Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, constituents of mine are hearing today that there is a looming government shutdown--Friday at midnight; that if Congress hasn't passed a spending bill, it is possible the government could shut down. That would be a big mistake. Government shutdowns do not make sense.

We have legislation called End Government Shutdowns, by the way, which says that when Congress doesn't do their appropriations bills on time--which is never or rarely--that there should not be a shutdown; rather, continue the spending from the previous year, but ratchet it down over time to give the Appropriations Committee and Congress and the Senate an incentive to get the job done. But let's not shut down the government. When we do that, it doesn't help anybody. It doesn't help us as taxpayers because we end up coming back and paying people, and the inefficiencies of it create more costs. So I hope we are not even talking about that.

In the so-called continuing resolution, which is a short-term spending bill--which, again, is not the best way to govern, but that is what our choice is--in that continuing resolution to keep the government from shutting down, there is also, as I understand it, going to be something that is very good for our country. So, one, shutting down doesn't make sense, but two, let's be sure that the short-term spending bill that we do pass includes something very important-- important to about 219,000 children in my home State of Ohio and millions of families around the country who depend on a program called the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP.

CHIP has traditionally been a bipartisan program. It is supported by Democrats and Republicans alike. In fact, the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, came out of the Finance Committee with a vote that was unanimous--Republicans and Democrats alike. Again, that doesn't happen often. It happened because people believe it is important to have that safety net program for our kids and for those families.

Right now, that program is really on life support. We are told that if we do not extend that program, some States will begin running out of money even in the next few weeks. One of those States could be Ohio, we are told. The numbers are not exactly accurate, I don't think, because nobody knows. That makes it very unpredictable and uncertain for those families and children. We know there are States running out of money right now.

By the way, the program ended in September, and since September 30, it has been given these short-term authorizations. That doesn't make sense.

My understanding is that the House of Representatives is going to actually put into the continuing resolution that they are going to send over here a longer term extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program--in fact, a

6-year extension, which would be the longest extension ever. I think that is very important.

I heard from some families last week in Ohio who are wondering: Are you guys going to actually provide us with the certainty that our kids can continue to receive the treatment they are getting?

These are children who have serious health problems and who need that kind of care and rely on CHIP to provide it.

For all the disagreements we have in this Chamber--and there are plenty of them--there will be healthy and spirited debate on lots of issues later today, I am sure. This is one on which we can come together and agree that children should have that basic healthcare.

I came to the Senate floor last month--back in December--to strongly urge my colleagues and the leadership on both sides of the aisle to take the politics out of this and get CHIP done, get the long-term authorization done, in the last spending bill. That was not done. In fact, it was just a short-term extension of CHIP that basically coincides with the spending bills. That was disappointing. I said so at the time. It was not done last time. That was a mistake. Now we have the opportunity to do it. Let's take that opportunity. I am here to once again say, let's act to provide that long-term stability in the program.

Again, I am encouraged by what I hear--that the House of Representatives is likely to include that stability to ensure that children everywhere can receive adequate and affordable healthcare. The House 6-year extension would also return CHIP to a traditional Federal- State partnership, which has been a bipartisan effort, and provide additional protections for low-income children and more flexibility for the States.

There are some changes to the program and some reforms to the program that have been bipartisan through committee, and I am hopeful that will be part of it as well.

The House bill that includes this CHIP extension--it would be the longest extension since the creation of the program more than 20 years ago. Instead of these short-term ones, we are going to have a long-term extension, if we can pass this. By doing it long term, the Congressional Budget Office says we will actually save taxpayers $1 billion. Having that predictability and certainty--not having the start-and-stop nature of CHIP--saves taxpayers money.

Is this CR perfect in terms of healthcare? No. There are other things we should do as well. We can do that with regard to the longer term spending bill we will probably be doing a couple of weeks from now or a few weeks from now or whenever we come to the end of whatever the continuing resolution is tomorrow.

We do need to find long-term funding solutions for community health centers, for instance. Again, that has been bipartisan in the past. These centers have been very effective in dealing with issues that relate to our communities, health issues, such as opioid addiction. Community health centers have been very helpful in providing treatment to people, particularly in rural areas that don't have access to other healthcare treatment centers. We should provide them with that long- term funding and certainty.

I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will vote to extend these important health insurance programs for our children. Again, CHIP stands for Children's Health Insurance Program. It should not be a bargaining chip for other political purposes. Let's get that done. This is a chance for everybody to ensure that we have that certainty for our children and help them to live up to their God-given potential in life.

Mr. President, I want to talk about another vulnerable group of Americans. This is an issue that doesn't relate to the looming government shutdown or the spending bill that will avoid that shutdown, but it relates to another issue that Congress has the opportunity to address this month.

January is Human Trafficking Prevention Month. Last Thursday was National Human Trafficking Awareness Day. We had a lot of people here in town talking about that issue.

I think everybody in this Chamber would agree with me that we live in a great country. We are blessed to be Americans. In this age of rapid scientific, medical, and technological innovation, we have been able to change the world in positive ways. That is good. But something else is happening that is discouraging; that is, in this country, in the 21st century, we are actually seeing an increase in a part of human trafficking, and that is heartbreaking. This is sex trafficking that is occurring in our country. Often it involves children, underage, who are being sold much like property. Experts tell us that this increase is happening primarily for one reason and one reason alone, and that is because of the internet. It is sort of the dark side of the internet. It is a ruthlessly efficient way to conduct this trafficking business.

This is a stain on our national character. It is something we should all be involved with, Republican and Democrat alike, all of us as Americans, to say: Let's push back. Let's not allow our country, during this period of so many positive technological changes, to use this technology--in this case, online websites selling people--in a way that devastates these families and creates so many dislocations in our communities. Traffickers are using the internet because of the fact that Congress--the House and the Senate--passed legislation 21 years ago that they are able to hide behind. They have immunity under the Federal law called the Communications Decency Act. Ironically, it was actually put in place to push back against child pornography--in other words, to protect children from viewing pornography. It is being used now to say: Well, we don't have responsibilities as websites even if we knowingly are selling children online. Can you imagine that?

Our legislation to deal with that is something we have been working on for a couple of years. We had a 2-year investigation on this online trafficking. It focused a lot on one website--an evil website that sells people online and knowingly has been providing ads out there for underage girls and boys--backpage.com. As we looked into it and did more research, it became clear that even though they were doing this and even though there were people suing them because of it, none of the lawsuits were successful--whether from prosecutors or victims, whether criminal suits or civil suits--because of this immunity they were claiming under Federal law.

We found out that backpage.com--this one website--was responsible for about 75 percent of all child trafficking reports that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was receiving. In other words, the great majority of this was happening on this one website. We found out there has been a dramatic increase in trafficking because of this ruthless online efficiency.

When we got through our investigation, we also found out that this website actually knew that some of these ads were related to children and yet published them anyway. They went so far as to try to, as they called it, ``clean'' the ads for illegal transactions. Someone would place an ad, pay for the ad, and then backpage would say: You need to change this ad a little bit because you are using words like ``schoolgirl'' or ``cheerleader,'' which indicates they are underage.

In other words, they knew these kids were underage. Yet they edited the ads and placed the ads anyway and took the profit. That is what we are up against.

The cost to these families, the human suffering that results from this, is incalculable. I met with victims all around the State of Ohio and some from other States who have come here, as they did last week for this rally. Can you imagine being in that situation as a parent?

Kubiiki Pride, who was here last week, had her 14-year-old daughter go missing. She was a teenager. Her mom was stricken with grief and concern over her. After 10 weeks, she couldn't find her anywhere. Finally, somebody said: You ought to look on this website called backpage because they are selling girls online. God forbid, they were right, and she found her daughter. She

found several photographs of her daughter--not photographs she wanted to see, but on the other hand, there was her daughter alive. She said: My first reaction was relief that she was alive. Then, of course, I called backpage, and I said: I found my daughter. She is on your site. She is 14 years old. Please take her ad down.

Backpage said: Did you pay for the ad?

She said: No, I didn't pay for the ad. That is my daughter. She is 14 years old.

They said: No, we can't take down the ad. You didn't pay for it.

Can you imagine?

She was eventually reunited with her daughter. And there is a film called ``I am Jane Doe'' in which she and other women, mothers and young women, are featured. You can see more about her story and what a brave woman she is because she is now standing up to it. She filed a lawsuit, but the lawsuit was not successful because the judge said there is this immunity.

By the way, the courts that have ruled that these websites are protected by this Federal law have said that Congress ought to do something about that. Most recently, last August, a Sacramento judge dropped charges against backpage, stating: ``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.''

To me that is an invitation for Congress to act, saying: We get it; they are exploiting human beings online, but this Federal law gives them immunity.

This immunity was put in place 21 years ago in an effort to try to ensure that we could have a free internet, and that is very important, but it was never intended to provide immunity to illegal activity like this--certainly not to keep people in the business of sex trafficking.

That injustice is why we introduced our legislation. It is called the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, or SESTA. I introduced it with Senators Blumenthal, McCain, McCaskill, Cornyn, Heitkamp, and others. Senators Thune and Nelson took this bill through the Commerce Committee late last year.

We had a spirited debate in that committee, and it ended up coming out of the committee with a unanimous vote. Why? Because after hearing from the victims, after hearing from the experts on both sides, the Senators said: Whoa. This doesn't make any sense. As Senators, it is our responsibility to change this law.

It provides justice for victims of online sex trafficking because they will have the opportunity to sue. It holds these websites accountable that knowingly facilitate crimes. It also helps in terms of prosecutions because the State prosecutors now--the AGs, the local prosecutors at the State level--will be able to have access now to the courts to be able to take on these websites and, again, hold them accountable. The prosecutions, again, have been thwarted because of this immunity.

These are very narrow changes. They don't affect the freedom of the internet at all. In fact, I would argue it helps to ensure a free internet. To take care of these bad actors and by holding these folks accountable, it is going to provide the justice the victims deserve.

It is a fair and commonsense approach, and that is why it has the support not just of the Members I have mentioned but actually, now, 66 or 67 Members of the U.S. Senate. That is out of 100 Members. That is a rare thing to have that kind of support. It has the majority of the Republicans on board. It has the majority of the Democrats on board.

It is a fair and commonsense approach that is going to make a real difference in the lives of the people we represent. It will be effective at curbing this increase in trafficking that we see online. Every day we don't act, there are more women and more children who are being trafficked unnecessarily.

It also has the support of an extraordinary coalition of law enforcement organizations, anti-trafficking advocates, survivors, faith-based groups, civil rights communities, major businesses, and even some members of the tech community that initially pushed back against this legislation. Looking at it, I think many of them realized this is not a defensible position to say we shouldn't amend this Federal law that is providing immunity to these bad actors.

Members of the U.S. Senate who have cosponsored the bill, including colleagues of mine who are in the Senate Chamber this afternoon, are saying: I want to be part of the solution. They are showing some courage, and I appreciate that. People who have really shown courage are these survivors--these children and these women who have been trafficked--and they need our help.

We need 60 votes to pass most things around here. In this case, we will have some objections, apparently, and so having 66 or 67 supporters of this legislation is a key number. It enables us to ensure that we can get this onto the floor and passed on the floor. So why are we waiting? We shouldn't wait. We should move this month, during Human Trafficking Awareness Month, Human Trafficking Prevention Month. We should move because it is the right thing to do for these victims and those who might be victims between now and when we act. It is the right thing to do because it will create a safer and a better and a more just society. Elected officials like us are elected to do just that.

There were hundreds of sex trafficking survivors on Capitol Hill last week, and I met with them. The stories will break your heart. Some were the parents, some were trafficking victims themselves. They have shown great courage by sharing their stories, bringing their tragedy public, and now we owe them the opportunity to get this legislation passed, to ensure that we can protect some of the most vulnerable among us.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Michael D. Griffin, of Alabama, to be Under Secretary for Research and Engineering, Phyllis L. Bayer, of Mississippi, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and John Henderson, of South Dakota, and William Roper, of Georgia, each to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, all of the Department of Defense.

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2018, at 9:45 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``CFIUS Reform: Examining the essential elements.''

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2018, at 11 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Leon A. Westmoreland, of Georgia, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors, Barry Lee Myers, of Pennsylvania, to be Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of Transportation, Brendan Carr, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Communications Commission, James Bridenstine, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Ann Marie Buerkle, of New York, to be a Commissioner, and to be Chairman, and Dana Baiocco, of Ohio, to be a Commissioner, both of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2018, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Samuel Dale Brownback, of Kansas, to be Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, Richard Grenell, of California, to be Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany, Yleem D. S. Poblete, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary (Verification and Compliance), James Randolph Evans, of Georgia, to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, Joel Danies, of Maryland, to be Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Carlos Trujillo, of Florida, to be Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the Organization of American States, with the rank of Ambassador, and routine lists in the Foreign Service, all of the Department of State.

committee on energy and natural resources

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Melissa F. Burnison, of Kentucky, to be an Assistant Secretary (Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs), and Anne Marie White, of Michigan, to be an Assistant Secretary (Environmental Management), both of the Department of Energy.

committee on health, education, labor, and pension

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act: Financial Aid Simplification and Transparency.''

committee on health, education, labor, and pension

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 18, 2018, at 12:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing subcommittee assignments and on the following nominations: Mitchell Zais, of South Carolina, to be Deputy Secretary, Kenneth L. Marcus, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and James Blew, of California, to be Assistant Secretary for Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, all of the Department of Education, Patrick Pizzella, of Virginia, to be Deputy Secretary, Scott A. Mugno, of Pennsylvania, to be an Assistant Secretary, Cheryl Marie Stanton, of South Carolina, to be Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, and William Beach, of Kansas, to be Commissioner of Labor Statistics, all of the Department of Labor, Brett Giroir, of Texas, to be Medical Director in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service, and to be an Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services, Barbara Stewart, of Illinois, to be Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and other pending nominations.

Mr. President, I want to assure the Senator from Utah, who just spoke, who is also the President pro tempore of this entire body, that he is well regarded on both sides of the aisle. I don't think any Senator has had a more distinguished or consequential career--four decades of legislating.

I want to assure the Senator that nobody thinks he is going to slow down. In fact, as he just said, he has plenty on his agenda for the next year, and we look forward to working with him during that time period.

We also wish him well on his retirement. I have talked to him a little about this. He has a wonderful family, and he has big plans for the future with some important work he wants to do in public policy through his foundation.

I have so much respect for Senator Hatch. I thank him so much for what he did most recently to help guide us through this latest tax reform and tax cut bill that actually is making a difference for the people I represent and he represents.

I thank the Senator. I have to get the last word, though, because this is about the Senator.

Senator Hatch said he loves this place and he loves its Members. There is a lot of love for him in this place on both sides of the aisle, and it is well deserved and earned.

Russia

Mr. President, I heard Senator Cardin earlier speaking about the threat that Russia poses not just to us--and the meddling that has been occurring here in our elections over the years--but also the threat that they pose to other democracies around the world, particularly in Eastern Europe. I appreciate his report. I appreciate the fact that he has worked with a number of us, including Senator Murphy, on the other side of the aisle, to put forward legislation to try to push back against this disinformation.

In fact, we have required that the State Department increase their efforts through what is called the Global Engagement Center. I am meeting with the Deputy Secretary of State here after this speech, and I am going to speak more about that with him, but we really want to be sure that the United States is taking more aggressive action against the kind of disinformation that can destabilize democracies.

We heard some of the examples of what his report was able to uncover in terms of some of the Russian activity, particularly, again, in Europe and in Eastern Europe. This is an issue. It is a foreign policy issue that we have been, in my view, slow to respond to. It didn't start with the last Presidential election, and it will not end with this last Presidential election unless we take a more aggressive stance and step up.

So I appreciate that it has been a bipartisan effort that we should acknowledge as Americans that it is in our interests to push back against the disinformation and the propaganda and the destabilization of democracies.

Tax Reform

Today, Mr. President, I wish to speak about some good news; that is, that here in Congress we actually did something with the tax relief and tax reform legislation that is actually creating a better economy and more hope for people.

There was news announced today, just a few minutes ago, that is in addition to the news we have heard over the last few weeks. This historic tax reform was created, we will remember, with two goals in mind. One was to cut taxes for middle-class families--so individual tax cuts. The second part of it was to make America a better place to do business. Let's ensure that there will be more jobs created here rather than elsewhere. Let's level the playing field so our workers aren't competing with one hand tied behind their back.

As I have said through the process and as we developed this bill, we had a bipartisan agreement that our Tax Code was broken, but we couldn't seem to come up with an agreement of how to fix it. Some Democrats said: Well, that is great that you guys have done this bill, but it is not going to help. I said at the time: The proof will be what happens, what happens to jobs, what happens to wages, what happens to the economy in general, and what happens to your paycheck.

I am here to announce today that the results have been pretty darn impressive, and they have been across the board--all of those things I talked about. We have already seen as a result of this tax legislation that America has become a better place to do business. All over the country there are companies and businesses, small and large,

that have stepped forward to talk about that. I now have a list of 150 businesses--and I am sure there are many, many more--that have decided to do something. Either they announced a pay increase, a bonus, an increased 401(k) contribution, an increased pension contribution, or maybe a new investment in equipment and in technology to make workers more competitive. All of this is specifically because of the tax relief and reform bill. That is what is happening.

For those who haven't followed it, even today another company, Walmart--the largest employer in my State--announced that they are indeed going to increase pay and provide bonuses to over 1 million workers. Some companies have actually announced a combination of things, not just a pay increase but maybe a pay increase as well as an increased contribution to a 401(K) or an increased contribution to a charity.

So I think we are already seeing the direct effects--the direct and very positive beneficial effects--of this tax reform legislation, as many have hoped that we would see, given the fact that we wrote it to create these incentives for more jobs and better jobs.

But today we are going to begin to see the direct effects of the other part of the bill; that is, the tax relief directly to individuals. The IRS just announced about an hour ago that they are publishing updates to the tax withholding tables for employers. Now, what does this mean? This means that Uncle Sam is going to take a little less of your paycheck, and you are going to see it on your paycheck. So the withholding--the amount that is withheld from your paycheck with taxes--is going to be changed. The Treasury Department says that for 90 percent of Americans--90 percent--there will be a change in withholding that will be positive for them. In other words, they will have less money coming out of their paycheck.

Most people whom I represent in my home State of Ohio live paycheck to paycheck. This is really important. We talked earlier about how much this is going to be: $2,000 a family on average. That is the median income for a family in Ohio. Whatever the amount is, this is significant, and it is something that people are going to be pretty surprised about because so many people have misrepresented what this legislation is about. They are now seeing that it is about jobs, it is about wages, it is about bonuses, and so on. But they are also going to see in their own paycheck that it is about more take-home pay. It is about having a little healthier family budget.

So, again, as we went through this process, when we would have these debates I would say: I encourage people to look online, to look at the professionals, to look at a tax calculator. I said: The proof is in your paycheck. I think the proof will be in their paychecks--more hard- earned money staying in their pocket rather than going to Washington is something that my constituents will like, particularly if we see this economy start to pick up because of this tax reform bill, which, by the way, will result in a stronger economy.

Therefore, there will be more revenue through growth. So the Federal Government will have more revenue coming in. Every 1-percent increase in GDP--a 1-percent increase in growth in this country--means about $2.7 trillion in increased revenue coming into the Federal coffers. So that is more revenue coming in, not from a tax increase but from growth. That is the kind of revenue we want to have to be able to deal with many issues we face on the fiscal side, including our large deficits and debt, and that we will also begin to see as we see a better economy grow and develop because of this tax reform legislation. That is my strong belief and, again, I think the evidence is pretty clear that we are headed that way.

I want to commend the IRS for moving so quickly because this is pretty quick for us to turn it around. We just passed the legislation at the end of the year. It became effective on January 1. Here we are on January 11, and we are already seeing them changing the withholding that is going to go to the employers so that employers will withhold less from people's paychecks.

I also want to personally commend the Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, because I know he has a passion to make sure that our hard- working taxpayers get this tax relief as soon as possible. My sense is that he is the one who has promoted our moving quickly on this, in a professional and careful way so that the withholding tables are accurate but ensuring that we do allow people to begin to have a little more in their paychecks to be able to help make ends meet. Again, with most people I represent living paycheck to paycheck this is a big deal. Steve Mnuchin has been, I think, essential to getting this done as quickly as it has been done, as he was essential in the tax reform legislation, along with Gary Cohn of the White House, and others.

So this law is going to help middle-class families in three main ways.

First, it cuts taxes across the board. As I noted, the IRS announcement means that about 90 percent of taxpayers will see more money in their paychecks. They do this in a number of ways in the tax reform legislation, and I am talking about the reform notice here. It is Notice 1036. For those who want to go online and look at it, just go on the IRS website, irs.gov, and you can see it, the new withholding tables. They lay all of this out. Depending on how much your paycheck is, whether you are paid weekly, biweekly, semimonthly, or monthly, you see what your benefits are going to be. But it happens because there is a doubling of the standard deduction, and most people already take the standard deduction in my State of Ohio. Now more people will take it because there is a doubling and essentially a zero tax bracket. So it goes from about $12,000 a family to about $24,000 a family.

It also has a lowering of the rate of tax. So your tax rate is going to be lower relative to what it was before this.

Also, if you have kids, you get a doubling of the child tax credit, including part of that being an increase in the refundability of that if you don't have income tax liability. But if you still have expenses, if you still have payroll taxes, you get your benefit there.

So these are the kinds of things that, combined, end up with this notice going out saying: You are going to have a little more in your paycheck.

Second, the result of these tax cuts is going to take about 3 million Americans off the tax rolls altogether. I say ``about'' because the Joint Committee on Taxation doesn't have the final number yet but they have told me that it is at least 3 million Americans who now pay income taxes who will no longer have income tax liability. Now, they may have payroll tax liabilities, and they may have State and local taxes, but the point is that this was about Federal income reform and relief, and they are going to be out from under the IRS and again be able to help make ends meet. That is as a result of this legislation. I said earlier that about $2,000 per family is the average tax savings for a median family income in Ohio, $2,000 a year in tax relief is about the average.

This is important because as expenses have gone up over the last couple of decades--particularly, healthcare expenses in the last decade--wages have not. So wages have been relatively flat. In fact, on average, if you take inflation into account, they have been flat over the last couple of decades. We are beginning to see some increase in wages now. This is terrific, but with wages being flat and expenses up, people have had a real squeeze, and that middle-class squeeze is real in my home State. So this is extra money that families--many people living paycheck to paycheck--can use for expenses like healthcare, maybe make a car payment, save for retirement, or maybe help their kids.

The second goal of this tax reform, boosting the American economy, is also beginning to happen, as I said earlier. When the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act became law, immediately we saw a number of companies and businesses, small and large, around the country say: We are going to do something about this. I remember being home over the holidays and, actually, the day after Christmas, December 26, I was talking with friends, and a guy who owns a small manufacturing business, the brother of a friend of mine, said: Would you be willing to come out to our little company to talk about the tax bill?

I said: Sure, if we can figure it out schedulewise.

He said: Because I want to give my employees a bonus. I am looking at this tax bill, how it is going to affect our little business, and what it is going to do for us to be able to invest more in the company, and I want to give my employees a $1,000 bonus--everybody, 137 employees-- and I also want to do something in terms of investing in my equipment because I want to make my people more competitive.

This is a small manufacturer in Cincinnati, OH, that makes a high- quality product, a precision product, and he wants to make sure that his people have the best equipment to be competitive. In his case, he has competition from overseas, as do a lot of American businesses, either directly or indirectly these days in an increasingly global economy, and he wants to be sure he is competitive. So I went there.

I went to the company, Sheffer Corporation, and I had the opportunity to talk about the tax reform bill and what it does across the board. He made the announcement, and I can tell you that people were very happy because these are folks who work hard and play by the rules. They aren't looking for any kind of a handout, but what they do want is to be able to know that if they work hard and do the right thing, they will be able to see a little better future for themselves and their kids and their grandkids and not have that middle-class squeeze we talked about, where wages are flat and expenses are up.

When the economy is not growing at a fast rate, which we have seen over the last decade, it is really a challenge. When we have an economy growing at 2 percent or less, it is tough to see that kind of open opportunity. Now, with this tax reform bill, I think we have a much better chance of seeing that. In fact, looking at some of the projections for next year, it looks like most people think the economy is going to grow at better than 2 percent--maybe 3 percent or maybe a little higher. We don't know. The point is that people are going to have more hope and opportunity.

It is not just Sheffer, though. In my hometown of Cincinnati, the Fifth Third Bank announced a companywide wage increase. So wages are going to go up for entry-level jobs and push all wages, as well as bonuses, for 13,000 employees in Cincinnati.

Across the country we have seen this. Tomorrow I will be at a plant in Cleveland, OH, that is putting more money into their pension plan. I think it is going to be about $15 million into a pension plan, which isn't in terrible shape, but it could be a lot healthier. That is going to help those employees directly.

Last Friday I was at a plant in Columbus, OH, a small manufacturer, Wolf Metals. They do an awesome job there competing with people all around the globe, and they are going to make more investments in equipment. In fact, I like this comparison to the tax bill because one of the pieces of equipment--a $1 million piece of equipment they are going to replace with the tax bill savings--is 32 years old. The Tax Code that we reformed was 31 years old. So it is time, don't you think, every few decades to actually reform our Tax Code, to bring it up to speed and make it more competitive to give our workers the edge, just as it is time to replace that machine to give his employees, what they need to compete globally.

Nationwide Insurance in Columbus, OH, is going to reinvest in their workers. Western & Southern Financial Group, Boeing, Comcast, and AT&T are some of the big companies we have heard about. They have all announced increased investments in their workers and new investments in their operations as a result of this law.

With regard to Walmart, they employ about 1.5 million Americans now. As I said, it is the largest employer in Ohio, with over 50,000 employees. They are going to raise wages, provide bonuses, and expand benefits for the workers as a result of this tax reform legislation.

So these are the results. This isn't a hypothetical. This is not something we are just saying might happen; it is something that is actually happening.

I think every single American is going to see a benefit from this because a stronger economy helps everyone. The 90 percent of people who see their withholdings change so that they have more tax relief are obviously going to see it. The people who work in the businesses we have talked are going to see it. But all of us benefit.

President John F. Kennedy once said something I think makes a lot of sense. He talked about a rising tide. He said, ``A rising tide lifts all . . . [ships].'' In other words, it helps to have a growing economy.

These results are going to help with regard to our competitiveness too. Right now, we have a situation where, because of our Tax Code, jobs and investments are going overseas. Now, we may not hear as much about this, but what we are going to see is fewer foreign companies buying U.S. companies and, therefore, less investment in jobs going overseas.

In 2016, the last year for which we have numbers, three times as many American companies were bought by foreign companies as the other way around. Ernst & Young has done a study saying that over the past 13 years, 4,700 American companies were purchased by a foreign company that otherwise would still be American if we had in place this tax bill that we have now.

Part of the result of this tax reform and tax cut legislation we are talking about today is obvious. We will see better jobs, higher wages, more investment in companies, more investment in retirement--all the things we all want to see, Republican and Democrat alike. Part of it is the tax cuts. Today, with the IRS announcement, people will see this in their paychecks. If not this next pay period, they will see it before February 15 because that is what the Treasury Department is requiring companies to do. So it is coming soon.

The other part we may not see, but is very real, is that the decline we have seen in American competitiveness--the result being that jobs and investment go overseas--is going to start to reverse, and it is none too soon. We needed to do this years ago. Many of us have been talking about it for years.

Finally, we are putting American workers in a position where they can compete and they can win. Isn't that what it is all about? I don't want these 4,700 companies going overseas. I don't want three times as many American companies bought by foreign companies instead of the other way around. We don't want that. What we want is people to say: I am going to invest in America and American workers.

I believe we have so many advantages in this country, and we are so blessed to be Americans. We have great universities. We have the opportunity here, through our workforce, to be as productive as anybody in the world. But when we have a tax code that is holding us back, it is unfair. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to fix it, and that is what we have done. We should have done this sooner, but now that we have done it, I think we will see continued good results, as we have talked about today. We are going to see the opportunity for more investments in American workers, in American jobs, in American families, and in American businesses, and that investment will pay off for all of us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have 3 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Committee on Foreign Relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 11, 2018, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``U.S. Policy in Syria Post-ISIS''.

Committee on the Judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 11, 2018, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 2152 the ``Amy, Vicky, and Any Child Pornography Victim Assistance Act'' and on the following nominations: Stuart Kyle Duncan, of Louisiana, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, David Ryan Stras, of Minnesota, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas.

Select Committee on Intelligence

The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 11, 2018, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing a closed roundtable.

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Blumenthal, for his commitment to this issue. We started this caucus to end trafficking 6 years ago, and during that time period there has been some significant progress made here in the Senate and the House. We have been able to pass legislation to help crack down on trafficking.

Unbelievably, in this century in this country, sex trafficking is increasing, not decreasing, despite our good efforts. We have increased the penalties on those who purchase sex from underage children. We have changed the dynamic of how the Federal Government and HHS look at this issue and these girls who get engaged in trafficking and get trapped into the system and to treat them like the victims they are rather than as criminals.

We have done more to increase awareness of this issue. We have required for missing kids, which are probably the most vulnerable of all, that there be a photograph or another identifier, which, unbelievably, for the most part there was not prior to that. We have made some progress.

Senator Blumenthal and I have written legislation with regard to Government contractors who overseas engage in human trafficking--and our tax dollars go for that. So we have made some progress, but it is still increasing.

Why? Senator Blumenthal talked about it. The experts are unified on this. The main reason we see an uptick is because of the dark side of the internet. The Senator quoted the statistic earlier about an 850- percent increase in reports of sex trafficking over the last several years prior to 2015. The reason that was true was because we saw the emergence of these companies like backpage.com, which probably has about 75 percent of the commercial sex traffic on one site, and the ruthless efficiency of the internet getting engaged on this issue. So we have to address this issue.

Here is the tragic part of this. Not only are more and more lives being ruined and there are more and more heartbreaking stories, but it is because of a Federal law that provides immunity to these websites. So it comes right back here, right to these desks, right to this Congress, right to us as legislators to fix this problem, not to try to smooth it over but to actually fix the problem, which is that some of these online trafficking sites are immune from prosecution because of a Federal law. It was a well-intended law that was written 21 years ago, I think. It is the Communications Decency Act. Ironically, it was put in place to make it a crime to send pornography to kids online, but it has been twisted and used by these trafficking sites to provide them the ability to say: You can't touch us; you can't go after us. That is so because part of what the law says in trying to promote the internet is that if you post somebody else's material on your site, you are not liable. All we are saying is that if you know this involved trafficking--and Senator Blumenthal talked about his experience as a prosecutor; this is a high bar, a known standard--then you can't get away with this. The standard we use, by the way, for Federal trafficking is the Federal law. So we allow victims to have their day in court, but they can't get it now.

The stories are really sad. Let me tell you one. We spent 18 months investigating this in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and what we learned was truly tragic. You had girls who were trafficked on these sites. In one case a mom testified that her daughter had gone missing for about 10 weeks, as I recall--missing. This is a 14-year-old girl. What would you do as a parent if your daughter was missing for 10 weeks? You would go crazy. She tried everything, and someone finally told her: There is this website called backpage.com; you might want to check it out.

She did, and she was aghast at what she saw, but she was relieved by one thing. She saw a photograph of her daughter, knowing, then, that she was still alive. So she picked up the phone and called backpage.com and said: I just saw my daughter. She has been missing for 10 weeks. I saw her on your website. Thank you for taking down that ad that is trying to sell my daughter for sex online. This is my daughter. She is underage.

Do you know what the backpage operator said at the other end of the line, according to this mom? They said: Did you pay for the ad, ma'am? She said: No, I didn't pay for the ad. This is my daughter. They said: Well, we can't take down the ad. We can't take down the ad.

What kind of evil is behind that kind of a business practice? Well, what we learned, as we increasingly dug into this issue, is that it is all about profit, and you can imagine this is a very profitable business. Profits came first, to the point that people would place ads with backpage that indicated that it was for an underage girl, and backpage would then get to the purchaser of the ad and say: You know what, we need to change your ad a little bit. You need to edit out this word ``schoolgirl'' or ``cheerleader'' or ``Lolita,'' referring to a novel about an underage girl. So they knew these ads were being run by people who were advertising underage girls, and they not only ran the ads but they sanitized the ads first.

That just shouldn't happen in this country. It shouldn't happen anywhere in the world, but certainly not with a Federal law providing protections for organizations like that.

That is all we are saying. We want Congress to pass a law that says that if you engage knowingly in facilitating this kind of activity, you are subject to liability. You have to be held to account. Is that too much to ask?

Senator Blumenthal talked about it as a former prosecutor. We allow State prosecutors to go after these sites, which they cannot now. They have to use the Federal standard. So we are not trying to create a whole new area of law. It is a Federal standard that has been passed by this body.

When these victims go to court, they are rebuffed: Sorry, ma'am. In one court last August, a Sacramento judge basically invited our legislation. He said to Congress: The way that law reads, even somebody who exploits women and children online has immunity. Congress, this is your job.

So that is all this legislation does.

Senator Blumenthal talked about the House legislation. There was strong House legislation that was introduced

that still bears that same H.R. number. Then it was changed in the Judiciary Committee. Look, I am glad that there is more awareness and consciousness about this issue and that both the House and Senate want to act, but let's not water this legislation down. Let's not take away this core element of our legislation that simply says that under the Communications Decency Act, we should have the opportunity to allow people to sue and allow prosecutors to go after these evil websites.

We can set up new causes of action. That is fine. We can do more things as we have done in this body. As I said, over the last 5 or 6 years, we passed a number of important bills to try to raise the consciousness and to try to help on this issue, but if we don't deal with this internet part, we will continue to see an increase, which is a stain on our national character--that at this time in our Nation's history, we are seeing an increase in people being sold for sex online, often underage.

Another story came not from testimony before the permanent subcommittee where we spent 18 months studying this, but it came before the Commerce Committee, and Senator Blumenthal was there for part of this. This woman came forward. By the way, you could have heard a pin drop in that room when she talked about her 16-year-old daughter who was sold on backpage.com and was sold to a man who murdered her on Christmas Eve of 2016. This is what this mom said: My daughter never should have been on that site; that should never be allowed. She is right. It should never be allowed. How can we allow that to happen?

So Senator Blumenthal and I introduced this legislation. We had 24 cosponsors almost right away, and it was bipartisan from the start. This is not a political or partisan issue. As of yesterday, I think we had 64 cosponsors. These are thoughtful Members, including the Presiding Officer today, who looked at this legislation. They have heard the arguments from both sides. The other side of the argument is from the tech community, some of whom are supporting our legislation, some of whom are not. But for the people in technology who are concerned about this, I just have to state: I don't get it. This is very narrowly crafted for this issue. We are not trying to affect the freedom of the internet--just the opposite.

If you don't start cracking down on this obvious crime against humanity, which is what I believe trafficking is, I think we are going to see much broader legislation to deal with the internet. This just says: If you are violating a Federal law on trafficking and you are doing it knowingly, you are facilitating it, you are assisting it, then you have to be held liable and held to account.

In fact, we keep in the law a Good Samaritan provision that says if a website wants to clean up its site, it is protected. The good guys should be protected. We want them to clean up their site. We want to be sure that we continue to have freedom of the internet, but we don't want to allow--nor do I think it was ever intended in this law to allow--criminal activity to occur that affects our children and our constituents over the internet without any sense of accountability or responsibility. It is narrowly crafted. It is focused on a real issue that affects real people.

On Friday I was back home in Ohio, and I was at a drug treatment center. I had an opportunity to meet some of those who are recovering addicts. As often happens when I am in those kinds of settings, it turns to what kind of treatment options are out there for trauma. Why? Because there is a link between opioids--particularly heroin and fentanyl--and trafficking. This is what has been told to me many times by some of these women, sometimes underage: Senator, trafficking has moved from the street corner to the iPhone, from the street corner to the cell phone. That is a reality.

I met a woman on Friday who was going through treatment, and part of it is to treat the trauma that is associated with this. Drug treatment is one thing, but the trauma associated with sex trafficking, repeated rapes is a course that is a deeper and even more difficult road to recovery. I believe she will recover. She has a great attitude. She gets it. She is going to have to focus on it and dedicate herself to it.

I will just tell you that this is a real issue in our communities today. It is affecting every single State in this body, and we cannot continue to ignore the reality that while the internet has brought a lot of good things to us and the internet has helped our economy to grow, there is a dark side and this dark side of the internet is why we think it is so important for us to address this issue and address it now so that the next mom who is out there right now wondering, ``Where is my daughter? She has gone missing,'' will not find that she has been advertised online to multiple men, that her life is forever changed, and that she will never achieve her God-given potential in life because of the trauma she has experienced. That is happening right now today.

We have to pass this legislation. It will help. I am convinced it will help. It will help to avoid the reality today, which is that these websites in your communities don't care and they are not going to care until we make them accountable.

This month is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month--January. President Trump just wrote a beautiful proclamation about it. It was a call to action. President Obama did previously. Thursday is the day in which a lot of the advocates will be here in town talking about this issue. I just urge my colleagues and their staff, if they are listening today, please sign up on this legislation if you haven't already. To our leadership, let's get this to the floor for a vote. This should not be an issue that we drag out. Let's deal with it. We spent years studying this. We know what the issue is. We know what the problem is. Then, to my House colleagues, let's work together to actually solve this problem.

For those in the tech community who continue to oppose this legislation, I ask you to look into your hearts and think about the impact this is having on families all across the country. Yes, we all want a better world, and that is part of what many of these internet companies are professing to want, and many of them, by the way, have spent considerable resources in fighting trafficking. But if you don't get at this issue--it has moved from the street corner to the smartphone. If you don't get at this issue, I don't believe we will see the progress that all of us desire.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, January is National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. In a recent proclamation, President Trump continued what President Obama had begun in making this the ninth annual year where we designate our first month of the year to awareness and prevention of trafficking, awareness and prevention of this crime against humanity.

President Trump issued a call to action. The proclamation said, in part:

Human trafficking is a modern form of the oldest and most

barbaric type of exploitation. It has no place in our world.

This month, we do not simply reflect on this appalling

reality. We also pledge to do all in our power to end the

horrific practice of human trafficking that plagues innocent

victims around the world.

Amen. I commend the President for his strong stance, and I commend the U.S. Senate for the work we have done over the past several years, in a bipartisan way, to help combat trafficking. We made some progress.

About 6 years ago, Senator Blumenthal--who will speak about this topic later on the floor--and I cofounded the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking and legislation since that time to increase penalties on people buying sex from children; stop international trafficking by U.S. Government contractors overseas; find missing children more quickly--the most vulnerable among us--by ensuring that their photographs and other identifiers are available; improve data on trafficking to find out what the problem is, where it is going; and, of course, change the paradigm--treat children who are exploited as victims rather than, as they have been treated over the years, as criminals.

We have made some progress in these areas, but I have to tell you, despite these efforts and despite the increasing awareness of the fact that trafficking occurs right here in this country, in all of our States, we now know that one form, at least, of sex trafficking is actually increasing in our country. Think about that. It is increasing in this country, in this century. What experts say when you ask them about it is that is primarily because of one reason; that is, the fact that the internet is being used to sell sex.

By the way, doing it on the internet, it turns out, occurs with ruthless efficiency. Victims I have visited across Ohio tell me, including one this past Friday in Ohio: Rob, it has moved from the street corner to the iPhone, from the street corner to the cell phone, from the street corner to the internet.

There was discussion earlier from my colleague from New York about the role opioids play in causing harm in our society. Of course, the internet combined with opioids is deadly. The young woman I met with on Friday was one of those who had become addicted to opioids--in her case, fentanyl, which is an incredibly powerful, dangerous drug--and depended on her trafficker to be able to provide that. That is one form of dependency you see in sex trafficking. And again, online is where people are increasingly being bought and sold.

This increase in sex trafficking is a stain on our national character. It is only Congress that has the power to stop it.

There is one website--backpage.com--that is the leader in online sex trafficking. They have knowingly sold underage girls online. I say that because we have done an investigation, and we determined that. We now know from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that backpage.com is involved in nearly 75 percent of all child trafficking reports the organization receives from the public.

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, along with then-ranking member Claire McCaskill and now-ranking member Tom Carper, has conducted an extensive, 18-month investigation into online sex trafficking and specifically backpage.com. We found that backpage.com knowingly facilitated criminal sex trafficking of vulnerable women and young children. It coached the traffickers on how to edit adult classified ads to post so-called clean ads for illegal transactions, and then it covered up evidence of these crimes in order to increase its profits. All this was done at the cost of human suffering--and sometimes human life--with the sole purpose of increasing the company's profits.

In the fall, I testified on this issue in front of the Senate Commerce Committee--about our legislation. With me at the witness table was Yvonne Ambrose, a mother whose 16-year-old daughter, Desiree, was found murdered on Christmas Eve 2016 after being sold for sex on backpage.

Desiree's death should never have happened--and neither should online sex trafficking of minors happen at all--but this tragic trend is compounded by the fact that backpage has evaded justice for its role in these tragic crimes. Courts across the country have consistently ruled that a Federal law--and this is why Congress has such a key role to play here--called the Communications Decency Act actually protects backpage and others from the liability they should have in sex trafficking.

The Communications Decency Act is a well-intentioned law originally enacted back in 1996, when the internet was in its infancy, and it was meant to protect third-party websites from being held liable for crimes that users might commit on those websites. Ironically, part of the original intention of the Communications Decency Act was to protect children from indecent material on the internet by holding liable users who send explicit material to children. Now this same law is being used as a shield by cynical sex traffickers who promote and engage in online underage sex trafficking with immunity, thanks to this Federal law.

Congress didn't intend for this broad immunity in the law--I am convinced of that--but numerous courts across the country have made it clear that their hands are tied because of the legal precedent that has been formed. As the lawmaking branch of the Federal Government, it is up to Congress to fix this injustice. No one else can do it.

In the most blatant call for congressional action I have seen yet, in August of last year, a Sacramento judge cited the broad immunity provided by the Communications Decency Act in dismissing pimping charges against backpage.com. The court opinion stated:

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 exploitations of others by human

trafficking.

That is an invitation to Congress to act. It is clearly up to Congress to act. It is past time we update this 21-year-old law for the 21st century and allow victims who have had their most basic human rights violated to get justice against those who facilitate these crimes.

We have an opportunity this month during National Human Trafficking Prevention Month to fix this. We can and we must.

The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, or SESTA, is a bill I introduced with my bipartisan colleagues--Senator Blumenthal, who will speak later this afternoon, and Senators John McCain, Claire McCaskill, John Cornyn, Heidi Heitkamp, Amy Klobuchar, and 18 other colleagues. As of this morning, that legislation has 64 cosponsors. It is totally bipartisan, supported by both sides of the aisle. It is popular: 64 out of 100 have already cosponsored it because it will fix this injustice with two very narrowly crafted changes to the Communications Decency Act.

First, it will allow victims to get the justice they deserve by removing the Communications Decency Act's broad liability protections the judge discussed, specifically for websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking crimes.

Second, it will allow State attorneys general to prosecute these websites that violate Federal sex trafficking laws. These changes will hold bad actors like backpage accountable while doing nothing to impair the free internet. In fact, they will protect websites that do not actively and knowingly engage in online sex trafficking.

The ``knowing'' standard is a high bar to meet. The California attorney general, Xavier Becerra, testified at the Senate Commerce Committee about that this fall. He said:

We have to prove criminal intent. We can't win a

prosecution unless we can show the individuals we're

prosecuting, like Backpage, had the intent--the knowledge--to

do what they're doing. The legislation we have before you is

very narrowly tailored. It goes only after sex trafficking.

The Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act passed the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote that was unanimous. It was bipartisan. It was unanimous, and the legislation has the support of an extraordinary coalition of law enforcement organizations, anti-trafficking advocates, trafficking victims, survivors, faith-based groups, and even some major tech players, although some in the tech community continue to be concerned. This includes the Internet Association, which now represents companies such as Facebook, reddit, Amazon, and others. It was endorsed by businesses, including Oracle, 21st Century Fox, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, and the Walt Disney Company. Other companies such as IBM and others have stepped up to support it.

Last year, 50 attorneys general across this country wrote a letter calling on Congress to amend the Communications Decency Act in the exact way we are proposing in this bill--50.

Again, in the Senate, a bipartisan group of 64 Senators has now cosponsored the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. Those 60-plus cosponsors are significant because 60 is how many votes we need in the U.S. Senate if there are objections to the legislation to be able to get it passed. We already have that many Senators who have now put their names down. They said they want to be part of the solution to this tragic problem. They want to stop this increase in sex trafficking that unconscionably is happening in this country in this century.

So we shouldn't wait any longer to pass this bill in the Senate. Every day we do, those who sell women and children will be allowed to continue that, continue to profit, and victims will continue to be denied justice.

It is not an issue of politics or partisanship. It is about preventing exploitation and providing justice. I am hoping we can have a vote on this bill in the Senate this month, during National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. This Thursday is National Human Trafficking Awareness Day. I urge the leadership to have the bill on the floor as soon as possible. We have every reason to act and no reason not to.

These victims deserve justice, and Congress should help provide it. Passing the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act is an opportunity.

Thank you.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, first, I congratulate the Nebraska women's volleyball team and say I was proud to be here on the floor to be one of those who did not object to this wonderful resolution just offered by my colleagues from Nebraska.

Mr. President, I am standing here tonight to talk about a couple of things, and first is the tax legislation that was passed this week in Congress. This is going to help everybody I represent because it is going to help our entire country. It is going to lift up our country in ways we are already beginning to see.

There have been a lot of people to thank, and today I was at the signing ceremony where Speaker Ryan and President pro tempore Orrin Hatch signed the official legislation that is now on its way to the President for his signature. I start by thanking them--Speaker Ryan, Chairman Hatch, and also Chairman Brady of the Ways and Means Committee, with whom I worked closely on this. He was a gentleman. He was, as always, someone who was looking for ways to solve problems and to get to yes, and I commend him for that.

I also want to thank some of the colleagues on the Finance Committee whom I worked closely with. This Core 4 group includes Senator John Thune, Senator Pat Toomey, Senator Tim Scott.

Maybe, most importantly, is the staff. We had an enormous undertaking here, and it was ambitious to try to meet the goals that were set out early on of real, middle-class tax cuts, also energizing the economy through helping small businesses, and then changing the whole international system so we could level the playing field. It was a lot to do, and it took a lot of expertise and a lot of time and effort. So to Mark Prater, Jay Khosla, and Brendan Dunn, who led that effort, we all owe you our thanks. Then, of course, there are a slew of other staff, including Zach Rudisill of my staff, who just spent hours and hours and put his heart and soul into this. Thank you--all of you--for helping us get to this point.

For years, Democrats and Republicans alike have called for middle- class tax cuts. We talk about it in campaigns. I am proud to say that this week we delivered on it.

I know some of my Democratic colleagues have been critical of the legislation, and some have said: Well, these are not real, middle-class tax cuts because they expire. Yes, they expire after 8 years. We wished they didn't. Those are the budget rules here, but that is the same thing that happened with the 2001 tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts, and Congress worked to extend those using the same budget rules for about 95 percent of those taxpayers. I am strongly hoping we will do the same thing, and I believe we will.

This is real tax relief. For families in Ohio of median income, the average will be just over $2,000 every year. That helps the family budget. That is a little money you can put aside for retirement. Maybe that is money to use for a vacation you didn't have. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, which is true with a lot of people I represent, that is a big help. It is a big help. That is from doubling the child credit, that is from doubling the standard deduction, essentially creating $14,000 of a zero income bracket.

By the way, doing those sorts of things in this bill means that about 3 million Americans or more are going to be leaving the tax rolls all together. These are people who have tax liability now and, under the new bill, starting in a couple of weeks, they will not have an income tax liability. They will be out from under the IRS. They will be able, as they move many of them from welfare to work or from a Federal program into gainful employment, to not worry about the taxman. That is really important too. I am proud of the legislation because I think it is going to really help the people I represent in an immediate way.

People will see it in their paychecks. The proof is in the paychecks because they will see it, and probably starting in February, the withholding will change. The IRS has to go through a process on that. I wrote a letter to them yesterday encouraging them to move on that quickly because people want to see that in their paychecks. So the tax relief starts in a couple of weeks, January 1. It will be in the paychecks when the withholding changes--hopefully sometime in late January, February--and people will see less money being withheld from their paycheck because of the tax cuts that enable them to have a healthier family budget.

I have to tell you I believe this is going to go well beyond that for the people I represent. As important as those middle-class tax cuts are, equally as important is what we are doing to stimulate more investment in this economy, and that is through the changes for small businesses that will now be able to put more money into the business rather than paying more taxes. Many of these businesses--so-called passthrough companies, which are most of the businesses in America--pay taxes as individuals. They don't pay the business tax rate; they pay the individual tax rate. Many of them do take a dividend. They take money out of the company every year for one purpose, and that is to pay their taxes. To the extent they are not taking the money out as much to pay those taxes because of the changes we made here for small businesses, they are going to be able to invest more in their people, more in their equipment, more in their plants--and I am hearing this from small business people around the State of Ohio.

Last weekend, I was with a number of them, and they are excited about this because they want to be able to invest more in their business, they want to be able to invest more in their people, and they want to be able to give people who work for them the opportunity to have a higher wage.

Right now, wages are flat, and they really have been for the past couple of decades when you take inflation into account. This has the incredible opportunity for us not just to provide middle-class tax cuts, which are important not just to help businesses invest, but actually to help get wages up so people will see that if they work hard and play by the rules, they are going to see higher wages, the ability to get ahead, and have more hope for themselves and for their kids and their grandkids. Everyone, regardless of economic status, region, or party is going to see the benefits of this tax reform bill.

By the way, some workers are already seeing the benefit, as we talked today, because there are a bunch of companies that announced today that because of the tax reform and tax cuts legislation, they are already taking steps to increase the pay of their employees, increase benefits, or invest more money in building plants, equipment, or adding more jobs to investment or both. These companies include some big companies you have heard of like Comcast. It includes other companies like Wells Fargo and Boeing and AT&T. They have made these announcements today.

One company that announced it today is in my hometown. It is the Fifth Third Bank. It is kind of an unusual name, Fifth Third, but that makes them distinctive, right? They said today, you know what, we are going to start paying our people a higher entry level pay--instead of 13-something an hour, it is going to be $15 an hour--and we are going to provide bonuses to other employees who are not affected by that. They are going to

do it right now, and they are doing it because of the tax relief legislation.

So to those who say: Gosh. What about me? I would just say: Look at your paycheck. If you work for one of these businesses that has already made an announcement, of course, you are feeling good about it, but even if you work for another company that maybe is a little quieter about what they are doing--maybe they are not going to make a big announcement--trust me, it is going to be in their interest now, in a competitive market out there, to invest in those companies, to invest in their people, to invest in training, to invest in better equipment, better technology. Those are the sorts of things that, over time, are going to make the biggest difference, I think, in this tax bill.

If you look at what is happening in our economy today, the reason wages are flat--by the way, expenses are not flat. Expenses are up and wages are flat. That is called the middle-class squeeze, and that is very real. What is the biggest expense? For most people, it is healthcare.

The way to deal with that is to get this economy moving and, specifically, to increase the productivity. That is what the economists say; that our productivity is low right now. When you have low productivity, you have low economic growth, and that is what we have had, under 2 percent economic growth. That is not the America I grew up in, and that is not the America I want my kids to grow up in.

By making these investments in better technology, in better equipment, in better training, what happens? You get better productivity, you get higher efficiency, you get the opportunity to increase your business, and therefore hire more people. That is something, I think, over time, will play out and will create the opportunity to lift up everybody.

John F. Kennedy was a Democrat, but he had a lot of things to say that sounded more like what Republicans are talking about today. One thing he said was that ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' In the 1960s, he did cut capital gains, by the way, and that tax cut actually generated more economic activity.

Ronald Reagan, in 1986, actually put in place tax reform, with a bipartisan group here in the Congress, that ended up with strong economic growth in the 1980s and the 1990s, but that was 31 years ago. That is the last time we made these kinds of substantive comprehensive changes in the Tax Code. It is past time to do it again.

The final thing I will say about the tax reform proposal is that when you talk to businesses that are competing globally, which is more and more companies, including a lot of smaller companies now, the global economy is upon us. Some people said: Gosh, I wonder when the economy is going to affect me globally? Well, it does. It affects all of us. In your town, wherever it is, and in your business, wherever you work, you are probably competing directly or indirectly on a global basis.

I will give you an example. There is a little company in my hometown called Standard Textiles. It is a great company. They make linens. It is a company that competes every day globally. In fact, a lot of the companies they compete with, as you can imagine, are companies that make these linens somewhere else--say, in Asia, where traditionally people have been able to find lower costs. Guess what they are looking at now with this tax reform bill: the ability to invest more here in America--American workers, American-made linens. They tell me, as do other companies, that this is going to give them a better competitive situation because no longer are you going to have a tax code that has the highest business rate in the entire industrialized world and an international system that says: If you keep your money overseas rather than bringing it back, when you earn money, you can save on your taxes. That is what resulted in $2.5 to $3 trillion being locked out of America and kept overseas.

This tax reform proposal unlocks that. It allows us to bring that money back. People call it repatriation. I guess that is accurate-- repatriation. I wish it had never been ``unpatriated'' in the first place. If you are a patriot, you should want that money to be spent here in America. That is what is going to happen with this tax reform proposal.

It is about the tax cuts for working families--hard-working families who deserve it, who are now stuck in a situation where it is tough to get ahead. This will help immediately.

It is about helping small businesses and other companies here in America to be able to invest more, to be able to write off equipment right away when they buy it, and, as an example, having a lower rate.

It is also about leveling that playing field and saying that America, once again, is going to reposition itself as the leader in the world. Once again, it will be that beacon of opportunity that other countries look to and say: We would like to be like that--a free market economy where people who work hard and play by the rules can get ahead.

You can't say that now with our current Tax Code because workers literally are competing on an unlevel playing field with one hand tied behind their back because of our Tax Code. Three times as many American companies were purchased by foreign companies last year as the other way around. Because of our Tax Code, 4,700 U.S. companies became foreign companies over the last decade or so. That is based on an Ernst & Young study that came out recently that said, if this tax reform proposal we have now passed had been in place, those 4,700 companies would still be American companies.

All of us are patriots here in this body. All of us should want to bring back those jobs to America, repatriate those profits here to America, and give American workers the ability to compete on a level playing field.

I know there were some differences in this legislation. We heard a lot of it from the other side of the aisle, but on this issue, it has been bipartisan in the past. I hope it will be bipartisan going forward to hold these reforms in place so we can show that we have confidence and faith in American workers and that we have confidence that if we give them the right tools--in this case, the right Tax Code to work with--they can compete and they can win. I think we are going to see that.

I think, again, with the hopeful signs we are seeing, even today, of companies providing better pay or benefits or making additional commitments on investments. Even well beyond that, we are going to see, maybe quietly, that it will spread out all over the country in ways that will not be as obvious--in decisions that are going to be made, business budgets that are going to change as a result of this tax reform bill. I am hearing it from small businesses. I am hearing it from the bigger companies that compete directly globally, and I am certainly hearing it from families who are happy to see a little tax break to be able to help them as we go into the holidays.

That is all good news, and I think passing that legislation is really going to help the people I represent.

Mr. President, I also wish to talk about something tonight that was not accomplished. It was not accomplished in this vote we just had, which was the continuing resolution that keeps the government funded until January.

Some of us pushed hard to include various things in this legislation. I understand that some of these items are controversial, and it was hard to get it done because you needed 60 votes tonight. You needed a bipartisan consensus on how to move forward and not shut down the government.

I am not a fan of government shutdowns. They don't work. They are inefficient. They cost the taxpayer more at the end of the day, and they cause a lot of pain in the process.

We had the opportunity to pass certain things tonight that were not controversial. I don't understand why we didn't do it. Some issues, I understand on the spending front, were more controversial. I understand some issues were more controversial in terms of how you deal with the immigration issue. The DACA issue is one that I support resolving. I think we should codify it and resolve that. There were different points of view. People wanted to add different things there.

Let me tell you about one where I don't think there was any disagreement. If we could have passed it tonight, it would have provided a lot of certainty and predictability to families in Ohio and around the country. It is one that passed my committee, the Finance Committee, by a strong vote--not a bipartisan vote but a unanimous vote. That is the Children's Health Insurance Program, or the CHIP program. We passed it with a unanimous vote out of committee.

People say: Well, we need to find pay-fors for it. It is about $8 billion to do what we did, which is a 5-year extension of the program, providing certainty and predictability to families who tonight are wondering what is going to happen to this program. Are my kids going to have the kind of quality healthcare they can access through the Children's Health Program, or the CHIP program?

There are some pay-fors out there that are, again, bipartisan. A big one, which would cover nearly half of that cost, is one where you simply ensure that the Medicaid Program has more integrity. So if a third-party payer is paying, the Medicaid Program doesn't pay for it. It is a bipartisan issue, and there is an initiative we looked at for this program and could have used.

I don't get this notion that we couldn't pass it because we couldn't find the pay-fors. The pay-fors were there. I don't get it that this was controversial, because it is not. I believe that on both sides of the aisle, we wanted to resolve the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Again, with all the other issues, I understand. It is tough when you have to get to 60 votes and get this passed in order to keep the government operating, which is not a situation we should be in, but we are in. I must tell you, I am very disappointed we were not able to deal with this one issue tonight that has not been controversial and that came out of the committee with a unanimous vote--not bipartisan but unanimous.

CHIP now helps 219,000 Ohio children get the health coverage they need and 9 million children nationwide. Ohio has the tenth largest program, and CHIP has been a leading cause in driving the insurance rate down for Ohio kids. In the case of my home State, we have seen our CHIP funding being questioned because the program was authorized until the end of September. Now it is no longer authorized. We are not sure exactly how much money we have left. We think we have enough to get into February in Ohio. Some States are worried about even getting into January.

Tonight, there was a short-term extension that, as I understand it, will take the program into February, but again, it doesn't provide that long-term certainty that families are looking for.

I must tell you that I am disappointed from what I hear about the reasons, because I asked on both sides of the aisle, and one reason I got--- again, this was leadership on both sides of the aisle--is that we can't do it unless we do other things with it. It is called CHIP-- Children's Health Insurance Program--but it shouldn't be a political chip. It should be taken out of politics. It should be something that we deal with separately.

I will just tell you that using it as leverage for other programs is not the way I am going to look at it and not the way we should look at it. We should have passed it tonight. We should have passed it to help protect some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Funding should be a top priority, regardless of your partisan position and regardless of the political climate. It should be out of the political fray.

I urge my colleagues, when we come back after the first of the year, let's make that a priority. Let's bring it to the floor. Let's have a vote. Let's keep it bipartisan. Maybe, it could even be unanimous. Let's give those families in Ohio--the 219,000 kids who depend on it-- and the millions of families around this country the peace of mind to know that we are extending this program.

Let's do that 5-year extension, that 5-year authorization we already passed in committee. Let's take it out of this political process and put it where it belongs, which is an issue that every single Member of this body should want to address for the kids they represent.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight on the tax reform and tax cut legislation. I do think it will provide the opportunity for everybody I represent to have a better future and a brighter future.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk on the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Louisiana be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills during today's session of the Senate.

Mr. President, I yield back my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to recognize the upcoming 90th birthday of Albert Ratner on December 26. Albert has led a distinguished life that has touched and benefited countless people in Ohio and around the world.

I consider Albert a dear friend and a wise adviser, and Jane and I have enjoyed the friendship of him and his wife, Audrey, over the years. Whether it is a discussion over dinner or catching up during a Cavs game, we treasure our time with Albert and Audrey.

Albert grew up in Cleveland during the Great Depression, where his family, who were immigrants from Poland, turned a small company into a thriving business through hard work and dedication. Well known for his civic involvement in Cleveland and as a leader in the Jewish community, Albert is a life trustee of the Cleveland Jewish Community Federation and a member of the International Council of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee. The Ratner family was instrumental in establishing the Cleveland Jewish Archives at the Western Reserve Historical Society in 1976.

Albert is currently engaged in a series of poverty-related initiatives in his hometown of Cleveland and throughout the State in partnership with the Governor and local leaders. Beyond his influence in Ohio, he has helped those in need across the country by supporting innovative educational initiatives that have given promising youth access to an education that has opened doors for each of them.

Albert is a loving husband and father. He has been married to Audrey for 36 years. His first wife, Faye, who he met in high school, was tragically killed in an automobile accident, after which he continued raising his daughter Deborah and son Brian to follow in his footsteps as fully engaged members of their community. He has lived a life of kindness, cheerfulness, and compassion for all of our fellow citizens.

Albert's life has been guided by a love for his Jewish traditions. He often talks about the Jewish tradition of tikkun olam, to repair the world, and how even when the obligation seems too great, we must not desist from it. That is how he lives. He is truly a great American.

Happy birthday to Albert Ratner.

Mr. President, I want to talk tonight about a once-in-a- generation opportunity we have in this Senate tonight to help middle- class families, to help grow our economy. I am going to talk about the facts. I am not going to be making stuff up. I am going to talk about the real middle-class tax cuts that are in this legislation. I am going to show you charts that indicate not just what kind of tax relief is going to be there for you and your family but who is going to pay, where the burden is.

Despite what you are hearing on the floor tonight from some on the other side of the aisle, the burden of taxation actually increased in this tax bill for the wealthiest Americans. In terms of defending the status quo, which is a situation now where jobs and investment are going overseas, I think it is an outrage that this body has sat and watched company after company go overseas because of our Tax Code. To say we shouldn't fix it, I don't get that. If we don't lower the rate on businesses and workers who are competing every day when you have the highest rate in the industrialized world and you have an international system that rewards revenues being kept overseas--$2.5 trillion to $3 trillion of earnings overseas instead of bringing that back--that status quo is not acceptable.

We can engage in all kinds of rhetoric here tonight, but if we stick to the facts, I think we might be able to see why this legislation is not only going to pass tonight but why so many Americans who are struggling because they are living paycheck to paycheck are going to be happy with this legislation. The proof is in the paycheck. People say the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the paycheck when people see their withholding changing--less money being taken out of their paychecks for taxes--when they see they have a little more take-home pay and the family's budget is a little healthier, when they see the economy begin to take off, and when they see the end of this exodus of U.S. companies going overseas. In the last 13 years, 4,700 American companies have left our shores and gone overseas--being bought by foreign companies--that would not have gone if this Tax Code we are promoting tonight had been in place. That is based on an Ernst & Young study. Check it out. It is a big accounting firm. So 4,700, and when they leave our shores, guess what, they take their jobs and investments with them.

You might wonder why wages have been flat in this country for the past couple of decades. It is because people who are supporting the status quo and don't want to change this Tax Code are leaving workers in America with no opportunities to get ahead because not only are wages flat but expenses are up. That is called the middle-class squeeze. It is very real, and it is happening.

I would ask folks, when they are thinking about what you are hearing tonight on the floor, remember, one side is supporting the status quo. The status quo is not working. It isn't working for people in America and people in my State of Ohio who tell me: Rob, I am working hard. I am playing by the rules. I am not getting ahead.

The statistics bear that out. Yes, some people are getting ahead, but it is not the guy or the woman working on the shop floor in a factory in Cleveland, OH, or Columbus, Toledo, Dayton, or Cincinnati because their wages have been pretty darn flat. Again, their expenses are up, especially healthcare, which is the largest single one of those expenses. They want some help.

This legislation gives them that help in two ways: One, real middle- class tax cuts. We will talk about that in a second. Second, letting them be competitive instead of competing with one hand tied behind their backs because they are competing in a global economy, and they know that.

Give them a chance. Give them a tax code that actually is up-to-date and competitive and lets them have the opportunity to build a better life, not just for themselves but for their kids and their grandkids because that is what they really care about.

Again, I am happy to talk about that opportunity we have tonight, and it is a rare opportunity because we have not reformed this Tax Code in any substantial way in 31 years. Think about that. I celebrated my 62nd birthday today. That means we have not reformed the Tax Code in 31 years. That is half of my life. By the way, 31 years ago, Ronald Reagan was President. Pete Rose was still playing for the Cincinnati Reds. ``Top Gun'' was at all the box offices. It was a big hit. That is how long ago that was. During that time, I will tell you that every other country we compete with, all of them, have reformed their Tax Code, except us. We have sat back and had this debate. We have had this gridlock, partisan gridlock, in Washington because we can't get our act together.

By the way, if you are a worker trying to get ahead, you can't do it on your own because the Tax Code has you competing with that one hand tied behind your back. Only this place, Washington, Congress, a President, can propose, develop, and sign legislation that can help address this problem. This is our job. I sure hope we will do it.

In 1986, when that tax reform was passed 31 years ago, it led to two things: one, more economic growth. In the 1980s and 1990s, we did have economic growth--3, 3.5 percent, even 4.5 percent growth. Think about that. We are now living, over the last 10 years, with growth, on average, at about 1.5 to 2 percent. That is a big difference. The second thing it did is, it got wages up. Wages actually increased during that period after that tax reform.

We need to do it again. Our economy needs a shot in the arm again, not just to improve the economy but to improve take-home pay. That is what this tax reform proposal is designed to do.

We have heard, on the other side of the aisle, how this has moved too quickly, somehow there hasn't been enough thought put into this. I think it is long overdue. I think we should have done this years ago. I also know, from being involved in these issues over the past couple of decades on the House Ways and Means Committee and now in the Senate Finance Committee, there has been a lot of thought put into this issue. Just since I was elected to the Senate in 2010, there have been 70 hearings on tax reform.

Chairman Hatch is in the Chamber tonight. He will tell you, 2 years ago we had five bipartisan working groups covering every part of the Tax Code. The bipartisan working group that I cochaired with the Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, focused on the international side. Do you know what we decided? We decided we have to have a lower business rate because it has to be competitive; otherwise, we will continue to lose jobs in investment overseas, and we decided we have to have an international system that is competitive and bring back some of that $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion that is stuck overseas back to this country for more jobs and investment. Guess what. It was bipartisan then, and it is in the tax bill now.

Those are the ideas that are in this tax bill before us. They make sense. In fact, for years, there has been a bipartisan agreement that our Tax Code is broken, and it is Congress's responsibility to fix it.

I would like to commend tonight Speaker Ryan; Leader McConnell; Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, who is on the floor; Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, who has been a strong and fair negotiating partner with the Senate. I also want to thank my colleagues who have spent so many hours on this effort: Senator Toomey, whom you heard a little while ago talking about the economic benefits, as he does so well, Senators Scott, Thune, Cornyn, Enzi, and Murkowski. They were all on the conference committee, but many others too. Senators Collins, Johnson, Rubio, Corker, who all helped us get to this point and improve the legislation.

The bill that passed the House earlier today, and we are going to vote on tonight, is the result of years and years of research and debate. It makes good on the promise we have made to create a tax code that provides tax relief to hard-working families but also positions America for leadership in the 21st century global economy.

While we have seen some improvements in the economy recently, we have seen better economic growth

numbers. Again, a lot of people I represent are not seeing the benefit of that. That is why we have to pass this bill.

For years, colleagues on both sides of the aisle have called for middle-class tax cuts to help ease the burden. This legislation will finally actually deliver that middle-class tax relief. We have the opportunity to provide it tonight. Starting January 1--less than 2 weeks from tonight--that tax relief goes into effect. People are going to see how this tax reform helps them as soon as the IRS can adjust withholding in paychecks, which I would hope would happen before the end of February. Again, the proof is in the pudding. The proof is in the paycheck. People are going to see it.

People can go online now and use a tax calculator to see how it will affect them and their families. This is going to happen, and it is going happen soon if we pass this legislation tonight.

Again, the most immediate benefit is for working families and for the middle class. This bill doubles the child tax credit. It also increases the refundability of the child tax credit. For those families with kids, you have the opportunity now to save a little more money to deal with the expenses of raising a child. It doubles the standard deduction from $12,000 per family to about $24,000 per family. This, in effect, creates a $24,000 zero income tax bracket for families and simplifies the Tax Code. Probably 90 to 95 percent of Americans are going to take that doubling of the standard deduction, I am told, and that will simplify their returns but also give them tax relief right away. It lowers tax rates for families across the board, with the largest proportional benefit going to those at the lower end of the income ladder, those who need it the most.

In fact, the combination of these tax cuts for lower income Americans means that at least 3 million Americans who have income tax liability now are going to pay nothing in taxes. They will be off the tax rolls altogether.

I have a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation that affirms that. At our meeting last week of the conference, you can see where the Joint Committee affirmed that again. Over 3 million are going to pay no income taxes at all who pay income tax now. For those who say there is no benefit there, talk to those 3 million people. They feel the benefit. In fact, those people are going to be off the tax rolls altogether because of the tax relief we are passing tonight.

As this chart shows, every income group will receive a tax cut. This one is for the year 2019, so it is a year after the tax cuts are put in place, which starts in just a couple of weeks. We have heard a lot from opponents that the top end, those making $1 million or more, as we just heard a little while ago, get all the benefits. It is simply not true. This shows that the biggest percentage cut is among folks making between $20,000 and $30,000 a year. That is the biggest, a 16.3-percent cut.

It also shows that the smallest percentage cut is among those making $1 million or more, a 5.9-percent cut. Again, there is tax relief across the board here, but the bigger benefit is among folks at the lower end of the economic scale. In fact, when you look at who pays the income tax, you will see that those at the top are going to pay a slightly bigger share of the tax burden under this bill. Today, those making between $20,000 and $50,000 a year pay 4.37 percent of the income taxes. Under this bill, they are going to pay a little less, 4.1 percent of the income taxes.

Those who make over $100,000 will go from paying 78.7 percent of the tax burden to 79.1 percent of the tax burden. If you make over $100,000 a year, you are paying 78.7 percent of the tax burden today, and that is going to go up. Your share of the burden is going to go up. The Tax Code is pretty progressive right now, and it gets even more progressive under this tax legislation.

These are not my numbers. These are the numbers from the Joint Committee on Taxation, which is the nonpartisan group that scores these things. Check out the numbers yourselves. Go on the Joint Committee on Taxation's website, jct.gov, and check it out.

When you don't consider not choosing to buy healthcare insurance to be a tax increase, which is how the Joint Committee on Taxation scores ending the individual mandate, every income group of taxpayers gets a tax cut under this plan every year, for the next 8 years, during the time this tax cut is in place. Yes, it does expire, as did the tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Congress took those up, and for 95 percent of Americans, we extended that tax relief. I hope we will do that again--I expect we will--but during these next 8 years, this is real tax relief, and it is needed.

I reject the premise that choosing not to buy healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is somehow a tax hike, and I think most Americans do too. Take a look at the Rules Committee's website at rules.house.gov, and you will see how a typical family of four at the median income level will save more than $2,000 a year on its taxes as a result of this plan. The median-income family in Ohio--and in your State wherever you are--is going to be saving more than $2,000 a year on its taxes.

Some have told me, as I walk down the halls here, that is not much money. Do you know what? For families who are living paycheck to paycheck, that is a lot of money, and it does help. It can be used to pay for healthcare, to buy gas, to buy groceries, to maybe add a little more to one's retirement.

Of course, beyond the middle-class tax cuts that are in this legislation, families and workers are going to benefit from more jobs and higher wages, as we talked about earlier. This is going to be because there will be new investment and because there will be more productivity, which is the thing that is really lacking in our economy right now. Our productivity is weak. All of the economists agree on this whether they are right, left, or center. You have to do something to boost that productivity because that is going to result in higher wages, and more competition for workers is going to result in higher wages. That is going to happen because this Tax Code is focused on increasing wages through more investment.

We have talked about how companies are going overseas now and how the status quo is not working. It is crazy that Congress allows that to happen, and fixing it is long overdue. We have talked about the $2.5 trillion, $3 trillion that is stuck overseas right now. We want to bring that home. We want to add more jobs and investment in this country.

We did a study in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--a bipartisan effort. We studied these companies that go overseas through what is called inversions or by being purchased by a foreign company. What happens? Do they just move their headquarters overseas? No. We found out they also move jobs and investment.

This is real. It is happening now. We can fix it. That is what this bill is intended to do, and I believe you are going to see not just middle-class tax relief to help with the take-home pay and the family budget, but you are going to see this increase, finally, not just in economic growth but in wages. That also makes the family budget a whole lot more healthy.

I see Senator Cassidy has just come to the floor. Let me address an issue that has been misrepresented on the floor this afternoon.

I heard one of my colleagues say this bill gets rid of the historic tax credit. It does not, thanks to the efforts of some of us who strongly support it, including Senator Cassidy. We actually retain the current 20-percent credit in the Senate-passed bill and in the final legislation. By the way, this historic tax credit has been very helpful. It has been instrumental in generating more private funds to restore historic buildings across my State of Ohio, including in my hometown of Cincinnati, as well as in Cleveland, Columbus, and elsewhere.

We also preserve the important tax credit for urban redevelopment through the new markets tax credit and the private activity bonds, which are still in this legislation just as they are in current law. In Ohio, again, these tax incentives have leveraged a lot more private sector dollars, spurred economic growth, job creation, affordable housing, and I think have ultimately increased the tax revenue because, as people are working and as you get these buildings up and going, economic growth is generated, and so is tax revenue. They pay for themselves, in my view. I have shared some

of those success stories in my home State throughout this process, and, again, we have successfully maintained those provisions in our final bill.

The result is, we have a good tax reform bill that achieves the things that Republicans and Democrats alike have long supported--tax cuts for the middle class and a more competitive Tax Code for American workers and companies.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tonight have talked about this being bad for the deficit. I just have to tell them I respectfully disagree.

The most important thing we can do right now to get the deficit down is to get this growth back because economic growth results in more revenue. One point in economic growth alone puts $2.7 trillion more in revenue into the coffers of the Federal Government. That is based on the numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Think about that--$2.7 trillion more with just one point of economic growth.

The budget score we were forced to use for this legislation estimates a very conservative level of economic growth--at a weak 1.9 percent over the next 10 years. That was the last 10 years. We don't want to repeat that. We don't have to repeat that. The average economic growth over the past 30 years has been more than 2.5 percent, and over the last two quarters, we have had economic growth of 3.1 percent and 3.3 percent. The Federal Reserve's and private forecasts are both above the CBO's growth projections for next year, as an example, to show you why I think the CBO's numbers are way too small, too weak.

That 1.9-percent growth is not only wrong, but I believe it is unacceptable. It cannot be the new normal. With the strength of our economy right now, paired with the pro-growth changes in this tax reform plan, I believe economic growth will surpass this relatively low projection that we are forced to use by increasing economic growth at just 0.4 percent more than this 1.9 percent, this weak projection. In growing the economy at about 2.3 percent rather than at 1.9 percent, on average, there is sufficient revenue to pay for all of the tax relief in this plan plus to begin to pay down the debt.

That is what I believe will happen if you do the right kind of tax reform. It has to be the right kind. It has to be pro-growth. I believe what we have done in this bill is exactly that. There is no question that we are going to have more economic growth and more investment in America. The current Tax Code is so broken that it is pretty easy to do that, honestly--to create a more efficient and effective and productive Tax Code. I believe a more confident America, with rising wages and stronger economic growth, by the way, is much more likely to address the very real fiscal challenges we face as a country.

This tax reform bill is not just about dollar amounts and bottom lines, though; it is about the investment we are making in American families, American workers, and American businesses. We are giving families the freedom to spend more of their own money how they see fit, we are putting faith in American entrepreneurs and workers to compete and win in the global market, and we are creating a fairer tax system that levels the playing field and creates jobs and investment here in America rather than overseas.

Our constituents deserve this; they deserve better than the status quo. They deserve more than just hollow promises; they deserve a brighter future. I believe the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act will reopen our economy as the best place in the world to do business and create that brighter future for all Americans.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, today I am proud to stand here for the

recognition of the 50-year anniversary of a great organization in Ohio--Alvis. It is in Columbus, OH, and was formerly known as Alvis House. It was founded in Columbus, OH, with a broad mission of helping people in the community through human service programs to promote prosperous lives, with a focus on an individual's potential and not their past.

Over the years, I have had the privilege of working closely with Alvis as they have become a model for reentry programs and treatment service programs with a focus on meeting individual goals--a customized approach--building a successful future, and implementing fundamental change for families and for our communities.

Since its opening in 1967, Alvis has grown from a single 15-bed home helping 60 men a year to an organization of 13 locations throughout Columbus, Chillicothe, Dayton, Lima, and Toledo. It now serves more than 8,000 people annually. This agency has helped provide support and hope to thousands of individuals who are returning to their communities after having spent time in the criminal justice system, as well as offering recovery and developmental disability services that encourage health, growth, and independent citizenship.

Alvis has been the recipient of Federal grants authorized by the Second Chance Act for their work in reentry. As the author of the Second Chance Act when I was in the House of Representatives, I have had the opportunity and the privilege to go to Alvis facilities and to see firsthand the good work that is being done using that legislation. I am proud to have worked with my friend and the corporate president and CEO of Alvis, Denise Robinson, to assist Alvis as it delivers services to Ohioans to turn their lives around so that people can indeed fulfill their God-given potential in life, and they have had a lot of successes.

Alvis recently opened its 14th location, the Alvis Pages Recovery and Treatment Center, in April of this year on the South Side of Columbus to help provide access to treatment and recovery. Alvis continues to lead in its mission to turn lives around 180 degrees.

In my work with regard to the opioid crisis in Ohio, we have looked to this treatment center and looked to the model that they provide other treatment centers to turn those lives around.

I am confident that Alvis will continue these next 50 years to offer these same comprehensive services for overcoming the challenges of transitioning out of the correctional system, treating substance abuse, mental health, trauma, and promoting dependence and accountability for those with developmental disabilities.

I applaud the outstanding commitment of Alvis, its staff, and all those who have been involved in reaching this milestone and making these first 50 years such a success in the lives of so many people.

Madam President, I would also like to speak today about a nomination that is before the Senate right now. Today we will have the first vote on Kirstjen Nielsen, the administration's nominee to be the next Secretary of Homeland Security. I want to talk about why I believe she must be confirmed.

I had the privilege of introducing Kirstjen Nielsen during her nomination hearing in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. In that committee, she received broad bipartisan support, and I hope the Senate can now come together in a bipartisan fashion to confirm her as Secretary so she can get on with the critical work of leading the Department of Homeland Security.

I am delighted we are having a cloture vote today--I wish it had been a few weeks ago--and I am looking for a vote to confirm her later this week. I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to look carefully at this nomination because we need her there, and it would be great if we had a strong bipartisan vote to send her there. I think she is ready to hit the ground running on day one. I say this because she knows the Department. She knows what the challenges are, and she knows how to address them.

She will be the first Department of Homeland Security nominee ever to have had previous experience at the Department of Homeland Security. She was a Policy Director for the Transportation Security Administration during the George W. Bush administration--that is TSA. She took over that role shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001, and later served on President Bush's White House Homeland Security Council as the Senior Director for Prevention, Preparedness, and Response. I got to see her good work in that capacity. Most recently, she served as the Department's Chief of Staff for former Secretary John Kelly. She proved herself during the early stages of the administration's transition and experienced firsthand the challenges of managing this diverse and sprawling agency.

With her homeland security experience from those transformative years in the Department, her industry and homeland security consulting experience, and her most recent efforts in this administration, I believe Ms. Nielsen will be a capable leader--needed badly in this ever-evolving threat environment in which we find ourselves.

Throughout her career in government and in the private sector, Ms. Nielsen has developed extensive experience in homeland security strategy, cyber security, transportation security, and emergency resilience--all critical areas for the next Secretary to understand. As we have seen countless times from terror attacks, cyber attacks, and natural disasters, tragedies persist despite our preparation, and we need to remain resilient and responsive to overcome new challenges and combat these evolving threats. I believe she gets that. She understands it. I believe she is well qualified to lead the Department of Homeland Security as a result.

From our conversations we have had both before and during her nomination hearing, I can say confidently that Ms. Nielsen is committed to addressing the most pressing issues facing our country. She has signaled that she has a full commitment to working with the U.S. Congress on both sides of the aisle to get this done.

There are so many issues this Department faces. For a moment, I would like to talk about one of those issues that is critically important to me and really to every Member in this body that she has made a commitment to addressing and will be able, I think, to make a big difference; that is, the scourge of deadly forms of synthetic heroin that are being shipped into your communities.

Synthetic heroin--usually fentanyl, sometimes carfentanil--is one of the great new threats we face in our communities. It is an example of one of the emerging threats that the Department of Homeland Security and its agency, Customs and Border Protection, must address.

Fentanyl is up to 50 times more powerful than heroin. Carfentanil is even stronger than that. These drugs are increasingly taking people's lives in my home State of Ohio and around the country. Fentanyl is so deadly that as little as 3 milligrams can be lethal to an adult male.

By initial estimates of 2016 statistics, fentanyl deaths in America have increased by 540 percent in the past 3 years. In 2016 alone, more than 20,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses.

Tragically, my home State of Ohio is at the center of this national epidemic. In 2015, fentanyl was involved in slightly more than 38 percent of the State's overdose deaths. Last year, that number increased to more than 58 percent. Fifty-eight percent of our drug overdose deaths in Ohio last year involved fentanyl. In the first 2 months of this year--2017--fentanyl was involved in approximately 90 percent of drug overdoses. So this is an emerging threat to all of our communities.

Fentanyl is a threat to every State represented in this Chamber and in every community. While overdose victims are most often the drug users themselves, it has also become a great threat to law enforcement and to children who have been inadvertently exposed--tragically exposed--to this substance.

An example is Chris Greene, a police officer in East Liverpool, OH. He was exposed to fentanyl while performing a routine car search, he thought, earlier this year. He pulled a couple of guys over. When he pulled them over, he noticed a white powdery substance in the car, and being alert to that, he put on

his gloves, he put on a mask, and he proceeded to determine it was fentanyl they had spread around the car to try to hide the fact that they were moving drugs.

When he got back to the police station after the search to book these individuals, Officer Green noticed there was something on his shirt, and he did what any of us would do; he reached down to brush it off of his shirt. Unfortunately, it was fentanyl, and the fentanyl became exposed to his fingers. Just that small amount absorbing through his skin caused him to have an overdose. This is a big guy, 6 foot 2, 220 pounds, great shape, and he fell to the ground unconscious.

Luckily, he was able to get immediate medical assistance at the police station, but it took four doses of Narcan to revive Officer Green. He said at the time he would have died had he been alone. Think if he had gone home to his family and he had hugged one of his kids and his kids had been exposed to that fentanyl.

So this is a great danger, obviously, to our communities generally and to individuals but also to our first responders who are, unfortunately, finding out that these dangerous poisons are more and more of a danger.

Children are also being exposed. This fall, a 12-year-old Columbus boy died as a result of fentanyl exposure. He was at a sleepover for a birthday party when he came into contact with the deadly poison someone had left lying around. He was unconscious by the time paramedics arrived, and he died in the hospital 2 days later.

These synthetic forms of heroin have created a new challenge for law enforcement as they increasingly account for more and more of our overdose deaths. Combating this threat requires solutions from across the Federal Government, along with local, State, and private sector initiatives. We talked earlier about an organization in Ohio that is dealing with this threat that is coming into our communities, and the private sector and nonprofits have a huge role to play but so does the Federal Government, and so does the Department of Homeland Security. Again, Kirstjen Nielsen understands that need. The Department of Homeland Security plays a critical role in countering the significant threat because it comes through the U.S. mail system, and it is Customs and Border Protection officers who are meant to screen those packages that come in through the mail.

Unlike heroin, which enters the U.S. over land, typically from Mexico, manufacturers, mostly in China, ship fentanyl through the U.S. mail directly into our communities. The Federal Government is responsible here. We are supposed to combat the spread of illegal drugs coming through the mail system, but in the case of fentanyl coming from labs in China, the U.S. Postal Service is oftentimes used as a conduit without any check. Drugs should not be as easy to send as a postcard, and the U.S. mail service should not be able to be exploited as a drug trafficking service.

This is why we have introduced in the Congress legislation called the STOP Act. It is bipartisan. It is sensible. If enacted, it would give Customs and Border Protection officers, along with their law enforcement partners, the tools they need to identify suspicious packages by requiring the U.S. Postal Service to provide advanced electronic data on all of the packages and mail entering the United States. Already information as to what is in the package, where it is from, where it is going, the name of the center is required if you send it through one of the private carrier systems--UPS, FedEx, DHL, and others. Unfortunately, the Postal Service is not required to do that and, as a result, traffickers do what one would think they would do, they choose our U.S. Postal Service to send this poison into our communities, to a post office box, maybe to an abandoned warehouse address.

This fentanyl is being spread throughout our communities. We need to hold the Postal Service to that same standard.

At a recent hearing, Acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenen voiced his support for reforms like those in the STOP Act and said advanced electronic data would enhance their detection and prevention efforts. I have seen this firsthand. I have visited the sites in Ohio where Customs and Border Protection is asked to screen these packages. When they are with these private carriers, they can find packages, take them offline, and carefully--because it requires a lot of care, given the poisonous nature of the packages-- deal with it.

President Trump's opioid commission recently issued its recommendations. They endorsed the STOP Act and called for it to be enacted and implemented into the Commission's final report just a month ago.

At her confirmation hearing last month, Ms. Nielsen voiced her support for the STOP Act. I was pleased to have her commitment to getting this bill into law and implemented by CBP--Customs and Border Protection--so we can keep more of these deadly poisons off our streets.

There is no one solution to the opioid epidemic, but the STOP Act will give law enforcement the tools they need to help stop this synthetic form of heroin from entering our communities in the first place, while also raising the cost of this synthetic heroin. The end result will be saving countless lives.

So to get back to Ms. Nielsen, again, she is eminently qualified for this post and able to address so many of the tough issues we face as a country, including the evolving threats like the fentanyl issue and the terrorism issues we have talked about today. We need her at the Department of Homeland Security. We need her now. She is the leader we need for this critical and sprawling Department at a time when our homeland security posture has never been more critical, more important.

I hope my colleagues will come together, on a bipartisan basis, and vote Ms. Nielsen out this week as the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator.