[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3628-3638]
[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 Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President.
  First, let me say Happy St. Patrick's Day to all my friends and 
family and colleagues in the Senate.
  (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow pertaining to the introduction of S. 758 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. STABENOW. I yield the floor.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, 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. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   The Future Of Colorado And America

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, in 1893 Katharine Lee Bates made her way 
up the slopes of Pikes Peak and first wrote the words to one of 
America's greatest patriotic hymns, poeticizing ``purple mountain 
majesties'' and ``amber waves of grain.''
  One hundred years ago, Enos Mills helped preserve ``mountain scenes 
of exceptional beauty and grandeur,'' giving to the country the crown 
jewel of American splendor, Rocky Mountain National Park.
  For over a century, visionaries such as John Iliff helped to settle 
the high plains of Colorado, described by Ian Frazier as a ``heroic 
place,'' an expanse of splendid isolation with unparalleled sense of 
space and generations of pioneers.
  This is Colorado. From west to east and north to south, the beauty, 
heritage, and vitality of Colorado calls and beckons across our Nation 
and the world to those looking and longing for a place to call home, to 
live and work, to visit and vacation.
  Our love for Colorado drives us to be better stewards of the land, to 
reach for solutions to great challenges, and to find optimism in every 
vale and valley. For generations, we have challenged our sons and 
daughters to always look up--look up to that great Rocky Mountain 
horizon--as our ever-

[[Page 3629]]

young State and our ever-hopeful attitude live peak to peak--the honor 
of living in the west, a land of opportunity and new beginnings.
  It is this constant drive for a better future for our great State and 
Nation that leads me to the floor of the Senate to speak for the first 
time, where my duties as Colorado's newest Senator begin, walking in 
the footsteps of Colorado's first Senators, Jerome Chaffee and Henry 
Teller, and alongside my colleague Senator Michael Bennet. It is an 
incredible and heavy obligation to fulfill to well and faithfully 
discharge the duties of the office, defending our Constitution with 
faith and allegiance to the rights we cherish, but an obligation and 
duty every person in Colorado expects us not just to fulfill but to 
excel at--from Beecher Island to the Book Cliffs, from Fisher's Peak to 
the Pawnee. Somewhere in between is my hometown of Yuma, home to hardy 
pioneers that have seen the high plains through great success and 
record harvests, depression and dust bowls, drought and tragedy. Yet 
through it all, the good times and challenges, it is still called home 
by generations who would live nowhere else.
  It is here in this little eastern plains town, weatherworn and always 
thirsty, that Jaime and I are raising our children, Alyson, Thatcher, 
and Caitlyn, in a home that once belonged to their great-great-
grandparents and are surrounded in town by family, Lala and Papa, 
great-grandparents, and more.
  No matter where across Colorado's four corners you live or across 
this great Nation, we all hope for the same thing for our children--to 
live in a loving community that values every citizen, where they learn 
the value of hard work and perseverance, where hard work is met with 
merited reward, and that they find a Nation of liberty and freedom that 
they help make a little more free and a little more perfect to carry on 
the tradition of our Founding Fathers, always endeavoring to be better 
tomorrow than they are today.
  Our Nation has always understood that this endeavor is not something 
that is just passed on, hoping someone else does the work for us. It is 
something we ourselves have to fight for today. We are responsible for 
the starting point we hand to the next generation, and we have a moral 
obligation to make it the best point possible, always advancing.
  To accomplish this I have laid out a Four Corners plan representing 
all areas of Colorado and those issues that matter most to the people 
of this country: growing our economy and getting this Nation back to 
work in the kinds of jobs with the kind of salary that allows people to 
achieve their dreams, to develop North American energy security while 
enhancing the protection and appreciation of our environment, and 
making sure that we give our children the tools they need to succeed in 
a world growing both in its complexity and its interconnectedness.
  In rural America we must work not only to keep the generations of 
families who grew up there on the farm and ranch but to find new ways 
to bring new families back to the farms, ranches, and small towns 
throughout our great State. We must revitalize Main Streets that are 
slowly losing their place as the heart and soul of the community--
boarded up and forgotten. To do this I will introduce legislation that 
will help provide ways to infuse new investments and life into our 
rural communities, called the Rural Philanthropy Act. It will help 
struggling businesses to find new private sector partners to serve 
their community, whether it is a smalltown newspaper or a local 
clothing store. It will help grow jobs and create more opportunities 
for startups and innovation.
  We must look to reimagine burdensome rules and regulations that tie 
the hands of people who want to start a business by revitalizing Main 
Street and breathing new life into a tired city block. Doing good 
things shouldn't be so difficult, and we need a government that 
recognizes this.
  Colorado's economy will also benefit from value-added trade 
opportunities with the passage of new trade agreements opening up new 
markets and eliminating barriers to growing markets. I will work to 
ensure that small businesses have the resources they need to 
participate in trade, making sure the benefit of new markets doesn't 
just stop at the biggest corporations.
  Through my First in Space Initiative, we will focus on policies that 
promote and grow Colorado's leading aerospace economies, launching new 
jobs in space, engineering, and aeronautics.
  A healthy economy means that everyone benefits--not just those who 
already have found success. That is why I will work to expand the 
earned-income tax credit. By eliminating the waste, fraud, and abuse 
all too common within the EITC, we can save billions of dollars and 
then use that money to expand the credit, making a program that has 
already lifted millions of people out of poverty to do even more good 
for people throughout Colorado and in our urban centers. Measuring a 
successful economy shouldn't simply be a matter of looking to see 
whether the haves have more but about what policies we have put in 
place to actually help the poor lift themselves out of poverty.
  We are living in a veneered economy. While the numbers on Wall Street 
look good and profits are looking up, scratch the surface and too many 
people continue to suffer, endlessly searching for jobs they 
desperately need and earning the kinds of salary they need to help 
achieve their family's goals. While parts of Colorado may be 
succeeding, others are struggling. True success means that every part 
of our State's economy flourishes.
  Thanks to our State's energy economy, parts of the State that seem to 
have been left behind are now thriving. A national policy geared 
towards North American energy independence will not only boost jobs and 
provide abundant and affordable energy upon which our economy relies, 
but it will boost our national security by providing to our allies 
abroad the energy partner they need that presents an alternative to 
nations such as Russia and Iran.
  I look forward to continuing my push for an expedited export process 
for LNG, allowing Mesa and La Plata County energy producers the 
opportunity to play a leading role in national security while creating 
jobs at home.
  Commonsense Colorado energy solutions also means focusing on 
renewable energy as well. Harnessing the winds in Weld, the sun in San 
Luis, and the power of water in the West, we can lessen pollution and 
help clean up the air. Working across the aisle with Senator Chris 
Coons from Delaware, I will focus on energy-savings performance 
contracts, an often overlooked private sector tool that has the 
potential to create thousands of jobs and save the taxpayer billions of 
dollars while helping to reduce pollution.
  Reducing pollution and protecting our environment is a cornerstone of 
Colorado. I look forward to working with Congressman Scott Tipton on 
legislation to help preserve and restore our great forest lands and to 
protect Colorado landscapes. Whether it is healthy forest legislation, 
reducing the maintenance backlog in our national parks or finding 
collaborative solutions to challenging land conflicts, we owe it to 
future generations of Coloradans to pass on an environment that is 
cleaner when they receive it than the one which we inherited.
  Future generations of Coloradans also deserve the opportunity to 
receive an education. Whether that is fighting to restore local control 
to States, school districts, and parents or working to make the dream 
of a college degree a reality, our future depends on our ability to 
provide the skills and training for the next generation of leaders and 
entrepreneurs.
  I will continue work on my legislation called the Making College 
Affordable Act. This will help families save for college and meet 
expenses in primary and secondary education. I look forward to 
promoting STEM education opportunities and transforming our immigration 
system from one that sends the best and brightest students back home to 
compete against us to one that allows them the opportunity to stay here 
in the United States to create jobs and innovation that we will 
continue to benefit from.

[[Page 3630]]

  There is no doubt in the next 6 years many issues will arise that 
fall outside these Four Corner issues, and I look forward to meeting 
every single one of these challenges by finding new opportunities that 
will help make Colorado a better place.
  I look forward to working with Congressman Mike Coffman to finish the 
VA hospital in Aurora, a hospital earned through sacrifice but 
tarnished by delay. When it is completed, it will give veterans a far 
better place for the care they deserve. That always must be our focus, 
making Colorado and the United States a better place, giving the people 
of this country the confidence that we can work together to achieve 
common goals, to strive for brighter horizons, to deliver to the 
American people a government they can be proud of again. I will work 
with Senator Bennet and anyone who is committed to these common goals.
  Too many people believe that government can no longer address the 
great challenges of our time--an $18 trillion debt, mounting 
entitlement costs, a health care crisis that continues into the next 
century, and seemingly overwhelming policy challenges. Some leaders 
would have us believe they can't do anything about it, that a managed 
decline is better than a rapid decline.
  The American people know better. They don't have to--and indeed, they 
will not--accept second best. A government that we can be proud of is 
one that solves the greatest challenges of our time, balances our 
budget, and puts in place solutions that rise above the rhetoric. A 
government we can be proud of again means an America that is always 
advancing and never in retreat.
  Our search for solutions, our search for a government we can be proud 
of comes from the common bond--regardless of color, gender or creed, 
and, yes, even party--that we as Americans all hold: the shared story 
of our lives, the unrelenting American spirit. This is the American 
story.
  We owe our Nation to the sacrifices made by millions of men and women 
for freedom for each other, to countless generations in the past and 
present who have worn a uniform in the defense of our Nation--a nation 
made exceptional by pioneering people, a nation of innovation and 
opportunity, a nation that imagines and inspires, a nation that rises 
above to be better tomorrow than we are today.
  I grew up working at the family implement dealership, a family 
business that was started by my great-grandfather 100 years ago. 
Sweeping the floors and cleaning the bathrooms, I learned what it takes 
to make a business work. I learned about the employees who made the 
business function and how we succeed as a business when our employees 
succeed--the hard-working men and women who hope their aspirations will 
be fulfilled.
  I learned from my grandma, the real life Rosie the Riveter who welded 
liberty ships in World War II alongside her husband, my grandpa. They 
gave up everything, moving their family and all they had in life to be 
part of the effort to win the war and to provide their four children 
with the opportunity to succeed and to build their own futures for 
their own families in a free world.
  A few weeks ago, when going through some old boxes--a random 
collection of endless material, pictures--I discovered a stack of 
letters that were written by my grandfather to his parents and to my 
grandmother during World War II. The letters were written in near 
perfect cursive. Others were typed on an old hammer-strike typewriter 
they undoubtedly used to the last days of the implement dealership. He 
talked about the loneliness for home, new friends he had made during 
the war, questions about his young son, and the new countries he was 
visiting in France and beyond.
  I would like to share parts of one of those letters today because it 
shares part of our American story. It was written on August 15, 1945.

       Dear Folks,
       Aha, that day, 14 August, is indeed a history making day, 
     and last night at twelve o'clock when at last all the rumors 
     were confirmed that the world was at peace I said a silent 
     prayer and know that it won't be long until we are all 
     together again. If you pull those reins hard enough, maybe I 
     will be home for Xmas, mother, certainly have a good chance 
     of making it now, although anything can still happen and 
     there are thousands of miles to cover, but one can't help but 
     be optimistic.

  It must have been an incredible feeling to know that the war you had 
been fighting, the war that had consumed the world and taken our 
Nation's young men and women thousands of miles away from home was 
over, to have received word that ``the rumors were confirmed that the 
world was at peace.'' And after years of battle and weariness and a 
silent prayer, the optimism of one soldier and that soldier's Nation 
persevered.
  There are countless families across this country who share a similar 
story. One of their aunts or uncles, parents or siblings are people who 
share the honor and the obligation of wearing a uniform for the United 
States of America with all of the responsibility that comes along with 
it.
  They are people whom we will most likely never meet, nor will we ever 
be able to fully thank them, but they still fought for all of us. 
Through the words of one simple letter, we recognize the power of peace 
over conflict, of love for family and country. A silent prayer, no 
doubt of thanks, thanks for answering so many other silent prayers, 
silent prayers for a day of peace and homecoming. What it must have 
been like to know that the great darkness of war which threatened 
freedom not for some but for all had finally come to an end. Just like 
that, you will be home as if nothing ever happened.
  Somewhere in that silent prayer, under the new calm of a war-torn 
horizon was the thanksgiving of a soldier for his victorious nation, a 
soldier looking to go home a civilian to live out his dreams far away 
from harm, in the arms of his family.
  While we may disagree on the details of policy and the tactics of 
direction, let us make no mistake in our charge--to ensure that we have 
a nation that is worthy of the sacrifice so many have made; to refuse 
to pass on to future generations a nation in retreat or decline; to 
make sure ours is a nation that is always worth fighting for. This is 
Colorado. This is the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                 Remembering Edward William Brooke III

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on January 3, the Nation lost a courageous 
public servant--actually, an icon of the 20th century: Massachusetts 
Senator Edward William Brooke III. He was 95 years old.
  I have had the privilege of serving with more than 350 Senators since 
Vermonters first elected me to represent them in this Chamber. There is 
a very special list of those with whom I have served, and it is a 
privilege to count among those on that special list Senator Edward 
Brooke. We were both elected representatives of Northeastern States, 
even though we came from different political parties.
  Senator Brooke and I forged a relationship that lasted long after he 
left Congress. We actually shared a similar start to our careers. As a 
former State's Attorney, I admired and respected Senator Brooke's 
legacy as a fearless prosecutor. As Attorney General for the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Senator Brooke exposed and fought 
against political corruption.
  He was no stranger to breaking barriers, and he ultimately became the 
first African American elected in Massachusetts to serve in the United 
States Senate--a post he held for 12 years.
  Senator Brooke was a problem-solver. He wanted to spend his time in 
the Senate making a difference, not just making pronouncements. He 
invested his considerable abilities in bridging

[[Page 3631]]

racial, economic, and political divides to solve the challenges facing 
the Nation. He was a key, and sometimes crucial, voice along the 
difficult path toward enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. He 
spearheaded equal opportunity legislative initiatives from housing, to 
education, to employment. I think there was no bridge Senator Brooke 
was unwilling to cross to make lives better.
  Senator Brooke is one of the few Senators to receive the Nation's 
highest civilian honor, the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was also 
the recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal. His service in World War 
II was recognized with a Bronze Star.
  This lifelong public servant dedicated his life to defending the 
bedrock principles of this country. His legacy of fighting for justice 
and equality is as important today as ever before. It is a legacy that 
will always deserve to be remembered and honored.
  Marcelle and I feel privileged to have known him and I send my 
condolences to his wife, Anne, his children, and his grandchildren.


                            Lynch Nomination

  Mr. President, the New York Times ran an editorial this morning aptly 
entitled ``The Loretta Lynch Confirmation Mess.'' The editorial writers 
note:

       Of course, as Mr. McConnell readily acknowledged, the delay 
     [of the vote on Loretta Lynch's nomination] is not simply 
     about trafficking legislation but a redirection of 
     Republicans' fury at what they consider Mr. Obama's lawless 
     actions.

  If Republicans are serious about law enforcement, serious about 
implementing the legislation I hope will pass to combat and prevent 
human trafficking, they will stop their partisan attacks and allow a 
vote on Loretta Lynch's nomination. After all, she has a very good 
record of prosecuting people who are involved in trafficking. You can't 
say you are in favor of stopping trafficking and then block an Attorney 
General who has a record of enforcing the trafficking laws.
  It has been 19 days since the bipartisan majority in the Senate 
Judiciary Committee favorably reported her nomination. She has been 
waiting longer for a floor vote than the five most recent attorneys 
general combined. She has been waiting for a vote for 19 days. If you 
took Attorneys
General Reno, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Mukasey, and Holder, all of them 
together were 18 days. For Loretta Lynch it is 19 days.
  It has certainly been much longer than for the three men nominated 
during the last Republican administration or for the incumbent Attorney 
General nominated by this administration. She has now waited, as I 
said, longer than the previous five Attorneys General combined.
  If we don't vote on her this week, her nomination will have waited on 
the Senate floor longer than the most recent seven Attorneys General 
combined. I hope it doesn't come to that. That would show a real 
disdain for the Department of Justice in its efforts to enforce our 
laws, to stop trafficking, and to go after terrorists, but it is also 
beneath the Senate.
  Certainly when I was chairman, I did not do that for President Bush's 
Attorney General nominee when he was in his last 2 years as President. 
As chairman I moved Judge Mukasey through in a fraction of the time we 
have taken on Loretta Lynch. I did this even though his nomination was 
not something I supported and I ultimately voted against it. I moved 
him forward quickly even though Judge Mukasey was unwilling to state 
how he felt about President Bush's position on torture and did not seem 
to have a position on the politicization of his predecessor, or his 
work with U.S. attorneys, things that set back law enforcement for 
years. In fact, even though he had no position on most of the issues 
President Bush was involved in, either through Executive orders or 
otherwise, he was still moved through in a tiny fraction of the time 
Loretta Lynch has been pending so far.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the New York Times article I mentioned earlier.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the New York Times, March 17, 2015]

                  The Loretta Lynch Confirmation Mess

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       What does the abortion issue have to do with the prevention 
     of human trafficking? Nothing.
       What do either of those things have to do with Loretta 
     Lynch, whom President Obama nominated more than four months 
     ago to succeed Eric Holder Jr. as attorney general of the 
     United States? Even less.
       Yet Ms. Lynch's confirmation as the nation's top law 
     enforcement officer--which seemed like a sure thing only a 
     few weeks ago--is being held hostage to last-minute political 
     mischief.
       Ms. Lynch, a supremely well-qualified prosecutor, has 
     waited far too long to be confirmed. Senate Republicans said 
     as recently as last week that they would schedule Ms. Lynch's 
     confirmation vote for this week, but, on Sunday, the majority 
     leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said that won't happen 
     until the Senate moves forward on a bipartisan trafficking 
     bill, which would, among other things, establish a fund for 
     victims through a fine paid by those convicted of trafficking 
     crimes.
       The legislation, which sailed through committee in 
     February, stalled last week when Democrats noticed a 
     provision that would prohibit money in the fund from being 
     used to pay for abortions. The original Senate bill, 
     introduced in the last Congress, made no reference to 
     abortion. Nor did the House's version of the bill, introduced 
     by Representative Erik Paulsen, a Republican of Minnesota. 
     ``There is no reason it should be included in these bills,'' 
     Mr. Paulsen said last week of the abortion language. ``This 
     issue is far too important to tie it up with an unrelated 
     fight with politics as usual.''
       Republicans say they routinely add the abortion language 
     into many bills and that Democrats should have read more 
     carefully. Democrats say Republicans operated in bad faith--
     not to mention in violation of Senate norms--by 
     misrepresenting the bill's contents.
       This dispute has nothing to do with the needs of the 
     Justice Department. It is beyond irresponsible to strand the 
     department without a leader, sowing instability and 
     uncertainty in an important executive agency.
       Mr. Holder announced his retirement in September, to the 
     evident delight of Republicans who have opposed him from the 
     start. One would have thought they would be eager to see him 
     go, yet almost six months later he remains in office because 
     a replacement has not been confirmed. No one disputes Ms. 
     Lynch's experience or accomplishments. She currently leads 
     the federal prosecutor's office in the Eastern District of 
     New York, and she has received the support of senators of 
     both parties. The only objection anyone could come up with 
     was that she might not stand up against President Obama's 
     policies, an odd criticism to aim at a prospective cabinet 
     member.
       Of course, as Mr. McConnell readily acknowledged, the delay 
     is not simply about trafficking legislation but a redirection 
     of Republicans' fury at what they consider Mr. Obama's 
     lawless actions. Ms. Lynch is ``suffering from the 
     president's actions,'' he said Sunday, referring to Mr. 
     Obama's move on immigration policy last November.
       This is not the way for Republicans to reassure the country 
     of their ability to govern now that they control both houses 
     of Congress. Instead, they could start by ending the delay on 
     what should be a straightforward floor vote and do the job 
     Americans elected them to do.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                         Negotiations With Iran

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, next Tuesday, March 24, we will reach 
the deadline for the deal with Iran for its illicit nuclear program. 
That is the date by which the Obama administration said it would have a 
framework for a final agreement with Iran. So far, it seems as though 
the administration is willing to make a deal at any cost. America 
cannot afford that and Congress should not allow it. An overwhelming 
majority of Americans believe we should not accept a bad deal with the 
Iranians. In one poll earlier this month, 84 percent of Americans said 
it is a bad idea to accept the kinds of concessions this administration 
seems to be making.
  The Obama administration started negotiating with Iran more than 5 
years ago. It has mishandled these talks from the very beginning by 
conceding Iran's right to enrich uranium. This deal was supposed to be 
about stopping Iran's nuclear program as a pathway to a bomb. 
Negotiators started off by insisting that Iran should have no more than 
1,500 centrifuges to produce nuclear materials. That number has 
steadily grown during the negotiations. According to David Ignatius

[[Page 3632]]

in the Washington Post on February 24, the number is now four times the 
level where we started. His article is entitled ``A compelling argument 
on Iran.'' It says, ``The deal taking shape would likely allow Iran 
about 6,000'' centrifuges. So we have gone from 1,500 to 4,000 to now 
6,000. The author of the article says one administration official told 
him that even 9,000 centrifuges would be okay.
  Remember, Iran is not supposed to have a uranium enrichment program. 
The United Nations Security Council has demanded the program be 
suspended. So why is the Obama administration negotiating on this point 
at all? When did this change from being an attempt to stop Iran's 
nuclear program to become an attempt to delay or to manage Iran's 
nuclear program? If this deal makes too many of these kinds of 
concessions to the Iranians, it would be just one more example of the 
failed foreign relations of this Obama Presidency.
  Go back and look at what happened with the Russian reset. It was the 
reset button Secretary of State Clinton launched in March of 2009--6 
years ago this month. Look at her comments in which she said that 
Syrian President Assad was ``a reformer.'' President Obama talked about 
a redline with Syria--a redline that Syria could not cross by using 
chemical weapons against his own people. Assad crossed that line more 
than 2 years ago.
  Remember when the President called ISIS a JV team?
  This is all part of a pattern of the Obama administration 
underestimating our enemies and being outmaneuvered by them. This 
administration has a terrible record of being wrong about Iran as well.
  When Congress was debating increased sanctions against Iran, the 
White House opposed those sanctions. Congress had to force sanctions 
authority on the President. It was those sanctions--the ones Congress 
imposed upon the President--that brought Iran to the negotiating table. 
Now the administration says it opposes congressional participation once 
again. Well, I don't believe the White House gets to be the sole 
decider on this important issue.
  The administration claims it understands it would be better to have 
no deal at all than to have a bad deal, and I agree. That is why we 
need oversight--oversight by Congress--to make sure this is not a bad 
deal. The negotiators don't get to decide for themselves if it is a 
good deal or a bad deal. The American people get a say, and Congress, 
as the elected representatives of the people, is the right place for 
the people to have their voices heard.
  So what does the Obama administration have to say about all this? The 
President's Chief of Staff sent a letter over the weekend, Saturday 
night--the Saturday night surprise--and he said Congress will get to be 
involved only after the administration signs a deal. Congress gets to 
be involved only after people get to find out what is in it, after 
President Obama signs a deal. It is kind of like Nancy Pelosi when she 
said of the health care law, first you have to pass it before you get 
to find out what is in it.
  So why is it the Chief of Staff of the President is acting this way? 
Why is the Obama administration telling Members of Congress, both 
Republicans and Democrats, to sit down and be quiet? Let's be clear 
about what is at stake here. If the Obama administration allows Iran to 
continue with its illicit nuclear program, the world will be less safe, 
less stable, and less secure. Any agreement must be accountable, must 
be enforceable, and must be verifiable. If that is not the case, then 
it is a bad deal.
  We need to make sure this deal is about protecting Americans, not 
protecting the President's diplomatic legacy. If the Obama 
administration is so confident it can negotiate a good deal, why not 
let Congress participate?
  We have bipartisan legislation here that Senator Corker has written 
with Democrats and Republicans as cosponsors. That bipartisan 
legislation would make sure that congressional sanctions currently in 
place stay in place, and they stay in place long enough for Congress to 
hold hearings and to take whatever action is needed. That bill being 
proposed will be before the Committee on Foreign Relations next week. 
That bill will guarantee the President keeps an eye on Iran's 
compliance with any agreement. If the Iranians try to break the deal, 
we would know about it so that Congress would reimpose sanctions, 
reinstate sanctions.
  The American people need to be involved in this process. Getting 
onboard and getting the approval of Congress only strengthens the 
agreement the administration negotiates. It will validate, give more 
legitimacy to it, and more credibility. Congress should and must be 
involved. It will make clear to both our allies and our enemies that 
America stands united in our commitment to ending Iran's nuclear 
program. It also makes it far more likely this agreement will outlast 
the Obama administration.
  When President Obama and Vice President Biden were Senators, they 
favored this kind of involvement by Congress. They both actually 
cosponsored legislation requiring Congress to approve any long-term 
security commitment President Bush was to make with Iraq. Well, a long 
agreement with Iran over its nuclear program to me is even more 
important.
  In one policy after another, President Obama has disregarded the 
views of the American people. This is a huge concern. He has ignored 
Congress. He acted on his own even when he had no authority to act. He 
has done it on the domestic side, he has done it on the foreign 
relations side, and it looks to me as if the administration is planning 
once again to ignore Congress and the American people in pursuit of an 
inadequate deal with Iran. It is time for Congress to step in and to 
stand up for the American people.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Washington Post story of February 24 by David Ignatius entitled ``A 
compelling argument on Iran.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2015]

                     A Compelling Argument on Iran

                          (By David Ignatius)

       Prussian King Frederick the Great offered this rebuke to 
     those who refused to allow any concessions: ``If you try to 
     hold everything, you hold nothing.''
       President Obama might make a similar retort to Israeli 
     Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's attack on the alleged 
     ``bad deal'' the United States is contemplating with Iran. 
     Netanyahu rejects any concessions that allow Iran to enrich 
     uranium; he thinks the U.S. goal of a one-year ``breakout'' 
     period before Iran could build a bomb isn't enough.
       To which several leading administration officials respond: 
     Okay, then, what's a better practical idea for controlling 
     Iran's nuclear program? They see in Netanyahu's maximalist 
     goals an air of unreality--of fantasy, even. They grant that 
     their solution isn't perfect. But they argue that it's far 
     better for Israel and the West than any other plausible 
     scenario.
       The Iran nuclear talks, arguably the most important 
     diplomatic negotiations of the last several decades, will 
     come to a head next month. Netanyahu will take his case 
     against the agreement to Congress on March 3 in an unusual 
     speech organized by the Republican House speaker. His own 
     political leadership will be tested in Israeli elections on 
     March 17. The Iran negotiations will reach a March 24 
     deadline for the framework of a final comprehensive accord.
       Israel's Minister of Intelligence Yuval Steinitz made the 
     case against the Iran agreement in an interview with me last 
     week. ``From the very beginning, we made it clear we had 
     reservations about the goal of the negotiations,'' he 
     explained. He said Obama's effort to limit the Iranian 
     nuclear program for a decade or so, in the expectation that a 
     future generation of leaders wouldn't seek a bomb, was ``too 
     speculative.''
       The administration's response is that the agreement is 
     better than any realistic alternative. Officials argue it 
     would put the Iranian program in a box, with constraints on 
     all the pathways to making a bomb. Perhaps more important, it 
     would provide strict monitoring and allow intrusive 
     inspection of Iranian facilities--not just its centrifuges 
     but its uranium mines, mills and manufacturing facilities. If 
     Iran seeks a covert path to building a bomb, the deal offers 
     the best hope of detecting it.
       If the current talks collapsed, all these safeguards would 
     disappear. The Iranians could resume enrichment and other 
     currently prohibited activities. In such a situation, the 
     United States and Israel would face

[[Page 3633]]

     a stark choice over whether to attack Iranian facilities--
     with no guarantee that such an attack would set Tehran back 
     more than a few years.
       The deal taking shape would likely allow Iran about 6,000 
     IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz. The Iranians apparently wouldn't 
     install IR-2s, which operate twice as fast, and they would 
     limit research on future models, up to IR-8s, that are on the 
     drawing board. How these research limits would be monitored 
     and enforced is a key bargaining issue. Another critical 
     variable is the size of the stockpile Iran could maintain; 
     U.S. officials want a very low number, with additional 
     enriched material shipped out of Iran.
       One official argues that the United States would be better 
     off with 9,000 IR-1s and a small stockpile than with 1,000 
     IR-2s and a large stockpile. Netanyahu probably won't address 
     this issue in his speech to Congress, since he insists the 
     only acceptable number of centrifuges is zero.
       Another key technical issue is how non-permitted 
     centrifuges would be dismantled. There is a range of options, 
     from simply unplugging the equipment to pulverizing it 
     altogether. The United States wants a formula that would 
     require at least a year for the Iranians to restart the 
     shelved equipment. As for the planned Iranian plutonium 
     reactor at Arak, negotiators seem to have agreed on a 
     compromise that will halt construction well before Arak 
     becomes ``hot'' with potential bomb fuel.
       The length of the agreement is a crucial variable. U.S. 
     officials have always spoken of a ``double-digit'' duration 
     period, somewhere between 10 and 15 years. Negotiators are 
     also exploring the possibility of different phases of the 
     timeline, with inspection provisions having a longer life 
     span than, say, limits on the number of centrifuges.
       The deal-breaker for the administration is if Iran balks at 
     U.S. insistence that sanctions will only be removed step by 
     step, as Iran demonstrates that it's serious about abiding by 
     the agreement. In the U.S. view, Iran has to earn its way 
     back to global acceptance.
       The Iran deal is imperfect. As Count Metternich observed in 
     1807 about negotiations with the rising powers of his day, 
     ``Peace does not exist with a revolutionary system.'' But 
     U.S. officials make a compelling case that this agreement is 
     a start toward a safer Middle East.

  Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TOOMEY. 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.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak on S. 178, the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, and the Toomey-Manchin 
amendment No. 291 to that bill.
  First of all, I wish to thank Senator Cornyn for bringing this bill 
to the Senate floor. It is a bipartisan bill. It is an extremely 
important bill. It has been awfully frustrating that we can't even get 
onto this bill. It is especially hard to understand because of the fact 
that this is a bipartisan bill which has 10 Democratic cosponsors and 
another 3 Democrats who voted for it in the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
This shouldn't even be controversial.
  It is particularly disturbing because when you think about what we 
are trying to address with Senator Cornyn's bill, it is awfully 
important. I mean, what can be more despicable than what we are trying 
to go after here--trafficking human beings? This is a form of modern-
day slavery, is what it is, and some of the most despicable people in 
the world take the most vulnerable people in our society and they turn 
them into essentially slaves in the sex industry. I mean, as appalling 
as that is, it happens, and it happens in every State.
  What this bill does is it provides more tools for law enforcement to 
better be able to crack down on this appalling practice and provides 
harsher penalties, as well it should, and it provides more resources 
for folks who do the important work of helping victims to heal, which 
is a very long, very difficult, very painful process. It is 
unimaginable what some of these folks go through. Children are forced 
into slavery, brutalized, beaten, and raped. It is dehumanizing--an 
atrocious situation. We have a bill which is bipartisan and which would 
actually do something constructive about it, and our Democratic 
colleagues will not even allow us to begin the debate, much less move 
on in the process.
  I understand there is a provision in the bill they don't like. I get 
that. But we have offered repeatedly that they would be allowed to 
offer any amendment they like. They can offer an amendment to strike 
the language to which they object, and that is the way the Senate is 
supposed to work. You put a bill on the floor. If somebody doesn't like 
something that is in it, you try to change it. It is pretty basic, 
pretty fundamental, and that is what we ought to be doing. But we 
haven't been able to persuade enough of our Democratic colleagues to 
allow us to proceed to this bill yet. I hope we will soon.
  One of the reasons I hope so goes beyond the substance of this bill, 
and that is the amendment Senator Manchin and I will introduce as soon 
as we are able to do that. This is an amendment which will allow us to 
amend the underlying trafficking bill with a bill Senator Manchin and I 
have introduced designed to protect kids from sexual abuse. It is 
amendment No. 291, and it is based on a bill we have called the 
Protecting Students from Sexual and Violent Predators Act. The goal is 
to protect kids from pedophiles in schools. That is what it comes down 
to. There is overwhelming bipartisan support for our legislation, the 
bill I introduced with Senator Manchin. It passed the House 
unanimously.
  I rose last week to ask unanimous consent to bring up this amendment 
and make it pending so we could debate and we could vote on it, and one 
of our friends from the other side of the aisle objected to that as 
well. So there is no progress on this yet, but I am convinced that this 
isn't going to stand. I am convinced that enough Democratic Senators 
are going to come to their senses and they are going to join us in 
voting on this bill and that we are going to be able to somehow proceed 
with this and proceed with the various amendments I and others intend 
to offer.
  I want to speak a little bit about my amendment because I think we 
are going to get to it. As I mentioned, it is about protecting kids at 
school from violent and sexual predators. Let me start with an 
observation that should go without saying, but I will say it anyway.
  We all know that the overwhelming majority of school authorities, 
teachers and nonteachers alike, are very good and decent people and 
that it would never occur to them to abuse the children in their care. 
They are motivated in their desire to help kids succeed in the various 
ways they help guide these kids. I am completely convinced that the 
overwhelming majority of teachers and school employees don't want a 
pedophile anywhere near their school. They don't want them in the 
classroom next to them. They don't want them coaching their kids. They 
don't want them in any way involved because most teachers have good 
sense and decency. That is the way they are. But the reality is that 
schools are, in fact, where the kids are, and pedophiles know this. So 
we have a problem. The problem is that some of these predators are 
finding ways into the schools.
  Stated very clearly, last year alone, 459 school employees--some 
teachers, some not teachers--459 adult school employees were arrested 
across America for sexual misconduct with the kids they are supposed to 
be looking after; 459 that we knew enough about what they were doing 
and the prosecutors felt they had a strong enough case that they could 
actually go ahead and make the arrest. How many more are under 
investigation? How many more where there are suspicions but no evidence 
with which to pursue a case? Probably a lot more. But we know for sure 
there are 459 appalling cases, and so far this year, we are on track to 
have similar numbers. We are 76 days into the school year, and over 90 
school employees have already been arrested this year across the 
country.
  This is absolutely a real problem. Some of these predators are 
finding ways to slip through the cracks of the system that is meant to 
keep them out, and Senator Manchin and I want to do something about it.
  Here is our suggestion. We have a bill that does two simple things. 
It says to

[[Page 3634]]

the State: If you are going to collect the millions of dollars in 
Federal funding that go to primary and secondary education, then you 
have to do a proper background check and you have to make sure you are 
not hiring a pedophile. You have to check the Federal and State 
databases to make sure you are doing a thorough background check. And 
the second requirement is you can't engage or permit anybody to engage 
in this appalling practice that is known as passing the trash. It is 
shocking that this could even exist, but it does.
  I will tell you the story that actually inspired this legislation, 
which is a case in point of passing the trash. The story begins with a 
teacher teaching in Delaware County, PA. This teacher was a pedophile 
who was molesting boys who were in his care. The school district 
figured out what was going on. There was never enough evidence to 
actually prosecute him, but they knew something was very wrong. The 
school district decided it would be better if this teacher became 
someone else's problem, so, as appalling as it is, what they did was 
they wrote a letter of recommendation to recommend this teacher for 
another job provided that he leave. Well, he leaves. He goes across the 
State border into West Virginia, applies for and, in part on the 
strength of the letter of recommendation he had, he gets hired at a 
school in West Virginia. He works as a teacher. He resumes what these 
people do--abusing children. Eventually, he becomes principal, and 
while principal at the school, he rapes and murders a 12-year-old boy 
named Jeremy Bell.
  So the practice of sending a letter of recommendation along with a 
monster such as this is known as passing the trash. As appalling as 
that is, it happens enough that it has its own name. As a matter of 
fact, just Friday, I was in Pittsburgh and I was visiting a wonderful 
group of people--Pittsburgh Action Against Rape--a great group of 
professionals who do wonderful work, mostly helping victims cope with 
the aftermath of their assaults. One of the people I met there and 
heard from is the president of the board of directors. Her name is Beth 
Docherty. She told her story. Her story began when she was 15 years 
old. She was in the band at her school when the band instructor began 
to rape her. When she came forward and told the authorities what was 
happening, the school promised the teacher they wouldn't conduct any 
investigation if he would just quietly resign. Then the school wrote a 
glowing letter of recommendation for this guy, which he took with him, 
went to Florida, and found a teaching job there.
  Fortunately, the prosecutors in the case in Pennsylvania felt 
confident that they had a strong enough case, and in time they were 
actually able to get him back from Florida. They prosecuted him and 
they locked him up, and he is in jail today, where he belongs and might 
be for the rest of his life.
  The point of this is, as appalling and shocking as it is to our 
conscience that anyone would do this, I am here to say it happens. It 
happens, and we need to do something about it for the sake of Jeremy 
Bell and for the sake of Beth Docherty and who knows how many other 
children.
  Our legislation simply requires that the State have a provision in 
its law that makes it illegal to knowingly recommend for hire someone 
who is attacking kids. This, too, strikes me as a bill that should not 
be controversial. It passed the House unanimously. But there are people 
who are trying to kill this bill. We have some of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, and outside organizations from the left have 
argued against this.
  I want to quote from a letter that was sent to all of us explaining 
why a number of those groups are opposing the legislation. Here is the 
quote. This is what they say in their letter:
  ``Individuals who have been convicted of crimes and have completed 
their sentences should not be unnecessarily subjected to additional 
punishments because of these convictions.''
  Well, wait a minute. Think about the logic of that position. By that 
logic, an admitted convicted child molester who serves a 10-year prison 
sentence for his crime should be able to walk out of the jail, walk 
down the street, apply for and get a job teaching elementary 
schoolkids. How ridiculous is that? It is completely ridiculous.
  Our kids should not be involuntary members of a social experiment 
where we are trying to see which convicted child molesters are going to 
be recividists. Frankly, most of them are. I am not willing to take the 
risk that our kids should be left alone with people like that. We have 
a National Sex Offender Registry for a reason. It is because we 
recognize those people pose a danger that extends past the time of 
their incarceration. Parents need to know about that. That is why we 
have this national registry. Schools need to avoid the danger.
  To be clear, I am not suggesting a convicted child molester can never 
work again anywhere, but I am saying they should not work in a school. 
I think that is completely reasonable. I am shocked, frankly, that 
these organizations would come out against this commonsense 
legislation.
  But the objection, in fairness--some objection comes from our side of 
the aisle as well. I have a colleague for whom I have all the respect 
in the world. The senior Senator from Tennessee is a wonderful Senator. 
I agree with him on far more than I disagree. But I have to say, I 
strongly disagree with his view of this particular view. He has been 
here on the Senate floor. He has been very upfront with me about his 
opposition to our bill. The basis of his opposition to my bill is he 
believes that passing the legislation Senator Manchin and I are 
proposing, requiring background checks and forbidding the passing of 
trash, constitutes the equivalent of a national school board, that it 
is an unreasonable infringement on schools.
  Well, I could not disagree more. Now the idea of a national school 
board is a terrible idea. I have no interest in that. You will never 
hear me arguing that the Federal Government should impose on States and 
school districts things such as appropriate class size, or whether you 
should teach geometry before algebra in middle school, or what grade 
should students read ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' Any of those kinds of 
curriculum issues or testing issues should be left to local school 
boards and States. But that is not what we are trying to do here.
  What I am saying with my legislation with Senator Manchin is if a 
State takes billions and billions of Federal tax dollars each year, 
then you cannot use that money to pay the salary of a convicted child 
abuser. I think that is totally different. That is nothing like a 
national school board.
  Furthermore, we all voted in favor of the substance of these 
background check requirements when we all passed the child care 
development block grant bill, which, by the way, passed this Chamber 
with one dissenting vote. It was 98 to 1. There was one ``no'' vote, 
which had nothing to do with the background check provisions, by the 
way. The senior Senator from Tennessee was an original cosponsor of 
that legislation.
  By the way, that also passed the House unanimously. It is virtually 
identical. It holds that children in these daycare centers should have 
the protection that comes with knowing the employees have gone through 
this background check system.
  So do we have a national daycare board? I do not think so. If it is 
okay to protect the youngest of kids, which it certainly is and should 
be, why cannot we also extend that protection to kids who are a little 
bit older? We are insisting on a standard that is appropriate and 
rigorous for kids who are toddlers. Then when they go to kindergarten, 
we are not going to have the same standard to protect them? That makes 
no sense to me at all.
  Then another point I would make regarding this idea of a national 
school board is this practice of passing the trash. When a school 
district sends a letter of recommendation for a known offender, and he 
takes that letter with him and goes across State lines, what can a 
single State do about that? The case I described of Jeremy Bell, the 
little boy who was killed by the teacher

[[Page 3635]]

in West Virginia who originated in Pennsylvania--what could West 
Virginia do to forbid Pennsylvanians from sending a letter of 
recommendation for that teacher? Absolutely nothing is the answer. 
Because West Virginia's legislative authority does not reach into 
Pennsylvania. This happens across State lines. In fact, it is a very 
conscious decision on the part of many of these predators, because they 
want to put as much distance between their criminal activities as they 
can. When they move, they move far sometimes. So this demands a Federal 
response. There is nothing a State can do to solve this problem. That 
is why we address it in our bill.
  The other point I would make is, look, this is not the first time we 
have had the Federal Government establish some employment standards. We 
have Federal laws that, for instance, ban discrimination in schools. 
Schools are not permitted, under Federal law--you cannot discriminate 
in your hiring on the basis of sex or race or age or religion or 
pregnancy. Does that mean we have a national school board? Does that 
mean we have a national school board? Does this mean we have to repeal 
all of these laws? I do not think so. I think it is perfectly 
reasonable to have employment standards.
  Finally, I would say do we not have some responsibility of oversight 
of how Federal tax dollars get spent by the States? I mean, do we send 
the money and say: Hey, here is a pile of cash, do whatever you like 
with it? I do not think that is a very reasonable standard. What could 
be more reasonable than simply saying you cannot use Federal tax 
dollars we are responsible for if you are going to use it to pay the 
salaries of convicted child abusers. I think that is pretty 
straightforward.
  I will say there may be alternative amendments here. There has been 
some discussion that some of our colleagues may offer alternatives to 
the legislation Senator Manchin and I have. I am still willing to work 
with anyone on our side or the other side of the aisle. If we can 
constructively work--if the goal is to actually get something passed 
that is going to be helpful, that is going to be constructive, then I 
will work with anybody to get there. But there are a few things I will 
not agree to. I will not agree to a provision that, under the guise of 
privacy, requires a school to stay silent while a known child molester 
seeks a new teaching job. That is not reasonable. I will not agree to a 
bill that does nothing to change the status quo, a bill that does 
nothing to provide additional protections for our kids.
  Unfortunately, in my view, the amendment that is offered by the 
senior Senator from Tennessee fits into this latter category. He has 
got an amendment that I think provides absolutely no additional 
protections. It says all States have to have a background check system. 
But guess what. All States already do. The problem is, many of them are 
inadequate. As I said before, there is nothing a State can do about 
passing the trash across State lines. So it does nothing to stop 
passing the trash. It does nothing to stop schools from hiring a 
convicted child rapist. It does not say anything about the standards of 
the background check. The bill is so loose that if a State simply 
decided to do a Google search, that would meet the criteria of the 
bill. It is completely unacceptable. It does not change the status quo. 
It does nothing to protect the kids. You could make the argument that 
this bill is arguably worse than doing nothing, because it could 
undermine the effort to do this right, create the illusion of having 
done something at the national level when, in fact, it has not done so.
  I will conclude by simply saying I am not prepared to settle for the 
status quo. I am not satisfied when we have a situation where 459 
school employees are arrested in a single year--arrested for sexual 
misconduct with the kids they are supposed to be taking care of. 
Obviously we have a problem here. I am not going to settle for a 
pretend piece of legislation that accomplishes nothing.
  What comes home to me is my own three kids. I have three young 
children. When one of my children gets on a schoolbus in the morning, I 
have every right to expect the school that child is going to--the 
school my child is going to--is as safe an environment for him or her 
as it can possibly be. Every other parent in Pennsylvania and every 
parent in America deserves to have peace of mind. Every child deserves 
to have that security. So that is why I am not going to give up on 
this.
  I am confident at some point our Democratic friends are going to 
realize it is a huge mistake for them to continue their filibuster of 
the trafficking bill. When they do, they will agree to let us proceed 
to it. When that happens, I will be back. Senator Manchin and I will 
offer our legislation as an amendment. We are going to have a debate 
about it. We are going to have a vote about it. I certainly hope we win 
this vote. This, again, is legislation that passed the House 
unanimously. If it passes the Senate, it is sure to become law. If it 
does not pass for some reason, then I am going to come back again and 
again until it does.
  I hope we will take this up sooner rather than later. I hope we get 
on this bill still this week. There is still time. I know we will have 
an open amendment process when we do. I look forward to offering this 
amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, yesterday, I, along with a number of my 
colleagues, filed an amendment to the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act. This amendment, based on the Rape Survivor Child 
Custody Act which we filed as a stand-alone bill last Congress, would 
provide grants to States that have laws on the books that allow women 
to petition for the termination of parental rights based on clear and 
convincing evidence that a child was conceived through rape. The goal 
is to encourage more States to adopt such laws.
  The amendment as drafted gives broad discretion to the Attorney 
General to determine which States are eligible for grants and which are 
not. For that reason, I would like to say a few words regarding our 
intention in drafting this amendment.
  Under the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act, the Attorney General is 
empowered to make grants to ``States that have in place a law that 
allows the mother of any child that was conceived through rape to seek 
court-order termination of the parental rights of her rapist with 
regard to that child, which the court is authorized to grant upon clear 
and convincing evidence of rape.'' Termination is defined as ``a 
complete and final termination of the parent's right to custody of, 
guardianship of, visitation with, access to, and inheritance from a 
child.''
  There are a number of States that have such a law on the books but 
which also state that parental rights can be reinstated if extenuating 
circumstances occur. And while the bill states that a determination 
must be final, the bill was drafted with the idea that there is a 
difference between a ``final'' determination and an ``unmodifiable'' 
one. And States with such laws on the books should still qualify 
because the amendment does not say the determination has to be 
unmodifiable, just final.
  The intention as currently drafted is that 10 States would be 
eligible under their current laws. These 10 States are Alaska, 
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 
Vermont, and Wisconsin. Once this amendment is hopefully adopted as 
part of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking and passed into law, I 
am confident that the Department of Justice will concur in this 
assessment.
  In addition to this amendment, I have two other amendments which I 
filed yesterday. The first amendment would provide help support local 
law enforcement in their efforts to track down homeless and runaway 
youth by providing funding for retired Federal agents who assist the 
local law enforcement in these investigations.
  In September of 2013, a group of retired FBI agents in Northwest Ohio 
came to my office and asked for help in creating a pilot program that 
would allow retired agents to assist local law enforcement in finding 
runaway children and teens. Generally, Northwest Ohio children who 
become involved in trafficking do so within about 2 weeks

[[Page 3636]]

of running away from home, so finding them quickly is critical. 
Overall, about one-third of runaways become victims of trafficking.
  Toledo has just one detective working on missing person's cases, both 
adults and children. These retired FBI agents want to help law-
enforcement officials investigate the 18,000 runaways in Ohio every 
year, but they need resources. Police don't have the manpower to track 
these children, but every city has retired agents who could assist the 
``overworked'' departments.
  The second amendment mirrors Congressman Maloney's Human Trafficking 
Prevention Act. This legislation comes in response to a State 
Department inspector general report recommended the changes made by 
this amendment. It would train Foreign Service officers working at U.S. 
Embassies overseas to help stem the demand for trafficking and spot 
victims before they are trafficked into the United States. It passed 
the House in January on a voice vote, and I am confident that it would 
find similar broad support in the Senate.
  Mr. TOOMEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Voting Rights Act Anniversary

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, today is the 50th anniversary of the 
introduction of the bipartisan Voting Rights Act of 1965, a day we are 
reminded of what is possible when we come together across party lines.
  It was 50 years ago today that Republican minority leader Senator 
Everett Dirksen and Democratic majority leader Senator Mike Mansfield 
came together on this floor to introduce landmark legislation that 
sought to fulfill the promise of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution 
and ensure that no person would be denied the right to vote because of 
the color of his or her skin.
  I was reminded of the power of their example just 2 weeks ago when I 
gathered with Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate in 
Selma, AL, to honor the Americans who came from across our country 50 
years ago to march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma and demand 
equal voting rights. Their example was one of unity, as was the example 
of Members from both sides of the aisle who came together to introduce 
and eventually pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  So I am concerned as I come to the floor this afternoon about our 
troubling inability to come together in this Chamber on issues where 
there clearly should be broad agreement as well. I have with me a 
photographic reminder that the last time the Voting Rights Act was 
signed into law--was reauthorized--it was signed by Republican 
President George Bush, with the support of both Democrats and 
Republicans in the then Congress.
  Those of us who gathered 2 weeks ago at the bridge at Selma were 
treated both to a stirring speech by our current President, and the 
cheering presence of President Bush, when a challenge was issued to 
those Members of Congress present that we should come together, fix the 
Voting Rights Act, and reintroduce it in this Chamber.
  When it comes to voting rights, it surely is true that today's 
America is not the America of half a century ago, just as today's 
hurdles to the ballot box are not the same as in the time of Jim Crow. 
Yet it is also true that in too many cities, towns, States, and 
counties across our country, new roadblocks are being built to make it 
more difficult for Americans to vote.
  It is clear that, as President Obama said to us on the Edmund Pettus 
Bridge 2 weeks ago, ``our march is not yet finished.''
  In the coming weeks, as Senator Leahy, I, and others work to bring to 
the Senate a new voting rights act that reflects today's challenges, it 
is my sincere hope and my prayer that Republican colleagues will 
partner with us to continue the work that remains undone.


                            Lynch Nomination

  Madam President, this was also to be the week that we would take up, 
consider, and vote on the nomination of Loretta Lynch to serve as 
Attorney General. I must say that the Senate's proceedings this week do 
not portend well, because we find ourselves, yet again, stuck in 
regrettable partisan gridlock.
  For the past 129 days, we have had before us an incredibly qualified 
and talented nominee for Attorney General. Loretta Lynch was first 
nominated by President Obama in November. She has now waited for a vote 
longer than any Attorney General nominee in 30 years.
  As of today, her confirmation has waited longer on the floor than the 
last five Attorneys General combined.
  That is unacceptable, and I frankly haven't heard a single good 
reason from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for why Ms. 
Lynch's nomination deserves such a delay. Instead, her nomination is 
being used by many to continue their fight with the President over his 
immigration policy, and this is after nearly shutting down the 
Department of Homeland Security because of those same disagreements.
  While we do need to have a focused and functional debate in this 
Congress about immigration, it is simply irresponsible to hold up a 
highly qualified nominee for Attorney General because some don't like 
that she agrees with the very President who nominated her.
  I take very seriously the Senate's role to advise and consent on 
Presidential nominations. So let's just take a minute and look at 
Loretta Lynch's experience, her background.
  She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She 
spent 8 years in private practice at a prestigious law firm, then known 
as Hogan & Hartson. She served on the United Nations International 
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
  She has served the public and previously been unanimously confirmed 
by this body--twice, I should add--to be the U.S. attorney for the 
Eastern District of New York. That is a job where she has prosecuted 
drug crimes, violent crimes, and where she has taken on corrupt 
politicians.
  At her nomination hearing in the Judiciary Committee, on which I 
serve, our chairman called an outside witness panel of nine witnesses. 
When asked, not one of them said they opposed Ms. Lynch's confirmation 
to be Attorney General on the basis of her skills or experience. The 
committee was, in fact, unable to produce one shred of testimony in 
opposition to her nomination.
  Yet we stand today in the middle of March and the first African-
American woman ever to be nominated Attorney General of the United 
States, our Nation's top law enforcement official, has foundered on 
this floor longer than the five prior nominees combined. I think this 
is unacceptable and sets an unfortunate, even dangerous precedent. We 
should not play political games with the Department of Justice, an 
executive branch agency with 125,000 employees and a $28 billion 
departmental budget that is charged with all sorts of different law 
enforcement functions, from running the Federal prisons to enforcing 
the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, to making sure we fight human 
trafficking and money laundering.
  Frustratingly, we find ourselves this week also considering a bill to 
combat human trafficking, which we don't seem to be able to move 
forward. It is important legislation that includes broad bipartisan 
support, except for a simple, partisan, political provision that has 
now turned it into a divisive issue.
  The Republican leader this week has argued that once we finished work 
on this human trafficking bill, we could then move on to Loretta 
Lynch's nomination vote. But I am forced to wonder when the delay 
tactics here will end.
  Not only is it seemingly untrue that we can't do human trafficking 
legislation and this nomination at the same time--because if my memory 
serves, we just confirmed two other executive branch nominees last 
night--but the Republican leader knows well that if he

[[Page 3637]]

truly wanted to move this bill forward, Democrats would be ready to 
partner with him with just a minor revision to the bill.
  There is, in fact, a bitter irony that, as was reported last night, 
Loretta Lynch's confirmation is being held up over an issue--human 
trafficking--which she herself said she would prioritize if confirmed.
  I ask my Republican colleagues: Let's find a way to move forward on 
all of these issues--on combatting human trafficking and confirming 
Loretta Lynch to serve as Attorney General and on reauthorizing the 
Voting Rights Act, which is such an important linchpin of civil rights 
in this country.
  We agree that we need to combat human trafficking. So let's work 
together on the broad areas where we are, in fact, united. Let's 
confirm an Attorney General nominee who is qualified, smart, and will 
give the fight against human trafficking the dedication it deserves. 
Ms. Lynch would make a superb Attorney General.
  As someone who has herself served in law enforcement and served in 
that role at the State level, I think the Presiding Officer appreciates 
the importance of having a confirmed Attorney General to lead our 
Federal Department of Justice.
  Loretta Lynch has demonstrated--throughout her confirmation process 
and through her many years of service to her country--that she is well 
and amply prepared and qualified to take on this vital and important 
role.
  I urge my colleagues to end the delays and give Loretta Lynch the 
vote our country deserves.
  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. DAINES. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Bringing Montana Solutions to Washington

  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, it is an incredible honor to represent 
Montana in the Senate. More than 150 years ago, a young Norwegian woman 
named Karine Dyrud immigrated to this country. She came in search of 
freedom and opportunity. She came to a nation where government served 
the people and not the other way around. After her husband passed away, 
this tough widow and mother of seven headed West to Montana and settled 
with her children about an hour north of Great Falls.
  Karine Dyrud was my great-great-grandmother and the beginning of my 
Montana story. Her perseverance is the reason why my family has called 
Montana home for five generations. It is why Cindy and I have been able 
to pass along the legacy of faith and freedom, of personal 
responsibility, to our four children.
  We are blessed to live in the greatest Nation on Earth, and it is a 
solemn responsibility of the Senate to do everything in its power to 
keep it that way.
  Before I was elected to Congress, I spent 28 years in the private 
sector growing companies and creating jobs. In fact, I am the only 
chemical engineer in Congress. In the private sector, we understand the 
importance of hard work, of innovation, accountability, and not 
spending more than you take in.
  The freedom of ideas and trade, private property and opportunity, are 
the fundamental elements of liberty and of prosperity. These are the 
elements that helped RightNow Technologies--a Montana-based cloud 
computing business that I served as vice president of for 12 years--
grow from a small startup into a publicly traded company and a global 
leader in cloud computing. We created over 1,000 high-paying jobs--jobs 
that support a vibrant community with good schools and quality of life 
for Montana families.
  Unfortunately, Washington, DC, under the guise of equality, is 
encroaching upon these freedoms, replacing the constitutional rule of 
law through elected officials with bureaucratic rule that is 
unaccountable, inefficient, ineffective, and far too costly. Washington 
is more concerned with its own self-interest and self-gain than the 
well-being of the American people.
  As we begin consideration of the Federal budget this week, we must 
hold government accountable to the people. Last year, the New York 
Times did an assessment of the health and wealth of every county in the 
Nation. You might expect folks in Silicon Valley to be doing fairly 
well or perhaps in the suburbs of New York City. What shocked me was 
seeing that six of the Nation's top 10 wealthiest counties surround 
Washington, DC. That sends a pretty clear message about where 
Washington priorities are.
  During the recession, while millions of Americans were struggling to 
make ends meet amidst layoffs and economic instability, Washington, DC, 
thrived. The Federal Government poured millions of dollars into new 
buildings, and salaries kept growing and growing.
  It is time for Washington to be held accountable to the American 
people, and that is why the first bill I introduced in the Senate was 
the Balanced Budget Accountability Act. It simply requires Congress to 
balance the budget or Members won't get paid. It is not that 
complicated. It is easy to measure. It is very simple. No balanced 
budget, no paycheck.
  Washington is out of touch with the day-to-day struggles that 
American farmers, ranchers, union workers, and tribal members face 
every day. Look no farther than President Obama's recent veto of the 
Keystone XL Pipeline. Instead of working toward North American energy 
independence, President Obama continues to play politics with good-
paying American jobs. Instead of advancing economic opportunity for 
hard-working Montana families, President Obama is instead perpetuating 
his war on energy and standing in the way of affordable made-in-Montana 
and made-in-America energy.
  While serving in the House, I invited Crow tribal chairman Darrin Old 
Coyote to testify before the Natural Resources Committee. The Crow 
Reservation in Montana is home to some of the richest energy reserves 
in our country, but the President's senseless agenda is preventing them 
from developing their resources. What Chairman Old Coyote said has 
stuck with me. He said, ``A war on coal is a war on the Crow people.''
  President Obama and the EPA's regulatory overreach is a direct threat 
to thousands of jobs and our Nation's economic future. We shouldn't be 
hitting pause on American energy production. We need to encourage it. 
More made-in-America energy doesn't just mean more money in the pockets 
of hard-working families. It also means more jobs. It means energy 
independence.
  Our energy security, though, isn't just about jobs and low energy 
prices. It is tied directly to our national security. I am happy to 
report the United States will become the largest oil and gas producer 
in the world this year, surpassing both Russia and Saudi Arabia. As we 
see the growing threat of ISIS and a nuclear Iran, one thing is clear: 
We need more made-in-America energy, not more made-in-the-Middle East 
oil.
  We have tremendous opportunities to develop our Nation's energy 
resources and create new jobs across the entire Nation, but we must 
allow the States to take the lead. Rather than moving forward with 
commonsense, job-creating solutions, such as the Keystone Pipeline, 
Washington continues to put barrier after barrier up to prevent job 
creation and the responsible management of our resources.
  We see that in our national forests and our public lands. Our public 
lands out West are a tremendous asset to our tourism economy and our 
way of life. It is one of the many reasons people come to Montana in 
the first place. But the Federal Government's perpetual failure to 
properly manage our national forests has led many of Montana's forested 
counties into economic despair. Like many Western States, Montana once 
boasted a robust timber industry. Now timber harvests in our national 
forests have declined 82 percent. In fact, I had dinner one evening 
with a couple from Eureka, MT, up in the northwest corner of our State, 
in

[[Page 3638]]

Lincoln County. They said: Steve, basically we describe this area now 
as poverty with a view.
  We must implement meaningful forest management reforms that get our 
timber industry up and running again. It improves the health of our 
forests and it ensures our rural counties aren't dependent on the whims 
of the Federal Government's annual budget. But we must ensure that 
States have primacy in these decisions. We must ensure the hard-working 
farmers, the ranchers, the loggers, and the sportsmen who live, work, 
and recreate on these lands every day have their voices heard, and that 
those closest to the land are guiding management practices, not 
bureaucrats in Washington, DC, or lawyers in San Francisco, who would 
be hard pressed to find Montana on a map.
  But Washington's overreach doesn't just affect our natural resources. 
We are seeing it in our technology sector and the Internet. I worked in 
the technology sector for more than 12 years. I know firsthand how the 
Internet has removed geography as a constraint for countless businesses 
in Montana and across our Nation.
  I know technology has created jobs and economic opportunities in 
communities where little previously existed. We must encourage the 
growth of these high-tech jobs in Montana and across our country. These 
are good-paying jobs that will help us grow economically and allow us 
to remain globally competitive.
  The Internet is a laboratory of innovation, yet DC wants to tie our 
entrepreneurs' hands by placing more regulations on the Internet. The 
FCC recently approved a 300-plus-page plan to regulate Americans' 
Internet access as a title II utility, in short, a government takeover 
of the Internet. That is like putting a buggy whip manufacturer in 
charge of Tesla.
  The Internet is unconstrained innovation. That is why I will stand 
strong against DC's attempts to tax the Internet, to regulate the 
Internet, and to stifle innovation. If we want to remain the greatest 
Nation in the world, we need to remain globally competitive, and 
technology plays a key role in that.
  We also must implement meaningful tax reforms that encourage American 
businesses, incentivize American businesses to grow and create jobs 
here at home, not overseas. During my time at our software company, in 
the last 5 years I managed Asia Pacific, and I had offices in Tokyo and 
Sidney, but headquartered in Bozeman, MT, as we were growing and 
competing against some of the world's best technology companies.
  We must expand our trade opportunities, certainly for our farmers and 
ranchers across our country. So it is important that innovation and 
entrepreneurship are encouraged, not hindered. Unfortunately, 
Washington, DC, is more interested in issuing press releases and 
headlines than getting results.
  As an engineer, I was trained to solve problems, find solutions, and 
get results. It is time for Washington to look to the States for these 
solutions--to adhere to the principles of federalism and States rights, 
as clearly found in our Constitution--and empowering local communities, 
State legislatures, Governors, and tribes to manage their resources, to 
grow economic opportunity, and to find and determine their own destiny.
  In fact, it is time for Washington to listen to the States and it is 
time for Washington, DC, to listen to Montana.
  I have always said one of the best decisions I ever made in my life 
was when I picked my great-great-grandmother. She got her family out to 
Montana, and she is buried in a small country cemetery just east of a 
small town called Conrad, MT. On her headstone, in this very remote 
small country cemetery, reads three simple words: ``saved by grace.'' 
She placed her ultimate faith in her God, not in her government.
  It is an honor to stand here today on the Senate floor to serve as 
Montana's voice in Washington. I will continue working to bring more 
Montana solutions to Washington and get it working again for all 
Montanans.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                     Congratulating Senator Daines

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I want to congratulate our freshman 
colleague from Montana on his initial speech, and particularly to 
second his observations about the devastation in the coalfields of 
America. We have a depression in the eastern part of my State as a 
direct result of this administration and the EPA, and I know it has 
affected the great State of Montana as well. So among the many 
insightful observations the Senator from Montana made, I particularly 
appreciate his thoughts about energy.


                             Cloture Motion

  Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the 
committee-reported amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee-
     reported substitute amendment to S. 178, a bill to provide 
     justice for the victims of trafficking.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, James Lankford, 
           David Vitter, Richard Burr, Chuck Grassley, Joni Ernst, 
           Pat Roberts, Mike Rounds, James E. Risch, Daniel Coats, 
           James M. Inhofe, Shelley Moore Capito, Mark Kirk, Cory 
           Gardner, Thom Tillis.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk 
for the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 178, a bill 
     to provide justice for the victims of trafficking.
         Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Tom Cotton, James Lankford, 
           David Vitter, Richard Burr, Chuck Grassley, Joni Ernst, 
           Pat Roberts, Mike Rounds, James E. Risch, Daniel Coats, 
           James M. Inhofe, Shelley Moore Capito, Mark Kirk, Cory 
           Gardner, Thom Tillis.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
mandatory quorum calls be waived with respect to these cloture motions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________