[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3430-3437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of my remarks Senator Isakson be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, there are a lot of people--scientists, 
doctors and health professionals, our military and security leaders, 
the insurance and reinsurance industry, most of our major utilities, 
even faith leaders--who agree that climate change is a serious problem 
and an important priority.
  In the private sector, many corporate leaders see climate change as 
both a moral challenge and a financial opportunity. Indeed, as I rise 
today for now the 92nd time to urge my colleagues in Congress to wake 
up to the urgent threat of climate change, major American companies 
have already begun to take action. They are not waiting around for 
Congress.
  Ceres, for instance, is a nonprofit organization that helps to 
mobilize investors and business leaders to build a sustainable global 
economy. Ceres reports that nearly half of Fortune 500 companies now 
have their own clean energy targets.
  Institutional investors are also committed to fighting climate 
change. In 2003, there were just 10 of them. Ten years later, by 2013, 
there were 110, holding $13 trillion in assets. Walmart uses about 25 
percent renewable energy, Google is at 35 percent, and Apple nearly 75 
percent. More and more companies are seeing the benefit of cleaning up 
their energy sources and investing in the future, and it is not just 
out of the goodness of their hearts. These are our most profitable 
corporations. They have made a successful business model of saving 
money by reducing their carbon footprint.
  Coca-Cola, for instance, knows how disruptive climate change can be 
to the water supply that is the most basic need of its bottling 
facilities. Apparel giant VF Corporation understands the threat of 
changing conditions to agricultural commodities such as cotton. And, 
yes, these companies also know that four out of five Americans support 
action on climate change. In other words, climate-friendly corporate 
practices are a hit with consumers, particularly younger consumers.
  Since consumers want climate friendliness, there are also companies 
that try to have it both ways. They try to look like good actors on 
climate change without really being good actors. It is called green 
washing, and the major oil and gas companies are classic green washers. 
Look at their public statements and their ad campaigns, and we might 
think they were helping to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But 
what they say and what they do, do not match up. Look at the green ad 
campaigns that have been run by the big oil companies. Some of these 
multimillion dollar campaigns still run today.
  Here is Chevron saying, ``We agree,'' it is time for oil companies to 
get behind renewable energy. This campaign started in 2010 and is still 
around. For years Chevron said renewable energy was part of its 
business plan. It actually once built utility-scale solar and 
geothermal projects, and it even made money doing it. But in the end, 
Chevron's core business of drilling up oil and gas prevailed, and last 
year Chevron sold off almost all of its renewable energy business, but 
they still pretend they are green. They still say ``We agree,'' but in 
real life they don't.
  Not too long ago, BP styled itself ``Beyond Petroleum'' and told us 
to think outside the barrel. The company made industry-leading 
investments in wind farms and solar power in the billions of dollars. 
But BP, too, has exited the solar business and has attempted to sell 
its U.S. wind farms in what a company spokesperson called ``part of a 
continuing effort to become a more focused oil and gas company.'' They 
were just pretending to be green. Here is their logo. Look at this 
ridiculous little green and flower/sunshine thing from oil extractors. 
It is a total phony.
  The pick of the fossil fuel industry litter is actually Shell. Public 
pronouncements from Shell Oil have been sensational. Shell ads told us 
of the effort to ``broaden the world's energy mix.'' Well, in 2012, 
Shell reported investing about $400 million into low-carbon 
alternatives, which seems like a lot until we realize that was out of 
nearly $23 billion that year spent by Shell--less than 2 percent. 
Comparing that $400 million in 2012, Shell has spent at least $5 
billion in recent years to expand oil and gas drilling operations in 
the Arctic. Shell is one of the largest holders of filthy tar sands 
rights in Canada.
  But here is the champ when it comes to climate doublespeak. 
ExxonMobil excels. Since at least 2008, the oil giant has run ads such 
as these, with scientific formulas and Lucite molecules and all these 
technological-looking things. I remember one with folks in lab coats. 
Exxon executives and engineers tell us about the need to protect the 
environment and to move toward cleaner, more diverse energy sources 
such as wind and solar, as images behind them of wind turbines twirl in 
the distance.
  Exxon does not report transparently enough for a solid case to be 
proven, but there is at least a reasonable inference that could be 
drawn that they spend more on advertising their green research than 
they spent on their green

[[Page 3431]]

research. The Wall Street Journal wrote: ``Exxon's ads are part of a 
growing effort by the industry to counter a political backlash against 
rising oil prices and global warming worries.''
  Faking it is not a solution, and this campaign is still running. The 
latest ads are right there on Exxon's Web site, where the public is 
watching. The Exxon Web site also tells us ``rising greenhouse gas 
emissions pose significant risks to society and ecosystems''--again, 
for public consumption.
  But when they filed comments with the regulators, in 2009, Exxon 
wrote: ``Support for the effects of climate change on public health and 
welfare is almost nonexistent and engulfed in an extremely high degree 
of uncertainty.''
  For years Exxon has been devoted to propping up climate denial and 
climate deniers. The Union of Concerned Scientists found that between 
2002 and 2010 ExxonMobil contributed to and lobbied anti-climate 
Members of Congress over pro-climate Members at a ratio of 10 to 1. 
Recent disclosures show that even after vowing that it would no longer 
bankroll groups that deny climate change, Exxon continued for years to 
fund the work of climate skeptic Willie Soon, an astrophysicist whose 
research is under investigation for failure to divulge his oil industry 
backing.
  Which Exxon are we supposed to believe? Remember the words of the 
Exxon vice president who testified before Congress in 2008 that ``the 
pursuit of alternative fuels must not detract from the development of 
oil and gas.''
  ExxonMobil's ads boast that the company is ``taking on the world's 
toughest energy challenge.'' The toughest challenge we face is finding 
a way to fuel the global economy without driving the climate to the 
breaking point with our limitless, endless carbon pollution. ExxonMobil 
is committed to an oil economy that has no future. If only Exxon and 
the other oil giants would devote more of their advertising budget to 
research and to the development of renewable fuels, we might be better 
off.
  If you don't think that the big oil companies are bad enough on their 
own, once they get together they are downright dirty. These companies--
Chevron, BP, Shell, and ExxonMobil--are all members of the American 
Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry trade association. As we 
all know around here, the American Petroleum Institute is dedicated to 
obstructing action on climate change and even to spreading false doubt 
about its existence, and API in turn funds some of the worst and most 
irresponsible climate denial front organizations.
  Chevron, BP, Shell, and ExxonMobil also support something called the 
American Legislative Exchange Council or ALEC. ALEC is an organization 
which works to undercut climate science and undermine climate progress 
at the State level, interfering in our State legislatures. ALEC has 
tried to roll back State renewable fuel standards and has handed out 
model State legislation to obstruct and tie up the President's Clean 
Power Plan.
  So which way are they going to have it, the way they sell themselves 
in the ads with funny little sunbursts and Lucite molecules or their 
real presence in State legislatures and in Congress spending money to 
shut down the climate debate and keep pumping the oil?
  Major companies such as Google, eBay, Facebook, Yahoo, and even 
Occidental Petroleum have disassociated themselves from ALEC because of 
its destructive position on climate. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has said 
``they are literally lying about climate change.'' But they keep 
getting funding from Chevron, BP, Shell, and ExxonMobil.
  The reality is these major fossil fuel companies are dedicated to a 
fossil fuel future that puts basic operating systems of our planet at 
risk. All these ad campaigns and all these public statements to make 
the companies look good are just a way to paper over that basic, dirty, 
continuing fact. It is a sham. It is a false front. It is phony PR, and 
all the green washing in the world shouldn't be able to cover it up.
  But I will conclude by saying it does seem to be having its effect. 
We have seen recently in the news in Florida that Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection officials have been ordered not to use the 
terms ``climate change'' or ``global warming'' in any official 
communications, emails or reports. That is according to DEP employees, 
DEP consultants, DEP volunteers, and State records, all dug out by the 
Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.
  Governor Scott of Florida has repeatedly said he is ``not convinced 
that climate change is caused by human activity,'' despite the 
scientific evidence to the contrary. It is apparently a gag order about 
climate change that was well known and distributed verbally statewide.
  I guess Governor Scott has told reporters that he had not been 
convinced about climate change and that he would need something more 
convincing than what I have read. I would be interested to know what 
his reading list was. So here we are in a world of fantasy in which the 
big oil polluters put on this pretense that they are clean, that they 
care about clean energy, that they are interested in a nonfossil fuel 
future, while they are supporting the very organizations that undercut 
that work here in Congress and they are able to get behind people such 
as the Governor, apparently, in Florida--certainly his administration--
who are so paralyzed about climate change that they not only won't say 
the words, but they won't allow State employees to even say the words. 
That is a pathetic state of democracy.
  I yield the floor, and I now turn to my friend from Georgia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I have nine grandchildren. Seven of them 
are 11 or under; two of them are in college. Those 7 who are 11 or 
under represent the joy of my life and the life of my children. But 
tonight when you and I go to bed and each Member of this Senate goes to 
bed, somewhere back in our State, young women and young children the 
same age as my grandchildren will be bought and sold into slavery. They 
will be trafficked as human beings for sex workers, for pornography 
workers, and for workers themselves. It is wrong for the greatest 
Nation on the face of this Earth and the richest Nation on the face of 
this Earth to have the crime of human trafficking take place day in and 
day out.
  I am so proud of Senator Cornyn and others from this Senate who 
brought forward the bill that is before us today. I want to appeal to 
those who are holding it up to go to cloture to ask themselves this 
question when they go to bed tonight: When you put your head on that 
pillow, some child somewhere in your State is going to be trafficked 
for sex purposes or pornography. Some young life, some life of 
innocence is going to be ruined. I think it is time for us to put aside 
any differences we may have on this legislation and move it forward so 
that we have for the first time the focus on human trafficking and the 
abuse of kids.
  This is a serious problem in my State of Georgia. Atlanta has one of 
the highest rates of trafficking of any city in the United States, I am 
told. Our attorney general, Sam Olens, has said the following:

       Human trafficking is a modern day slavery, plain and 
     simple. It robs children of their innocence and dignity.

  We must combat this evil, and it is appropriate that the most 
deliberative body in the world, the U.S. Senate, begin to put together 
a framework where we confront child slavery, sex trafficking, and the 
targeting of our children in multiple ways. We need to provide them 
with benefits to be able to be protected. A lot of that is in terms of 
housing and safe havens, but it also concerns other things. We need to 
increase the resources for victims of trafficking, No. 1. A lot of kids 
who are trafficked and can get out of trafficking and get out of 
possession end up having serious problems with PTSD and TBI. The 
problem of being abused as a child is as rough as the battleground in 
Afghanistan or Iraq. We must provide the safe havens and the therapy 
and the mental health care that is necessary to help them bring back 
their life.

[[Page 3432]]

  I gave a graduation speech 5 years ago to a young lady who was 22 
years old and just graduating from high school. She had dropped out of 
high school pregnant at the age of 15. She had come under the spell of 
a trafficker who took her in, made her a sex worker, and she ended up 
having three additional children. She was almost lost for life. But 
finally some good person found her. They brought her into the county 
school system. They found her a way to go to the alternative school. 
She ended up graduating No. 1 in her class and going to the Georgia 
Institute of Technology in Atlanta. A life was saved, but it was only 
saved because people reached out to her. We need to encourage that and 
produce that.
  Back in my home State of Georgia in my hometown of Roswell, GA, there 
is a guy by the name of Dave McCleary. Dave McCleary is a Rotarian who 
2 years ago took this project on as his passion--to be a spokesman for 
those who are abused, those who are trafficked, and those who are 
thrown into prostitution and pornography. He has made a major 
difference in Rotary clubs in Georgia, and now they are activating 
themselves to pay attention to this terrible disease and this terrible 
affliction.
  We need to recognize child pornography as a form of human trafficking 
so victims have access to support, and we need to require that 
traffickers be treated as violent criminals to protect the victims and 
witnesses. Most important of all, we need to help State and local 
governments fight human trafficking through increased shelters, law 
enforcement, task forces, and problem-solving cures for people with 
these problems.
  We also need to get to the floor for another reason. Senator Corker 
in the Foreign Relations Committee has a bill which would be an 
amendment to this bill which expands our human trafficking response. We 
can't get to that until we get to cloture, and we can't get to cloture 
until we get 60 votes.
  So I appeal to Members of the Senate to find common ground to let 
this debate come to the floor, so that when you lay your head on the 
pillow tonight, instead of thinking about a child that is being abused, 
you think about the abuse that you are avoiding because the Senate took 
action on human trafficking.


                         Commending John Lewis

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, 2 years ago, on the 48th anniversary of 
the crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge by a bunch of brave citizens 
who challenged the United States to do what was right and make voting 
rights equal for everybody, I walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge 
with Congressman John Lewis from my State.
  John Lewis is 75 years old this year, and he continues to be a leader 
for civil rights and for passion. This past weekend in Selma, AL, he 
led the President of the United States, Barack Obama, the past 
President of the United States, George W. Bush, and over 100 Members of 
Congress across the Edmund Pettus Bridge for us to reflect and remember 
over the last 50 years what has happened in this country, where voting 
rights have gone from being a dream to a reality, where equality for 
men and women and people of all races now exists. It would not have 
happened were it not for a few good men and a few good women who at 
their time in history responded to history's call.
  John Lewis was one of those people. I am proud to serve with him in 
the Georgia delegation to the Congress, and I am proud of all he has 
done to make America a better place to live.
  So on this year when he celebrates his 75th birthday anniversary and 
on the 50th anniversary of the crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, I 
pay tribute to a great citizen of Georgia, a great American, and a 
great humanitarian--John Lewis, the Congressman from the city of 
Atlanta and the State of Georgia.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the distinguished senior Senator from 
Georgia is on the floor, I wish to associate myself with what he had to 
say about Congressman John Lewis.
  Congressman Lewis has been a friend, a colleague, and a mentor to all 
of us on both sides of the aisle on the issues of civil rights. He is 
one of the true heroes. We sometimes overuse the word ``hero.'' But I 
think the Senator and I would both agree that this is a man who 
deserves the word ``hero.''


                            Lynch Nomination

  Mr. President, we are talking about human trafficking. We have heard 
horrific stories. Certainly those of us who are parents or grandparents 
have to think how horrible it would be if these things had happened to 
our children or our grandchildren.
  I am usually the only person on the floor who has prosecuted child 
molesters--and I still have nightmares over some of the cases I have 
prosecuted--I wish we would never have another one of these awful 
cases.
  So as we consider legislation about human trafficking and 
exploitation, we could take immediate action to show support for 
protecting our Nation's most vulnerable from human trafficking by 
confirming Loretta Lynch to be Attorney General. I say this because Ms. 
Lynch has a proven track record in prosecuting human trafficking and 
child rape cases.
  Ms. Lynch's record in pursuing these cases is so well established 
that even prominent FOX News hosts have praised her. One host at FOX 
News called her a ``hero'' for the prosecution of a child rapist. 
Another has described Ms. Lynch as a ``straight shooter'' for her 
overall service as a Federal prosecutor. And a third host on FOX News 
has called for a vote on her nomination ``this week'', saying there 
should be ``no more slow walking'' by the Senate. I couldn't agree 
more.
  As we go into this debate, I think about the fact that Ms. Lynch was 
recently named one of ``New York's New Abolitionists'' by the New York 
State Anti-Trafficking Coalition. Why? Because of her leadership in 
combatting human trafficking. She has emphasized anti-trafficking 
programs at the U.S. Attorney's office that she leads. Over the course 
of the last decade, her office has not just talked about why they 
oppose human trafficking, they have indicted over 55 defendants in sex 
trafficking cases. They have rescued over 110 victims of sex 
trafficking.
  I will give you a couple of examples. In one case, her office 
obtained convictions against three brothers for sex trafficking. What 
did they do? These brothers were sentenced to double-digit prison terms 
for running a trafficking ring that enticed victims as young as 14 and 
15 years old. They had them transported illegally into the United 
States. Then they forced them to work as prostitutes in New York City 
and elsewhere. The defendants beat and sexually assaulted the victims 
to compel them to work and then punished them for not earning enough 
money.
  In another case her office obtained a conviction against an owner of 
several New York bars for his role in sex trafficking and forced labor 
ring. The evidence at the trial established that the defendants 
recruited and harbored scores of undocumented Latin American immigrants 
and forced them to work as waitresses at the owner's bars.
  How did they compel them to work? His accomplices used violence, 
beatings, and rape, as well as fraud and threats of deportation, to 
compel the victims to work and to prevent them from reporting the 
illegal activity to the police. Because of Loretta Lynch, this monster 
was arrested and sentenced to 60 years in prison. That is one way you 
stop this.
  She has similarly prosecuted those who exploit children for sexual 
abuse to the fullest extent of the law. During her tenure, she has 
directed prosecutors in her office to bring 173 prosecutions for child 
exploitation and child pornography in coordination with the 
Department's Project Safe Childhood. In one case, the office prosecuted 
and obtained a guilty plea from a pediatrician who sexually exploited 
three of his patients under the guise of providing medical treatment. 
That predator now faces 30 years in prison.

[[Page 3433]]

  I am saying this because no Member of this body--Republican or 
Democrat--no Member is in favor of sex trafficking. No Member is in 
favor of the exploitation of children in this fashion. Why don't we 
show we believe that, by confirming this highly qualified woman to be 
attorney general? She goes out and gets the people, she prosecutes 
them, she convicts them, and she sends them to prison.
  I sometimes think of those exploited children I represented in the 
past. In the better cases, we could tell the child that he or she was 
safe and that we locked up the person who did this to them. But I also 
think of one of the very first cases I had--within weeks of becoming a 
26-year-old State's attorney. I will never forget that case for as long 
as I live. We prosecuted the man. I convicted him. It was appealed to 
the Vermont Supreme Court, and I argued and won that appeal. He was 
convicted and went to prison for the rest of his life. But that does 
not help his victim. I can only go to the grave of his 2-year-old 
victim and say: We convicted the man who did this to you, but we can't 
bring you back to life.
  Let's take the steps we need to stop this. We can do it. We stalled 
at one point on this bill. Let's find our way around that, and let's 
get this done. Let's give prosecutors the tools not just to prosecute 
criminals when we find them--let's take the steps necessary to stop 
this from happening in the first place.
  When I think of that 2-year-old boy, if better steps had been in 
place to stop the abuse from happening, he would have lived. The abuser 
was prosecuted after the fact. There was no case in which I wanted to 
get a conviction more than I did in that case, but it didn't bring the 
2-year-old victim back to life. Some victims in the cases I worked on 
were alive, and I saw how scarred the abuse left them.
  We can prosecute those who commit these heinous crimes. Let's stop 
the crimes from happening. Let's ensure that these homeless kids, 
instead of going with anybody who will offer them a warm place and 
food--where the warm place and food turn into a hell on Earth for 
them--let's make sure there are shelters, people, and counselors who 
can help.
  Mr. President, I see our distinguished chairman is here, and I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss what I discussed 
earlier in the day. In fact, I think it was this morning when I spoke 
to the reason why this legislation is not moving along. I am not going 
to repeat what I said then, but since then the minority leader came to 
the floor and gave reasons for this bill not moving along, and so I 
will once again bring up some important issues about this legislation 
and rebut the other side on why we are not moving forward with this 
bill.
  As we all know, this bill was unveiled in January after weeks of 
negotiation among our respective staff. It has been in the public 
domain since it was introduced in January. Since that time, we have 
followed regular order with respect to this legislation. We had a 
hearing on this bill. We scheduled a markup in February, and amendments 
were offered to the bill at that markup. The ranking member offered an 
amendment to the very same section of the bill that included this 
language.
  Numerous committee members took the opportunity to speak about the 
bill during the hearing and markup. The markup offered a prime 
opportunity for any member--including the minority members of the 
Senate--to ask questions and make changes and strip out language to 
which they might have objected. We promised regular order during floor 
consideration as well, just as we have on practically every other piece 
of legislation that has been before the Senate since the new majority 
has taken over.
  The language which they now object to on the floor, weeks after a 
committee markup took place--I remind everyone that this bill passed 
without a single dissenting vote in committee--is referred to as the 
Hyde amendment. We are talking about language that has been standard 
for the last 39 or 40 years. It is included virtually every time 
Congress appropriates taxpayer dollars for health services. The Hyde 
amendment has been and currently is the law of the land.
  Hyde amendment language has been added to appropriations bills every 
year for decades. We have heard: Well, it has been added to 
appropriations bills, but it has not been on authorization bills. That 
is not true because it has been included in more than one authorization 
statute. I will give some examples, including laws authorizing the 
SCHIP program and programs in the Department of Defense. We negotiated 
this bill and this language in good faith.
  I urge the Members of this body not to impede passage of a measure 
that over 200 groups have reviewed and endorsed. Yesterday I put 
letters from some of those groups or maybe even all of those groups in 
the Record so everyone can see the wide support this bill has not only 
in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee by being voted out unanimously, 
but also outside groups support it as well. The 200 outside groups who 
participated in the hours of helping us reach a consensus on this bill 
have made it clear that ending human trafficking is an important 
priority for all of them. We need to put aside partisan politics. We 
need to pass this bill for their sake and the sake of trafficking 
survivors who are being subjected to degradation every day while we 
wait to act.
  My asking that politics be put aside in order to get this legislation 
passed is not something new. Those politics were put aside in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hate to see this held up over just the 
Hyde amendment. In somewhat similar legislation, the Republican House 
of Representatives was wise enough not to create this illusory 
``special assessment fund.'' The House-passed bill is an authorizing 
bill and does not contain the Hyde amendment.
  I will yield the floor in a moment, but first I wish to quote from a 
statement by ATEST, Alliance To End Slavery and Trafficking. They urged 
the Senate, as I have, to reach a bipartisan compromise on the Justice 
for Victims of Trafficking Act.

       For well over a decade, the work to combat modern slavery 
     and human trafficking has been an example of Congress's 
     ability to put partisanship aside in the interest of tackling 
     a difficult and seemingly intractable problem. That 
     willingness to be thoughtful, practical, and balanced in 
     approach has proven successful in this work, and made 
     tremendous contributions to the fight against this heinous 
     crime. The debate that is emerging over the Justice for 
     Victims of Trafficking Act, S. 178, and the application of 
     the Hyde amendment to funds collected from perpetrators of 
     human trafficking jeopardize this pragmatic balance in favor 
     of a partisan confrontation that undermines the achievement 
     of our joint goal of ending modern slavery in the United 
     States and around the world.
       For these reasons, we urge all members of the Senate to 
     turn away from this divisive debate and find a bipartisan 
     approach to this new initiative to protect and serve the 
     needs of survivors.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their statement be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                       Alliance to


                                  End Slavery and Trafficking,

                                                   Washington, DC.

   ATEST Urges Senate To Reach Bipartisan Compromise on Justice for 
                       Victims of Trafficking Act

       For well over a decade, the work to combat modern slavery 
     and human trafficking has been an example of Congress's 
     ability to put partisanship aside in the interest of tackling 
     a difficult and seemingly intractable problem. That 
     willingness to be thoughtful, practical, and balanced in 
     approach has proven successful in this work, and made 
     tremendous contributions to the fight against this heinous 
     crime. The debate that is emerging over the Justice of 
     Victims of Trafficking Act, S. 178, and the application of 
     the Hyde Amendment to funds collected from perpetrators of 
     human trafficking jeopardize this pragmatic balance in favor 
     of a partisan confrontation that undermines the achievement 
     of our joint goal of ending modern slavery in the United 
     States and around the world.
       For these reasons, we urge all members of the Senate to 
     turn away from this divisive debate and find a bipartisan 
     approach to this

[[Page 3434]]

     new initiative to protect and serve the needs of survivors.

  Mr. LEAHY. I agree that we should get away from the divisiveness the 
Hyde amendment has created and find a way to go to the basic 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I see my friend from Tennessee in the Chamber, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont and 
the Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer an amendment to the 
legislation, which I send to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am sorry, I didn't hear what the request 
was.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I sent an amendment to the desk.
  Mr. LEAHY. Did the Senator ask to set aside the pending amendment?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I did not.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  Mr. President, I withhold that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee has the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Then I will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield to me 
for a question?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, am I correct that the Senator from 
Tennessee is not asking the Senate to set aside the pending amendment 
but wishes to file an amendment? Is that correct?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Vermont 
through the Chair that the answer is yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, under those circumstances, I will not 
object.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. President, I have sent to the desk an amendment entitled the Stop 
Sexual Abuse by School Personnel Act of 2015. It is sponsored by me and 
Mr. Kirk, the Senator from Illinois.
  In summary, what the amendment does is the following:
  It requires States to have a criminal background check for all school 
employees.
  It allows States and local school districts to use Federal funding 
authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to 
establish, implement, or improve policies and procedures on background 
checks for school employees. Our amendment accomplishes this through 
the following: providing States with the flexibility and resources to 
conduct searches of State and Federal criminal registries as determined 
by the State; empowering States to establish, implement, or improve 
policies and procedures concerning the timely disclosure, notice, and 
appeal of background check results; supporting the development, 
implementation, or improvement of mechanisms for assisting in the 
identification of and response to incidents of child abuse, including 
by providing training and development for school personnel; and any 
other activities determined by the State to protect student safety.
  In addition, the Alexander-Kirk amendment adopts the 2014 General 
Accountability Office report which recommended establishing the U.S. 
Department of Education as the lead agency to inform States of best 
practices. It also authorizes the U.S. Education Secretary to make 
reporting of student sexual abuse by school personnel a part of the 
annual Secretary's report card. Finally, it protects schools and school 
districts from being sued if they are in compliance with State 
regulations and requirements.
  This is an enormously important subject and one of interest to every 
single Member of the United States Senate. There is at least one other 
amendment on the subject by the Senator from Pennsylvania and the 
Senator from West Virginia. I expect there may be more amendments on 
the same subject. They all have the same goal--preventing sexual abuse 
of the 50 million children in our 100,000 public schools by school 
personnel.
  These amendments are all under the jurisdiction of the Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which I am the chair. As 
chair of that committee, I believe there is a right way and a wrong way 
to reach this laudable goal. The right way is for the Federal 
Government to enable States and local governments to do a better job. 
The wrong way is for the Federal Government to set itself up as a 
national school board or as a human resources department to override 
State laws and dictate how to hire and fire six million teachers or 
other school personnel.
  We have 6 million school personnel that could be affected by 
background check proposals. The question is, Can the local school board 
or can Washington, DC, do a better job of helping make children safe in 
Utah, in Iowa, in Tennessee, or in Vermont?
  Senators Toomey and Manchin deserve our thanks and great credit for 
putting the spotlight on this issue that every single Senator cares 
about. But, I am afraid their solution for background checks will try 
to accomplish this purpose the wrong way. It would override State laws 
in at least 46 States to dictate policies and procedures for 100,000 
public schools. Their approach and their amendment, if enacted, would 
be the most extensive Federal takeover of local school personnel 
decisions in our country's history.
  Let me say that once more. Their amendment, if enacted, would be the 
most extensive Federal takeover of local school personnel decisions in 
our country's history.
  Now, I see on the floor the Senator from Iowa. I have spent some time 
in Iowa over the years and I know what a good education system they 
have in Iowa. In fact, Iowans are very particular about their education 
system. I don't know of a State that was more upset with No Child Left 
Behind than Iowa when it passed because it dictated education policies 
from Washington. Iowans asked, ``Does Washington cherish the children 
of Iowa more than we do in Des Moines or in any other community in 
Iowa? Why do the people in Washington think they can tell us what to do 
about how to educate our children better than we do?'' That is the 
issue here: whether it is Washington imposing academic standards such 
as Common Core or deciding whether schools and teachers are succeeding 
or failing, or mandating a one-size-fits-all approach to employee 
background checks on 6 million school personnel in 100,000 schools. I 
believe the American people are tired of this Washington-knows-best 
attitude toward local schools.
  Senator Kirk and I have the Stop Sexual Abuse By School Personnel Act 
of 2015--which offers an approach toward this laudable goal in the 
correct way. Let me explain why I say it is the correct way.
  First, it requires every state to have background checks for its 6 
million employees who have access to children, but it doesn't dictate 
to them how to do the checks. Repeatedly we have found that when 
Congress tells the U.S. Department of Education to do something, it 
then proceeds to write a lot of regulations about exactly how to do it. 
I will give you an example.
  In No Child Left Behind, there are requirements about improving low-
performing schools. The law says there are six ways you must fix them. 
I put in the law last year a seventh way to fix schools: allowing the 
Governor of the State to come up with his or her own way to do this. 
Then, the U.S. Department of Education Secretary can approve or 
disapprove that approach. The Department, in its well-intentioned 
activities, defined what a Governor of Tennessee or Utah or Iowa could 
say about his or her own idea about fixing low-performing schools. That 
happens all the time. It happens all the time. Over the last several 
years we have created, in effect, a national school board in 
Washington, DC, by substituting the judgment of Washington for local 
schools. Achieving the laudable goal of

[[Page 3435]]

stopping sexual abuse by school personnel in the way suggested by the 
Senators from Pennsylvania and West Virginia would only make that 
national school board bigger. In the words of one teacher I spoke with, 
their proposal would only make the U.S. Department of Education more of 
a human resources department for 6 million local school personnel.
  Last year, the Government Accountability Office found that 46 States 
require background checks for all public school employees. My amendment 
require all states to do them. It would also ensure background checks 
for contractors who have unsupervised contact or interaction with 
children.
  It would also let schools and school districts use Federal funding to 
expand access to more registries since the cost of conducting the 
checks sometimes keep them from doing so.
  My amendment takes this broader approach because the Government 
Accountability Office report in 2014 that background checks alone are 
not enough to prevent child abuse by school personnel. Background 
checks are only as good as the databases used to conduct them. I 
understand sometimes those databases can have inaccurate or incomplete 
information. One report estimated that 1.8 million workers a year are 
subject to FBI background checks that include faulty or incomplete 
information such as the final result of the case.
  GAO's report also highlights that those charged with child abuse are 
only a fraction of those who abuse children. For example, a risk 
management company told GAO that few child abusers are caught the first 
time they abuse, and many abuse children multiple times before they are 
caught. Therefore, background checks alone are not enough to help 
protect children from abuse.
  Experts say, according to the GAO report, that training to prevent 
child abuse is a key tool to help school employees recognize early 
warning signs of abuse and they recommend that schools integrate 
training into their child abuse prevention efforts. Yet, because of 
cost constraints, GAO found that only 18 States required training. The 
amendment Senator Kirk and I are offering would help more States with 
schools that offer training by allowing States and school districts to 
use Federal funding to do it.
  Third, the Alexander-Kirk amendment would establish the Department of 
Education as a resource for States. The Department of Education is not 
supposed to be the school board for Utah or Tennessee or Iowa; it is 
supposed to be, if anything, an enabling resource. So another important 
way to prevent child abuse is to ensure schools are aware of 
information and resources that are already available to them by the 
Federal Government.
  According to GAO, again: ``The Federal Government, through its 
existing resources and expertise, is well positioned to assist States 
and localities and to help strengthen their prevention and response 
efforts.''
  Yet, last year, more than 30 States surveyed by GAO were not aware of 
Federal resources available to schools to help address sexual abuse 
because no single agency was leading this effort, and coordination 
among the Federal agencies is limited. In one baffling example, a lead 
official who coordinates interagency meetings to talk about child 
maltreatment said none of the meetings had focused on sexual abuse by 
school personnel.
  States are looking for help. Twenty-nine States said additional 
guidance and technical assistance could be useful, such as guidance on 
developing professional standards and codes of conduct, examples of 
training models, and materials, and opportunities for grants. That is 
why the Alexander-Kirk amendment adopts GAO's recommendation to 
instruct the Secretary of Education to lead an effort, in coordination 
with other agencies, to develop and disseminate best practices that 
States, districts, and schools can take to prevent and respond to 
sexual abuse by school personnel.
  Fourth, the amendment would recommend that the Secretary of Education 
pull together a dependable set of data on abuse by school personnel for 
the Secretary's report card. GAO reported that several Federal agencies 
collect data related to violence against children and students, but 
none systematically identify the extent of sexual abuse by school 
personnel. Therefore, my amendment also adopts the GAO recommendation 
that the Secretary of Education work to identify ways to better track 
and analyze the prevalence of child abuse by school personnel and 
report on it in the Secretary's report card.
  This is an approach to solving the problem that respects the idea 
that in my hometown, and in each Senator's hometown in 100,000 schools, 
there are school boards, parents, and communities that cherish their 
children and they don't believe that Washington cherishes them more. 
This proposal would give those parents, communities, teachers, and 
principals the tools they need to prevent child abuse. It would enable 
them to do a better job of stopping sexual abuse of children by school 
personnel.
  In a meeting I attended earlier today, it was said that the Senate 
has already passed the Toomey-Manchin amendment because we passed the 
child care and development block grant. Let me talk about that a 
minute. The child care and development block grant went through the 
committee I now chair. There are three things wrong with the argument 
that the Toomey-Manchin amendment has already passed. First, the child 
care development block grant is funded 100 percent by the Federal 
Government. It affects 1.5 million children. It affects a little more 
than 1 million children. The Federal Government funds about 10 percent 
of elementary and secondary education. So if we fund 100 percent of a 
program, the argument is strong that we can also write the rules for 
it. If we fund 10 of a program, the people who fund 90 percent might 
say, ``What gave you the right to tell us what to do?''
  Second, the argument was made that the child care and development 
block grant contains basically the same set of background checks as the 
Toomey-Manchin. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Toomey-
Manchin amendment is significantly different from the background check 
provisions in the child care and development block grant. It is 
different in terms of its scope, privacy provisions, mitigating factors 
in an appeals process, potential lawsuits against a school district, 
and materiality. Let me focus on these differences for a minute.
  First, in terms of scope, the child care and development block grant 
applies to about 1.5 million children who receive vouchers to for 
childcare. The Toomey-Manchin bill applies to all elementary and 
secondary schools in States that receive funding under the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act. That is 100,000 public elementary and 
secondary schools, 14,000 local school districts, and 50 State 
education agencies.
  Second, in terms of privacy, the child care and development block 
grant ensures that the only information employers receive is whether 
the prospective employee passed or failed the background check. The 
Toomey-Manchin amendment has no similar protections and allows 
employers to share the results of background checks with other 
prospective employers. That is a privacy concern.
  Third, it differs in terms of what we call mitigating factors: The 
child care and development block grant permits States to create a 
review process through which disqualified employees can become eligible 
for employment due to mitigating factors such as the length of time 
since they committed a crime. The Toomey-Manchin bill doesn't permit 
States to conduct such reviews. My bill allows states to do a review.
  Fourth, private right of action provisions: The child care and 
development block grant expressly does not create a private right of 
action if the childcare provider is in compliance with all State 
regulations. The Toomey-Manchin bill does not contain similar language, 
potentially exposing schools to litigation. The Alexander amendment 
does include that.
  Finally, materiality. The child care and development block grant 
precludes

[[Page 3436]]

hiring an employee if they make a material false statement on a 
background check. The Toomey-Manchin bill has no such materiality 
requirement.
  I ask unanimous consent to include, following my remarks, these 
differences between the background check requirements in the child care 
and development block grant bill and the Toomey-Manchin amendment.
  Finally, I am glad we are discussing the topic of protecting students 
from sexual abuse. I congratulate the Senator from Pennsylvania and the 
Senator from West Virginia for putting the spotlight on this issue. I 
have worked with them to suggest changes to their bill.
  We have fundamental differences in our approaches. I think, when it 
comes to local schools, the limit of Washington's responsibility is to 
enable communities and schools to do a better job of educating our 
children.
  Most of the discussion we are having in the Senate education 
committee today is reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act. The discussion is about who determines whether schools and 
teachers are succeeding or failing, local communities or Washington? 
The theory is that local control of these decisions allows for more 
innovation. This respects the fact that parents, communities, teachers, 
and principals cherish their own children. It certainly would be wrong 
for us to say Washington cherishes their children more than they do.
  I spend a lot of my time arguing with people--they are often 
Democrats--who want to say: I have got a good idea. Now, let's impose 
it on all schools. For example, Common Core--we have 42 States 
operating under waivers from the U.S. Department of Education. In order 
to get that waiver, which they need to keep their schools from being 
deemed as failing, states have to, in effect, adopt Common Core. This 
requirement has created a general uprising in Tennessee; I imagine it 
has in North Carolina; I suspect it has in Iowa, not so much because of 
what the standards are but because the very idea that Washington would 
be telling local school districts it knows better than their state 
capital and local school boards what their academic standards ought to 
be. The same thing with teacher evaluation.
  When I was the Governor of Tennessee in the 1980s, we became the 
first State to pay teachers more for teaching well. I had a year-and-a-
half brawl with the National Education Association. When we defeated 
them, and 10,000 teachers were gradually able to move up the career 
ladder.
  When I came to Washington, people thought I would require every State 
do that. I said, absolutely not. That is not the way our constitutional 
federalism works. States have a right to be right, and have a right to 
be wrong on teacher evaluation and Common Core. Those are tremendously 
important issues, but it is hard enough to fairly evaluate a teacher 
without Washington trying to tell you how to do it.
  Take the business of whether a school is succeeding or failing, 
whether a school has made adequate yearly progress, or whether a 
teacher is highly qualified. We have had a 12-year experiment with 
trying to make all these decisions at the U.S. Department of Education. 
One teacher said it had become a human resources department for 100,000 
local schools. It hasn't worked. It does help to know how the children 
are doing on their tests. It does help to aggregate the results so we 
know whether children are falling behind. It does help for States to 
have the results from the national assessment of educational progress 
so we can compare North Carolina to Tennessee. But it does not help to 
have well-meaning people in Washington say: I know exactly how to make 
your children safe, how to tell them what to learn, how to evaluate 
teachers, how to tell them whether schools are succeeding or failing, 
and how to fix them.
  One other example. What about guns? Sexual abuse of children is a 
terrible tragedy. That is why we have at least two amendments on it, 
and maybe we will have a third. So are guns in schools. We have had 
some terrible tragedies there.
  What did the U.S. Congress do about that 20 years ago? They passed 
something called the Gun-Free School Zones Act. They whipped it right 
through Congress as if that was going to fix the problem of guns in 
every school in America. There were two things wrong with it. The 
Supreme Court of the United States struck the bill down as 
unconstitutional, as a Federal overreach into local affairs. But the 
main thing wrong with it was that is not how you make schools safe. You 
don't make schools safe by passing a law in Washington and pretending 
you have made 50 million children safe in 100,000 schools. This would 
suggest that if there is a problem with school safety in my hometown in 
Maryville, TN, it is up to the U.S. Senate to fix that problem, to make 
the schools safe. It is not. That is not how you do it. In my hometown, 
they make that school safe because the community is involved. They win 
the football games, they have good academic scores, and they have safe 
schools. Someone asked the principal when they won the football game 
why they did so well? The principal said, it is because we are a 
community school. When something happens here, the community shows up.
  If we want to fix the problem of abuse of children in schools, there 
is a right way to do it and there is a wrong way to do it. The right 
way is to recognize the problem, require States to have background 
checks, and enable them to do a better job at using Federal funds to 
access data registries and provide training for employees. In addition, 
the U.S. Department of Education can be designated as the lead agency 
to provide best practices to local schools and to include data on the 
prevalence of child abuse by school personnel on Secretary's report 
card. The wrong way to do it is to take over the personnel decisions 
for 6 million employees in 100,000 schools and pretend that schools 
will be safer. There is a fundamental difference of opinion by Senators 
who agree on a laudable goal.
  I believe it is more appropriate under our constitutional system of 
federalism for Congress to limit itself to enabling schools to do a 
better job of their essential responsibilities rather than creating, in 
effect, a national school board that tries to run our schools and hire 
and fire those personnel.
  I ask unanimous consent to include following my remarks a summary of 
the Alexander-Kirk amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Differences Between Background Check Requirements in CCDBG and Toomey 
                                  Bill

       The Child Care and Development and Block Grant (CCDBG), as 
     amended in 2014, and Senator Toomey's amendment to the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act both create a new 
     requirement that states, as a condition of receiving federal 
     funds under relevant programs, conduct comprehensive criminal 
     background checks for all prospective and current child care 
     or school employees. Key differences between the two 
     approaches include:
       Scope:
       CCDBG applies to all child care providers that receive 
     federal funding
       Toomey's bill applies to all elementary and secondary 
     schools in states that receive federal funding under the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This includes:
       100,000 public elementary and secondary schools
       14,000 local school districts
       50 state educational agencies
       Privacy:
       CCDBG ensures that the only information employers receive 
     is whether the prospective employee passed or failed the 
     background check.
       Toomey's bill has no similar protections and allows 
     employers to share the results of background checks with 
     other prospective employers.
       Mitigating factors:
       CCDBG permits states to create a review process through 
     which disqualified employees can become eligible for 
     employment due to mitigating factors, such as the length of 
     time since they committed a crime.
       Toomey's bill does not permit states to conduct such 
     reviews.
       Private right of action:
       CCDBG does not create a private right of action if the 
     child care provider is in compliance with all state 
     requirements.
       Toomey's bill does not contain similar language, 
     potentially opening schools to litigation.
       Materiality:
       CCDBG precludes hiring an employee if they make a material 
     false statement on a

[[Page 3437]]

     background check; Toomey's bill has no such materiality 
     requirement.
                                  ____


         The Stop Sexual Abuse by School Personnel Act of 2015


                   What the Alexander Amendment Does

       Requires states to have a criminal background check for all 
     school employees.
       Allows States or local school districts to use federal 
     funding authorized under the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education act to establish, implement, or improve policies 
     and procedures on background checks for school employees, 
     including:
       Providing states with the flexibility and resources to 
     conduct searches of State and Federal criminal registries, as 
     determined by the State;
       Empowering states to establish, implement, or improve 
     policies and procedures concerning the timely disclosure, 
     notice, and appeal of background check results;
       Supporting the development, implementation, or improvement 
     of mechanisms for assisting in the identification of and 
     response to incidents of child abuse, including by providing 
     training and development for school personnel; and
       Any other activities determined by the State to protect 
     student safety.
       Adopts the 2014 GAO report recommendation to establish the 
     U.S. Department of Education as the lead agency to inform 
     schools of best practices.
       Authorizes the U.S. Education Secretary to make reporting 
     of student sexual abuse by school personnel a part of an 
     annual ``Secretary's Report Card.''
       Protects schools and school districts from being sued if in 
     compliance with State regulations and requirements.


                   Reasons to Support this Amendment

       It requires states to have a criminal background check for 
     all school employees, help states and local school districts 
     do them, but does not dictate how they do it.
       It will support what most states are already doing--
     According to GAO, 46 States already require background checks 
     of some kind for all public school employees and 42 States 
     have established professional standards or codes of conduct 
     for school personnel.
       Rather than mandating a one-size-fits-all approach for 
     14,000 local school districts and 100,000 public schools, it 
     will provide states with flexibility to establish, implement, 
     or improve background check policies and procedures that best 
     meet State and local needs.
       It will support State and local efforts to increase 
     reporting of child abuse, limit the transfer of school 
     personnel implicated in abuse, as well as provide training on 
     how to recognize, respond to, and prevent child abuse in 
     schools.
       It will protect schools and local school districts from 
     civil litigation resulting from background check decisions 
     that are otherwise in compliance with State regulations and 
     requirements.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis).
  The Senator from Iowa.

                          ____________________