[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1403-S1423]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 178, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 178) to provide justice for the victims of 
     trafficking.

  Pending:

       Portman amendment No. 270, to amend the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act to enable State child protective 
     services systems to improve the identification and assessment 
     of child victims of sex trafficking.
       Portman amendment No. 271, to amend the definition of 
     ``homeless person'' under the McKinney-Vento Homeless 
     Assistance Act to include certain homeless children and 
     youth.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the Senate is presently considering a 
series of human trafficking bills that will help law enforcement and 
nongovernmental organizations to take swift aggressive action to 
protect our most vulnerable populations and work to ensure justice, 
restitution, and healing for victims of these most horrific crimes.
  Human trafficking--modern-day slavery--is not a vestige of the past. 
It is an evil presence here and now. Children and young adults are 
being bought and sold in our back yard. This problem knows no borders. 
It is happening in communities across Ohio. It is a particular problem 
in Toledo--northwest Ohio--where several north-south and east-west 
highways come together.
  It is difficult even to obtain accurate information on this depraved 
crime

[[Page S1404]]

that happens in the shadows. But we know that as many as 17,000 
individuals may be trafficked into our Nation each year, and some 
estimate that as many as 100,000 American children may be victims of 
trafficking within the United States each year.
  The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act will give the Department 
of Justice additional tools to help victims and to crack down on this 
crime. It would enhance services for victims of human trafficking, and 
it would expand victim restitution, as well as provide additional 
resources to law enforcement to help improve human trafficking 
reporting and investigation.
  There is bipartisan and bicameral support for the tracking provisions 
of this bill. This is a bill about human trafficking. We should not let 
it become a fight about abortion. I hope my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will agree with this and strip out the Hyde language 
that has become such a point of controversy. I know reasonable people 
can disagree about the Hyde amendment, but now is not the time or place 
to debate it.
  There is agreement--broad, wide, deep agreement--on the need to 
address trafficking. Americans from all walks of life have come to us 
asking that we do something. We can and we should. These new tools 
would be essential in assisting the Department of Justice, which has 
made combating trafficking a priority.
  I would like to commend Attorney General Holder for his leadership on 
this issue. Under his management, DOJ's commitment to preventing human 
trafficking and bringing these criminals to justice has never been 
stronger. The Attorney General has really stepped up on this. This bill 
will give our next Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, the tools she needs 
to build upon Holder's efforts.
  Another area where we can do more to prevent human trafficking is 
giving law enforcement in our communities the resources to find kids 
before they fall prey to traffickers. That is why I plan to introduce 
an amendment that would provide grants to local law enforcement for 
tracking down homeless and runaway youth, and that will include 
assistance for retired Federal agents to assist local law enforcement 
in these investigations. We must find these at-risk children and teens 
and bring them home before their youthful rebellion becomes something 
so much worse.
  A group of retired FBI agents in northwest Ohio came to my office and 
asked for our help in the creation of a pilot program that would allow 
retired agents to assist local law enforcement in finding runaway kids 
and teens. Generally, northwest Ohio children who become involved in 
trafficking do so within about 2 weeks of running away from home. So 
finding them quickly is essential. About one-third of runaways become 
victims of trafficking. Think of that. One-third of runaways become 
victims of trafficking.
  Toledo has just one detective working on cases of missing children, 
both adult and children. These retired FBI agents want to help local 
law enforcement investigate the 18,000 runaways in Ohio every year, but 
they need help. Police don't have the manpower to track these children, 
but every city has retired agents who could assist the overworked 
departments.
  I will also be introducing a series of amendments, which I hope will 
be bipartisan, including the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, a bill I 
introduced in the last Congress with Senator Ayotte. We know that human 
trafficking victims are especially vulnerable to sexual assault. Women 
who give birth to a child conceived through rape can often face 
intimidation from attackers who pursue, amazingly enough, parental 
rights.
  My amendment would help protect these survivors by encouraging States 
to pass laws allowing women to petition for the termination of their 
attacker's parental rights, if there is clear and convincing evidence 
the child was conceived through rape. These women have already been 
subjected to horrific crimes. They should not have to suffer a life of 
intrusion by the man who raped them.
  I was first moved to introduce this bill because of the case of Ariel 
Castro in Cleveland. He was on trial in Ohio for kidnapping, raping, 
and holding prisoner three women for nearly a decade. He asked the 
judge for parental rights to visit his 6-year-old daughter he conceived 
through rape.
  While the judge denied his request, Ohio has no law that prevents 
rapists such as Castro from claiming parental rights and forcing their 
victims to let these criminals into their children's lives. I hope this 
law encourages Ohio and other States to pass laws making it clear that 
anyone who commits such a terrible act forfeits any right to parent a 
child he forced on his victim. This amendment will help protect rape 
survivors, ensuring their right to care for their children free from 
fear.
  Senators Klobuchar, Corker, and Leahy also have their own bill, which 
they plan to offer as amendments, and which will help us to work to 
stamp out this terrible crime.
  Finally, I want to commend those in my State who have helped lead the 
way on this issue. There is a history of strong bipartisanship on this 
issue that cuts across all ideological lines. State Representative 
Teresa Fedor helped to lead a successful fight for passage of the safe 
harbor bill in the Ohio legislature 3 years ago.
  Dr. Celia Williamson, a professor of social work at the University of 
Toledo, is recognized nationally, and even internationally, as a leader 
in human trafficking research and activism. She has been a tremendous 
force on this issue. With her help and leadership, the University of 
Toledo just established the Human Trafficking and Social Justice 
Institute. The university has hosted annual human trafficking 
conferences, and the formation of this institute is a terrific next 
step in its commitment to addressing a problem that plagues Toledo and 
too often goes unacknowledged and unaddressed.
  Finally, I want to commend the members of the Lucas County Human 
Trafficking Coalition, which has had some very diverse membership and 
has worked for several years to better coordinate and provide services 
to victims.
  Human trafficking is a problem that knows no borders and, of course, 
knows no political party. I hope we can continue to work together to 
combat this awful epidemic. I hope we will be able to work through our 
issues to resolve the issue with the Hyde amendment language.
  We must take swift and aggressive language to prevent these crimes 
and work to ensure justice and restitution and healing for its victims.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, we are debating a bill today that should 
be about an issue we can all agree on--eliminating human trafficking. 
This bill should be about protecting women's health and rights and 
about fighting back against the unacceptable presence of human slavery 
in our country. In other words, if anything should be bipartisan, this 
bill is it.
  I know many of us were hoping this bill--the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act--would be an example of Republicans and Democrats 
working together because surely we can agree these problems need to be 
addressed--and urgently--and that the gridlock and dysfunction we see 
far too often in Congress should have absolutely no place in this 
discussion. So I am appalled that on a bill intended to help women, 
Republicans actually have chosen to double down on their political 
fight against women's health. Republicans have tried to sneak in a 
provision that would hurt women and drag this bill into yet another 
partisan fight. They just can't seem to help themselves.
  The provision the Republicans are hoping to sneak in--again, on a 
human trafficking bill--would be a permanent extension of the so-called 
Hyde amendment. It would move beyond the status quo, which only applies 
to appropriated taxpayer money, and expand it into the new nontax-
funding streams this bill would authorize. That means if this law 
passes--a law intended to help women who have experienced truly 
horrific violence and hardship--Congress would at the same time allow 
politicians to interfere even more with the most deeply personal health 
decisions a woman can make.
  Trying to slip a women's health restriction into a women's safety 
bill is akin to slipping a tractor ban into the farm bill. It doesn't 
make sense.
  This isn't the first time Republicans have tried this political 
stunt. Again

[[Page S1405]]

and again Republicans in Congress have picked completely unnecessary 
political fights over women's health. They threatened a government 
shutdown over Planned Parenthood funding in 2011. They have tried to 
jam through reproductive health riders on appropriations legislation. 
House Republicans even attached women's health restrictions to the 
education bill they tried to pass this month. It is shocking to see it 
happening again.
  The good news is that the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act can 
still be the bipartisan legislation it should be. Democrats are here 
and ready to work with Republicans to fix this bill and move past this 
partisan debate over women's health. We are very hopeful that once that 
happens, we can get this bill passed and take a step toward solving a 
horrible problem we all know needs a solution.
  I hope my Republican colleagues agree with me that women deserve 
better than one step backward for every step forward when it comes to 
their health and their rights. I hope they agree that a bill to end 
modern-day slavery in the United States is not the right time to try to 
sneak in a political victory for their base. If they agree, they will 
prove that by working with us rather than focusing on political fights 
we have seen more than enough of in this Congress.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to call up my amendment No. 285.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWN. I object on behalf of a number of Members on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, it is hard to adequately express my 
frustration that we can't get moving on this bill.
  First of all, the underlying bill that our friends on the other side 
are blocking progress on is a very sensible, important, constructive 
bill. I commend Senator Cornyn for having introduced this. I am proud 
to be a cosponsor.
  This is the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
  Let's be clear what this is about. We have a huge problem in this 
country. In all 50 States there are people who actually engage in the 
buying and selling of human beings, mostly women and young children, in 
a sex trade. That is what is happening. And this is a bill that would 
enhance the penalties and thereby discourage this activity. It would 
take some of the proceeds from the penalties paid by these monsters who 
would engage in this kind of activity and it would use those proceeds 
to help victims. I don't understand where the objection comes from for 
a bill such as this, and now we can't move ahead on my amendment.
  My amendment is a little bit different but it is in a similar vein. 
It is designed to help protect children from sexual predators in 
schools, and we just heard the objection. The folks on the other side 
of the aisle somehow object to legislation that would enhance a 
protection for the kids in our schools. Let me explain why this is so 
important.
  The inspiration for this bipartisan bill that I have introduced with 
Senator Manchin and which I just tried to call up as an amendment and I 
was prevented from doing so--the inspiration for this is an absolutely 
horrendous story that begins in Delaware County, PA.
  There was a schoolteacher who for years was molesting boys in his 
care. He raped one of the boys. The prosecutors discovered what was 
going on, but they never had enough evidence to actually press charges. 
The school knew what was going on, so they decided: Why don't we make 
this monster someone else's problem? And that is exactly what they did.
  They wrote a letter of recommendation so this animal could go across 
the State line--which he did--get hired by a school in West Virginia--
which he did--and become a teacher, eventually rise to be principal, 
and along the way continue molesting we don't know how many kids, but 
we do know in the end he raped and killed a 12-year-old boy. Because 
that is what these people do. And there is a practice that happens--as 
hard as this is to talk about, as unbelievable as this is in practice, 
it is a reality that some schools would like these people to become 
someone else's problem, and they actually give them a letter of 
recommendation so they can go somewhere. And they do indeed become 
someone else's problem. That is what I am trying to stop here. That is 
what we are trying to stop.
  This happened with a teacher who left Pennsylvania and went to West 
Virginia, and the little boy's name was Jeremy Bell.
  Senator Manchin from West Virginia and I have teamed up on a bill 
that would make this practice of knowingly and willfully aiding a known 
pedophile from getting a job somewhere else--we would make that 
illegal.
  We wouldn't think we should have to do that because we wouldn't think 
anybody with a conscience could do it, but it happens. We know it 
happens. We have heard these stories time and again.
  By the way, this is not such an isolated event as we would like to 
think it is. Last year alone, 459 teachers and other school employees 
across America were arrested for sexual misconduct with the kids they 
were supposed to be taking care of and looking after.
  We all know that for the vast majority of schoolteachers it would 
never occur to them. It would never cross their mind, they would never 
do such a thing. But there are a number of pedophiles--monsters who 
prey on kids. And they know where the kids are. So they try to find 
their way into these schools so they can prey on the victims.
  The 459 who were arrested last year were the ones we knew enough 
about that prosecutors felt they could prosecute, so they made an 
arrest. How many more are happening but we don't know enough of the 
specifics, we don't have a strong enough case to actually make an 
arrest?
  So far this year, we are not off to a much better start. We are 69 
days into the new school year, and already 82 people have been arrested 
across America.
  This isn't some isolated one-time problem. This is a genuine problem 
we need to do something to solve, so Senator Manchin and I have come 
together with a bill that addresses this.
  The whole idea, the whole goal, is very simple: Let's make sure 
schools are not hiring these predators and we are protecting our kids 
from them. It does that with two mechanisms, two simple provisions that 
achieve this.
  One is it requires background checks that will get the job done and 
screen out those who have a previous conviction; and it will also make 
it illegal to have this terrible practice of passing the trash--this 
terrible practice of recommending a teacher who is a known pedophile. 
Neither of these mechanisms should be controversial.
  This is almost identical legislation which passed the House 
unanimously. The House is not exactly known for not having any partisan 
divides, and yet it passed unanimously. We have Members of this body 
who were Members of the House in the last Congress and voted for it 
then, are now cosponsors of this legislation, and amazingly to me we 
are having this discussion.
  I am being blocked from offering this amendment. The language in my 
amendment is almost identical to the language we had in the child care 
development block grant, which this body voted for and all but one 
Member voted in favor of that bill, which would provide exactly this 
kind of criminal background check on employees for daycare.
  This body has voted to ensure the protection of really young kids, as 
it should have. I fully supported that. Why would we block providing 
comparable protection to kids who are just a little bit older? How can 
it be that we want to make sure pedophiles don't get into our daycare 
centers but it is OK for them to be in elementary schools, in middle 
schools, and in high schools? This makes no sense at all. And it is 
necessary, because while every State

[[Page S1406]]

has some kind of background check system, there are huge loopholes, 
there are huge gaps, there are huge inconsistencies that are allowing 
people to get through.
  Our legislation would require background checks on any adult hired by 
a school who would come in unsupervised contact with kids--teachers, 
contractors, schoolbus drivers, a sports coach--anybody so that we 
would be protecting our kids from pedophiles who actively seek the 
opportunity to prey on these kids.
  One of the things we do to make sure the background check would be 
thorough is we require that the school districts would check both the 
State and Federal databases. Let me give a story about why this is so 
important.
  In Alaska, parents got a very rude awakening when they discovered 
this story. It was on August 29 of last year. Alaska State troopers 
arrested a middle school teacher in Kiana, AK.
  The teacher had fled Missouri 4 years earlier to escape an arrest 
warrant. Multiple witnesses accused the teacher of over a decade of 
sexual and physical abuse of his own adopted kids. He had raped and 
starved his own children. These kids literally burrowed a hole through 
the wall so they could take frozen food out of the freezer. They heated 
it up on a furnace just to survive. It is just one of those 
unbelievable horror stories--while this monster was able to obtain a 
teaching certificate in Alaska and teach there--teaching kids for 4 
years.

  When asked how this could possibly happen, the Alaska Department of 
Education explained that Alaska's background checks only check the 
State's criminal registry. Now, had our legislation been in force, they 
would have been required to check the Federal registry, and they would 
have learned that he was a fugitive with an arrest warrant and a 
criminal record in another State. That is the kind of ability we have 
to have to prevent these people from going across States and committing 
these kinds of crimes.
  The other provision that I mentioned earlier is a provision that 
would preclude--make it illegal--for someone knowingly to recommend a 
pedophile to be hired at another school. Again, you would like to think 
that something like that wouldn't even be necessary. But it is, and 
another story reveals this recently.
  A Las Vegas, NV, kindergarten teacher was arrested for kidnapping a 
16-year-old girl and infecting her with a sexually transmitted disease. 
That same teacher had molested six children, all fourth and fifth 
graders, several years before when that teacher was working in the Los 
Angeles school district.
  The Los Angeles school district knew all about these allegations. In 
2009, in fact, the school district recommended settling a lawsuit they 
were facing because the teacher had molested the children. The Nevada 
school district to which the pedophile went had specifically asked if 
there were any criminal concerns regarding the teacher, and the Los 
Angeles school district not only hid the truth that they knew about 
this guy's predations, but they actually provided three references so 
that he could get hired in Las Vegas.
  So for people who say the States can solve these problems themselves, 
I would ask: What was that 16-year-old girl supposed to do? What could 
Nevada have done about the Los Angeles school district's behavior?
  So I am not going away on this. This is something that we need to do. 
I have three young kids. When any one of us parents anywhere in America 
puts our children on the school bus in the morning, we have every right 
to expect they are going to a place where they will be safe--as safe as 
they could possibly be. We know that there is more that we could be 
doing here to make them safer. It is unconscionable that we don't act 
on it.
  So I will be back, because we are going to have a vote on this one 
way or another, and I am very disappointed we couldn't have it this 
morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to follow up on something that the Senator 
from Pennsylvania just said on the process--not on the substance of 
these amendments.
  We are in a situation where we have a bill before the Senate that has 
broad bipartisan support, and it came out of the committee I chaired, 
the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a unanimous vote. Now we are stalled 
on proceedings, and I would like to emphasize what is different and why 
this bill should be moving forward in the year 2015 as opposed to the 
last few years when the other political party controlled the Senate.
  In the U.S. political system, elections are supposed to have 
consequences, and as a consequence of the last election, there is a new 
majority in the Senate. That new majority results from campaign 
positions taken in the last election that if we had a new majority, the 
Senate was going to be run in the way that James Madison implied that 
it ought to run--as a deliberative body, as a body where every Member 
could participate, where you would reach consensus, and where you give 
very serious thought to legislation that comes before this body--and do 
it in a way differently than the House of Representatives was meant to 
do business and has done business for the 230 years under our 
Constitution.
  So we ran on a platform that we would have the Senate debate and be 
open for amendments, and the leader announced that when this bill was 
going to come up, it would be an open amendment process. Everybody 
could participate. Now we are in a situation where the minority is not 
allowing us to move forward on amendments because they have objections 
to a provision that was in this bill since its introduction. Every 
Member had not only days but weeks to consider it before it came out of 
committee on a unanimous vote. And those provisions that were in this 
bill from the introduction--and every Senator knew they were in there, 
and every Senator's staff knew they were in there. If they didn't know 
that this language was in there, then they didn't read the legislation. 
There are plenty of people to read legislation around here, even beyond 
the Members of the committee.
  So this language deals with what is called the Hyde amendment, which 
for either 39 or 40 years has basically said that taxpayers' money 
should never be used to finance abortions. So all of a sudden there is 
objection to that language in this bill, which was in the bill when the 
very same Members who are objecting to it now on the floor of the 
Senate knew it was in there, and we can't move forward because they 
object to the amendment.
  So I proposed to them that they offer an amendment to strike what 
they don't like and find out where the votes are. If they win, they 
win. If they don't win, we move forward. But you can't hardly hold up a 
piece of legislation over language that is in the bill that has been 
part of the law of this country for 39 or 40 years and then say that 
you didn't know it was in there, when it was in there when you voted to 
get it out of committee.
  Senator Toomey just gave a speech about his amendment. He asked 
unanimous consent to bring it up. The minority in the Senate, which has 
the same right to offer amendments that any other Senator can offer, 
refused to let him get a vote on his amendment or even disputed the 
fact of laying an amendment aside to move forward on it. So we are at a 
standstill.
  Statistically, I would like to show how the new majority is intending 
to operate the Senate on a different basis than had been operated on in 
previous years and use statistics of last year. If the statistics are 
off by 1 or 2 numbers, I hope somebody will forgive me. But roughly, we 
had 18 rollcalls on amendments last year, because there was every 
effort to be made to stall the Senate so amendments couldn't come up 
for a vote. Already this year we have had approximately 40-some 
rollcall votes on amendments, and more than a majority of those have 
been amendments offered by the minority party in the Senate.
  So the elections showed that people want the Senate to work as a 
deliberative body, where every Senator can participate, and we ought to 
move forward on that.
  I would ask the people who object to moving forward on this amendment 
to offer an amendment to strike the provisions they don't like and move 
on so that the other several Members of the Senate who are stalled now 
on offering their amendments can offer their

[[Page S1407]]

amendments and eventually we can get through those amendments and vote 
on a bill that got out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without a 
single dissenting vote from either Republicans or Democrats.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, of course I also would like to see the 
trafficking bill go forward.
  I am looking around the floor of the Senate, and I think I am the 
only person standing on the floor who has actually prosecuted people 
for molestation and endangerment of children.
  I am not going to repeat what I said yesterday. I talked about some 
of those horrible cases, and I did mention having young children of my 
own at the time and how hard working on those cases hit me. When 
normally preparing for trials--in the evenings, in most cases--I could 
just work at home preparing for the trial. When preparing for these 
types of cases however, I didn't come home. I would work in my office 
for two reasons. I didn't want to take any chance, inadvertently, that 
one of my children would see any of the pictures or the exhibits that 
we were going to have in the trial, as graphic as they were. But also, 
I didn't want them to see their father crying, which I did as I would 
read these files, and have them ask me why I was crying, because I 
couldn't lie to them. It was better just to stay in the office.
  I say that because we have to approach this not just in the after-
the-fact manner expressed. I like the idea of having the $30 million to 
help those who have been hurt--the victims. I worry, as the House of 
Representatives worried, that if it is simply money that comes from 
fines, we are never going to see that money. All the people I 
prosecuted on crimes against young people went to prison. If you could 
have given them a $50 million fine or a $50 fine, they weren't going to 
pay it. They had no money. After their defense was over, they had no 
funds.
  At some point we are going to have to correct that. Say $30 million 
is a good target, and any fines will go into that fund, but we should 
take taxpayers' funds to make up any difference.
  When we lock these people up, we spend $25,000 or $35,000 a year to 
lock them up. But half of the time we tell the victim: It is terrible 
what happened to you. Sorry, we can't do anything for you.
  We also have to approach the things necessary to prevent what 
happened. I am filing a Leahy-Collins amendment, the Runaway and 
Homeless Youth Trafficking Prevention Act. I will file that. The 
amendment will help runaways such as Holly Austin Smith. She was 14 
years old when she was lured away from home by a man who promised her a 
glamorous life in California. Instead, he sold this 14-year-old for 
sex. She told her devastating story to the Senate Judiciary Committee 
last month. Both Senator Grassley and I were there and heard it. I was 
certainly moved by her words and call for action.
  She told us to protect girls such as her, saying that ``policies on 
prevention should be one of our highest priorities.'' I agree. That is 
why Senator Collins and I are offering this amendment.
  Of course we should have the ability to go after somebody who has 
committed these crimes. But wouldn't it be better for the victims if we 
could stop the crime from happening in the first place? If we can do 
something to help people such as this 14-year-old and we can stop it 
from happening in the first place, we would be much better off.
  Too many of the runaway and homeless youth in this country have no 
place to go. They have no place to sleep at night. They are alone on 
the street without resources or adults to protect them, and human 
traffickers know that. One shelter survey found that 50 percent of the 
homeless youth have been solicited for sex by an adult within 48 hours 
of leaving home.
  I ask any parent or grandparent in this Senate: What would you think 
if your children or grandchildren were put in that situation?
  This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue, this is a human 
issue--this is an American issue.
  It is our hope that we can work around what I hope is a momentary 
glitch in this bill so we can get to these things.
  I will say again, based on my own experience as a prosecutor and 
based on everything I have heard over the years--part of the time as 
the ranking member and part of the time as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee during the past 40 years--that when it comes to the fight 
against human trafficking, we cannot simply focus on ending demand and 
arrest our way out of this problem. We have to eliminate the conditions 
that make these children so vulnerable.
  The good news is the program supported by this amendment has helped 
thousands of young people get back on their feet by providing shelter, 
job training, and caring adults to counsel and guide them. These 
programs work. They keep kids safe, and they save lives.
  A growing number of homeless and runaway youth are LGBT, and many of 
them have been thrown out of their homes for who they are. Again, as a 
parent and grandparent, that is heartbreaking to me. We have to ensure 
that these particularly vulnerable children, who have already been 
rejected once, do not face rejection again, and that is why Senator 
Collins and I included a nondiscrimination provision in our amendment 
that will make clear that any program accepting Federal dollars must 
help care for all of these children. They can't turn these young people 
away because they do not like the way they look or dress or who they 
love. No program that takes Federal money should be allowed to 
discriminate, period.
  The nondiscrimination language in this bill is nearly identical to 
the language that 78 Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--
supported in this body when we passed the Violence Against Women Act in 
the last Congress, the Leahy-Crapo bill. It is the same language the 
Republican-controlled House passed and the President signed into law 2 
years ago.
  Last year, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I moved 
this legislation through committee and Senator Grassley and Senator 
Cornyn, to their credit, and almost every Republican on the Judiciary 
Committee voted for it. If these protections are acceptable for adult 
victims of domestic and sexual violence, why shouldn't they be for 
children? No one should be discriminated against, but especially not 
these vulnerable children who have already faced more adversity than 
many of us will ever know.
  We, as Senators, lead a privileged and sheltered life. We work hard, 
but it is still a privileged and sheltered life. We are not facing what 
these children are facing--a scared, vulnerable, lonely child at a bus 
stop or trying to get somebody to buy them a pizza because they are 
hungry or looking for a place where they can sleep out of the cold. We 
are never going to face that, but too many Americans do.
  Some may argue and say that the antidiscrimination language somehow 
threatens religious freedom. That is not true. No one's religious 
freedom is threatened by this language. This is not about religion, it 
about supporting all of the children who most desperately need our 
help.
  I understand their concerns. We have narrowed the scope of this 
provision so it applies only to these programs being reauthorized in 
this amendment. We have also clarified that nothing in this bill stops 
organizations from providing necessary sex-specific programming, such 
as shelters for homeless, runaway, or trafficked girls.
  I have heard from dozens of service providers in my State of Vermont, 
and also across the country, that these programs work.
  As Cyndi Lauper, a long-time advocate for homeless and runaway youth, 
wrote in an op-ed for The Hill yesterday, ``The time to act is now, 
because homeless youth don't have the time for us to wait until 
tomorrow.''
  Who will help these young people if we do not? These children are too 
often left behind, and for too many being left behind means being 
trafficked. We cannot and should not leave them behind today.
  I urge all Senators that when the amendment is called up to support 
it. I ask unanimous consent that the op-ed that was in The Hill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S1408]]

                    [From The Hill, March 10, 2015]

 Don't Let the Senate Throw Away 40 Percent of America's Homeless Youth

                           (By Cyndi Lauper)

       ``Enough is enough.'' It's a phrase that is said all too 
     often about so many issues in our society, but unfortunately 
     not enough when it comes to our nation's most vulnerable 
     young people.
       Congress must reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth 
     Act (RHYA), our nation's only federal law that specifically 
     funds vital services for homeless youth. Republicans and 
     Democrats have come together to ensure that our Federal 
     Government offers much needed support to all homeless youth.
       Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) 
     have introduced bipartisan legislation to reauthorize RHYA, 
     which will likely be brought up for a floor vote in the 
     Senate this week--possibly as soon as today.
       The act includes a non-discrimination clause that will help 
     ensure lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) 
     homeless youth not only have access to critical services, but 
     that those services are safe, welcoming, and tailored to meet 
     the needs of all youth.
       We need that clause and some groups are trying to push to 
     have it taken out. I was taught to listen to Proverbs 31: 
     Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves. Our 
     kids need us to protect them, not to discriminate against 
     them.
       Research shows that while LGBT youth make up to seven 
     percent of the general youth population, they comprise, on 
     average, 40 percent of the 1.6 million youth that are 
     homeless in this country each year. Think about that. It's 
     impossible to ignore.
       There is no getting around the fact that these kids are too 
     often being thrown out of their homes and left to fend for 
     themselves on the streets. The fact that this occurs each and 
     every day in our country is simply a tragedy--a tragedy that 
     does not have to continue.
       At the True Colors Fund, we continue to hear stories of 
     young people being discriminated against, offered improper 
     services, and even turned away by service providers just 
     because they happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or 
     transgender. By continuing to leave 40 percent of our 
     homeless youth unprotected, we are cutting our society off at 
     the knees.
       Kids actually ARE our future. What kind of future do we 
     have in store if we do not care for all of our youth? ALL 
     deserve to have their needs met so that these incredible and 
     courageous young people can achieve their dreams and become 
     healthy, happy, and contributing members of our society. 
     These are our future teachers, parents, and leaders and we 
     cannot afford to leave even one of them behind.
       Programs and services receiving federal funding must be 
     inclusive of all youth. Congress can start by passing the 
     Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act to 
     ensure that all youth are protected in the vital programs 
     that it would reauthorize. The time to act is now, because 
     homeless youth don't have the time for us to wait until 
     tomorrow.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment to 
Senator Cornyn's bill, S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking 
Act.
  Under current law, there are many trafficking victims who, even after 
gaining freedom from their captors, have to live their lives stuck with 
a criminal record because of things they were forced to do in 
captivity.
  Imagine being freed from the hell of sexual slavery only to find 
yourself unable to get a job or stable housing because the law 
considers you a criminal.
  My amendment, the Federal Criminal Procedure Post-Conviction Relief 
For Victims of Trafficking Act, would vacate the criminal convictions 
of trafficking victims who were forced to break the law while they were 
trafficked. It would expunge the criminal records of trafficking 
victims and it would give trafficking victims a chance to restart their 
lives without stigma and without a criminal record.
  These boys and girls were snatched into captivity. They were forced 
into sexual slavery, and they were denied the freedom to make their own 
decisions, including the chance to say no to committing a crime.
  These victims are not criminals. Their bodies are scarred. Their 
memories are shaken by trauma. The least Congress can do is give them 
the dignity of a clean record and a new chance to lead a fulfilling 
life. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I also wish to urge my colleagues to support a bill Senator Rubio and 
I introduced called the Strengthening the Child Welfare Response to 
Trafficking Act. This bill would require each State to develop a plan 
to protect young victims of labor and sex trafficking from falling back 
into captivity after they have escaped.
  As it stands now, many of the various services and programs that are 
meant to keep children from these dangerous, oppressive cycles are 
failing to do their jobs. Instead of being protected and comforted as 
victims of violent crime, young trafficking survivors are sent into the 
juvenile justice system and treated as criminals--as if it were their 
own fault and their own choice that they were held in captivity and 
forced into exploitation. This is just not the case.
  This bill would give American children better trained protective 
service workers, better lines of communication between victims and 
protective services, and better data on where trafficking crimes are 
actually occurring, how often, and whom traffickers are targeting.
  I commend my colleagues for bringing this issue of human trafficking 
so boldly to the Senate floor, and I encourage everyone in this Chamber 
to support these legislative efforts to solve our country's trafficking 
problem.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 284 to Amendment No. 271

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk, Vitter amendment No. 284, to Portman amendment No. 271, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 284 to amendment No. 271.

  Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
 to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who 
       are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 301 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     following'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as 
     paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively, and indenting such 
     paragraphs, as redesignated, an additional 2 ems to the 
     right; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Definition.--Acknowledging the right of birthright 
     citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th Amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States, a person born in the 
     United States shall be considered `subject to the 
     jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection 
     (a)(1) only if the person is born in the United States and at 
     least 1 of the person's parents is--
       ``(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
       ``(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in 
     the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
       ``(3) an alien performing active service in the armed 
     forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States 
     Code).''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) 
     may not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality 
     status of any person born before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Severability.--If any provision of this section or any 
     amendment made by this section, or any application of such 
     provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held 
     to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions of 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act and the 
     application of the provision or amendment to any other person 
     or circumstance shall not be affected.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is the same amendment I presented--
tried to present--and discussed on the floor of the Senate yesterday. 
It addresses a very serious problem with our

[[Page S1409]]

broken immigration system as well as a problem that leads to serious 
abuse and trafficking, which is why it is certainly relevant and 
pertinent in this ongoing discussion of the bill on the floor.
  First of all, let me again compliment Senator Cornyn and everyone who 
has joined him on a bipartisan basis in support of his antihuman 
trafficking amendment. I think that underlying bill is very positive 
and very significant. I certainly fully support it, apart from how my 
amendment fares. Obviously I hope my now second-degree amendment to the 
Portman amendment is adopted, but I certainly support this underlying 
effort, which is very important.
  As I said, my amendment pertains to birthright citizenship and the 
fact that that now acts as an enormous magnet to increase and encourage 
illegal crossings into our country. It also has spawned an entire 
subculture and industry, quite frankly, that has given rise to 
significant abuse--often very dangerous and horrific conditions for the 
women and families who are caught in it.
  Yesterday, as part of my floor statement, I submitted for the Record 
several news reports that underscored these cases of abuse. This came 
to light in part because of the raid by Federal agencies just within 
the last few weeks of these so-called birth tourism businesses, and 
those Federal raids uncovered some truly grizzly situations in 
California and elsewhere that underscore my point.
  This ad, which is an ad on behalf of one of these birth tourism 
companies in China, also underscores my point. The Presiding Officer 
and I couldn't come up with a cartoon such as this and call it fiction 
if we were challenged to, but this is real. This is an actual cartoon 
ad enticing birth mothers in China to go to the United States, to come 
back with their baby having been born in the United States, and the 
baby wrapped in the American flag means automatic U.S. citizen. That of 
course triggers all sorts of significant benefits and opportunities for 
the immediate family of that baby to in the future come to the United 
States and become citizens.
  This birthright citizenship has clearly mushroomed into a significant 
problem and a significant form of abuse of our immigration system.
  According to the Center for Immigration Studies, every year about 
300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal aliens in the United 
States, and under this practice--and I underscore ``practice''--of 
birthright citizenship--and I will come back to that word because it is 
not mandated by the Constitution--they automatically are recognized as 
U.S. citizens simply and purely because of the physical location of 
their physical birth.
  I said ``practice'' for a reason. It is not mandated by the 
Constitution as opposed to what we hear on a regular basis. It isn't 
even mandated by statutory law. It is the practice of several 
administrations, including this one. It is a very uncommon practice if 
we look worldwide. Only Canada, among advanced or industrialized 
countries, follows this practice along with the United States. No other 
advanced or industrialized country--for instance, no European country--
follows this practice of counting folks, giving them citizenship based 
purely on the fact, on the accident of the location of their physical 
birth.
  My amendment would change this. It would simply say a person can only 
be a citizen if they were born in this country and at least one parent 
is a U.S. citizen or a legal, valid green card holder or a serving 
member of the U.S. military. That is a commonsense rule that I think 
the vast--in fact, I know from public polling and other means--the vast 
majority of Americans of all stripes, of all walks of life, and of both 
parties support.
  Again, let me be clear. My amendment would say a child born in this 
country is a U.S. citizen if they are born in this country and at least 
one of the parents is a U.S. citizen or a valid green card holder or a 
member of the U.S. military.
  If there is any policy reason why that rule is unreasonable, I would 
love to hear it. I have been promoting this debate, I have been pushing 
this change of policy for several years now, and I have never heard a 
real debate on the policy, on the merits. There are lots of excuses 
that people don't want to bring this up, don't want to have a vote, but 
I have never heard a real debate and objection on the merits.
  That being said, let me move to one of the excuses, and the most 
popular excuse given is that somehow this is embedded in the 
Constitution--specifically, the 14th Amendment--and we can't change 
this absent a constitutional amendment. I am absolutely convinced that 
is not true, and I will explain why.
  The first reason I think we can glean that it is not true is the 
language of the 14th Amendment. That is a good place to start, right? 
We are talking about the 14th Amendment. We are talking about a 
specific constitutional provision, so let's start by going there and 
see what it says. Does it say everyone physically born in this country 
is a U.S. citizen, period? No, it does not. So what does it say? It 
extends citizenship to ``all persons born or naturalized in the United 
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'' The key phrase is 
``and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.''
  As the Presiding Officer knows, our Founding Fathers, including our 
later Founding Fathers who came up with the language of the 14th 
Amendment, chose their words carefully, and it is a fundamental rule of 
either constitutional or statutory construction that any word there, 
any phrase there must be there for a reason. It is not there just to 
add extra words without adding meaning.
  So that phrase absolutely has to mean something. It has to be there 
for a reason. When we look at the history of the 14th Amendment, the 
debate, the discussion in Congress, it is very clear it was there for a 
reason. It was there to exclude persons born in the United States who 
had allegiance, who had some calling to another country. Specifically, 
the folks participating in that debate talking about this language 
said, We are not including American Indians; they have an allegiance to 
the tribe. We are not including aliens. Aliens--that word was broadly 
used. We are not including aliens. That certainly includes in today's 
language illegal aliens who have an allegiance to another country. They 
are citizens of another country. We are not including the children of 
diplomats who happen to be born here during their diplomat parents' 
stay. They clearly are citizens of another country. They have an 
allegiance to another country.

  This line of thought was further elucidated by court decisions. In 
fact, there is a specific court decision with regard to American 
Indians. The Court directly said in that case, no, the 14th Amendment 
does not make American Indian children automatically U.S. citizens--
based on the specific language I am citing. Because of that, it wasn't 
until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was passed, explicitly making 
those children American citizens, that they became American citizens. 
Much more recently, respected jurists such as Judge Richard Posner of 
the Seventh Circuit wrote in a 2003 case:

       Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it 
     amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to 
     the nonsense.

  Talking specifically about birthright citizenship. So I hope we get 
through these excuses, these flawed constitutional arguments, these 
flawed arguments. Really, they are excuses to avoid the debate, to 
avoid the issue, to avoid giving any reason why we should not go to the 
rule I am proposing. Why we should, in fact, recognize any child 
physically born in this country as automatically a U.S. citizen, even 
if neither parent is a citizen, neither parent is here in the country 
legally, neither parent is a green card holder, neither parent is a 
serving member of the U.S. Armed Services.
  As I explained at the beginning, this is a very real, in fact, 
exploding phenomenon. There is a whole industry, an underworld, that is 
selling so-called birth tourism. This ridiculous but true cartoon is an 
example. This acts as a magnet--a potent, powerful magnet growing in 
power by the year to lure more and more folks to come across the border 
in specific cases to have their babies here, 300,000 to 400,000 per 
year.
  In the last few weeks, as I mentioned earlier, there was a raid by 
the relevant Federal agencies on some of

[[Page S1410]]

these underworld and trafficking operations related to birth tourism. 
It hit the news. It made significant news, as it should have. It was a 
significant law enforcement action. I applaud that action. It is a 
dangerous element. It is an underworld, usually criminal elements in 
the midst of that, oftentimes abusing the women and children who have 
been placed into their hands.
  Clearly, the most effective way to put an immediate end to all of 
this is not simply conducting a law enforcement raid once every 5 years 
or once every 3 years or even once a week. Clearly, the most effective 
way to end this is to end the practice of birthright citizenship. That 
is what my amendment--now a second-degree amendment pending to the 
Portman amendment--would do.
  I urge all of my colleagues to put an end to this nonsense, as Judge 
Posner said in his dicta, to set our policy straight, to adopt the 
commonsense position of the vast majority of the American people, to 
adopt the same policy of every advanced industrialized country now save 
us and Canada, and to adopt this language on the present bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Capito). The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I want to talk about the bill we are 
looking at now, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Certainly 
there is nothing more hideous, nothing more morally offensive than the 
sexual exploitation of a human being. Take that exploitation today at a 
level that happens over and over again with children and with adults. 
This is modern-day slavery. It exists right here in our country and all 
over the world. Slavery officially ended in the United States 150 years 
ago. Worldwide there may be more people involved in enslaved activity 
and labor or in sex trafficking than at any other time.
  According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 
at least 100,000 American children each year are victims of commercial 
child prostitution, child trafficking, other children brought to this 
country. Certainly this is not a tragedy that is isolated in the United 
States. In fact, it is worse than other places, but it is unacceptable 
in all places.
  Women and children, especially young girls, are advertised online 
where buyers purchase them with ease, generally with anonymity, and 
usually with impunity. We are told this happens in most cities in our 
country and in every State in our country. But this fight against sex 
trafficking and labor trafficking isn't just a law enforcement issue, 
it is a human rights issue, and we should take it as seriously as we 
possibly can take anything.
  That is why I was pleased to join Senator Cornyn and Senator Ayotte 
and others in cosponsoring and supporting the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act. This act would provide law enforcement, the courts, 
and antitrafficking task forces with the necessary tools to help them 
track down traffickers; and it would also help victims restore their 
lives.
  Last year we were able to pass the continuation of the Victims of 
Child Abuse Act, of which in our State we have 22 centers. We have 
hundreds of centers in the country where the beginning of restoration 
comes with that first interview, that first determination. We are 
putting this behind us and moving forward. That same thing needs to 
happen with victims of exploitation. This bill helps victims of 
trafficking who are often invisible, often underserved, often unknown 
by anybody in the community where they have been taken except a person 
who somehow has seized control of them and the people with whom that 
person deals.
  This bill would create grants for State and local governments to 
develop comprehensive systems to address these crimes and to provide 
services for the victims of these crimes. This legislation would allow 
wiretaps obtained through State courts to be used to stop child sex 
trafficking. This would train Federal prosecutors and judges on the 
importance of requesting and ordering restitution.
  In the last few days we passed a law that hopefully will wind up on 
the President's desk so there could be some compensation for victims of 
child pornography. We need to have that same kind of restitution and 
seizing of assets of these criminals who use people in this way, and 
this bill allows some of those things to happen. It trains law 
enforcement on the physical and mental services that are immediately 
necessary, and necessary in a longer term, for victims of trafficking.
  The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act has been endorsed by 200 
advocacy groups. Those would include the NAACP, the National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children, Rights4Girls, the National Association 
to Protect Children, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National 
Conference of State Legislators. We need to get this done.
  The elimination of sex trafficking has to be also focused on the 
demand side. Without the buyers and facilitators, sex trafficking 
wouldn't happen. Labor trafficking wouldn't happen unless there were 
buyers of that unwilling labor. Neither of these things should be 
allowed to continue. This bill deals with this topic in our country. I 
know the Foreign Relations Committee is looking at what we can do to 
encourage the elimination of this travesty and tragedy all over the 
world.
  We have to take a stand against this modern-day slavery. This is a 
problem that I hope we see Senators on both sides of the aisle step up 
to in the next few days and hopefully this week and figure out how to 
serve.


                        Remembering Tom Schweich

  Madam President, this is the first chance I have had to be on the 
floor since I attended a memorial service a week ago yesterday in our 
State memorializing the life of our State auditor, Tom Schweich. Tom 
Schweich was very smart. He was very capable. He was very good at his 
job. He had a wonderful family. He had established such a record as 
State auditor that at the end of his first term, Tom Schweich, a 
Republican, wasn't even opposed by a Democrat. I think it was the first 
time in our State since the 1880s that the Democrats had not offered a 
candidate for any State office.
  Sometimes people with great capacity and great opportunity can face 
challenges that others do not see. Tom's family is missing him. His 
friends are missing him. Missouri will miss him but certainly benefited 
from his good work. I am thinking today, as I have every day since I 
heard the news of his death, about the service he provided, the lost 
opportunity of not having him with us any longer, and I am thinking 
about his family.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I first want to thank my colleagues 
who are continuing to work on this very important issue of sex 
trafficking, Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and Senator Leahy, the ranking member, who has long been 
working on this issue and has a very important bill of his own related 
to this, as well as Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn and I have worked 
together on the sex trafficking issue for the past year. We are 
cosponsors of each other's bills. We have worked in the past on other 
judiciary issues, including a successful bill on prescription drug 
take-backs, where we just recently were able to get the rules out and 
got to work on that very important issue. I thank him for his good 
work. We continue to work on the bill, the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act. We know there are some major issues that have come up, 
and we continue to look for a path forward on that issue.

  I do want to point out that sometimes in all of the disagreements, 
what gets lost is the good that needs to be done and why this bill is 
so important. It would support victims by taking fines and criminal 
assets from convicted human traffickers and directing them toward 
services and treatment to help these victims restore their lives.
  I know as a prosecutor in my former job that if people get the help 
they need--if they can go to a shelter and they have an alternative to 
a pimp--they will have a fighting chance of getting their life together 
again and not going back into that cycle of violence.

[[Page S1411]]

  They also, by doing this--and we have done a lot of this in 
Minnesota--if we give them the support they need, then they will 
testify against the person who is running that sex trafficking ring, 
against the perpetrator. We had a 40-year sentence last year in St. 
Paul, MN, against someone who was running a sex trafficking ring. That 
was because we were able to provide the support the victims need, and 
that is what Senator Cornyn's bill is about. It doesn't only help 
victims, as I said, it also helps law enforcement and ensures that the 
criminals, including johns, are brought to justice under our law 
because a financial transaction should not mask a sexual assault or 
rape on a child.
  I think people often think of sex trafficking as something that is 
just happening in another country, in another part of the world. It is, 
in fact, the third largest enterprise in the world. First is illegal 
drugs, then illegal guns, and then the illegal trafficking of people, 
primarily kids. That is going on in our world right now. But what 
people don't always expect is that in the United States, when we have 
sex trafficking cases, 83 percent of the victims are from our own 
country. Eighty-three percent of the victims are from the oil patches 
in North Dakota, from the streets of Minneapolis, and from the hills of 
West Virginia. This is happening in our country right now.
  That is why this pair of bills, Senator Cornyn's bill and the bill I 
have--the safe harbor bill that passed through the Judiciary Committee 
unanimously last week--is designed to focus on domestic trafficking. It 
does have international implications because if we do our job and we 
show as a country that we take this seriously, it will help us partner 
with other countries.
  Senator Heitkamp, Cindy McCain, and I went down to Mexico last spring 
to focus on partnering with Mexico. They have been enormous help in 
some of the Federal prosecutions for sex trafficking rings we have had 
in our country--girls who have been brought across the border from 
Mexico. They have helped with that. We have met with the Attorney 
General as well as the head of their Federal Police on more work that 
can be done.
  But just think about what is happening right now in our country. Just 
in the last few weeks, five St. Paul, MN, residents were charged with 
running a multistate sex trafficking ring. One of the alleged victims 
was 16 years old. Last month a man was indicted in Federal court under 
the leadership of our U.S. attorney in Minnesota. What was he indicted 
for? He was indicted for trafficking a 12-year-old girl, a young girl 
in Rochester, MN, who got a text that said: Come to a party. The girl 
shows up where she is supposed to go; it is the parking lot of a 
McDonald's. She gets shoved in the car, along with her friend. They are 
brought up to the Twin Cities. The man rapes her and takes sexually 
explicit pictures of her and puts them on Craigslist. The next day she 
is sold to two guys, and she is raped by those two men. That happened 
in Minnesota. The charges were just filed.
  The average age of a victim of sex trafficking is 12 years old--not 
old enough to go to a high school prom, not old enough to drive. That 
is what is happening in our country right now.
  What can we do? Well, I discussed Senator Cornyn's bill and the 
importance of that bill. I hope we can work through these issues. There 
is also the other bill, the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act. 
That would make sure victims of sex trafficking, like the 12-year-old 
Rochester girl, are treated as victims. This is a bill that passed 
through the Judiciary Committee. I thank 26 of my colleagues across the 
Senate for cosponsoring this bill. It has been an honor to work with 
them, with Senator Cornyn as the Republican lead.
  I appreciate the help of the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 
the Fraternal Order of Police, Shared Hope International, and the 
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence.
  This bill is different from the bill we have in front of us on the 
floor, but it has the same focus. What this bill does is it says: Let's 
look at some of these models that have worked across the country. One 
of them is my State, and it is called the safe harbor law. What it does 
is that when States do this, they basically aren't prosecuting these 
12-year-old or 15-year-old girls or 16-year-old boys; they are seeing 
them as victims, and then they give them the kinds of services they 
need. A version of this bill, led by Erik Paulsen, one of my Republican 
Congressmen, passed through the House last year. I know the Presiding 
Officer was there at that time. So I feel good about this bill's 
chances in the House as well as in the Senate.
  Fifteen States across the country already have these safe harbor 
laws, and another 12 States are making good progress in the direction 
that we need, so we are not starting from scratch. What the bill does 
is simply give incentives for States to adopt these kinds of laws.
  The bill also creates a national strategy to combat human trafficking 
which would encourage cooperation and coordination among all the 
agencies that work on the problem--Federal, State, tribal, and local. 
Our law enforcement officers and prosecutors, as I mentioned, have to 
work together on this issue at all levels, but law enforcement can't do 
it alone. We need to make sure we are giving them the right support, 
and that is what this national strategy is about.
  Other parts of the bill include allowing victims of sex trafficking 
to be eligible for the Job Corps program to help them get back on their 
feet.
  I am also pleased to have included in this safe harbor bill, in the 
Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act, a provision that Senators 
Whitehouse and Sessions worked on that got included in our bill to 
clarify the authority of the U.S. Marshals Service to assist local law 
enforcement agencies in locating missing children.
  I also know Senator Leahy and Senator Collins have a very important 
bill that I am a cosponsor of, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and 
Trafficking Prevention Act, which we would like to be considered either 
as a part of this bill, if we can work out these other issues, or on 
its own. It is a very important bill.
  I have been very impressed by the bipartisan work we have done today. 
I was also very excited when all the women Senators, including the 
Presiding Officer, came together and asked for a hearing under Senator 
Grassley's and Senator Leahy's leadership. We had a very good hearing, 
and I think we can move from there.
  This is one of those issues which people haven't talked about a lot 
in our country for a long time. I think one of the reasons it has come 
to the forefront is because of the Internet--something we love. More 
and more of these kinds of purchases can be made behind closed doors 
and out of the jurisdiction of any law enforcement officers if they 
don't see it happening. Well, that is what happened with that 12-year-
old girl in Rochester; she just received a text.
  This is not only going to take Congress getting the bills done, it 
will also take the work of the private sector. I have been impressed by 
the work by our hotels and transportation companies, places such as the 
Radisson hotels and our various transportation companies that have 
really stepped up and trained their employees because they are on the 
frontlines, they can look for problems, and they can report them to law 
enforcement. That is something which we can not legislate; that is 
something which is just happening.
  I know there are a number of amendments--some I like and some I do 
not. I hope we can work through those as well.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and thank all of those--especially 
Senator Leahy, whose chair I am temporarily filling here on the floor, 
as he has spent a lot of time watching over this bill the last 2 days. 
I again thank Senator Cornyn for his good work.
  I yield the floor.
  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. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Tribute to Brian Phillips

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to a gentleman 
from Rosebud, TX, who has helped this

[[Page S1412]]

Senator from Utah on occasions too numerous to count and in ways 
impossible to measure. For over 4 years Brian Phillips has dutifully 
served as my communications director. As he prepares to pursue new 
opportunities, I want to pause and acknowledge his service to me, to my 
office, to the people of Utah, and to our Nation.
  The role of communications director in a Senate office is not for the 
faint of heart nor is it for the arrogant or overconfident. Many 
believe the job of a communications director is to rack up style 
points, political positioning, and positive spin. I have learned from 
Brian that a true communications director is laser-focused on 
substance, rock solid in his principles, and devoted to creating a 
space for people to hear and understand a message. He has expanded my 
view of what communication truly is and what it can be--what it should 
be.
  Brian brought to my office the grittiness of his Texas roots, his 
passion from years on the campaign trail, the wisdom of one who has 
been tested in tough times, and the vision of a conservative reformer 
who has seen the view from higher up. I am certain there were times 
when Brian wondered what in the world he had gotten himself into with a 
freshman Senator and a ragtag team from Utah. I am also certain we are 
all better in what we do because he was willing to stand with us.
  Brian is more than a communications director. He is a trusted 
counselor. I trust Brian's assessment of complex situations and count 
on his counsel to navigate challenging circumstances and to maximize 
seemingly hidden opportunities. No one has prepared me better to answer 
hard questions or deliver vital messages at critical moments. I would 
put Brian's uncanny sixth sense--his ``Spidey'' sense, as he calls it--
about what lurks around corners up against anyone's communications 
professional anywhere. Brian is a master at leading people into 
strategic thinking, sometimes through heated discussions, but always to 
the higher ground of meaningful dialog.
  Brian is comfortable with and capable of engaging people from across 
the professional and personal spectrum. I have watched him work with 
Senators and staff, with interns and individual Utahns, jaded 
journalists and passionate groups of grass-roots activists. He sets 
everyone at ease, provides an honest assessment, pushes when needed, 
pulls when necessary, and through pushes, pulls, nudges, and shoves, 
gets everyone to the best possible place. To watch him work is 
extraordinary.
  There are many in this town who simply look out for themselves. There 
are many who judge their success by their own headlines, bylines, and 
story lines. I am most thankful that Brian Phillips put me and my 
staff, along with the people of Utah and the people of this Nation, 
ahead of his own interests. Because he put others first, he has created 
a legacy that will last.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, we are here today and apparently this 
week to discuss legislation pending before the Senate, the Justice for 
Victims of Trafficking Act.
  We have a serious problem in this country and around the globe in 
regard to human trafficking. This legislation is an issue that needs to 
be addressed and ought not be delayed. In fact, many from across the 
country are asking us to do just that, including hundreds of Kansans 
who are concerned about the rights of individuals, the rights of women 
and men across the country. Congress has legislation now pending that 
seems to me to be very straightforward and common sense in trying to 
eliminate this scourge from our country.

  I want to highlight what I think is unfortunately developing in the 
Senate. I would refer back to the elections of November 2014, in which, 
I thought, at least one of the messages the American people delivered 
to us through their votes was a desire to see that legislation--
particularly legislation such as this--be addressed, that the Senate 
consider it, amendments be offered, votes be taken, and ultimately 
legislation be approved or disapproved by the Senate. Unfortunately, we 
still find ourselves in a position in which we are unable to move 
forward on this legislation to consider amendments.
  I would guess that some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle would indicate that when the Republicans were in the minority 
they from time to time blocked consideration of legislation pending. I 
would tell you, that in my view, when I was a participant in that 
process, it was because of the belief that we would have no opportunity 
to offer amendments to legislation then pending. What I want to see is 
how the Senate can process legislation, and what I want is for every 
Member of the Senate to have the opportunity to offer amendments, to 
have them considered, to be voted on, and that right should exist for 
every Republican Senator and every Democratic Senator. We should be in 
a position in which we can resolve our differences not by blocking the 
consideration of an important piece of legislation but by taking a vote 
on an amendment offered by a Senator from a State here in the United 
States and that the Senators have an opportunity to present their case, 
votes be taken, and issues be resolved. Unfortunately, we are in a 
position where we are even unable to consider this legislation, and I 
would ask that this circumstance come to an end.
  Again, in my view, a message from November 2014--the last time voters 
spoke in the United States--was, could we at least have a Congress that 
can function, that can consider issues, and where votes can be cast and 
decisions made. We find ourselves one more time in a situation in which 
we are unable even to get to the bill to enable that consideration to 
occur.
  At least as stated in the press, there is an argument about a 
provision in the legislation. I would again say that if there is a 
provision in the legislation, despite the fact that it was unanimously 
approved by the committee--every Republican and Democrat voted for it. 
And now there is this claim that they are opposed to that. If you are 
opposed to something, the way to solve it is not to block consideration 
of the bill. The way to solve it is to allow the bill to be considered, 
and if you oppose something in the bill, offer an amendment, have a 
debate, and let the votes decide here on the Senate floor whether that 
provision should remain in or be removed.
  That provision that people are indicating is causing problems is one 
that is related to the public funding of abortions. It is a provision 
that has been law since the 1970s. It was voted on many times in the 
Senate, and 23 Senators voted for that provision in a spending bill in 
2014--just last year.
  It appears we are manufacturing problems that don't really exist. 
This provision was in the bill when the committee considered it, when 
the committee approved it. Now as we bring this bipartisan bill to the 
Senate floor, there are those who are saying we can't consider it 
because this provision is included. I would indicate that the idea of 
public funding--the use of taxpayer dollars to support abortion--is 
disapproved by 7 out of 10 Americans. This is not a radical kind of 
issue or proposal. But my point is that we should have the opportunity 
to debate this and every other item within the bill, reach a 
conclusion, and move forward on a piece of legislation that is 
important in trying to protect the lives and safety of people across 
our country, particularly women and children.
  So my plea to my colleagues is this. Could we again get to the point 
where the Senate functions, where we debate bills, votes are taken, and 
issues of importance are considered. I hope I learn later today that is 
the case--that we can move forward in resolution of this legislation.
  I am here to indicate I oppose public funding of abortion. I support 
the trafficking legislation now pending. But I will never have the 
opportunity to demonstrate that because we are at a point in which no 
legislation is able to be considered.
  Madam President, I thank you for the opportunity to address the 
Senate.
  I notice the Senator from Wyoming is on the floor, and I would be 
happy to yield the floor for him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

[[Page S1413]]

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I agree entirely with my friend, the 
Senator from Kansas, and I thank him for his leadership and thoughtful 
deliberation on this matter.
  I would like for a moment to talk about this bill that is on the 
floor, S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. I have an 
amendment that I am offering today on human trafficking in Indian 
Country. I will tell you that human trafficking is widespread in Indian 
Country, and we have to do everything we can to stop it. Violent crime 
rates against women and girls in Native American communities are far 
higher than the national averages. This amendment delivers help to 
trafficking survivors and gives tribes the resources they need to 
battle human trafficking in their own backyards. This amendment has 
broad support and is a vital addition to the bill on the floor today.
  My amendment would provide tribes the opportunity to access funding 
for recovery programs for survivors and special training for local law 
enforcement in order to combat human trafficking specifically in Indian 
Country. This amendment would allow Indian tribes to be able to compete 
for resources for programs to prevent human trafficking. It would 
provide for training for local tribal law enforcement so they would be 
better able to track trafficking activities. These trainings and 
additional resources will better equip the tribal resources to better 
spot human trafficking in local communities and to act quickly to 
respond.
  This funding would also help the survivors of sex and labor 
trafficking in their recovery. Programs such as this assist survivors 
in human trafficking and enable them to begin to heal and restore their 
lives. The bill, S. 178, allows for more protections for victims of 
human trafficking in our country, and my amendment would extend those 
protections to the tribes in Indian Country as well.


                               ObamaCare

  Madam President, I noticed earlier today the minority leader as well 
as the minority whip on the Senate floor talking about the President's 
health care law.
  I would like to point out that the Congressional Budget Office 
released a report Monday about the Obama health care law--ObamaCare. I 
see the White House is actually championing the report. They call it 
great news for America.
  Let's be clear. This report contains significant amounts of bad news 
for people--bad news for people who signed up on the ObamaCare 
exchanges for getting their health insurance coverage.
  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that health care 
premiums will increase more than 8 percent a year this coming year for 
ObamaCare enrollees. They also predict it will increase 8 percent next 
year for ObamaCare enrollees through the exchange for the benchmark 
plan, and they predict it will increase another 8 percent a year after 
that. Most Americans can't afford to pay 8 percent more a year in 
premiums each and every year, which is what the Congressional Budget 
Office is proposing, but you don't hear the Democrats on the floor 
talking about that.
  Wasn't it the President of the United States who said that premium 
rates would go down for families by $2,500 a year?
  Isn't it so that many Senators on the other side of the aisle came to 
the floor and said rates would go down. Nancy Pelosi said they would go 
down for everyone. Why are the Democrats not mentioning what the CBO is 
saying, that year after year after year the rates are going to go up 8 
percent, another 8 percent, another 8 percent?
  So we know the reality of what is happening to people all across the 
country, which is why this health care law continues to be unpopular, 
unaffordable, and unworkable. So I think it is time for the White House 
to stop celebrating and start thinking about the people who have been 
impacted specifically by this expensive and unworkable piece of 
legislation.
  I found it interesting that on Monday, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services held an event to celebrate the number of people who had 
signed up for coverage this year. Secretary Burwell said she was 
``pleased with the results to date.'' She repeated the administration's 
sound bite about the health care law working.
  Well, that is not what I am hearing from people at home in Wyoming. 
It is not what I am hearing from my friends, neighbors, and patients. 
As a doctor who has been taking care of patients in Wyoming for 25 
years, I talk to lots of patients every weekend at home. It is also not 
what I read in the papers. Papers all across the country, from the east 
coast to the west coast, talk about hard working Americans who have 
been devastated by the impacts of this terrible health care law. It 
seems that every day there is more bad news about more ways that 
ObamaCare is hurting American families and failing to live up to the 
many promises made by the President and the Democrats in this body who 
voted for it--the promises they made.
  When you take a look at the Congressional Budget Office's new 
estimates of how many people are going to sign up for ObamaCare this 
year, they had originally said there would be 14 million people who 
would sign up for ObamaCare plans by the end of the year. Now they have 
dropped that number down to 11 million people. So it is not a surprise 
when fewer people--3 million fewer people--sign up, that it is going to 
cost the taxpayers less than the very high number they were expecting 
to have to pay. So that number has dropped, but it is because fewer 
people are choosing to sign up for the Obama health care plan. Is the 
Obama administration pleased that the President's health care law is so 
much less popular with the public than the President and Democrats 
expected it to be?
  As I talk about some of the stories that are coming out from the east 
to the west coast, I would like to start with a story from the Portland 
Press Herald newspaper in Portland, ME. On February 27, the headline 
was: ``Many insured under Affordable Care Act taking a hit at tax 
time.''
  The article tells the story of Diana Newman, who lives in Southwest 
Harbor. She had ObamaCare insurance last year. She went to file her 
taxes a few weeks ago. The article says that ``she got a $400 
surprise.'' That is how much she owed on her taxes specifically because 
of the new health care law. She told the newspaper that her tax 
troubles are just another stumbling block in what she said was a long, 
difficult year trying to figure out how to use and how to pay for her 
new insurance.
  She said: ``At the end of all this confusion, I was hit with hundreds 
of dollars at tax time.'' She said: ``It's frightening.''
  Frightening--that is how somebody whom the President is claiming has 
been helped by the law is describing the impact on her life. It is 
frightening. It turns out she was one of almost a million people who 
got bad information from the government about their tax forms.
  Well, that just made things more confusing for her. She said: ``At 
this point, I don't know what to think. I may owe more, or less, or 
about the same.''
  Is the Obama administration--and all the Democrats who voted for this 
health care law--pleased about the way it is frightening this woman in 
Maine? I don't hear the Senate minority leader or the whip talking 
about that.
  Does the administration think that ObamaCare is working for Diana 
Newman?
  The tax preparation company H&R Block says that more than half of 
their clients--more than half of their clients--have had their refunds 
reduced because of the health care law. On average H&R Block says their 
customers owe the IRS an extra $530. That is a lot of money for hard-
working taxpayers. A lot of people count on getting that tax refund to 
help them pay their bills this time of year.

  Is the Obama administration pleased to see the IRS take another $530 
from hard-working American families? Some of these people who owe money 
to the IRS didn't sign up for ObamaCare insurance at all last year.
  Many are now finding out for the first time that they owe a tax 
penalty because the health care law's mandate says they have to buy 
health insurance and not just necessarily insurance that works for them 
and their family and their family's needs. Oh, no, the mandate states 
they have to buy insurance President Obama says works for them, even 
though they know it doesn't work

[[Page S1414]]

for them. It may be too much insurance or insurance they don't need, 
don't want, can't afford, and they don't have the freedom or 
flexibility to even make that choice. President Obama says he knows 
what is best for them because they don't.
  The problem is that by the time many of these people figured that 
out, it was already too late to sign up for ObamaCare insurance for 
this year so now they are getting taxed--penalized. People who didn't 
understand the tax penalties feel as though the Obama administration 
has pulled a fast one on them.
  Again, as we approach the 5-year anniversary, ObamaCare continues to 
be unpopular with the American people. There is so much anger about the 
timing of the tax issues that the administration had to backtrack and 
allow extra time for people to sign up this year.
  The President made a YouTube video saying the deadline was February 
15. February 15 came and went, and then the President said: Well, we 
better open it up again. This President is making it up as he goes 
along. We have seen it time and time again with this President and this 
law. He is making it up as he goes along.
  Is the Obama administration pleased with this confusion and anger 
that a lot of Americans are feeling because of the IRS penalties?
  It is not just Washington that is causing trouble for people who have 
to sign up for the President's health care. We are seeing bad news all 
across America.
  I talked about Maine earlier. Let's go over to the other coast. Let's 
go to Oregon. Oregon tried to set up its own health insurance exchange. 
They did such an awful job that not one single person was ever able to 
sign up on the State Web site--not one, no one. People had to fill out 
paper applications if they wanted to try to buy insurance last year.
  How much did it cost the State to set up this exchange where not one 
person was able to buy insurance from the Web site? It cost taxpayers 
$248 million.
  Last Friday the Governor of Oregon officially gave up. He signed a 
law dissolving the State exchange. Oregon will just use the Federal 
Government's exchange and the Federal Web site.
  Does the Obama administration think that the failed Web site and the 
wasting of $248 million in taxpayer money is a sign that the health 
care law is working? Is this administration pleased with the way 
Oregon's ObamaCare exchange wasted nearly one-quarter of a billion 
dollars? That is one State alone.
  Just next door in Washington State, they are having troubles of their 
own. There was an article in The Hill newspaper here in Washington, DC, 
on February 25 titled ``State's ObamaCare overcharges 13K.'' There were 
13,000 people overcharged in the State's ObamaCare exchange in 
Washington State.
  According to the article, the Washington State ObamaCare exchange 
said it withdrew the incorrect amount of money from the bank accounts 
of 13,000 people. Think about that in reference to your own checking 
account, where there may be an automatic withdrawal based on a cable 
bill, cell phone bill or whatever. Many people--13,000 in this case in 
Washington State--had an incorrect withdrawal from the Washington State 
ObamaCare exchange. It says that some of the people say that more than 
three times the correct amount was withdrawn for their monthly premium 
for health insurance.
  Can you imagine if the electric company or one of the utilities--your 
cell phone provider or your cable company--withdrew three times the 
amount expected from your checking account for that monthly bill. For 
some people that glitch in the State system probably meant their 
accounts were going to end up overdrawn.
  Even if the States get the problem fixed right away, that is an 
alarming failure by that ObamaCare exchange.
  Is the Obama administration pleased with the anxiety the exchange is 
causing 13,000 people in Washington State? These are just a few of the 
ways ObamaCare is not living up to the promises that Democrats and the 
administration made to the American people.
  Later this month, on March 23, we will hit the fifth anniversary of 
President Obama signing this health care bill into law. If Monday's 
event with Secretary Burwell was any indication, the White House is 
going to throw a celebration. Once again they will say they are pleased 
and they will say ObamaCare is working. The Obama administration should 
not be pleased with its health care law. The Obama administration, and 
every Democrat who voted for it, should be embarrassed by it.
  It is not what Democrats promised, and it is not what people wanted. 
People wanted something very simple when it came to their health care 
and health care reform. People want the care they need, from a doctor 
they choose, at a lower cost, and that is what Republicans in the 
Senate are planning to give them.
  We can do it without a 2,000-page law, and we can do it without all 
of the negative side effects of ObamaCare. That will be health care 
reform worth celebrating.
  I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. 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. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator Leahy, the 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, in explaining an 
amendment we have filed, amendment No. 290, to the Justice for Victims 
of Trafficking Act. I wish to take this opportunity to thank Senators 
Ayotte, Murkowski, Heitkamp, and Baldwin for also cosponsoring our 
amendment and for their strong support.
  Our amendment would reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act 
programs which expired in 2013. These three programs--the Street 
Outreach Program, the Basic Center Program, and the Transitional Living 
Program--have helped thousands of our homeless youth meet their 
immediate needs and provide long-term residential services for those 
who, sadly, cannot be safely reunited with their families.
  The Street Outreach Program helps homeless and runaway youth find 
stable housing and connects them with the treatment, counseling, and 
crisis prevention they need. A central goal of this program is to 
prevent sexual exploitation and abuse.
  The Basic Center Program helps community-based providers meet the 
basic needs of shelter, food, and clothing for homeless youth.
  The Transitional Living Program supports long-term housing services 
that help our homeless youth enter stable living environments and 
develop critical life skills.
  The amendment Senator Leahy and I and our cosponsors are offering 
complements the underlying bill by addressing prevention, intervention, 
and recovery services for the victims of sex trafficking--particularly 
among one of the most vulnerable populations, and that is our homeless 
youth. According to the Institute of Medicine and the National Resource 
Council, homelessness is one of the most common risk factors for sex 
trafficking. Without access to food, shelter, and social supports, 
homeless youth too often turn to what is termed survival sex--a way to 
trade sex for a place to sleep and other basic necessities. Another 
recent report found that one in four homeless youth are victims of sex 
trafficking or engaged in survival sex. Approximately 48 percent of 
homeless youth have done so because they did not have a safe place to 
stay. Our amendment strengthens the existing programs by ensuring that 
service providers know how to identify trafficking victims and give 
these youth the support they need.
  In Maine, our homeless shelters are critical partners in the fight to 
end human trafficking. In Portland, the Preble Street Resource Center 
has used Runaway and Homeless Youth Act resources to connect young 
people who need food, safe shelter, health services, and educational 
support with those who can provide those services. The Preble Street 
Anti-Trafficking Coalition is currently helping approximately 50 
trafficking victims--whose ages range from 15 to 42--start new

[[Page S1415]]

lives. There are more than 1.6 million homeless teens in the United 
States, an astonishing number. A growing number of homeless youth 
identify as LGBT, and it is estimated that up to 40 percent of runaway 
and homeless youth are LGBT. Our amendment would also ensure that those 
seeking services through these Federal programs are not denied 
assistance based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sex, 
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. All homeless young 
people need access to safe beds at night and services during the day so 
they will never have to choose between selling their bodies and a safe 
place to sleep.
  The stand-alone bill on which our amendment is based was reported out 
of the Committee on the Judiciary during the last Congress with an 
overwhelmingly strong bipartisan vote of 15 to 3. It has the support of 
nearly 270 organizations, including service providers, anti-trafficking 
advocates, and many faith-based organizations that serve homeless youth 
each and every day. Covenant House, the largest service provider for 
runaway and homeless youth, strongly supports our reauthorization of 
these programs.
  Let me thank Senator Leahy for working so hard and for working to 
incorporate important feedback into our amendment, such as applying the 
nondiscrimination clause only to the runaway and homeless youth 
programs and clarifying the continued ability to provide sex-specific 
shelters and programming, such as all-girls shelters or all-male 
shelters.
  Let me take this opportunity to also commend Senator Cornyn and 
Senator Klobuchar for their work on the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act, a bill I have proudly cosponsored. The policies and 
tools included in this bill are important pieces of the Federal 
response to the horrific crime of human trafficking. Congress must do 
more to provide law enforcement with the tools it needs to pursue to 
end sex trafficking and to also support preventive programs such as the 
runaway and homeless youth programs that help those who fall victim to 
traffickers. In many ways our bill is the bookend for the bill that is 
pending on the Senate floor because it focuses on the service end in 
helping those who are most vulnerable, our young people.
  By providing homeless young people with the support and services they 
need, we can help prevent them from ever being trafficked in the first 
place. The runaway and homeless youth programs have provided a lifeline 
and housing for America's homeless and for its human trafficked youth 
for 40 years. They are a vital tool in addressing these serious 
problems. I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I want to thank the distinguished senior 
Senator from Maine, my New England neighbor, for her comments, speaking 
on Leahy-Collins amendment No. 290. She and I and others have worked on 
this for a very long time. In her comments, she talked about shelters 
for homeless teens, and I think about how much better this whole 
country would be if this homeless teen could turn to a shelter and not 
to a trafficker.

  As I said earlier on the floor, traffickers often find their victims 
soon after they runaway or become homeless.
  In a couple of States, such as mine and the Senator from Maine's, 
especially at this time of year, people need shelter or they die. They 
literally die in a relatively short period of time from the cold.
  We see what happens. Listen to the stories of these trafficking 
survivors. Many of them began as a homeless or runaway teen. They are 
scared, desperate for affection, for food, for safety, and for a safe 
place to sleep.
  Our children and our grandchildren don't have to be scared. They have 
a safe place to sleep. They have food. But for a lot of these runaways, 
that is not the case.
  That is a problem we can fix. We can reauthorize the Runaway and 
Homeless Youth Act. We can ensure that no child is turned away, 
regardless of their religion or their race or whom they love. A child 
is a child is a child. They all deserve our protection.
  We don't say: OK, you four homeless children, we will take care of 
you but not you because you are the wrong race or you are the wrong 
religion or you love the wrong person. So you have to just stay out and 
be prey to the traffickers.
  We will recount some of the stories I told before, the traffickers I 
prosecuted years ago and the horrible stories. I know the distinguished 
Senator from Maine has heard these stories, and she has visited these 
shelters. She has seen and heard the stories. When you do, it tears 
your heart. So I hope the amendment that she, Senator Murkowski, I, and 
others have written will be in the final bill when it is passed. I 
thank my friend from Maine for her hard work.
  I yield the floor.
  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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am just going to say that I know the 
distinguished Senators from Vermont and Maine have been on the floor 
talking about an amendment they hope to offer to this anti-trafficking 
bill. But the sad fact is that no one is going to get to offer any 
amendments to this bill unless the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, 
decides that we are going to have an open amendment process because 
right now there are objections to anyone setting any of the amendments 
for votes, much less asking to set aside the pending amendment and 
making your amendment the pending amendment so it could be considered 
and scheduled for a vote.
  I wish to make sure our colleagues understand the rationale because I 
have had conversations with a number of members of the Judiciary 
Committee, which voted unanimously to support this bill. That doesn't 
happen very often, that we have that kind of unanimous support. Ten of 
our Democratic colleagues are cosponsors on the original bill.
  So it might sound strange that after 10 Democrats have cosponsored 
the bill, after all of the Republicans and all of the Democrats on the 
Judiciary Committee have voted to support this bill--and the minority 
leader, Senator Reid, has agreed to dispense with the normal procedural 
process to get the bill on the floor--that we would now have this 
unusual situation where this bill is being hijacked and being used to 
debate something that it really doesn't have very much to do about, and 
that is the subject of abortion.
  Some of our colleagues raised this issue yesterday for the first 
time, and they said they were surprised to find some language in the 
bill that limited the use of the funds in this bill consistent with the 
Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment is a prohibition against using 
taxpayer funds for abortion, and it has been the law of the land for 39 
years--39 years. All our bill does is preserve the status quo when it 
comes to the Hyde amendment.
  Then, all of a sudden, some of our colleagues woke up I guess 
yesterday morning and discovered this and said that they were outraged 
and that it was totally unacceptable. Well, when we offered them an 
opportunity to offer an amendment to change that, they said: No, we 
don't want an amendment. We don't want to change it by a vote of the 
Senate. We just want to block the bill. We want to kill the bill.
  Unless something changes between now and the time we vote on cloture 
on the bill, that is what is going to happen because they don't want to 
amend the bill; they don't want to allow others the opportunity--such 
as the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Vermont--to amend the 
bill; they just want to kill the bill.
  It really is baffling to me, on a topic we all ought to agree is an 
important one, where some of the most vulnerable individuals in our 
society--children who have been sex-trafficked--would be the 
beneficiaries of the bill, that we are for some reason debating a 
provision in the bill that was in the bill when 10 Democrats agreed to 
cosponsor it, when all members of the Judiciary Committee, including 
those same Democrats, agreed to vote for the bill, and when the 
Democratic leader agreed

[[Page S1416]]

to bring it to the floor unanimously by a vote of the Senate. All of a 
sudden we want to try to revisit a provision that has been the law of 
the land for 39 years.
  I hope something happens between now and the end of the week that 
causes some of our friends to reconsider this idea that they are going 
to filibuster this bill which many of them cosponsored and for which 
many of them voted. It would be a real shame and a tragedy if something 
that was designed to help these vulnerable kids was killed in the 
Senate because this became a political football. That would be a shame.
  I know the distinguished Senator from Utah is on the floor and ready 
to speak.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will speak for a few seconds on what 
the distinguished Senator from Texas said.
  It would be absolutely pathetic if this bill were stopped--a bill 
this important that means so much to our families and to our children--
because of the long-term language that has been, as I say, for 39 
years--I can't believe this Senate has become so political that we 
would raise that issue at this time on this bill that almost everybody 
with any brains at all would be for. I would be ashamed of myself. And 
then not be willing to bring up an amendment if they don't like the 
language, go through the regular order, and act like the Senate and act 
like Senators--it is pathetic. What have we come to around here that we 
are so doggone partisan that we can't even pass a bill to protect 
children? I think it is pathetic, is all I can say.


                                Ukraine

  Madam President, in my nearly 40 years of public service, I have 
become very concerned with the state of our national security.
  From the firestorm of terrorism that has swept Syria and Iraq, to the 
looming specter of a nuclear Iran, our Nation faces yet another 
potential catastrophe in Ukraine, where Russian separatists and 
soldiers continue their drive to consume as much of that nation as 
President Putin desires. It is particularly vexing that each of these 
catastrophes could have been prevented or at least greatly mitigated 
had the instigators of these events believed that the United States 
intended to use its national power to deter and, if necessary, repulse 
those seeking to use aggression against our national interests.
  As I mentioned before, Ukraine is the latest example. Almost 1 year 
ago Russian forces seized and then annexed the Crimean peninsula. Ever 
since then, Russian separatists and Russian forces have snapped up 
large parts of eastern Ukraine.
  Until last year, the areas controlled by Russian separatists and 
Russian forces could be loosely grouped into two areas along the 
Russian border--specifically, a northern area around the city of 
Luhansk and a southern area around the city of Donetsk. In between 
these two Russian-controlled areas lies the town called Debaltseve, 
which is a vital transportation hub. By seizing this strategic town, 
Russia can transport troops and supplies more easily between the 
Russian-controlled areas in the north and the South.
  However, after weeks of fighting in and around Debaltseve, a 
ceasefire called Minsk II was brokered. Unfortunately, as many realists 
warned, Minsk II was not worth the paper it was written on. 
Predictably, 72 hours after the ceasefire was signed, Russian forces 
violated the protocol and Ukrainian soldiers retreated from the town 
under heavy fire.
  Adding insult to injury, President Putin was quoted by the New York 
Times, after the fall of Debaltseve, saying:

       Life is life. It just goes on. No need to dwell on it.

  What is the response of the United States to this aggression? Well, 
until today the only concrete action, as reported by ABC News, is that 
the administration has decided to send fewer than 10 soldiers to 
western Ukraine to provide combat medical training to Ukrainian forces. 
This would not be so laughable if I did not believe the Ukrainians will 
require far greater medical assistance if Russian aggression continues 
unabated. But now that Russian-backed forces have solidified their 
control over whole swathes of eastern Ukraine, what comes next? Will 
Mr. Putin be appeased and go home? I very much doubt it. Recent reports 
indicate that both sides have moved some heavy weapons away from the 
battlefield; nevertheless, I believe this could just be a lull in the 
storm.
  As I mentioned earlier, Russian forces have annexed Crimea, which is 
a peninsula between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. To supply their 
forces in Crimea, Russians must fly over or cross a narrow strip of 
water between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov called the Kerch 
Strait. But if Russians controlled the land between Crimea and the 
Russian border, they could ship those supplies more efficiently and at 
lower cost. This stretch of land, of course, is Ukrainian sovereign 
territory. Therefore, it is very possible that the Russians will move 
to conquer this region to establish a land corridor between Russia and 
Crimea.
  Many military experts believe this is Russia's objective since 
Russian-backed separatists have intensified their military activities 
around the port city of Mariupol.
  The New York Times reports that the city ``is a bustling port in a 
strategic location on the Sea of Azov, near the Russian border.''
  Mariupol is the only major obstacle to the Russians realizing a long-
held goal of opening a land route between Russia and Crimea and taking 
complete control of the Sea of Azov and its rich industrial 
infrastructure.
  In addition, the highly regarded Institute for the Study of War has 
noted that a village approximately 8 miles from Mariupol has ``become 
the most actively contested area'' in the region.
  So what has been our response to this aggression? How is this 
administration preserving what is arguably one of the greatest American 
national security accomplishments in the past 100 years--ensuring a 
safe, secure and democratic Europe? Well, to be honest, not much.
  Before the events of the past 12 months, this administration's 
Pollyanna policy toward Russia was defined by the so-called reset. It 
was my impression this policy was designed to convince the Russians we 
were not a threat and therefore we should work together for the common 
good. Unfortunately, the Russians exploited the former and did not give 
a darn about the latter.
  Then, as the situation in Crimea and eastern Ukraine continued to 
grow more dire, we instituted a series of economic sanctions--first 
against Russian officials, then later against banks and businesses 
associated with Putin's cronies. These economic sanctions have grown 
against a number of key Russian energy, banking, and defense firms. To 
be fair, today the administration announced a modest increase in the 
number of individuals to which economic sanctions will be directed 
against.
  However, one would be hard-pressed to call these sanctions robust. 
Individuals' assets were frozen and companies find it harder to raise 
capital, but they are hardly enough to make Mr. Putin think twice 
before proceeding to use force against his next objective.
  What about our diplomatic efforts? As the Congressional Research 
Service has stated, ``The administration has appeared to leave the 
leading role in negotiating such a [peace] settlement [regarding 
Ukraine] to France and Germany.''
  What about U.S. military aid? According to the Congressional Research 
Service, the United States has allocated $120 million in security 
assistance so far. Today our government announced a modest increase in 
aid. Of the aid previously announced, funds were used for body armor, 
helmets, vehicles, night and thermal vision devices, heavy engineering 
equipment, advanced radios, patrol boats, rations, tents, countermortar 
radars, uniforms, and first aid equipment and supplies. Glaringly 
absent from this list are the pieces of equipment that could tilt the 
balance of power and change Mr. Putin's calculations. Specifically, 
where are the intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, heavy weapons 
and logistics assets?
  What is the administration's response? Just this week Brian McKeon, 
the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy stated--more 
than 1 year after the Russian invasion of Crimea--that the Obama 
administration is ``still working in the interagency group on reviewing 
a number of

[[Page S1417]]

options including lethal defensive weapons, but I can't give you a 
timetable on when we might have a decision on additional assistance.''
  That is pathetic. By any measure that is pathetic. I am flabbergasted 
not only by Mr. McKeon's comment but the thought that the 
administration believes anyone would see that as a legitimate answer.
  In other areas, what about the deployment of more U.S. military units 
to Europe to reassure our allies? While the United States has deployed 
some troops to the region, that is not enough to convince Moscow this 
administration is determined to give a resolute response to further 
Russian aggression.
  Specifically, the initial deployment of U.S. land forces were in 
company-size units. A company-size unit has less than 150 soldiers, an 
insufficient force to amount to an effective deterrent. Then the 
administration announced that a single armored brigade--which consists 
of less than 100 tanks--would be deployed on a rotational basis. Once 
again, this is a relatively small force to deter what historically has 
been one of the great land armies.
  Deterrence comes through strength. The world has changed since the 
fall of the Berlin Wall, but it appears this has been lost on President 
Putin. Indeed, it appears President Obama believes the world has 
changed more than it has. Regardless, the United States must take more 
forceful and dynamic actions. Otherwise, our policy of appeasement 
could result in more than just the loss of eastern Ukraine.
  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. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thought I might take just a few 
minutes during this lull in our schedule. If other Senators come down 
to talk, I will yield to them, but I would like to talk a little about 
what is in this piece of legislation--the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act. While I am on the Judiciary Committee and the Senator 
from Vermont is on the Judiciary Committee--he has worked together with 
me and others on this piece of legislation--I am aware of the fact 
there are many Senators for whom this is a relatively new topic and who 
have not been as immersed in it.
  First, I would just say by way of major support that there are 200 
victims' rights groups and law enforcement organizations that have 
endorsed this legislation--200 of them. I am looking forward to having 
a conference call with them this afternoon, where I can explain to them 
how we are currently stuck and to solicit their help in getting us 
unstuck so we can hopefully move this legislation along, have an open 
amendment process, and working with our colleagues in the House, send 
this important piece of legislation to the President.
  As I said, more than 200 victims' rights and law enforcement 
organizations have endorsed this legislation, including Shared Hope 
International, Rights4Girls, the Fraternal Order of Police, the 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National 
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National 
Children's Alliance, the National Criminal Justice Association, the End 
Child Prostitution and Trafficking organization, PROTECT, Alliance to 
End Slavery and Trafficking, the National Association of Police 
Organizations, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the 
National District Attorneys Association.
  I read that rather long list of supporting organizations to point out 
there is nothing political about this particular bill. This is neither 
a Republican bill nor a Democratic bill. This is, I think, in the best 
traditions of the Senate, the Congress, when Members of Congress on 
both sides of the aisle work together to come up with a policy solution 
that makes sense and that will help.
  One of the key features of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act 
is the creation of a special Crime Victims Compensation Fund. It is 
called the Domestic Trafficking Victims Fund.
  When I had the honor of serving as attorney general of Texas, we had 
a Crime Victims Compensation Fund--much like I suspect most States 
have--where people who commit crimes and who pay fines and penalties 
pay into that fund, and those moneys are then distributed on a grant 
basis by the State to help organizations such as the Court Appointed 
Special Advocates Groups--CASA--which I worked closely with as attorney 
general, and a number of crime victims' groups and other survivors of 
crime.
  What we do is use that same model here. We take the money that is 
paid by people convicted of human trafficking, sexual abuse, child 
pornography, child sexual exploitation, interstate transportation for 
illegal sexual activity, commercial human smuggling, and we require a 
special additional assessment of $5,000 upon conviction for any one of 
this class of crimes.
  In other words, one of the things we are trying to do is move from 
this model of just dealing with the supply side of a problem and deal 
with the demand side. We are trying to focus on the people who purchase 
these illicit services from trafficking victims and then use that fund 
to do some good, to provide grants to various faith-based 
organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the like that help 
treat the victims of child trafficking and hopefully help them begin to 
heal once they are rescued from their abusers and their assailants.
  The other thing we do, sort of from a structural point of view, is we 
don't treat a young girl who has been trafficked as the criminal. In 
other words, in the past there has been a tendency to say we are going 
to arrest the 15-year-old girl and charge her for being a prostitute, 
when in fact she has no choice in the matter. She is being compelled by 
either violence or some other coercive means to do what she is doing. 
So it is not a voluntary act on her part.
  So what we do is we don't treat them as a criminal. We treat the 
purchaser of these services as the criminal. We fine them. We use that 
money then to supply services to help that victim get rescued and get 
better, to heal, and to get on with their lives.
  That is what is a little different here because we are not actually 
using tax dollars. We are using the fines and the penalties assessed 
against these perpetrators to help these victims heal once they are 
rescued. That is one of the most important parts of this bill.
  We expect there would be roughly $30 million a year available for 
that out of this bill alone. That would be in addition to other things 
we are doing and other things that are being done at the local and 
State level.
  We also make sure that we clarify the benefits and protections 
offered to victims of domestic human trafficking. Under current law, 
U.S. citizens are sometimes placed at a disadvantage when seeking 
services to restore them to their well-being and to offer them 
protection. But now we would make sure that those services are 
available without regard to citizenship and would make sure that people 
who would otherwise not get benefits will get benefits. This disparity 
in certification has led to some confusion, as we might imagine.
  For example, under current law, a young person who has been 
trafficked from Central America through Mexico and into the United 
States would be eligible for a temporary visa while they cooperate with 
law enforcement because that testimony would be essential to convict 
the person who trafficked them. This clarifies that U.S. citizens and 
lawful permanent residents should never be denied services due to the 
fact that they have not received that kind of special certification. It 
is a little technical, but it is an important area.
  We also provide child human trafficking deterrence block grants paid 
entirely through the Crime Victims Compensation Fund I mentioned a 
moment ago. These funds would be granted to qualifying organizations 
based on their focus on victim rescue and restoration.
  Collaboration among law enforcement, social services, emergency 
responders, children's advocacy centers, victims service providers, and 
nonprofits would be encouraged to help communities and government work 
together to develop a holistic approach to figure out what works best 
to protect these victims of trafficking and to serve victims.

[[Page S1418]]

  It also would create a new purpose area under the Victims of Child 
Abuse Act for the 900 children's advocacy centers across the country 
that provide restorative services for victims of child pornography, and 
it requires that not less than $2 million a year be dedicated to this 
purpose.
  In my experience, in Texas, the children's advocacy centers are some 
of the most outstanding organizations that exist for the treatment of 
victims of abuse and trafficking. One of the key features in the 
children's advocacy centers that I have visited is--imagine that a 
child who has been assaulted or a victim of human trafficking is not 
only going to be terrified by the experience, but they are also 
terrified by the law enforcement authorities who try to question them 
and to get evidence so they can make a case and conviction against the 
person who did harm to the child. The children's advocacy centers do an 
amazing job of creating a more relaxed atmosphere, where law 
enforcement and social service providers can work together in an 
environment where a child does not feel threatened and where the child 
can actually not only begin to get better but also cooperate with law 
enforcement authorities and provide more reliable testimony and 
evidence that can be used to convict the perpetrators.
  Also in the bill, we would amend the human trafficking asset 
forfeiture statute to track the asset forfeiture statute for money 
laundering and eliminate the need for prosecutors to show direct 
traceability to the underlying crime and the targeted proceeds when 
they can show that the assets involved in the crime are used to conceal 
the source of criminal assets. This is basically taking another 
provision of current law. I realize that the whole issue of asset 
forfeiture, when taken to the extreme--I know Chairman Grassley is 
interested in holding hearings on the subject. But I think the part of 
this which is not controversial is taking the assets used in the 
commission of a crime and forfeiting that by the perpetrator, again, 
using those funds in part to help their victims get better.
  We also have a provision in the bill that would allow for the 
streamlining of criminal investigations of human trafficking.
  Under current law, State and local law enforcement may obtain a 
wiretap warrant in State court upon showing that the investigation may 
provide evidence of murder, kidnapping, gambling, robbery, bribery, 
extortion or dealing with narcotic drugs, including marijuana or other 
dangerous drugs, or other crimes dangerous to life, limb or property 
and punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year.
  What we would do here is provide additional tools for law enforcement 
to conduct lawful wiretaps in order to get evidence important to 
convicting the perpetrators of these terrible crimes.
  We also would require better reporting of this terrible crime of 
human trafficking. I remember a few years ago, when the Super Bowl was 
in Dallas, actually working with local law enforcement there where I 
learned for the first time that, unfortunately, at the same time that 
the Super Bowl is held in different cities around the country, there is 
a spike in the amount of trafficking that occurs in conjunction with 
these huge public events. That was quite an eye-opening experience for 
me.
  Part of what we need to do is to get the facts, and to make sure that 
human trafficking is treated as the serious crime that it is for 
purposes of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. This legislation 
would encourage law enforcement to investigate and report human 
trafficking activity by classifying this as a part I violent crime and 
requiring it to be included in the calculation of index crime rates--
again, making sure we understand what the facts are, because I think 
the fact is that so much of this crime and this sort of activity is 
hidden from public view. So most Americans probably don't know that 
this sort of activity goes on in their cities, in their States, and 
across the country. This would help us deal with that.
  Under another provision of the bill, we would also make sure we use 
existing task forces to target offenders who exploit children, and we 
would, in particular, target child predators.
  One of the things we learn, as we get deeper into this topic, is the 
sad fact that somebody who sexually abuses a child is likely to do it 
more than once. In other words, these twisted individuals unfortunately 
are going to commit crime after crime after crime until they are caught 
and taken out of commission.
  This is one reason why I feel so strongly that we had to eliminate 
the rape kit backlogs around the country, and we worked closely with a 
courageous woman named Debbie Smith to reauthorize the Debbie Smith Act 
to make sure the money that Congress appropriated for the rape kit 
backlog was adequately funded. Due to the power of DNA testing, we can 
identify people who commit these serial offenses, and law enforcement 
can connect the dots better and at the same time exonerate people who 
have perhaps been falsely accused because they are excluded through a 
DNA test through this rape kit backlog elimination effort.
  So trying to make sure we take these serial offenders off the streets 
is a priority under our bill.
  As I said, we worked very closely with a number of colleagues, 
including the Senator from Vermont, the Senator Feinstein of 
California, Senator Coons, Senator Wyden, and Senator Klobuchar on the 
other side. On our side, we have had a lot of great effort by Senator 
Portman and Senator Kirk, among others. Senator Collins has certainly 
made important contributions. But I wish to particularly recognize the 
contributions by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.
  We added a second title, title II in the legislation, entitled 
``Combating Human Trafficking.'' Senator Feinstein was the person who 
made that major contribution to this effort.
  My point is that this has really been a bipartisan collaborative 
effort--something we don't see enough of here in Washington, DC--
untainted by politics and ideology, where we are actually trying to do 
some good for people who need our help the most.
  Senator Feinstein contributed much of the meat of title II, including 
amendments to the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, response to victims 
of child trafficking provision, creating an interagency task force 
report on child trafficking primary prevention and also requiring a 
General Accountability Office report to Congress that includes 
information on Federal and State law enforcement agencies to combat 
trafficking in the United States and requiring that it include 
information on each available grant program intended to combat human 
trafficking or assist victims of trafficking.
  On our side of the aisle, I mentioned that one of the people who has 
been a relentless warrior on this has been our friend the junior 
Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk, who contributed the HERO Act to this 
legislation. That is title III under the HERO Act.
  Under that important part of the legislation that makes up this 
overall bill, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, the HERO Act 
would provide express statutory authorization for the existing ICE 
Cyber Crimes Center--Immigration and Customs Enforcement--recognizing 
that so much of what happens in terms of the marketing and the 
solicitation for people to engage in these crimes occurs now on the 
Internet.
  I had the privilege of being here with the Senator from Illinois on 
the floor yesterday afternoon, and he talked about this one particular 
site that has been responsible for the trafficking of so much human 
flesh, mainly in the form of minor children, and his efforts to combat 
that. But part of what the HERO Act would do is to make sure that we 
have this powerful tool in the fight against sexual exploitation of 
children and the production, advertisement, and distribution of child 
pornography and child sex tourism--if you can imagine such a thing.
  The HERO Act would also authorize the Cyber Crimes Center to 
collaborate with the Department of Defense and the National Association 
to Protect Children for the purpose of recruiting, training, and hiring 
wounded and transitioning military veterans to serve as law enforcement 
officials in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. This 
child exploitation section uses sophisticated investigative tools to 
target violators who operate on the Internet, which has been one of the 
primary focuses of the Senator from Illinois in his efforts, targeting 
the use of Web sites, email chat rooms, and file-sharing applications.

[[Page S1419]]

  Major initiatives, including Operation Predator, an Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement office within the Department of Homeland Security's 
flagship investigative initiative for targeting sexual predators, child 
pornographers, and child sex.
  It includes the National Child Victim Identification System, which 
was developed to assist law enforcement agencies in identifying victims 
of child sexual exploitation, and the virtual global task force and 
international alliance of law enforcement agencies working together to 
fight online child exploitation and abuse.
  I realize this has been rather lengthy, but I thought it was worth 
making sure that all of our colleagues and anybody within the sound of 
my voice who cared to listen understood what was in this important 
piece of legislation, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
  To summarize, 200 organizations across the country who are focused 
like a laser on the bane and evil that child sex trafficking is have 
endorsed this legislation. The original piece of legislation had 10 
Democratic cosponsors, about an equal number--perhaps; I can't remember 
the exact number--of Republican cosponsors, and it passed by unanimous 
vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February.
  Coming to the floor, we had something that hadn't happened often 
enough, in my view, which was that Democrats and Republicans together 
agreed to bypass the usual cumbersome procedure to get a bill to the 
floor, known as cloture, and we all agreed we should take up this bill 
together. That is when things went off the rails, sadly. But I am an 
optimistic person and I am hopeful cooler heads will prevail.
  I have had some private conversations with a number of Senators who 
are really very disturbed by the possibility that legislation as 
important as this is to the victims of human trafficking might be 
kicked to the curb because of some phony diversion and argument about 
restrictions on funding.
  Again, the provisions of this bill that limit the use of the funds 
under the Hyde amendment has been the law of the land for 39 years. It 
was originally started in 1976. Basically, the Hyde amendment says that 
no taxpayer funds may be used for abortion services. This has been one 
of the rare areas in an area of great controversy--the subject of 
abortion--where Congress has come together on a bipartisan basis to say 
we are going to draw a bright line there to say no matter what your 
views are on abortion, we are not going to allow taxpayer funds to be 
used for abortion. Again, that started in 1976 and it has been the law 
of the land since that time.
  Every appropriations bill that has passed, including the CRomnibus, 
the continuing resolution omnibus bill that was passed last fall in the 
lameduck session of Congress, included a restriction known as the Hyde 
amendment restriction in it. As a matter of fact, we specifically 
referenced that provision in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking 
Act.
  So you could imagine my surprise when I think it was yesterday that I 
got calls, letters, and heard speeches that people were surprised--
shocked--that this provision was in the legislation when it was filed 
in January--I think January 13--and made public to the world. If 
anybody thought it was hidden, it was hidden in plain sight to anybody 
who cared to read it. And to me, what was so surprising about some of 
the reaction is that this maintains the status quo. This doesn't change 
anything, and has been the law of the land for 39 years since the 
original Hyde amendment was adopted.
  So my hope is we can break out of this terrible cycle of dysfunction 
which I think, frankly, reflects Congress in a very negative light. I 
certainly hear it back home in Texas. People say: Well, can't you all 
get along? Can't you do anything? They don't want us to compromise our 
principles, and we won't. I don't think we should. But there are so 
many areas like this where we are united together in trying to do 
everything we can to help law enforcement investigate and prosecute 
human trafficking and to help the victims of human trafficking to heal 
after they are rescued--to heal, get better, and to get on with their 
lives. That is all this legislation does.
  I say that is all. That is a pretty big deal. It provides $30 million 
a year--not tax dollars. These are fines and penalties paid by the 
people who commit these terrible crimes. It provides $30 million a year 
as funds that can go toward grants to faith-based organizations, child 
advocacy centers--you name it--organizations that will spend their 
lives trying to help these children try to get better and get on with 
their lives. That money is available to them.
  But if we don't pass this bill this week, that is not going to 
happen. How tragic it would be if somehow we let the politics of the 
day and this feigned outrage over a provision that has been a law of 
the land for 39 years derail us from doing our job.
  I have every confidence that the heart of every Member of this body 
is in the right place when it comes to trying to help these victims of 
human trafficking. I just ask us to get our heads screwed on right. I 
know our hearts are in the right place, but frankly I am a little 
worried about people's heads not being screwed on right when it comes 
to focusing on a solution that is within our reach and one that has I 
think enjoyed so much support all across the country--as I mentioned, 
more than 200 victims rights and law enforcement organizations across 
the country. I am looking forward in probably the next 10 minutes or so 
joining a conference call with various members of these organizations, 
where I can update them on where they are and basically ask them for 
their help.
  Call your Senator. Call your Congressman. Tell them we need to get 
this done, because in all likelihood tomorrow we are going to have a 
very important vote in the Senate.
  I said I wasn't going to get mired down in procedure, but we do have 
an important vote tomorrow which is called a cloture vote. In other 
words, in order to get to a final passage of this bill, we need to have 
at least 60 Senators out of 100 vote for ending debate on the bill. 
That is called a cloture vote. But if we don't have 60 Senators vote to 
end debate on this bill, then basically we are dead in the water.
  We have 54 Senators on our side of the aisle. There are 46 on the 
other side of the aisle. You would think on a bill that does as much as 
this bill does for the victims of human trafficking and that is so 
devoid of politics that we could get 60 votes or more. I wish we could 
get 100 votes to close off debate and finally pass this bill. If we did 
that in short order, I know we could work with our colleagues in the 
House of Representatives, who have already passed a similar although a 
little bit different bill, to try to reconcile those two pieces of 
legislation and get them to President Obama's desk for his signature. 
The sooner we do that, the sooner these victims of human trafficking 
will get the help they need that this bill would provide.
  So I hope that Senators will think long and hard about their vote on 
closing off debate tomorrow and getting us to the finish line on this 
legislation. Again, we don't need everybody. We don't need 100 Senators 
to vote to close off debate tomorrow, but we do need 60. If we don't 
get 60, this bill is going to be dead in the water.
  I would ask all of our colleagues to examine their conscience and to 
think about what we are doing here and how much good we could do if we 
come together. I know from talking to some of our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, they have had some sleepless nights. Several 
of our colleagues have said they basically have had a hard time 
sleeping thinking about the human tragedy reflected in human 
trafficking, and they worried whether we will actually be able to get 
this bill over the finish line. I hope and pray we will. We will find 
out tomorrow.
  This is something that is in our hands. We can't control a lot of 
things in the world, but we can control whether we produce 60 votes 
here in the Senate tomorrow to close off debate, to get to final 
passage by a majority vote in the Senate. And if we can, then we are 
going to be able to expedite the help these victims of human 
trafficking need. We are going to be able to make sure the predators 
who prey on innocent children and other victims of human trafficking 
pay the price, but that out of that bad comes some good when children 
are rescued and these victims begin the process of healing.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S1420]]

  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I was stunned a few minutes ago to hear 
the assistant Republican leader on the floor speaking about trafficking 
legislation that is now before the Senate. I am glad he is speaking 
about the legislation. He has done that quite a bit. But as he spoke 
about the bill, it is very stunning what he said.
  He said:

       This bill is being hijacked and being used to debate 
     something that it really doesn't have very much to do about, 
     and that is the subject of abortion.

  I totally agree with my friend from Texas. This bill has been 
hijacked by an issue completely unrelated to human trafficking.
  I suggest that the majority take it out. We can debate on how it is 
in the bill. Some said that it was by sleight of hand, and some said 
that the Democratic staff should have seen that it was in there. It is 
in there, and it has to come out.
  Unless that language is taken out of the bill, there will be no bill. 
We cannot have this legislation hijacked by an abortion issue.
  My friend the President pro tempore of the Senate and the chairman of 
the Finance Committee said:

       I can't believe that this Senate has become so political 
     that we would raise that issue at this time on this bill.

  ``Raise the issue''--he took the words right out of my mouth. I can't 
believe it either.
  I say to my friends the majority, take the abortion language out of 
the bill. It has nothing to do with abortion.
  I hope my Republican friends will choose to do the right thing and 
eliminate this unrelated issue on an otherwise good piece of 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Toomey). The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I wish to talk about a couple of 
amendments on the legislation that we are considering this week, which 
is the human trafficking legislation.
  Up to this point, this has been a bipartisan exercise. In fact, 
Senator Blumenthal, the Senator from Connecticut, and I started a 
caucus here in the Senate on human trafficking about 3\1/2\ years ago, 
understanding that there was an increasing concern and awareness about 
this issue around the country, and we wanted to bring colleagues 
together to talk about the issue. We now have many other Members of the 
Senate who are a part of that.
  We had monthly meetings--holding up people who were doing great 
things around the country--describing the problem so that all of us, 
Members of the Senate and their staff, understand the seriousness of 
this issue and why we need to address it. That has always been 
nonpartisan--not just bipartisan but nonpartisan.
  I think it is time for us to move forward with this debate and to 
have these amendments offered and to actually vote on this legislation 
that would help to deal with this problem all around the country, and 
unfortunately it is everywhere.
  Often people think that this is an international issue, that the only 
human trafficking concern we should have would be in Africa or Asia or 
other countries. But it actually happens right here, and it happens in 
my home State of Ohio.
  I first became involved in this issue when a school outside the city 
of Toledo came to me and told me their concern about it and how these 
young people were getting involved and engaged in it. The more we 
learned, the more I looked into it, and the more I realized this is 
something which is very real in the communities I represent in Ohio, 
and unfortunately I believe the same is true in every State represented 
in this Chamber.
  We have had an interesting debate so far. Sometimes we have gotten a 
little sidetracked, such as the issue we saw a moment ago, but for the 
most part I have been pleased that over the last few days we have 
talked about the scope of the problem, talked about some of the 
solutions to it, and we talked about some of the good legislation that 
is in the underlying bill.
  There are two pieces of legislation that I offered that are part of 
the underlying bill, and I am happy about that. They are both 
bipartisan amendments. There are also a couple of amendments that I 
think would be helpful for us to include in the legislation. I offered 
those amendments earlier this week with the hopes that they would have 
already been considered. They have not been considered yet, but I hope 
to move forward with this legislation. The longer we wait, the more 
difficult it becomes for us to move forward. I hope we can resolve 
whatever differences there are and go ahead and start voting on 
amendments and moving this legislation forward so we can actually help 
those victims of trafficking who are looking for our support. Again, if 
we are not going to act here in the Senate and are not going to move 
this forward in the House and get it to the President for signature--
every day more and more people are in danger, particularly children, of 
falling into the hands of human traffickers.


                           Amendment No. 270

  I have a couple of amendments I wish to talk about briefly today. The 
first amendment is called Ensuring a Better Response for Victims of Sex 
Trafficking. This amendment contains a piece of the legislation I 
actually offered a couple of years ago with Senator Wyden of Oregon. 
Senator Wyden's legislation and my legislation called the Child Sex 
Trafficking Data and Response Act was partly enacted into law last 
year, and that was the data part of the bill--in other words, the part 
of the bill that relates to how we needed to improve the information we 
are getting on sex trafficking so we can better address the problem. 
Law enforcement officials have been looking for better information 
around the country. They want to know what the best practices are and 
how to deal with it. It is important to understand the problem in order 
to come up with solutions.
  Now we need to get to the second part of the legislation that was not 
enacted last year, and that is on the response portion. The amendment 
does just that. The response portion of the bill changes the way we 
treat victims of sex trafficking. Right now many of these victims are 
falling between the cracks. Currently children are only eligible for 
help through the child welfare system if they are abused by their 
parents. Currently, because children are only allowed to be eligible 
for help in that category, some kids just cannot get the help they 
need. This legislation ensures that all children who are trafficked are 
considered victims of sexual abuse and can be eligible for services as 
they go through what is sometimes a long and arduous process of 
recovery.


                           Amendment No. 271

  The second amendment I wish to include gets at some of the underlying 
problems that make it more likely that a child will be trafficked. We 
heard a lot about this on the floor the last couple of days. I have 
talked about it in terms of our missing children. One of the elements 
of the underlying bill is a bill we put forward in the last couple of 
years on how to identify missing children. Why? Because those children 
who are runaways or go missing tend to be some of the most vulnerable 
to sex traffickers. So the idea is to get the best information we can 
on those kids as soon as possible so we can find them.
  As an example, there have been about 67 kids who have gone missing in 
Ohio in the last month and a half. Yet we only have records for, I 
believe, 26 kids in terms of photographs. This legislation would 
require photographs for all of these kids so that the kids who are not 
currently able to be found because we can't find a photograph of them 
can be more easily found--not just by law enforcement but by citizens 
who are being vigilant and diligent.
  There is another issue, too, and it is something that is addressed in 
this amendment, which is cosponsored by Senator Feinstein. The first 
one is one from a Wyden-Portman amendment, and this is from a 
Feinstein-Portman amendment. These are bipartisan bills.
  It currently is true that there is an over-narrow definition of 
``homelessness'' by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
that does not enable homeless kids to get the help they need. That is 
current law. We are trying to change that to ensure that we can expand 
that definition to include the kinds of children who unfortunately many 
times are vulnerable to trafficking.

[[Page S1421]]

  I will give an example of the scope of this problem. During this last 
school year--2 years ago, 2012 to 2013--there were 24,236 kids in Ohio 
who were homeless at one point during the school year; however, the 
Federal Department responsible for preventing child homelessness 
counted only 4,700 cases. So we have over 24,000 kids who are homeless; 
yet this Department says only 4,700. In other words, the very program 
meant to help these kids undercounted by a factor of five. So the 
amendment simply updates the definition of ``homelessness'' to ensure 
that these kids are not forgotten and do not fall between the cracks.
  We know this action alone will not end child homelessness, but it 
will help deal with this problem and will help to put a roof over their 
heads, for thousands of these kids and their families, and prevent some 
of the long-term emotional, developmental effects that are caused by 
homelessness, as well as keep these kids off the streets and hopefully 
away from these traffickers so they are not vulnerable, as I said, to 
being sex-trafficked.
  We hope for a day when every single child in America is protected, 
when every child is able to follow their dreams and can live in a home 
with a family who is protecting and watching over them. We know that if 
we are going to see that hope realized, we have to fight for it. In the 
meantime, we have important work to do here on the floor of the Senate 
to ensure that we are doing everything we possibly can to protect these 
kids.
  These two amendments will help make this underlying legislation even 
stronger. I hope my colleagues will support both of them. Again, I hope 
we can now get over whatever is holding up movement on these 
amendments, get the amendments enacted into law, and get the bill over 
to the House of Representatives. And I believe they will pass it and 
get it to the President for his signature so we can indeed begin to 
address this horrific practice of human trafficking.
  I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cornyn for his important 
leadership on this issue. I thank Senator Klobuchar, whom I have 
enjoyed working with on a related bill, the Stop Exploitation Through 
Trafficking Act, which I hope will also be considered during the course 
of this debate.
  We must commit to eliminating all forms of modern-day slavery and 
human trafficking. These are horrendous crimes that undermine the most 
basic human right of freedom and sadly target the most vulnerable and 
at-risk individuals in our society.
  For too long we in the United States have assumed this is a problem 
for others but not for ourselves. We heard heartbreaking stories of the 
underground trafficking of humans but believed this was a tragedy 
unique to places in the world where a poor economy and weak rule of law 
allow vulnerable women and children to fall into these unspeakable 
circumstances. This is no longer the case. Reports and research have 
brought this crime out of the dark here at home, revealing that 
trafficking in humans is a reality in our own States and communities. 
Ignorance and denial are no longer options.
  I am proud to support the legislation we are considering today which 
would improve services and restitution available to victims of human 
trafficking. It would make changes to our criminal law to allow law 
enforcement to hold accountable those offenders who perpetrate these 
heinous crimes and also better protect those at risk of becoming 
victims.
  I am proud to say that my home State of Arizona has been a leader on 
this issue. In April 2013 then-Governor Jan Brewer launched a task 
force on human trafficking which brought together local policymakers, 
law enforcement, nonprofits, think tanks, and universities in Arizona 
to examine the issue and explore ways to reduce trafficking and protect 
victims. The work of this task force led to these results: In 2014 the 
Arizona Human Trafficking Council was established to build on the 
efforts of the task force in the longer term by improving the State's 
awareness of human trafficking, promoting cooperation among law 
enforcement, State agencies, and the community, and improving victims' 
services.
  The task force yielded legislative accomplishments. Based on 
recommendations of the task force, Arizona passed a law in April 2014 
that increased penalties for traffickers, makes it easier for 
prosecutors to hold accountable those engaged in prostitution with a 
minor, and protects victims' identities in criminal proceedings.
  In an effort to equip those who are in a position to intervene, the 
members of the task force have worked to improve training for social 
workers, health care providers, and probation officers, among others. 
These efforts provide them with the knowledge and tools needed to stop 
this exploitation and connect victims with resources to help.
  I would be remiss if I failed to mention the hard work of my wife 
Cindy to bring attention to the suffering of those who are victims of 
human trafficking. She has dedicated herself to their cause, and 
through her service on both the Arizona Human Trafficking Task Force 
and Council as well as international efforts to combat trafficking, she 
has become a well-respected and persuasive voice on this vital issue, 
driving change both in Arizona and abroad.
  America's leadership furthering human rights around the world means 
that we must hold ourselves to the highest standards when basic human 
rights are being undermined right here. I am grateful for the Senate's 
action. We must commit to continued efforts to restoring the freedom of 
those caught in the horrors of modern slavery and eliminating this 
crime wherever it occurs.
  Finally, here in the Senate we have gridlock on numerous issues. 
There are differences of opinion and philosophies. How in the world 
have we got differences on an issue such as this? Is the issue of right 
to life or abortion such an overwhelming issue that we can't address an 
issue which is the most egregious crime against innocent women and 
children?
  This is really not an honorable time or a laudable time for the U.S. 
Senate. We should be taking up amendments and passing this legislation 
today. We are letting partisanship over an issue that has been 
discussed and debated--and will be many times in the future--prevent us 
from moving forward with this legislation. It is not honorable. It is 
not honorable for us to hold up this legislation because we have a 
difference on the issue of abortion.

  I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let's not let 
this issue prevent us from doing the right thing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                               The Budget

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, I wish to take a few minutes to discuss the budget 
situation.
  My understanding is that Senator Enzi, the chairman of the committee, 
intends to have a Budget Committee markup on Wednesday, March 18, and 
Thursday, March 19. My understanding is the resolution will come to the 
floor the following week of March 23. Unless I am mistaken, we will 
engage in what is called within the Beltway a vote-arama, where there 
will be a very significant number of amendments that will be allowed to 
be offered.
  Before we discuss a budget, whether it is at the Federal level, the 
State level, or one's family, I think it is imperative to understand 
the conditions that exist as one prepares a budget. A budget reflects 
what our country is about. It reflects our national priorities. It 
reflects how we attempt to address the problems we face. It attempts to 
address how we go forward as a people into the future.
  So the first issue at hand when we discuss a budget is to, in fact, 
determine what is going on in America today. What are our problems? 
What should we be doing and what should we not be doing?
  I start off with the premise that I think is shared by the vast 
majority of the American people, which is that the middle class of this 
country over the last 40 years has been disappearing; that people 
today, by the millions, in Vermont and throughout this Nation, are 
working longer hours for low wages, despite a huge increase in 
productivity. That is the reality that faces most people in this 
country. But there is another reality, and that is that the people on 
top and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well.

[[Page S1422]]

  Today, real median family income is almost $5,000 less than it was in 
1999 in inflation accounted-for dollars. Why is that? How does that 
happen? The typical male worker--that man right in the middle of the 
American economy--made $783 less last year than he did 42 years ago, 
after adjusting for inflation. How does that happen? We have an 
explosion of technology, a huge increase in productivity; we have the 
so-called great global economy, $3 trillion all over the world; and the 
typical male worker--the guy in the middle of the economy--makes $783 
less last year than he did 42 years ago.
  The typical female worker is making $1,337 less than she did in 2007. 
Today, despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act--legislation 
I supported--40 million Americans continue to have no health insurance 
and we remain the only major country on Earth that does not guarantee 
health care to all people as a right.
  Then we have today, because many people were driven from the middle 
class into poverty, more people today living in poverty than almost any 
time in the modern history of America. How does that happen?
  Despite a very significant improvement in the economy since President 
Bush left office, real unemployment is not 5.5 percent, it is 11 
percent. Youth unemployment, which we never talk about, is 17 percent, 
and African-American youth unemployment is much higher than that.
  Throughout this country, a significant number of young people have 
given up on the dream of college. Here we are in a competitive global 
economy and we have bright young people from working-class families and 
they are looking at the cost of college and they are saying, Sorry, 
ain't for me. I am not going to come out of school $50,000, $60,000 in 
debt. What sense does that make when we are engaged in enormous 
economic competition with countries all over the world?
  Then we have another group of young people graduating college or 
graduate school in debt to the tune of $50,000, $100,000. I talked to a 
young doctor in Burlington, VT, some months ago. She graduated medical 
school $300,000 in debt for the crime of wanting to be a primary care 
physician. Does that make any sense?
  While the middle class continues to disappear, the people on top and 
the largest corporations have never had it so good. That is the other 
reality of America today. The middle class shrinks--a whole lot of 
people living in poverty, people have no health insurance, kids can't 
afford to go to college--but people on top are doing phenomenally well.
  Today, the top 1 percent earns more income than the bottom 50 
percent. And since the Wall Street crash of 2008, over 99 percent of 
all new income goes to the top 1 percent. Over 99 percent of all new 
income goes to the top 1 percent.
  Corporate profits are soaring. The stock market is up. CEOs now earn 
270 times what their average employee makes. Today, the top one-tenth 
of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. The 
top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 
percent. And the wealthiest family in this country alone--one family--
owns more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of the American family. 
Does that sound like the America we want to see, that we believe in, 
where so few have so much and so many have so little?
  It is an extraordinary fact that between 1985 and 2013, the bottom 90 
percent of our people lost $10.7 trillion in wealth that it otherwise 
would have had if the distribution of wealth had remained at the same 
level as it was in 1985. If we had the same distribution of wealth, the 
bottom 90 percent would have had close to $11 trillion more wealth. 
Meanwhile, the top one-tenth of 1 percent experienced an $8 trillion 
increase in wealth as the distribution of wealth became increasingly 
unequal.
  What a phenomenon, this huge transfer of wealth from working people 
to the millionaires and billionaires.
  Now let me get to the budget, because when we deal with a budget, we 
can't ignore that reality. If the rich get much richer and the middle 
class declines, it makes no sense at all to say we are going to give 
more tax breaks to the rich and we are going to cut programs for the 
middle class and working families. This is the Robin Hood principle in 
reverse. It is taking from the middle class and working families and 
giving to the very rich.
  I worry very much that this is exactly what will be in the Republican 
budget that we debate next week in committee. I expect--and I may be 
mistaken and I hope I am but I don't think I am--I expect the 
Republican budget in the Senate this year will be very close to what 
the so-called Ryan budget did last year which was passed by the 
Republican House. There may be nuances of differences, I don't know, 
but I think it will be very close.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the Republican budget will be about. 
The Republican budget will oppose ending tax loopholes for the wealthy 
and large corporations--loopholes that allow billionaire hedge fund 
managers to pay a lower tax rate than electricians and schoolteachers. 
I expect that the Republican budget will continue to allow major 
profitable corporations such as General Electric, Verizon, and many 
others to go through a given year paying absolutely nothing in Federal 
income tax. I expect that the Republican budget will attempt to 
voucherize Medicare--end it as we know it to be--and I expect there 
will be massive cuts in Medicaid, education, nutrition programs, Pell 
grants, and the kinds of programs that working families absolutely 
depend upon.
  We need a very different budget than what I believe the Republicans 
are going to propose. We need a budget that stands for the working 
families of this country and not just the millionaires and 
billionaires.
  Let me tell my colleagues what that budget should include, although I 
don't think the Republican budget will include these ideas. When real 
unemployment is 11 percent, we need a budget that creates millions of 
decent-paying jobs. In my view, and in the view of many economists, the 
fastest way to create those jobs and address a real national crisis is 
to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure--our roads, our bridges, water 
systems, wastewater plants, airports, dams, levees, and expand 
broadband to rural America. According to the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, we need to invest over $3 trillion to rebuild our 
infrastructure. We are not going to do that, but we need to make a 
major investment. When we do that, we make America more productive and 
safer, and we also create millions of jobs.
  A serious budget needs to make our Tax Code fairer and to bring 
substantial new revenue into Federal coffers. We need a budget that 
ends unfair tax loopholes and asks the wealthiest people and largest 
corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.
  Today at the hearing we had in the Committee on the Budget, a 
Republican witness testified that he thought that corporate taxes 
should be zero--zero. Well, that does not make a lot of sense to me.
  We need a budget that understands when the Federal minimum wage is a 
starvation wage of $7.25 an hour, we need to substantially raise the 
minimum wage. We need to deal with the overtime scandal we currently 
see. We need to raise wages for low- and moderate-income families.
  At a time when large numbers of our young people have given up on the 
dream of higher education and college is increasingly unaffordable, we 
need a budget that says to every kid in America that if you have the 
ability and you have the desire, you are going to get a higher 
education regardless of the income of your family. At a time when 
corporations have shipped millions of decent-paying jobs to China and 
other low-wage countries, we need a budget that rewards companies for 
investing in America and for creating jobs here, not abroad.
  At a time when millions of people still lack health insurance, we 
need a budget that ensures quality, affordable health care for all 
Americans by supporting the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, 
strengthening Medicare and Medicaid, and extending funding for the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, community health centers, and the 
National Health Service Corporation.
  Let me conclude by making this simple and obvious point: A budget is 
about priorities. A budget is about choices. And what we have to 
determine is whether our budget coming out

[[Page S1423]]

of the Senate is a budget that represents the needs of the rich and 
large corporations and their wealthy campaign donors, or whether we 
produce a budget which represents the needs of working families and the 
middle class and the millions and millions of families who are 
struggling economically to keep their heads above water.
  I hope we make the right choice. I hope we stand with the working 
families of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Order For Recess

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of a unanimous 
consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in 
recess from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am on the floor to discuss the Human 
Trafficking Survivors Relief and Empowerment Act, which is legislation 
I introduced last week to aid the recovery of survivors of human 
trafficking.
  This bill, which I have also filed as an amendment to Senator 
Cornyn's Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, will make important 
strides toward helping survivors of human trafficking free themselves 
from the social stigma that is associated with their victimization and 
help them rebuild their lives as productive members of society.
  I wish to start by sharing the story of a young woman who was 
featured on NPR several weeks ago. She is a human trafficking survivor. 
Her story is far too common.
  She was raped for the first time at age 11. At 13, she was lured away 
from her family and eventually forced into engaging in commercial sex. 
She talked about the physical trauma she endured at the hands of her 
captor--her skull was cracked, all of her ribs broken, and she endured 
regular beatings and black eyes.
  For roughly 7 years, her entire teenage life--a life she should have 
been spending in school and among friends--she endured the worst kinds 
of physical and emotional torture. Finally, at age 20, she was rescued 
by a thoughtful police officer nearly 1,400 miles from her home.
  Fortunately, this young woman is now in the process of rebuilding her 
life. She has moved home near her family, she has a young son, and she 
is hoping to go to school for nursing and to make a better life for 
herself and her family. However, she is constantly confronted by the 
reality of the criminal record she accumulated as the result of being a 
trafficking victim. Every application she fills out, every job 
interview she attends, she is forced to relive and explain the most 
painful moments of her life.
  As this victim told NPR, ``I'm not ever going to forget what I've 
done, but at the same time, I don't want it thrown in my face every 
time I'm trying to seek employment.''
  Human traffickers use force, fraud, and coercion to compel their 
victims to engage in criminal activity, particularly prostitution, yet 
it is often the trafficking victims who are arrested, detained, 
prosecuted, and convicted.
  My legislation is simple. It provides an incentive for States to 
enact laws that allow human trafficking survivors to clear their State 
criminal records of prostitution and other low-level, nonviolent crimes 
that result from being trafficked.
  Specifically, these vacatur statutes allow trafficking survivors to 
file a motion in court to expunge their criminal record for crimes they 
can reasonably demonstrate were the result of being trafficked.
  My colleague Senator Gillibrand has filed a similar amendment that 
would address this issue at the Federal level or in Federal court. Her 
amendment would ensure that victims charged with Federal crimes have 
the opportunity to clear their record of the most serious types of 
charges associated with trafficking.
  My amendment would encourage States to provide a remedy for the most 
common types of charges that trafficking victims face.
  I urge my colleagues to support my legislation and my amendment. I 
hope we can get trafficking legislation done in a way that will help 
the victims in the future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________