[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S101-S108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blunt, Mr. 
        Schumer, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 125. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to extend the authorization of the Bulletproof Vest 
Partnership Grant Program through fiscal year 2020, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the 
Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program Reauthorization Act of 2015. 
Once enacted, this legislation will continue for another five years the 
immensely successful grant program that provides matching funds for 
State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase protective vests 
for officers serving in the field.
  Our Nation needs no additional reminders of the dangers faced by law 
enforcement officers each and every day. Far too often we have grieved 
as officers are killed in the line of duty. In 2014 alone, 126 men and 
women serving in law enforcement lost their lives. Although protective 
vests cannot save every officer, they have already saved the lives of 
more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987. Vests dramatically 
increase the chance of survival when tragedy occurs. I have met 
personally with police officers who are living today because of a 
bulletproof vest, and they will attest to the fact that the vests 
provided through this program are worth every penny.
  No officer should have to serve without a protective vest. Yet we 
know that, for far too many jurisdictions, vests can cost too much and 
wear out too soon. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program helps 
to fill the gap. Since it was first authorized in 1999, it has enabled 
more than 13,000 State and local law enforcement agencies to purchase 
more than one million bulletproof vests, including more than 4,000 
vests for officers in Vermont. As these officers have helped to protect 
our communities, these grants have helped to protect them. 
Unfortunately the authorization for this grant program lapsed in 2012. 
We must not delay any longer in reauthorizing this program
  This bill also contains a number of improvements to the grant 
program. It provides incentives for agencies to provide uniquely fitted 
vests for female officers and others. It also codifies existing Justice 
Department policies that grantee law enforcement agencies cannot use 
other Federal grant funds to satisfy the matching fund requirement, and 
they must also have mandatory wear policies to ensure the vests are 
used regularly.
  Protecting those who serve has historically been a bipartisan effort 
in Congress. Republican Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell and I worked 
together to create this program more than 15 years ago. It was so 
successful that, in the past, it was reauthorized with a voice vote. It 
was the right thing to do, it saved lives, and that was enough for both 
Democrats and Republicans. This is not a partisan issue, and I am 
pleased that Senator Graham is the lead cosponsor of this measure. 
Senators Coons and Blunt are also original cosponsors of this bill.
  The law enforcement community speaks with a single voice on this 
issue. And I am proud that this bill is supported by the Fraternal 
Order of Police, International Association of Chiefs of Police, 
National Association of Police Organizations, National Sheriffs' 
Association, Major County Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs 
Association, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, National 
Tactical Officers Association, and Sergeants Benevolent Association.
  There are very few bills that can so directly affect and improve the 
safety of those who serve and protect our communities. This program 
saves lives, and I am hopeful that all Senators--Democrats, 
Republicans, and Independents alike--will join us now to ensure its 
swift reauthorization.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Merkley):
  S. 132. A bill to improve timber management on Oregon and California 
Railroad and Coos Bay Wagon Road grant land, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I reintroduce a bill that will end 
the gridlock on the Oregon and California, O&C, lands found in my home 
State. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Merkley is joining me in 
this effort. Last Congress, I introduced this legislation, which went 
on to be reported out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
after continued work with stakeholders and resulting modifications. I 
feel that a great deal of progress was made in the last Congress to 
find a solution for these lands in Oregon, but Congress ran out of time 
to complete work on this bill. That's why I am back at it here today. 
The bill I introduce today is intended to advance the progress made, 
adopting the modifications from the bill that was reported out of 
Committee, and paving the way to pass legislation regarding management 
of these lands.
  My legislation will end decades of uncertainty and broken forest 
policy with a science-driven solution that moves past the decades old 
timber wars. It does this by using science to guide management of the 
O&C lands while upholding bedrock federal environmental laws. This bill 
provides the jobs that Oregonians need, certainty of timber supply that 
timber companies require, and continued environmental protections that 
our treasures deserve.
  First, my legislation divides the O&C lands, with roughly half set 
aside for forestry emphasis and the other half for conservation 
emphasis, to put a stop to the uncertainty and conflicting priorities 
that have contributed to federal management failure on these lands and 
produce wins on both sides of the historic timber conflict. The 
forestry emphasis lands will employ proven forestry practices, known as 
``ecological forestry,'' to mimic natural processes and create 
healthier, more diverse forests. Modeling using Bureau of Land 
Management and Forest Service analysis confirms that ecological 
forestry will more than double the harvest on O&C lands, producing 
approximately 400 mmbf on the landscape covered by this bill.
  On the conservation side, my bill provides permanent protections for 
approximately 1.35 million acres of land, while designating wilderness 
lands, wild and scenic rivers, and other special areas. It creates 
87,000 acres of wilderness and 252 miles of wild and scenic rivers. All 
told, this would be the single biggest increase in Oregon's 
conservation lands in decades. That includes special areas protected 
for recreation, which is an increasingly important part of our rural 
economy, and is responsible for 141,000 jobs in Oregon alone. Perhaps 
the most important conservation win in the bill is the first-ever 
legislative protection for old growth on O&C lands and the designation 
of Late Successional Old-growth Forest Heritage Reserves.
  The approach of dividing the lands into conservation and timber 
emphasis and protecting old growth will provide clear management 
direction for the landscape and take the most controversial harvests 
off the table. Significantly, the bill streamlines and front loads 
environmental analysis into two large scale environmental impact 
statements--one each for moist and dry forests--that will study 5 years 
of work in the woods, rather than a single project. It does this while 
upholding the Endangered Species Act and other bedrock environmental 
laws.
  Critical to the bill is the belief that forest policy should be 
dictated by science, not lawyers. The forestry principles used in this 
bill are based on the work of Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin, two 
respected Northwest forestry scientists, and built off of forestry 
approaches used around the globe. The bill also establishes the first 
ever legislative protections for O&C streams thanks in large part to 
the work of one of the Northwest's foremost water resources experts, 
Dr. Gordon Reeves. The Northwest Forest Plan's stream protections are 
extended to key watersheds and four drinking water emphasis areas, with 
additional lands designated for conservation, to protect drinking 
water. Science also guides how the agency can treat trees near streams 
and a scientific committee will evaluate stream buffers and reserves in 
areas dedicated to timber harvests, increasing or decreasing the 
boundaries as needed to address the ecological importance of streams. 
This

[[Page S102]]

acknowledges that one size does not fit all.
  Most important is the fact that I will continue to advance efforts to 
secure a new future for the O&C lands. My bill certainly doesn't 
provide everything all sides want, but it can get everyone what they 
need. I look forward to working with Congressmen DeFazio, Walden and 
Schrader and our colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives 
to pass an O&C solution into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Merkley, Mrs. Boxer, and Mrs. 
        Feinstein):
  S. 133. A bill to approve and implement the Klamath Basin agreements, 
to improve natural resource management, support economic development, 
and sustain agricultural production in the Klamath River Basin in the 
public interest and the interest of the United States, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I rise to reintroduce a bill that 
would authorize the implementation of three landmark agreements that 
settle some of our country's most complex and contentious water 
allocation and species preservation issues. Water management crises 
this century have plagued the Klamath Basin, leading to devastating 
water years for communities throughout the Basin. Overcoming that 
adversity, stakeholders including State and Federal agencies, tribes, 
farmers and ranchers, and environmental groups, have spent years coming 
together to hammer out solutions. They swallowed hard and worked 
together to bring costs down and deliver economic certainty and 
stability for the Basin in the name of the greater good.
  Last year, I introduced the Klamath Basin Water Recovery and Economic 
Restoration Act of 2014 to finally authorize the three historic 
agreements reached by Basin partners--the Klamath Basin Restoration 
Agreement, the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, and the 
Upper Basin Agreement. I was deeply disappointed that the bill did not 
get passed into law last Congress, delaying the implementation of these 
important agreements and creating even more uncertainty and anxiety for 
stakeholders in the Basin.
  Inspired by the perseverance and dedication demonstrated by the 
stakeholders, today I once again bring forward this bill, the Klamath 
Basin Water Recovery and Economic Restoration Act of 2015, to put a 
rubber stamp on the historic agreements and finally help heal the 
Klamath Basin. With this bill, the Basin will no longer be known for 
persistent drought, water disputes, and conflict, but rather for the 
dedicated and enduring collaborative efforts that have honed in on a 
sustainable and more economically certain future; an example that other 
regions can emulate for their watershed challenges. I continue to 
express my gratitude to the interested groups who came to the table and 
formed partnerships, engaged in conversations, made agreements and 
concessions, and ultimately found a path forward.
  I'm pleased to be joined by my colleagues Senators Merkley, Boxer and 
Feinstein on this bill. Senator Merkley has worked tirelessly to 
encourage and support the years of conversations and collaborative 
efforts of the countless stakeholders who have committed to finding a 
balanced solution. Senators Boxer and Feinstein have provided 
unwavering support for the communities impacted by unprecedented 
drought in the Klamath Basin, which spans Oregon and California, while 
also reaffirming the need to support fish and wildlife. Together, we 
are committed to working with our colleagues in the Senate and House to 
advance this bill and get it signed by the President.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Merkley, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. 
        Paul):
  S. 134. A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude 
industrial hemp from the definition of marihuana, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Merkley, McConnell, and Paul in introducing the Industrial Hemp Farming 
Act of 2015.
  I introduced this bill during the 113th Congress with these same 
colleagues to amend a regulation that is holding America's economy 
back. I am committed to empowering American farmers and increasing 
domestic economic activity, and that is exactly what this bill will do.
  The United States is the world's largest consumer of hemp products, 
yet it remains the only major industrialized country that bans hemp 
farming. As the United States imports millions of dollars of hemp 
products, such as textiles, foods, paper products and construction 
materials, American farmers who could grow hemp right here at home are 
unable to profit from this growing market. This is an outrageous 
restriction on free enterprise and does nothing but hurt economic 
growth and job creation.
  The Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2015 would amend the definition of 
``marihuana'' in the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial 
hemp, allowing American farmers to produce domestically the hemp we 
already use. Industrial hemp is a safe, profitable commodity in many 
other countries, and I've long said that if you can buy it at the local 
supermarket, American farmers should be able to grow it. This 
commonsense bill would end the burdensome restrictions on industrial 
hemp and is pro-environment, pro-business, and pro-farmer.
  I encourage my colleagues to take the time to learn about the great 
potential for farming industrial hemp in the United States, and to 
understand the real differences between industrial hemp and marijuana. 
Under our bill, industrial hemp is defined as having extremely low THC 
levels: it has to be 0.3 percent or less. The lowest commercial grade 
marijuana typically has 5 percent THC content. The bottom line is that 
no one is going to get high on industrial hemp. And to guarantee that 
won't be the case, our legislation allows the U.S. Attorney General to 
take action if a state law allows commercial hemp to exceed the maximum 
0.3 percent THC level.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senators Merkley, McConnell, Paul, and 
me by cosponsoring and ultimately passing this important bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 134

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Industrial Hemp Farming Act 
     of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF INDUSTRIAL HEMP FROM DEFINITION OF 
                   MARIHUANA.

       Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     802) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (16)--
       (A) by striking ``(16) The'' and inserting ``(16)(A) The''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) The term `marihuana' does not include industrial 
     hemp.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(57) The term `industrial hemp' means the plant Cannabis 
     sativa L. and any part of such plant, whether growing or not, 
     with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more 
     than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis.''.

     SEC. 3. INDUSTRIAL HEMP DETERMINATION BY STATES.

       Section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 
     811) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Industrial Hemp Determination.--If a person grows or 
     processes Cannabis sativa L. for purposes of making 
     industrial hemp in accordance with State law, the Cannabis 
     sativa L. shall be deemed to meet the concentration 
     limitation under section 102(57), unless the Attorney General 
     determines that the State law is not reasonably calculated to 
     comply with section 102(57).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 135. A bill to prohibit Federal agencies from mandating the 
deployment of vulnerabilities in data security technologies; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that I 
introduced at the end of the last Congress along with a bipartisan 
group of colleagues in the House of Representatives. We call it the 
Secure Data Act, because it is designed to help protect the sensitive 
data of American citizens

[[Page S103]]

and businesses from being compromised by foreign hackers. And I believe 
it will also help protect and promote the American digital economy at a 
time when growing the number of family-wage jobs is so important both 
to Oregonians and to people across the country.
  Hardly a week goes by without a new report of a massive data theft by 
computer hackers, often involving trade secrets, consumers' financial 
information, or sensitive government records. It is well known that the 
best defense against these attacks is strong data encryption and more 
secure technology systems.
  This is why I and many others have been troubled by suggestions from 
senior officials that computer hardware and software manufacturers 
should be required to intentionally create security holes, often 
referred to as back doors, to enable the government to access data on 
every American's cell phone and computer, even if that data is 
protected by strong encryption. The problem with this proposal is that 
there is no such thing as a magic key that can only be used by good 
people for worthwhile reasons. There is only strong security or weak 
security.
  Americans are rightly demanding stronger security for their personal 
data. And requiring companies to build back doors into their products 
would mean deliberately creating weaknesses that hackers and 
unscrupulous foreign governments could exploit. The results of this 
approach can be seen elsewhere--in 2005, citizens of Greece discovered 
that dozens of their senior government officials' phones had been under 
surveillance for nearly a year. The eavesdropper was never identified, 
but the vulnerability was--it was built-in wiretapping features 
intended to be accessible only to government agencies following a legal 
process.
  Mandating back doors would also remove incentives for innovation. If 
you're required to build a wall with a hole in it, you aren't going to 
invest a lot of money in developing better locks. And these mandates 
could also do enormous harm to U.S. technology companies that are 
working hard to overcome the damage that has been done by recklessly 
broad surveillance policies and years of deceptive statements by senior 
government officials.
  This legislation would expressly prohibit the government from 
mandating that tech companies build security weaknesses into their 
products. I would note that similar legislation from Representatives 
Massie and Lofgren passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan 
vote of 293-123 in June of last year. So, I look forward to working 
with colleagues on a bipartisan basis to advance this bill, and to 
receiving feedback and input from colleagues and interested 
stakeholders, so that it can be further improved as it moves forward.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 135

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Secure Data Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DATA SECURITY VULNERABILITY MANDATES.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     agency may mandate that a manufacturer, developer, or seller 
     of covered products design or alter the security functions in 
     its product or service to allow the surveillance of any user 
     of such product or service, or to allow the physical search 
     of such product, by any agency.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to mandates 
     authorized under the Communications Assistance for Law 
     Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
       (c) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 3502 of title 44, United States Code; and
       (2) the term ``covered product'' means any computer 
     hardware, computer software, or electronic device that is 
     made available to the general public.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Brown):
  S. 136. A bill to amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to 
provide that fathers of certain permanently disabled or deceased 
veterans shall be included with mothers of such veterans as preference 
eligibles for treatment in the civil service; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, our country has asked a lot of our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines throughout its history and it 
will continue to do so as long as the world looks to America for 
leadership in crises. These brave men and women don't join the military 
looking for public accolades and all they ask in return for their many 
sacrifices is for the government to honor its commitments to them--
something I have certainly always tried to do.
  Of course our men and women in uniform and our veterans aren't the 
only folks who make sacrifices in the name of national security. From 
child care, to household repairs and bills, to legal issues, our 
military families are called on to provide support in innumerable ways 
as their loved ones serve and deploy. While we hope and pray that all 
those sent abroad return safely to the arms of their loved ones, we 
know that this isn't always the case. When servicemembers return home 
wounded or weakened as a result of combat, it is our military families 
who step up to take care of their son or daughter, husband or wife. 
When servicesmembers do not return, it is our military families who 
endure that searing pain that comes with such a terrible loss.
  It is an understatement to say that government cannot take away that 
pain; but what government can, and must, do is honor that sacrifice. 
One way we do that is by extending certain benefits to the families of 
those who are killed or permanently and totally disabled in action. 
Today, along with Senator Brown, I am introducing the Gold Star Fathers 
Act to update one of those benefits.
  The Office of Personnel Management currently allows unmarried mothers 
of fallen soldiers to claim a 10-point veterans' preference when 
applying for Federal jobs. Our legislation would simply extend this 
preference to unmarried fathers of fallen soldiers. Updating this 
preference is about fairness and recognizing that fathers, too, share 
in the sacrifice that their family has made for this country. Updating 
this preference will also expand opportunities for Gold Star families 
to bring their dedication and compassion into the federal government, 
where it can be put to great use.
  Gold Star Mothers and Gold Star Fathers have incurred a debt that 
Congress cannot ever hope to repay. All we can hope to do is ensure 
that these sacrifices are acknowledged and honored. It is my hope that 
the Senate will pass this legislation swiftly.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 136

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gold Star Fathers Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS OF CERTAIN 
                   PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR DECEASED VETERANS.

       Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(F) the parent of an individual who lost his or her life 
     under honorable conditions while serving in the armed forces 
     during a period named by paragraph (1)(A) of this section, 
     if--
       ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and permanently 
     disabled; or
       ``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is 
     unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her 
     spouse;
       ``(G) the parent of a service-connected permanently and 
     totally disabled veteran, if--
       ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and permanently 
     disabled; or
       ``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is 
     unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her 
     spouse; and''.

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Cardin):
  S. 137. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to direct the 
Secretary of the Treasury to regulate tax return preparers; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if you go to get your hair cut, your barber 
or

[[Page S104]]

stylist must be licensed. If you need to get the locks on your home 
repaired or replaced, the locksmith needs a license. But if you have 
someone prepare your tax return, there is no requirement that the 
preparer meet any minimum competency standard. It is time for that to 
change so taxpayers are protected when they file their taxes.
  On April 8 of last year, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing 
to discuss ways to protect taxpayers from incompetent, unethical and 
fraudulent tax return preparers. There is no question the tax code is 
overly complex and confusing. For that reason among others, more than 
80 million Americans pay someone else to prepare their income tax 
return each year.
  That's why it was so alarming to learn that most paid tax return 
preparers don't have to meet even basic standards of proficiency or 
competence to prepare someone else's tax return.
  A series of investigations by the GAO and Treasury Inspector General 
for Tax Administration, TIGTA, illustrated some of the problems with 
incompetent tax return preparers. As a consequence, the IRS took steps 
to require paid tax return preparers to demonstrate they have the know-
how to provide the taxpayer with a service he or she can reasonably 
rely upon.
  I am proud to say my home state gets this issue right. Tax preparers 
in Oregon study, pass an exam and keep up with the changing landscape 
of the tax code in order to maintain their licenses, and those 
standards work. The GAO took a look at the system a few years ago and 
found that tax returns from Oregon were 72 percent likelier to be 
accurate than returns from the rest of the country. That puts fewer 
Oregonians at the mercy of unscrupulous preparers and reduces the risk 
of the dreaded audit.
  These independent analyses, combined with too many taxpayer horror 
stories of identity theft, refund and liability errors, and audit 
challenges, demonstrated clearly that a lack of basic tax return 
preparer competency standards is a serious consumer protection issue. 
Today, I am introducing legislation that will help restore standards to 
protect American taxpayers.
  This legislation, the Taxpayer Protection and Preparer Proficiency 
Act of 2015, which I am pleased to introduce with the distinguished 
Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin--will grant the IRS the ability to 
move forward with the type of education and examination program 
contemplated under the 2011 Circular 230 program, specifically, the 
Registered Tax Return Preparer, RTRP, Program.
  Testing and minimum competency requirements have been clearly shown 
to be effective at reducing error, fraud and tax preparer incompetence.
  We need to protect American taxpayers, and this bill helps do just 
that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 137

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Protection and 
     Preparer Proficiency Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATION OF TAX RETURN PREPARERS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 330 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) regulate--
       ``(A) the practice of representatives of persons before the 
     Department of the Treasury; and
       ``(B) the practice of tax return preparers; and'', and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by inserting ``or tax return preparer'' after 
     ``representative'' each place it appears, and
       (B) by inserting ``or in preparing their tax returns, 
     claims for refund, or documents in connection with tax 
     returns or claims for refund'' after ``cases'' in 
     subparagraph (D).
       (b) Authority to Sanction Regulated Tax Return Preparers.--
     Subsection (b) of section 330 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``before the Department'',
       (2) by inserting ``or tax return preparer'' after 
     ``representative'' each place it appears, and
       (3) in paragraph (4), by striking ``misleads or threatens'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``misleads or threatens--
       ``(A) any person being represented or any prospective 
     person being represented; or
       ``(B) any person or prospective person whose tax return, 
     claim for refund, or document in connection with a tax return 
     or claim for refund, is being or may be prepared.''.
       (c) Tax Return Preparer Defined.--Section 330 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(e) Tax Return Preparer.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `tax return preparer' has the 
     meaning given such term under section 7701(a)(36) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(2) Tax return.--The term `tax return' has the meaning 
     given to the term `return' under section 6696(e)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(3) Claim for refund.--The term `claim for refund' has 
     the meaning given such term under section 6696(e)(2) of such 
     Code.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 138. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax incentive to individuals teaching in elementary and secondary 
schools located in rural or high unemployment areas and to individuals 
who achieve certification from the National Board for Professional 
Teaching Standards, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Incentives to 
Educate American Children, the ``I Teach'' Act, which would provide a 
$1,000 refundable tax credit to elementary and secondary school 
teachers who teach in schools located in rural or impoverished areas. 
It would also provide a $1,000 credit to teachers who achieve National 
Board certification, and provide National Board certified teachers 
serving in rural or impoverished schools a $2,000 credit. It was 
previously introduced in the 113th Congress by Senator Rockefeller.
  U.S. classrooms are increasingly filled with less experienced 
teachers, as older teachers retire and the retention rate among young 
teachers continues to decline. According to the most recent data, 1.7 
million teachers, representing 45 percent of the workforce, had less 
than 10 years of experience. Policy makers need to take steps to ensure 
that students have the most qualified and best trained teachers 
possible.
  Nearly a third of public schools in the United States are in rural 
areas. And rural schools often face challenges that others don't, like 
smaller tax bases and higher recruitment costs, which means they often 
have less money for classroom materials and salaries. Department of 
Education data show that rural school districts have the lowest base 
salaries for starting teachers, a trend that continues even as teachers 
move to the top of the local salary range. Rural schools face these 
challenges across the country.
  The most recent study by the Education Trust found that high schools 
with high poverty rates are twice as likely to have teachers who are 
not certified in their fields than high schools with low poverty rates. 
The same study found that schools serving impoverished areas have a 
higher percentage of first year teachers. Rural schools face similar 
problems.
  According to the Department of Education, Oregon faces a shortage of 
certified teachers for the 2014-15 school year in subject areas such as 
math, science, Spanish, special education, English as a second 
language, and bilingual education. A major deterrent to pursuing a 
master's degree in teaching is the soaring cost of tuition, which, 
especially for those candidates with strong science and math 
backgrounds, drives them into other fields instead of educating the 
next generation of scientists and researchers.
  In other words, due to the high cost of education and teachers' 
salaries which have failed to keep pace, additional incentives through 
the tax code could encourage highly qualified individuals to look to or 
continue to pursue teaching as a viable profession. I urge my 
colleagues to support this important bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 138

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[[Page S105]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Incentives to Educate 
     American Children Act of 2015'' or the ``I Teach Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS TEACHING IN 
                   ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS LOCATED IN 
                   HIGH POVERTY OR RURAL AREAS AND CERTIFIED 
                   TEACHERS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting after section 36B the following new section:

     ``SEC. 36C. TAX CREDIT FOR INDIVIDUALS TEACHING IN ELEMENTARY 
                   AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS LOCATED IN HIGH POVERTY 
                   OR RURAL AREAS AND CERTIFIED TEACHERS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible 
     teacher, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax 
     imposed by this subtitle for the taxable year an amount equal 
     to the applicable amount for the eligible academic year 
     ending during such taxable year.
       ``(b) Applicable Amount.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Teachers in schools in rural areas or schools with 
     high poverty.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an eligible teacher who 
     performs services in a public kindergarten or a public 
     elementary or secondary school described in subparagraph (B) 
     during the eligible academic year, the applicable amount is 
     $1,000.
       ``(B) School described.--A public kindergarten or a public 
     elementary or secondary school is described in this 
     subparagraph if--
       ``(i) at least 75 percent of the students attending such 
     kindergarten or school receive free or reduced-cost lunches 
     under the school lunch program established under the Richard 
     B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or
       ``(ii) such kindergarten or school has a School Locale Code 
     of 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary of 
     Education.
       ``(2) Certified teachers.--In the case of an eligible 
     teacher who is certified by the National Board for 
     Professional Teaching Standards for the eligible academic 
     year, the applicable amount is $1,000.
       ``(3) Certified teachers in schools in rural areas or 
     schools with high poverty.--In the case of an eligible 
     teacher described in both paragraphs (1) and (2), the 
     applicable amount is $2,000.
       ``(c) Eligible Teacher.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `eligible teacher' means, for any eligible academic 
     year, an individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12 
     classroom teacher or instructor in a public kindergarten or a 
     public elementary or secondary school on a full-time basis 
     for such eligible academic year.
       ``(d) Additional Definitions.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Elementary and secondary schools.--The terms 
     `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the 
     respective meanings given such terms by section 9101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(2) Eligible academic year.--The term `eligible academic 
     year' means any academic year ending in a taxable year 
     beginning after December 31, 2015.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``, 36C'' after ``36B''.
       (2) The table of sections for subpart C of part IV of 
     subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 36B the following new item:

``Sec. 36C. Tax credit for individuals teaching in elementary and 
              secondary schools located in high poverty or rural areas 
              and certified teachers.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to academic years ending in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2015.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Markey, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 139. A bill to permanently allow an exclusion under the 
Supplemental Security Income program and the Medicaid program for 
compensation provided to individuals who participate in clinical trials 
for rare diseases or conditions; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan 
Ensuring Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2015. I would like to begin 
by thanking Senators Hatch and Markey for joining me in cosponsoring 
this legislation. I would also like to thank the Cystic Fibrosis 
Foundation for working with me on this important issue since 2010.
  This bill is simple: it would remove a sunset that exists for a law 
we passed in 2010 making it easier--and more likely--for people 
receiving Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid to participate in 
rare disease clinical trials. As I explained in 2010, we wanted to 
proceed carefully when altering how compensation for participating in 
clinical trials is treated for SSI and Medicaid purposes. That is why 
we included a 5 year sunset and asked GAO to report on how the law is 
working. Five years have passed and GAO has issued its report.
  GAO's frank assessment is that not a lot is known about how the law 
may or may not have affected the decisions an SSI recipient makes about 
participating in clinical trials. At the same time, GAO provided 
important context about factors affecting a decision to participate, 
such as time and travel. The GAO report suggests that the law has 
removed a barrier to participation for the individuals that rely on SSI 
and Medicaid's safety net, and GAO's consultation with the National 
Institutes of Health, the National Organization of Rare Diseases, and 
the Social Security Administration did not identify any negative 
aspects from the change in the law.
  That is comforting and important, and it is reason enough to make 
this law permanent. We all know what's at stake and how it's often 
difficult to find participants for rare disease clinical trials. This 
law has helped increase the number of people who can participate and, 
hopefully, be a part of the effort to improve treatments and find 
cures.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so that recipients 
of SSI and Medicaid can have the same opportunity to participate in 
clinical trials as individuals who do not rely on these important 
safety net programs. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 
passing this bill soon.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 139

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Access to Clinical 
     Trials Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF SUNSET PROVISION.

       Effective as if included in the enactment of the Improving 
     Access to Clinical Trials Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-255, 
     124 Stat. 2640), section 3 of that Act is amended by striking 
     subsection (e).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. 
        Gillibrand, and Mr. Kirk):
  S. 140. A bill to combat human trafficking; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to re-introduce, along 
with Senator Portman, the Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015.
  Human trafficking is estimated to be a $32 billion criminal 
enterprise, making it the second largest criminal industry in the 
world, behind the drug trade. Many steps need to be taken to combat 
this problem. But we cannot escape this simple truth: without demand 
for the services performed by trafficking victims, the problem would 
not exist.
  The bill we are introducing today would reduce the demand for human 
trafficking, particularly the commercial sexual exploitation of 
children, by holding buyers accountable and making it easier for law 
enforcement to investigate and prosecute all persons who participate in 
sex trafficking.
  Sex trafficking is not a victimless crime. In the United States, the 
average age that a person is first trafficked is between 12 and 14. 
Many of these children continue to be exploited into adulthood. A study 
of women and girls involved in street prostitution in my hometown of 
San Francisco found that 82 percent had been physically assaulted, 83 
percent were threatened with a weapon, and 68 percent were raped. The 
overwhelming majority of sex trafficking victims in the United States 
are American citizens--83 percent by one estimate from the Department 
of Justice.
  I am encouraged that Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agencies are taking steps to combat human trafficking. Between January 
and June of last year, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recovered 
168 trafficking victims and arrested 281 sex traffickers in ``Operation 
Cross Country.''
  I commend these efforts, but more needs to be done to target the 
perpetrators who are fueling demand for trafficking crimes--the buyers 
of sex acts from trafficking victims. Many buyers of sex are 
``hobbyists'' who purchase sex repeatedly. Because buyers are rarely 
arrested, much less prosecuted, the demand for commercial sex continues 
unabated.

[[Page S106]]

  Without buyers, sex trafficking would cease to exist. As Luis 
CdeBaca, the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for the Office to Monitor and 
Combat Trafficking in Persons, noted, ``[n]o girl or woman would be a 
victim of sex trafficking if there were no profits to be made from 
their exploitation.''
  The Combat Human Trafficking Act of 2015 would address this problem 
by incentivizing Federal and State law enforcement officers to target 
buyers and providing new authorities to prosecute all who engage in the 
crime of sex trafficking.
  First, the bill would clarify that buyers of sex acts from 
trafficking victims can be prosecuted under the Federal commercial sex 
trafficking statute. This provision would codify the Eighth Circuit's 
decision in United States v. Jungers, which held that this statute 
encompasses buyers, in addition to sellers. Despite this favorable 
ruling, there is no guarantee that other courts will follow this 
precedent.
  Second, the bill would hold buyers and sellers of child sex acts 
accountable for their actions, even if they claim they were unaware of 
the age of a minor victim. At times, it can be difficult for a 
prosecutor to prove that a buyer was aware of the victim's age. 
Successful cases can require the child victim to testify to this fact, 
subjecting the victim to re-traumatization. The bill would draw a clear 
line: if you purchase sex from an underage child, you can be 
prosecuted. Period.
  Third, the bill would grant judges greater flexibility to impose an 
appropriate term of supervised release on sex traffickers. Current law 
contains an anomaly: a person convicted of violating the commercial sex 
trafficking statute or attempting to violate the statute may be subject 
to a longer term of supervised release than a person who is convicted 
of conspiring to violate the statute. Conspiring to traffic underage 
children is as serious as attempting to commit this crime and should be 
punished the same.
  Fourth, the bill would require the Bureau of Justice Statistics to 
prepare annual reports on the number of arrests, prosecutions, and 
convictions of sex traffickers and buyers of sex from trafficked 
victims in the state court system. Very little data is available on the 
prosecutions made under anti-trafficking laws. This provision would 
provide additional data and encourage State and local governments to 
increase enforcement against sellers and buyers of sex from trafficked 
victims.
  Fifth, the Combat Human Trafficking Act would strengthen training 
programs operated by the Department of Justice for Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement officers who investigate and prosecute sex 
trafficking offenses. Under the bill, such training programs must 
include components on effective methods to target and prosecute the 
buyers of sex acts from trafficked victims. This would equip 
prosecutors with the tools they need to target buyers, encouraging 
prosecution of these perpetrators. Training programs must also train 
law enforcement in connecting trafficking victims with health care 
providers, so that victims receive the health care services they need 
to recover.
  In addition, the bill requires that training programs for federal 
prosecutors include components on seeking restitution for victims of 
sex trafficking. An October 2014 study by The Human Trafficking Pro 
Bono Legal Center found that federal prosecutors did not seek 
restitution in 37 percent of qualifying human trafficking cases brought 
between 2009 and 2012, even though restitution for trafficking victims 
is mandatory under federal law. When the prosecutor did not seek 
restitution, it was granted in only 10 percent of cases.
  These results make clear that prosecutors play a critical role in 
providing justice for trafficking victims. Our bill would ensure that 
prosecutors are specifically trained to seek restitution for victims.
  The bill would also require the Federal Judicial Center to provide 
training to judges on ordering restitution for human trafficking 
victims, so that judges are fully aware that federal law mandates that 
restitution be ordered for these victims. Overall, restitution was 
awarded in only 36 percent of qualifying human trafficking cases 
brought between 2009 and 2012, according to The Human Trafficking Pro 
Bono Legal Center's study. Too many trafficking victims are not 
receiving the compensation they need to rebuild their lives and to 
which they are entitled under the law.
  Sixth, the bill would authorize federal and state officials to seek a 
wiretap to investigate and prosecute any human trafficking-related 
offense. Under current law, a federal law enforcement officer may seek 
a wiretap in an investigation under the commercial sex trafficking 
statute, but not under a number of other statutes that address human 
trafficking-related offenses, such as forced labor and involuntary 
servitude. Similarly, a state law enforcement officer may seek a 
wiretap to investigate a kidnapping offense, but not an offense for 
human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, or child pornography 
production. Our bill would fix those omissions.
  Finally, this legislation would strengthen the rights of crime 
victims. The bill would amend the Crime Victims' Rights Act to provide 
victims with the right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea 
agreement or deferred prosecution agreement. The exclusion of victims 
in these early stages of a criminal case profoundly impairs victims' 
rights because, by the nature of these events, there often is no later 
proceeding in which victims can exercise their rights.
  The bill would also ensure that crime victims have access to 
appellate review when their rights are denied in the lower court. 
Regrettably, six appellate courts have mis-applied the Crime Victims' 
Rights Act by imposing an especially high standard for reviewing 
appeals by victims, requiring them to show ``clear and indisputable 
error''. Three other circuits have applied the correct standard: the 
ordinary appellate standard of legal error or abuse of discretion. This 
bill resolves the issue, setting a uniform standard for victims in all 
circuits by codifying the more victim-protecting rule, that the 
appellate court ``shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.''
  I am pleased that this bill has the support of numerous law 
enforcement and anti-trafficking organizations: the Fraternal Order of 
Police, Shared Hope International, ECPAT-USA, Coalition Against 
Trafficking in Women, CATW, Human Rights Project for Girls, Survivors 
for Solutions, Sanctuary For Families, World Hope International, 
Prostitution Research & Education, MISSSEY, Breaking Free, Equality 
Now, National Organization for Victim Assistance, Seraphim Global, Los 
Angeles County Board of Supervisors, City of Oakland, Chicago Alliance 
Against Sexual Exploitation, Bilateral Safety Corridor Coalition, and 
Casa Cornelia Law Center. These groups are on the forefront in the 
fight against sex trafficking, and I am proud to have their support.
  Many of the provisions in the Combat Human Trafficking Act were 
included in the substitute amendment to the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
and Trafficking Prevention Act, S. 2646, 113th Congress, which passed 
the Senate Judiciary Committee last September. However, that bill was 
not enacted into law before Congress adjourned. I am hopeful that we 
can pass the bipartisan Combat Human Trafficking in this Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Portman in supporting 
this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 140

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Combat Human Trafficking Act 
     of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. REDUCING DEMAND FOR SEX TRAFFICKING; LOWER MENS REA 
                   FOR SEX TRAFFICKING OF UNDERAGE VICTIMS.

       (a) Clarification of Range of Conduct Punished as Sex 
     Trafficking.--Section 1591 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or maintains'' and 
     inserting ``maintains, patronizes, or solicits'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or obtained'' and 
     inserting ``obtained, patronized, or solicited''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or obtained'' and 
     inserting ``obtained, patronized, or solicited''; and

[[Page S107]]

       (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) In a prosecution under subsection (a)(1), the 
     Government need not prove that the defendant knew, or 
     recklessly disregarded the fact, that the person recruited, 
     enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, 
     maintained, patronized, or solicited had not attained the age 
     of 18 years.''.
       (b) Definition Amended.--Section 103(10) of the Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(10)) is 
     amended by striking ``or obtaining'' and inserting 
     ``obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting''.
       (c) Minimum Period of Supervised Release for Conspiracy to 
     Commit Commercial Child Sex Trafficking.--Section 3583(k) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``1594(c),'' after ``1591,''.

     SEC. 3. BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS REPORT ON STATE 
                   ENFORCEMENT OF SEX TRAFFICKING PROHIBITIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``commercial sex act'', ``severe forms of 
     trafficking in persons'', ``State'', and ``Task Force'' have 
     the meanings given those terms in section 103 of the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102);
       (2) the term ``covered offense'' means the provision, 
     obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a commercial sex act 
     involving a person subject to severe forms of trafficking in 
     persons; and
       (3) the term ``State law enforcement officer'' means any 
     officer, agent, or employee of a State authorized by law or 
     by a State government agency to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any 
     violation of criminal law.
       (b) Report.--The Director of the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics shall--
       (1) prepare an annual report on--
       (A) the rates of--
       (i) arrest of individuals by State law enforcement officers 
     for a covered offense;
       (ii) prosecution (including specific charges) of 
     individuals in State court systems for a covered offense; and
       (iii) conviction of individuals in State court systems for 
     a covered offense; and
       (B) sentences imposed on individuals convicted in State 
     court systems for a covered offense; and
       (2) submit the annual report prepared under paragraph (1) 
     to--
       (A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
       (C) the Task Force;
       (D) the Senior Policy Operating Group established under 
     section 105(g) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 
     2000 (22 U.S.C. 7103(g)); and
       (E) the Attorney General.

     SEC. 4. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, PROSECUTORS, AND JUDGES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the terms ``commercial sex act'', ``severe forms of 
     trafficking in persons'', and ``State'' have the meanings 
     given those terms in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102);
       (2) the term ``covered offender'' means an individual who 
     obtains, patronizes, or solicits a commercial sex act 
     involving a person subject to severe forms of trafficking in 
     persons;
       (3) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 115 of title 18, United 
     States Code;
       (4) the term ``local law enforcement officer'' means any 
     officer, agent, or employee of a unit of local government 
     authorized by law or by a local government agency to engage 
     in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or 
     prosecution of any violation of criminal law; and
       (5) the term ``State law enforcement officer'' means any 
     officer, agent, or employee of a State authorized by law or 
     by a State government agency to engage in or supervise the 
     prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any 
     violation of criminal law.
       (b) Training.--
       (1) Law enforcement officers.--The Attorney General shall 
     ensure that each anti-human trafficking program operated by 
     the Department of Justice, including each anti-human 
     trafficking training program for Federal, State, or local law 
     enforcement officers, includes technical training on--
       (A) effective methods for investigating and prosecuting 
     covered offenders; and
       (B) facilitating the provision of physical and mental 
     health services by health care providers to persons subject 
     to severe forms of trafficking in persons.
       (2)  Federal prosecutors.--The Attorney General shall 
     ensure that each anti-human trafficking program operated by 
     the Department of Justice for United States attorneys or 
     other Federal prosecutors includes training on seeking 
     restitution for offenses under chapter 77 of title 18, United 
     States Code, to ensure that each United States attorney or 
     other Federal prosecutor, upon obtaining a conviction for 
     such an offense, requests a specific amount of restitution 
     for each victim of the offense without regard to whether the 
     victim requests restitution.
       (3) Judges.--The Federal Judicial Center shall provide 
     training to judges relating to the application of section 
     1593 of title 18, United States Code, with respect to 
     ordering restitution for victims of offenses under chapter 77 
     of such title.
       (c) Policy for Federal Law Enforcement Officers.--The 
     Attorney General shall ensure that Federal law enforcement 
     officers are engaged in activities, programs, or operations 
     involving the detection, investigation, and prosecution of 
     covered offenders.

     SEC. 5. WIRETAP AUTHORITY FOR HUMAN TRAFFICKING VIOLATIONS.

       Section 2516 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(c)--
       (A) by inserting before ``section 1591'' the following: 
     ``section 1581 (peonage), section 1584 (involuntary 
     servitude), section 1589 (forced labor), section 1590 
     (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary 
     servitude, or forced labor),''; and
       (B) by inserting before ``section 1751'' the following: 
     ``section 1592 (unlawful conduct with respect to documents in 
     furtherance of trafficking, peonage, slavery, involuntary 
     servitude, or forced labor),''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``human trafficking, 
     child sexual exploitation, child pornography production,'' 
     after ``kidnapping,''.

     SEC. 6. STRENGTHENING CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS.

       (a) Notification of Plea Agreement or Other Agreement.--
     Section 3771(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any 
     plea agreement or deferred prosecution agreement.''.
       (b) Appellate Review of Petitions Relating to Crime 
     Victims' Rights.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3771(d)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the fifth sentence 
     the following: ``In deciding such application, the court of 
     appeals shall apply ordinary standards of appellate 
     review.''.
       (2) Application.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) shall 
     apply with respect to any petition for a writ of mandamus 
     filed under section 3771(d)(3) of title 18, United States 
     Code, that is pending on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt, 
        Mr. Boozman, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Daines, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
        Graham, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Heller, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Moran, Mr. Paul, Mr. 
        Portman, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott, Mr. Thune, Mr. 
        Tillis, Mr. Toomey, and Mr. Wicker):
  S. 141. A bill to repeal the provisions of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act providing for the Independent Payment Advisory 
Board; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 141

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Seniors' Access 
     to Medicare Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD.

       Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), sections 3403 and 
     10320 of such Act (including the amendments made by such 
     sections) are repealed, and any provision of law amended by 
     such sections is hereby restored as if such sections had not 
     been enacted into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Bennet, Mr. 
        Blumenthal, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Gillibrand, 
        Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Markey, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Reed, Mr. Schatz, 
        and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 142. A bill to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 
promulgate a rule to require child safety packaging for liquid nicotine 
containers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we all recognize the danger that many 
hazardous chemicals and over-the-counter drugs pose to children. That's 
why we require child-resistant packaging for these substances to 
prevent accidental poisonings that could result in serious injury or 
death.
  Unfortunately, there is no child-resistant packaging required for 
concentrated liquid nicotine, which can be toxic if ingested or even 
absorbed through the skin. According to the American Academy of 
Pediatrics, AAP, some of these small bottles of liquid nicotine contain 
a concentrated and deadly amount of the substance. The AAP notes that 
this small bottle contains enough nicotine to kill four small children. 
Just a few drops of the liquid

[[Page S108]]

splashed on a child's skin can make the child very ill.
  The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that 
poison control centers received 3,957 calls in 2014 related to liquid 
nicotine exposure. This is more than twice as many calls as in 2013, 
when AAPCC reported 1,543 calls related to liquid nicotine exposure.
  Sadly, it was only a matter of time before one of these accidental 
nicotine poisonings resulted in death. This past December, a 1-year-old 
boy in New York State died after ingesting liquid nicotine in his home.
  We have to do more to protect children from deadly accidents like 
this.
  Today I am reintroducing the Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act 
with Senators Ayotte, Bennet, Blumenthal, Boxer, Brown, Durbin, 
Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Markey, Merkley, Reed, Schatz, and Schumer to 
prevent these unnecessary tragedies. This common-sense legislation 
gives the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, authority and 
direction to issue rules requiring safer, child-resistant packaging for 
liquid nicotine products within 1 year of passage.
  The CPSC already requires child-resistant packaging for many 
household products, including over-the-counter medicines and cleaning 
agents. These rules have prevented countless injuries and deaths to 
children. There is no reason why bottles of liquid nicotine should not 
be required to have child-resistant packaging as well.
  I invite my colleagues to join us to support the Child Nicotine 
Poisoning Prevention Act. Last Congress, this legislation was reported 
out of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee by voice 
vote. Continuing our work together this Congress, we can pass this 
bipartisan legislation and help prevent accidental child nicotine 
poisonings.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 142

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Nicotine Poisoning 
     Prevention Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. CHILD SAFETY PACKAGING FOR LIQUID NICOTINE 
                   CONTAINERS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission.
       (2) Liquid nicotine container.--The term ``liquid nicotine 
     container'' means a consumer product, as defined in section 
     3(a)(5) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2052(a)(5)) notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of such section, 
     that consists of a container that--
       (A) has an opening from which nicotine in a solution or 
     other form is accessible and can flow freely through normal 
     and foreseeable use by a consumer; and
       (B) is used to hold soluble nicotine in any concentration.
       (3) Nicotine.--The term ``nicotine'' means any form of the 
     chemical nicotine, including any salt or complex, regardless 
     of whether the chemical is naturally or synthetically 
     derived.
       (4) Special packaging.--The term ``special packaging'' has 
     the meaning given such term in section 2 of the Poison 
     Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1471).
       (b) Required Use of Special Packaging for Liquid Nicotine 
     Containers.--
       (1) Rulemaking.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 3(a)(5)(B) of the 
     Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(5)(B)) or 
     section 2(f)(2) of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1261(f)(2)), not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall promulgate a 
     rule requiring special packaging for liquid nicotine 
     containers.
       (B) Amendments.--The Commission may promulgate such 
     amendments to the rule promulgated under subparagraph (A) as 
     the Commission considers appropriate.
       (2) Expedited process.--The Commission shall promulgate the 
     rules under paragraph (1) in accordance with section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Inapplicability of certain rulemaking requirements.--
     The following provisions shall not apply to a rulemaking 
     under paragraph (1):
       (A) Sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 
     U.S.C. 2056 and 2058).
       (B) Section 3 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 
     U.S.C. 1262).
       (C) Subsections (b) and (c) of section 3 of the Poison 
     Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1472).
       (4) Savings clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit or diminish the authority of the Food and 
     Drug Administration to regulate the manufacture, marketing, 
     sale, or distribution of liquid nicotine, liquid nicotine 
     containers, electronic cigarettes, or similar products that 
     contain or dispense liquid nicotine.
       (5) Enforcement.--A rule promulgated under paragraph (1) 
     shall be treated as a standard applicable to a household 
     substance established under section 3(a) of the Poison 
     Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1472(a)).

                          ____________________