[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5317-5323]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015

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

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

  Pending:

       McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 1120, to strengthen 
     the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act by incorporating 
     additional bipartisan amendments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to say very briefly--I know the 
distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is on the floor to 
speak on an important matter--I would like to express my gratitude to 
the majority leader for his determination to see this Justice for 
Victims of Trafficking Act come to completion in the Senate, which it 
will this afternoon. It would not have happened without his 
determination to make it happen.


                      Amendment No. 1120 Withdrawn

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment No. 1120.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 1124

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I offer amendment No. 1124.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself, Mrs. 
     Murray, and Ms. Klobuchar, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1124.

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

 (Purpose: To strengthen the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act by 
            incorporating additional bipartisan amendments)

       Strike section 101 and insert the following:

     SEC. 101. DOMESTIC TRAFFICKING VICTIMS' FUND.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 201 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 3014. Additional special assessment

       ``(a) In General.--Beginning on the date of enactment of 
     the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 and ending 
     on September

[[Page 5318]]

     30, 2019, in addition to the assessment imposed under section 
     3013, the court shall assess an amount of $5,000 on any non-
     indigent person or entity convicted of an offense under--
       ``(1) chapter 77 (relating to peonage, slavery, and 
     trafficking in persons);
       ``(2) chapter 109A (relating to sexual abuse);
       ``(3) chapter 110 (relating to sexual exploitation and 
     other abuse of children);
       ``(4) chapter 117 (relating to transportation for illegal 
     sexual activity and related crimes); or
       ``(5) section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324) (relating to human smuggling), unless the person 
     induced, assisted, abetted, or aided only an individual who 
     at the time of such action was the alien's spouse, parent, 
     son, or daughter (and no other individual) to enter the 
     United States in violation of law.
       ``(b) Satisfaction of Other Court-Ordered Obligations.--An 
     assessment under subsection (a) shall not be payable until 
     the person subject to the assessment has satisfied all 
     outstanding court-ordered fines, orders of restitution, and 
     any other obligation related to victim-compensation arising 
     from the criminal convictions on which the special assessment 
     is based.
       ``(c) Establishment of Domestic Trafficking Victims' 
     Fund.--There is established in the Treasury of the United 
     States a fund, to be known as the `Domestic Trafficking 
     Victims' Fund' (referred to in this section as the `Fund'), 
     to be administered by the Attorney General, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.
       ``(d) Transfers.--In a manner consistent with section 
     3302(b) of title 31, there shall be transferred to the Fund 
     from the General Fund of the Treasury an amount equal to the 
     amount of the assessments collected under this section, which 
     shall remain available until expended.
       ``(e) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts in the Fund, in addition to 
     any other amounts available, and without further 
     appropriation, the Attorney General, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, for each of 
     fiscal years 2016 through 2019, use amounts available in the 
     Fund to award grants or enhance victims' programming under--
       ``(A) section 204 of the Trafficking Victims Protection 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 14044c);
       ``(B) subsections (b)(2) and (f) of section 107 of the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105); 
     and
       ``(C) section 214(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 13002(b)).
       ``(2) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (h)(2), 
     none of the amounts in the Fund may be used to provide health 
     care or medical items or services.
       ``(f) Collection Method.--The amount assessed under 
     subsection (a) shall, subject to subsection (b), be collected 
     in the manner that fines are collected in criminal cases.
       ``(g) Duration of Obligation.--Subject to section 3613(b), 
     the obligation to pay an assessment imposed on or after the 
     date of enactment of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking 
     Act of 2015 shall not cease until the assessment is paid in 
     full.
       ``(h) Health or Medical Services.--
       ``(1) Transfer of funds.--From amounts appropriated under 
     section 10503(b)(1)(E) of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 254b-2(b)(1)(E)), as amended 
     by section 221 of the Medicare Access and CHIP 
     Reauthorization Act of 2015, there shall be transferred to 
     the Fund an amount equal to the amount transferred under 
     subsection (d) for each fiscal year, except that the amount 
     transferred under this paragraph shall not be less than 
     $5,000,000 or more than $30,000,000 in each such fiscal year, 
     and such amounts shall remain available until expended.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--The Attorney General, in coordination 
     with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall use 
     amounts transferred to the Fund under paragraph (1) to award 
     grants that may be used for the provision of health care or 
     medical items or services to victims of trafficking under--
       ``(A) sections 202, 203, and 204 of the Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 14044a, 
     14044b, and 14044c);
       ``(B) subsections (b)(2) and (f) of section 107 of the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105); 
     and
       ``(C) section 214(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 
     1990 (42 U.S.C. 13002(b)).
       ``(3) Grants.--Of the amounts in the Fund used under 
     paragraph (1), not less than $2,000,000, if such amounts are 
     available in the Fund during the relevant fiscal year, shall 
     be used for grants to provide services for child pornography 
     victims under section 214(b) of the Victims of Child Abuse 
     Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13002(b)).
       ``(4) Application of provision.--The application of the 
     provisions of section 221(c) of the Medicare Access and CHIP 
     Reauthorization Act of 2015 shall continue to apply to the 
     amounts transferred pursuant to paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 201 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 3013 
     the following:

``3014. Additional special assessment.''.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will be back to speak further on the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, but for now I yield to my 
friend and colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). Under the previous order, there 
will be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form.
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank both of my colleagues who have spoken this 
morning, Senators McConnell and Cornyn.


                       Trade Promotion Authority

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this morning 
to talk once again about Congress's role in advancing our Nation's 
trade policy. While I know trade policy can be a very contentious topic 
here in Congress, there are two simple facts that are beyond dispute: 
No. 1, more than 96 percent of the world's consumers live outside of 
the United States, and No. 2, in order to be competitive, American 
businesses need to be able to sell more American-made products and 
services to those overseas customers. In order to do that, we need to 
tear down barriers to American exports. At the same time, we should lay 
down enforceable rules for our trading partners so that we can be sure 
American workers and job creators are competing on a level playing 
field.
  In order to accomplish these goals and to advance our Nation's 
interests in the global marketplace, Congress and the administration 
need to work together. Most people acknowledge this reality. Yet, there 
are differing views as to what mechanisms should be in place to 
facilitate cooperation between these two branches of government. In the 
end, there is only one legislative tool with a proven track record, and 
that is trade promotion authority, otherwise known as TPA.
  For decades--going back as far as FDR--TPA has been a cornerstone of 
U.S. trade policy. TPA is a compact between the Senate, the House, and 
the administration. Under this compact, the administration agrees to 
pursue objectives specified by Congress and to consult with Congress as 
it negotiates trade agreements. In turn, both the House and the Senate 
agree to allow for expedited consideration of trade agreements without 
amendments.
  For a number of reasons, this compact is essential for conclusion and 
passage of strong trade agreements. Put simply, without TPA, our 
trading partners will not put their best offers on the table because 
they will have no guarantee that the agreement they reach will be the 
one Congress actually votes on in the end.
  The most recent version of TPA expired 8 years ago. While trade 
negotiations have continued since that time, without TPA in place, our 
negotiators have effectively been negotiating with one arm tied behind 
their backs. We need to renew TPA sooner rather than later in order to 
give these negotiators the tools they need to reach the best deals 
possible.
  The stakes are very high. Currently, the United States is in the 
midst of negotiating some of the most ambitious trade agreements in our 
Nation's history--most notably, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. 
If we want those negotiations to succeed--and I would hope that for the 
good of our country most of us do want them to succeed--we need to 
renew TPA.
  Last week, I was joined by my colleague Senator Wyden and Chairman 
Ryan of the House Ways and Means Committee in introducing the 
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 
2015. This legislation would renew TPA and promote the advancement of 
21st-century trade policies. Later today--in just a little while, in 
fact--the Senate Finance Committee will be marking up this bill, as 
well as other important pieces of trade legislation.
  It has taken a long time to get here. As you may recall, I, along 
with the two former chairmen, Senator Baucus and Congressman Camp, 
introduced a bill to renew TPA early last year. That bill had 
bipartisan support in Congress

[[Page 5319]]

and was broadly endorsed by the business community. It also had the 
support of officials in the Obama administration.
  When Republicans took control of the Senate this year and I became 
the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I made renewing TPA my 
top trade priority for this Congress and set out to work with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This legislation we will be 
marking up today is the result of that hard work, and I am grateful to 
my colleagues for working with me to get us this far.
  Of course, the effort to renew TPA really began a long time before we 
introduced our bill last year. Indeed, the discussion and debate over a 
new and improved TPA began even before the last iteration expired in 
2007. We have been talking about this for a long time. Now is the time 
to act.
  Over the past few weeks, as we have been preparing to move our 
legislation forward, some people--including some of my colleagues--have 
expressed concerns about TPA and trade agreements in general. So I wish 
to take a few minutes this morning to address some of the specific 
issues that have been raised.
  Constitutional and sovereignty concerns. Some have argued that TPA 
cedes too much power to the administration and undermines Congress's 
constitutional authority to make laws.
  I know the people have heard the President claiming that TPP--the 
Trans-Pacific Partnership--will be ``the most progressive trade 
agreement in history,'' and they have heard him brag about the labor 
and environmental standards the administration is shooting for with the 
agreement. The question inevitably becomes, will President Obama try to 
use this or other trade agreements to try to advance unilateral changes 
in U.S. law and policy? Even though we all know that no trade agreement 
can go into force without Congress's approval, given this 
administration's track record on executive overreach, people are right 
to be concerned about these issues.
  Fortunately, our TPA bill addresses these uncertainties. Rather than 
ceding authority to the executive branch, our bill empowers Congress at 
every step, from trade negotiations to final approval of the agreement 
itself.
  Our bill makes clear what objectives a trade agreement must reach in 
order to be approved by Congress. In fact, the bill contains the 
clearest articulation of trade priorities in our Nation's history. It 
includes nearly 150 ambitious, high-standard negotiating objectives, 
including strong rules for intellectual property rights and 
agricultural trade, as well as protections for U.S. investment.
  In addition to setting negotiating objectives, our legislation 
constrains the administration in a number of ways. For example, it 
ensures that implementing bills for trade agreements will include--and 
I am quoting the text of the bill--``only such provisions as are 
strictly necessary or appropriate to implement'' trade agreements.
  Additionally, it makes clear that any commitments made by the 
administration that are not disclosed to Congress before an 
implementing bill is introduced are not to be considered part of the 
relevant agreement and will have no force of law.
  Our legislation clarifies that trade agreements must be concluded 
within the TPA timeframe and that any substantial modifications or 
additions made after that time will not be eligible for approval under 
TPA procedures.
  So while I understand and even sympathize with those who might be 
suspicious of this administration and its tendency to push the 
boundaries of its constitutional authority, our TPA bill speaks to 
these exact concerns.
  Furthermore, for those who might be worried that trade agreements 
could be used to harm U.S. sovereignty, our bill addresses those issues 
as well.
  First, the bill makes clear that any provision of a trade agreement 
that is inconsistent with Federal or State law will have no effect.
  Second, it states specifically that Federal and State laws will 
prevail in the event of a conflict with the trade agreement.
  Third, it affirms that no trade agreement can prevent Congress or the 
States from changing their laws in the future.
  Fourth, it confirms that the administration cannot unilaterally 
change U.S. law.
  As you can see, far from abdicating Congress's power from U.S. trade 
policy, our TPA bill enhances the role of Congress when it comes to 
trade agreements.
  Immigration. In addition to general concerns about constitutional 
powers and U.S. sovereignty, I have heard some express specific 
concerns that President Obama can use the Trans-Pacific Partnership to 
enact changes to our immigration laws and that TPA will somehow empower 
him to do so. These concerns are unfounded for at least two reasons.
  First, immigration is completely irrelevant to the objectives of the 
TPP agreement and administration officials have been clear and 
unequivocal that no immigration provisions are under negotiation.
  Just last week, USTR Michael Froman testified before the Senate 
Committee on Finance and said:

       I can assure you that we are not negotiating anything in 
     TPP that would require any modifications of the U.S. 
     immigration laws or system, any changes to our existing visa 
     system. And, in fact, TPP will explicitly state that it will 
     not require changes in any party's immigration laws or 
     procedures.

  Second, even if people don't trust this administration, particularly 
when it comes to immigration, the provisions of our TPA bill, the ones 
I just got through talking about, provide greater congressional 
oversight and authority over trade agreements and prevent this or any 
future administration from misleading Congress about what is included 
in any trade agreement.
  In other words, if anyone is worried that despite their clear 
statements to the contrary, the administration will use TPP to advance 
its immigration agenda, they should support our TPA bill.
  Transparency. Another concern I have heard from people both in and 
out of government is that trade agreements currently under discussion 
have been negotiated behind closed doors and that by renewing TPA, 
Congress would be enabling this type of secrecy.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite is 
true. Our TPA bill goes further than any previous version of TPA to 
promote transparency both for Members of Congress and the American 
people.
  Under our legislation, any Member of Congress who wants access to the 
negotiating text will get it, and at any time during the negotiations, 
Members of Congress will be able to request and receive a briefing from 
USTR on the status of negotiations.
  In addition, the bill will require the administration to publicly 
release the full text of an agreement at least 60 days before they sign 
it, giving the American people full access and knowledge of all trade 
agreements before they are signed and well before they are submitted to 
Congress for their approval.
  In short, any Member of Congress who is concerned about a lack of 
transparency in trade negotiations should be a cosponsor of the Hatch-
Wyden-Ryan TPA bill.
  Currency. The last concern I will talk about today deals with 
currency manipulation. Specifically, I have heard from colleagues that 
our TPA bill should include stronger, enforceable standards to prevent 
our trading partners from engaging in currency manipulation.
  Now, make no mistake, I think currency manipulation is a serious 
issue. Like my colleagues, I am worried the currency policies of a 
number of countries, including some of our trade partners, continue to 
have negative consequences on U.S. businesses and workers. I believe 
Congress should carefully consider ways to address this issue. That is 
why, for the first time, our TPA bill includes a negotiating objective 
intended to address currency manipulation.
  While I understand some of my colleagues would like that provision to 
be stronger, this is a very complex issue. Many have expressed valid 
concerns

[[Page 5320]]

that by requiring our trade agreements to contain enforceable currency 
provisions we would be inviting a number of unintended consequences, 
including challenges to U.S. monetary policy. In addition, most have 
acknowledged that such provisions would effectively derail the TPP 
negotiations, harming our farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and others 
who so desperately need access to these markets.
  It is not just me saying this. Yesterday, I received a letter from 
Treasury Secretary Lew expressing these very concerns about the 
possibility of including enhanced currency provisions in TPA. On top of 
that, 10 former Treasury Secretaries, from both Republican and 
Democratic administrations, sent a letter to congressional leaders that 
made similar arguments.
  As you can see, there is more than ample reason to doubt the wisdom 
of inserting stronger currency provisions into TPA. I think it is fair, 
given Secretary Lew's very clear statements, to assume that President 
Obama would not sign a TPA bill that included such provisions, and I 
think it is more than fair to say that even if he would sign such a 
bill, it would be devastating to our ongoing trade negotiations; 
thereby, threatening growth and jobs right here at home. That being the 
case, I hope my colleagues pursuing this route will reconsider their 
positions.
  Once again, we are going to mark up our TPA bill later today. I am 
excited and pleased for this opportunity. I think we will get a strong 
bipartisan vote to report the bill and send it to the floor. We have 
crafted a very good bill, one that I think Members of both parties can 
support. I know some Members have anxieties and concerns about these 
issues. We have put the bill together with those types of concerns in 
mind and, as I think I have demonstrated today, anyone who is truly 
supportive of trade and of opening foreign markets to U.S. goods and 
services and wants to create more good jobs right here at home should 
support our bill.
  Since the day we introduced our legislation, letters and statements 
of support have been pouring in. I will mention just a few.
  We have had statements from administration officials, including the 
President himself, and to say support from the business community has 
been overwhelming would be a gross understatement. We have letters from 
virtually every industry--farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, tech 
companies, health care companies, and I could literally go on and on, 
but I will not, at least not right now. Instead, today, I will just 
mention two of the many letters of support we have received from 
businesses and job creators.
  I have a letter from the Trade Benefits America Coalition signed by 
hundreds of companies and major trade associations expressing their 
strong support for the Hatch-Wyden-Ryan TPA bill.
  I have another letter signed by nearly 300 State and local chambers 
of commerce, farm bureaus, and manufacturing associations, all 
expressing their support for the swift renewal of TPA.
  Leaders from a number of leading conservative organizations have 
expressed support as well, including the Conservative Reform Network, 
the Cato Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, American Enterprise 
Institute, American Action Forum, Tea Party Express, 60 Plus, American 
Commitment, American Conservative Union, Americans for Job Security, 
Center for Individual Freedom, Citizens for Limited Taxation, 
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Conservative Reform Network, Council 
for Citizens Against Government Waste, Crossroads GPS, Digital Liberty, 
Ending Spending, Frontiers of Freedom, Georgia Center Right Coalition, 
Institute for Liberty, Minnesota Center Right Coalition, National 
Taxpayers Union, R Street, Rio Grande Foundation, Taxpayer Foundation 
Alliance, and the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.
  That is a long list and by no means contains everybody who is for 
this bill, and it is growing every day. As you can see, TPA is 
supported across the ideological spectrum.
  I suppose this is the best way I can put it: Senator Ted Cruz 
coauthored an op-ed with Senator Ryan in support of our bill in today's 
Wall Street Journal. If both Ted Cruz and Barack Obama support our 
legislation, it is probably safe to say we are onto something.
  I appreciate all the support we have received thus far for our TPA 
bill. It has been gratifying to see, and I look forward to talking more 
with colleagues about these issues in the coming week.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
during quorum calls before the votes this morning be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. CORNYN. 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 New Congress

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is over 100 days since the 114th 
Congress has been in session led by a new majority following the 
November election. This Chamber can point to significant 
accomplishments in this short period of time.
  Now, none of us is spiking the football or saying that we have done 
miraculous things, but it is undeniable that we have made discernible, 
concrete progress on important matters that affect the lives and the 
quality of life of the American people.
  In only 3 weeks into the new Congress, the Senate already had more 
votes on amendments than the Chamber did in all of last year. What that 
means is that, on a bipartisan basis, Senators have been able to 
contribute their ideas on legislation--how to improve it and get votes 
on it. That was something we promised voters that would change after 
the last election. In the new Congress and under the new majority 
leader, Senator McConnell, we have delivered.
  Just a few weeks ago, the Senate passed a budget that actually 
balances in 10 years--something the Chamber has done only once since 
2009. More recently, we sent to the President's desk the so-called doc 
fix, which, more importantly, ensured access to the doctors and 
hospitals that our seniors need. We also made great strides in 
providing the American people a final say on the Iran nuclear deal that 
is being negotiated now by the President's representatives. We have 
made progress on bipartisan legislation that ensures the United States 
will get the best deal with our trading partners in pending 
negotiations--opening up American goods and services to global markets, 
which is good for our economy. It is good for jobs, and it is good for 
better wages for hard-working American families.
  But I must say, even with all of these accomplishments, I am most 
proud of the deal we were able to reach this week concerning the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
  I have noticed one thing since I have been here in Washington; it is 
that the rich and powerful seem to do pretty well. They are well 
represented on K Street, and they are not hesitant about letting their 
needs be known. But one indicator of the character of a nation is how 
that nation--our Nation--treats those who are the most vulnerable in 
our society, those who actually need our help, who do not have 
lobbyists or other people working on their behalf in the halls of 
Congress.
  So this legislation, I think, actually is a very positive step 
because it demonstrates that we have not fallen deaf to the cries of 
those who actually need our help--the victims of human trafficking.

[[Page 5321]]

  This legislation will be instrumental in helping victims of sexual 
abuse and trafficking recover from a life in bondage, and it will 
provide stronger tools for law enforcement officials to track down and 
punish those who want to keep them in the shadows, who want to continue 
to make profit from the pain, the anguish, and the involuntary 
servitude of typically young women between the ages of 12 and 14. And 
often these young women--these children--are treated as criminals and 
not as the victims they truly are. With the passage of this bill, we 
are one step closer to reining it in.
  So I thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, some of whom 
are here in the Chamber, for working with us in the spirit of trying to 
accomplish something important and actually getting it done. I know the 
distinguished ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, with whom I 
partnered on a number of important topics, is here, and I thank him for 
his contribution. And the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, has 
been very important in the negotiation and in getting us to yes.
  Finally--and I know time is short, so I will have more to say on this 
later. But there are literally 200 outside groups--faith-based groups, 
law enforcement organizations, and other organizations--that worked on 
the sidelines cheering us, asking us to get this done--groups such as 
Rights4Girls, Shared Hope International, Coalition Against Trafficking 
in Women, the End Child Prostitution and Trafficking organization, and 
the National Association to Protect Children. These groups and hundreds 
of others across the country have literally been our boots on the 
ground.
  I also think it is important to recognize organizations such as 
Google Ideas and the McCain Institute, particularly Cindy McCain, who 
joined me in Houston recently to talk more about this important topic.
  So there are a lot of people who contributed to get us to where we 
are today. We are not done yet. We have some important votes in just a 
few minutes--a total of 8 votes today--before we complete our work on 
this legislation, but I think this is a good day. This will be a good 
day for the Senate and for the victims of human trafficking.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 301

       (Purpose: To improve the bill)

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up my amendment No. 301.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 301.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in the Record of March 16, 2015, under 
``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate what the Senator from Texas 
has said. We have worked together. I hope we continue to do this, but 
before I talk about my substitute, I want to yield the floor to the 
distinguished Senator from Washington State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, so many Members helped us get this bill 
back on a bipartisan path, but I want to thank Senators Reid, Cornyn, 
Klobuchar, Feinstein, Mikulski, and Leahy in particular for their work. 
I also want to thank all of the staff who have worked extremely hard to 
get this done, especially Melanie Rainer from my staff.
  From the beginning of this debate, Democrats have been very clear 
that this bill to help survivors should focus squarely on that goal 
alone. We also felt this conversation was no place for a debate about 
restrictions on women's health access. While there are clear 
differences between the two parties when it comes to women's health, I 
know Senator Cornyn and many others agreed with us that an effort to 
fight back against human trafficking in our country is, without 
question, no place for gridlock and dysfunction. It should not have 
taken this long, but I am very pleased that we were able to work 
together, find common ground, and reach an agreement.
  This agreement isn't perfect. No comprise ever is, and I am sure my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say the same thing. I 
believe there is much more we can and must do to protect and strengthen 
women's access to comprehensive, high-quality health care.
  In the 21st century, there is no reason a woman should be prevented 
from exercising her constitutionally guaranteed right to make her own 
choices about her own body. That is something I could not feel more 
strongly about, and I am going to keep working to not only protect that 
right but expand and improve access to care for women across the 
country.
  I am very glad, however, that the amendment we are proposing this 
morning would provide survivors now with real, dedicated funds and 
support, including important health services. Critically, this 
amendment would take away the expansion of restrictions on women's 
health that would have occurred under the original legislation. It 
would ensure that the Hyde language is now not expanded to any new 
programs under this bill.
  I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this amendment so we 
can pass this bill to help trafficking survivors, and then move as 
quickly as possible to confirm our highly qualified nominee for 
Attorney General.
  I thank my colleagues again for their work to reach this compromise. 
The families and communities we serve rightly expect us to work 
together to solve problems and not let gridlock and dysfunction get in 
the way of results. I am very pleased we were able to find that common 
ground and a path forward for this important legislation. I am very 
hopeful that now we will be able to continue working together to tackle 
the many other challenges our country faces.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my substitute amendment, No. 301, brings 
together three very important bills that provide a comprehensive 
approach to preventing human trafficking and help survivors rebuild 
their lives. First, it includes the Leahy-Collins-Murkowski-Ayotte 
amendment to protect runaway and homeless youth from trafficking. 
Second, it includes the Klobuchar-Cornyn bill as reported in February 
by the Judiciary Committee. The safe harbor bill encourages States to 
treat victims of trafficking as victims and not--as oftentimes they are 
treated--as criminals. Finally, it includes the Cornyn-Klobuchar bill, 
S. 178, but without the divisive language that limits victims' 
services, which has held us up so long.
  My amendment came about as a response to the request of survivors and 
the dedicated people who work with them, the people who actually see 
this day-by-day, for whom it is not a theoretical thing, but is an 
actual day-by-day crisis. They have urged us to remove the unnecessary 
and harmful provision which stalled this bill for weeks.
  Congress has a long history of passing legislation to address human 
trafficking. We did so in the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women 
Reauthorization Act, which included the reauthorization of the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act. We consistently have addressed 
human trafficking legislation without abortion politics being inserted 
in the discussion. My amendment would return us to the path of the 
bipartisan bills we passed in years past. Importantly, my amendment is 
going to make sure we are preventing human trafficking in the first 
place.
  It is one thing to work with children after they become victims. I 
think we would all agree it is better if we can help prevent them from 
becoming victims. The best way to do that is to support runaway and 
homeless kids. Without a safe place to sleep, these children and teens 
are exceptionally vulnerable

[[Page 5322]]

to human traffickers. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, first passed 
in 1974, funds tried-and-true programs to help these youth stabilize 
their lives. When a homeless or runaway teen is looking for a place to 
stay and there is nothing available, they sometimes resort to desperate 
measures. They are picked up almost at once by sex traffickers and 
exploited.
  The substitute amendment reauthorizes and strengthens the programs 
that have worked ever since 1974. It adds training for service 
providers so we can better identify victims of trafficking and refer 
them to the appropriate resources. It includes language to prevent 
discrimination against homeless youth based on their sexual orientation 
or gender identification.
  We found, in the testimony before the Judiciary Committee, a growing 
number of homeless and runaway youth identify as LGBT. Many of them 
have actually been thrown out of their homes for who they are. I am a 
parent; I am a grandparent. I find this heartbreaking to me that any 
child, any child for whatever reason would be thrown out of their home. 
We have to ensure that these vulnerable children who have already been 
rejected do not face rejection again because of how they look or dress 
or whom they love.
  I urge all Senators to support this amendment. This is a moral issue. 
If we are serious about listening to survivors and responding to their 
needs and if we are serious about preventing human trafficking and 
protecting vulnerable children in the first place, this amendment is 
the strongest option before us.
  We should be judged by what we do for the most vulnerable among us. 
The combination of these three bills should bring us together. I urge 
the Senate to support this comprehensive substitute.
  Several of us in this body, both parties, have had the privilege to 
serve law enforcement before coming here, as I did. I said many times 
on this floor that I still have nightmares today, 40 years later, from 
some of the scenes I saw back then. I could arrest and prosecute these 
people who harm these youth, but we could never give back to the youth 
who they were before they were harmed.
  Unfortunately, what I have nightmares about happens in so many more 
places. In the distinguished Presiding Officer's own home State, as 
well as the home States of every single Member of this body, it is 
happening today. These are the most vulnerable of our citizens. We as 
Senators should help protect them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                Request for Committee on Finance to Meet

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Finance be allowed to meet during today's session of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SANDERS. I object to the unanimous consent request to waive rule 
XXVI to allow the Finance Committee to pass a fast-track bill that will 
undermine the American worker.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from 
Vermont, the Finance Committee is scheduled to deal with the trade 
promotion authority issue this afternoon. There are over 200 
amendments. I would say to my friend, all this objection is going to do 
will be to require us to recess after the votes on trafficking and stay 
in session because we are going to finish the bill in the Finance 
Committee today. I appreciate the Senator's opposition, but I want to 
make clear to him and to our colleagues that it will not prevent the 
trade promotion authority bill from being dealt with in Finance today. 
We will simply go into recess after we finish the trafficking bill and 
stay in recess, and the committee will work until it reports out the 
bill.
  I understand the Senator's vigorous opposition to it. The Senator has 
made that quite clear. It is certainly understandable. The Senator has 
a right to do that. I am just making the point that this particular way 
to oppose it will not be successful today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me say to my friend, the majority 
leader, I appreciate his position. But as he knows, not only is there 
massive opposition to this TPP agreement, but there is a lot of concern 
that the American people have not been involved in the process, that 
there is not a lot of transparency. What we are trying to do is to make 
sure this debate takes place out in the public, that the American 
people have as much time as possible to understand the very significant 
implications of this trade agreement. I, and I suspect others, will do 
our best to make that happen.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand the position of my friend 
from Vermont on this. This Finance Committee meeting obviously will be 
open to the public. There will be many amendments offered, most of them 
I expect reflecting the views of the Senator from Vermont, but the 
meeting will go forward. The committee will simply be inconvenienced by 
the current actions of the Senator from Vermont, but the committee will 
go forward. The Senate will be in recess, and the committee will meet 
at the earliest possible time and finish the bill today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds to 
speak before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to make clear that the first 
amendment we will vote on relative to the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act will remove the Hyde amendment which is the 
longstanding, 39-year consensus that taxpayer funds will not be used to 
fund abortions. This amendment would completely strip that Hyde 
amendment, and it would undermine the delicate compromise that has been 
reached on the important legislation. The next vote we will have will 
be on that compromise piece of legislation, the Cornyn-Murray-Klobuchar 
legislation. It would literally cut funding for human trafficking 
victims as compared to this compromise.
  I would urge our colleagues to stick with the bipartisan compromise 
and to vote against the Leahy amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.


      Frank R. Lautenberg Safer Chemicals for the 21st Century Act

  Mr. UDALL. Mr. President, I rise on Earth Day to speak about our 
children and about chemical safety. We come in contact with thousands 
of chemicals every day. As I am speaking now, millions of our fellow 
citizens are buying groceries or going to the hardware store or getting 
clothes or toys for their children. They assume the government has 
studied the chemicals in these products and determined they are safe. 
But that is not the case.
  The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, or TSCA, is supposed to 
protect American families, and it doesn't. There are over 84,000 known 
chemicals in manufactured and commercial products, and hundreds of new 
ones come on the market every year. How many of those products have 
been regulated by the EPA? Less than half a dozen.
  These are troubling numbers. TSCA has been in existence for almost 40 
years, and out of 84,000 chemicals--and counting--less than a dozen are 
actually regulated. The EPA cannot even regulate asbestos, a known 
carcinogen. Since losing a court battle in 1991, they have not been 
able to regulate it. The risks and dangers have been around for 
decades, but there is no cop on the beat. TSCA has failed.
  Some States are trying to fill the gap by regulating a few chemicals, 
but my home State of New Mexico, and the vast majority of others, have 
no ability to test chemicals. They don't have a department to write 
regulations. Without a working Federal law, they have no protection. 
Even California, which probably has the greatest capacity of all States 
to test and regulate, has only proposed rules for three chemicals. In 7 
years, since California passed a law to regulate chemicals, it has only 
begun the process on three chemicals.

[[Page 5323]]

  That is why I and others have worked so hard to find compromise on 
this issue. That is why I introduced the Frank R. Lautenberg Safer 
Chemicals for the 21st Century Act.
  I come to the floor today on Earth Day to urge all of my colleagues 
here to make reforming our broken chemical safety law a priority. We 
have a moral obligation to protect our kids from dangerous chemicals.
  I have been privileged to work with Senator Vitter on this bill. I 
thank him and our colleagues who have worked with us. This is a true 
bipartisan effort. We don't always agree on some of the issues, but we 
have one basic goal here. Reform is overdue. It is 40 years overdue.
  All of our landmark environmental laws have been reformed or 
amended--the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean 
Air Act--but not the Toxic Substances Control Act. It should have 
been--and it was not for lack of trying.
  Our esteemed former colleague, the late Senator Frank Lautenberg led 
the way for many years, with great determination.
  He never gave up. Together we fought the good fight to pass our dream 
bill, but were never able to make any progress. And he realized we 
needed to work with all stakeholders. Everyone at the table, including 
industry. Because he understood, this is not about getting all that we 
want. This is about getting the American people the protections they 
need. His effort to reform TSCA was the last major legislation he 
introduced.
  Mr. President, 2 years ago, the New York Times endorsed the 
Lautenberg-Vitter bill. The Times said--correctly--that previous 
efforts at reform had gone nowhere, and the bill ``deserves to be 
passed because it would be a significant advance over the current 
law.''
  That was 2 years ago. I was honored to take over as the lead Democrat 
on the bill. Since then, I have listened to concerns. I reached across 
the aisle. I brought everyone into the room, or at least tried to. With 
my Republican colleague, Senator Vitter, we have improved the bill.
  I want to talk for a moment about what this bill actually does, and 
how it moves us forward. Specifically, it does the following:
  First, the manufacture of a new chemical cannot begin until EPA 
approves it. Currently, a new chemical is on the market after 90 days, 
unless EPA finds unreasonable risk. Our bill gives EPA the time it 
needs, and keeps these chemicals out of American homes in the meantime.
  Second, current TSCA has no requirement for evaluating existing 
chemicals. None. Our bill does and includes deadlines, even more 
aggressive than the EPA itself asked for.
  Third, we require a stronger safety standard for all chemicals to be 
evaluated. No longer will EPA be required to choose the ``least 
burdensome'' regulation. Its criteria will be safety, science, and 
public health--never cost or convenience.
  Fourth, our bill defines, for the first time, our most vulnerable 
populations--pregnant women, infants, the elderly, and workers--and 
explicitly requires that EPA ensure they are protected from chemicals 
in commerce or manufacturing.
  Finally, we limit confidential business information protection for 
industry. Currently, it is limitless, unless challenged by EPA. We call 
for a 10-year sunset on confidential business information claims.
  Reform takes time. But, it should not take decades. We can't afford 
to wait any longer. Our children and our communities can't afford to 
wait for protection from chemicals. Yes, that means compromise. The 
goal was not a perfect bill. The goal was, and is, real reform.
  We have worked to address the issues with the original bill, and we 
still have work to do. It doesn't do everything I want. Senator Vitter 
has given a great deal as well. But this is a strong, bipartisan bill. 
I am confident it can pass the Senate. It will ensure EPA has the 
authority to keep us safe, something EPA cannot do now.
  So, let's be clear. We have a choice. We can continue with a law that 
has failed. We can continue to leave the American people unprotected. 
Or we can actually make a difference. We can give the EPA the power it 
needs to do its job--so that chemicals are tested--so that our homes 
and workplaces are safe--and so that American families are protected.
  I believe the choice is obvious. To those who disagree, I would ask a 
simple question. Are you willing to live with a failed law another 20 
or 40 years? Because we all agree on one thing--TSCA is a failure.
  This is the best chance we have, possibly for many years, to pass a 
law that will protect our kids from dangerous chemicals.
  Our bill will make Americans safer. Not just Americans fortunate to 
live in States with protections. All Americans. No matter where they 
live.
  For those Americans in States with existing safeguards, that won't 
change. Those safeguards will stay in place. Any regulations in place 
as of January of this year will remain. And there is a role for States 
to play--to help with the thousands of chemicals that EPA will not be 
able to evaluate.
  But, let's be clear. The EPA has the largest staff on chemical safety 
of any country in the world. They should be able to put that staff to 
good use. To do otherwise is wasted opportunity and continued failure.
  This has not been an easy process. But, it is a necessary one. I 
believe it will result in a good bill. We welcome a healthy debate. We 
welcome constructive amendments. At the same time, we should not lose 
sight of the key goal--to actually pass a bill. To reform a law that is 
not working. To protect our families and communities.
  I believe we can do this. And Senator Lautenberg, who was a great 
environmental champion, he believed we could as well.
  Americans trust that when they go to the grocery store, or when they 
are in their own homes, that the products they reach for are safe. The 
current system fails that trust. It fails to provide confidence in our 
regulatory system. And it fails to provide confidence in our consumer 
products. We cannot let that failure continue. It hurts our economy, 
and it hurts the American people.
  We need solutions, not roadblocks and closed doors. Senator Vitter 
and I will continue to work with all stakeholders. If we can make this 
bill better, we will. We all share that goal. But, here's the bottom 
line: We must work through the remaining challenges. Now is not the 
time for digging in our heels--and going nowhere. Mr. President, 40 
years of that is enough. Now is the time for change.
  There is only one essential question before us. Is this reform better 
than what we have? The answer is yes. Can we make it even better? I 
hope the answer to that question is yes as well. But, that will require 
a spirit of cooperation and compromise. That will require that we 
continue to have everyone at the table.
  Critics charge that this is an alliance with the chemical industry. 
That is false. It is an alliance with the American people. They put 
their trust in the American government to protect them. That trust has 
not been met.
  It is in everyone's interest--to identify dangerous chemicals, to 
protect the American public, and restore confidence in the safety of 
the products made by American companies.
  We have a historic opportunity to create a chemical law that works 
and provide American families with the protections they expect and 
deserve. Let's work together. Let's make that happen. Let's not wait 
another 40 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.

                          ____________________