[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 13, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S202-S209]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ISAKSON (for himself, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Alexander, Ms.
Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Collins, Mr. Enzi, Mrs.
Fischer, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Kaine, Mr. King, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Manchin, Mr. McCain, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Perdue, Mr. Portman, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Johnson, and Ms. Heitkamp):
S. 150. A bill to provide for a biennial budget process and a
biennial appropriations process and to enhance oversight and the
performance of the Federal Government; to the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I am very pleased to announce today that
the biennial budget proposal introduced by Senators Isakson and Shaheen
has been dropped. There are 21 cosponsors, 15 Republicans, 6 Democrats,
and 1 Independent, and the number is growing as we speak.
Senator Shaheen and I started this initiative 2 years ago and it
received 68 votes and a test vote on the budget in 2013. We believe it
will receive the necessary votes to become the law of the land in the
United States of America.
You might ask why a biennial budget or you might ask yourself why an
$18 trillion debt and why hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit.
We don't have the oversight necessary with the spending that we do now
to keep us from wasting money. It is time we ran our country like we
run our home. It is time we held our agencies accountable. It is time
our appropriations weren't just idle promises but our oversight was the
rule of law in the United States Senate.
Twenty States out of fifty in the United States have biennial
budgets. Countries around the world have biennial budgets. This
Congress 3 years ago did a biennial budget for the Veterans'
Administration just to ensure we wouldn't have a break in funding if
the government shut down. Predictability of funding of government is
critical, but the oversight of that funding is more critical.
Picture this. You get elected in an even-numbered year, 2014. Your
first order of business in 2015 is to pass a 2-year appropriations act
and a 2-year budget. But then in the even-numbered year that comes up
when you are running for reelection, your job is not spending, your job
is oversight. Wouldn't it be nice, instead of going home and promising
you are bringing home the bacon, instead you are bringing home the
savings to see to it that taxpayers' money is better spent?
The biennial budget is an idea whose time has come. It is the only
way we are going to measurably and sustainably reduce the deficits and
reduce the debt in the United States of America and hold our spending
more accountable.
Just last night on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives,
the Clay bill was passed on suicide prevention, a new program in the
VA, and the funding mechanism was existing funds and fungibility. We
already know there is existing money in the appropriations to our
agencies to pay for new ideas if we charge them to go find them. Some
of the measures we have been funding for 40 or 50 years probably don't
need to be done anymore and some of the things we are not doing
probably need to be done. But the way to do it is not to spend more
money and throw more money at the problem, but the way to do it is to
do it the way the American taxpayers do it back home--sit around the
kitchen table, set their priorities, make their funding predictable,
and from time to time go back and look at where they are spending money
and see if they can't improve it. This is an idea that will make
America great.
Senator Shaheen is a former Governor of the State of New Hampshire.
She had a biennial budget process in her State, and I wish to yield to
her to describe her cosponsorship of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleague
Senator Isakson, and I am pleased to join him on the floor today as we
reintroduce this bipartisan legislation, the Biennial Budgeting and
Appropriations Act. I want to start by recognizing the good work of
Senator Isakson because he started working on this issue when he came
to the Senate in 2005, and he has introduced this legislation in every
Congress since then. I have been pleased to be able to join him in the
last two Congresses.
I think we have an opportunity in this Congress to pass this
commonsense bipartisan reform. As Senator Isakson pointed out, there is
no question that the budget process in Washington is broken. Since 1980
there have been only two budgets that have been finished on time,
according to the process. In that timeframe Congress has resorted to
more than 150 short-term funding bills or continuing resolutions, and
we all remember what it was like when the government shut down in
October of 2013. It cost the economy $24 billion. It hurt small
business. It hurt people across this country. That is no way to govern.
While we have made significant progress to reduce deficits in recent
years, we need a new way to do business in Washington. Biennial
budgeting won't fix everything, but as Senator Isakson said, it is an
important reform that will allow us to work across the aisle not only
to make more sense of the budget process but to be better stewards of
taxpayer dollars.
We know that biennial budgeting works. I can attest to that
personally, coming from the State of New Hampshire where we have a
biennial budget. I served three terms as Governor. We were able in each
of those bienniums to pass a budget that was balanced, that allowed us
to get the budget done in the first year of the election cycle and in
the second year to be able to have oversight. It works in New
Hampshire, it works in 20 States around the country, and it can work in
Washington.
Biennial budgeting offers a better process that encourages us to work
together to pass budgets on time and to use taxpayer dollars more
efficiently. As Senator Isakson says, in the first year congressional
agencies would put together a 2-year budget. In the second year
Congress would have time to conduct oversight to give agencies the
ability to focus on achieving their missions.
As we all know, there are regular reports from the Government
Accountability Office, GAO, that identify areas of waste, fraud, and
duplicative programs within government.
For example, they have identified ways to reform the farm programs,
to cut down on inefficiencies in defense, to reduce fraud in health
programs, but the current budget process doesn't provide an effective
mechanism to regularly review GAO's recommendations.
Under my annual budgeting, we would be able to take a close look at
[[Page S203]]
those recommendations to implement savings in the second year which
will allow us to figure out how we can more effectively provide
programs to the American people and eliminate those that don't work and
support those that do.
As we said, in 2013 we had a very strong vote with 68 Senators voting
to endorse the concept of biannual budgeting. It was a very strong
bipartisan vote. A similar biannual budget bill passed the House last
year with a bipartisan bill vote. It is clear the momentum is growing
for this concept because people understand we have to do something to
reform our budget process.
The bill we are introducing today has 22 bipartisan cosponsors. I
know we are both working to get more bipartisan sponsors on the bill,
and we think we have a great shot, with support from this body, to pass
biannual budgeting. We think there is support in the House to do that,
and I look forward to working with Senator Isakson and my colleagues in
the Senate to get this done.
Mr. ISAKSON. I thank the Senator for her support, and I urge the
other Members of the Senate to join us in this reform effort for the
spending of the taxpayer's dollars.
______
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself, Ms. Ayotte, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Blunt,
Mr. Coats, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Hatch,
Mr. Isakson, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Rubio, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Tillis, and Mr. Toomey):
S. 168. A bill to codify and modify regulatory requirements of
Federal agencies; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. ROBERTS. I rise today to talk about a problem that affects
virtually every American, and that would be government regulations; to
be more accurate, government overregulation.
Let me point out something. In 2014, the administration issued 3,541
rules in 1 year. That cost $181 billion. The first week of this new
year brought us 35 new rules which added another 1,326 pages to the
Federal Register. I would urge people back home in the business
community or any other endeavor in which they are bothered by
regulations to read the Federal Register as opposed to the
Congressional Record. The Congressional Record deals with natural gas.
The Federal Register deals with facts and regulations.
Yet just last night we learned that President Obama has threatened to
veto a significant regulatory reform proposal now being considered by
the House of Representatives. It is interesting to me that the
President is now threatening to veto his own ideas. Back in January of
2011, President Obama issued an Executive Order. It was entitled
``Improve Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' That is in quotes.
Unfortunately, despite claims otherwise, the Executive order has
largely been ignored.
My bill takes this order and gives it the force of law. My bill would
require that all regulations put forth by the current and future
administrations consider the economic burden on American businesses and
ensure stakeholder input during the regulatory process, thus promoting
innovation and new jobs.
Just as the President said in his order, this egregious assault on
our economy must stop; it must end.
Like many of my colleagues, I have had a longstanding concern with
the regulatory process. Like other States, from every corner of Kansas,
the No. 1 topic of concern for all businesses, including agriculture,
energy, small shops on Main Street, healthcare, education, lending--
virtually every enterprise is harmed by overly burdensome and costly
regulations. Whether it is the EPA'S Waters of the United States
proposed rule or listing of the infamous lesser prairie chicken as an
endangered species, the public is losing faith in our government.
Obamacare is a prime example of this administration's vast regulatory
overreach. The bill, as signed into law by the President, as most of us
know, was no short read. It was over 2,000 pages. But as the rollout
continues, the administration has now expanded Obamacare into over
24,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Register.
Here is one example of the overly intrusive regulations this
administration used the Affordable Health Care Act to implement. It is
Health and Human Services' mandate requiring religious institutions to
provide insurance coverage for contraceptives and emergency
contraceptives.
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court had to intervene and determine that
the HHS mandate placed an excessive burden on the religious freedom of
owners of family business.
Regrettably, costly and intrusive regulations are not limited to HHS
and Obamacare and CMS and all of those regulations. Not to be outdone
by HHS, the Environmental Protection Agency has its own set of overly
burdensome regulations.
Let's take the proposed Waters of the United States rule. For
example, as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas knows, this
proposal has caused a firestorm of opposition all throughout farm
country. The EPA claims that the proposed Waters of the United States
rule simply clarifies their scope of jurisdiction.
Well, therein lies the problem.
Farmers and ranchers do not believe it. I don't believe it. They fear
the rule would allow the EPA to further expand its control of private
property under the guise of the Clean Water Act.
If finalized, this rule could have the EPA requiring a permit for
ordinary field work, construction of a fence, or even planting crops
near certain waters.
Kansans are justifiably worried the permits would be time consuming,
costly, and that the EPA could ultimate deny the permits, even for
longstanding and normal cropping practices.
This is another prime example of why many Kansans feel their way of
life is under attack by the Federal Government's overreach and
overregulation. Simply put, they feel ruled, not governed.
Let's not forget the burdensome carbon regulations now being proposed
by the EPA. Over the last 6 years, this administration's EPA has
pursued an agenda that can only be described as a war on fossil fuels
and coal.
Just last week, in fact, the EPA announced that by June of this year
it would finalize carbon reduction rules for both new and existing
powerplants. That is going to be a move that will drive up the energy
cost for all Kansans, all Americans, hoping to heat their homes during
extremely cold winters or hot summers such as the ones we are
experiencing now.
This decision, which the EPA itself admitted would do nothing to
reduce global temperature if similar plans are not adopted by Russia,
China, India and Brazil, will have unbelievable costs. According to a
recent study about the American Action Forum which cites the
administration's own estimates these rules are anticipated to cost
industry $8.8 billion to comply. That translates into a 6-percent rise
in electricity prices. Sadly, these regulations will hurt low-income
individuals the most--folks who can least afford it and who spend a
greater percentage of their income to heat their homes and feed their
families.
Now let's look at what the Department of Labor is trying to do with
President Obama's pen-and-paper dictates. Currently the Department of
Labor has a regulation to eliminate the companion care exemption put
forth by this body 40 years ago. This important exemption allows
seniors and the disabled community access to affordable in-home care.
If eliminated, those who need in-home care the most, and their
families, would be forced to determine which hours are the most crucial
in the day they receive assistance. In addition, caregivers who
currently work over 40 hours would see their hours and paychecks cut
because of this rule.
As the Department of Labor issued this rule and geared up for
implementation on January 1 of this year, benefit recipients,
individual States, and Members of this Chamber stood together to shine
a light on the negative effects this would have on communities all
across the Nation.
At the same time, a judge issued a partial determination on this
regulation, and he stated the following:
The fact that the Department issued its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking after all six of these bills failed to move is
nothing short of yet another thinly-veiled effort to do
through regulation what could not be done
[[Page S204]]
through legislation. Such conduct bespeaks an arrogance to
not only disregard Congress's intent but seize unprecedented
authority to impose overtime and minimum wage requirements in
defiance of the plain language of Section 213. It cannot
stand.
My legislation addresses these abuses. Far too often the good
intentions of regulations lead to job loss and red-tape that strangles
business. Worse still, the agenda of bureaucrats drives bad policies
and stifles economy.
I have a solution. My comprehensive bill requires agencies to promote
economic growth and job creation by ensuring the benefits outweigh the
cost of regulations. It is as simple as that.
We need to be listening to the folks as well who have to live with
and pay for the effects of these rules. I am hearing from stakeholders
that they are weighing the time and expense of responding to
regulations against the fact that this administration keeps giving them
the minimum allowable time and then doesn't even consider their input.
Bottom line, fewer Americans are bothering to participate in the
comment period process.
Stakeholder input is crucial and needs to be considered. Right now,
time varies on how long the comment period stays open. Sometimes it is
as little as 2 weeks. My bill would ensure the period stay open for at
least 60 days. My colleagues, as we all well know, sometimes the people
who are most affected by these rules don't even know they are subject
to the changes.
My bill would mandate that agencies provide warnings, appropriate
default rules, and disclosure requirements to the public. Right now,
just the opposite takes place. The administration skirts stakeholder
input by issuing interim final rules--called IFRs--and they become
effective immediately upon publication. My bill allows delay of
implementation if that rule is challenged in court and until the court
makes a decision. All too often new regulations are proposed and
finalized while existing regulations are not being enforced.
I have heard from a lot of folks in Kansas that the problems these
new regulations claim to fix could be solved if the current regulations
were properly monitored. Simply put, the solution is not more rules and
regulations; it is considering the existing ones.
My bill mandates an ongoing review of regulatory actions to identify
those outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome
rules--or, as the President himself once put it, ``rules that are just
plain dumb''--and allows agencies to streamline, expand, or repeal
those regulations.
We need regulatory reform. My bill codifies the President's Executive
order while closing the loopholes and gives it the rule of law. I do
not know how the President could disagree with that.
The U.S. Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Business,
the Farm Bureau, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have all
endorsed my bill.
Last year I had 35 cosponsors. We have about thirteen. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation and stay engaged as this process
continues.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 169. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to disallow
any deduction for punitive damages, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
will close a tax loophole that allows companies to write off the
punishment they receive for corporate wrongdoing. Under current law, a
corporation or individual business owner may deduct the cost of court-
ordered punitive damages paid to victims as an ``ordinary'' business
expense. For the victims of extreme corporate misconduct, there is
nothing ordinary about this. It is simply wrong. This tax loophole
allows corporations to wreak havoc and then write it off as a cost of
doing business. That undermines the whole point of punitive damages.
Punitive damage awards are designed to punish the wrongdoers and to
correct dangerous or unfair practices. These awards are reserved for
the most extreme and harmful misconduct. Sadly, our country's history
is replete with examples of serious corporate misconduct that resulted
in injury and death to American citizens, but through our civil justice
system and the thoughtful deliberations of our Nations' juries, this
misconduct is not only punishable by assessing punitive damages, it has
led to broad changes to improve the safety and security of American
consumers. Unfortunately, our current tax laws shield the worst
corporate misconduct. The No Tax Write-Offs for Corporate Wrongdoers
Act would change that by making a simple fix to our tax code.
In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded and 11 Americans
were killed in the worst oil spill in American history. That same year,
an explosion in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia claimed the
lives of 29 miners. In 2009 and 2010, Toyota recalled more than 10
million vehicles because of a faulty acceleration system that has been
linked to at least 31 accidents and 12 deaths, and recently admitted to
misleading the public about these dangers. Let us also not forget
Exxon's misconduct in 1989, which led to an ecological and human
disaster that affects Alaskans even today. Vermonters and all Americans
deserve to have companies such as these held accountable for their
actions. Why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize corporations who
deserve to be punished?
In 1994, a jury awarded $5 billion in punitive damages against Exxon
for its actions which caused the Valdez spill that devastated an entire
region, the livelihoods of its people, and destroyed a way of life. The
role of the jury is enshrined in our Constitution, and nothing is more
fundamental to the American justice system than our trust in the
judgment of those who serve on them. Rather than accept this reality,
Exxon paid its cadre of lawyers to fight the jury's measure of
accountability all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2008, after 14
years of appeals, an activist majority on the Court invented a novel
rule and held that in maritime cases, punitive damage awards could not
exceed twice the amount of compensatory damages, reducing Exxon's
punitive damages to $500 million. Adding insult to injury to the
victims of the oil spill, Exxon was then able to use the federal tax
code to write-off the punitive damages as an ``ordinary'' business
expense. This is not how the system should work and it is long past
time for Congress to fix it.
I have previously supported legislation by Senator Whitehouse to
overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Exxon, and I am disappointed
that not a single Republican joined this commonsense effort. If we
cannot get bipartisan support to ensure corporations pay the highest
possible price for actions that cause serious harm to health and public
safety, I hope we can at least agree that American taxpayers should not
have to subsidize their misconduct once a jury has determined they
should be punished.
The Obama administration requested eliminating this tax deduction in
its 2014 budget proposal. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated
that ending this deduction loophole will result in increased revenues
of $355 million over 10 years. Members who have devoted so much of
their focus to reducing the Federal deficit should support my
legislation. Anyone who cares about protecting consumers should agree
that extreme corporate misconduct should not be treated in our tax code
simply as a cost of doing business.
Right now, the new Republican majority in Congress is pushing
legislation to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. Despite being billed
as the safest pipeline in history, the existing Keystone pipeline has
spilled 12 times in its first year of operation. This has a familiar
ring: Before the Valdez spill in Alaska, Exxon executives told us their
oil tankers were safe. I do not support Congress bypassing the
environmental appeal process to fast-track further construction of the
Keystone pipeline, which poses considerable safety and environmental
risks. But anyone who does want this pipeline should at a minimum
consider the communities and families who would be affected by its
construction, and in the event of a spill, they should make sure
taxpayers are not subsidizing the damage. This speaks to our basic
notions of justice and fair play.
I hope all Senators will join me to end tax write-offs for corporate
wrongdoers. When companies can write off a
[[Page S205]]
significant portion of the financial impact of punitive damages, the
incentives in our justice system that promote responsible business
practices lose their force. Corporate misconduct should no longer be
treated as a cost of doing business.
______
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kirk,
Mr. Hatch, Mr. Graham, Mr. Coons, Mr. Udall, Mr. Coats, Mr.
Crapo, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Casey, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 178. A bill to provide justice for the victims of trafficking; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
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. 178
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Justice
for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Domestic trafficking victims' fund.
Sec. 3. Official recognition of American victims of human trafficking.
Sec. 4. Victim-centered child human trafficking deterrence block grant
program.
Sec. 5. Direct services for victims of child pornography.
Sec. 6. Increasing compensation and restitution for trafficking
victims.
Sec. 7. Streamlining human trafficking investigations.
Sec. 8. Enhancing human trafficking reporting.
Sec. 9. Reducing demand for sex trafficking.
Sec. 10. Using existing task forces and components to target offenders
who exploit children.
Sec. 11. Targeting child predators.
Sec. 12. Monitoring all human traffickers as violent criminals.
Sec. 13. Crime victims' rights.
Sec. 14. Combat Human Trafficking Act.
Sec. 15. Grant accountability.
SEC. 2. DOMESTIC TRAFFICKING VICTIMS' FUND.
(a) In General.--Chapter 201 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 3014. Additional special assessment
``(a) In General.--In addition to the assessment imposed
under section 3013, the court shall assess an amount of
$5,000 on any non-indigent person or entity convicted of an
offense under--
``(1) chapter 77 (relating to peonage, slavery, and
trafficking in persons);
``(2) chapter 109A (relating to sexual abuse);
``(3) chapter 110 (relating to sexual exploitation and
other abuse of children);
``(4) chapter 117 (relating to transportation for illegal
sexual activity and related crimes); or
``(5) section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1324) (relating to human smuggling), unless the person
induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only an individual who
at the time of such action was the alien's spouse, parent,
son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the
United States in violation of law.
``(b) Satisfaction of Other Court-ordered Obligations.--An
assessment under subsection (a) shall not be payable until
the person subject to the assessment has satisfied all
outstanding court-ordered fines and orders of restitution
arising from the criminal convictions on which the special
assessment is based.
``(c) Establishment of Domestic Trafficking Victims'
Fund.--There is established in the Treasury of the United
States a fund, to be known as the `Domestic Trafficking
Victims' Fund' (referred to in this section as the `Fund'),
to be administered by the Attorney General, in consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services.
``(d) Deposits.--Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31,
or any other law regarding the crediting of money received
for the Government, there shall be deposited in the Fund an
amount equal to the amount of the assessments collected under
this section, which shall remain available until expended.
``(e) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--From amounts in the Fund, in addition to
any other amounts available, and without further
appropriation, the Attorney General, in coordination with the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, for each of
fiscal years 2016 through 2020, use amounts available in the
Fund to award grants or enhance victims' programming under--
``(A) sections 202, 203, and 204 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 14044a,
14044b, and 14044c);
``(B) subsections (b)(2) and (f) of section 107 of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105);
and
``(C) section 214(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 13002(b)).
``(2) Grants.--Of the amounts in the Fund used under
paragraph (1), not less than $2,000,000 shall be used for
grants to provide services for child pornography victims
under section 214(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 13002(b)).
``(3) Limitations.--Amounts in the Fund, or otherwise
transferred from the Fund, shall be subject to the
limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in
sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 113-76; 128 Stat. 409)
to the same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds
appropriated under division H of such Act.
``(f) Transfers.--
``(1) In general.--Effective on the day after the date of
enactment of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of
2015, on September 30 of each fiscal year, all unobligated
balances in the Fund shall be transferred to the Crime
Victims Fund established under section 1402 of the Victims of
Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601).
``(2) Availability.--Amounts transferred under paragraph
(1)--
``(A) shall be available for any authorized purpose of the
Crime Victims Fund; and
``(B) shall remain available until expended.
``(g) Collection Method.--The amount assessed under
subsection (a) shall, subject to subsection (b), be collected
in the manner that fines are collected in criminal cases.
``(h) Duration of Obligation.--The obligation to pay an
assessment imposed on or after the date of enactment of the
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 shall not
cease until the assessment is paid in full.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 201 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 3013
the following:
``3014. Additional special assessment.''.
SEC. 3. OFFICIAL RECOGNITION OF AMERICAN VICTIMS OF HUMAN
TRAFFICKING.
Section 107 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (f) (as originally
enacted), as subsection (h); and
(2) in subsection (f) (as added by section 213(a)(1) of the
William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-457)), by adding
at the end the following:
``(4) Official recognition of american victims of human
trafficking.--
``(A) In general.--Upon receiving credible information that
establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a
covered individual is a victim of a severe form of
trafficking and at the request of the covered individual, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall promptly issue a
determination that the covered individual is a victim of a
severe form of trafficking. The Secretary shall have
exclusive authority to make such a determination.
``(B) Covered individual defined.--In this subsection, the
term `covered individual' means--
``(i) a citizen of the United States; or
``(ii) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
(as defined in section 101(20) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(20))).
``(C) Procedure.--For purposes of this paragraph, in
determining whether a covered individual has provided
credible information that the covered individual is a victim
of a severe form of trafficking, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services shall consider all relevant and credible
evidence, and if appropriate, consult with the Attorney
General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary
of Labor.
``(D) Presumptive evidence.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the following forms of evidence shall receive
deference in determining whether a covered individual has
established that the covered individual is a victim of a
severe form of trafficking:
``(i) A sworn statement by the covered individual or a
representative of the covered individual if the covered
individual is present at the time of such statement but not
able to competently make such sworn statement.
``(ii) Police, government agency, or court records or
files.
``(iii) Documentation from a social services, trafficking,
or domestic violence program, child welfare or runaway and
homeless youth program, or a legal, clinical, medical, or
other professional from whom the covered individual has
sought assistance in dealing with the crime.
``(iv) A statement from any other individual with knowledge
of the circumstances that provided the basis for the claim.
``(v) Physical evidence.
``(E) Regulations required.--Not later than 18 months after
the date of enactment of the Justice for Victims of
Trafficking Act of 2015, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall adopt regulations to implement this paragraph.
``(F) Rule of construction; official recognition
optional.--Nothing in this paragraph may be construed to
require a covered individual to obtain a determination under
this paragraph in order to be defined or classified as a
victim of a severe form of trafficking under this section.''.
[[Page S206]]
SEC. 4. VICTIM-CENTERED CHILD HUMAN TRAFFICKING DETERRENCE
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Section 203 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 14044b) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 203. VICTIM-CENTERED CHILD HUMAN TRAFFICKING
DETERRENCE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.
``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Attorney General may award
block grants to an eligible entity to develop, improve, or
expand domestic child human trafficking deterrence programs
that assist law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judicial
officials, and qualified victims' services organizations in
collaborating to rescue and restore the lives of victims,
while investigating and prosecuting offenses involving child
human trafficking.
``(b) Authorized Activities.--Grants awarded under
subsection (a) may be used for--
``(1) the establishment or enhancement of specialized
training programs for law enforcement officers, first
responders, health care officials, child welfare officials,
juvenile justice personnel, prosecutors, and judicial
personnel to--
``(A) identify victims and acts of child human trafficking;
``(B) address the unique needs of child victims of human
trafficking;
``(C) facilitate the rescue of child victims of human
trafficking;
``(D) investigate and prosecute acts of human trafficking,
including the soliciting, patronizing, or purchasing of
commercial sex acts from children, as well as training to
build cases against complex criminal networks involved in
child human trafficking;
``(E) use laws that prohibit acts of child human
trafficking, child sexual abuse, and child rape, and to
assist in the development of State and local laws to
prohibit, investigate, and prosecute acts of child human
trafficking; and
``(F) implement and provide education on safe harbor laws
enacted by States, aimed at preventing the criminalization
and prosecution of child sex trafficking victims for
prostitution offenses;
``(2) the establishment or enhancement of dedicated anti-
trafficking law enforcement units and task forces to
investigate child human trafficking offenses and to rescue
victims, including--
``(A) funding salaries, in whole or in part, for law
enforcement officers, including patrol officers, detectives,
and investigators, except that the percentage of the salary
of the law enforcement officer paid for by funds from a grant
awarded under this section shall not be more than the
percentage of the officer's time on duty that is dedicated to
working on cases involving child human trafficking;
``(B) investigation expenses for cases involving child
human trafficking, including--
``(i) wire taps;
``(ii) consultants with expertise specific to cases
involving child human trafficking;
``(iii) travel; and
``(iv) other technical assistance expenditures;
``(C) dedicated anti-trafficking prosecution units,
including the funding of salaries for State and local
prosecutors, including assisting in paying trial expenses for
prosecution of child human trafficking offenders, except that
the percentage of the total salary of a State or local
prosecutor that is paid using an award under this section
shall be not more than the percentage of the total number of
hours worked by the prosecutor that is spent working on cases
involving child human trafficking;
``(D) the establishment of child human trafficking victim
witness safety, assistance, and relocation programs that
encourage cooperation with law enforcement investigations of
crimes of child human trafficking by leveraging existing
resources and delivering child human trafficking victims'
services through coordination with--
``(i) child advocacy centers;
``(ii) social service agencies;
``(iii) State governmental health service agencies;
``(iv) housing agencies;
``(v) legal services agencies; and
``(vi) non-governmental organizations and shelter service
providers with substantial experience in delivering wrap-
around services to victims of child human trafficking; and
``(E) the establishment or enhancement of other necessary
victim assistance programs or personnel, such as victim or
child advocates, child-protective services, child forensic
interviews, or other necessary service providers; and
``(3) the establishment or enhancement of problem solving
court programs for trafficking victims that include--
``(A) mandatory and regular training requirements for
judicial officials involved in the administration or
operation of the court program described under this
paragraph;
``(B) continuing judicial supervision of victims of child
human trafficking who have been identified by a law
enforcement or judicial officer as a potential victim of
child human trafficking, regardless of whether the victim has
been charged with a crime related to human trafficking;
``(C) the development of a specialized and individualized,
court-ordered treatment program for identified victims of
child human trafficking, including--
``(i) State-administered outpatient treatment;
``(ii) life skills training;
``(iii) housing placement;
``(iv) vocational training;
``(v) education;
``(vi) family support services; and
``(vii) job placement;
``(D) centralized case management involving the
consolidation of all of each child human trafficking victim's
cases and offenses, and the coordination of all trafficking
victim treatment programs and social services;
``(E) regular and mandatory court appearances by the victim
during the duration of the treatment program for purposes of
ensuring compliance and effectiveness;
``(F) the ultimate dismissal of relevant non-violent
criminal charges against the victim, where such victim
successfully complies with the terms of the court-ordered
treatment program; and
``(G) collaborative efforts with child advocacy centers,
child welfare agencies, shelters, and non-governmental
organizations with substantial experience in delivering wrap-
around services to victims of child human trafficking to
provide services to victims and encourage cooperation with
law enforcement.
``(c) Application.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity shall submit an
application to the Attorney General for a grant under this
section in such form and manner as the Attorney General may
require.
``(2) Required information.--An application submitted under
this subsection shall--
``(A) describe the activities for which assistance under
this section is sought;
``(B) include a detailed plan for the use of funds awarded
under the grant;
``(C) provide such additional information and assurances as
the Attorney General determines to be necessary to ensure
compliance with the requirements of this section; and
``(D) disclose--
``(i) any other grant funding from the Department of
Justice or from any other Federal department or agency for
purposes similar to those described in subsection (b) for
which the eligible entity has applied, and which application
is pending on the date of the submission of an application
under this section; and
``(ii) any other such grant funding that the eligible
entity has received during the 5-year period ending on the
date of the submission of an application under this section.
``(3) Preference.--In reviewing applications submitted in
accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2), the Attorney General
shall give preference to grant applications if--
``(A) the application includes a plan to use awarded funds
to engage in all activities described under paragraphs (1)
through (3) of subsection (b); or
``(B) the application includes a plan by the State or unit
of local government to continue funding of all activities
funded by the award after the expiration of the award.
``(d) Duration and Renewal of Award.--
``(1) In general.--A grant under this section shall expire
3 years after the date of award of the grant.
``(2) Renewal.--A grant under this section shall be
renewable not more than 2 times and for a period of not
greater than 2 years.
``(e) Evaluation.--The Attorney General shall--
``(1) enter into a contract with a nongovernmental
organization, including an academic or nonprofit
organization, that has experience with issues related to
child human trafficking and evaluation of grant programs to
conduct periodic evaluations of grants made under this
section to determine the impact and effectiveness of programs
funded with grants awarded under this section; and
``(2) submit the results of any evaluation conducted
pursuant to paragraph (1) to--
``(A) the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
``(B) the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives.
``(f) Mandatory Exclusion.--An eligible entity awarded
funds under this section that is found to have used grant
funds for any unauthorized expenditure or otherwise
unallowable cost shall not be eligible for any grant funds
awarded under the block grant for 2 fiscal years following
the year in which the unauthorized expenditure or unallowable
cost is reported.
``(g) Compliance Requirement.--An eligible entity shall not
be eligible to receive a grant under this section if within
the 5 fiscal years before submitting an application for a
grant under this section, the grantee has been found to have
violated the terms or conditions of a Government grant
program by utilizing grant funds for unauthorized
expenditures or otherwise unallowable costs.
``(h) Administrative Cap.--The cost of administering the
grants authorized by this section shall not exceed 5 percent
of the total amount expended to carry out this section.
``(i) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a
program funded by a grant awarded under this section shall
be--
``(1) 70 percent in the first year;
``(2) 60 percent in the second year; and
``(3) 50 percent in the third year, and in all subsequent
years.
``(j) Authorization of Funding; Fully Offset.--For purposes
of carrying out this section, the Attorney General, in
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
is authorized to award not more than $7,000,000 of the funds
available in
[[Page S207]]
the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund, established under
section 3014 of title 18, United States Code, for each of
fiscal years 2016 through 2020.
``(k) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `child' means a person under the age of 18;
``(2) the term `child advocacy center' means a center
created under subtitle A of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001 et seq.);
``(3) the term `child human trafficking' means 1 or more
severe forms of trafficking in persons (as defined in section
103 of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22
U.S.C. 7102)) involving a victim who is a child; and
``(4) the term `eligible entity' means a State or unit of
local government that--
``(A) has significant criminal activity involving child
human trafficking;
``(B) has demonstrated cooperation between Federal, State,
local, and, where applicable, tribal law enforcement
agencies, prosecutors, and social service providers in
addressing child human trafficking;
``(C) has developed a workable, multi-disciplinary plan to
combat child human trafficking, including--
``(i) the establishment of a shelter for victims of child
human trafficking, through existing or new facilities;
``(ii) the provision of trauma-informed, gender-responsive
rehabilitative care to victims of child human trafficking;
``(iii) the provision of specialized training for law
enforcement officers and social service providers for all
forms of human trafficking, with a focus on domestic child
human trafficking;
``(iv) prevention, deterrence, and prosecution of offenses
involving child human trafficking, including soliciting,
patronizing, or purchasing human acts with children;
``(v) cooperation or referral agreements with organizations
providing outreach or other related services to runaway and
homeless youth;
``(vi) law enforcement protocols or procedures to screen
all individuals arrested for prostitution, whether adult or
child, for victimization by sex trafficking and by other
crimes, such as sexual assault and domestic violence; and
``(vii) cooperation or referral agreements with State child
welfare agencies and child advocacy centers; and
``(D) provides an assurance that, under the plan under
subparagraph (C), a victim of child human trafficking shall
not be required to collaborate with law enforcement officers
to have access to any shelter or services provided with a
grant under this section.
``(l) Grant Accountability; Specialized Victims' Service
Requirement.--No grant funds under this section may be
awarded or transferred to any entity unless such entity has
demonstrated substantial experience providing services to
victims of human trafficking or related populations (such as
runaway and homeless youth), or employs staff specialized in
the treatment of human trafficking victims.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2005 (22 U.S.C. 7101 note) is amended by striking the
item relating to section 203 and inserting the following:
``Sec. 203. Victim-centered child human trafficking deterrence block
grant program.''.
SEC. 5. DIRECT SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001 et
seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 212(5) (42 U.S.C. 13001a(5)), by inserting
``, including human trafficking and the production of child
pornography'' before the semicolon at the end; and
(2) in section 214 (42 U.S.C. 13002)--
(A) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Direct Services for Victims of Child Pornography.--
The Administrator, in coordination with the Director and with
the Director of the Office of Victims of Crime, may make
grants to develop and implement specialized programs to
identify and provide direct services to victims of child
pornography.''.
SEC. 6. INCREASING COMPENSATION AND RESTITUTION FOR
TRAFFICKING VICTIMS.
(a) Amendments to Title 18.--Section 1594 of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``that was used or'' and inserting ``that
was involved in, used, or'';
(ii) by inserting ``, and any property traceable to such
property'' after ``such violation''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, or any property
traceable to such property'' after ``such violation'';
(2) in subsection (e)(1)(A)--
(A) by striking ``used or'' and inserting ``involved in,
used, or''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and any property traceable to such
property'' after ``any violation of this chapter'';
(3) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
(4) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Transfer of Forfeited Assets.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Attorney General shall transfer assets forfeited
pursuant to this section, or the proceeds derived from the
sale thereof, to satisfy victim restitution orders arising
from violations of this chapter.
``(2) Priority.--Transfers pursuant to paragraph (1) shall
have priority over any other claims to the assets or their
proceeds.
``(3) Use of non-forfeited assets.--Transfers pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the
obligation of a person convicted of a violation of this
chapter to satisfy the full amount of a restitution order
through the use of non-forfeited assets or to reimburse the
Attorney General for the value of assets or proceeds
transferred under this subsection through the use of non-
forfeited assets.''.
(b) Amendment to Title 28.--Section 524(c)(1)(B) of title
28, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``chapter 77
of title 18,'' after ``criminal drug laws of the United
States or of''.
(c) Amendments to Title 31.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 97 of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating section 9703 (as added by section
638(b)(1) of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-393; 106
Stat. 1779)) as section 9705; and
(B) in section 9705(a), as redesignated--
(i) in paragraph (1)--
(I) in subparagraph (I)--
(aa) by striking ``payment'' and inserting ``Payment''; and
(bb) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting a
period; and
(II) in subparagraph (J), by striking ``payment'' and
inserting ``Payment''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2)--
(I) in subparagraph (B)--
(aa) in clause (iii)--
(AA) in subclause (I), by striking ``or'' and inserting
``of''; and
(BB) in subclause (III), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(bb) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(cc) by inserting after clause (iv) the following:
``(v) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with respect
to a violation of chapter 77 of title 18 (relating to human
trafficking);'';
(II) in subparagraph (G), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(III) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a period.
(2) Technical and conforming amendments.--
(A) Cross references.--
(i) Title 28.--Section 524(c) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(I) in paragraph (4)(C), by striking ``section
9703(g)(4)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``section 9705(g)(4)(A)'';
(II) in paragraph (10), by striking ``section 9703(p)'' and
inserting ``section 9705(p)''; and
(III) in paragraph (11), by striking ``section 9703'' and
inserting ``section 9705''.
(ii) Title 31.--Title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(I) in section 312(d), by striking ``section 9703'' and
inserting ``section 9705''; and
(II) in section 5340(1), by striking ``section 9703(p)(1)''
and inserting ``section 9705(p)(1)''.
(iii) Title 39.--Section 2003(e)(1) of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``section 9703(p)'' and
inserting ``section 9705(p)''.
(B) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
97 of title 31, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``9701. Fees and charges for Government services and things of value.
``9702. Investment of trust funds.
``9703. Managerial accountability and flexibility.
``9704. Pilot projects for managerial accountability and flexibility.
``9705. Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.''.
SEC. 7. STREAMLINING HUMAN TRAFFICKING INVESTIGATIONS.
Section 2516 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (a), by inserting a comma after
``weapons)'';
(B) in subparagraph (c)--
(i) by inserting ``section 1581 (peonage), section 1584
(involuntary servitude), section 1589 (forced labor), section
1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery,
involuntary servitude, or forced labor),'' before ``section
1591'';
(ii) by inserting ``section 1592 (unlawful conduct with
respect to documents in furtherance of trafficking, peonage,
slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor),'' before
``section 1751'';
(iii) by inserting a comma after ``virus)'';
(iv) by striking ``,, section'' and inserting a comma;
(v) by striking ``or'' after ``misuse of passports),''; and
(vi) by inserting ``or'' before ``section 555'';
(C) in subparagraph (j), by striking ``pipeline,)'' and
inserting ``pipeline),''; and
(D) in subparagraph (p), by striking ``documents, section
1028A (relating to aggravated identity theft))'' and
inserting ``documents), section 1028A (relating to aggravated
identity theft)''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``human trafficking,
child sexual exploitation, child pornography production,''
after ``kidnapping''.
SEC. 8. ENHANCING HUMAN TRAFFICKING REPORTING.
(a) In General.--Section 505 of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets
[[Page S208]]
Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3755) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(i) Part 1 Violent Crimes To Include Human Trafficking.--
For purposes of this section, the term `part 1 violent
crimes' shall include severe forms of trafficking in persons
(as defined in section 103 of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102)).''.
(b) Crime Control Act Amendments.--Section 3702 of the
Crime Control Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 5780) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
(B) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``and a photograph
taken within the previous 180 days'' after ``dental
records'';
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(D) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D);
and
(E) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children of each report received relating to a child reported
missing from a foster care family home or childcare
institution; and''.
SEC. 9. REDUCING DEMAND FOR SEX TRAFFICKING.
(a) In General.--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
(3) in subsection (c)--
(A) by striking ``or maintained'' and inserting ``,
maintained, patronized, or solicited''; and
(B) by striking ``knew that the person'' and inserting
``knew, or recklessly disregarded the fact, that the
person''.
(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) Purpose.--The purpose of the amendments made by this
section is to clarify the range of conduct punished as sex
trafficking.
SEC. 10. USING EXISTING TASK FORCES AND COMPONENTS TO TARGET
OFFENDERS WHO EXPLOIT CHILDREN.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall ensure that--
(1) all task forces and working groups within the Innocence
Lost National Initiative engage in activities, programs, or
operations to increase the investigative capabilities of
State and local law enforcement officers in the detection,
investigation, and prosecution of persons who patronize, or
solicit children for sex; and
(2) all components and task forces with jurisdiction to
detect, investigate, and prosecute cases of child labor
trafficking engage in activities, programs, or operations to
increase the capacity of such components to deter and punish
child labor trafficking.
SEC. 11. TARGETING CHILD PREDATORS.
(a) Clarifying That Child Pornography Producers Are Human
Traffickers.--Section 2423(f) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``means (1) a'' and inserting the
following: ``means--
``(1) a'';
(2) by striking ``United States; or (2) any'' and inserting
the following: ``United States;
``(2) any''; and
(3) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``; or
``(3) production of child pornography (as defined in
section 2256(8)).''.
(b) Holding Sex Traffickers Accountable.--Section 2423(g)
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``a
preponderance of the evidence'' and inserting ``clear and
convincing evidence''.
SEC. 12. MONITORING ALL HUMAN TRAFFICKERS AS VIOLENT
CRIMINALS.
Section 3156(a)(4)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``77,'' after ``chapter''.
SEC. 13. CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS.
(a) In General.--Section 3771 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by adding at the end the following:
``(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any
plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement.
``(10) The right to be informed of the rights under this
section and the services described in section 503(c) of the
Victims' Rights and Restitution Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
10607(c)) and provided contact information for the Office of
the Victims' Rights Ombudsman of the Department of
Justice.'';
(2) in subsection (d)(3), in the fifth sentence, by
inserting ``, unless the litigants, with the approval of the
court, have stipulated to a different time period for
consideration'' before the period; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking ``this chapter, the term'' and inserting
the following: ``this chapter:
``(1) Court of appeals.--The term `court of appeals'
means--
``(A) the United States court of appeals for the judicial
district in which a defendant is being prosecuted; or
``(B) for a prosecution in the Superior Court of the
District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals.
``(2) Crime victim.--
``(A) In general.--The term'';
(B) by striking ``In the case'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Minors and certain other victims.--In the case''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) District court; court.--The terms `district court'
and `court' include the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia.''.
(b) Crime Victims Fund.--Section 1402(d)(3)(A)(i) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601(d)(3)(A)(i)) is
amended by inserting ``section'' before ``3771''.
(c) Appellate Review of Petitions Relating to Crime
Victims' Rights.--
(1) In general.--Section 3771(d)(3) of title 18, United
States Code, as amended by subsection (a)(2) of this section,
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.
SEC. 14. COMBAT HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Combat
Human Trafficking Act of 2015''.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Commercial sex act; severe forms of trafficking in
persons; state.--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) Covered offender.--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) Covered offense.--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.
(4) Federal law enforcement officer.--The term ``Federal
law enforcement officer'' has the meaning given the term in
section 115 of title 18, United States Code.
(5) Local law enforcement officer.--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.
(6) State law enforcement officer.--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.
(c) Department of Justice Training and Policy for Law
Enforcement Officers, Prosecutors, and Judges.--
(1) Training.--
(A) 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--
(i) effective methods for investigating and prosecuting
covered offenders; and
(ii) facilitating the provision of physical and mental
health services by health care providers to persons subject
to severe forms of trafficking in persons.
(B) 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.
(C) 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.
(2) 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.
(d) 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,''.
(e) Bureau of Justice Statistics Report on State
Enforcement of Human Trafficking Prohibitions.--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;
[[Page S209]]
(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. 15. GRANT ACCOUNTABILITY.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered
grant'' means a grant awarded by the Attorney General under
section 203 of the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 14044b), as amended by
section 4.
(b) Accountability.--All covered grants shall be subject to
the following accountability provisions:
(1) Audit requirement.--
(A) In general.--Beginning in the first fiscal year
beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, and in
each fiscal year thereafter, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice shall conduct audits of recipients of a
covered grant to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of funds by
grantees. The Inspector General shall determine the
appropriate number of grantees to be audited each year.
(B) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term ``unresolved
audit finding'' means a finding in the final audit report of
the Inspector General that the audited grantee has utilized
grant funds for an unauthorized expenditure or otherwise
unallowable cost that is not closed or resolved within 12
months from the date when the final audit report is issued.
(C) Mandatory exclusion.--A recipient of a covered grant
that is found to have an unresolved audit finding shall not
be eligible to receive a covered grant during the following 2
fiscal years.
(D) Priority.--In awarding covered grants the Attorney
General shall give priority to eligible entities that did not
have an unresolved audit finding during the 3 fiscal years
prior to submitting an application for a covered grant.
(E) Reimbursement.--If an entity is awarded a covered grant
during the 2-fiscal-year period in which the entity is barred
from receiving grants under subparagraph (C), the Attorney
General shall--
(i) deposit an amount equal to the grant funds that were
improperly awarded to the grantee into the General Fund of
the Treasury; and
(ii) seek to recoup the costs of the repayment to the fund
from the grant recipient that was erroneously awarded grant
funds.
(2) Nonprofit organization requirements.--
(A) Definition.--For purposes of this paragraph and covered
grants, the term ``nonprofit organization'' means an
organization that is described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and is exempt from taxation
under section 501(a) of such Code.
(B) Prohibition.--The Attorney General may not award a
covered grant to a nonprofit organization that holds money in
offshore accounts for the purpose of avoiding paying the tax
described in section 511(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(C) Disclosure.--Each nonprofit organization that is
awarded a covered grant and uses the procedures prescribed in
regulations to create a rebuttable presumption of
reasonableness for the compensation of its officers,
directors, trustees and key employees, shall disclose to the
Attorney General, in the application for the grant, the
process for determining such compensation, including the
independent persons involved in reviewing and approving such
compensation, the comparability data used, and
contemporaneous substantiation of the deliberation and
decision. Upon request, the Attorney General shall make the
information disclosed under this subsection available for
public inspection.
(3) Conference expenditures.--
(A) Limitation.--No amounts transferred to the Department
of Justice under this Act, or the amendments made by this
Act, may be used by the Attorney General, or by any
individual or organization awarded discretionary funds
through a cooperative agreement under this Act, or the
amendments made by this Act, to host or support any
expenditure for conferences that uses more than $20,000 in
Department funds, unless the Deputy Attorney General or such
Assistant Attorney Generals, Directors, or principal deputies
as the Deputy Attorney General may designate, provides prior
written authorization that the funds may be expended to host
a conference.
(B) Written approval.--Written approval under subparagraph
(A) shall include a written estimate of all costs associated
with the conference, including the cost of all food and
beverages, audiovisual equipment, honoraria for speakers, and
any entertainment.
(C) Report.--The Deputy Attorney General shall submit an
annual report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives on all approved conference expenditures
referenced in this paragraph.
(D) Annual certification.--Beginning in the first fiscal
year beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Attorney General shall submit, to the Committee on the
Judiciary and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives, an annual
certification that--
(i) all audits issued by the Office of the Inspector
General under paragraph (1) have been completed and reviewed
by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General or Director;
(ii) all mandatory exclusions required under paragraph
(1)(C) have been issued;
(iii) all reimbursements required under paragraph (1)(E)
have been made; and
(iv) includes a list of any grant recipients excluded under
paragraph (1) from the previous year.
(4) Prohibition on lobbying activity.--
(A) In general.--Amounts awarded under this Act, or any
amendments made by this Act, may not be utilized by any grant
recipient to--
(i) lobby any representative of the Department of Justice
regarding the award of grant funding; or
(ii) lobby any representative of a Federal, State, local,
or tribal government regarding the award of grant funding.
(B) Penalty.--If the Attorney General determines that any
recipient of a covered grant has violated subparagraph (A),
the Attorney General shall--
(i) require the grant recipient to repay the grant in full;
and
(ii) prohibit the grant recipient from receiving another
covered grant for not less than 5 years.
____________________