[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 58 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2288-S2295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was not going to be talking right now, 
but I understand some of the people who are going to be reserving time 
are not yet here.

[[Page S2289]]

                        Pilot's Bill of Rights 2

  Mr. President, I want to remind my colleagues on the floor that we 
have a piece of legislation that is coming up that no one is really 
plugged into right now, but it is going to be coming before us in a 
very short period of time.
  Back in 2011, I introduced a bill and passed a bill called the 
Pilot's Bill of Rights. It was something that was very meaningful to a 
relatively small number of people, but these are single-issue people, 
and it strove to correct a problem in our justice system that existed 
for as long as I could remember.
  Having been an active commercial pilot for the last over 50 years--
and there are not too many in the Senate; and in our delegation in 
Oklahoma, I was the only one until a couple years ago--it is only 
natural that I receive comments from a lot of people concerning 
problems they have with the FAA.
  There are a lot of great people in the FAA, and a lot of them I have 
worked with for many, many years. But there are also some--and this is 
true with any regulatory body, anyone who has authority over 
individuals. I remember back many years ago when I was the mayor of 
Tulsa. We had a great police force. But all it takes is two or three of 
them who are the bad guys. We are seeing some of that around today, and 
that gives a bad reputation to a lot of people. The same thing is true 
with some of the people who are working with the FAA.
  I can remember helping others, and I always did come to their aid 
when they felt they were not getting proper justice. But it really did 
not register with me until it actually happened to me. Back about 3 
years ago, flying an airplane into a Texas airfield that is not a 
controlled airfield, there was an activity going on on the runway 
without any NOTAMs that had been advised--and nobody actually had any 
way of knowing this--and with permission I landed on that runway. This 
is a runway in far South Texas called the Cameron County Airport. It 
has a 9,000-foot runway. They were working on just a couple thousand 
feet of it, so it was very easy to come in.
  Now, because of certain individuals who had some other reasons to be 
critical of me, all kinds of things happened as a result of that. In 
fact, just recently they have even had some cartoons talking about how 
I landed on a runway and was chasing people off the runway. None of 
that was true.
  But this is what happened. They proposed to have a violation against 
me, and I was totally helpless, knowing--and many hundreds of others 
have had this experience; I never had--that I could lose my license on 
the whims of one individual in the field.
  Now, it would not have been as critical for me. That is not how I 
make my living. But look at some people who do make their living that 
way. They could lose their license just because of one individual who 
did not like them. Bob Hoover is a good example. Bob Hoover, who I 
guess is in his nineties now, arguably was the most gifted pilot I can 
ever remember. He was the one, I say to the Presiding Officer, who 
would put a glass of water up on his dash and do a barrel roll and not 
spill the water. I have been with him when that happened. Well, one guy 
in the field did not like him for some reason, and they staged a 
violation. He could have and did lose his license.
  Now, I had to come to this body--and it took a year and a half--to 
pass a bill to allow Bob Hoover to get back in. That is an extreme 
example, but nonetheless, that happened. And that is what was happening 
to me.
  So anyway, we passed the Pilot's Bill of Rights. The main thing there 
and what we are trying to do is to extend to pilots the same 
protections under the law that other people have. We have heard the 
phrase many times: You are guilty until proven innocent. Well, in one 
area in our society that is true--it has historically been true--and 
that is for violations or alleged violations against pilots.
  So anyway, we passed this. We corrected some things that have not 
really come to fruition. For example, what is called a NOTAM is short 
for a notice to airmen. A NOTAM is something that has to be published. 
It is supposed to be published by the FAA if there is anything going on 
at an airport such as construction on a runway that would create a 
hazard.
  So the pilots have to look up the NOTAMs. The problem with this is, 
there are no guidelines as to where they can find a notice to airmen. 
So we corrected this, we thought, in the Pilot's Bill of Rights. 
However, it was not as good of a correction as we thought it would be.
  So now we are coming back with a Pilot's Bill of Rights 2. By the 
way, I have to tell you, Mr. President, I had 67 cosponsors out of 100 
Senators. So this is something that was very popular and passed with 
overwhelming majorities.
  So what we are doing now with the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 is about 
four things.
  First, the medical certification process is one that is kind of 
interesting because there is no uniformity. Someone can have a physical 
problem, a medical problem, and he might be in Chicago, IL, or he might 
be in Tampa, FL, and they will have a completely different 
interpretation by the medical examiner as to what should be the remedy 
of that person's problem. So this puts uniformity back in there.
  Then it does something--and this is going to be something that people 
who do not understand and are not listening to me right now might state 
that this would be something that could be a hazard or might be some 
kind of a danger--and that is, we passed in 2004, a rule creating a 
medical exemption for pilots of light ``sport pilot eligible'' 
aircraft. That is for airplanes that weigh under 1,230 pounds and only 
have 2 seats. There are about 34,000 of them around. It has been over 
10 years since FAA issued this exemption, and since then the medical 
safety experience of these pilots has been identical to those with 
medical certificates, which begs the question of the value of this 
expensive and burdensome requirement for pilots who fly for recreation.
  A joint study was done by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, 
the AOPA, and the Experimental Aircraft Association, the EAA, on the 
46,976 aviation accidents that occurred from 2008 and 2012. Of those 
46,976, only 99 had a medical cause as a factor. That is less than one-
quarter of 1 percent of all accidents. And of those 99, none would have 
been prevented by the current third-class medical screening standards 
and the medical certification process. So it does not offer any 
protection. It does not serve any useful purpose.
  Now, we are proposing in the Pilot's Bill of Rights 2 to extend that 
medical exemption that is currently in place for light sport aircraft 
to include planes weighing up to 6,000 pounds with up to 6 total 
passengers, including the pilot. That would add airmen and aircraft to 
an existing FAA-approved medical standard without degrading or creating 
substandard safety.
  What I am saying here is that of all these almost 47,000 aviation 
accidents, only 99 had a medical cause, and of those 99, not one would 
have been prevented by the current third-class medical screening 
standards and the medical certification process. So this is just 
another burden on the public--not individuals, but specifically on 
pilots, and it does not accomplish anything.
  What we will do now is have consistency in the application of the 
medical certification process, and it is something that is overdue. It 
should not be a problem getting that bill passed, and yet it does need 
explanation.
  The second thing it does is extend the due process rights preserved 
in the original Pilot's Bill of Rights bill to all FAA certificate 
holders--not just those who are certificate holders who fly airplanes. 
There are others who are examiners and work in other fields. They 
should have the same benefits.
  What it does is--and this is kind of hard to explain--but if someone 
is accused of a violation, that individual has a process that has been 
in law prior to the Pilot's Bill of Rights; and that is, you go through 
and the FAA makes a judgment. Then you can appeal it to the NTSB. The 
NTSB historically has been a rubber stamp for the FAA. So it does not 
really qualify anything.
  What we did in the Pilot's Bill of Rights 1 is allow an individual 
then to go into the court system and get what they call a de novo. A de 
novo means they have a whole process that starts from scratch. They do 
not just take what the FAA says, the NTSB says, but the courts treat it 
as a new case and look at it. This has not been happening. So we put 
some teeth in that so

[[Page S2290]]

that will be something that will be workable.
  So I really feel we are going to be able to do this, and it is really 
getting the things done that we tried to do in the Pilot's Bill of 
Rights, but there have been some problems getting the courts to 
understand it. In fact, in two separate cases, the Federal district 
courts ruled that my original bill did not require a full rehearing of 
the facts. This legislation explicitly spells out the option to appeal 
an FAA enforcement action to the Federal district courts for a 
guaranteed de novo trial. But they have not been doing it. So this puts 
teeth in it so they are going to actually have to do it.
  By the way, there are things that are in there that people are not 
aware of. For example, in my case, I allegedly did something that was 
not in compliance with FAA rules and regulations, but they did not say 
what it was. They did not give the evidence. So you did not have access 
to your evidence. The new bill ensures that is going to happen.
  The third thing is on NOTAMs. A NOTAM is a notice to airmen. It is a 
pilot's responsibility--this has been true for decades--to know if a 
NOTAM has been filed by the FAA. That is a notice to airmen. But there 
is not any way of knowing where to find that. In my case, they claimed 
there was a NOTAM saying that the runway at Cameron County Airport was 
closed. That was a lie. There wasn't. There was no NOTAM out there. 
Finally, we proved that was the case.
  So now we are going to have it enforced so we know where these 
notices to airmen are filed, and it is going to be the responsibility 
of the FAA to put them in a central location where they would have 
access to them. This is something that was addressed in the Pilot's 
Bill of Rights, but somehow it was not specific enough. The teeth we 
put in this bill is that in the event they do not have it, the NOTAM is 
published where it can be found in a central location. Then the FAA 
cannot use that as an enforcement action. That will get the job done.
  The fourth thing it does is to extend the liability protection to 
individuals designated by the FAA as aviation medical examiners, pilot 
examiners, and this type of thing. What this does also is address what 
we call and most people would refer to as the Good Samaritan law. I 
have a lot of pilots--and I have been in the same situation--who want 
to help. They want to get a patient to a doctor in an emergency 
situation.
  I can remember one time many years ago when a tornado went through 
and destroyed the island of Dominica, north of Caracas, Venezuela. I 
got 12 pilots together with 12 of their airplanes, and they volunteered 
to take all the medical supplies down there. Now, if something had 
happened in the meantime, they would have had no protection. Yet out of 
the goodness of their hearts, at their own expense, they were out there 
trying to save lives. I was there. I know.
  So this actually is one that is going to give liability protection to 
individuals other than just the pilots--other people who own FAA 
certificates--and at the same time give protection to those people who 
are trying to help other people.
  So I believe this bill should be coming up in the next couple of 
weeks. It will be going to the commerce committee. I would encourage 
Members to--and particularly those 67 Members who were the cosponsors 
of the original Pilot's Bill of Rights should be on this one too. In 
fact, most of them are right now. I know Senators Manchin and Boozman 
were the first two to get on. They happen to be the chairmen of the 
General Aviation Caucus in the Senate. By the way, we have equal 
support over in the other body, in the House of Representatives.
  Last summer, at the EAA AirVenture Oshkosh fly-in convention--that is 
the largest fly-in convention anywhere in the world--I hosted a public 
forum to solicit input for the legislation we are having, the Pilot's 
Bill of Rights 2, and I received over 400 comments from 
individuals. These are people who were present at the Oshkosh event.

  So we have solicited their input, and we have all the organizations 
behind it. I would say, insofar as the one that might become 
controversial; that is, the exemption on a third-class medical--doctors 
have unanimously voted in favor of it--they are called the doctors in 
aviation--and others.
  This is one of these rare opportunities we have on a bipartisan basis 
to pass something that is going to offer legal protections to one class 
of people who currently don't have it and have not had it in the past.
  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. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise again to speak in support of the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. It is good legislation, drafted 
and introduced by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, and also the 
Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar. They originally put this bill 
together in the last Congress, and I was pleased to be a cosponsor of 
that bill. I am also very pleased to be an original cosponsor of the 
legislation they introduced earlier this year, the legislation we have 
on the floor now.
  This bill has many important, strong points. I am going to go through 
some--not all but a number of them.
  For example, it makes sure victims get restitution and witnesses get 
rewards for cooperating with law enforcement before others and 
encourages prosecutors to get training on restitution in human 
trafficking cases. It also gives law enforcement greater authority to 
seize the assets of convicted human traffickers, and it protects 
victims and witnesses by requiring human traffickers to be treated as 
violent criminals for purposes of pretrial release and detention 
pending judicial proceedings.
  It also ensures that Federal crime victims are informed of any plea 
bargain or deferred prosecution agreement in their case and clarifies 
that the ordinary standard of appellate review applies in cases 
concerning Federal crime victims' rights petitions.
  It recognizes that child pornography production is a form of human 
trafficking and ensures that victims have access to direct services at 
child advocacy centers to help them heal.
  It allows State and local human trafficking task forces to get 
wiretap warrants within their own State courts without Federal 
approval. That will help them to more effectively investigate crimes of 
child pornography, child sexual exploitation, and human trafficking.
  The bill also improves nationwide communications so law enforcement 
can better track and capture traffickers and child pornographers. It 
ensures regular reporting on the number of human trafficking crimes for 
purposes of the FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program.
  It also requires law enforcement to upload photos of missing 
individuals into the National Criminal Information Center database and 
notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children of any 
child reported missing from foster care, and it strengthens current law 
to reduce demand for human trafficking by encouraging police, 
prosecutors, judges, and juries to target all persons involved in the 
buying and selling of human trafficking victims. It is just wrong to 
prosecute victims and fail to prosecute those who prey on them.
  This legislation will help for all of those reasons, but this 
legislation is also very important because it creates a fund from fines 
and penalties imposed on those who would engage in human trafficking. 
The fund is important because it not only compensates victims of human 
trafficking and other crimes of exploitation for their injuries, but it 
also provides resources to help law enforcement prevent such crimes in 
the future.
  As we work on this important issue, it is also very important that we 
understand that human trafficking is not just a big-State, big-city 
problem. Every State in the country is facing this issue, including my 
home State of North Dakota, but we currently have a challenge 
addressing this problem.
  After consulting with the North Dakota attorney general's office, we 
learned that North Dakota has been

[[Page S2291]]

discouraged from applying for antihuman trafficking grants, because in 
its application, the Department of Justice asks for at least 2 years of 
local data on human trafficking victims. North Dakota, in recent years, 
has been the fastest growing State in the country. So here we are, the 
fastest growing State both in terms of population and in terms of 
income growth. Consequently, more so than many States, only recently we 
have seen significant increases in human trafficking issues. So we 
don't have that 2 years' worth of data that DOJ requires, but we very 
much need assistance with addressing the problem of human trafficking. 
It is not unique to North Dakota. There are other States--typically 
fast-growing States, States that may have the same kind of energy 
development or other areas where they have seen a significant influx of 
people and are continuing to see a significant influx of people. This 
is a national issue. It is not specific just to my State but to any 
State where we have seen rapid growth, influx of money, influx of 
people from outside the State and where human trafficking is an issue.
  To remedy that, I have offered an amendment to the current 
legislation we have on the floor now, the Cornyn-Klobuchar bill, that 
clarifies that an eligibility entity with a worthy trafficking 
initiative, in an effort to combat trafficking in its jurisdiction, 
will not be disadvantaged in receiving funds under the Cornyn-Klobuchar 
bill because they, like North Dakota--be it a State or whatever--have 
only recently begun collecting data on human trafficking. So in cases 
where they don't have 2 years of data, as long as they can demonstrate 
a valid need and a valid solution to try to address this important 
issue and to reduce human trafficking, that is what will be required 
for the application, and not having 2 years of data will not be an 
issue in terms of scoring or an issue that DOJ would hold against that 
application for receipt of the funds for a worthy project.
  This is important to make sure that all across the country, in every 
State, we are addressing human trafficking. We all need to be united, 
in every State across this great country, working to combat human 
trafficking. That is why this amendment is very important.
  There are few issues that as a governing body we can be more united 
on than making sure we protect our children, that we prevent human 
trafficking in any form, and that we do it on a national basis in every 
State. That is what my amendment is all about.
  For this reason, I offer this amendment. I hope it will be included 
as part of the Cornyn-Klobuchar legislation, which, as I said earlier, 
I am only too pleased to cosponsor.
  The value and importance of this legislation is reflected in the 
broad coalition of victims' rights and law enforcement organizations 
that support it. It has been endorsed by nearly 200 groups, from the 
Fraternal Order of Police to the National Center for Missing and 
Exploited Children.
  We need to pass this legislation. Crimes such as human trafficking 
and child pornography target the most vulnerable among us in a most 
despicable way. I urge all of my colleagues to pass this bill, to put 
an end to modern-day slavery, and to help victims get the support they 
need.
  Mr. President, 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. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my appreciation that 
this afternoon the Senate is finally getting back to legislating on the 
important issue of human trafficking. It is critical we pass this 
legislation to combat one of the world's most heinous crimes and one 
that threatens thousands of innocent people every year.
  I am the cochair and cofounder of the human trafficking caucus. Our 
opportunity is not only to raise awareness of this issue but also to 
pass important legislation to address the problem.
  We learned that human trafficking is now a $32 billion worldwide 
industry, leaving it only second in size to the drug trade for criminal 
activity. Many view this as an international problem. They think, well, 
this happens somewhere else or on another continent, such as Africa or 
Asia. The fact is it happens right here. Of course, every country 
around the world has a responsibility to fight back against traffickers 
and stop their acts of violence. But while this industry has a global 
reach, the reality is that human trafficking is a major problem not 
only in my home State of Ohio, it is a problem in every State 
represented in the Senate. The Justice Department has told us that the 
average age of victims getting involved in trafficking is 12 to 14 
years old. Think about that. These are children. These are kids. The 
number of American children at risk of sexual exploitation and human 
trafficking is estimated to be about 300,000. These children represent 
the most vulnerable among us, and we should make sure we are doing 
everything we possibly can to protect them. Every American life has 
value and every child deserves a chance to live a bright future.
  Today, however, we can take comfort in knowing we are fighting back 
against human traffickers and making it harder for their criminal 
activity to continue in a couple of different ways, both of which are 
very important.
  First, our legislation makes it easier to find some of these 
vulnerable children. Missing children are particularly vulnerable, and 
the legislation I am about to talk about enables us to find those 
children more quickly and helps to get them into a nurturing 
environment. Second, it will strengthen law enforcement's ability to 
find and punish those who are committing these crimes.
  We accomplished the first goal with the Bringing Missing Children 
Home Act. It is a bill that I authored with Senator Chuck Schumer of 
New York. We know there is a strong connection, unfortunately, between 
sex trafficking victims and children who have been in and out of the 
child welfare system. We also understand that kids who are missing or 
who have run away from home are the most vulnerable to trafficking, 
exploitation, and abuse. The FBI sting in 2014 recovered 168 sex 
trafficking victims, and nearly all of them had spent time in the child 
welfare or foster care system. While many of these children had been 
reported missing, the information obtained by authorities was not 
sufficient enough to be able to find them, and that is what this 
legislation gets at.
  The Bringing Missing Children Home Act will make it easier to find 
these children in two different ways. First, it amends the Missing 
Children's Assistance Act by replacing the term ``child prostitution'' 
with ``child sex trafficking.'' This reinforces the fact that children 
who are exploited are victims, not criminals. Secondly, the bill 
requires law enforcement agencies to update their records of missing 
children within 30 days of an initial report with additional 
information that could include medical or dental records or even a 
photograph. Having this new information, particularly a photograph, is 
incredibly important when searching for a missing child. I know this 
because this has been a big problem in my home State of Ohio.
  We started looking at this legislation and considering this bill on 
the floor on March 6. Since March 6, 60 children have been reported 
missing in my home State of Ohio. Yet we only have photographs for 14 
of them. It is hard to find these children, and not having that 
information makes it even more difficult. Our legislation will help to 
get those photographs and will help ensure that all of us can play a 
role in helping to find these missing children.
  The bill also makes it easier for law enforcement officials on the 
State and local level to coordinate with child welfare services, and it 
allows missing persons units and State law enforcement agencies to 
modify and improve missing children's entries to include important 
information that was uncovered during an investigation. That is not 
currently the case. It just makes sense to be able to have better 
records.
  While we are making it easier to find trafficking victims, we will 
also make it easier to find and punish perpetrators of these crimes 
with legislation I have authored with Senator Dianne

[[Page S2292]]

Feinstein. It is called the Combat Human Trafficking Act and is part of 
this underlying bill we will also be considering here on the floor. 
This act focuses on those who commit these crimes. It increases the 
penalties for those who buy acts from sex trafficking victims. It 
requires new training by the Justice Department on targeting. It 
expands reporting on trafficking prosecutions and strengthens victims' 
rights. A lot of this comes out of what we have learned over the past 
decade since we have really taken up this issue at the Federal level. 
It improves Federal law to take into account the information we now 
know. Through better enforcement of laws against buyers, we will be 
able to reduce the demand for sexual exploitation and ensure that 
criminals are prosecuted to the full extent, preventing further 
trafficking crimes from ever happening.
  As the cochair of the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking, it has 
been a priority of mine to get this legislation passed in an effort to 
help victims of trafficking and to prevent the number of victims from 
increasing.
  I also hope we can add an amendment I authored entitled ``Ensuring a 
Better Response for Victims of Child Sex Trafficking.'' This amendment 
contains a piece of legislation I authored last year with Senator Wyden 
of Oregon called the Sex Trafficking Data and Response Act. It will 
help improve the information law enforcement officials have about the 
scope of the trafficking problem. This was signed into law last year, 
but there is additional information we would like to provide in terms 
of getting the response part of that bill passed.
  The bills I have spoken about are important steps to one day ending 
human trafficking and putting this horrible industry out of business 
altogether. Trafficking deserves no place in America.
  I thank Senator Chuck Schumer, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and others 
for their hard work on this legislation I have talked about. I would 
also like to express how grateful I am that Members of this Chamber 
were able to put partisanship behind us, politics aside, and reach 
common ground to move forward on this important issue. Ending human 
trafficking is clearly a bipartisan goal. It is a nonpartisan goal. It 
is something on which we should come together. The legislation we have 
before us today will make a profound impact on so many Americans, 
including some of the most vulnerable. I am happy to see we are a 
little closer to having these bills become law. I think they will 
become law once they pass this Chamber, go through the House, and are 
signed by the President.
  We still have a lot of work to do. This is just a start. After today, 
the fight to combat human trafficking will be far from over. Somewhere 
in America, there will still be children looking to be found, wondering 
if anybody cares, despite our legislation. Today's legislation will 
make it easier to find them, but it is still up to all of us. All of us 
have a role in helping to keep these children from going missing in the 
first place and then finding and providing them with a nurturing 
setting and a home where they are embraced and where they can be taken 
away from the stress of human trafficking and sex trafficking.
  There will always be traffickers looking to exploit the vulnerable. 
We know that. But today, if we pass this legislation, we will be 
sending a warning to those who commit these heinous crimes. As long as 
you are a perpetrator or an accomplice to human trafficking--folks will 
know that law enforcement is going to do what it takes to track them 
down and to punish them.
  I am glad we have been able to find common ground again and move a 
little closer to making these positive changes a reality. I am hopeful 
that we will be able to vote on this today and tomorrow, move this to 
the House, get it through to the President, and indeed begin to make a 
difference to my constituents in Ohio and around the country.
  With that, I yield back.
  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. COATS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Wasteful Spending

  Mr. COATS. Madam President, I am here today to identify yet another 
installment of the ``Waste of the Week.'' We have been doing this now 
for several weeks, trying to save taxpayers' dollars out of documented 
waste of their dollars when they send them to Washington. In recent 
weeks, I have highlighted examples of waste, some big some small.
  To date, we have documented over $47 billion of taxpayer funds that 
have gone to duplication of effort, simply gone to things the Federal 
Government never should have been involved in in the first place, 
examples of fraud, abuse--$47 billion and climbing on our tax savings 
gauge here which is approaching now $50 billion. Our goal is $100 
billion. We are going to keep going as we discover each week yet 
another waste of taxpayer dollars.
  This week's ``Waste of the Week'' involves the Federal Employees' 
Compensation Act, also known as FECA. This law was enacted in 1916--
well intended, I think, to provide workers' compensation benefits to 
civilian Federal employees who sustained injuries while employed by the 
Federal Government and includes funds for vocational rehabilitation and 
medical benefits.
  As I said, it was well intended at the time, providing a lifeline for 
people injured on the job to keep these people afloat financially until 
they are ready to go back to work. ``Ready to go back to work'' has 
become somewhat of a major question in terms of how this 1916 law is 
applied, because you have to wonder, is someone 99 years old looking to 
go back to work.
  Well, in 1916, when this act was enacted, it treated them as if they 
were and are able to go back to work. Let me explain. Both the FECA 
compensation and medical benefits are payable for the duration of a 
person's inability to work, which can extend well into their individual 
golden years.
  You say: How does that all happen? But under current law, there is no 
maximum duration of benefits and no maximum age at which benefits must 
be terminated. Thus, when beneficiaries become eligible for Federal 
retirement or disability annuities, they are given the choice as to 
whether they want to remain in the FECA program or choose the Federal 
retirement program.
  Well, it is not much of a choice. The choice is obvious because given 
the level of benefits monthly, FECA benefits can be a much better deal 
than what they would be paid under retirement benefit plans. The FECA 
benefits are as high as 75 percent of the worker's predisability wage. 
The annual cost-of-living-adjustment is applied each year, the COLA, to 
the benefits.
  Someone came up with a pretty interesting idea here. FECA benefits 
are not taxed. So, clearly, this ends up being a much better deal for 
beneficiaries. But is it a better deal for taxpayers? That is the 
question. Let's take a closer look. This applies to all Federal 
agencies, but let's take one agency. The Department of Labor reports 
that approximately 45,000 cases currently receive long-term disability 
benefits under FECA, and 15,000 or one-third of these cases involve 
beneficiaries aged 66 or older.
  Clearly, it is time--actually it is past time--to reconsider and make 
reforms to the FECA. At a minimum, we should require workers, when they 
reach retirement age, to transition into the retirement plan as all 
their peers have had to do and not continue, throughout their lifetime, 
the much more generous benefits of FECA.
  As I said, the agency with the most FECA claims is the U.S. Postal 
Service. I want to use this as an example of how this is applied. The 
Postal Service Office of Inspector General told us that FECA rolls 
include 9,554 postal workers aged 55 or older eligible for retirement; 
3,389 aged 65 and over; 928 aged 80 or older; and, yes, one postal 
worker at the age of 99.
  So in 2013 the U.S. Postal Service paid about $1.3 billion in 
workers' compensation claims and $67 million in administrative fees. In 
addition, as of June 30, 2014, the estimated workers' compensation 
liability totaled $17.8 billion. Now, while many of these benefits go 
to workers of a traditional working

[[Page S2293]]

age, the U.S. Postal Service estimates that these higher than 
retirement benefits are resulting in an extra $37.8 million being paid 
out annually.
  That comes to nearly $400 million over the next 10 years, and that is 
just from one agency, the U.S. Postal Service. Estimates as to the cost 
to the taxpayer when all of the Federal agencies are included show that 
more than $1 billion will be spent over the next 10 years in extra 
workers' compensation payments for those who would unlikely be working 
throughout the Federal workforce.
  As my colleague, Senator Susan Collins from Maine, has been 
highlighting for years, FECA has become a gold-plated retirement system 
tainted by unfairness, perverse incentives, and the potential for abuse 
and fraud.
  This program has become increasingly expensive and requires some 
commonsense reforms--reforms that many States have already implemented 
in their own workers' compensation programs. Remember, these payments 
are designed as a bridge to help injured workers until they are able to 
return to work. That is the most important phrase here--``return to 
work.'' This program was never intended to serve as a higher paying 
alternative to the Federal retirement system. Yet, under the law, it is 
used for that, and it has cost the taxpayers a significant amount of 
their tax dollars for unnecessary payments.
  Let's not ignore ways we can improve our fiscal health and return our 
Federal programs, at a minimum, to their original intent. It is time we 
look at this policy and restore integrity to the FECA, the Federal 
Employees' Compensation Act.
  Today, I am adding another $1 billion to the taxpayer savings gauge 
for this week's waste of the week, and I look forward to discussing 
ways we can eradicate this waste from our Federal budget so that we can 
give hard-earned dollars back to the taxpayers--money that simply is 
not used properly and is labeled, of course, a waste of their money.
  So we have increased--we are approaching $50 billion, and we are 
shooting up to $100 billion by the end of this year. I am hoping we can 
go significantly past that.
  The next step, of course, is to take what we have identified and make 
sure that the law is changed, that it is reformed, and that we can 
proudly say to the taxpayer that we are doing our part in Washington. 
While the larger issues of debt and deficit need to be addressed and 
must be addressed, if we cannot come to consensus on that, at least we 
can come to consensus on eliminating these egregious abuses of taxpayer 
dollars.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 
up to 15 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, as Americans celebrate the 35th Earth 
Day this week, I rise for the 96th time--I seem to be coinciding with 
the Presiding Officer's schedule so he has been treated to his share of 
these speeches--to urge this body to wake up to the threat of climate 
change. It is real, not a hoax. It is caused by carbon pollution, and 
it is already making changes that we are already seeing in the world 
around us. We must cut our carbon pollution to prevent even bigger 
climate changes--changes in our atmosphere, oceans, and human habitat--
potentially unprecedented in the history of our human habitation of 
this planet.
  Yet the polluters who are producing this problem would have us do 
nothing. They make money when we do nothing. So we do nothing. The 
polluters run a racket. They all float onto us the costs and damage 
from their fossil fuel product--the costs of heat waves, of sea level 
rise, of ocean acidification, of dying forests, and more. The polluters 
happily dump those costs onto everybody else. And to keep this 
profitable racket running, the polluters spend huge sums on lobbying 
and politics, particularly right here in the Congress.
  As one author has written, ``rivers of money flowing from secret 
sources have turned our elections into silent auctions.'' And the 
polluters get what they pay for. The Republican Party in Congress has 
become the political arm of the fossil fuel industry. The polluters 
also spend huge amounts on a big, complex PR machine to churn out doubt 
about the real science and cook up some paid-for science.
  Documents recently discovered by Greenpeace show that one scientist, 
whose work consistently downplayed the role of carbon pollution and 
climate change, received--get this--more than $1.2 million from oil and 
coal interests over the last decade. Those nice people at the Charles 
G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave him at least $230,000. In recent 
years, his grants came through Donors Trust, the front group that 
funnels money from oil, coal, and other special interests.
  Well, what do we know? We know that financial incentives affect 
people's behavior. Does anyone doubt that? That is life. That is why 
politicians have to disclose their political contributors, the gifts 
and benefits they receive, and even personal financial information. 
That is why regulatory agencies and scientific journals require 
scientific submissions to make plain who funded the work. That is why 
expert witnesses' funding sources are relevant in court proceedings. 
And that is why Upton Sinclair once said: ``It's difficult to get a man 
to understand something when his salary depends on his not 
understanding it.''
  So we know that money talks. That is not news. What else do we know? 
Well, we also know about that industry playbook to keep safety 
regulation at bay by funding phony science and manufacturing doubt 
about legitimate science. That is not news, either. That has been 
around for years.
  The tobacco industry campaign to mislead the public about the health 
effects of cigarettes was so fraudulent it was determined in Federal 
court to be a racketeering enterprise. Think about that--an industry 
campaign of deception about the risks of their product that persisted 
for years and was ultimately determined in Federal court to have 
constituted a racketeering enterprise. Does it sound familiar? And 
tobacco is not alone. The lead paint industry shut down its trade 
association, the Lead Industry Association, rather than answer 
questions under oath in a court proceeding.
  Entire books have been written documenting this industry's strategy, 
for example, ``Merchants of Doubt,'' which has recently been made into 
a documentary, or ``Doubt is Their Product,'' or ``Lead Wars,'' or 
``Deceit and Denial.'' So we know the strategy.
  Finally, we know something else. We know that a network of front 
organizations with innocent-sounding names has emerged to propagate the 
baloney science. This phenomenon has been well documented by Dr. Robert 
Brulle at Drexell University, among others. His follow-the-money 
analysis diagrams the complex flow of cash to these front groups that 
industry persistently tries to obscure. Well, here is what makes sense 
to me: If it is important enough for them to want to hide it, it is 
important enough for us to want to know about it.
  So Senators Boxer, Markey, and I sent a letter to about 100 
companies, trade groups, and other organizations affiliated with the 
fossil fuel industry. We asked whether they spent money to support 
climate research. It sounds reasonable, based on those three things 
that we know. Well, oh, my, what a fit of caterwauling that drew from 
the rightwing PR machine. Today, I will give a recap of the outrage 
highlights.
  It is a ``witch hunt,'' said the far-right Heartland Institute, 
``what fascists do.'' We are ``ethically challenged . . . mental 
midgets,'' said Heartland's president. He later called this little 
letter ``harassment . . . abuse of authority and misrepresentation of 
the facts.'' Heartland, by the way, is that classy group that put up a 
billboard comparing climate scientists to the Unabomber, just to give 
an idea of their credibility. Finally, ``[S]hame on you,'' read 
Heartland's response to our letter, which Heartland called a ``campaign 
to stigmatize and demonize.''

[[Page S2294]]

  The rightwing John Locke Foundation said our letter was ``trying to 
McCarthyite'' them. Rightwinger Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage 
Foundation said it was ``an abuse of power.'' Investor's Business Daily 
got so excited they mixed up their metaphors to say we were both 
``inquisitors'' and ``stalk[ers],'' out to ``intimidate'' and 
``threatening peaceful citizens.'' They scoffed, ``as if it were any of 
[our] business'' to know if polluters are funding the science. Keeping 
that Spanish Inquisition theme going, the Washington Times called us 
``climate change Torquemadas.''
  So it looks as if we hit the full faux-outrage quadrifecta--witch 
hunts, fascism, McCarthyism, and even the Spanish Inquisition. But then 
they got really serious, and they unlimbered the ultimate rightwing 
malediction. We were accused by the Cato Institute of--cover your ears, 
young pages--having ``a widespread faith . . . in government's ability 
to solve problems.''
  Well, Cato made its position on climate change clear, saying that for 
us ``to believe that man's emissions of carbon dioxide are warming the 
planet'' was a ``bias'' and that the legitimate science endorsed by 
everyone from NASA to the Department of Defense to every legitimate 
scientific society--every major legitimate scientific society in the 
country--all of that was ``propaganda,'' and that we, of course, were 
climate alarmists. Cato also sent us a letter in response to our 
inquiry, telling us we cannot ``use the awesome power of the federal 
government to cow'' Cato and others. Cow?
  According to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which sadly has 
become a front for the fossil fuel industry, we were ``trying to 
silence'' the other side. Although, I have to confess, it is not clear 
how the other side would be silenced by simply having to reveal whose 
payroll they are on, which is all we asked.
  Let's be clear, our letter didn't suggest that industry scientists 
should be silenced--just that the public should know if those 
scientists are being paid by the very industries with a big economic 
stake in the issue.
  Let's test how much the rightwing front groups care about the 
suppression of scientific information. Let's look at their outrage over 
the reports of public employees in Florida being told--by the 
government no less--not to talk about climate change.
  Interviews by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting with 
current and former employees, contractors, and volunteers at the 
Florida Department of Environmental Protection revealed that the 
administration of Republican Gov. Rick Scott issued an unwritten rule 
banning official use of the phrases ``climate change'' or ``global 
warming.'' Those reports have been corroborated by employees of other 
State agencies. We have heard stories of retribution against State 
employees who dare discuss climate change, of climate change-related 
projects being put on the back burner, and even of the term itself 
being edited out of official documents, including those produced by a 
university scientist. It sounds like suppression of science. Where was 
the outrage from the right? Where were the comparisons to fascism and 
McCarthyism and the Spanish Inquisition for this actual government-
sponsored suppression of scientific information? Guess what. There was 
none.
  It is not just Florida. Recently, the Republican members of 
Wisconsin's Board of Commissioners of Public Lands voted to prohibit 
the professional staff ``from engaging in global warming or climate 
change work.'' The Wisconsin timber industry, as Senator Baldwin and I 
have both pointed out, sees the threat climate change poses to 
Wisconsin forests, including, among other things, the frozen winter 
roads that loggers use to move their equipment around that warmer 
weather melts and turns to impassable muck. But the Republicans in 
charge of those lands have simply ordered State officials to ignore 
climate change, suppressing the science--plain and simple.
  Where was the outrage from the rightwing groups that had fits about 
our little request for some transparency about what scientist is on 
whose payroll? Where was the outrage? There was none, which shows that 
the real issue has nothing to do with scientific freedom. The real 
issue here of freedom is the freedom of big, dishonest special 
interests to hide whose hand is in the puppet.
  Here is where it really gets ironic. The enormous multibillion dollar 
polluting industries whose front groups accuse us of bullying--of being 
fascists and intimidators and Torquemadas--over our little letter are 
the very ones pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into elections, 
much of it secretly, for the plainly avowed purpose of threatening and 
punishing elected officials who might dare to cross them and 
acknowledge the dangers of carbon-driven climate change--of all people 
to be complaining.
  Americans for Prosperity, to give one example, a Koch brothers 
venture, has said that Republicans who support any action on climate 
change will be put at a ``severe disadvantage'' in the 2016 elections. 
That is a serious threat, given the Koch brothers' pledge to spend $900 
million in this election cycle. Yet that same Americans for Prosperity 
Foundation blasted our little letter as ``an attempt to silence those 
whose views do not meet with your approval.''
  Please. Really? Against a $900 million campaign threat and a stable 
of paid-for scientists, against that massive screen of fossil fuel 
front organizations spouting industry propaganda, our little effort at 
getting a little transparency about who is funding the phony-baloney 
climate denial science--that is a raindrop against a torrent. We do 
indeed need to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before my prepared comments, I do want 
to thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his passion and his 
leadership in coming to the floor over and over again, ringing the 
alarm bells about what is happening not only to our country but our 
world. We are paying the price in lives and in dollars. We are seeing 
our farmers pay the price because we have not effectively addressed 
what is happening to our world in terms of climate change.
  I want to thank the Senator for his continued passion in reminding us 
over and over again why we need to act right now.


                Selfridge Air National Guard Deployment

  Mr. President, today 350 airmen from Michigan, along with 12 A-10 
Warthog aircraft, are deploying to the Middle East to take part in 
Operation Inherent Resolve, our Nation's mission to eliminate the 
terrorist group known as ISIL. This deployment has special significance 
for Michigan. Michigan is home to thousands of families and community 
leaders with loved ones living in the Middle East who have seen 
firsthand the devastating effect of ISIL as it brutally murders 
innocent people, drives them from their homes, and destabilizes the 
region. For so many families in Michigan, the fight against ISIL is 
deeply personal. Today, that fight is personal to many more families as 
these airmen from Selfridge Air National Guard Base deploy to the 
region.
  The A-10 Warthogs are the very best close air support aircraft in the 
U.S. military. Known as a tankbuster, the A-10 is ideal against ISIL, 
which uses tanks stolen from the Iraqi Army. We in Michigan are proud 
of our fleet. We are proud of our people, their courage, their passion, 
and their hard work. We are proud for all they have done to protect our 
Nation.
  In 2011, the 127th Wing at Selfridge deployed 300 airmen and one 
dozen A-10s to Kandahar Airfield, a NATO base in southern Afghanistan. 
Over 120 days, the unit logged over 8,000 flight hours in 2,000 flight 
missions in an extremely hostile environment.
  Today, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to keep these 350 airmen in 
your thoughts and prayers. We wish them Godspeed as they embark on this 
very important mission, and we remember especially their families and 
friends who will stay behind and support them with their prayers as 
well.
  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. DAINES assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S2295]]

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of S. 178 on Wednesday, April 22, Senator 
Cornyn or his designee be recognized to withdraw the pending Cornyn 
amendment and offer amendments Nos. 1124 and 301. I further ask that 
there then be 1 hour of debate, equally divided in the usual form, and 
that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the 
Leahy amendment No. 301, followed by a vote on amendment No. 1124, both 
with a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption. I further ask that 
if the Cornyn-Murray-Klobuchar amendment is agreed to, the time until 2 
p.m. be equally divided in the usual form, and the Senate then vote on 
the following amendments in the order listed, with 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided before each vote: Cornyn No. 1127; Leahy No. 290; Brown 
No. 311; Burr No. 1121; and Kirk No. 273, as modified.
  I further ask that amendments in the preceding list each be subject 
to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption, and that following 
disposition of these amendments, there then be 5 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form, followed by votes on the following 
amendments, which have been cleared by the managers and should be 
adopted by voice vote: Klobuchar No. 296; Hoeven No. 299, as modified; 
Sullivan No. 279; Wicker No. 1126; Flake No. 294; Cassidy No. 308; 
Portman No. 1128; Brown No. 310; Brown No. 312; Heller No. 1122; and 
Shaheen No. 303.
  I further ask that there be no second-degrees in order to any of the 
amendments listed and that following disposition of the Shaheen 
amendment, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, 
the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a 
vote on passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, would the 
majority leader consider at this time modifying his request to drop the 
Kirk amendment No. 273?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the majority leader so modify his 
request?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I understand, the distinguished Senator 
from Oregon is asking to amend the consent request. I would reserve the 
right to object to that request and make the simple point that the Kirk 
amendment targets online child exploitation and sex trafficking, which 
is rampant. Given the fact that the Internet is now one of the 
principal tools used, on Web sites such as backpage.com, thousands of 
American children and human trafficking victims are sold into slavery. 
It is simply unconscionable for us to stand by and allow this to 
continue.
  What Senator Kirk is asking for, which I support and believe we 
should do, is a simple up-or-down vote on the Kirk amendment. So I 
reserve the right to object and ask our colleague to allow this up-or-
down vote on the Kirk amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the majority leader so modify his 
request?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the answer is no, but I think the 
Senator from Oregon wishes to respond.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, continuing my reservation, I don't take a 
backseat to anyone when it comes to fighting for the victims of sex 
trafficking. As the distinguished Senator from Texas knows, I was an 
original cosponsor of this legislation, and much of it is based on 
bills I have written and advocated on behalf of for years, including 
with the distinguished Senator from Texas.
  Much of this sex trafficking legislation, colleagues, is based on 
meetings and discussions I have had for years with young women who have 
been trafficked, law enforcement officials, and community leaders. I 
remember like it was yesterday how I was with the Portland police on 
82nd Avenue in East Portland, and we encountered young women in their 
early teens who walked around with knives in their purses just hoping 
to survive the evening. The underlying legislation before us, in my 
view, is going to be a very valuable tool in helping women like those 
whom I saw in Southeast Portland.

  Unfortunately, an amendment that Senator Kirk seeks to offer has been 
attached to this request that undermines the legal foundation of every 
social media platform and attacks a basic cornerstone of Internet law. 
The Kirk amendment will undermine the fight to help victims by 
distracting the focus of prosecutors from the pimps and the Johns who 
prey on these young women.
  The vague language in the Kirk amendment would mean any Web site that 
hosts user-generated contact--that means any social media platform, any 
news sites with comments and classified sections and any e-commerce 
sites--could face felony charges based on a vague concept of knowing 
and a vague concept of advertising.
  Instead of focusing resources on going after pimps and traffickers, 
the Kirk amendment would enable prosecutors to go after Web sites 
millions of Americans use for nonnefarious purposes, chilling 
innovation. Under current law, prosecutors already have the ability to 
go after any entity that knowingly profits from sex trafficking. Every 
minute our prosecutors are occupied going after legitimate businesses, 
in my view, is time not spent locking up the real criminals.
  This amendment hurts America's innovative businesses and 
entrepreneurs and stifles free speech instead of getting tough on the 
sex traffickers whom Senator Cornyn and I have sought to target all 
these years.
  So I will close by simply saying I am for throwing the book at every 
sex trafficker and those who enable them. Our country absolutely must 
do everything we can to prevent the next child from falling victim to 
these predators. In my view, the Kirk amendment distracts from that 
goal. I hope it will not ultimately be added to this important piece of 
legislation. I hope Senators will vote no on the Kirk amendment.
  With that, Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation to the request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any objection to the request of the 
majority leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________