[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1264-S1274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
                     NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S.J. Res. 8, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 8) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor 
     Relations Board relating to representation case procedures.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 hours of debate remaining, equally divided in the usual form.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the minority 
and the majority.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1265]]

  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the median time today between when a union 
files an organizing petition and when employees vote on whether to 
unionize is 38 days, or just slightly over one month. Some 95 percent 
of all organizing elections take place less than 2 months after the 
date an organizing petition is filed, and approximately 70 percent of 
these elections are won by unions. All in all, I think anyone would 
agree that unions are doing pretty well and that this is a pretty fair 
process.
  In fact, the current median time between union organizing petitions 
and union elections surpasses the goal set by the National Labor 
Relations Board itself. One would think it would be a classic case of 
``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.''
  Apparently the Obama nominees on the National Labor Relations Board 
don't agree. They proposed a new rule which will go into effect next 
month and that will drastically shorten the time between the initial 
organizing union petition and the union elections to anywhere from 11 
to 22 days.
  While the current situation, if anything, gives an advantage to 
unions, it also provides adequate time for employers to express any 
concerns and for employees to hear the pros and cons of the union 
proposal. The new NLRB rule would remove these protections.
  Businesses would have to respond to the union organizing petition 
within 7 days of its being filed, which would leave employers 
scrambling to research any arguments they want to bring up at the union 
organizing hearing. Small businesses, which frequently lack experience 
dealing with unions or in-house counsel to provide advice, would be hit 
particularly hard by this rule.
  But it is not just businesses that would suffer. Under the new rule 
employees would have very little chance to research and consider the 
benefits and drawbacks of joining a union. They would be forced into a 
hasty decision with little opportunity to change their minds later on.
  In addition, the rule also presents substantial privacy concerns for 
employees. Under the current system, employers already have to give 
unions employees' names and home addresses. The new rule would expand 
that disclosure requirement to include employees' cell phone numbers, 
email addresses, work schedules, and shift locations. Worse, the rule 
contains no additional requirements for safeguarding that information 
or disposing of it appropriately. Given the ever-growing concerns about 
privacy, it is astonishing that any employer would be forced to give up 
so much sensitive information without the explicit permission of his 
employees.
  This new rule is unfair to employers and it is unfair to workers. 
There is a reason it is called the ambush elections rule. It would 
ambush employers and employees alike. Unions would have unlimited time 
to organize, while employers would be given almost no time to present 
their concerns and exercise their free speech and due process 
rights. Employees would be pushed into making the long-term decision 
about whether to join a union without all the facts.

  Government should not be in the business of tilting the playing field 
in favor of unions at the expense of workers and businesses. The NLRB'S 
ambush elections rule is unfair and undemocratic. I hope Congress will 
pass the joint resolution of disapproval we are considering today, and 
I hope the President will sign it. The rights of American workers and 
businesses should not be sacrificed to the demands of unions.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support S.J. Res. 
8. I thank my friend and colleague from Tennessee for bringing the 
resolution to the floor to disapprove the rule that the National Labor 
Relations Board has proposed that basically creates what are commonly 
referred to as ambush elections for votes to create labor unions in 
workplaces.
  The concerns I have with this NLRB mandate is that it is another 
draconian example of what I consider to be the hyperpartisan business 
and labor environment the National Labor Relations Board has created 
over the last several years. The NLRB is advancing a pro-union agenda 
nationwide in the guise of government policy. The NLRB's proposed 
policy is simply not necessary, particularly in light of the fact that 
some 70 percent of union organizing elections already succeed under the 
NLRB's current policy. Clearly the pro-union majority of the National 
Labor Relations Board is not satisfied with unions winning 70 percent 
of the time. They now want to run up the score so the unions win 100 
percent of the time.
  Many people, when they think about labor unions and organizing, think 
about big business, but I am here to talk about the negative effect 
this proposal will have on small businesses. A 50-employee operation or 
a 250-employee operation, is a business that does not have the legal, 
financial, or administrative resources that a big business has to be 
able to react in the short timeframe the NLRB wants to mandate.
  Today the median time for holding elections on labor union organizing 
petitions is about 38 days. This rule would bring that down to just 8 
days before an election would be required to be held. This would make 
it virtually impossible for the vast majority of America's small 
businesses to respond to the unionization effort and many of the 
employees themselves who may not want to be unionized would be swept 
aside by the compressed timeframe as well.
  We have several examples of this in North Carolina, but rather than 
get into a lot of details, I will just explain why this new ambush 
election rule is not needed.
  The petitions to unionize workplaces are already handled 
expeditiously. As I said, the average or median time for holding a vote 
is now 38 days. And again, the success rate for the unions is 70 
percent. Let me say that again, 70 percent of the elections that are 
held under the NLRB's current rules result in employees being 
unionized.
  By turning elections into this sort of ambush will put small 
businesses at a severe disadvantage against the powerful unions 
targeting them. For instance, take one small trucking company down in 
Greensboro, NC, that would suffer serious economic consequences if this 
rule goes into effect. Guy M. Turner, Inc. was founded by two brothers 
in 1924 and 90 years later it is still a family owned business 
employing less than 250 people, clearly it is not a mega-corporation. 
Yet, if the NLRB imposes this new rule, this family business will have: 
little time to obtain competent counsel to counter union targeting of 
the company, little time to answer questions, marshal facts, or prepare 
arguments to share with their employees regarding the potential 
consequences and effects of unionization.
  And if that were not bad enough, under the NLRB's new proposal, 
employers would also be prohibited from expressing any views regarding 
the unionization effort--thus essentially eliminating the employer's 
right to free speech regarding the potential adverse effects of 
unionization on the workplace and the company's future viability. 
However, the NLRB's new rule would impose no such restrictions on a big 
union's right to speak in favor of unionization or the future benefits 
they promise it will deliver.
  A little common sense and a hard look at reality clearly demonstrates 
that the regulations enforced today are working not only effectively, 
but in favor of large unions most of the time. I hope Senators will 
support Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chairman Lamar 
Alexander, and the thousands of businesses and hundreds of thousands of 
employees, who oppose this regulation because it is an unnecessary and 
ill-advised effort to tilt the playing field in the workplace totally 
in favor of the large labor unions and their efforts to unionize the 
American workplace.

[[Page S1266]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the time for the quorum call be equally 
divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TILLIS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, what is the pending order for the 
morning?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on S.J. Res. 8 with divided 
time.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.


                           Human Trafficking

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this morning I rise, along with the 
women of the Senate, to speak about the issue of human trafficking.
  We are 4 days from International Women's Day, and all of the women of 
the Senate have taken up the issue of human trafficking. Many of us 
wish to speak about it today. We are all working on it. Many have been 
leaders on this issue. My colleagues will see Republican and Democratic 
women coming to the floor.
  As the senior woman and senior Democratic woman, I have convened over 
the years a dinner among the women of the Senate. The purpose of the 
dinner was to create a zone of civility, to create camaraderie, as well 
as to see where we could work across the aisle to focus on a particular 
issue.
  The women of the Senate do not have a caucus. There is no lockstep. 
We discuss our different views on budgets and bottom lines and other 
issues. We discuss questions such as, What is the best way to approach 
the deficit? What are all of the deficits in our country we are facing, 
not only the fiscal deficit, but the deficit in research and 
development, and other deficits?
  At one of our dinners we said, What is it that we want to work on 
together in this particular Congress? What is the issue that brings us 
all together across party lines that would have an impact on what we do 
at home, what would have an impact in our global community, and what 
would have an impact particularly on women and children, girls and 
boys, around the world? That is what we decided we wanted to work on--
the despicable, vile issue of human trafficking. Human trafficking. 
That means a whole organized network and networks to buy and sell human 
beings as if they are a commodity, to buy and sell girls and to buy and 
sell little boys for the whole purpose of sexual exploitation.
  This is an enormous issue. Many of our colleagues in the Senate have 
been working on authorizing legislation, and a great deal of it is 
pending in the Judiciary Committee. We have joined together and asked 
the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on the major trafficking 
bills, and we thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Leahy for 
holding the hearing, as well as for joining with us in moving 
legislation.
  This is not just a woman's issue; this is a human rights issue. So we 
have a Klobuchar-Cornyn bill. We have a Collins-Leahy effort. We are 
all working on this together. But it is we, the women of the Senate, 
who continue to be a force to make sure we will focus on it within our 
own government and around the world. We will be looking at what are the 
most significant efforts we can take.
  The numbers are startling and discouraging. Twenty-one million people 
are trafficked globally every year--21 million people. It is the third 
largest global crime--right up there with the selling of weapons of 
mass destruction, and right up there with selling drugs, and drug 
cartels. In fact, in many instances, it is the same organized crime 
network. If someone is willing to sell a person and treat them as a 
commodity, they are willing to sell drugs, they are willing to sell 
guns, they are willing to sell nuclear fissionable material. They are 
willing to do anything.
  This isn't just about recruiting girls in Asia or girls and women in 
Central Europe; this is in our own country, where 800,000 people are 
trafficked each year.
  When I met with my FBI agents in Maryland and the U.S. Attorney's 
Office to discuss this issue, they told me that the I-95 corridor is a 
corridor for violence and trafficking and that we are a hotspot for 
trafficking activities, because we have a seaport, we have a major 
interstate highway, and we have big sporting events. Can my colleagues 
imagine such activity at sporting events such as the big games? The 
playoffs that we so enjoy in Baltimore are also part of trafficking.
  But we know our local law enforcement and our FBI are on the job. We 
have programs such as Operation Cross Country. Last year, the FBI 
helped recover close to 170 children who had been forced into 
prostitution, with simultaneous raids, and they put 281 pimps in jail.
  We are going to take the first step. There are many bills pending 
where the women of the Senate have really thought about this, worked on 
this, taken leadership on this, and they will talk about their various 
legislative initiatives.
  As the chair of the Appropriations Committee, I wanted to look at not 
only the great work my colleagues were doing in authorizing, but what 
we could do now for the money. Last year, in the 2015 omnibus, with the 
full concurrence of then-Vice Chairman Shelby--a really strong advocate 
on this issue--and then across the aisle with Hal Rogers in the House, 
we put $42 million in the Justice Department to make sure we were 
fighting trafficking. We included a $28 million increase for programs 
that provide grants that are lifesaving, as well as life-rescuing 
services to victims. These funds were to ensure that law enforcement 
could enforce the law and make sure victims had emergency shelters and 
counseling, supporting a true rescue mission.
  We also made sure the FBI had additional resources to find those 
criminals and bring them to justice, and to focus on efforts such as a 
program called ``Innocence Lost'' that focuses on the trafficking of 
children. We funded human trafficking prosecution by adding more money 
for civil rights attorneys to identify the large trafficking rings to 
do it.
  I don't want to sound like an accountant; I want to sound like one of 
the women of the Senate who thinks about these women who have been 
recruited around the world and the children who are being nabbed and 
grabbed, and the exploitation of lost children, sometimes runaway 
youths.
  We want to say to them that our Federal dollars are working hard, and 
we are going to look at how authorizers and appropriators really work 
together. We want to pass some of this new, fresh thinking on how to 
attack and deal with this problem. We are going to look at the 
Appropriations Committee across all subcommittees to see what we can 
do.
  The women of the Senate are going to be a voice and a vote on this, 
and we know we have good men of the Senate who also work with us and 
support us. So working shoulder to shoulder, we can do something to 
make it safer for our communities and have a big impact around the 
world. We will do it because we took the time to listen to each other 
and figure out ways we can work together. Let's get it done, and let's 
get it done now.
  I would now like to yield time for someone who has been a real leader 
on this issue, and a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has 
brought some new, fresh thinking and fresh approaches but also has been 
wise and prudent for her taxpayers and, I might also add, a former 
attorney general in the State of Minnesota. She is a great warrior, and 
she has made sure that she has some new ideas. Senator Klobuchar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge Senator Mikulski 
and her leadership. Anyone who wondered how hard she was going to keep 
working after she announced she wasn't running again for the next 
year--I think we just saw the answer right here. She hasn't slowed down 
one bit. She is already here advocating for some incredibly important 
bills, and I am also glad to see that Senator Shaheen and Senator 
Hirono are here. They are going to speak shortly.
  Given I have been able to talk about this at length on the Committee 
on the Judiciary, I will be brief and say this:

[[Page S1267]]

I have an important bill with Senator Cornyn, and it is a bill, a 
version of which has already passed the House, a bipartisan bill, the 
Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act. Also, Senator Cornyn has a 
bill with me and a number of other people called the Justice for 
Victims of Trafficking Act. My bill passed through the Committee on the 
Judiciary last week after the hearing that Senator Mikulski referred 
to, 20-0, on a vote. And Senator Cornyn's bill, which I have also 
cosponsored, passed on a near-unanimous vote. Senator Leahy and Senator 
Collins, as was mentioned by Senator Mikulski, have an important bill--
the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act. We are 
hopeful we can get these done, along with what Senator Feinstein is 
doing, and many others, in the coming days on the Senate floor.
  I think the first message here is this is bipartisan. I don't think 
any sex trafficker wants to hear we are doing some tougher stuff to go 
after them, but we are. It is very important that this be bipartisan.
  I give you one example of a case charged last week out of Minnesota. 
A 12-year-old girl--not even old enough to get a driver's license, not 
even old enough to go to her first prom--gets a text. She goes to a 
parking lot at McDonald's. She thinks there is a party. A guy puts her 
in a car and drives her to Rochester, MN--the Twin Cities--rapes her 
and then takes pictures of her and puts it on Craigslist. The next day 
two other men buy her off of Craigslist and rape her.
  That happened in Minnesota. That is happening all over the country, 
where 83 percent of the victims are not from other countries, 83 
percent of the victims are from our own country. This is the third 
biggest criminal enterprise--international criminal enterprise--in the 
world. Only after illegal drugs and illegal guns comes selling young 
girls and young boys for sex. This is going on in the oil patch in 
North Dakota. It is going on in the city streets in Baltimore. It is 
going on in small towns in Minnesota. That is what we are seeing 
happening across our country.
  I appreciate all the support of my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues. What this bill does that we passed 20-0 out of the 
Committee on the Judiciary--the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking 
Act--is it takes this model that has been really successful in 
Minnesota. We just got a 40-year sentence last year against someone 
running a ring who basically says, are you going to prosecute the 12-
year-old? No. That 12-year-old is a victim.
  When you start thinking like that and you start thinking of these 
victims as actual victims, then you give them services. Then they turn 
their lives around, and then they testify against the guys who are 
running these rings. That is how you make the cases. If you prosecute 
them, my guess is they are going to go right back to that pimp who 
brought them into this world in the first place.
  That is why this has been adopted already in 15 States, and 12 States 
are looking at it. What our bill does is simply takes an existing grant 
program and creates incentives so that other States will adopt this as 
well.
  We also have the ability for these victims to access programs that 
help people get jobs.
  Finally, the national sex trafficking strategy. We do not have one in 
this country. That is in this bill as well. You can see why it got 
widespread support.
  I am excited about these bills because finally we are working on 
something together. I would like to get them done as soon as possible. 
There are a lot of bills that have passed in the House. We are going to 
have to coordinate all these efforts, as Senator Mikulski said. But 
this is the moment in time where we can finally say not just to the 
rest of the world but to girls in our own country that we are going to 
stand up for them and we are going to stand up against these people 
running the rings.
  Why has this gotten worse in the last few years? We love the 
Internet, but people are advertising on the Internet. They are getting 
away with it, and we have to make sure we are sophisticated, more 
sophisticated than the perpetrators who are committing these crimes.
  I see that our great Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, is 
here.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the Senator from New Hampshire yield for 1 minute?
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I will.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to say this is not a Democratic 
women's issue. We are in this on a bipartisan basis. I want to note 
that the Democratic women are here because the Republican women are 
chairing committees and subcommittees. I know the Senator from New 
Hampshire, Ms. Ayotte, will be on the floor shortly. The distinguished 
Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, is at a very important Navy 
appropriations committee hearing. So when my colleagues see us, don't 
assume it is just Democratic women. It is all of us together. But their 
responsibility has them at another duty station right this minute. I 
wanted to explain where we are.
  I yield the floor back to Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to echo what my colleagues 
Senator Mikulski and Senator Klobuchar have said about this being a 
bipartisan issue. This is an issue that affects everybody in this 
country--Republicans, Democrats, Independents. It is a critical issue 
for the Senate. It is a critical issue for the House. It is a critical 
issue for State legislatures across the country.
  I am so pleased to be able to join my colleagues and thank Senator 
Mikulski for her leadership for such a long time on this issue and so 
many others, and commend Senator Klobuchar for everything she is doing 
to address this issue. I am so pleased to join Senator Hirono as well 
this morning, and look forward to seeing my colleague from New 
Hampshire coming to the floor shortly.
  This Sunday, March 8, nations across the globe will observe 
International Women's Day. It is an annual occasion to celebrate the 
achievements of women across the globe. But it also recognizes the 
obstacles that still stand in the way of equal rights and opportunities 
for women. Over the last century, women have fought for equal rights 
and opportunities, and we made enormous advances in much of the world. 
Humanity has learned that women's rights are human rights, and those 
rights include being respected as full and equal partners in all 
aspects of the economy and society. We have learned that when women 
succeed, families succeed, communities succeed, and nations succeed.
  However, as my colleagues have pointed out so eloquently, across the 
globe countless millions of women continue to face not only the denial 
of basic human and civil rights, but outright violence and bondage. We 
would like to think of slavery as a thing of the past, particularly 
here in America. But the tragic reality is that this scourge continues 
to thrive in the 21st century. We are here this morning to shine a 
spotlight on the modern slave trade and to encourage all of our 
colleagues here in the Senate to work with us to end it.
  An estimated 27 million people are trapped in the multibillion dollar 
marketplace that trafficks in slaves. Victims include forced migrant 
laborers, bonded laborers, and sex slaves, including women forced into 
marriages as de facto slaves. Tragically, as we have heard, children 
account for the majority of modern slaves, many of them trafficked and 
sexually exploited.
  Let's be clear. As Senators Klobuchar and Mikulski pointed out, 
modern-day slavery is not confined to impoverished and backward 
countries. I was recently briefed on a human trafficking case 
investigated in my home State of New Hampshire. This case involved 
forced prostitution. Fortunately, three arrests have already been made. 
The investigation is still ongoing, so I can't talk about the specifics 
of the case, but fortunately several of the victims have been rescued.
  I want to state the obvious and point out what Senator Klobuchar also 
pointed out: If modern slavery can exist in communities in New 
Hampshire, in Minnesota, in Maryland, it can exist anywhere in the 
world.
  I am proud the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, led by Chairman 
Corker and our Ranking Member Menendez, is spearheading new legislation 
which I have cosponsored to fight the modern slave trade on a global

[[Page S1268]]

scale. Our bill is titled the Ending Modern Slavery Initiative Act of 
2015, and it was unanimously reported out of committee last week.
  It would authorize the creation of a nonprofit foundation to be known 
as the End Modern Slavery Initiative Foundation. This new foundation 
would fund projects to rescue victims of modern slavery and to prevent 
individuals from being victimized by slavery. In addition, it would 
pursue the strict enforcement of laws to punish individual and 
corporate perpetrators of modern slavery.
  I want to again commend the work of the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary under the leadership of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member 
Leahy, as well as the work that Senator Cornyn and Senator Klobuchar 
are doing. The Committee on the Judiciary advanced three bipartisan 
bills to crack down on criminals involved in human trafficking and to 
assist victims with the rehabilitation.
  As we are talking about the prevalence of human trafficking, I think 
this picture of the areas of human trafficking shows while it is 
stronger in particular regions of the country--up the I-95 corridor--it 
is all over the country. The Presiding Officer's home State of 
Arkansas--a small state like New Hampshire--is one of those States 
where we see a big red hotspot for human trafficking. We see it all 
across the country. It is why we need to do everything we can 
nationally to respond to this scourge.
  As we look forward this week to celebrating International Women's Day 
on Sunday, let us also remember the millions of women who have been 
left behind, who are being exploited by traffickers and trapped in 
modern slavery, who are desperate to have their humanity recognized and 
rescued. I urge all of our colleagues here in the Senate to join us in 
supporting legislation that will combat and hopefully ultimately end 
modern slavery, the scourge of human trafficking.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, we also are joined today by Senator 
Hirono, who for many years served with me on the Committee on the 
Judiciary. She is now on the Intelligence Committee, but has been very 
active in this issue as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 
we thank her for being here today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking Senator 
Mikulski for her leadership on this issue as well as on so many other 
important issues.
  I rise today with many of my fellow women Senators from both parties 
in drawing awareness to the terrible crime of human trafficking, and 
not just drawing awareness, but to call upon all of us to take action 
to stop this crime.
  According to the International Labour Organization, there are an 
estimated 21 million victims of trafficking globally, something that 
Senator Mikulski has already mentioned. That is 21 million people. That 
is more than the total population of 48 States, including Hawaii, who 
are trafficked every single year. Only Texas and California have more 
than 21 million people.
  The most recent estimates available show that between 14,500 and 
17,500 people were trafficked into the United States in 2005. That is 
why I am working to enhance our ability to protect human trafficking 
victims seeking refuge in our country. Right now, many families are 
torn apart at the border because current law requires adult men to be 
transferred to a border location hundreds of miles away from where they 
were intercepted.
  Meanwhile, their families, who are often with them, are sent back 
across the border at the place where they were intercepted with no 
money and no idea of where their husbands or fathers were taken. The 
situation leaves women and children vulnerable to trafficking, sexual 
violence, and other dangers.
  I have also sought to place independent child welfare professionals 
at Border Patrol stations to provide basic humanitarian assistance to 
unaccompanied children held in our border stations. This would ensure 
appropriate screening of children to identify victims of persecution or 
trafficking. It also would ensure that children are not held for longer 
than necessary in U.S. Custom and Border Protection facilities.
  At the peak of our attention to the crisis of unaccompanied minors 
last year, nearly 50,000 children arrived at our Nation's southern 
border. Much of our attention in this body was paid to dealing with 
these children once they reached our border. These children from 
noncontiguous border countries not only deserve protection but are 
required by U.S. law to receive certain protections.
  But what about the children who might not have reached the relative 
safety of our border stations? Who knows how many fell victim to 
traffickers? How many were diverted to other places with even less 
protection than what they might have received in the United States? 
Throughout the past year, we have heard stories about children and 
young women who never made it to the Texas border. We know that 
criminals have taken advantage of this crisis in Central America by 
enticing families and children who are looking for a way to escape 
extreme violence.
  When I visited the Rio Grande Valley last year, I heard heartbreaking 
stories from advocates who all too often saw children and young women 
fall victim to trafficking. Advocates even saw instances where 
vulnerable girls were preyed upon by criminal traffickers even after 
they were released from U.S. Government custody. We must continue 
working together to protect these young people who are seeking a better 
life away from the violence of their country.
  Domestic trafficking is also an issue. Last year I met with the 
Hawaii Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council and learned of their 
important work with police, prosecutors, and other personnel to better 
identify minors who have been trafficked into prostitution rings. These 
minors are victims. They are not criminals. Like Hawaii, other States 
are turning their attention to stopping domestic trafficking.
  There are a number of Senate bipartisan bills on domestic 
trafficking, as mentioned. For example, I joined Senator Klobuchar on 
her bill, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act. I also joined 
Senator Leahy in his Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking 
Prevention Act to better assist these vulnerable youth in receiving the 
services they need to return to some sense of normalcy in their lives.
  We are working in both the international and domestic arenas to 
better address, combat, and eliminate human trafficking. This is an 
issue that crosses country borders. It is certainly an issue that 
crosses partisan lines. We can find common ground to get something 
meaningful done in Congress.
  I see that I am joined by my colleague from North Dakota. I also saw 
my colleague from New Hampshire.
  I yield my time for the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Hawaii. This is such an incredibly important issue. It is an honor to 
see my colleague from North Dakota as well. This is a great example of 
an incredibly important issue that is a bipartisan issue. 
Unfortunately, human trafficking, sex trafficking--this is something 
that impacts everyone. This is something that the women of the Senate 
have been very focused on, but it crosses all party lines. We want to 
work together to end this modern day slavery. Unfortunately, the 
funding for this is really supporting criminal syndicates and so many 
other crimes. It is also supporting terrorism.
  So working together, we hope to make meaningful progress to end this 
slavery that is happening for too many young people in this country who 
are vulnerable. But let's make no mistake. This happens in every single 
community in this country. I had the opportunity to testify before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee last week, along with Senators Mikulski, 
Collins, and Gillibrand, regarding the importance of legislation to 
fight sex trafficking and ensure, most of all, that we understand that 
the victims of these horrific, horrific crimes need our support.
  We need to ensure that we can get them back on their feet, help them 
get

[[Page S1269]]

the support they need and make sure they can lead productive lives--and 
hold the traffickers accountable. Those who are participating in 
trafficking need to understand that we are going to work together to 
ensure they are held fully accountable and the victims do not get 
blamed for these crimes.
  The Judiciary Committee heard from experts who are dedicated to 
changing lives and helping victims. Their work is incredibly important. 
In my State of New Hampshire, the Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual 
Violence, which I had the privilege of working with as attorney 
general, has done some tremendous work in supporting victims and also 
in bringing attention to the trafficking in New Hampshire and across 
this country.
  What we know is that sex trafficking is something that is 
devastating. This is something where we need to work with local, State, 
and Federal agencies, working together to prevent trafficking, to 
provide support for those who are vulnerable in the community and are 
often targeted, whether they are runaways or people who are homeless. 
But also there are people who come from communities where it is not the 
homeless who are targeted. Children and women and also boys are 
targeted for trafficking.
  Last week I was encouraged to see that the Senate Judiciary Committee 
passed two bipartisan pieces of legislation of which I was honored to 
be a cosponsor: Senator Cornyn's Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act 
and Senator Klobuchar's Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act. I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor. I cannot wait for these bills to come to the 
floor. I hope our leadership makes this a priority because this is such 
a strong bipartisan issue.
  Also last week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed Senator 
Corker's End Modern Slavery Initiative Act, which aims to eliminate 
modern slavery throughout the world. It is totally unacceptable in this 
day and age that people are trafficked the way they are. But to mention 
it again, modern slavery is being used to support terrorism. It is 
being used to endanger the world as well. So we have to work to end it.
  I also recently helped reintroduce the bipartisan Runaway and 
Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, which helps prevent sex 
trafficking. This has been a very useful program in the State of New 
Hampshire. I see my colleague here from North Dakota. I know she shares 
with me--having been an attorney general of her State--that we 
understand that these are horrible crimes that happen in every single 
community, from my home State of New Hampshire to her home State of 
North Dakota. We are going to work together to make sure that we can 
end human trafficking, that we can hold those accountable who are 
traffickers, and, most of all, that we can support the victims of these 
horrible crimes.
  So with that I would like to turn the floor over for the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from New 
Hampshire. I think as we begin to have this broader discussion and as 
we begin to explore the kind of path for other projects such as this 
one--whether it is domestic violence, whether it is sexual assault and 
changing outcomes--we know the first obstacle is awareness.
  The first thing we need to do is to take these horrible issues, these 
dark blotches in our society out of the shadows and put them into the 
light and develop a plan and a strategy that will not only deal 
appropriately with the law enforcement component of prosecuting and 
finding appropriate penalties for people who engage in modern day 
slavery, but also it is important that we look to prevention.
  So I want to first take this opportunity to thank the senior Senator 
from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski, for not only bringing together several 
of the Senate women today who are coming to the floor to call for 
action, to stop the scourge of human trafficking but also for her long-
term commitment to women and children and society's most vulnerable.
  I think we all know that Senator Mikulski has stood tall, which for a 
woman of her stature is always a little tough. She has stood tall for 
those who have no voice in society and for those who are engaged in 
some of the most horrible victimizations that we can imagine, which 
today is the victimization of sexual human trafficking. So as the 
Senator from New Hampshire has talked about and as a former attorney 
general of North Dakota, I think I know how difficult it is to shine a 
light on a problem that most people do not recognize or are, 
unfortunately, unwilling to admit is a problem.
  When we began in the 1990s to talk about a different strategy to 
combat violence against women and domestic violence, which was an issue 
that had lurked in the shadows. In fact, for many States that was an 
issue that was considered a public health issue, not a criminal justice 
issue. I, along with a number of my women colleagues who were elected 
attorneys general, along with this body, and most noticeably now, Vice 
President Joe Biden, began to have an ongoing discussion about the 
Violence Against Women Act and what we needed to do not only to protect 
victims but to change the dynamic.
  I think that as we began to take that problem out of the shadows, as 
we began to address the concerns of so many women who for years--
literally years--had been victimized in their home, in a place that 
should be the safest place for human beings, we were able to build 
awareness and change outcomes. There is still a lot of work to do in 
domestic violence. But we believe that great strides were made simply 
because we were willing to point the finger and shine the light and say 
that this is not acceptable in our society.
  I see a lot of similarities in this fight that we are waging today 
against human trafficking. With the right strategy, the right partners, 
the right policies and persistence, we are going to turn the tide on 
human trafficking.
  While there continues to be much time and attention focused on 
intervention and recovery--I think that is rightfully so--and on 
criminal prosecution, I would like to take my time today to talk about 
preventing human trafficking in the first place. As the Senator from 
the State of New Hampshire discussed, the bills that are addressing 
this--the homeless youth bill--are absolutely critical to being a point 
of intervention, to prevent children from being on the streets, from 
being extremely vulnerable to victimization, from being extremely 
vulnerable to traffickers, and by helping those children off the 
street, by beginning to address the issues in their home that led them 
to flee in the first place. I think that is a very important first step 
to preventing human trafficking and human sex trafficking among minors.
  I also think it is important that we learn from the experiences of 
other places.
  Last year I traveled to Mexico City with Senator Klobuchar, who, as 
we know, has been a fierce advocate and a wonderful partner on this 
issue, beginning not only with her work in the Senate but her work as 
the Hennepin County attorney.
  I also traveled there with Cindy McCain. I think we would be remiss 
if we did not raise her voice and her name in this body today. She has 
been a global leader and a tireless leader, working not only in her 
State of Arizona but all across the globe. She has stood up to people 
who say this is not a problem. She has stood up to people who would 
just as soon sweep this under the rug and forget it is happening. She 
has been a leader and a champion of not only the people in her State 
and the women and children of this country but the women and children 
of the world. I am proud of our association, and I am proud of our 
friendship and the work we have been able to do together.
  When we went to Mexico, we heard from countless government officials 
and NGOs about the difficulties they face stopping this unspeakable 
crime.
  What I was particularly struck by were the stories of women and 
children coerced into this life--not forcefully, not being grabbed off 
the street against their will, but forced and coerced through promises 
of a better life, promises of someone to love and care for them. 
Unfortunately, for many of these young girls, these promises are short-
lived because these girls and women are quickly pushed into a world of

[[Page S1270]]

physical abuse, drug use, and forced sex with hundreds, if not 
thousands of men. What was once a promise of a better life is a 
nightmare relived countless times a day as these victims are sold time 
and time again, their value now strictly as a commodity to be 
constantly traded over and over again. Imagine the horror of their 
lives. Imagine the horror of their existence.
  How do we prevent this from happening? We must make sure to work with 
survivors. We must ask survivors to go to communities, to go to 
vulnerable populations, and tell their stories. The women and children 
who are most vulnerable and most susceptible need to hear firsthand the 
tactics used and, most importantly, the reality of following these 
false promises.
  Shortly after returning from Mexico City, I met with Madai Morales 
Albino from Mexico. She is an amazing survivor of human trafficking. 
She was sexually exploited for 2 years, and she successfully escaped 
while being transported from Mexico to New York City. She is now an 
activist, and she talks about her experience and helps to teach and 
prevent this crime among the youth. She has become a role model for the 
younger girls at the shelter where she was cared for in Mexico. She 
attends national and international forums and workshops as a speaker to 
talk about her experience and the horror of human trafficking. She is 
currently studying to become a lawyer so she can continue to help girls 
who are now trapped in human trafficking.
  The strength and courage of this young woman is awe-inspiring, and 
she is changing outcomes. We need more people like her in the world. We 
need more of her courage in the world, the courage to tell a story and 
then the courage to reach out and relive that horror through telling a 
story every day, the horror that was her existence.
  We must also bring hope to the hopeless and love to those who do not 
feel loved. We can do this through increased educational opportunities, 
increased job opportunities, providing the necessary social services 
infrastructure, and working to build a safer, stronger community 
overall for women and children around the world.
  Most importantly, what we should not bring to this is judgment; 
instead, bring a helping hand, bring an opportunity for a new life. 
Whether we are talking about the streets of Mexico City, Baltimore, or 
Indian Country in North Dakota, we can and we must do better. We can 
start taking action immediately in the Senate. We can directly impact 
efforts to prevent human trafficking in the United States by providing 
the resources necessary to work with some of our most vulnerable and 
most susceptible--our runaway and homeless youth.
  I urge the majority leader to bring forward S. 262, the Runaway and 
Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, a bill championed by my 
great friend Senator Leahy. We all recognize that homeless youth are 
some of if not the most vulnerable and susceptible to trafficking. This 
is certainly true in North Dakota. It is certainly true in Mexico City. 
I am certain it is true in every community where runaway and homeless 
youth exist. This bill would provide much needed resources to this 
population and would complement other antitrafficking legislation being 
addressed in the Senate that addresses prevention, intervention, and 
recovery services to victims.
  I also call on the majority leader to act by urging him to also bring 
S. 166, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act, and S. 178, the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, to the floor for a vote. I have 
worked tirelessly to push both of those bills since the last Congress. 
The Judiciary Committee reported two bills out of committee last week 
with unanimous support, and it is time to bring those bills to the 
floor for a vote. I believe all three bills should be part of a 
comprehensive approach to preventing trafficking and supporting 
victims.
  We must do everything we can in our power to stamp out human sex 
trafficking in our backyard, across the country, and across the world.
  With that, I yield the floor to my great friend from the great State 
of New York, Senator Gillibrand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I also rise to speak about human trafficking, and I 
associate myself with the comments of Senator Heitkamp.
  Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery that is alive, 
active, and must be stopped. Many of the stories we hear from traffic 
survivors sound more like plots in a horror movie than real life in the 
United States of America, but these stories are not fiction. Over and 
over we hear stories about young Americans forced into captivity, about 
young Americans forced into sexual exploitation, about young Americans 
who have no freedom to say no to a violent pimp but are still tagged 
with prostitution charges before they even turn 18. Human trafficking 
is a crime that rips families apart, breaks down the trust in our 
communities, and shatters young American lives.
  It is long overdue for Congress to pay close attention to this issue, 
and I commend my fellow female Senators for bringing this issue so 
boldly to the floor of the Senate.
  Today I will talk about what Senator Heitkamp talked about--the 
vulnerabilities that led to these young boys and girls becoming 
trafficked and how vulnerable they remain even after they have managed 
to escape from their pimps and their captivity.
  In small towns and big cities, thousands of Americans are trafficked 
each year. Every single institution these boys and girls ever relied on 
simply failed them, failed to protect them. Their families failed to 
protect them. Their schools failed to protect them. The foster system 
they were given to failed to protect them. Our laws are failing to 
protect them.
  Last month alone, in Rochester, NY, the U.S. attorney announced the 
arrest of seven people on trafficking charges. Their victims were as 
young as 14 years old. The U.S. attorney said: ``The victims in many 
cases were singled out because they were identified as being 
vulnerable.''
  We have the responsibility in Congress to end these crimes against 
the most vulnerable among us. We should pass Senator Leahy's Runaway 
and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, which would provide 
real help to runaway youth, who are especially vulnerable to this 
exploitation. We should support Senator Klobuchar's Stop Exploitation 
Through Trafficking Act, which would stop the prosecution of minors who 
have engaged in commercial sex acts. We should pass Senator Cornyn's 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which would support programs 
for survivors of human trafficking and child pornography and ensure 
that the johns who are buying trafficking victims are actually 
prosecuted in Federal court.
  We need a law that would vacate the criminal convictions of 
trafficking victims because these girls and boys are not criminals; 
they are not prostitutes; they are victims who deserve a chance to lead 
a fulfilling life. I will be introducing an amendment to Senator 
Klobuchar's bill that would vacate the criminal convictions of 
trafficked victims who were forced to break the law while they were 
trafficked. No victim of human trafficking should have to go through 
life--even after gaining their freedom from their trafficker--with 
prostitution charges on their record. We have an obligation to protect 
the most vulnerable Americans, and this vacatur amendment would help us 
do just that.
  I know that if Congress does its job and does everything it can to 
help victims of human trafficking, thousands of young women and men in 
this country will have a chance to live a fulfilling life.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURPHY. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Affordable Care Act

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, today is a make-or-break day for millions 
of Americans who are better off because of the Affordable Care Act. As 
we speak, the Supreme Court is hearing

[[Page S1271]]

oral arguments on a case known as King v. Burwell to decide whether 
Americans have access to health insurance subsidies through their State 
exchanges or whether opponents of the law--the very same people who 
continued to push for over 40 votes in the House of Representatives to 
repeal or undermine the Affordable Care Act, the same people who shut 
down this government last year because of their obsession with 
repealing the law--will win out with a paper-thin legal argument. It 
would not only be a devastating blow to millions of Americans who are 
currently receiving subsidies for their insurance, but it would destroy 
the individual health insurance markets in those States and would 
represent an incredible power grab by the Supreme Court that would 
undercut the impartiality of that Court.
  At the heart of this case is the Affordable Care Act, both the text 
and congressional intent. The question is, Did Congress intend to allow 
all Americans to benefit from affordable quality coverage across this 
country, whether they are in a State exchange or a Federal exchange?
  To answer that question, you don't have to leaf through many pages of 
the Affordable Care Act; you can stop at the very first title, which is 
on the very first page. The first section reads: ``Title I. Quality, 
Affordable Health Care for All Americans.'' All Americans--not some 
Americans who live in a State that set up an insurance exchange like 
AccessHealthCT, but all Americans.
  Before I go into a little bit of detail on this case, I wish to speak 
about this little boy. His name is Devin, and I was fortunate to meet 
with him just this last week. He is 8 years old. This picture is from 
maybe 1 or 2 years ago during one of his first trips to Washington. He 
lives with his parents and younger sister in western Connecticut.
  Devin is one of about 20,000 people with hemophilia in this country. 
To stay healthy and to support his active life, which includes 
baseball, karate, and snowboarding, Devin has to take an injection 
every other day. The injections cost about $4,000 per dose, about 
$50,000 per month. Despite the challenges his disease presents, Devin 
was all smiles when we talked about what he liked to do, about school, 
and about how much you need to walk when you come to the Capitol to 
lobby, as Devin has the past couple of years.
  The benefits of the Affordable Care Act are very clear for Devin and 
his family. His family will never have to worry about annual or 
lifetime limits on his health care. He won't have to worry, nor will 
his parents have to worry about him being denied insurance over the 
course of his life just because of his condition.
  It isn't hyperbole to say that an adverse decision by the Court would 
be life-threatening for Americans like Devin who rely on these new 
insurance protections.
  Obviously, Devin and his family aren't the only ones to benefit from 
this law. Just last week HHS released the final report on enrollment 
and showed that 8.84 million people have signed up for coverage in 
healthcare.gov States--Federal exchange States. An additional 2.8 
million signed up through State-based marketplaces, such as in 
Connecticut, for a total of 11.6 million people who have private health 
care insurance because of the Affordable Care Act and its subsidies 
which are being spread across the country. By the way, add another 10 
million people who are on Medicare because of the Affordable Care Act 
and we see why the uninsurance rate in this country is spiraling 
downward.
  The tax credits the law provided for people making less than 400 
percent of poverty are critical to the success of this law because they 
make coverage affordable. According to an HHS report from earlier this 
month, nearly 8 in 10 consumers are getting coverage for $100 or less 
after these tax credits.
  In my home State, we had a goal to enroll 70,000 new individuals 
through private insurance and Medicaid, and we hit over 200,000. But 
the good news doesn't stop there. According to a new report since the 
ACA was passed, 9.4 million people with Medicare saved $15 billion on 
prescription drugs, an average of about $1,600 per beneficiary. For 
preventive care, there are 39 million people with Medicare and Medicare 
Advantage who took advantage of at least one preventive service with no 
cost sharing in 2014. That is why the Times, USA TODAY, the Washington 
Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Politico are saying the simple 
message that now, more than ever, Americans understand the Affordable 
Care Act is working.
  Yet despite the fact it is working, opponents of the law are 
continuing to try to tear it down. So let us be clear about what a 
negative decision from the Supreme Court would mean. It would mean that 
anywhere from 8 to 10 million Americans would lose their health care 
coverage and another 5 million children could lose their coverage as 
well.
  Subsidies are important because the law envisions three interlocking 
sets of provisions: insurance protections to fix the abuses within our 
old system, the individual coverage provision to ensure we have a 
viable risk pool inside insurance, and, finally, tax credits to help 
people purchase insurance. Subsidies are the glue that holds all of 
that together.
  That is why a victory for the plaintiffs would be devastating for 
everyone, not just those who receive subsidies in healthcare.gov. The 
individual markets in these States would fall into a death spiral if 
this law was overturned. If subsidies disappear, then people can't buy 
coverage. If they can't buy coverage, then the law says the individual 
mandate in those States has to disappear. If the individual mandate 
disappears, then healthy people don't buy coverage and the insurance 
protections, such as the ban on discrimination against people with 
preexisting conditions, simply cannot work. The insurance reforms 
either vanish or rates spike to catastrophic levels for people who 
decide to get coverage.
  Don't take my word for it. The American Hospital Association warns 
that ``many more people will get sick, go bankrupt or die''--or die--if 
the Court finds for the challengers. The health insurance industry says 
taking away the tax credits would ``create severely dysfunctional 
insurance markets'' in nearly three dozen States.
  Frankly, we don't even need to talk about the detrimental effects in 
these States because this is about congressional intent, and the intent 
is clear. Sometimes when we try to figure out intent we have trouble 
because the people who wrote the law aren't here any longer or they 
have passed away. Well, there are hundreds of people who voted for this 
law who are still in Congress. All we have to do is ask them. There is 
not a single person who voted for this law who will tell us they wrote 
the law in a way that would result in the denial of subsidies to people 
who are getting health care through the State exchanges.
  The plaintiffs say this is a carrot-and-stick approach; that the 
intention was to deny subsidies to people in States that didn't set up 
their own exchange as a way to force them to set up their own exchange. 
Well, there is not a single Member of Congress who voted for the law 
who says that is how it was designed.
  Frankly, we don't even need to get to intent. We don't even need to 
survey all the people who voted for it. We just have to look at the law 
itself. The plaintiffs focus on one line that says that subsidies shall 
go to State exchanges, but they ignore another line in the law that 
says if States don't establish their own exchange, then the Federal 
exchange becomes the State exchange. That is just as plainly written as 
the one line that is the foundation of the case.
  But the entire structure of the law relies on States that don't set 
up their own exchanges getting Federal subsidies. Why would we even set 
up a Federal exchange if there weren't going to be subsidies associated 
with it? There would be no customers in the exchange if the intent of 
the law was to deny subsidies to people who bought into Federal 
exchanges. We wouldn't even have a Federal exchange.
  Second, we would have established the insurance protections in a 
fundamentally different way. We would have said insurance protections 
apply to States that set up State exchanges and they do not apply to 
States that don't establish State exchanges, because again, as I said 
before, without those subsidies, the insurance protections simply don't 
work from an actuarial basis.

[[Page S1272]]

  But that is not how the Affordable Care Act is written. The act says 
the insurance protections apply nationally, regardless of whether it is 
a State or Federal exchange. Why is that? Because subsidies were going 
to flow to a State no matter what kind of exchange they established.
  Lastly, when Congress has historically engaged in this kind of 
carrot-and-stick endeavor with States, we make it totally transparent. 
We lay out in the statute here is what we expect you to do, and if you 
don't do it, here are the consequences. We don't hide the consequences 
to be derived at through a Supreme Court case, as is the stated belief 
of the petitioners in this case.
  Lastly, the plaintiffs say: Well, don't worry about it. If the 
Supreme Court overturns this, we will just fix it. Congress can just 
come back and fix that line. Well, Congress isn't fixing anything these 
days. We can't even keep the Department of Homeland Security open and 
operating. Republicans have had 6 years to provide an alternative to 
the Affordable Care Act. We haven't seen anything more than a memo or a 
press release. If the subsidies disappear, they are not coming back. 
Congress is not fixing this problem, and 10 million Americans will lose 
their coverage.
  I want to finish by talking about one more story, and this is the 
story of a woman who lives in Westport, CT. She works as a massage 
therapist, but since she is self-employed she was uninsured and 
couldn't provide insurance for herself. Last year, when the Affordable 
Care Act was implemented, she found out she qualified for coverage in 
Connecticut and that coverage finally gave her the opportunity to see a 
doctor. She wrote the President and said:

       The cancer has been detected at a very early stage, which, 
     with a 98 percent survival rate, has saved my life. Moreover, 
     the cost of this screening and minor procedure will be far 
     less than the cost of treating a more developed cancer. Thank 
     you, Mr. President, for assuring the passage of this critical 
     legislation. You have profoundly improved the quality of my 
     life.

  The facts are clear. The Affordable Care Act is working. The intent 
of Congress is clear: to provide subsidies to all Americans, no matter 
their ZIP Code. The language of the bill is clear. That leaves us with 
one conclusion. If the Supreme Court overturns this portion of the law, 
it will be a plain and simple political power play. It will usher in a 
new era in which the Supreme Court becomes just another legislative 
body. They will be calling the authors of this bill liars and replacing 
the authors' stated intent with their own political judgment.
  For the sake of Devin and Ann and millions of others who would 
benefit from the Affordable Care Act and for the sake of American 
democracy, I hope they uphold the law.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I first wish to say to the Senator from 
Connecticut that this Senator agrees with him. It should never come 
down to this. The whole purpose of that section of the Affordable Care 
Act is in fact to provide insurance to as many people as we can, 
especially the 40 million people who for years and years have been 
going without insurance, and it is doing a pretty good job.
  In the second year of expanding the State exchanges or the Federal 
exchange, as the Senator has described, lo and behold, of the 8 to 9 
million nationwide, over 1 million of those 8 to 9 million are in my 
State of Florida. So I thank the Senator for his courage, his insight, 
and his clarity and his statement.


                         Iran's Nuclear Program

  Mr. President, I want to talk about S. 615. It is legislation filed 
last Friday, and this Senator was 1 of 11 Senators who filed it 
originally. There were five Republicans and six Democrats, and it was 
filed by the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee.
  This is legislation giving Congress a say with regard to a potential 
agreement that would be enacted in the negotiations between the United 
States, which includes the P5 plus Iran--over preventing Iran from 
having a nuclear weapon.
  This Senator was assured by the Republican sponsors of this bill that 
the bill would not come up until after the negotiations had concluded 
on March 24. Obviously, this Senator would not have sponsored 
legislation that would try to predetermine or nix the negotiations 
before they had a chance to succeed.
  Yesterday or the day before the majority leader filed a rule XIV to 
bring the process directly to the floor. It is my understanding he is 
intending to go to that legislation next week, but that still is almost 
2 weeks before the negotiations are to conclude.
  I want the negotiations to be successful. It is very important to the 
national security of the United States that Iran not have a nuclear 
weapon. That is obvious to the national security of Israel as well. Yet 
we are about to take up legislation that would start talking about the 
lifting of sanctions before an agreement has even been reached.
  Well, this Senator is not going to have any part of that. Therefore, 
if this legislation is brought up before the negotiations conclude on 
March 24, this Senator will not support the efforts to proceed to the 
consideration of the legislation in the Senate.
  It is one thing to enter into these matters of considerable national 
security and try to disrupt them, it is another thing looking at the 
consequences if these negotiations don't succeed and we can stop Iran 
from having a nuclear weapon, that one alternative, a very serious 
alternative, is war, but it is another thing to make representations to 
a Senator that are not fulfilled, and this Senator doesn't like it one 
bit.
  I conclude by saying there has been a lot of commentary about the 
Prime Minister's speech yesterday. This Senator feels like where the 
Prime Minister was arguing against negotiations that are ongoing before 
the negotiations are concluded--I don't think that is in the interest 
of the United States. I don't like that one bit.

  This Senator also feels that when a foreign leader comes in front of 
the Congress--the representatives of the American people--for what to 
this Senator is obvious political advantage in an election that is to 
take place in just 2 weeks, I don't think that is right either.
  This Senator is one of the strongest supporters of Israel, and this 
Senator has had the privilege not only of the perspective of Armed 
Services but also my past service for 6 years on the Intelligence 
Committee.
  I have visited with all of the intelligence apparatus of Israel, and 
it has been a seamless effort in trying to protect the interests of the 
United States and Israel with our intelligence apparatus. When partisan 
politics is injected into this, it is not good, and it is not good for 
the relationship.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, sadly, today the Republicans are again 
coming to the Senate floor--not to help the working people who work 
every day to make our country great--but to silence their voices.
  They aren't here to reward the hard-working families that work from 
paycheck to paycheck just to give their children a better life and the 
education that they deserve. They aren't here to pass a highway bill 
that would support millions of jobs.
  Instead, they want to hold the highway bill hostage to big polluting 
Canadian special interests and build the Keystone pipeline which will 
only create 35 permanent jobs.
  They aren't here to raise the minimum wage. They aren't here to 
expand the child care tax credit. They aren't here to ensure equal pay 
for equal work. They aren't here to try to make college more affordable 
for middle-class families. They aren't here to help workers get health 
care--we know that because right now Republicans are suing to take away 
health care from more than 8 million Americans.
  They certainly aren't here to fix our Nation's broken immigration 
system. If Republicans were interested in that, they would be 
supporting the reasonable, commonsense immigration measures proposed by 
President Obama that will result in indisputable economic gains for our 
country--raising the Nation's GDP by up to $90 billion over the next 10 
years.
  No, the majority in the House and Senate don't have time for any of 
these measures to help working families--they are too busy pursuing 
their latest attack on the middle class.
  I oppose this resolution because it would impede one of the basic 
rights of America's workers: to form a union.

[[Page S1273]]

  If enacted, this resolution would prohibit the National Labor 
Relations Board from implementing rules to streamline and modernize 
union election procedures that will ensure union elections are 
conducted in a more fair and efficient manner.
  These employees who work so hard deserve a union elections process 
that is free from unnecessary delays and wasteful stall tactics.
  Let me tell you a little bit about those tactics. This comes from the 
testimony of someone who represents unions in California.
  In 2010 a petition for representation was filed for approximately 45 
automobile mechanics. Even though there were well-established NLRB 
rules that governed the proceedings on a petition for a unit of 
automobile mechanics, management asked for hearings, extensions, filed 
objection after objection, until finally, 427 days after the petition 
was filed, the union was certified.
  Corporations are getting the benefits of increased profits and 
productivity. Why should they be allowed to stall these proceedings? 
Why do they oppose giving these workers a voice so that they can 
improve their working conditions and wages?
  First, let me tell you what these rules do not do: They do not 
mandate timetables for elections to occur. Rather, the new rules simply 
eliminate existing barriers that get in the way of providing both 
employees and employers with access to a fair election process.
  These rules do not prevent employers from discussing their views on 
unions with workers. What these modest changes will accomplish: The new 
rules, which will go into effect on April 14, will reduce unnecessary 
litigation on issues that are not relevant to the outcome of the 
election. The new rules will modernize the current outdated process. In 
the past, employers had to send out mail through the post office, which 
cost time and money. The new rule will allow employers and unions to 
file forms electronically. It will also allow the use of more modern 
forms of communication to employees through cell phones and email.
  Instead of standing up for workers across the country who are 
struggling with stagnant wages, Republicans have chosen to challenge 
these common-sense reforms.
  The right to form a union is a right guaranteed by the National Labor 
Relations Act and by the First Amendment of our Constitution.
  These modest changes will merely allow workers to exercise that right 
in a fair and efficient process in order to protect their rights, 
increase wages, and grow our Nation's middle class.
  What is so sad is that this is just the latest attack on the middle 
class and their economic security. Instead of taking up more floor time 
going after the rights of workers, let's fight to help working 
families. Instead of trying to undo measures that help the middle 
class, let's fight to do more for them.
  At a time when wages are stagnating, instead of trying to silence the 
voices of hard-working men and women, let's fight to empower them 
through collective bargaining.
  I urge my colleagues to support modernization and oppose this 
resolution. Let's let our workers know that we hear them, that we 
support them, and that we will fight to make life better for our middle 
class families.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the NLRB's current election process has 
some glaring problems, contrary to what some of my Republican 
colleagues have claimed.
  For one, the process is inefficient. In many cases across the United 
States, frivolous litigation and needless delays threaten the rights of 
workers who want to vote on union representation. Federal appellate 
courts have called union election delays ``inexcusable,'' 
``deplorable,'' and ``egregious.'' The new reforms specifically target 
those systemic inefficiencies and excessive delays.
  Secondly, the current system is outdated. Right now, the NLRB, 
employers, and unions are barred from filing forms electronically 
during the election process. And it does not allow for the use of 
modern forms of communication to employees through cell phones and 
emails. The updates will adapt the election procedures to few forms of 
technology.
  Another problem is the current system is unpredictable. Right now, 
the election process for one region of the country could be 
substantially different in another region. That adds to inefficiencies 
and confusion. The new reforms will provide uniformity and certainty in 
elections across the country.
  There is a clear problem here. The NLRB made modest, but important, 
changes to modernize and streamline the process.
  Mr. President, today, we have heard a lot about the National Labor 
Relations Board. We have heard about employers delaying workers their 
right to decide on union representation. We have heard about current 
election process that is outdated and inefficient. But, really, this 
debate is about what kind of economy we envision for our country.
  I believe that real, long-term economic growth is built from the 
middle out, not the top down. Our government has a role to play in 
investing in working families, making sure they have the opportunity to 
work hard and succeed and offering a hand to those who want to climb 
the economic ladder and provide a better life for themselves and their 
families.
  Our government and our economy should be working for all families, 
not only the wealthiest few. Thankfully, we have had the opportunity to 
put some policies into place over the past few years that have pulled 
our economy back from the brink and have started moving it in the right 
direction.
  But we have a whole lot more to do. Over the past few decades, for 
most workers wages have stayed flat or have fallen over the past five 
decades. That means that across our country today, too many families 
are struggling to make ends meet on rock-bottom wages and poor working 
conditions on the job.
  While the middle class's share of America's prosperity is at an all-
time low, the biggest corporations have posted record profits. In 
Congress, we should be working on ways to build an economy that works 
for all families, not just the wealthiest few.
  Unfortunately, once again, instead of sticking up for workers, my 
Republican colleagues are rushing to the defense of the biggest 
corporations that have an interest in keeping wages low and denying 
workers a voice to improve their workplace.
  Workers have the right to decide whether they want union 
representation. To ensure they are able to exercise that right, the 
National Labor Relations Board helps make sure workers have a free and 
fair up-or-down vote.
  So the NLRB was absolutely right to carry out its mission to review 
and streamline its election process to bring down these barriers that 
prevent workers from getting a fair vote. After a rigorous review 
process, in December of last year the NLRB made reforms to their 
election process.
  These updates will make modest, but important, changes to modernize 
and streamline the process. They will reduce unnecessary litigation on 
issues that won't affect the outcome of the election. The new reforms 
will bring the election process into the 21st century by letting 
employers and unions file forms electronically. They also will allow 
the use of more modern forms of communication to employees through cell 
phones and email. These reforms will simply standardize the election 
process across regions, which will help all sides know what to expect 
during the process.
  But some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take great 
offense to these modest changes. Instead of standing for workers across 
the country who are struggling with stagnant wages and poor working 
conditions, Republicans have chosen to challenge these common sense 
reforms with a resolution of disapproval. Instead of talking about how 
to create jobs and help working families who are struggling with 
stagnant wages, Republicans would rather roll back workers' rights to 
gain a voice at the bargaining table.
  Let's be clear. This rule is about reducing unnecessary litigation. 
And using cell phones and email to transmit information in 2015 is just 
common sense.
  By law, workers have the right to join a union so they can have a 
voice in the workplace. That is not an ambush.

[[Page S1274]]

It is their right, as guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act 
and by the First Amendment of our Constitution. So when workers want to 
vote on whether to form a union, they are not looking for special 
treatment. They are simply trying to exercise their basic rights. We as 
a nation should not turn our backs on empowering workers through 
collective bargaining, especially because that is the very thing that 
helped so many workers climb into the middle class.
  In Congress, we need to continue to work to expand economic security 
for more families. That should be our mission to move our country 
forward. This resolution would simply be a step backward.
  Instead of attacking workers who just want a voice in the workplace, 
I hope my colleagues will reject this resolution. I hope Republicans 
will join Democrats and work with us to protect workers' rights, 
increase wages, and grow our Nation's middle class.
  I truly hope we can break through the gridlock and work together on 
policies that create jobs, expand economic security, and generate 
broad-based economic growth for workers and families--not just the 
wealthiest few.
  Mr. NELSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I yield back all our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time for debate having been expired, the 
joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, 
Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 67 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Flake
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kirk
     Lankford
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Peters
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Donnelly
       
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 8) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 8

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the National Labor 
     Relations Board relating to representation case procedures 
     (published at 79 Fed. Reg. 74308 (December 15, 2014)), and 
     such rule shall have no force or effect.

                          ____________________