasure of getting to know him, as have many of my colleagues in the Senate. His career has been a remarkable journey. He started in the Senate as a legislative director, and he later went on to work in the White House--not during one Presidential administration but during four Presidential administrations. Tim worked for President Ronald Reagan, President George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President George W. Bush. He worked in the Department of Treasury and at the Federal Housing Finance Board, eventually becoming the chairman of that agency. After that he went to the House of Representatives, where he was senior legislative counsel for the Financial Services Committee. We are happy to have Tim back here on the Senate side, where he works today. Tim has had an impressive career which I outlined, but the most amazing thing about his career doesn't reside in what he has done but what he has overcome. One weekend in January of 1989, when Tim was at the Treasury Department, his life was altered forever. Tim's life had first changed on Friday morning when he found out his wife Ginny was pregnant with their first child. But later that weekend, on a Sunday, as he was putting on his shoes to go jogging, at 34 years old, he suffered a major stroke that affected two-thirds of his brain. The doctors didn't immediately tell Ginny how serious it was. Later she would find out that they did not believe he would live through the night, and, if he did, they believed his lasting brain damage would mean he would never walk again and never talk again. Despite this very grim prognosis, Tim had a few things going for him. First, there was an incredible positive attitude that we all see in the Senate. Second, he was young and athletic, which improved his chances of recovery. He also talks about his Irish determination, which made him resilient. And he had the knowledge of knowing that Ginny was pregnant, and he was absolutely committed to being part of his daughter's life. In fact, one of the few things he said he remembered in his initial stages of recovery was that Ginny was pregnant and that he had a daughter coming. And when he began regaining his speech, the first thing he told Ginny was that he was going to recover. The path was not easy. In those first few months, he worked 8 hours a day, trading his government job for a rehabilitation facility. He worked with speech and physical therapists. And with Ginny at his side, he put in overtime every day. The extensive road to recovery was daunting. Tim, a Harvard-educated lawyer in the middle of a successful career, had to totally relearn things. He had to relearn how to read, and he had to relearn how to write. I know Tim will agree with me that his wife Ginny was the unsung hero of this story of recovery. The O'Neills felt the support and generosity of those around them. As I mentioned, he worked at the Treasury Department. Those close to Tim-- and some who hardly knew him at all--donated their personal leave time to allow him to keep receiving a paycheck during this recovery process, and the Treasury Department assured him that his job would be waiting when he was ready and able to return. Shortly after the stroke that he wasn't supposed to ever recover from, Tim was home, self-mobile in a wheelchair. Soon he taught himself how to walk again. He never regained use of his right hand at all--one of his only lasting handicaps to this day--so do you know what he did? He learned to write with his left hand. His resilience and determination are really amazing. He went back to work. His stroke was in January of 1989. Again, that Sunday, doctors didn't think he would live through the night, and if he did, they thought his life would be in a wheelchair. In 1995, only 6 years later, he was sworn in as a Director of the Federal Housing Finance Board, a position he was nominated for by President Clinton. Later, in 2001, President George W. Bush elevated him to Chairman of that Board. In 2005, he became a senior legislative counsel to the House Financial Services Committee, until his first retirement from government in 2007. He had 20 years of service. He had had a good career and a recovery story that was respected by everyone who knew about it. He could very well have sat back and enjoyed that retirement after those 20 years, but Tim's life is defined by purpose and service and people. So after trying retirement for a little while, Tim returned to the place he loved and the people he knew, coming back here to the U.S. Senate as a doorkeeper in 2010. Tim's extensive knowledge of Capitol Hill has benefited the U.S. Senate, and I will tell you what--his good spirits have had an effect on countless Senators, including me, countless members of our staff, and many visitors. His attitude is infectious. He exemplifies the power of positive thinking. He certainly brightens my days, and I know he has inspired many. By the way, I just heard today that he is also a leader among doorkeepers, including organizing periodic team-building events at the Nats games with his fellow doorkeepers. This month, as we recognize Tim's 27 years of public service, we also recognize his incredible life journey and his resilience in the face of adversity. Strokes can affect people in a variety of ways. In Tim's case, I must say I think it made him a stronger person. Guided by his love for his wife Ginny and their three children now and his dedication to public service, Tim has had a career and a life worthy of celebration and recognition. So, Tim, today, this week, we all congratulate you on 27 years of honorable service and wish you many more to come. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, it is a tragedy that in the Presiding Officer's home State of Louisiana, in my State of Ohio, and around this country, girls and women, children and adults, are being trafficked online. Sex trafficking is really a stain on our country. We have taken some actions in the U.S. Senate to deal with this. We passed four or five bills to increase prosecution of those who engage in this, to ensure that women who are victims are treated as such and not as criminals. We have talked about how to help find missing children. I have been involved in those efforts. We have a caucus here on trafficking which has gotten involved in these issues. Here is the reality, as I see it. Unbelievably, in the 21st century, this practice of selling people is increasing, and it is increasing primarily because it has moved online, where it is, tragically, efficient. We have learned, through an extensive investigation over the last couple of years, that there is one website online which handles most of the commercial sex business and most of the trafficking, and that is a website called backpage.com. What we have done in the U.S. Senate by focusing on this issue is we tried to determine how do you turn the tide, begin to get to the point where, instead of hearing more and more stories about women and girls and sometimes boys being trafficked online, in fact, we are beginning to get to a situation where we can find ways to get those people into treatment and recovery, deal with their trauma, and begin to stop this horrendous practice. It is really taking away the God-given potential of those engaged in it. There is nothing more horrible than meeting a young girl who has been trafficked and hearing the horrendous stories. I was recently back in Ohio and had the opportunity to visit with some victims. I remember one young woman in particular told me she was trafficked at age 9--starting at age 9--by her father. He would take her to Super Bowls out of town, and he would traffic her online in their hometown. Imagine the trauma and the heartbreak. Typically, now it is connected also with heroin or fentanyl or prescription drugs or other opioids. In other words, these girls or women are often made dependent, in part, from their addiction, and the traffickers cruelly use that addiction to force them to do things they would never otherwise envision. So we know that. We know this is happening. We know it is increasing. We know it is online. What do we do about it? Unfortunately, as we have learned in our investigation, these websites online that engage in this are largely protected. They are immune from prosecution. They are immune from victims being able to get justice. They are denied justice because of a Federal law which protects these evil people who knowingly are engaged directly in sex trafficking. That is pretty amazing; isn't it? But that is what is happening. Victims were denied justice just 2 weeks ago, when a judge in Sacramento, CA, dismissed pending charges against backpage.com--this group I talked about--because of what they cited, which is a broad immunity granted by a 1996 law called the Communications Decency Act. As the court saw it--and other courts have seen it--this law gives third-party website providers or publishers immunity from these kinds of heinous crimes, even if the website is participating in sex trafficking. The court opinion made it clear, it is up to Congress to remedy this injustice, suggesting: ``If and until Congress sees fit to amend the immunity law, the broad reach of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act even applies to those alleged to support the exploitation of others by human trafficking.'' In other words, what the courts have said is, Congress, this is up to you. You passed legislation--I believe inadvertently--inadvertently-- which provides this immunity and protection for these people who continue to engage and participate in--knowingly participate in trafficking, including of underaged girls. This is just the most recent ruling in a string of judicial decisions that have defended backpage and the other sites from legal challenges, despite their clear involvement in this criminal activity. In 2016, last year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of backpage in a case brought by three girls who were sold for sex on the site, but the court opinion noted that in order to fix the problem, ``the remedy is through legislation, not litigation.'' They called the practice what it is, immoral, but then they said the solution is not more litigation, it is legislation; in other words, Congress, get your act together--get your act together. These court rulings underscore the need for us to get our act together and to do so with urgency because every day that goes by, more girls, more women are trafficked online, and this must stop. Having met with dozens of sex trafficking victims, I asked them the question, of course: How did it get to this point? Were you trafficked by someone? How did you find yourself here? Most of these victims--most of these victims--tell me the same story, which is backpage.com. Their trafficker has them, as they say, off the street corner onto the smart phone--and, again, tragically efficient, in the sense that they may be sold 10, 15, in one case, 20 times during a single evening. They deserve to know we will not passively let this injustice continue. They deserve to know Congress will step up and correct this Federal legislation which we passed in Congress 20-some years ago to deal with this issue. In August, I visited the Oasis House in Dayton, OH. Oasis is a wonderful place. They welcome up to 11 women at a time to live in a faith-based community which provides them incredible support. It helps deal with the trauma we talked about earlier, helps them to be moving from that trauma to independence. They are getting recovery and support there. So many of these women have had a transformation, and it is wonderful to see them back with their families or back at work. Speaking with these victims, backpage came up--as it often does. It is just heartbreaking to hear what they had to say--but mostly they can't get justice; that the website that facilitated these crimes against them is off limits. That is why, in July, after an 18-month investigation into online trafficking, I introduced--along with a number of my colleagues-- legislation called Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. Currently, we have 27 cosponsors in the Senate. We have only had this introduced while we have been in session for 2 weeks because we introduced it just before the August recess, but Senator Richard Blumenthal, Senator John McCain, Senator Claire McCaskill, Senator John Cornyn, Senator Heidi Heitkamp, and more than 20 other Senators have joined in this effort to deal with the real problem, which is the growth of trafficking due to the online presence and specifically some of these websites like backpage. The bill would make three narrowly crafted changes to what is called the Communications Decency Act to allow backpage and other websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking to be brought to justice. First, it allows victims of sex trafficking to seek justice against websites. It does so by removing the law's unintended protection we talked about for online sex traffickers. Second, it helps law enforcement by allowing the prosecution of websites, again, that knowingly assist, support, or facilitate a violation of already existing Federal sex trafficking laws. There is already a law in place that makes it illegal to engage in sex trafficking. The exception is, again, these websites online that are protected by the Communications Decency Act. So it basically says that you will be treated like others if you engage in, facilitate, and support it. Finally, it lets State law enforcement--not just the Department of Justice--take legal action against these websites that violate Federal sex trafficking laws. The Communications Decency Act, again, was enacted by Congress a couple decades ago--21 years ago--and now it needs to be brought into the 21st century. Again, it is an important piece of legislation, broadly speaking, but on this particular issue--inadvertently, I believe--it has allowed this incredible injustice to continue. In my view, victims shouldn't have to wait one more day to get the justice they deserve. State and local prosecutors, those on the frontlines, should be able to prosecute backpage and others for their roles in these crimes. The leading website for online sex trafficking has and will continue to escape legal justice for its active role in trafficking unless Congress acts. The solution is right in front of us. This bipartisan legislation will make the changes necessary. By the way, these are changes that a number of groups on the outside have called for and have strongly supported. On August 15, I was proud to announce the support of 16 new Ohio organizations and officials who endorsed the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. The list includes anti-human trafficking advocates, human rights groups, State officials, and Ohio sex trafficking victims, among others. This is in addition to the list of dozens of national anti-human trafficking and law enforcement groups who have come out publicly in support of this bill. I appreciate them. I appreciate what the human trafficking advocacy groups do every day, trying to help these victims. I really appreciate our law enforcement officials, and the fact that organizations like the Fraternal Order of Police step forward to support this legislation is very important. On August 16, the day after we had this endorsement from all these groups from Ohio, 50 attorneys general from across the United States-- 50, including Ohio's Mike DeWine--sent a letter to Congress asking for the Communications Decency Act to be changed to allow State and local authorities to hold backpage and other websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking accountable. The letter stated, in part: ``It is both ironic and tragic that the CDA, which was intended to protect children from indecent material on the internet, is now used as a shield by those who profit from prostitution and crimes against children.'' They are right. Initially the Communications Decency Act was put in place to try to shield young people from pornography. What these attorneys general are calling for and what this Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act will do is allow us to go after these websites. This bill will allow victims to get justice, as I said, and will do so in a way that protects internet companies that are doing the right thing. Notably, we preserve the Communications Decency Act's Good Samaritan provision, which protects those good actors who proactively block and screen for offensive material, shielding them from any possibility of frivolous lawsuits. That is important. The good actors out there--and the vast majority of websites are good actors--have nothing to do with sex trafficking. In fact, many of them police their site for it. The Facebooks of the world and the Googles of the world are not the bad actors. We are gaining momentum within the tech community, some of whom have concerns about changing the Communications Decency Act. Just this week, we got a letter from Oracle, strongly supporting the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. They agreed that this narrowly crafted bill will hold the bad actors accountable while protecting well-intentioned websites. Oracle's letter says, in part: Your legislation does not, as suggested by the bill's opponents, usher the end of the Internet. If enacted, it will establish some measure of accountability for those that cynically sell advertising but are unprepared to help curtail sex trafficking. Other tech companies have also joined in the fight to ensure that we can stop sex trafficking. I know they are going to follow Oracle's lead in publicly supporting this legislation. Courts across the country, again, have made it clear that their hands are tied. Their hands are tied in bringing backpage and other websites to justice. It is our responsibility right here in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Congress to change this law. Women and children have had their most basic rights stripped from them and have been let down by our judicial system and, frankly, up to now, by Congress in their search for justice. With these latest calls to action from judicial rulings and this recent letter from 50 attorneys general, any future injustice in the legal system because of the Communications Decency Act falls on Congress. It falls on the shoulders of those in the U.S. Senate and the House. It is not just the attorneys general around the country who have supported this; the district attorneys have sent a letter this week supporting it--again, other law enforcement across the board. Through this legislation, we have the opportunity to right this wrong, to make a real difference in the lives of vulnerable women and children who have been victims of trafficking. Justice cannot be seen, but its absence can be felt. Those who have been trafficked by backpage, only to see the company prosper and escape legal consequences, have experienced unimaginable injustice. They feel it. The path to action is clear. Victims need this legislation that the courts, attorneys general, district attorneys, victims, and others have been calling for. Congress must pass the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act in order to correct this injustice. I yield back my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the applicable committees be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following resolutions, en bloc: S. Res. 203, S. Res. 194, S. Res. 214, S. Res. 215, S. Res. 231, S. Res. 213, S. Res. 233 and S. Res. 221.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues from Iowa and Rhode Island. (The remarks of Mr. Portman pertaining to the introduction of S. 1693 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague from Iowa. I yield back my time.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be considered, the Johnson amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the committee-reported amendments, as amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 93, S. 582.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 717 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The bill (S. 717) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 510 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Isakson substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.