[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.
____________________