[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 21, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1849-S1872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  ALLOW STATES AND VICTIMS TO FIGHT ONLINE SEX TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2017

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 1865, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1865) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 
     to clarify that section 230 of such Act does not prohibit the 
     enforcement against providers and users of interactive 
     computer services of Federal and State criminal and civil law 
     relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex 
     trafficking, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a 
colloquy on this legislation with some of my leadership colleagues who 
are present: first, Senator John Thune, the chair of the Commerce 
Committee, who has been very involved in this issue; Senator Richard 
Blumenthal as well, who is the coauthor of the legislation and cochair 
of the trafficking caucus; Senator Claire McCaskill, who is ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Investigations; and Senator Heidi 
Heitkamp, one of the original cosponsors of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues this morning in this Chamber as we begin the process of 
debating the amendments that are being offered and moving toward a 
final vote on this important legislation to deal with sex trafficking 
which, unbelievably, in this century and in this country is actually 
increasing. All of the experts say it is increasing because of the 
presence of these organizations online that are using the ruthless 
efficiency of the internet to sell women and children.
  It is fitting that this group is bipartisan, because this process has 
been bipartisan in coming up with this legislation all along. It is 
really the culmination of 2 years' worth of work--a lot of great work 
and investigations being done by the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, as well as good work being done by the Commerce 
Committee through regular order. We would not be on the verge of 
sending this bill to the President's desk without the hard work of 
every Senator who will be on the floor this morning.
  I would also like to briefly recognize a sixth member of our group 
who cannot be here but whose passion about this issue means that 
although his presence is not here, it is felt; and that

[[Page S1850]]

is Senator John McCain. Both Senator McCain and his wife Cindy McCain 
have taken on this issue of human trafficking through the McCain 
Institute, and Senator McCain, through our work on the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, also helped us with this legislation. 
We wish they could be here for the final vote on this bill. I know John 
McCain is watching right now and wishing he could be here with us, and 
we look forward to his return to this Chamber. I thank them on behalf 
of all of us for their hard work on this issue over the years.
  We will hear from my colleagues today on a number of things we have 
done in Congress in this process of putting together the right 
legislative fix to be able to take away an immunity, unbelievably, that 
some of these evil websites currently have under Federal law to be able 
to sell people online. We will hear about the 18-month investigation 
into online trafficking by backpage.com by the Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations. We will hear stories about online sex trafficking 
and some of the injustices experienced by some of the victims and 
survivors who have come to us back home in our States and who have come 
to testify bravely in the U.S. Congress.
  We will hear about some of the calls from courts around the country 
asking us to pass legislation to fix this problem; the prosecutors, the 
U.S. attorneys, the people back home who are eager to prosecute these 
cases but can't because of Federal law.
  We will hear about the work of the Commerce Committee, as I said 
earlier, helping us come up with a commonsense target bill through the 
regular order to be sure we would have not just the best legislative 
product but that we would have buy-in from Members of both sides of the 
aisle.
  I commend Senator John Thune for doing that. He chairs the Commerce 
Committee, which held a hearing on this legislation--SESTA--last 
September. It actually was reported unanimously out of committee after 
making a few changes to the legislation which clarified the intent in a 
positive way.
  I yield to my colleague John Thune.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I, too, want to recognize and say to 
Senator Portman, who has been a leading voice in the Senate in the 
fight against human trafficking, what a great job he has done getting 
us to this point. This was a long, multimonth, as he said, 2-year 
effort. Senator Portman has been absolutely relentless in pushing and 
driving this process forward. I commend him for his important work, 
which will culminate today, I certainly hope, with a big bipartisan 
vote in support of the legislation in front of us.
  I also commend the bipartisan group of Senators who worked hard to 
draft the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, which includes Senator 
Blumenthal, whom we will hear from in just a moment; Senators 
McCaskill, Cornyn, and Heitkamp; and as Senator Portman so very 
appropriately pointed out, Senator McCain, who has been a passionate 
advocate for addressing this issue for so many years too. We wish he 
could be here to participate and vote for passage of this legislation, 
but we know his work over the years has played an incredibly important 
role in getting us to where we are today.
  This group also helped lead the effort to conduct important 
investigatory oversight that has helped us to get to the point where we 
are today.
  Last year, as Senator Portman pointed out, I chaired a Commerce 
Committee hearing on his bill, where we heard testimony from experts on 
both sides of the issue. We listened carefully to what our witnesses 
had to say. After the hearing, we worked together to make some targeted 
changes to the legislation. The bill that ultimately advanced from our 
committee enjoyed, as Senator Portman pointed out, solid support from 
the internet industry. It passed the Senate Commerce Committee 
unanimously.
  The bill is strongly supported by Members of both parties. It has 
racked up lots of bipartisan support: 68 out of 100 Senators are now 
cosponsors of this bill. The bill is supported by the White House, so 
we know that as soon as it leaves the Senate, it will land on the 
President's desk, where it will be signed into law.
  It is supported by law enforcement organizations, organizations that 
fight sex trafficking, and by faith-based organizations.
  At our Commerce Committee hearing, we also heard powerful testimony 
from Yvonne Ambrose, whose daughter Desiree Robinson was sexually 
trafficked repeatedly before being murdered. Desiree was just 16 years 
old, a bright and loving girl who dreamed of becoming a doctor in the 
Air Force. Instead, she was raped and murdered by a man twice her age 
who had sought her for sex after seeing her advertised on an internet 
site.
  Ms. Ambrose's powerful testimony helped the members of our committee 
understand the terrible pain that victims of sex trafficking and their 
families are exposed to. I am very thankful to her for sharing 
Desiree's story.
  This bill has already cleared the House of Representatives by an 
overwhelming margin.
  I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to reject any attempts to 
slow this bill down with amendments. This has been very carefully and 
thoroughly vetted through the many processes that Senator Portman 
described. We need to get this bill over the finish line and on the 
President's desk and signed into law because there are thousands of 
children out there who are waiting for our help.
  So, again, I commend Senator Portman and our colleagues in the Senate 
who have worked tirelessly on this legislation. I hope we have a big 
outcome today, and I hope we can do something really meaningful to 
address a scourge that this country needs to get rid of.
  I know there are others here who have joined us who intend to 
participate in this discussion.
  I yield to the Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague from South 
Dakota, who has been at the forefront. Getting this bill through the 
Commerce Committee with a unanimous vote, frankly, exceeded 
expectations. Many on the outside thought this might be an opportunity 
for many who are against the legislation to stop the bill but instead 
we were able, through testimony, to show that this is a commonsense, 
targeted approach that will make a huge difference in the lives of the 
people we represent, without affecting the freedom of the 
internet. That is the right balance Senator Thune helped us to get.

  I see that my colleague Senator Blumenthal is here, whom I talked 
about earlier. He is a coauthor of this legislation and also a former 
State prosecutor who took on trafficking cases, and so he has a 
professional background in prosecuting these cases and, therefore, 
joined me in ensuring that this legislation allows for our State and 
local prosecutors, who are going to take many of these cases, to be 
able to sue these websites that are selling people online using the 
current shield in Federal legislation. But after this legislation, 
prosecutors will be able to successfully prosecute to stop this 
criminal activity.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to Senator Blumenthal.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am proud to be here as a former U.S. 
attorney and the chief Federal prosecutor in Connecticut.
  I have been involved in law enforcement for most of my career, and I 
am proud to stand here now in this Chamber, following the chairman of 
the Commerce Committee, whose dedication to this cause has brought us 
to the finish line, and my colleague Senator Portman, whose leadership 
on this bill is invaluable.
  I wish to second a number of points that have been made by Senator 
Portman and Senator Thune, most especially about the very collaborative 
effort involved in this bill--a bipartisan championing of a cause whose 
time has come--and, particularly, about our colleague John McCain and 
his wife Cindy McCain, whose energy, spirit, courage, and strength have 
really been an inspiration to all of us. I also want to thank Senators 
McCaskill, Heitkamp, and Cornyn, because their contributions have been 
enormously valuable as well.
  There is a face to human trafficking in this country. Here is one of 
the faces. Desiree Robinson, whose story you just heard from Senator 
Thune, is one such face. Her voice is still. Her voice could not be 
heard directly, but her mother, Yvonne Ambrose, came to our committee 
and talked about her

[[Page S1851]]

beautiful daughter, whose life was lost as a result of sex trafficking. 
She was killed after she was raped and after she was sold. Her story 
alone helped us to achieve unanimous approval in the Commerce Committee 
for this bill, and I hope it will lead us to an overwhelming vote today 
on the bill before us.
  I hope, as well, that it will lead us to defeat amendments that 
would, in effect, kill this bill--amendments that may be well 
intentioned, but, in fact, have an effect contrary to their stated 
purpose.
  This bill is completely bipartisan from beginning to end. It is the 
result of tireless work of advocates, sex trafficking survivors, and a 
bipartisan coalition of our colleagues. It now has 68 cosponsors. Its 
companion legislation passed in the House 388 to 25.
  It is the product of stakeholder consensus. It has the support of 
every major human trafficking organization, every major law enforcement 
group, and every part of the tech community--if not unanimous, at least 
of many of its leaders.
  This bill would clarify section 230 of the Communications Decency 
Act, which was never intended to give websites a free pass to aid and 
abet sex trafficking. It was never intended to immunize completely 
those websites so they could knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. 
Those words are in the bill--``knowingly facilitate.''
  The purpose of our measure, very simply, is to give survivors their 
day in court. Right now, the courtroom doors are barred to them, as a 
recent court of appeals opinion remarked, outrageously so. It would 
also open avenues of prosecution to law enforcement where they are 
currently roadblocked.
  My experience combating sex trafficking at the State level led me to 
colaunch and cochair the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking with 
Senator Portman, seeking to find solutions to this problem. As a State 
prosecutor, I was told that I could not pursue actions again craigslist 
or other sites nearly a decade ago because of that section and the 
interpretation.
  Clearly, the websites that facilitate this, knowingly encouraging and 
profiting from sex trafficking, must face repercussions in the 
courtroom. For law enforcement to succeed in combating sex trafficking, 
there have to be consequences. The National Center for Missing & 
Exploited Children reported an 840-percent increase in reports of 
suspected child and sex trafficking from 2010 to 2015 alone. It found 
that spike ``directly correlated to the increased use of the internet 
to sell children for sex.''
  Those numbers fail to tell the full story. In fact, this picture is 
worth a thousand words. This picture of Desiree shows her as a young 
girl, smiling. In fact, her mom told us that her smile could light up a 
room. She was a successful student who dreamed of becoming a physician 
in the Air Force.
  When she was in high school, a series of men reached out to her on 
social media. They pressured and manipulated her into letting them sell 
her for sex and then advertise her on backpage.com. Her mom, Yvonne, 
told us what happened next:

       On December 23, 2016, a 32-year-old man by the name of 
     Antonio Rosales was looking through Backpage.com for a child 
     to have sex with, just like countless others before him. . . 
     . He knew Backpage.com was a site to go to in order to find 
     young underaged girls to have sex with. During his search, he 
     came upon a picture of my 16-year-old daughter under the 
     posting, ``New girl in town looking to have fun,'' which was 
     posted by her pimp. Desiree was driven to Antonio's residence 
     by the pimp with the intent of having sex with this 32-year-
     old man, a man twice her age.
       This was the last night of my daughter's life. . . . On 
     Christmas Eve, December 24, 2016, Desiree, my baby, was 
     brutally murdered, and now my life has changed forever. She 
     had been beaten, raped, strangled, and if that wasn't bad 
     enough, he slit her throat, all because she said, no, she 
     didn't want to do this again. She screamed for help, and 
     there was no one around to help her.

  Yvonne Ambrose had the courage to come testify before us, and I have 
repeated this part of her testimony not because it is ennobling or 
pleasant, but because it is the hard, ugly truth about sex trafficking. 
It is the reason that we must pass this measure. It is also the reason 
why we need to defeat the amendments that would send this measure back 
to the House and its possible demise.
  Every one of the groups I mentioned earlier, including Desiree's 
lawyer, have urged us to defeat these amendments. I will read just one 
or two sentences from a letter that I received today from Desiree's 
lawyer about the so-called moderation amendment:

       At first glance, it appears that the Moderation Amendment 
     is disguising itself as a good Samaritan amendment. However, 
     in a nutshell, its effect is a really bad faith Samaritan 
     immunity.

  This measure is narrowly tailored. It would ensure that State and 
local law enforcement can join the fight against these criminal 
websites. It provides survivors a right of action that would not only 
be a source of relief for them but also a means of remedy. The Good 
Samaritan amendment, unfortunately--perhaps, unintentionally--would 
simply protect the websites.
  The people who complain and take action certainly deserve protection. 
It is in the current law. One of the reasons why we want to defeat this 
amendment is that it would probably have unintended consequences in 
protecting websites that identify sex trafficking ads and then leave 
them up in order to continue profiting from them.
  I think the letter from the attorney for Desiree Robinson's estate, 
Gina DeBoni, objecting to this amendment is a powerful reminder that we 
need to stick to what we have and what we know will work.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Senator Blumenthal: At first glance, it appears that the 
     Moderation Amendment is disguising itself as a good Samaritan 
     amendment. However, in a nutshell, its effect is really a bad 
     faith Samaritan immunity.
       Not only does the amendment strip the ``good faith'' 
     requirement (that is already accounted for in the current 
     CDA), it creates a new and very expansive immunity for 
     companies charged with all crimes--not just sex trafficking. 
     This is in sharp contrast to CDA's original intent and does 
     nothing but immunize bad actors.
       I significantly limits evidence that could be used in any 
     federal criminal action against a website. Because almost 
     every company uses some form of moderation system, the 
     immunity would apply in every case brought under Section 230 
     going forward.
       The CDA has already been crafted to provide immunity to 
     those that are truly using good faith in their screening. 
     This amendment undoes that and instead, creates a new bar to 
     liability.
       Moreover, it does not make sense in the real world and has 
     the potential to create devastating consequences. As you 
     know, we represent Yvonne Ambrose, the mother of Desiree 
     Robinson, who was just 16 years old when she was murdered on 
     Christmas Eve 2016. Desiree was not much different than any 
     other 16 year old girl. She was loved by all, and had dreams 
     like all. Like all children, Desiree was vulnerable. It did 
     not take long for her to fall victim to a man who preyed upon 
     her and sold her for a finder's fee to her pimp, Joseph 
     Hazely. Hazely sold Desiree for sex on Backpage.com to 
     Antonio Rosales--her killer. Desiree's case has both a 
     criminal and civil component--Desiree's traffickers and 
     killer have been charged criminally and are awaiting trial. 
     We are pursuing a civil wrongful death action against all 
     that played a part in her death, including Backpage.com.
       You heard from Yvonne who testified before the Senate 
     Commerce Committee. There is no better advocate for the 
     passage of SESTA than a mother who lost her child. Desiree 
     represents hundreds of 1000s of children who are knowingly 
     trafficked on Backpage.com. The proposed Wyden amendment cuts 
     Desiree's claim off at its knees, giving bad actors, who are 
     not acting in good faith, a way out--giving them a clearly 
     defined immunity to hang their hat on. It is such a drastic 
     departure from that of the Good Samaritan, taking good faith 
     out of the equation entirely. It will create an 
     insurmountable challenge for lawyers who are fighting on 
     behalf of victims of sex trafficking, not to mention, any 
     victims of any other crime, whether criminal or civil, 
     brought under Section 230.
       In practical application, in a case such as Desiree 
     Robinson, this is how it plays out:
       We know that Backpage makes an effort to identify and flag 
     ads that are objectionable through its strip word feature. It 
     then affirmatively edits ad that it knows are selling 
     children for sex on its website. Under this amendment, even 
     though Backpage knowingly facilitated trafficking of children 
     when it edited the ads, it would be immunized because it took 
     steps to identify this content, even though it didn't remove 
     it. Surely, immunizing bad actors such as Backpage cannot be 
     the intent of this Congress and all the co-sponsors of this 
     bill.
       We know from the Senate report and information obtained via 
     our subpoena to Co-Star Group that Backpage's moderation is 
     relevant and intrinsically connected to their knowing 
     facilitation of sex trafficking. This

[[Page S1852]]

     amendment removes the consideration of the direct evidence of 
     criminal activity because the amendment broadly excludes all 
     evidence of this nature. In fact, it broadly excludes this 
     type of evidence for ALL civil and criminal matters 
     regardless of the type of crime.
       Companies such as Facebook, etc, that have the largest risk 
     or burden are supportive of the SESTA language as is. This 
     amendment is not geared towards good actors but rather 
     companies that are not acting in good faith. The Commerce 
     Committee report clearly provides for good faith moderation--
     ``an ICS would not have their good faith efforts to restrict 
     access to objectionable content used against them.'' Good 
     faith moderation is already protected by the CDA and the 
     passage of SESTA does not negate that.
       For the above reasons, we respectfully encourage Senator 
     Blumenthal to vote NO on the Wyden Amendment. I am available 
     any time this weekend or on Monday to discuss further.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Regards,
     Gina Arquilla DeBoni,
       Attorney for the Estate of Desiree Robinson Managing 
     Attorney, Romanucci & Blandin LLC.

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Finally, there is a funding amendment that has been 
offered. While well-intentioned, it would, in effect, derail this 
legislation. It would provide money through Attorney General Sessions 
to investigate and prosecute websites that criminally facilitate human 
trafficking.
  This amendment, too, is opposed by law enforcement agencies. 
Yesterday, I put their letters into the Record. Every major law 
enforcement representative agency opposes it because ``the funding 
amendment is a poison pill that is dead on arrival if sent back to the 
House.''
  I will conclude simply by saying that I believe this measure 
accomplishes some powerfully important purposes. It would not 
criminalize the so-called harm reduction communication--information 
designed to ensure that women and men wrapped up in commercial sex 
trade can avoid violence, prevent HIV, and access community and support 
services.
  H.R. 1865 was not designed to target websites that spread harm 
reduction information, and the language of the bill makes that clear. 
The purpose of this bill is much more narrowly focused: A website user 
or operator must intend to facilitate prostitution. If their goal is to 
save lives by providing lifesaving information, they have not violated 
the law.
  Finally, I want to make absolutely clear, this legislation is not 
intended to prejudice the rights of anyone who has been victimized by a 
crime online other than sex trafficking. For example, I disagree with 
the courts that have held that the Communications Decency Act immunizes 
online firearm sales--like Armslist--for facilitating illegal gun 
sales. While this legislation does not address those cases, nobody 
should infer that Congress believes they were rightly decided.

  Again, my thanks to all of my colleagues and most especially to 
Senator Portman for his hard work, his leadership, and his courage in 
tackling this tough problem, which should bring all of us together. 
Making SESTA the law of the land will help save lives. It will spare 
others the fate of Desiree Robinson. It will make sure that more 
parents see justice, that survivors have their day in court, and that 
law enforcement has the right to pursue these wrongdoers.
  Mr. President, I yield back to Senator Portman.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague for his comments and, more 
importantly, for his leadership all the way through the process of 
drafting the legislation.
  I am now going to yield to one of my other colleagues. It looks like 
Senator Heitkamp will be next to speak. She is from North Dakota, not 
South Dakota, as we talked about earlier with Senator Thune, and she 
has a similar passion for this issue and has been involved in this 
issue for many years and is also on the committee in which we did the 
PSI work we talked about earlier. I appreciate her being one of our six 
original cosponsors, helping us to draft this targeted, focused 
legislation that deals directly with the problem we have seen around 
the country, which was discussed by Senator Blumenthal.
  With that, I would like to yield to my colleague Senator Heitkamp.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I am so proud to stand here with my 
five colleagues, but I also have to acknowledge the one who is not 
here; that is, Senator John McCain, who has been an absolute champion, 
along with his wife, on attacking this problem. Five years ago when I 
met Cindy McCain, one of the first things she said was, what can we do 
about this?
  Working within the Homeland Security Committee, where so much of this 
work got done--both in the Homeland Security Committee and the 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--I can't say enough about the 
commitment of that committee but more importantly the commitment of the 
leadership of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, both 
Senator Portman and Senator McCaskill, who worked in tandem, who 
engaged their very capable staff, who did the investigations that led 
to the exposure of the issues and led to a bipartisan commitment to 
develop and pass this bill.
  I do want to say that I know that John and Cindy are with us today in 
spirit. I know that Cindy is probably watching because she is very, 
very excited that finally we are going to get this done. This is such 
an important tool. This is such an important piece of stopping human 
trafficking, which has been her lifelong objective and passion. Today, 
we stand not just with our colleagues who are here on the floor but 
also with our great friend, Senator John McCain, and his beautiful, 
active, and wonderful wife, Cindy McCain.
  The other reason I am very proud is that this is why I came to the 
Senate--to work across the aisle to address major issues and 
challenges, to make a difference in the lives of some of the most 
vulnerable human beings in our country.
  We are here today on the cusp of passing a bill that will provide 
victims a real opportunity to seek justice and recover damages from 
websites that profited from their pain of being sold for sex, while 
also providing new tools to prosecutors, including my former 
colleagues, the State attorneys general, to go after these sites and 
their owners.
  Again, I thank Senator Portman and Senator Blumenthal for their 
tireless work in trying to fashion the right mix of understanding the 
importance of the Communications Decency Act to the development of this 
tool we call the internet but also making sure this is not used as a 
tool for incredibly bad actors who would prey on the most vulnerable 
among us.
  Driving this bill and forging a compromise was not easy. This was not 
easy. No one should think that this came together easily or that we 
didn't have many moments where we did our own soul-searching, those of 
us who are committed to the First Amendment and those of us who are 
committed to free access of means to express our opinions and do our 
business.
  What I will tell you is that this is a big thing. This isn't a little 
thing. This is a big thing--not only because we are doing it in a 
bipartisan way but also because we are speaking on behalf of the most 
vulnerable human beings in this country.
  I can't imagine a more heinous act than the sale of human beings on 
the internet for sex. It is happening in all of our communities. It is 
happening in our States each and every day.
  When I began my journey to the U.S. Senate, I engaged and started 
visiting with my old friends in North Dakota law enforcement. As I have 
said many times, I am a former attorney general from the great State of 
North Dakota and have great friends in law enforcement. Their message 
was simple. They were seeing a lot more drugs. Obviously, North Dakota 
was experiencing an oil boom, and that was creating some social 
upheaval, additional crime, additional concern about crime. They then 
told me something I didn't expect: We are seeing this incredible rate 
and increase in prostitution. I thought about that. I thought, well, 
what does that mean, and how do we investigate it?
  So many people would argue that this is a victimless crime and not a 
priority, and we started looking behind this. My colleagues in law 
enforcement in North Dakota started doing stings. They did something 
that peace officers all across the country do: They sat

[[Page S1853]]

down with the women they were arresting, and they started listening to 
their stories. The stories were heartbreaking--stories of being preyed 
on as young girls, either in their home or as they were running away, 
the stories of how they got in the life. Many of my colleagues in law 
enforcement began to say: These women are not criminals; they are 
victims.
  We began to look at what led to this huge explosion, and we started 
examining all the websites, all the places where, with the tweak of a 
word or with the opportunity to be anonymous--in the old days, you 
would have to stand out perhaps on the street corner, but now you can 
be anonymous, and that gave those perpetrators, those evil human 
beings, yet another avenue.
  That is when we started looking at backpage.com and other sites like 
it that sell human beings for sex. That occurs in every corner of our 
country--in the small and big States and in the small and big counties 
and in oil counties and out east in farming communities. So no one 
should believe that they are immune or somehow limited because it is 
going to happen there but not here. One thing we have learned is that 
it is happening everywhere.
  Today, we are saying: No more. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act 
would crack down on these horrific crimes online and provide justice 
for victims. Today, it is going to pass the Senate with broad 
bipartisan support and head to the President's desk to be signed into 
law.
  In many instances, websites help traffickers skirt law enforcement 
through online advertising and continue to do so without penalty by 
claiming their First Amendment rights.
  I remember when we in the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
subpoenaed and had a chance to question the witnesses from 
backpage.com, and they started talking about their First Amendment 
rights. I pointed out to them that nothing this body can do can affect 
someone's First Amendment rights. They were not alleging or saying they 
were protected by the First Amendment. They knew that wouldn't fly. 
They said they were protected by the terms of the Communications 
Decency Act.
  Like Senator Blumenthal, I never believed that the Communications 
Decency Act protected them from prosecution or protected them from 
civil penalty if they were complicit and, in fact, abetted these 
crimes. I never believed that, but there were judges in America who 
did. We met and saw a lot of those judges and read a lot of those 
opinions and said: We cannot let a law of the U.S. Congress--a law on 
the books in our country--allow perpetrators who sell children for sex 
to absolutely avoid any civil or criminal penalty. We cannot allow that 
to happen--not a law of this country.
  We don't have the ability to restrict or modify the First Amendment 
in this body, but we do have the ability to amend a law that is being 
used inappropriately to protect the most hideous criminals in America. 
No law should put anyone above liability if they are actively involved 
and complicit in selling children for sex.
  As we stand here today, we know we are doing something that we hope 
will happen more often in the Senate. We are standing for those 
victims, those parents, those children, those women who are still in 
the struggle of human trafficking, those children who are still in the 
struggle of human trafficking. We are standing with them today to say: 
No more. People who will illegally profit from selling children for sex 
are going to be held accountable. So the message needs to go from this 
body, it needs to go from the signature on this bill, that that 
protection you have been alleging--inappropriately hiding behind the 
Communications Decency Act--ends, and it ends with the passage of this 
bill.
  I couldn't be prouder of the work my colleagues Senator McCaskill and 
Senator Portman did on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. 
You exposed the facts that led to the argument that led to the passage 
of this bill. I am proud to stand with you. I am proud to work to make 
sure that this bill is appropriately implemented. I look forward to the 
first prosecution of someone who sells children for sex on the 
internet, profiting from the web page they created.
  With that, Senator Portman, thank you so much for your excellent 
work. Senator McCaskill, thank you for your excellent work. I stand 
proud with you today and know that we are making a difference today.
  Today, the U.S. Senate will make a difference for the most vulnerable 
human beings in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I thank my colleague for the expertise and experience 
she has brought to this effort. As she said, in the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations, we spent 18 months digging deep, trying 
to figure out why this was happening, why we had an increase in 
trafficking in this country in this century, and increasingly we were 
told that this was because of the internet, moving from the street 
corner to the smartphone. Trafficking survivors and victims told us 
this, but so did the experts.
  Senator Heitkamp jumped in, and the leadership of that subcommittee 
included Senator McCaskill. She is no longer the ranking member. She 
has gone on to bigger things--to be ranking member of the full 
committee--but during this investigation of 18 months, she was the 
ranking Democrat on our subcommittee, and I appreciate working with her 
there. She is a former prosecutor. She knows how to dig deep for this 
information, and she had a good staff. She also was very helpful to us 
in helping to enforce the subpoenas.
  I will let her tell the story, but this is really incredible. We knew 
this one website, backpage.com, was engaged in this effort because we 
heard about it all over the country. In my home State of Ohio, women 
and girls would say they were trafficked on backpage. If I talked to a 
dozen victims or survivors, 10 would say backpage. The National Center 
for Missing & Exploited Children said that 75 percent were backpage. 
Another group said: No, it is 80 percent.
  In other words, we knew this was happening, but we couldn't get the 
information because although we subpoenaed documents and subpoenaed 
their testimony, they refused to show up and refused to give us 
documents. We had to go through an extraordinary process. I will let 
Senator McCaskill talk about it, but for the first time in 21 years, 
this Senate did something that was critical to our investigation. I 
want to thank her for her hard work, and I would like to yield time to 
her to talk about it.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I thank my colleagues. I think we 
have spent a lot of time on the floor thanking each other, which is a 
good thing. Unfortunately, too often, we go back to tribal warfare 
after we thank each other, but this is an example of when we have 
worked together in a bipartisan way. So I think those ``thanks'' are 
justified, particularly in this case when there has been an honest and 
true bipartisan effort to get at a very serious problem in this 
country. It was a pleasure to work with my colleague Senator Portman as 
we did this investigation.
  So how do I come to this place? I come to this place as somebody who 
had spent a significant part of her career in the courtroom prosecuting 
sex crimes. I think I can say with confidence that I prosecuted more 
sex crimes than any other Member of the U.S. Senate. I can't speak for 
the House because I am not familiar with the backgrounds of all of the 
House Members.
  I spent years as an assistant prosecutor. For part of that time, I 
was the only woman in the office, and for some reason, they thought 
that was a good reason to have me gain expertise in the area of sex 
crimes. I was happy to take on the responsibility of handling a lot of 
those cases as a young assistant prosecutor, going into the courtroom 
and arguing cases to juries, holding the hands of victims, crying with 
their families, trying to find that special spot that is called justice 
in a system that is sometimes stacked against the victims of these 
kinds of crimes. I went on to be the elected prosecutor in Kansas City 
and tried to continue our strong stand against all forms of sex crimes, 
including against the people who were profiting off of selling sex.
  It is important to remember that when we began this investigation in 
the Senate, we were dealing with someone who didn't want to cooperate. 
What we learned through the investigation was that this law, as it 
exists now,

[[Page S1854]]

was their protector. They were being protected for their bad acts by an 
outdated law that had been twisted and distorted to allow them to make 
billions of dollars of profit and, frankly, millions, upon millions, 
upon millions of dollars of profit off of trafficking young women for 
sex. The prosecution of cases is not driven by headlines. It is not 
driven by press conferences. It is not driven by photo ops. The 
prosecution of cases is driven by evidence. You only get evidence after 
having a thorough and complete investigation, and it has to be in-
depth.
  I know that Senator Portman will relate to this. Can you imagine, 
when backpage said, ``We don't want to talk to you,'' if we had said, 
``OK. That is fine''? Can you imagine, when backpage said, ``We refuse 
to be interviewed,'' if we had just said, ``OK. No problem. We don't 
have any evidence of wrongdoing. Let's just go on our way''?
  Instead, when we were confronted with their stubborn unwillingness to 
participate in a U.S. Senate investigation, we did what was necessary 
to hold them accountable, and it involved the cooperation of the entire 
Senate. Once they rebuffed our subpoenas and refused to show up, and 
once they said, ``No, we don't have to give you anything because of the 
current law as it relates to section 230'' and we said, ``No, that is 
not true,'' we got the entire U.S. Senate to back us up--every single 
Member.
  I don't know how unusual it is in this day and age to have zero on 
one side of the ledger in the U.S. Senate. I don't know about Senator 
Portman, but I have seen it very few times. Now, there is usually one 
or two who hang out there for some reason or another, no matter how 
uncontroversial a piece of legislation is. Yet, in this instance, we 
got everybody. Everybody who voted said: Yes, let's take backpage to 
court and assert our ability under the Constitution and the law to 
investigate. We took them all the way to the Supreme Court, and we won 
that case.
  What happened after that is really important for people to understand 
because there were lots of folks around the country who were trying to 
get at backpage's conduct, but it was able to use this law to protect 
itself. There were two things we did that were very important for 
prosecutors after our investigation.
  The first thing we did was to send the whole file over to the 
Department of Justice for referral. It sits there now--all of the 
information we have about backpage--at the Department of Justice, and I 
am hopeful that it is using that information and all of the 
documentation we were able to obtain to pursue bad acts and criminal 
violations by backpage.
  The other thing we did with the vote of the Senate and the 
cooperation of the Senate is to open up our files to any prosecutor or 
attorney general in the country. I would certainly call on the 
attorneys general of this country and call on the local prosecutors in 
this country to access these documents that are available to them now 
and to use them in the investigations they have of people who might 
have actually used backpage to traffic young women and sometimes 
children.
  Why is this law so important? If I am looking at this through a 
prosecutor's lens, now all of the prosecutors in the country can go 
after anyone who knowingly facilitates sex trafficking online. I am not 
saying when it is by accident, and I am not saying when it has slipped 
through and they don't know it; I am talking about to knowingly 
facilitate, which is what backpage was doing. Once we got all of its 
documents, we learned it was knowingly facilitating sex trafficking on 
its web page.
  Not only can individuals walk in the courthouse and get a moment of 
justice through civil action, but now attorneys general can take civil 
action, even in Federal court, against these websites. Most 
importantly, where most crime is prosecuted in this country, they can 
go after these folks.
  I don't think most Americans realize--I know a lot of Missourians 
don't realize--that upwards of 90 percent of the crime that is 
prosecuted in this country is done by local prosecutors. FBI agents 
don't answer 9-1-1 calls. FBI agents get to pick where they 
investigate. U.S. attorneys get to choose which cases they take. Local 
prosecutors do not. They take everything. They have to go after every 
crime that is committed in their jurisdictions. There may be concurrent 
Federal jurisdiction, and they may work with the Federal Government on 
a bank robbery or maybe on a murder when the body is moved across a 
State line. Yet I don't think most Americans realize that for most 
crimes in this country, the Federal Government doesn't even have 
jurisdiction. The Federal Government cannot prosecute a rape case 
anywhere except in the District of Columbia or a territory. That is all 
done by State and local prosecutors.
  The most important part of this bill to someone who is deeply steeped 
in local prosecutions is the tool it gives our frontline of law 
enforcement in this country--the people who answer the 9-1-1 calls, the 
people who respond to the emergency room when a young, 15-year-old girl 
wanders in, like she did in St. Louis, saying she had been trafficked 
up and down the interstate and was coming to the emergency room for 
help. It was not the FBI that responded. It would have been the local 
police who had responded to that emergency room to find out what the 
facts had been and who had determined how to go forward. This is a new 
tool in the toolbox of the frontline of criminal prosecutions in this 
country, and I am so proud to have been a part of it.
  I know there are going to be some amendments offered. I am confident 
they will be voted down. By the way, everyone wants to support more 
resources for this. So in an effort to try to amend the bill so that it 
has to go back to the House, the notion that one of the amendments is 
of needing more resources is one of those jujitsu moves that we do 
around here, frankly, that is not always productive.
  Of course, we all support more resources for sex trafficking 
prosecutions and investigations, but we don't want to amend this bill 
right now because it has to get to the President's desk so that we can 
get busy and get after this crime and do what we need to do in this 
country in order to hold the people accountable who are profiting off 
the backs of people who sell children for sex.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleague Senator 
Portman for all of his work and cooperation on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I thank Senator McCaskill. She is 
absolutely right. We are grateful to the entire Senate for jumping in 
on this because we would not have gotten to the bottom of this without 
our having gotten the Senate to decide for the first time in 21 years 
this question: Are we going to enforce the subpoena or not? People 
stepped up. As a result, through the court system and with the sanction 
of criminal liability as a possibility, we were able to get these folks 
to come forward and provide this information.
  They never really testified. They came forward, and they claimed 
their Fifth Amendment rights, but at least we were able to get 1 
million pages of documents--1 million pages. Then we sifted through 1 
million pages of documents to discover, lo and behold, that these 
people actually knew what they were doing. In fact, they were altering 
ads. They would get an ad from somebody who was selling an underaged 
girl. The ad would read something like ``schoolgirl'' or 
``cheerleader'' or ``young girl.'' They would then edit that ad to take 
out those words that would indicate what was going on, and they knew it 
was going on. Then they would place the ad anyway. In other words, they 
would make the money, make the profit, knowing that they were selling 
an underaged girl online. They were also destroying the evidence that, 
later, law enforcement could use in going after these people.
  This is evil, and this has been happening. We have heard the stories. 
We have talked about Yvonne Ambrose. We have talked about Kubiiki 
Pride. We have talked about Nacole S. We have talked about some of 
these mothers and their daughters who have gone through this horrific 
situation. You also heard earlier about Desiree. This was the 16-year-
old who was being sold on backpage, and on Christmas Eve, she was 
murdered. Imagine getting that call as a parent.
  We have talked before about the testimony we received in the 
committee with regard to the 14-year-old girl who had gone missing. 
Kubiiki Pride is her mom. Kubiiki Pride said she had been

[[Page S1855]]

missing for several weeks when someone finally told her: Why don't you 
check on backpage.com. So she did. She went on backpage.com and found 
her daughter, who had been missing for weeks. Imagine the mixed 
emotions there--the relief of finding her daughter but her horror in 
seeing the explicit sexual photographs of a 14-year-old who was being 
sold for sex.
  She did what you would do as a mom. She called backpage immediately 
and said: I found my daughter on your website. She is 14 years old. 
Thank you for taking down that ad and helping me to connect with my 
daughter.
  The answer from backpage.com was this: You didn't pay for the ad. We 
will not take it down.
  Again, talk about evil. Think of the heartbreak.
  Then, later, when she was reunited with her daughter, she was one of 
those brave moms and her daughter was one of those brave victims who 
said: Do you know what, we are going to file a lawsuit and go public 
with this and talk about our experience--the trauma that this young, 
14-year-old girl had gone through in having been repeatedly raped by 
older men--and we are going to hold these websites accountable.
  Do you know what happened?
  The court system said: I am sorry. Under a Federal law that was 
passed by the Congress--a 21-year-old law--this website is not 
culpable. It has a shield. It has an immunity.
  That is why we are here today.
  Justice cannot always be seen, but its absence is felt, and the 
absence of justice is exactly what we are trying to address here today.
  You have heard from my colleagues, and I appreciate all four of them 
for speaking up and talking about their experiences and how we got to 
this point. We may hear from a couple of other colleagues later today 
who were part of helping us put together a sensible approach that 
targeted this activity. Sure, we have freedom of the internet on the 
one hand, but on the other hand, this is criminal activity that cannot 
continue to go on here in America, in this century, at this time.
  Again, as we have learned, this is where you see the increase in 
trafficking. You not only hear this from the experts who give us their 
data that show huge increases in trafficking reports, but you also hear 
it and feel it from the victims and the survivors whom I have met with 
in Cleveland, in Cincinnati, in Columbus, in Dayton, in Akron. They 
have told me the same story, which is: Yes, I was sold online. It is 
very efficient.
  One 9-year-old girl was sold online by her father. I first met her 
when she was almost 20 years old and had finally escaped from the 
clutches of her own father.
  Think about that--backpage's going from sporting event to sporting 
event around the country and, online, one being sold many times on a 
single night with the efficiency of the internet.
  This is legislation that is overdue, in my view, and it is required. 
The courts have told us that. The district attorneys have told us that. 
The attorneys general have told us that, and 50 of them sent us a 
letter, writing to make this change. They have all said: Congress, step 
forward. They have not just invited us to do it; they have welcomed us 
to pass this legislation to give these families the justice they 
deserve and to give our prosecutors the ability to go after them.
  One thing that I hope has been made clear from the other comments we 
have heard today is that one of the important parts of this legislation 
is to simply allow these local prosecutors we talked about earlier to 
take these cases while using the Federal standard rather than just 
relying on the Department of Justice.
  Having said that, sifting through those 1 million pages, our report, 
with all the documents we received, you can go online to see this at 
the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, PSI.
  We did provide this to the Justice Department. We did provide this to 
the prosecutors around the country who were interested. We did provide 
it to others who are pursuing lawsuits so they have information now 
that they never had before, but we also need to change the law, and 
that is what we are about to do today.
  You heard from my colleagues about the amendments that are likely to 
be offered. There are two amendments. The first amendment is one that 
is going to be called a moderating amendment, meaning that if somebody 
is on their website moderating the website, cleaning up the website, 
they should be given a good-faith acceptance. Let me just be clear. 
This amendment is a poison pill and will make it easier for those sites 
that are involved in sex trafficking to continue to do so.
  Right now, under current law, there is a good-faith exception. There 
is a Good Samaritan exception under current law. We actually restate 
that in our legislation, to be absolutely clear, that if you are one of 
the good guys--a website online--who wants to be sure your site is not 
going to have these girls being sold that we talked about earlier, that 
you should be protected. However, this legislation, having restated the 
Good Samaritan provision, also says that if you are one of the bad 
actors, you don't have that protection. The first amendment that is 
going to be offered includes protections for some of the bad actors. It 
purposely strips the good-faith element, and I believe it would assist 
online sex traffickers rather than hold them to account.
  For instance, if backpage or another website filters for illegal 
content and, as a result, learns that their site is being used for 
trafficking but ignores that activity, I think this amendment would say 
that evidence could not be considered in a case against backpage. To 
me, that is wrong, and I hope the first amendment is going to be 
handled appropriately, which is to say, we don't want to weaken this 
bill or have a poison pill in here.
  By the way, the law enforcement community represented nationally by 
their associations agrees with us, as do the victims groups, as do the 
groups who are concerned about the effect of trafficking on girls, 
women, and boys online. So we are together on this with all the outside 
groups.
  The second amendment is going to be asking for additional Department 
of Justice resources specifically to combat online trafficking. I 
support funding to investigate and prosecute traffickers, of course, 
but we have to appropriate that funding in the proper manner. This 
amendment would be subject to a budget point of order because it is not 
going through the right process. The right process is the bill we are 
taking up the day after tomorrow, which will be the spending bill.
  In fact, there are three budget points of order that the Committee on 
Budget in the U.S. Senate has found against this amendment. This 
amendment is subject to points of order. Every law enforcement group in 
the country opposes the amendment because as law enforcement said, it 
is a poison pill that is dead on arrival if sent back to the House. We 
have to defeat these amendments in order to have this legislation move 
forward. I hope my colleagues will all stick with us on that as they 
stuck with us through this process of getting the information, coming 
up with the right legislation, being sure we have the opportunity to 
take it to the floor and get it to a clean vote, get it to the 
President's desk and get it signed, and starting in a couple of weeks 
to be able to make a difference in the lives of the people we 
represent, stopping the online trafficking that is occurring and 
providing justice to those who are victims and survivors and ensuring 
that, indeed, justice can be served.
  One of my colleagues has joined us on the floor. Senator Nelson is 
the ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee that took up this 
legislation and clarified some points in the legislation. By the time 
he was done with it--and, by the way, he was a cosponsor of the 
legislation long before that--but by the time the Commerce Committee 
was done clarifying the legislation, listening to the testimony from 
both sides, he received a unanimous vote in committee. That doesn't 
happen very often, and I appreciate Senator Nelson being on the floor 
today. More importantly, I appreciate his leadership on the issue.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S1856]]




                               Congressional Research Service,

                                                    March 7, 2018.

                               Memorandum

     To: Hon. Ann Wagner.
     From: American Law Division.
     Subject: Ex Post Facto Implications of the Allow States and 
         Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (H.R. 
         1865), as Passed by the House of Representatives.
       This is in response to your request for an analysis of the 
     ex post facto implications of the Allow States and Victims to 
     Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (FOSTA) (H.R. 1865), 
     as passed by the House of Representatives in February, 2018. 
     You expressed particular interest in the ex post facto 
     implication of Section 4 as it relates to Section 230 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (Section 230) (47 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 230), originally enacted as part of the Communications 
     Decency Act of 1996.
       As discussed below, the Constitution's Ex Post Facto 
     Clauses limit congressional and state authority to pass 
     legislation that applies retroactively. Because Section 
     230(e)(5)(B) and (C) would amend the Communications Act to 
     allow states to prosecute online facilitators of sex 
     trafficking but would not create any new federal crimes or 
     enhance the punishment for any existing federal crimes, the 
     Ex Post Facto Clause does not appear likely to bar Congress 
     from making these amendments. In addition, Section 
     230(e)(5)(A), which amends Section 230 to allow civil causes 
     of action under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1595 for 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591 
     violations, does not appear to violate the Ex Post Facto, Due 
     Process, and Takings Clauses.


                               discussion

       Among other things, Section 230 of the Communications Act 
     protects online providers of internet services from being 
     treated as publishers of information provided by other 
     entities. Section 230 states: ``No provider or user of an 
     interactive computer service shall be treated as the 
     publisher or speaker of any information provided by another 
     information content provider.'' Section 230 does not bar 
     criminal prosecutions under federal law.
       Courts have found Section 230 to prevent states from 
     enforcing state laws intended to reduce sexual abuse of 
     minors. For example, in 2012, a court found Section 230 to 
     bar state prosecution of an online classified advertising 
     service pursuant to a state law that criminalized advertising 
     commercial sexual abuse of a minor. Other courts have 
     construed Section 230 to immunize online classified 
     advertising services from civil liability.
       Among other things, FOSTA is intended to clarify that 
     Section 230 of the Communications Act does not protect 
     providers and users of interactive computer services from 
     federal and state criminal and civil laws relating to sexual 
     exploitation of children or sex trafficking. The relevant 
     substantive provisions FOSTA include:

       Section 3 (proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2421A), which would 
     proscribe ``promotion or facilitation of prostitution and 
     reckless disregard of sex trafficking,'' authorize 
     restitution, and provide a civil cause of action for the 
     victims of such an offense;
       Section 4, which would amend Section 230, to ``ensur[e] 
     [the] ability to enforce federal and state criminal and civil 
     law relating to sex trafficking'';
       Section 5, which would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591, which 
     proscribes certain aspects of commercial sex trafficking of 
     children or by force, fraud, or coercion, by defining the 
     term ``participation in a venture'';
       Section 6, which would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1595, which 
     establishes a cause of action for damages and attorneys' fees 
     to benefit victims of violations of 18 U.S.C. ch. 77 (18 
     U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1581-1597) (relating to peonage, slavery, 
     and trafficking in persons, including commercial sex 
     trafficking), to allow state attorneys general to bring civil 
     actions on behalf of victims of commercial sex trafficking.
       Section 7, which would establish a savings clause relating 
     to pending federal and state criminal and civil litigation.

       Section 4 of FOSTA addresses the scope of Section 230's 
     grants of civil and criminal immunity. It reads:

       (a) In General.--Section 230(e) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(5) No effect on sex trafficking law.--Nothing in this 
     section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed 
     to impair or limit--
       ``(A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 
     1595 of title 18, United States Code, if the conduct 
     underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 
     of that title;
       ``(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under 
     State law if the conduct underlying the charge would 
     constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18, United 
     States Code; or
       ``(C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under 
     State law if the conduct underlying the charge would 
     constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, United 
     States Code, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is 
     illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant's promotion 
     or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
     regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred, or is 
     alleged to have occurred, before, on, or after such date of 
     enactment.
       Section 4(b) clarifies that the Section 4(a) amendments 
     apply retroactively, which raises the possibility of ex post 
     facto issues. With respect to Congress, the Constitution 
     provides that ``No . . . ex post facto Law shall be passed,'' 
     and, with respect to the states, the Constitution provides 
     that ``No State shall . . . pass any . . . ex post facto Law 
     . . .''
     Proposed Section 230(e)(5)(B) and (C)
       Proposed Section 230(e)(5)(B) and (C) concern state 
     criminal prosecutions. Section 4 of FOSTA would amend 
     existing federal law to remove impediments to criminal 
     prosecution under state law as described in proposed Section 
     230(e)(5)(B) and (C). Strictly speaking, it would neither 
     create new federal crimes nor enhance the punishment for 
     existing federal crimes. Thus, on its face, it would not 
     appear to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause that binds 
     Congress. Because Section 4 does not contemplate state 
     enactment of retroactive legislation, it would not appear 
     likely to violate the Ex Post Facto Clause that applies to 
     states. It is possible, however, that an argument could be 
     made that allowing prosecution for parallel state offenses 
     effectively enhances punishments for 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591 and 
     proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2421A violations retroactively.
       The Supreme Court has considered two ex post facto cases 
     that involved removing impediments to state prosecution and 
     punishment--Stogner v. California and Dobbert v. Florida. In 
     Stogner, the Supreme Court found a California statute that 
     attempted to revive expired statutes of limitations to 
     violate the Ex Post Clause. The Court stated:

       The second category [of Calder v. Bull's inventory of 
     statutes that violate ex post facto]--including any law that 
     aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when 
     committed--describes California's statute as long as those 
     words are understood as Justice Chase understood them--i.e., 
     as referring to a statute that inflicts punishments, where 
     the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment. After 
     (but not before) the original statute of limitations had 
     expired, a party such as Stogner was not liable to any 
     punishment. California's new statute therefore aggravated 
     Stogner's alleged crime, or made it greater than it was, 
     when committed, in the sense that, and to the extent that, 
     it inflicted punishment for past criminal conduct that 
     (when the new law was enacted) did not trigger such 
     liability.

       In Dobbert v. Florida, the Court considered a Florida 
     statute that sought to revive the death penalty. Dobbert had 
     committed murder, then a capital offense, several months 
     before the Court decided Furman v. Georgia, which invalidated 
     Georgia's, and by implication Florida's, procedures for 
     determining death sentences. After reinstating the death 
     penalty with constitutionally valid procedures, Florida 
     prosecuted Dobbert, and sentenced him to death. The Court 
     found no ex post facto violation. ``The new statute simply 
     altered the methods employed in determining whether the death 
     penalty was to be imposed; there was no change in the quantum 
     of punishment to the crime.'' The Court explained further:

       Petitioner's second ex post facto claim is based on the 
     contention that at the time he murdered his children there 
     was no death penalty in effect in Florida. This is so, he 
     contends, because, the earlier statute enacted by the 
     legislature was, after the time he acted, found by the 
     Supreme Court of Florida to be invalid under our decision in 
     Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Therefore, argues 
     petitioner, there was no valid death penalty in effect in 
     Florida as of the date of his actions. But this sophistic 
     argument mocks the substance of the Ex Post Facto Clause. 
     Whether or not the old statute would, in the future, 
     withstand constitutional attack, it clearly indicated 
     Florida's view of the severity of murder and of the degree of 
     punishment which the legislature wished to impose upon 
     murderers. The statute was intended to provide maximum 
     deterrence, and its existence on the statute books provided 
     fair warning as to the degree of culpability which the State 
     ascribed to the act of murder . . . Here the existence of the 
     statute served as an operative fact to warn the petitioner of 
     the penalty which Florida would seek to impose on him if he 
     were convicted of first-degree murder. This was sufficient 
     compliance with the ex post facto provision of the United 
     States Constitution.

       Because Section 230(e)(5)(B) revives the prospect of state 
     prosecution for conduct outlawed by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591, it 
     seems analogous to Dobbert and critically distinct from 
     Stogner. In Stogner, the defendant could not be prosecuted 
     until the impediment was removed. Under proposed Section 
     230(e)(5)(B), defendants could be prosecuted before the 
     impediment's removal if 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591 proscribed the 
     underlying conduct. In Dobbert and under proposed Section 
     230(e)(5)(B), the defendant knew beforehand that government 
     authorities considered the underlying conduct criminal and 
     warranting punishment under the law.
       Proposed Section 230(e)(5)(C) is different because dual 
     state and federal prosecutions would only occur after 
     proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2421A's enactment and, consequently, 
     any conduct subject to revived state prosecution would not 
     have been a federal crime when the conduct occurred.
       However, Section 230(e)(5)(C) would create no new federal 
     crime or enhance punishment

[[Page S1857]]

     for any pre-existing federal crime and only impacts state 
     law. We have been unable to locate any case that indicates 
     that the Ex Post Facto Clause limits Congress's legislative 
     authority in such a situation.
     Proposed Section 230(e)(5)(A)
       Proposed Section 230(e)(5)(A) concerns civil causes of 
     action. Section 230(e)(5)(A) would remove Section 230 bars to 
     causes of action under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1595 and predicated on 
     18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591 (relating to commercial sex trafficking) 
     violations. Ex Post Facto Clauses ordinarily do not apply to 
     statutes providing retroactive civil remedies. The Supreme 
     Court has stated: ``Because [the Court will] ordinarily defer 
     to the legislature's stated intent, only the clearest proof 
     will suffice to override legislative intent and transform 
     what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal 
     penalty.'' Section 1595 appears to be remedial in contrast to 
     the criminal provisions in the same chapter of Title 18 of 
     the United States Code, including Section 1591.
       Retroactive civil remedial statutes raise Due Process 
     Clause and, occasionally, Takings Clause concerns. The Court 
     has not presumed retroactivity in civil cases unless such 
     legislative intent is clearly indicated. When legislation is 
     explicitly retroactive, the Court's due process analysis 
     generally is more forgiving than its ex post facto analysis. 
     The Court has stated: ``Provided that the retroactive 
     application of a statute is supported by a legitimate 
     legislative purpose furthered by rational means, judgments 
     about the wisdom of such legislation remain within the 
     exclusive province of the legislative and executive 
     branches.'' Section 230(e)(5)(A) appears to have a legitimate 
     legislative purpose--to make facilitators of commercial sex 
     trafficking compensate its victims and, having a narrowly 
     drawn cause of action, its means appear rational.
       In rare cases, retroactively imposing liability on private 
     parties raises Takings Clause claims. The Court in a 5-4, 
     plurality decision, Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, found it 
     unconstitutional to require coal companies to cover health 
     care expenses of retired miners whom they had employed before 
     exiting the coal industry. Four members of the Court found 
     the legislation violated the Takings Clause because it 
     ``imposes severe retroactive liability on a limited class of 
     parties that could not have anticipated the liability, and 
     the extent of that liability is substantially 
     disproportionate to the parties' experience.'' Justice Thomas 
     concurred, but wrote separately to suggest revisiting whether 
     to apply the Ex Post Facto Clauses in civil cases. Justice 
     Kennedy concurred in the judgment, but maintained that a Due 
     Process standard provided a more appropriate analysis. The 
     four dissenters agreed that the Due Process Clause should 
     control and that, accordingly, the legislation was 
     constitutional. It is not clear, however, that Section 
     230(e)(5)(A) would impose retroactively the kind of massive, 
     unanticipated civil liability at issue in Eastern 
     Enterprises.

  Mr. PORTMAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his 
gracious comments.
  I just simply want to say my part as to why it is so important that 
we pass this legislation, because it is very obvious that an untold 
number of women and children in the United States are being sold into 
sexual slavery via the internet, and we now have an opportunity to do 
something about it by passing this legislation.
  It is so bad. With just a few clicks or a few punches on an iPhone, 
victims from all walks of life and across all parts of the country are 
being forced into brutal slavery and unspeakable crimes.
  I want to repeat that. I want Americans to understand what is going 
on behind the scenes. Women and children are being forced into sex 
slavery in modern-day America. It could very well happen to someone you 
know.
  We have continuing stories in our history of what happened when 
slavery was brought to the New World--first, to Arabia, off the East 
Coast of Africa, and then, of course, the European nations later were 
going down with their ship captains. The Portuguese actually ended up 
having the most slaves transported to the New World by way of South 
America. The English and most European nations got into the act of 
these unspeakable crimes, slave ships going down the west coast of 
Africa, enslaving Africans themselves or by agreement with a particular 
tribe that would go out and capture members of an opposing tribe.
  We have heard, over and over, the untold stories of the inhumanity of 
stacking people body-to-body in the holds of these slave ships. It 
finally took a civil war to settle the issue. That was slavery. That 
was slavery we opposed and now all of our laws try to protect against, 
but here in modern-day America, the same thing is happening, and it is 
happening because of the advances of technology using the internet. If 
this is not a wake-up call, I simply don't know what is.
  According to the human trafficking hotline, my State of Florida has 
consistently ranked in the top five States in human trafficking cases. 
Florida was third in the country for the number of cases reported in 
2016 and 2017, and that is just what we know about. It is just 
unacceptable, and it is wrong.
  Tens of thousands of Americans, predominantly women and children, are 
subjected to this horrific reality. You can imagine the pain and the 
suffering they are subjected to. No one in the country should have to 
endure this kind of forced slavery. No child or woman in Florida, in 
America, should ever be trafficked for sex. To even contemplate that 
should offend any person's sense of decency and humanity.
  The question before the Senate today, thanks to the leadership of a 
number of our colleagues is, Why aren't we going to do everything we 
can to stop these heinous crimes?
  The bill we are considering on the Senate floor would help us shut 
down despicable websites that enable this sex trafficking. Don't kid 
yourself. These shady and these highly profitable website operators 
know full well how their sites are being used. What is more, they are 
hiding behind a decades-old legal shield to immunize themselves from 
prosecution. We have to change that legal shield that was set up a 
decade ago for a different purpose.
  The bill sponsored by Senators Portman, Blumenthal, McCain, Heitkamp, 
and myself--and now many others--would eliminate the safe harbor in law 
for sex traffickers, and it would allow State attorneys general, other 
State and local prosecutors, and the victims themselves to go after the 
websites that knowingly provide a platform for sex trafficking. It 
would also make key changes to Federal criminal law to enable law 
enforcement to better target websites.
  The purpose of the legislation is simple. Let's get it passed, get it 
signed into law, and let all of these various law enforcement entities 
be able to do their job. This legislation is an extensive bipartisan 
product by our congressional colleagues. It proves, once again, what we 
ought to be doing around here on almost everything, and yet we rarely 
do. It proves, once again, that if you cross party lines and put things 
together in a bipartisan way, you can tackle the important, lifesaving 
issues, such as this one, and we can get something done. Let's show 
today that we can get something done that really makes a difference to 
Americans.
  It is a privilege for me to be involved in a bipartisan way with this 
legislation and to have worked with our Commerce Committee to get a 
unanimous vote out of the committee. I hope this legislation is going 
to serve as a wake-up call to the morally bankrupt website operators: 
We are coming after you. It seems like every day there are new ways 
that many bad actors are exploiting internet content and data to 
undermine society.
  Obviously, the internet has been magnificent for so many of us, but 
now when technology advances, you have to be on your guard about how 
new technology is used for the bad operators. This bill is going to 
address that. We can't sit by idly any longer. We have to act today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 
p.m., today, Senator Wyden be recognized for up to 60 minutes to offer 
and debate concurrently his amendments Nos. 2213 and 2212; that those 
be the only amendments in order; and that following the use or yielding 
back of that time, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the 
order listed with a 60-vote affirmative threshold required for adoption 
of each amendment; finally, that following disposition of those 
amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate vote on 
passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, without debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S1858]]

  



                         Omnibus Appropriations

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I am pleased to report that the 
appropriations package is currently being finalized. I will have more 
to say once the bill has been filed, but I am proud to announce it will 
meet a number of vitally important objectives. This includes the 
largest year-on-year increase in funding for our servicemembers in 15 
years, along with major steps forward for law enforcement and border 
security, for the fight against opioid addiction, for our veterans, and 
for a number of other priorities.
  Madam President, before we take up that measure, the Senate has a 
very important piece of business to tackle. This afternoon we will vote 
on the anti-sex trafficking legislation we have been considering this 
week. I want to thank Senator Portman, who has worked hard to advance 
this reform, and Chairman Thune, for shepherding it through the 
Commerce Committee.
  Many of us have paid careful attention to the scourge of child 
trafficking over the years. It has been a high-priority issue for me, 
for example, since before I arrived in the Senate. But as traffickers 
move their crimes from the street corner to the smartphone, the data 
tell us unambiguously that more action is required.
  The legislation before us reforms a misused provision in a 1996 
telecommunications act, which currently shields companies that 
facilitate and profit from the disgusting exploitation of women and 
children.
  Later today, my colleagues will have the opportunity to implement 
commonsense reform with the potential to change vulnerable children's 
lives for the better.
  I urge every one of us to vote to pass it.


                               Tax Reform

  Now, Madam President, on a final matter, we have been talking for 
months about the ways tax reform is helping to jump-start the economy, 
bolster family budgets, and make life better for millions of Americans. 
Just a few months in, many such stories have already made front-page 
news--the tax reform bonuses, raises, and benefits for 4 million 
workers and counting; the new investments and new hiring from 
businesses large and small; the bigger paychecks for middle-class 
Americans as the IRS withholds less of their money.
  Other exciting parts of this once-in-a-generation reform aren't 
receiving the attention they deserve. Today, for example, is an initial 
deadline for States to nominate areas they would like to be designated 
as ``opportunity zones.'' This is thanks to a provision incorporated 
into tax reform through the unflagging dedication of our colleague, 
Senator Scott.
  The premise here is simple. The best way to breathe new life into 
struggling communities is not to invent some new Federal program; it 
isn't to throw government money into one more top-down, tax-and-spend 
scheme. No. The best way to help rural areas, small cities, and suburbs 
left behind by the Obama-era policies is to get the government's foot 
off the brake and let the free enterprise system flourish. It is to 
make those communities attractive places to do business, open new 
facilities, and create good-paying jobs. This is exactly what tax 
reform does by deferring capital gains taxes on income that is invested 
in distressed areas that receive this ``opportunity zone'' designation.
  As one estimate has it, three-quarters of all the jobs created from 
2010 to 2016 went to major metropolitan areas. Only 3 percent went to 
rural America. This provision could help change that.
  I know there is a lot of excitement in my State of Kentucky. From 
coal country to farming communities and everywhere in between, Obama-
era overregulation was holding our economy short of its full potential. 
These opportunity zones offer a shot at real relief. According to the 
Cabinet for Economic Development, Kentucky may designate as many as 144 
new zones, prioritizing growth in areas that need it most.
  Or take West Virginia. As my friend Senator Capito recently noted, 
her State understands the problem all too well. One recent study 
suggested that West Virginia has the third highest proportion of its 
population living in economically distressed communities. Opportunity 
zones will make a difference to her State. Of course, so will the rest 
of tax reform.
  A few weeks back, Senator Capito reported that Worldwide Equipment in 
West Sulphur Springs plans to reinvest $8 million in its operations, 
including more than 1,000 employee bonuses--all thanks to tax reform.
  I imagine West Virginians are quite glad that Senator Capito used her 
vote to make tax reform a reality. It is a shame their senior Senator 
didn't follow suit. It is a shame that he and every other Democrat 
tried to block it from taking effect. Fortunately, this President and 
this Congress didn't let that stop us. We accomplished tax reform 
anyway because we are committed to fighting for all Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor this 
morning to thank and to support my colleagues, Senator Portman and 
Senator Nelson, who have led the effort here before us, an effort that 
would end sex trafficking over the internet or certainly work to reduce 
it.
  As we think about the scourge that is brought upon our children 
through a means and a way--we like to think of the internet as a 
powerful tool, but to know that it can be a powerful tool that truly is 
devastating to our children and devastating to our families calls for 
action. So I am pleased to be able to join my colleagues today in 
urging passage of the sex trafficking bill that we have before the 
Senate.
  I think we all know there are many, many reasons why we need to deter 
the use of internet resources by predators. The wisdom of this is 
pretty apparent on its face. This legislation is for the protection of 
our children--the most vulnerable among us.
  I have an additional reason for urging the adoption of this 
legislation, and that is the protection of Native women and girls from 
predators. I have been talking about the trafficking of Native women 
and girls for as long as I have been here in the Senate--now some 15 
years. At first, the evidence was perhaps anecdotal. FBI agents who 
were familiar with trafficking patterns would come to us, and they 
would say that Alaska Native women were a highly desirable commodity. 
Even using that terminology is just so offensive, but that is how they 
were viewed--as a desirable commodity for sex trafficking because they 
could be trafficked either as White women or as Asian women.
  There is a body of evidence that when many Alaska Native women or 
girls left their villages to go into town or to go to the city, they 
would literally be stalked by predators waiting to recruit them. We 
certainly see a prevalence of sex trafficking in Covenant House, which 
is our youth homeless shelter. We have reports that one in four 
homeless youth in Anchorage are victims of sex trafficking, and 42 
percent of them are Alaska Natives.
  As I have been here in the Senate over these years, the way these 
women and girls have been recruited, have been trafficked, has changed. 
No longer do you have the predators who are lurking, hanging out on the 
street corners, but it is the internet. Again, it is this powerful tool 
that is available to do so much good that is now being used for a 
predatory purpose. While we don't have the internet coverage in Alaska 
that you have in the big cities of the lower 48, the internet is used 
to recruit girls for sex trafficking all over, and I certainly had that 
confirmed in my last visit when I met with the FBI agents in charge in 
Anchorage.
  It wasn't too many weeks ago that the Senator from North Dakota, Ms. 
Heitkamp, and I came to the floor to talk about the urgency of 
addressing the growing number of missing and murdered Native women in 
America. Senator Heitkamp characterizes the problem as epidemic, and I 
agree with her. I do think it is an epidemic. Native women are victims 
of violence in unprecedented proportions. Not all of these victims are 
trafficked, but some are trafficked, and then they go missing. When 
their services are no longer needed or they find themselves controlled 
by a particularly violent predator, they never become ``unmissing'' 
until their bodies may be coincidently found, at which point they are 
finally regarded as murdered, gone.
  I say today that there is an urgency to keep Native women and girls 
away from predators. While turning off the

[[Page S1859]]

internet on-ramp to recruitment may not completely solve the problem, 
it is a worthy effort in its own right. It is one tool that we need to 
ratchet back.
  We hear from the sponsor of this bill and from so many that enough is 
enough. It is no longer tolerable. It is time we attack the problem of 
sex trafficking at the source, and that means doing all we can to make 
the internet a very inhospitable place for sex traffickers and those 
who enable the immoral and disgusting trade of our fellow human beings.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss H.R. 1865, the 
anti-human-trafficking legislation currently being considered here on 
the Senate floor. Human trafficking is one of the fastest growing 
criminal enterprises in the world. More than 20 million people in our 
Nation and around the globe are affected by this modern-day form of 
slavery.
  The criminals who carry out these heinous acts often go after the 
vulnerable, such as young people who have run away from home or are 
victims of domestic violence. Women and girls are disproportionately 
affected. According to the International Labour Organization, 55 
percent of total victims worldwide are women and girls. Tragically, 
children are frequently targeted.
  The perpetrators trap their victims in unconscionable and violent 
situations, forcing them to commit sexual acts against their will. This 
practice occurs in nearly every area code. It is happening closer to 
home than we even realize. A report published by Creighton University 
and the Women's Fund of Omaha found that there are 900 individuals for 
sale online every month in Nebraska--almost all of them female.
  Our government has a responsibility to stand up and do something to 
protect women and children from exploitation. Fighting the horrific 
scourge of human trafficking is a priority for me, and it is a priority 
for the U.S. Senate.
  In 2015, we passed the Justice for Victims Trafficking Act, and it 
was signed into law. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that legislation. 
The bill set up a deficit-neutral fund to support trafficking victims. 
Through enhanced reporting and mechanisms to reduce demand, this law 
provides care for victims of trafficking and child pornography.
  Importantly, the law also protects victims in court by treating 
traffickers as violent criminals. Labeling traffickers in this way 
means that convicts can now be detained while awaiting judicial 
proceedings. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act represents a 
strong effort by Congress to stand against human trafficking.
  I am proud that, at home, Nebraskans are also rallying together and 
taking action to stop human trafficking. This past January, the 
Nebraska attorney general, Doug Peterson, launched Demand An End, a 
public awareness campaign to stop child sex trafficking. This campaign 
aims to build on the momentum from legislative bill 298, passed by the 
Nebraska unicameral, with significantly heightened penalties for those 
perpetuating and profiting from human labor and sex trafficking.
  While I was a member of Nebraska's unicameral from 2005 to 2013, our 
State made several important legislative strides to address key 
policies related to human trafficking.
  In 2005, the unicameral passed L.B. 111, which established the 
Missing Persons Clearinghouse in Nebraska. The law created a 
centralized database with information on individuals who went missing 
within our State.
  Known as Jason's Law for an Omaha young man who went missing in 2001, 
L.B. 111 was an important advancement to ensure vital information 
sharing and to prevent the missing from becoming anonymous.
  Additionally, in 2012, the unicameral passed the L.B. 1145 to 
increase penalties for human trafficking and establish a task force to 
examine issues in Nebraska pertaining to human trafficking, including 
its scope, possible solutions, and how to assist trafficking survivors. 
Most recently, I am proud to have joined the ``Demand an End'' campaign 
and offer my support of AG Peterson's work on this front.
  Now is the time to build on these collective efforts and be 
responsive at the Federal level to stop this evil.
  That brings me to the legislation before us today, the Stop Enabling 
Sex Traffickers Act, or SESTA. I am grateful for the hard work of the 
Senator from Ohio and the Senate Commerce Committee in making it 
possible for us to be having this conversation today. Not only did this 
legislation pass committee, but it received a unanimous vote.
  Last fall, during the hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee, Ms. 
Yvonne Ambrose shared a heartbreaking story with our Members. She told 
us about her daughter Desiree. Desiree was a wonderful young woman with 
much potential. She was a high schooler and a member of the Junior 
ROTC. She dreamed one day of becoming a doctor in the U.S. Air Force.
  Like so many teenagers, Desiree was on social media because she 
wanted to connect with friends and make new friends. By accident, 
Desiree suddenly found herself in the shadows of the internet on a web 
page called backpage.com--a platform where men were able to find her, 
intimidate her, pressure her, and use her to make a profit. On 
Christmas Eve 2016, Desiree was murdered gruesomely by a 32-year-old 
man who bought her services online.
  Sadly, Desiree's story is not unique. The murky edges of the internet 
are still enabling predators all over the world to engage in sex 
trafficking, meanwhile websites like backpage.com continue to sell and 
exploit people for profit.
  Between January 2013 and March 2015, backpage.com earned nearly 100 
percent of its profits from adult advertisements. The internet is 
giving criminals an avenue to commit these crimes, and certain websites 
are knowingly facilitating their activities as part of an organized 
network. Compounding the issue, smartphones make it easier for 
traffickers to complete transactions.
  According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, 
reports of online child sex trafficking skyrocketed by more than 800 
percent between 2010 and 2015. Analysis of this major increase showed 
that it is directly correlated to the increased use of the internet to 
sell children for sex.
  In the months following Desiree's murder, a Chicago newspaper 
headline read: ``Teen's tragic death shows it's business as usual at 
Backpage.com.''
  The internet can no longer be a place where the perpetrators of these 
atrocious crimes can hide. It can no longer be business as usual, and 
that is where SESTA's provisions come in.
  SESTA would ensure that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 
cannot be used as an excuse anymore for websites that knowingly 
facilitate sex trafficking. It also would give State law enforcement 
clear authority to enforce criminal statutes against websites.
  I have been dismayed to hear about the obstacles State law 
enforcement has faced when attempting to prosecute entities knowingly 
participating in trafficking activities online.
  In its current form, section 230 protects websites and internet 
service providers from liability for content their users create. This 
has allowed websites that depend on user content, like Twitter and 
YouTube, to flourish, but it has been misused to effectively provide 
impunity for bad actors maintaining websites that facilitate sex 
trafficking.
  SESTA is critical to empowering survivors, providing the legal tools 
needed to seek and receive justice from all those involved in these 
monstrous crimes. As a cosponsor of SESTA, I hope my colleagues will 
pass this monumental, bipartisan, and bicameral bill to combat human 
trafficking today, and I urge my colleagues to vote against amendments 
that would derail this important and vital legislation.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today the Senate is voting to pass 
legislation to crack down on bad actors who abuse the power and 
potential of the internet to prey upon the most vulnerable among us in 
human trafficking rings. Websites like Backpage are repugnant, and I 
applaud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work in 
holding these bad actors accountable. I also applaud them for working 
to address the legitimate concerns of good-faith

[[Page S1860]]

technology platforms that want to be able to engage in responsible 
content moderation and take steps to affirmatively stop abuses of their 
sites.
  I am pleased to support this legislation because I believe it 
achieves the important balance between providing a mechanism to hold 
accountable sex traffickers while allowing free speech and innovation 
to continue to thrive. Key to my support is my understanding that this 
legislation would not allow nuisance lawsuits against technology 
companies--especially startups--based on bogus claims that they 
``facilitate'' sex trafficking. It is also important to me that I 
believe the legislation as written does preserve Good Samaritan 
protections for platforms and website operators who engage in good-
faith content moderation. Legitimate efforts to monitor for illegal 
content, shut down trafficking, or report suspected trafficking to law 
enforcement should not and cannot be the basis for liability under this 
legislation.
  Finally, I want to note that I have heard concerns that this 
legislation could be misused or abused to penalize websites that 
promote important health and safety information to survivors of sex 
trafficking, including about HIV prevention and treatment, and provide 
access to community and peer support services. This information is 
particularly critical to the victims of sex trafficking and others who 
face high rates of violence and exploitation, like people who use 
drugs, people of color, and LGBTQ people. I believe the use of this 
legislation to create any liability for this important work would be an 
impermissible misreading of the statutory language and legislative 
intent.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, millions of men, women, and children 
across the world are victims of human trafficking. But it is not a 
problem that stops at our shores.
  Eight years ago, I held a hearing in the Subcommittee on Human Rights 
and the Law entitled, ``In Our Own Backyard: Child Prostitution and Sex 
Trafficking in the United States'' to raise awareness about this 
problem.
  Sadly, not much has changed since then. The National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children receives about 9,000 to 10,000 reports 
of suspected child sex trafficking each year. It estimates that more 
than 80 percent of the trafficking incidents have occurred online. The 
worst offender is the website Backpage.com, which the National 
Association of Attorneys General has called a ``hub'' of human 
trafficking.
  The U.S. Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations spent 2 
years looking into sex trafficking and its facilitation online. After a 
thorough inquiry, the subcommittee found that more than 93 percent of 
Backpage's ad revenue in 2011 came from its so-called ``adult'' 
section, with projected revenue reaching nearly $250 million by 2019. 
However, ``adult section'' is really a misnomer--many of Backpage's ads 
were designed to sell children for sex.
  One of those children was Desiree Robinson of Chicago. When she was 
16, Desiree ran away from home. A pimp soon found her and sold her 
repeatedly on Backpage. On Christmas Eve, Desiree was taken to a garage 
to meet a john. Hours later, she was found dead in that garage. She had 
been raped and beaten, and her throat had been slashed.
  Last year, Desiree's mother, Yvonne Ambrose, testified before the 
Senate Commerce Committee about her daughter's tragic murder. She 
described how her daughter was, quote, ``preyed on and sold online by 
pimps who took advantage of her.'' She went on to say:

       On . . . December 24th, 2016, Desiree, my baby, was 
     brutally murdered and now my life is changed forever. . . . 
     If there were stricter rules in place for posting on these 
     websites, then my child would still be alive with me today.
       The truth is [that] Backpage.com and other sites are making 
     millions of dollars by exploiting our children and allowing 
     them to be taken advantage of by predators. If we don't speak 
     up now, these websites will continue to profit off 
     trafficking our babies. It could be your child, your niece, 
     your nephew, your cousins, your friend's children next if you 
     don't stop this.

  Yvonne went on to urge the Senate to pass the Stop Enabling Sex 
Traffickers Act, or SESTA.
  SESTA is a narrowly crafted bill that would ensure that Section 230 
of the Communications Decency Act does not provide legal immunity to 
websites like Backpage that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. For 
years, Backpage and others have successfully exploited this loophole 
and avoided legal liability, despite hosting advertisements for the 
sale of sex acts with young victims of trafficking. Their ability to 
hide behind this reprehensible defense will come to an end with the 
passage of this bill.

  SESTA was incorporated into House companion legislation called the 
Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, or FOSTA. 
The House overwhelmingly passed this bipartisan, compromise legislation 
last month, in a 388 to 25 vote.
  The combined legislation will ensure that victims and survivors of 
sex trafficking can seek justice against websites that knowingly 
facilitated the crimes against them. It would also enable state law 
enforcement officials--not just the Federal Department of Justice--to 
take action against individuals or businesses that violate federal sex 
trafficking laws.
  The bill has been endorsed by major anti-trafficking groups, law 
enforcement organizations, and numerous technology companies.
  We need to protect victims of trafficking, and we need to hold 
websites like Backpage accountable for their exploitative, criminal 
actions. As we prepare to vote on this bill, consider Yvonne Ambrose's 
plea:

       I would not wish this pain and hurt on my worst enemy. And 
     I pray that Desiree's life can make a difference, so no one 
     else has to ever endure this pain again. I'm asking you, the 
     U.S. Senate, to amend Section 230 and be the change you want 
     to see in this world--not only for justice for Desiree, but 
     for all of the countless Jane Does out here and the other 
     little girls to come who don't have a voice.

  I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am voting for this legislation because, 
on balance, I believe it will provide important legal recourse to 
victims of sex trafficking and will help hold accountable those 
websites that seek to exploit them. Protecting these victims should be 
our top priority.
  There have been concerns raised that this legislation may have an 
unintended--and harmful--impact on one of the key laws underpinning the 
free and open Internet. That key law is section 230 of the 
Communications Decency Act, CDA 230, which promotes free expression and 
innovation by protecting online platforms from a range of laws that 
might otherwise hold them unfairly accountable for everything their 
individual users may say and do online. This law defends free speech 
online and has encouraged innovations ranging from the earliest online 
bulletin board systems to today's platforms for social media and user-
generated video. Without the protections of CDA 230, the internet would 
be a very different place today.
  Today's legislation amends CDA 230 by, among other things, 
prohibiting construing that law to limit Federal or State civil 
liability for conduct that involves ``knowingly assisting, supporting, 
or facilitating a violation of'' Federal child sex trafficking laws. 
Clearly, CDA 230 was never intended to be a shield to protect child sex 
traffickers, and it should not, but there is concern this legislation 
could potentially open up providers and websites who operate in good 
faith to new liability risks for what their users say or do, which 
could harm free expression. Also, the threat of this liability will 
fall especially hard on smaller platforms that have fewer resources to 
fight lawsuits, even ones without merit, which could harm innovation.
  As a result, I do not take amendments to this core protection for 
free expression and innovation online lightly. I am voting in favor of 
today's legislation because we must balance those possible risks 
against the very real scourge this legislation will forcefully combat: 
sex trafficking, including trafficking of underage youth. Just earlier 
this week, Senators Collins, Heitkamp, and I reintroduced our 
bipartisan bill to curb youth homelessness and support young victims of 
trafficking, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention 
Act. This is an issue I have long been committed to addressing. Today's 
legislation represents a step in the right direction, and I will 
support it.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for

[[Page S1861]]

the online sex trafficking legislation that is before us today. 
Immediately passing and sending this measure to the President's desk 
will help ensure that children and youth are less vulnerable to human 
traffickers and others who would profit from this terrible crime.
  This bill originally was introduced in this Chamber by Senator 
Portman, and I salute him for his leadership on the issue of online sex 
trafficking.
  Last year, I joined dozens of my Senate colleagues as a cosponsor of 
this measure after working with the Commerce Committee on the title 18 
language in this legislation.
  Senator Portman, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, introduced the earliest version of this legislation 
after his subcommittee produced a bipartisan report exploring the link 
between Backpage and online sex trafficking. Entitled ``Backpage.com's 
Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex Trafficking,'' that report was the 
result of nearly 2 years of investigation by the subcommittee's 
investigative staff. I encourage my colleagues to review the Senate 
report, which is posted on the subcommittee's website.
  It makes a very strong case for updating the Communications Decency 
Act and title 18 of the U.S. Code to protect children as the bill 
before us proposes.
  I, too, have made ending human trafficking a top priority as chairman 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the first major bills our 
committee produced in the 114th Congress, under my leadership, was the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. It established a new fund, 
comprised of assessments imposed on convicted offenders, to provide 
resources to serve victims of human trafficking. It also equipped 
prosecutors with new tools to fight the heinous crime of human 
trafficking. Senator Cornyn introduced that bill, and I was a 
cosponsor.
  Last year, I sponsored legislation to extend the key programs 
authorized under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Our committee 
cleared this bill and a related measure that Senator Cornyn introduced 
known as ``Abolish Human Trafficking Act'' in 2017. The Senate passed 
both bills without a single dissenting vote last September.
  These two bills would extend the authorization for a number of the 
victim-centered programs that Congress established years ago as part of 
the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act. They also include 
provisions to promote greater education and awareness of human 
trafficking in the United States.
  For example, the Senate-passed Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
2017, which I introduced, calls for training of judges, school 
personnel, and Federal investigators so that they can better identify 
and respond to human trafficking victims. It would authorize the U.S. 
Secret Service to offer investigative and forensic assistance to other 
law enforcement agencies. It would establish an Office of Victim 
Assistance within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ensure 
that the office is staffed by trained victim assistance personnel. 
Lastly, the measure promotes coordination among and data collection by 
the Federal agencies that are tasked with helping human trafficking 
victims and bringing the perpetrators to justice.
  The Abolish Human Trafficking Act, which I joined Senator Cornyn in 
introducing, ensures that victims will receive restitution, authorizes 
funding of investigations, and enhances penalties imposed for 
trafficking offenses, including sexual exploitation or abuse, sex 
trafficking of children, and repeat convictions for transportation for 
illicit sexual activity.
  We currently are working with the other Chamber on a package that 
would include these two bills, a related measure introduced by Senator 
Corker, and the House-passed version of legislation to renew and extend 
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Sending this package of four 
bills and Senator Portman's online sex trafficking bill to President 
Trump for his signature sends a very strong message to human 
traffickers that we will not tolerate the scourge of human trafficking 
in the United States.
  I close by calling on my colleague to support the immediate passage 
of H.R. 1865 without any weakening amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. JONES. Mr. President, first, let me begin by expressing how 
honored and humbled I am to be a Member of this body and to represent 
the great State of Alabama.
  Fresh out of law school in 1979, I began my career right here, 
working as staff counsel to Senator Howell Heflin on the Judiciary 
Committee. From when I served as a staffer, there are only three 
Members of the Senate who continue to serve today--Senator Leahy, 
Senator Hatch, and Senator Cochran. Two of those three, Senators Hatch 
and Cochran, will be retiring this year--Senator Cochran, in just over 
a week--and a grateful nation thanks them for their service.
  For me, personally, I am honored to have come full circle with them, 
from a young staffer to a junior colleague, and I wish them well in 
their life after the Senate.
  I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for welcoming me to 
this body, many of whom are here with me today, braving the wintery 
weather outside. Thank you for your friendship, your advice, and your 
willingness to include me and my staff in the great work you are doing.
  I particularly want to thank my senior colleague from Alabama, 
Senator Shelby, and his staff. I appreciate their graciousness and 
patience in helping me as I navigate my new role as a freshman Senator.
  I thank my family: my amazing wife Louise; incredible kids, Courtney, 
Carson, and Christopher, who so fully supported me in my quest to reach 
the Senate but more importantly in my life. I have grown with them and 
certainly because of them; of course, my sister Terrie; wonderful 
parents, who I am blessed to have around today; and my grandparents who 
are not. They instilled in me the values of family, faith, patriotism, 
respect for others, and a work ethic that has guided me throughout my 
life.
  Finally, I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to pay 
special tribute to my mentor and former Senator whose seat I now hold--
the late Howell Heflin of Alabama. He was a remarkable man whose large, 
lumbering frame and southern drawl would often mask his amazing 
intellect. His compassion and sense of justice for his fellow man 
forged a path for myself and so many others who worked for him over the 
years.
  He came to the Senate in 1979, at a time when bipartisanship was more 
than just a campaign slogan or a sound bite. In those days, when 
Senators spoke of bipartisanship, they truly meant it. They would never 
compromise principles but would compromise with their colleagues on the 
serious issues of the day in order to move this country forward.
  By the time he left the Senate in 1997, Senator Heflin sensed a 
change in the political climate, and he was concerned about it. In a 
parting essay he wrote:

       Our Constitution itself came about through a great series 
     of compromises; it was not written by ideologues who clung to 
     ``their way or no.'' Compromise and negotiation--the 
     hallmarks of moderation--aimed at achieving moderate, 
     centrist policies for our country, should not be viewed as 
     negatives.

  This leads me to the reason I rise today. I want to speak about an 
issue that has evaded the broad bipartisan discussions and moderation 
that Senator Heflin spoke of. Instead, it seems to have been an issue 
where folks quickly take sides and often criticize those with whom they 
disagree.
  It is time that we have a serious, pragmatic, and practical 
discussion--not a debate or negotiation but a dialogue on the steps 
that we can take to reduce the harm caused by gun violence in this 
country.
  I know with just those words, people across this country may have 
already started reaching for their phones to start tweeting or posting 
without another word and without knowing where I might stand on this 
issue. That just seems to be the way it is in America these days, which 
is so unfortunate, because once you take a side, it is hard to come 
off.
  In the wake of yet another mass shooting and the rising voices of 
young people across the country, it is our responsibility and our duty 
to have a serious discussion about guns and gun

[[Page S1862]]

safety, but that conversation has to be twofold. We must acknowledge 
the deadly consequences that can follow when a gun is in the wrong 
hands but also recognize and respect the freedom to own and enjoy guns 
by law-abiding citizens, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the 
Constitution. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
  Before I jump into the actions I believe we can take today, I want to 
go back and explain a little bit about where I come from.
  Growing up in Alabama, I learned to shoot from my father and 
grandfather. I was not much of a hunter in my youth, but whether it was 
cans or bottles on a tree log or the occasional skeet, we simply 
enjoyed shooting and always had a few guns in the house. The 
distinction between a hunter and someone who just enjoys guns and 
shooting is significant.
  To this day, I still have my father's old .22 rifle, my grandfather's 
pistol that he gave me, and a couple of rifles and shotguns I got as 
presents as a kid, but my interest in hunting began to grow when my 
youngest son Christopher was born, 20 years ago this past Monday. At an 
early age, he was fascinated with guns and hunting, so with my wife's 
blessing, I took up the sport so he could learn gun safety and 
conservation from me. Today I think I am more passionate about it than 
he is.
  I consider myself an avid hunter--deer, turkey, quail, whatever the 
season might be in Alabama. With the campaign last year and transition 
into this office, this past deer season was somewhat of a bust for me, 
but with the start of turkey season, I am anxious to get back into the 
woods.
  Frankly, I also enjoy guns. I enjoy shooting them. I like how they 
are made, the power, and their history. I own many of them, all stored 
in a locked gun safe that, quite frankly, is larger than what my wife 
initially approved of a number of years ago. Collecting them and 
shooting them at the range or hunting is a bond I share with my son 
Christopher and with many of my friends.
  So while I know that guns and gun control are difficult issues in 
this country, I can tell you they are complicated for me, too, but as a 
U.S. Senator today, a Member of the legislative branch of government, I 
have many obligations, and I believe the first obligation of government 
is to protect its citizens.
  We spend unimaginable amounts of money fighting our enemies abroad 
and terrorists who would attack us at home. Yet, on many levels, we 
fail our children and grandchildren every morning when we pack their 
backpacks and send them into harm's way or when they pick up what they 
think is a toy or a really cool weapon that they have seen on 
television or in the movies and it turns out to be a killing machine 
that they should have never had access to and don't know how to handle.

  We fail the abused women, men, and children of our society when we 
let our family and relationship problems lead to a murder.
  We fail parishioners in church, employees at work, and concert and 
theater goers when they are caught off guard by a hail of bullets from 
a disturbed individual.
  We fail those who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time 
when street violence breaks out and a stray bullet takes an innocent 
life.
  We fail veterans and others in society suffering from depression and 
post-traumatic stress and other mental disorders who decide that life 
is simply not worth living.
  We fail people of every walk of life, of every age, and in every 
corner of this country, every day.
  Gun deaths continue to rise. In 2016, over 38,000 people died in this 
country because of gunfire. Almost 15,000 of those deaths were 
homicides. Almost 23,000 were suicides--epidemic-type numbers--and 
nearly 500 were accidental.
  We have failed in Alabama, too. In the last few weeks, we lost a 
police officer in Mobile who was shot and killed when responding to a 
domestic dispute. We lost a 1-year-old boy who was accidentally shot in 
the back by his 2-year-old brother with their parents' gun. We lost a 
beautiful, young 17-year-old girl who was about to head off to college 
because one of her classmates brought a gun to school and he was 
showing it off when it was accidentally fired.
  We lost a dedicated nurse at UAB Highlands Hospital when a 
disgruntled former employee showed up at the hospital and opened fire.
  Just yesterday, as I was finalizing these remarks, I learned that a 
former client of mine was shot and killed by his girlfriend's brother 
as he was picking up his 3-month-old baby from a visit.
  The list could go on. Similar tragedies take place every week in 
every one of our States.
  These stories don't grab national headlines, but they are examples of 
the gun violence that has become commonplace in our communities.
  In 2016, Alabama had the second highest rate of gun deaths in the 
Nation. That means that 1,046 Alabamans were killed by gun violence 
that year. Worse yet, our gun deaths increased by a staggering 34 
percent between 2005 and 2016.
  As a former prosecutor, I worked closely with law enforcement. I have 
seen firsthand what weapons in the wrong hands can do to families, 
communities, and society. When I was a U.S. attorney, we had a program 
called Isolating the Criminal Element, and we tried to crack down on 
illegal weapons in our communities.
  As most of you know, my career has been defined by prosecuting the 
killers of children. It was September 15, 1963, when a bomb placed 
outside the ladies' lounge window of the 16th Street Baptist Church in 
Birmingham exploded, killing four beautiful young girls. I wish I could 
turn back time and do something that would have prevented it 
altogether. Had I or anyone else, at that moment, it might very well be 
one of those young girls giving this speech today and not me.
  I stand in that moment now, and so do you, and so does our country.
  I believe we have finally reached a tipping point regarding gun 
violence now--not because of the shooting in Parkland, FL, but thanks 
to the millions of young voices across this country, led by students at 
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
  Much like the students who took to the streets of Birmingham in 1963, 
who were attacked by firehoses and police dogs, who awoke the 
conscience of America to civil rights, these young men and women are 
awakening the conscience of America regarding gun violence. I am 
pleased that one of those young men, Alfonso Calderon, of Marjory 
Stoneman Douglas High School, is with me here as my guest in the 
Gallery today.
  We could spend days in this Chamber debating the meaning of the 
Second Amendment. We could let our Nation further divide itself while 
more lives are lost. We can fret about what people are saying about us 
on social media or whether we might lose campaign contributions. We can 
again choose the path of inaction in the face of yet another mass 
shooting and expect different results, or we can take another path.
  Let's find what we can agree on, act on it, and begin to make our 
country a safer place. We can be reasonable here because we all want 
the same thing--a safer country, a safer world.
  At its core, the Second Amendment was an effort to protect Americans. 
Let us do the same.
  But in order to do that, we need to build more trust in this body and 
encourage camaraderie. More importantly, we need to fundamentally 
change the way we talk about difficult issues in our country and set an 
example for our fellow Americans to follow and to dial down the 
rhetoric.
  Remember that ``for every action there is an equal and opposite 
reaction'' is not just one of Newton's laws of motion, but it is also 
one of political rhetoric. Extreme views promote equal but opposite 
extreme views.
  For those who want more gun restrictions instead of focusing your 
energy on banning a certain weapon--which, frankly, as a practical 
matter, just simply cannot pass this Congress--focus instead on efforts 
to keep those weapons and others out of the hands of those who would do 
us harm. You can't simply demonize the NRA and pro-gun groups.
  While I know that these groups sometimes take what many, including 
me, consider extreme positions, they also represent millions of law-
abiding gun owners who are concerned that their

[[Page S1863]]

right to bear arms is  at risk. For millions of Americans, gun 
ownership and enjoyment is a cultural issue with deeply held beliefs. 
Addressing that issue is simply not like regulating stock transactions 
or cutting taxes.

  To those who would seek to maintain the status quo, like the NRA or 
anyone else, please stop using scare tactics to try and convince law-
abiding gun owners that the Federal Government is hell-bent on taking 
their guns away. That is simply not going to happen and everyone knows 
it.
  We also need to get past the idea that more guns in society will make 
us all safer. The statistics and the data simply do not support that. 
We don't need guns in the hands of schoolteachers.
  Simply having more ``good guys with guns'' is not a solution. 
Americans just simply do not want to return to the days of the Wild 
West.
  This topic, like so many others, has become a space that is less 
about having a thoughtful conversation and instead has evolved into a 
clash of cultures. As leaders, we must reject the ``us against them'' 
mentality because, ultimately, we are all Americans who are united by a 
common bond of shared values and love of country.
  There will always be forces that seek to sow division and discord. 
Our challenge and our mission are to prevent them from succeeding.
  We can seize this moment by changing the conversation in our country. 
Let's start a productive dialogue and work toward a comprehensive bill 
that includes ideas that we should be able to agree on. There are 
already a half dozen proposals in this body that have bipartisan 
support. My friend from Connecticut, Senator Murphy, outlined them just 
the other day, but they bear repeating here.
  Ban bump stocks and make it a crime to possess and manufacture them, 
as Senator Feinstein has proposed. The President and the Department of 
Justice should be commended for taking the first steps through 
regulation, but the Senate of the United States of America should go on 
record about this deadly accessory.
  We should pass the Fix NICS legislation proposed by Senators Cornyn 
and Murphy. The NICS system is only as good as the data that goes into 
it. Their bill would block bonus pay for political appointees who fail 
to upload records to the NCIS system and reward States that follow the 
uploading plan. It would create a ``domestic abuse and violence 
prevention program'' to give States the ability to share information to 
prevent someone convicted of a domestic violence crime from purchasing 
a gun. Fix NICS is a good start toward overhauling our background check 
system and, as Senator Murphy said the other day, it is a good base 
bill on which to build.
  But, frankly, we have to do more on background checks. We have to 
require background checks on all gun sales, whether it is at a gun show 
or over the internet or between individuals. It can be as simple as 
going to a licensed dealer or a local police station to have a 
background check run on a prospective purchaser or a transferee. It may 
be inconvenient, but it will save lives.
  With universal background checks, however, I would also suggest a 
couple of companion measures. For instance, in my view, it is entirely 
appropriate for a family member to sell or give a gun to another close 
family member, as they should be presumed to know whether their 
relative is prohibited from having a gun.
  We can consider other exceptions for those who can produce a valid 
concealed carry permit or between law enforcement officers. But in 
carving out those exceptions, we should also increase both civil and 
criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly transfers a gun to a 
prohibited person and provide the necessary funds to the Department of 
Justice to prosecute those individuals when appropriate.
  We can also take steps to deter prohibited individuals from even 
trying to purchase a gun. Senator Toomey's NICS Denial Notification Act 
would allow reporting to State and local authorities when someone has 
tried to purchase a gun and has been denied, and it would require DOJ 
to report to Congress on such prosecutions. To his credit, Attorney 
General Sessions has announced that the DOJ will vigorously prosecute 
those who make false statements in connection with their background 
checks. We should ensure that he has the resources to do so.
  We should close the so-called Charleston loophole, as proposed by 
Senator Blumenthal. This loophole allows a purchaser to receive a 
firearm after 3 days, regardless of whether their background check has 
been completed or not. We can create certain exceptions for concealed 
carry permit holders and others, but no one should be allowed to take 
possession of a firearm until they have cleared a background check.
  Current law prohibits a firearms dealer from selling a pistol to 
anyone under the age of 21. That has been the law for many years, 
without any real challenge. The same logic behind this prohibition 
should apply to the sales of pistols and semiautomatic weapons to those 
under the age of 21.
  Senator Klobuchar has filed a badly needed piece of legislation to 
expand the definition of domestic violence to include dating partners 
and eliminate the ``boyfriend'' loophole that allows certain dangerous 
individuals to access guns and evade laws meant to protect domestic 
violence victims.
  We can implement at least a 3-day waiting period for the purchase of 
any pistol or semiautomatic weapon, and we can increase penalties for 
those who steal firearms. States that have implemented waiting periods 
have seen significant decreases in suicides.
  We can also repeal the Dickey amendment and open the door for new 
research on gun violence prevention. No one--no one--is happy when 
innocent people die because of a gunshot, and law-abiding gun owners 
should not be afraid of studies on how to reduce the number of gun 
deaths in this country.
  We can do more to stop mental health issues from turning dangerous by 
allowing law enforcement or family members to seek a court order when 
an individual poses an extreme danger to themselves or others and 
prevent them from getting access to firearms. Senators Feinstein, 
Blumenthal, and Graham have all proposed versions of the extreme risk 
laws.
  For too long, gridlock and partisanship have stood in the way of 
compromise. But I didn't come here to do nothing, and I don't think any 
of you did, either.
  Today we face a difficult problem but not an insurmountable one. To 
find solutions, we must demand courage of ourselves and one another.
  As history has shown, we face greater consequences with inaction--
certainly greater consequences with inaction on gun violence.
  So I have asked all of us to consider this question: What is our 
collective legacy as representatives of the American people and the 
Members of this hallowed institution? I believe it is to leave this 
body and our country better than we found it. We can only do that if we 
rise together to confront the unknown.
  I have given talks all over the country about the prosecutions of the 
16th Street Baptist Church bombing, and I am always reminded of a 
passage from the poem ``The Cure at Troy,'' which was written by the 
Irish poet Seamus Haney as a tribute to Nelson Mandela. My friend Vice 
President Biden often quotes this passage, where Haney wrote:

       History says, don't hope on this side of the grave. But 
     then, once in a lifetime the longed-for tidal wave of justice 
     can rise up, and hope and history rhyme.

  With the convictions of two former Klansmen for the murder of those 
four young girls, the longed-for tidal wave of justice rose up, and 
hope and history rhymed in Birmingham, AL.
  For me, and I hope for you, when I walk the halls of the Senate 
Office Buildings and I come through those double doors onto the Senate 
floor, I realize that every day we, as a collective body, have that 
same opportunity. Whether it is for Dreamers or voting rights or 
victims of sex trafficking or, in this case, our children who are 
demanding action on gun violence, we have the opportunity to build that 
tidal wave of justice and have hope and history align. But we have to 
have the courage to seize the moment.
  I don't have all the answers on how to do it, but I am willing to 
work with each and every one of you to find them because that is why we 
were sent here--to find those answers, so that the tidal wave of 
justice will rise up.

[[Page S1864]]

Please, let us work together to make it happen sooner rather than 
later.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to join my bipartisan group of 
colleagues who have been coming to the floor to talk about the very 
important bill that we are debating and are going to be voting on here 
in about an hour; that is, to help protect our children all across this 
country from the horrible scourge of human trafficking and sex 
trafficking. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act that we are debating 
right now is important for the whole country, and it is certainly 
important for my State of Alaska.
  We have a big problem in Alaska with the challenges of domestic 
violence and sexual assault at some of the highest rates in the 
country. We also have a big problem with the challenges of human 
trafficking and sex trafficking. A lot of people think that doesn't 
happen in America. It happens in America. It is a horrible issue to 
talk about, but it happens in our country.
  There was a study done last year on young men and women in Alaska 
receiving services from a homeless shelter for teenagers. My wife Julie 
actually works at this homeless shelter, and one in four girls and one 
in five boys who used the services of this teen homeless shelter 
reported being victims of sex trafficking. This is a horrible number 
for a very vulnerable society. We need to do more to address this 
issue.
  In this legislation, we are taking the fight to one of the places in 
this country where human trafficking and sex trafficking are really 
exploding, and that is the internet. The bipartisan legislation we are 
debating right now will ensure that websites and other institutions on 
the internet and the companies related that knowingly--and that is an 
important word, ``knowingly''--facilitate sex trafficking can be held 
accountable for their actions. It will also create new Federal crimes 
related to promoting or facilitating human trafficking over the 
internet and give more resources to State prosecutors to go after these 
heinous crimes.
  In the remarks from a whole host of Senators this morning, I think we 
are seeing that we are going to make real progress in the fight against 
online sex trafficking without threatening the years of progress we 
have made in creating a free and open internet. Senator Portman, one of 
the leaders of this effort, along with many others--Senator McCain and 
his wife Cindy have been real champions and advocates for human 
trafficking issues throughout America; Senator Blumenthal and so many 
other Senators have been saying that this is a commonsense, targeted 
approach to addressing this very big and growing problem.
  We are going to vote in about an hour, and I hope all of my 
colleagues will do the right thing and vote on these amendments that 
are put out there as helpful amendments, but, to be honest, they are 
meant to bring down the bill.
  We cannot allow our children, whether in Alaska or across the 
country, to be lured into this kind of Hell--and the more we hear in 
terms of testimony, the more we recognize that what is going on over 
the internet in this area is Hell mostly for the youth of America.

  Our children should not be sold online or anywhere else. 
Unfortunately, it is happening, and it is happening a lot, largely 
because of the internet. The National Center for Missing & Exploited 
Children reported, from 2010 to 2015, an 846-percent increase in the 
number of children being trafficked--an over 800-percent increase in 
America.
  A lot of Americans think: Wait, really? That is a problem in Asia, 
Southeast Asia, or other countries. But it is a growing problem in the 
United States of America, and we need to address it.
  As others have said on this floor, sex trafficking has moved from the 
street corner to the smartphone, where it is much more difficult to 
detect and much more difficult to stop, and it is one of the reasons we 
see this dramatic increase in rates of human trafficking in our 
country.
  In the Commerce Committee, we had a hearing that covered this bill. 
Some members of the tech industry were opposed, but I think the 
overwhelming support that came out of that hearing was driven by the 
real-world tragedies we started to hear from hundreds--thousands--
across the country that have occurred because of really lax laws and 
immunity on the internet that was not intended for companies or 
individuals who deal in sex trafficking and human trafficking. What we 
saw from the report and the investigations that Senator Portman and 
others did was that actually was what was happening.
  For example, Senator Blumenthal earlier today talked about the very 
tragic, sad, and moving testimony we heard last September in the 
Commerce Committee from Yvonne Ambrose, whose 16-year-old daughter 
Desiree Robinson was trafficked online by a pimp on the website, 
Backpage. She was later raped and murdered by a 32-year-old man who 
found her on that website. She was an American citizen, a 16-year-old 
girl. If you had watched her mom's testimony of in front of the 
Commerce Committee, you would be voting for this bill today.
  Her mom ended her riveting and very sad testimony by saying: If there 
were stricter rules in place for posting on these websites, then my 
child would still be here with us today. It was a wrenching story and, 
unfortunately, one that too many American mothers and fathers are 
telling us.
  We are going to vote on this today, and I hope all my colleagues vote 
for more progress. As the Presiding Officer knows, on this issue, there 
is actually positive progress that has been going on in the Congress. A 
lot of times, when they read the news--my constituents back home in 
Alaska and Americans throughout the country--they are always hearing 
about conflict and how there is no progress in the Senate. We have some 
difficult issues; there is no doubt about it. But on a lot of issues 
there has been bipartisan progress, and in this area of human 
trafficking, there has been significant bipartisan progress to finally 
start addressing this growing problem in America--which, again, is 
remarkable when you think about it--of young men and women trafficked 
for sex in this country.
  In 2017, we passed on a bipartisan basis the Abolish Human 
Trafficking Act; in 2015, we passed the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act. Both were introduced by my friend and colleague, 
Senator Cornyn of Texas. Senator Thune has been a leader on these 
issues in the last couple of years in passing the No Human Trafficking 
on Our Roads Act and Combating Human Trafficking in Commercial Vehicles 
Act, which focused on the big problem we have seen in terms of the 
transportation system in America being used for human trafficking. In 
the Judiciary Committee, we passed Chairman Grassley's bill, the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which brought more 
services to victims of these heinous crimes.
  We are making progress, no doubt about it. But--and this is a very 
important point--despite this strong record of addressing human 
trafficking, when it comes to these crimes, some of the biggest things 
we need more of in America to address them, because they are growing, 
are resources--resources. To put it bluntly, there are too many cases, 
there is too much of this happening, and there are not enough 
resources, money, or prosecutors to put the bad individuals who are 
doing this behind bars.
  Many of these cases involving human trafficking are Federal crimes 
that usually require Federal prosecutors to go after these Federal 
offenses. As we all know, there are limited numbers of assistant U.S. 
attorneys and Federal investigators to do this. So what have we done? 
What have we done in the past few years? What are we doing today in 
this vote to help address this? We have begun to change this issue of 
resources to go after the perpetrators of these heinous crimes in a 
much better way by allowing State attorneys general and State district 
attorneys to actually prosecute these crimes, even though they are 
Federal crimes. We are doing something in the law that says: We need 
more prosecutors, we need more investigators, and we need more 
resources. Let's unleash those in the States to help us address this 
growing problem throughout our country.
  So we are doing that, and we did it for the first time in the Justice 
for Victims of Trafficking Act in 2015. This

[[Page S1865]]

bill, for which Senator Cornyn was the lead, actually incorporated a 
bill that I had authored and had a lot of cosponsors on called the Mann 
Act Cooperation amendment. We put that in as part of the broader bill 
in 2015.
  The Mann Act is the Federal law that makes it a criminal offense to 
transport someone across State lines for the purposes of prostitution 
and human trafficking. In my experience back home in Alaska, as 
attorney general, we had challenges in this regard. As a matter of 
fact, there was a very notorious case of a bad man--a very corrupt 
man--who a lot of people knew in Alaska, and he was engaged in this 
kind of activity with young girls from the Native villages in my State. 
We investigated it and realized that he violated not a State law but a 
Federal law. It was very clear that it was a human trafficking 
violation of the Mann Act.
  When I was attorney general, my office went to the Feds, and we said: 
Here you go. Here is the evidence. This guy violated the Mann Act. He 
is a bad man. He should go to jail. We need to send a signal.
  It is a rather long story. It is a sad story. But for whatever 
reason--I have wondered for years, and I have looked into this for 
years--the Federal Government wouldn't take the case.
  I said to the Feds: Then, let my prosecutors take the case. We will 
take the case. You just need to cross-designate us. Let the State 
attorney general's office take these Federal laws and prosecute them 
against this guy. We will do it.
  They still didn't allow us to do it. There were rumors in Alaska: 
Hey, what was going on here? Was there some kind of deal cut between 
the Feds and this guy who was a really bad guy and who was in jail for 
something else?
  When I got to the Senate, I said: We are not going to let that kind 
of injustice happen again.
  That was an injustice. A man who violated the Mann Act and clearly 
committed the crime of human trafficking is a free man right now. That 
shouldn't be the case.
  As part of the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act in 2015, 
we had a provision. My bill essentially said this: If a State attorney 
general brings a Mann Act case--a human trafficking violation case, 
Federal case--to the Attorney General of the United States, saying that 
we need to be cross-designated to prosecute--maybe the Feds don't have 
the resources; maybe they don't have the time--then, the Attorney 
General of the United States shall allow the cross-designation for more 
State attorneys general to prosecute these cases, unless it would 
undermine the administration of justice. That is in the law. State 
attorneys generals right now can go prosecute Mann Act cases. That is 
more resources, more investigators, and more prosecutors.
  That is going to be in the law that we are voting on today. One of 
the elements--an important element--of the Stop Enabling Sex 
Traffickers Act, which we are voting on and debating now, is to allow 
State attorneys general the power and the authority to bring actions 
against those who violate Federal law for internet-based sex 
trafficking.
  We are bringing the resources in these kind of cases. That is an 
important innovation in the development of the bill that we are voting 
on today. Just like in the previous legislation, State attorneys 
general can now bring these cases. If we pass this law today, that will 
mean more resources, more investigators, and more prosecutors for the 
perpetrators of these heinous crimes. To all the bad guys out there who 
are undertaking these crimes, when we vote to pass this legislation 
today, that is going to be a bad day for you because we are going to 
have more resources and the ability to put you in jail with this vote 
today.
  As I mentioned, we have a big problem in this country. We have a long 
way to go in terms of human trafficking, sex trafficking, which is 
hitting all parts of America. Congress is focused on it, and I am 
hopeful that we will pass this legislation this afternoon for one more 
step in the right direction on addressing this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                        Commending Senator Jones

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks on the 
legislation before us, I wish to compliment our new colleague, Senator 
Jones, on a superb maiden speech. I thought he was so gracious when he 
remembered Senator Heflin. I served with Senator Heflin, and I think 
Senator Jones is going to be very much in that tradition. I want to 
take a quick minute and commend our new colleague for launching his 
time in the Senate in an extraordinary way.


                     Amendments Nos. 2212 and 2213

  Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 2212 and 2213, as provided 
for under the previous order, and I ask unanimous consent that they be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] proposes amendments 
     numbered 2212 and 2213.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 2212

     (Purpose: To clarify that efforts of a provider or user of an 
interactive computer service to identify, restrict access to, or remove 
   objectionable material shall not be considered in determining the 
criminal or civil liability of the provider or user for other material)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. EFFECT ON LIABILITY OF EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY, 
                   RESTRICT ACCESS TO, OR REMOVE OBJECTIONABLE 
                   MATERIAL.

       (a) In General.--Section 230(c) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(3) Effect of efforts to identify, restrict access to, or 
     remove objectionable material.--
       ``(A) Effect on criminal and civil liability generally.--
     The fact that a provider or user of an interactive computer 
     service has undertaken any efforts (including monitoring and 
     filtering) to identify, restrict access to, or remove 
     material the provider or user considers objectionable shall 
     not be considered in determining the criminal or civil 
     liability of the provider or user for any material that the 
     provider or user has not removed or restricted access to.
       ``(B) Effect on protections.--The protections under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) are not limited by or contingent upon 
     an interactive computer service provider's--
       ``(i) moderation of content; or
       ``(ii) use of particular content moderation practices.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) take effect on the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged 
     occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before, on, or 
     after such date of enactment.


                           amendment no. 2213

(Purpose: To provide additional funding to the Department of Justice to 
           combat the online facilitation of sex trafficking)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROTECTING SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIMS FROM CRIMINAL 
                   WEBSITES.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Protecting Sex Trafficking Victims from Criminal Websites 
     Act''.
       (b) Appropriation of Funds.--Out of funds of the Treasury 
     not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the 
     Attorney General, for use in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security and the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 
     through 2022 to investigate and prosecute website operators 
     that criminally facilitate sex trafficking or the sexual 
     exploitation of children.
       (c) Available Until Expended.--Amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (b) shall remain available until expended.
       (d) Budgetary Effects.--
       (1) PAYGO scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this section 
     shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained 
     pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 
     of 2010 (2 U.S.C. 933(d)).
       (2) Senate paygo scorecard.--The budgetary effects of this 
     section shall not be entered on any PAYGO scorecard 
     maintained for purposes of section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71 
     (115th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 2018.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my hour begin 
now for speaking on this subject. We are a bit behind, but not much. I 
ask unanimous consent that the hour that has been assigned to me begin 
at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I stand on the Senate floor today in firm 
agreement with my colleagues that the Congress must do more to combat 
the scourge of sex trafficking. It is a profound and tragic failure of 
American institutions that trafficking continues to plague our country 
and, in fact, has actually increased.

[[Page S1866]]

  Federal law enforcement has failed to root out and prosecute the 
traffickers, even when they have been operating in plain sight. So, 
too, have the big internet companies failed when it comes to sex 
traffickers who operate on their platforms.
  I fear that the legislation before the Senate now is going to be 
another failure. I fear that it is going to do more to take down ads 
than to take down traffickers. I that fear it will send these monsters, 
these evil people who traffic beyond the grasp of law enforcement to 
the shadowy corners of the dark web, a place where every day search 
engines don't go, and it is going to be even easier for criminals--
these vicious traffickers--to find a safe haven for their 
extraordinarily evil acts.
  In many respects, this debate mirrors one the Congress went through a 
little bit more than 20 years ago. Back then, I think it would be fair 
to say that not many Senators knew much about the internet. In 1995, 
this body had a laudable goal. The Senate said it wanted to protect 
kids from accessing pornography online, but the result of those good 
intentions was, unfortunately, a bad policy--a policy called the 
Communications Decency Act of 1996.
  Behind that policy was a fundamental misunderstanding of both the 
architecture of the internet and the modern application of the First 
Amendment. The law didn't just go after those targeting pornography to 
minors. It took speech that was legal in the real world and made it 
illegal online. And it produced a paradise for the legal trickster, 
creating new ways to sue over speech and adversely affecting scores of 
Americans, medical providers, artists, writers of literature, and more.
  As should happen with poorly written policy, all but one part of the 
Communications Decency Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. The 
one piece of the law left standing was section 230, which I coauthored 
with former Congressman Chris Cox. What section 230 was all about was 
laying out the legal rules of the road for the web. There were 
innovative new businesses sprouting up all over and novel forms of 
communication and media connecting and informing people in new ways. 
But it seemed clear that a quick way to strangle this promising set of 
developments in their infancy was for these new companies to be held 
legally liable for every piece of content that users posted on their 
platforms.
  When section 230 was written, nobody could have foreseen all of the 
effects. Here is what we did know back then. First, we wanted small 
businesses to start out focusing on hiring engineers, developers, and 
designers rather than worrying about how they had to hire a team of 
lawyers.
  Second, we wanted to make sure that internet companies could moderate 
their websites without getting clobbered by lawsuits. I think Democrats 
and Republicans would agree that this is a better scenario than the 
alternative, which means websites hiding their heads in the sand out of 
fear that they would be weighed down with liability.
  Third, we wanted to guarantee that bad actors would still be subject 
to all of the Federal laws. Whether the criminals were operating on a 
street corner or online wasn't going to make a difference, and we were 
determined to state that explicitly.
  Fourth, we wanted to protect the internet from the whims of State and 
local legislators. This body has the authority to regulate interstate 
commerce.
  I would ask any of my colleagues to offer an example of how something 
could be more interstate than the internet.
  It may not satisfy some publicity-seeking local official when we talk 
about the Federal Government's role here, but there is no question that 
the role of the Congress, in its leading on something that is clearly 
interstate in nature, is in the best interest of the American people.
  For the most part, the framework worked better than I ever imagined 
it would. As a result of section 230, the small, gutsy entrepreneur--
say an entrepreneur in North Carolina--who has a big dream of working 
out of his garage has a real shot at succeeding. Marginalized groups of 
vulnerable Americans have a better opportunity than ever to make their 
voices heard because of section 230, and small nonprofits have the 
ability to take their causes nationwide.
  One scholar, David Post, even wrote that the 230 law created $1 
trillion worth of economic value in the private economy. He said: ``It 
is impossible to imagine what the Internet ecosystem would look like 
today without it.''
  My wife saw that article, looked at me and said: Well, dear, even a 
blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn.
  Setting aside spousal kidding, to illustrate why the protection that 
comes from section 230 is so important, I turn next to what things 
would be like without it.
  Imagine if you are starting a forum site that is dedicated to 
discussing knitting. If ever there were a topic that sounded drama 
free, that would be it. Yet suppose somebody goes on the site and 
shares a pattern he didn't have the right to share. Suddenly, your 
website is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit. Maybe the 
controversy--knitting versus crocheting--gets overheated, and the users 
start trading barbs. Suddenly, you have people slinging defamation 
suits at your itty-bitty forum host. Then somebody is injured by an 
automatic needle threader he reads about in a comment thread. Suddenly, 
you are a codefendant in a liability suit--all because you didn't have 
the protection of section 230.
  Imagine how hard it would be to launch a platform that would be open 
to the discussion of any topic when even the simplest, most narrowly 
focused website on the internet can become a magnet for lawsuits. There 
are not enough lawyers in the world to handle all of that litigation, 
and my sense is we will have a lot of constituents who will say: Thank 
God.
  In the absence of section 230, the internet as we know it would 
shrivel. Only the platforms that are run by those with deep pockets and 
an even deeper bench of lawyers would be able to make it.
  Moreover, section 230 is not just about hobbies and commerce. It 
protects the coordination of free speech, particularly among vulnerable 
groups of Americans. That is the reason organizations like the 
libertarian Cato Institute, the progressive Human Rights Campaign, and 
the ACLU have voiced serious concerns about the legislation before the 
Senate. You sure don't see those three groups lined up side by side 
very often, but they are here now. It is because, without the 
protections of section 230, civic organizations that exercise their 
right to free speech could be cowed by their more powerful political 
opponents.
  For this example, imagine that a nonprofit organizes a campaign in 
support of a local ballot measure. It uses social media to build 
awareness and promote upcoming rallies and events with online 
discussion boards. Yet, without section 230, powerful interests that 
are opposed to its work can just swoop in and effectively silence that 
nonprofit with an onslaught of litigation. Hostile individuals could 
pose as supporters and make comments on the nonprofit's website that 
would expose the group to liability suits. I think it is pretty obvious 
that there would be an enormous, chilling effect on speech in America.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statements from the Cato Institute 
and the ACLU that are in opposition to the legislation now before the 
Senate be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From CATO at Liberty, Feb. 27, 2018]

                     The Death of an Open Internet

                           (By John Samples)

       Today the House votes on the Fight Online Sex Trafficking 
     Act (FOSTA), a piece of anti-sex trafficking legislation. It 
     follows and incorporates an earlier effort by the Senate, the 
     Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA). The bill at issue 
     today is actually a last minute amendment by Representative 
     Mimi Walters (CA) that brings the worst elements of SESTA 
     into FOSTA, creating a hybrid bill far worse than the sum of 
     its parts. This bill has grave consequences for an open, 
     competitive internet and for some people who use it.
       Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has long 
     shielded internet service providers from liability for user 
     generated content, facilitating the internet we know today. 
     FOSTA would likely reduce these protections. FOSTA creates a 
     new federal crime tied to the intent to promote sex 
     trafficking

[[Page S1867]]

     using the internet. Alone, this might be considered an 
     acceptable, narrowly tailored measure. However, the Walters 
     amendment incorporates SESTA's ``knowingly'' standard of 
     liability, which withholds CDA Section 230 protections from 
     sites ``knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating'' 
     sex-trafficking. SESTA's standard requires no intent to 
     facilitate sex trafficking, relying upon the mere knowledge 
     that one's app or blog has been used by bad actors.
       Preemptive action, driven by effective platform moderation 
     and cooperation with law enforcement, remains the most 
     efficient way to combat online sex trafficking. 
     Unfortunately, FOSTA's incorporation of SESTA's ``knowingly'' 
     standard would stymie this collaboration. If a platform 
     attempts to prevent sex trafficking by removing and reporting 
     offending user generated content, it risks establishing that 
     it had knowledge of the content, rendering it liable for 
     anything that might slip through the moderation process. 
     Instead of encouraging platforms to combat sex trafficking, 
     SESTA's ``knowingly'' standard punishes private attempts to 
     prevent the problem, and cripples broader attempts at 
     effective content moderation.
       A combined FOSTA/SESTA would benefit established social 
     media platforms and trial lawyers at the expense of an open 
     internet while doing little to prevent sex trafficking. 
     Facebook may be well resourced enough to cope with the 
     increased legal risk imposed on hosts of user generated 
     content, but their nascent competitors are not. Attempts to 
     avoid running afoul of the ``knowingly'' standard will likely 
     lead to greater reliance on automated filtering.
       Other issues have not received the attention they merit. 
     Libertarians (and others) often distinguish law from 
     morality. What is immoral need not be illegal. American law 
     in many jurisdictions does not honor that distinction and 
     criminalizes exchanging sex for payment. Some members of 
     Congress seem pleased this bill will better enforce those 
     laws against people who voluntarily engage in such exchanges.
       The consequence of doing so, however, should please no one. 
     Members believe this bill will likely drive women who sell 
     sex for a living off the internet. For them, that is a 
     feature not a bug of the bill. But those engaged in the sex 
     trade are unlikely to give up their work. Instead they will 
     end up on the streets. Why does this change of venue matter? 
     Between 2002 and 2010, Craigslist introduced an ``erotic 
     services'' section on its front page which was used almost 
     exclusively to advertise illegal sex services. Three 
     economists found that this section led to a 17.4 percent 
     reduction in the homicide rate of the women in the relevant 
     jurisdiction. They also noted ``modest evidence'' that the 
     Craigslist section reduced female rape offenses. The 
     economists concluded this reduction in violence came from the 
     women moving indoors and matching more efficiently with safer 
     clients. This potential increase in violence and murder 
     should give pause to even those who deem selling sex immoral.
       Congress has worked on these bills for some time through 
     their committees. Now both bills have been thrown together, 
     brought to the House floor, and are expected to become law, 
     all in a week or so. Instead of this rush, the House 
     Judiciary Committee could have finished its work, and the 
     whole House debated and voted on the measure. The Senate and 
     House then could have conferred and perhaps produced a bill 
     acceptable to all. That would be ``regular order'' for 
     Congress in lawmaking. It has once again been ignored.
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 2018.
     Re Oppose H.R. 1865--The ``Allow States and Victims to Fight 
         Online Sex Trafficking Act''.

     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 
     writes to express its opposition to H.R. 1865, the ``Allow 
     States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act,'' 
     also referred to as FOSTA, which passed the House on February 
     27 and may be considered by the full Senate in the coming 
     days or weeks. The bill is a serious, yet unsuccessful, 
     attempt to stop the use of the Internet for sex trafficking 
     without hindering online freedom of expression and artistic 
     innovation. Tech experts say that a thriving Internet 
     requires retaining certain liability protections for online 
     platforms providers. Victims' rights advocates, on the other 
     hand, say the sex trafficking problem requires narrowing 
     those protections. The bill misses the achievable legislative 
     opportunity to do both, and in particular leaves the Internet 
     exposed to the uncertain impact of changed protocols on the 
     part of platform providers.
       For nearly 100 years, the ACLU has been our nation's 
     guardian of liberty, working in courts, legislatures, and 
     communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and 
     liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United 
     States. With more than 2 million members, activists, and 
     supporters, the ACLU is a nationwide organization that fights 
     tirelessly in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, DC 
     for the principle that every individual's rights must be 
     protected equally under the law, regardless of race, 
     religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or national 
     origin.
       The risks to the Internet as the world's most significant 
     marketplace of ideas outweigh the uncertain benefit of the 
     bill to the fight against sex trafficking. Accordingly, ACLU 
     opposes the bill. While the language of H.R. 1865 has been 
     improved to address some of the ambiguities creating the most 
     significant risks, ACLU remains concerned that the bill, if 
     enacted, will foster an atmosphere of uncertainty among 
     online platform providers. This uncertainty will inhibit the 
     continued growth of the Internet as a place of creativity and 
     innovation.
       The ACLU has long supported maintaining the statutory 
     immunity provisions of section 230 of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 in order to promote freedom of speech and expression. 
     Section 230 became one of the key factors enabling the robust 
     expansion of Internet-based speech, communications, and 
     commerce. It is a critical factor in maintaining the 
     Internet's diverse ecosystem of speech and art and advancing 
     economic and political dialogue. The rationale for liability 
     protections for online providers is that they should not 
     suffer criminal or civil liability merely for creating online 
     fora to which others may post content, even when some of 
     those communications turn out to be offensive or even 
     unlawful. Any liability should be on those who create and 
     post that content.
       We opposed FOSTA's predecessor bill, an onerous bill that 
     would have drastically curtailed protections for online 
     publishers. FOSTA was revised in the House through the 
     efforts of a broad cross-section of victim advocates, law 
     enforcement, and tech experts. The current version creates a 
     new federal facilitation of prostitution crime, but would 
     still impact liability protections for online providers. As 
     finally approved, it also incorporated key aspects of the 
     Senate version of the bill.
       ACLU opposed the Senate version of the bill, the ``Stop 
     Enabling Sex Traffickers Act'' (S. 1693, SESTA), but also 
     acknowledged improvements incorporated prior to final 
     committee approval. In particular, the modified version of 
     SESTA heightened the intent standard needed to establish a 
     criminal violation--a key distinction separating a typical 
     online platform provider from one that might inject itself 
     into the online content being posted to its platform. Also, 
     in authorizing state prosecutions notwithstanding the federal 
     liability protections for online platforms, the bill would 
     limit state prosecutions to those where the behavior violated 
     the federal law.
       The changes to both the House FOSTA bill and the Senate 
     SESTA bill were the result of concerted advocacy efforts by 
     Internet and other tech experts who testified about the 
     critical importance played by section 230 protections. In the 
     days before the section 230 protections were adopted over two 
     decades ago, online providers were subject to lawsuits for 
     allowing the posting of content. The threats were so 
     financially significant that providers would simply bar the 
     posting of third party content, knowing they could never 
     fully insulate themselves from liability except by blocking 
     all content that might be offensive to some. Since the 
     adoption of section 230, online providers have been free to 
     curate their sites' content without fearing liability for 
     what others post.
       Even with the improvements in both bills, ACLU continued to 
     oppose both measures because the risks to the vibrancy of the 
     Internet as a driver of political, artistic, and commercial 
     communication is real and significant. Moreover, there is 
     little to suggest that current law could not be used to find 
     and punish the bad actors who are truly facilitating online 
     sex traffickers. In fact there is at least one pending 
     federal court case that makes this very argument. There are a 
     host of state laws outlawing such behaviors and current 
     liability protections are intended to protect only those who 
     are simply providing a channel for others to use, not those 
     who are determining what is posted and who have a malicious 
     intent to do harm to others. Finally, ACLU is concerned that 
     the scope of the bill's language will encompass the actions 
     of sex workers who have no connection to trafficking 
     whatsoever within its enforcement, including effective harm 
     reduction and anti-violence tactics. Such an outcome is 
     directly contrary to the aims of bipartisan criminal justice 
     reformers who seek to limit the over-federalization of crime 
     where such crimes already exist at the state level.
       For the foregoing reasons, the ACLU opposes H.R. 1865 as 
     approved by the House of Representatives. It poses a risk to 
     freedom of speech on the Internet as we have come to know it 
     while purporting to solve a problem that could be addressed 
     in other ways.
       If you have questions or comments about ACLU's position on 
     this legislation, please contact First Amendment advisor 
     Michael Macleod-Ball.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Faiz Shakir,
                                      National Political Director.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the fact is that section 230 was never 
about protecting the incumbents. I have spent my time in public service 
taking on a wide array of powerful, established interests. When I wrote 
this policy, I never envisioned a Facebook, but I did hope it would 
give the little guy and

[[Page S1868]]

his startup a chance to grow into something big. The bottom line--the 
central point here--is that it worked.
  Despite the fact that section 230 undergirds the framework of the 
internet as we know it today, there is a significant effort underway to 
try to take it down, to collapse it. That is, largely, because the big 
internet companies--the biggest ones--have utterly failed to live up to 
the responsibility they were handed two decades ago. I am going to 
explain exactly what I mean.
  For these big companies, section 230 is both a sword and a shield. It 
offers protection from liability, but it also gives companies the 
authority and, more importantly, the responsibility to foster the sort 
of internet Americans want to be proud of. In years of hiding behind 
their shields, these big technology companies have left their swords to 
rust. Too many companies have become bloated and uninterested in the 
larger good, and when they have taken positive steps, as Wikimedia has, 
for example, their practices haven't been adopted by their peers.
  I will describe one case study that was reported last week by the 
tech news website Motherboard.
  In 2012, the website Reddit, on which individuals form communities 
where they share and discuss content, cracked down on users who posted 
nonconsensual photos of women. These have come to be known as 
``creepshots.'' The website Tumblr did not sufficiently police the same 
inappropriate content, so these reprehensible communities simply 
relocated from Reddit to Tumblr, and this creepshot problem lived on. 
That is how easy it is for the creators of vile content to move from 
one platform to another.
  Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously observed that he 
couldn't define hardcore pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. 
Congressman Cox and I may not have known exactly what content we 
intended for sites to be able to take down when we wrote section 230, 
but I sure know it when I see it. Far too often, the big internet 
companies refuse to know it even when they see it.
  A huge amount of that which populates social media networks each day 
is every bit as destructive and socially corrosive, if not more so, 
than the pornography at issue in that famed Supreme Court case. It is 
the creepshots, the sex trafficking ads, the conspiracy videos about 
school shootings, and anti-vax nonsense--nonsense that endangers the 
public health and more.
  The tech giants state that no one could track the millions of posts 
or videos or tweets that cross their services every hour. Nobody is 
asking them to do that--nobody. Section 230 means they are not required 
to fact-check or scrub every single post or tweet or video, but there 
have been far too many alarming examples of algorithms that drive vile, 
hateful, or conspiratorial content to the top of the sites that 
millions of people click on every day. Companies seem to aid in the 
spread of this content as a direct function of their business models.
  It is perfectly reasonable to expect some greater responsibility from 
these giant, multibillion-dollar corporations that were able to thrive 
as a result of protection that they were guaranteed by law. That was 
the idea behind section 230. That doesn't carry any obligation to 
suppress free speech, but it is definitely about being a responsible 
citizen, a responsible member of the community.
  Sites like Facebook, YouTube, and Tumblr constitute the entire 
internet for millions of users who click through the same group of 
sites every single day. They have an undeniable role to play in 
fostering a civil environment. Their failure to do so could very well 
mean that the internet looks very different 10 years from now, not just 
for those who spread hateful and conspiracy-driven filth, but for the 
millions of decent people who use the internet to learn, to find 
entertainment, and to keep in touch with loved ones.
  There was a time when the biggest internet companies had mottos like 
``Don't be evil.'' Perhaps it is time for them to aspire to a more 
modest motto: ``Don't spread evil.''
  With all of that said and done, it is not just the internet companies 
that fail to properly respond to the challenges of our times. When it 
comes to sex trafficking, which is the underlying issue the Senate is 
working on today, our country has failed the victims at almost every 
level.
  (Mr. COTTON assumed the Chair.)
  For example, the Justice Department could have and absolutely should 
have investigated the website backpage years ago for its role in 
promoting sex trafficking; but the fact is, the Federal Government fell 
down on the job.
  Backpage's activities were no secret. In the absence of action by the 
Department of Justice, a Senate subcommittee, led by our colleagues 
Senators Portman and McCaskill, conducted their own investigation and 
subpoenaed key documents. Among those documents were emails that 
appeared to show that backpage was actively working with sex 
traffickers to create advertisements. That meant backpage was not due 
protection under section 230. In fact, a lawsuit in Boston was given 
the go-ahead based on that precise finding. It has been widely reported 
that the Justice Department now has its own investigation underway, 
although it is coming years and years too late. This should have 
happened eons ago. This is only one example of where the government's 
efforts have fallen short.
  Now, following what I have described, the twin failures of the big 
technology companies and Federal law enforcement, this body is 
responding to a very serious moral challenge with flawed policy 
changes. In my view, the legislation before the Senate will prove to be 
ineffective, it will have harmful, unintended consequences, and it 
could be ruled unconstitutional.
  I take a backseat to no one when it comes to policies that fight sex 
traffickers, bring them to justice, and help the victims of their 
hideous crimes. I have used my position on the Senate Finance Committee 
to be one of the authors of laws that support victims and provide 
ongoing funding paid for by those convicted of crimes against children. 
I have worked with our colleagues, Senator Cornyn, Senator Portman, 
Senator Klobuchar, to write laws to improve the child welfare system to 
help prevent kids from becoming victims in the first place. I put my 
record up against any Member of this Congress when it comes to passing 
laws that while definitely not going far enough, begin the effort to 
provide the tools to fight this scourge, but the bill before us today 
is not going to stop sex trafficking. It is not going to prevent young 
people from becoming victims, and I am going to describe why that is 
the case.
  First, as I mentioned earlier, the Department of Justice takes the 
view that an important provision in the bill is unconstitutional. In my 
judgment, that is another issue that Congress ought to address before 
sending a bill to the President's desk, but instead it looks like 
everybody will drive it through as is.
  Second--and this is an astounding development--the legislation before 
the Senate is going to make it harder, not easier, to root out and 
prosecute sex traffickers. Let me read what the Department of Justice 
has said recently that proves that this bill is going to make it harder 
to root out and prosecute sex traffickers. The Department of Justice 
recently said this legislation would ``effectively create additional 
elements that prosecutors must prove at trial.'' Colleagues, I will 
just state we are heading in the wrong direction if we have legislation 
that would raise the burden of proof in cases against sex traffickers. 
Imagine that, with nationwide concerns about the evils of sex 
trafficking, the Department of Justice has said this bill would 
actually raise the burden of proof in cases against sex traffickers.
  The Department of Justice wrote a letter to Chairman Goodlatte of the 
House Judiciary Committee that lays out the concerns I have just 
described.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Justice Department letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S1869]]

         U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative 
           Affairs, Office of the Assistant Attorney General,
                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2018.
     Hon. Robert W. Goodlatte,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter presents the views of the 
     Department of Justice (Department) on H.R. 1865, the ``Allow 
     States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 
     2017.'' The Department supports H.R. 1865. We applaud House 
     and Senate legislative efforts to address the use of websites 
     to facilitate sex trafficking and to protect and restore 
     victims who were sold for sex online. The Department 
     appreciates this opportunity to provide technical assistance 
     to ensure that these goals are fully met through narrowly 
     tailored legislation. The Department also notes that a 
     provision in the bill raises a serious constitutional 
     concern.
       Every day, trafficking victims in America appear in online 
     advertisements that are used to sell them for sex. The 
     Department works diligently to hold the traffickers 
     accountable for their crimes but faces serious challenges. 
     This is due in part to the high evidentiary standard needed 
     to bring federal criminal charges for advertising sex 
     trafficking, but also because the Communications Decency Act 
     (CDA), codified at 47 U.S.C. 230, bars our state and local 
     partners from bringing any criminal action that is 
     inconsistent with that section. H.R. 1865 addresses both 
     issues and would take meaningful steps to end the industry of 
     advertising trafficking victims for commercial sex.


                          TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

       Section 3(a) of the bill creates 18 U.S.C. 2421A, a new 
     federal offense that prohibits the use or operation of 
     websites (and other means or facilities of interstate 
     commerce) with the intent to promote or facilitate 
     prostitution. The bill also provides for an aggravated felony 
     if the defendant recklessly disregards that the crime 
     contributed to sex trafficking as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 
     1591(a). Section 2421A would stand as a strong complement to 
     existing federal laws.
       However, the Department notes that Section 2421A as 
     originally drafted is broader than necessary because it would 
     extend to situations where there is a minimal federal 
     interest, such as to instances in which an individual person 
     uses a cell phone to manage local commercial sex transactions 
     involving consenting adults. Therefore, the Department would 
     support amending the language of Section 2421A so that 
     Congress can clarify its intent to target traffickers using 
     or operating interactive computer services, as follows (with 
     a corresponding change to 2421A(b)): ``Whoever, using a 
     facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce or in or 
     affecting interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or 
     operates an interactive computer service, as defined in 
     Section 230(f) of Title 47, United States Code, or conspires 
     or attempts to do so, with the intent to promote or 
     facilitate prostitution shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both.''
       The Department believes that any revision to 18 U.S.C. 1591 
     to define ``participation in a venture'' is unnecessary. 
     Section 1591 already sets an appropriately high burden of 
     proof, particularly in cases involving advertising. Under 
     current law, prosecutors must prove that the defendant 
     knowingly benefitted from participation in a sex trafficking 
     venture, knew that the advertisement related to commercial 
     sex, and knew that the advertisement involved a minor or the 
     use of force, fraud, or coercion. See Backpage.com, LLC v. 
     Lynch, D.D.C., Civil Action No. 15-2155, Docket 16 (Oct. 24, 
     2016). While well intentioned, this new language would impact 
     prosecutions by effectively creating additional elements that 
     prosecutors must prove at trial. In the context of the bill, 
     which also permits states to bring actions for conduct 
     equivalent to Section 1591, we are also mindful that this 
     language could have unintended consequences as applied by the 
     states.
       Section 4 of H.R. 1865 also sets forth critical revisions 
     to the CDA to permit state prosecutors to bring criminal 
     actions related to sex trafficking and the use of the 
     interact with the intent to promote or facilitate 
     prostitution. The Department believes that the existence of 
     this exception to the CDA will alter the landscape of the 
     industry involved in advertising prostitution.


                         CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERN

       We note that Section 4 of H.R. 1865 states that the changes 
     to the CDA ``shall apply regardless of whether the conduct 
     alleged occurred [sic], or is alleged to have occurred, 
     before, on, or after such date of enactment.'' This raises a 
     serious constitutional concern. Insofar as this bill would 
     ``impose[] a punishment for an act which was not punishable 
     at the time it was committed'' or ``impose[] additional 
     punishment to that then prescribed'' it would violate the 
     Constitution's Ex Post Facto Clause. Cummings v. Missouri, 4 
     Wall. 277, 325-326 (1867); see Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167, 
     169-170 (1925); U.S. Const. art I, 9, cl. 3. The Department 
     objects to this provision because it is unconstitutional. We 
     would welcome the opportunity to work with Congress to 
     address this serious constitutional concern.
       Thank you for the opportunity to present our views in 
     support of this legislation. We hope this information is 
     helpful, and we look forward to continuing to work with 
     Congress on this important legislation. Please do not 
     hesitate to contact this office if we may provide additional 
     assistance regarding this or any other matter. The Office of 
     Management and Budget has advised us that from the 
     perspective of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to submission of this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Stephen E. Boyd,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, that is not the only problem when it comes 
to enforcing this law. The bill before the Senate is focused on taking 
down online advertisements, not on catching criminals or protecting 
victims. Taking down the ads doesn't mean the pimps and predators will 
stop and say: Oh, good; we see what the Senate is doing. We are now 
going to start following the rules. When the ads come down, colleagues, 
the criminals will go as fast as they can to the darkest corners of our 
society. Instead of stopping trafficking, the bill is going to push it 
to the dark web, the dark alleys, and overseas. You can't get to the 
dark web with traditional search engines.
  Career Federal law enforcement officers, the expert investigators, 
are the people who know how to root out the traffickers under these 
circumstances. They have expertise that State and local law enforcers 
don't have. So my view is, by handing new authorities to local 
officials, the bill moves in the wrong direction.
  In my view, the right approach is to make sure career, expert Federal 
law enforcement officers and investigators have the resources they need 
to get the job done. One of the amendments I will be offering today 
provides $20 million a year for 5 years to the Attorney General to 
spend in coordination with the FBI and Homeland Security to investigate 
and prosecute those who criminally facilitate sex trafficking. The 
bottom line, if Senators want law enforcement to do a better job of 
stopping those like backpage, my amendment gives the right people the 
resources they need to bring these monsters to justice.
  I heard my colleague from Alaska, Senator Sullivan, a good friend, 
talk at some length about how important it was to have resources to 
fight the scourge of these traffickers who get more and more 
sophisticated. They are people who are very clever about staying out in 
front of the law. When they are on the dark web, it is going to take 
resources to fight them and put them behind bars. So our colleague from 
Alaska, Senator Sullivan, sure ought to be for this amendment because 
this amendment offers real money right now to prosecute these monsters 
and get them behind bars.
  Finally, the bill before the Senate punches a hole in the legal 
framework of the open internet. I don't every single day quote the 
editors of the ``Wall Street Journal,'' but I have always had a motto 
that I will shout out anybody when they are right. The Journal recently 
summed up the impact of the bill. They said this is definitely going to 
be an online ``lawsuit bonanza.'' They predict any website that 
``should have known'' criminal activity took place on its platform will 
be a target for lawsuits. Any message board or chat room where users 
interact with each other can become a new target for litigation.
  Without specific protections for companies that make good-faith 
efforts to find and stop criminal behavior on their platforms, this 
legislation could actually punish companies that try to moderate their 
users' posts but let something slip through. Just by looking for 
illegal material, a website could be setting the table to be sued over 
anything they didn't find.
  The second amendment I will be offering would clarify this issue. It 
is what is known as the Good Samaritan clause, and we felt strongly 
about it several decades ago. The companies decide, as a result of a 
poorly written bill, that their only option is to put their blinders on 
and ignore vile, illicit content. That is bad for everybody except for 
the criminals. So I want to eliminate that uncertainty, and I want 
particularly these small startup companies that are so important for 
our future to know, without a doubt, that they have the right to 
moderate the content users post.
  So, in technical language, what this amendment says is, neither the 
presence nor the absence of an attempt to moderate content online can, 
by itself, trigger liability.

[[Page S1870]]

  The Journal raised more than the Good Samaritan issue. Just as bad, 
by passing this exception to section 230, courts might make it harder 
to prosecute websites for other crimes. Here is what the Wall Street 
Journal editor said: ``If Congress provides a carve-out for sex 
trafficking, courts might conclude that Section 230 was intended to be 
applied narrowly for other crimes and make it harder to prosecute 
websites [that are] complicit.''
  I do fear this bill is going to set off a chain reaction that leads 
the Congress to cut away more categories of behavior from section 230, 
dismantle the legal framework that has given the United States the 
position as a tech economy superpower. This position did not happen by 
osmosis. It happened because 20 years ago there was an effort to try to 
lay out a sensible legal foundation, a sensible legal basis for the 
internet, and that is what is under attack today.
  If this legislation that chips away at section 230 is a bad idea for 
the internet, if you are following this debate, you probably want to 
know why the biggest internet companies are big cheerleaders for it--
the big companies like Facebook. It is because it will pull up the 
ladder in the tech world, leaving the established giants alone at the 
top.
  As I said, section 230, from the beginning, was all about giving the 
little guy the best possible chance to succeed. That is what this has 
always been about. The big guys can take care of themselves. We want to 
have a policy that encourages innovation for the startups. That has 
been a bedrock of my time in public service. Chipping away at the law 
that is going to curtail the culture of innovation and bare-knuckled 
competition that has been the defining characteristic of the internet 
for more than two decades doesn't make any sense to me.
  The companies that have reached the top of the internet's economy are 
kind of worried about whether they are going to be able to keep their 
place at that altitude. Regulators once feared that Microsoft would 
dominate the way Americans interacted with the internet, but then a 
little company called Google appeared on the scene. Facebook, a half-
trillion-dollar company got out of its infancy by displacing a 
competitor called MySpace.
  I think colleagues ought to know that these established companies 
would do just about anything to avoid being displaced themselves. 
Facebook is trying to make clear that they will do just about anything 
not to become another MySpace.
  Today, Facebook is under attack for allowing the Russians to 
interfere with our elections. They are under attack for giving hate 
groups a platform to spread their bile. They are under attack for 
giving conspiracy theorists, through their algorithms, a platform to 
lure in the unsuspecting. They are under attack for collecting, 
monetizing, and storing far more personal information than their users 
ever suspected. It is a great tool for connecting with family and 
friends, but it is also something a small team of well-caffeinated 
coders could duplicate and improve upon in terms of its functionality 
without a lot of difficulty and without some of the baggage Facebook 
has picked up over the last 6 months.

  So how do they stay on top? One way is to acquire the competition. 
Young people always tell me that nobody under 30 uses Facebook. The new 
generation certainly uses Instagram, so they might not even know that 
it is part of the same megacompany bought out by Facebook. But you 
can't buy everybody, so then you go to the oldest trick in the book--
make it harder for new companies to get in the game. You don't have to 
compete if there is no competition, and that is where this legislation 
comes in.
  If internet startups are no longer protected by section 230 and they 
are exposed to the threat of near constant litigation, it is going to 
be a lot tougher for them to secure injections of funding and grow. 
Fewer venture capital firms will be willing to risk their deep pockets 
if their early-round investments are swallowed up by legal fees instead 
of paying for coders. But in the eyes of the giant, established 
corporations, a world without section 230 isn't seen as much of a 
threat. The $50 million a year in liability statements for these big 
companies is a drop in the bucket for them. It is the cost of doing 
business. And it is an added benefit if the cost is too high for new 
companies to be able to get in the game.
  The biggest of these internet companies are trying to hold on to 
their position at the top with all their might, and they are certainly 
very interested in using the government to do it. That has been true of 
a lot of industries before them, and it should come as no surprise that 
it happens again in the technology area.
  The Facebooks of the world will tell you how important section 230 
was to the innovation of the last 20 years. Yet there are technology 
companies like IBM that haven't done a lot of innovating for the last 
20 years that want to see section 230 done away with entirely for 
trumped-up reasons. So, for business, let's not mistake what this 
debate is all about for a lot of these big, multinational companies. It 
is not about right or wrong; it is about dollars and cents.
  So what does the future hold? As the Wall Street Journal observed, a 
lawsuit bonanza is in the works. It is pretty ironic that a Republican 
Congress and a Republican President are going to create the biggest new 
source of opportunities for trial lawyers in decades.
  For the technology business, this bill means bigger is better--not 
better for innovation, not better for consumers, but better for the 
profits of those lucky enough to have reached the top of the mountain 
first.
  It is safe to expect a slew of proposed new exceptions to section 
230. When somebody is injured, they and their families want recourse, 
but our legal system is woefully bad at delivering justice. It is 
unfortunately far better at facilitating deals--often unjust deals--
because numbers are far easier than doing right. This failure means 
that a line of injured parties will be petitioning to seek the sort of 
recompense only their Member of Congress can provide.
  For America, section 230 is very likely the reason we have a 
multitude of billion-dollar internet employers and the Europeans have 
exactly zero. Where countries aren't hiding behind the trade barrier of 
the great firewall or other artificial market forces, American 
innovation has won out over the rest of the world.
  I think it is pretty hard to see our country thrive and prosper 
without the kind of legal foundation I have described today, without 
these 230 protections. And a whole host of scholars have pointed out 
that this is a unique law in the world. It is the case where the United 
States got the temperature right from the beginning, and it has led to 
our dominance in tech. But if the United States goes out and puts all 
those cracks--those potential cracks, the real cracks--into the 
foundation of section 230, I would wager that there are plenty of other 
countries that are going to change their laws to siphon away our 
companies and take the jobs they create.
  The fact is--and I am not sure we in the Senate think about it every 
day--we are in a fight for the internet literally every day. Our 
internet companies aren't engaged in the fight. Their interest is 
currying favor with nations with which they wish to do business. The 
Chinese, the Iranians, the Russians, even our European allies are 
maneuvering to impose a more repressive view of speech and expression 
on individuals around the world, and unfortunately it has a lot of 
allies here at home.
  Free speech has never been free, and it is often not popular. It was 
wrested from the grip of a dominating state, and it ought to be--it 
must be defended by every generation, lest the state reclaim control.
  Today, in my view, the Senate is looking at taking a real step 
backward and down a path that this body will regret.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
the budget point of order and the motion to waive, there be 2 minutes, 
equally divided, prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2213

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2213 offered 
by

[[Page S1871]]

Senator Wyden would violate the Senate pay-go rule by increasing the 
on-budget deficit. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this 
measure pursuant to section 4106(a) of H. Con. Res. 71, the concurrent 
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the 
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally 
divided.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is in relation to an amendment that 
has been offered by my colleague Mr. Wyden. It has to do with funding 
for the Department of Justice dealing with trafficking. I appreciate 
the intent behind it, but I will tell you, as one of the letters from 
the law enforcement community, who are opposing this amendment, said, 
this is a poison pill. This will derail this in the House of 
Representatives.
  We have law enforcement from the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National District Attorneys Association, and from all of the national 
groups opposing this amendment because they believe it is so important 
to pass the underlying legislation and to do it now to provide the 
justice that the victims of human trafficking deserve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I believe strongly that Congress must do 
more to combat the scourge of sex trafficking and bring these monsters 
to justice and actually put them behind bars.
  I have heard my colleagues from the other side talk again and again 
about how more resources are needed to fight this evil. This is the 
only proposal offered to actually put more dollars into the hands of 
prosecutors to get the criminals behind bars, and it is going to be 
harder to prosecute them now that they have moved to the dark web.
  My colleague has said that prosecutors are against it. It is because 
my colleague has worked as hard as he could to tell prosecutors that if 
anything like this is added, it is going to die in the House. Let me 
just tell my colleague that when we put in more money to prosecute 
these monsters and it passes, the other body will pass it in about 15 
minutes.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the only amendment that actually is 
going to put these criminals behind bars because we are putting real 
money into that effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on agreeing to the 
motion to waive.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 21, nays 78, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--21

     Booker
     Cantwell
     Casey
     Coons
     Donnelly
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Jones
     Leahy
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Merkley
     Murray
     Peters
     Sanders
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Wyden

                                NAYS--78

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Nelson
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 21, the nays are 
78.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak to the 
body for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 2212 Withdrawn

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, in my view, it is clear that when 
colleagues face so much political headwind, they don't feel comfortable 
supporting something I know they all believe in very deeply. I believe 
every Senator believes there ought to be real money to go after sex 
traffickers. I have spoken to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
and they have taken a real pounding on these amendments. My sense is 
that there would also be opposition to what I think is another 
practical, good idea, which is the Good Samaritan amendment.
  As I have stated, because I anticipate having to turn back to this 
topic in short order after the effects of this bill become clear, I am 
going to save this topic for a vote at that time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 
2212.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The remaining amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, with that amendment having been withdrawn, 
I ask unanimous consent that there now be 2 minutes for debate, equally 
divided, prior to the vote on passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to join us 
in supporting this legislation. Most of you are cosponsors already. It 
strikes the right balance. It helps to allow victims to get the justice 
they deserve and, lastly, to hold these websites accountable through 
prosecution, while at the same time protecting the free and open 
internet.
  I would like to yield my remaining time to my coauthor and colleague 
Senator Blumenthal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I say thank you to my colleague 
Senator Portman for his hard work. When we began this legislation, no 
one gave us a chance because of the entrenched and powerful interests 
against us. This measure will unlock the courthouse doors to survivors 
and to law enforcement who can stop sex trafficking--a scourge, modern-
day slavery in this country. I thank so many of my colleagues for 
cosponsoring it and for helping to lead this effort that will make a 
difference in the lives of countless young girls and women and men who 
are victims and survivors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as I stated several hours ago, I stand 
firmly with colleagues who believe more must be done to fight the 
scourge of sex trafficking and, particularly, to put these monsters 
behind bars. The bill before us, in my view, takes a flawed approach. 
What is going to happen is that the criminal sex trafficker is going to 
head toward the dark web. This is a place you cannot access with a 
traditional search engine. It is going to be harder when they are in 
the shadowy corners of our country, of the internet, in order to 
prosecute them. It is also going to chip away at the foundation of the 
net, which is so important for vulnerable people. It is why the Human 
Rights Campaign Fund has made it

[[Page S1872]]

clear that they are opposed to the bill. We shouldn't be putting at 
risk vulnerable groups and small startups.
  Given that, I believe that this bill, which will clearly pass, will 
be something the Senate will come to deeply regret. I will be opposing 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. PORTMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--97

     Alexander
     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Donnelly
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harris
     Hassan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kaine
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Perdue
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--2

     Paul
     Wyden
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     McCain
       
  The bill (H.R. 1865) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The majority leader.

                          ____________________