Responsible Seafood Certification and Labeling Act

Mr. President, there is an epidemic of abuse that is taking place in America today. Recent reports estimate that hundreds of thousands of children and youths are at risk of domestic sex trafficking.

Individuals on the frontlines in the fight against domestic sexual trafficking of children report that instances are on the rise. They tell us former drug dealers have moved on to sex trafficking. They also tell us technological advances have made this type of trafficking easier as smart phones and other devices provide distance and increased levels of anonymity. Certain Web sites that post classified ads soliciting sexual partners also help facilitate trafficking.

The risk of sex trafficking is compounded every year for up to 30,000 young people who are ``emancipated'' from foster care. Too many of these emancipated youth turn 18, pack their few belongings in a trash bag and are driven to a homeless shelter, leaving them vulnerable and exposed to traffickers and other predators.

While in foster care, children and youth are also at increased risk for trafficking.

In July of this year, the FBI's Innocence Lost National Initiative, which combats domestic sex trafficking of minors, launched Operation Cross Country, a 3-day effort. Operation Cross Country recovered 105 children and arrested 152 traffickers. The efforts of the Innocence Lost National Initiative and the results of Operation Cross Country are laudable. However, they also revealed a disturbing element of our Nation's child welfare and foster care systems. According to some reports, up to 60 percent of sexually exploited children are recruited out of the child welfare and foster care programs. That is an unbelievable statistic, but it is apparently true. Because of the trauma and past abuse suffered by children and youth in these systems, they are particularly vulnerable to traffickers.

FBI officials involved in Operation Cross Country report:

Law enforcement refers to these young children as

``children with a void.'' Once the

pimp identifies that void and makes every attempt to fill it,

a dependency between the child and the perpetrator develops.

Law enforcement officers also report:

The most vulnerable victims forced into sex trafficking

range in age from 13 to 16. Most of the children come from

either foster care homes or are considered runaways.

In order to combat domestic sex trafficking and improve outcomes for children and youth in foster care, systemic changes need to be made in the current child welfare system.

Therefore, today I am introducing the Improving Outcomes for Youth at Risk for Sex Trafficking Act of 2013. The short title of the bill is I O Youth.

We do owe these youth. These are our country's most damaged and most vulnerable children. Yet most kids who age out of foster care face negative outcomes such as homelessness, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, and trafficking. We ought to do better.

This legislation I am introducing today addresses some of the widespread conditions in the child welfare and foster care systems that make these children and youth particularly vulnerable to being sexually trafficked. I am sure most Americans would be surprised to learn that most child welfare agencies will not serve trafficked children and youth who are not in the custody of a biological or foster family or living in a group home.

Often these children, who are not legally able to give consent for sex, are arrested for prostitution and referred to the juvenile justice system. In many States, the courts and the juvenile justice system are ill-equipped to deal with the trauma these children and youth have endured.

My bill requires that States provide services to youth who have been trafficked or are at risk of being trafficked. The bill also redirects resources to improve the current court system to better identify and address needs of trafficked youth.

Many youth in foster care are routinely denied the opportunity to participate in normal age-appropriate activities and social events such as playing sports, participating in afterschool activities, and enjoying a social life with friends. This lack of contact and engagement in healthy and meaningful activities deprives young people of important social connections. Preventing youth from having normal experiences impairs their healthy development and contributes to isolation and loneliness, which in turn makes them vulnerable to domestic sex trafficking, homelessness, drug abuse, poor educational outcomes, poverty, and, of course, other negative outcomes.

My bill includes a number of provisions to encourage, enhance, support youth in foster care, facilitate their participation in age- appropriate activities and social events. I hope these provisions will promote healthy development, increase meaningful opportunities to form meaningful connections, reduce the risk of vulnerability to domestic sex trafficking, and other negative outcomes.

Another major risk factor for vulnerability to sex trafficking and other negative outcomes for older youth in care is a continued reliance on congregate care facilities. These facilities are routinely targeted by traffickers and are often warehouses for youth who are rarely, if ever, allowed to engage in healthy age-appropriate activities and social events.

I understand that many of the children and youth in foster care are deeply traumatized and present with many acute physical and mental conditions. Some of these children and youth need intensive treatment to help them manage or overcome these conditions. I am pleased to report there are many good providers who are doing this work who support the legislation I am introducing today.

I O Youth refocuses Federal priorities of connecting vulnerable youth with caring, permanent families. For those remaining in congregate care facilities, my legislation requires that youth have improved access to normal, age-appropriate activities.

Youth in foster care report that they feel uninvolved, unaware, and disconnected to any planning around their care or their future. They are not informed of their rights while in foster care. This can lead to a sense of disenfranchisement and a lack of connection to siblings, relatives, or other caring adults. In many cases, this lack of connection contributes to the void so often preyed upon by traffickers.

My bill requires that State child welfare agencies provide ongoing family finding for older youth in foster care. I O Youth, this bill, also requires greater participation of youth in planning for their future and encourages States to find individuals willing to be involved on an ongoing basis with the youth in foster care.

Individuals who work with victims of domestic sex trafficking tell us the single biggest challenge with access to these victims is the lack of accessible and affordable housing. For older youth who have been emancipated from foster care, not having a place to sleep is often a reason why they enter into the sex trade. In order to improve housing options for these at-risk youth, my bill redirects funds from the social services block grant in order to provide housing to trafficked and other vulnerable youth.

We live in very contentious times. There are fierce policy and partisan divides on many political issues. Domestic sex trafficking of children and youth from foster care is not one of those issues. If there is any issue under the Sun that is without controversy, it is this one.

Last June, the Senate Finance Committee heard from a courageous survivor of domestic sex trafficking. She told us that she had been sold:

to several other pimps that had sex with me and forced me

to have sex with other men. My story is sad, but it's common.

And, girls like me are all around, but people don't see them

so they remain victims.

This young gentlelady went on to change her life, hold a regular job, and to testify against some of these so-called pimps. What a courageous young woman.

It is time for us to pay attention to these girls and to all the children and youth in the foster care system.

I expect my legislation to have broad, bipartisan support in the Senate. I am pleased that a number of organizations already support the bill, and I am particularly gratified that organizations that work directly with young people have come out so strongly in support of my legislation. I have received letters from support for I O Youth from FosterClub, Children's Home Society of America, the National Network for Young People in Foster Care, the National Center for Housing and Child Welfare, Covenant House International, Human Rights Project for Girls, The Children's Village, National Children's Alliance, and the International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. I am hopeful the Senate can come together to act quickly on my legislation. We owe these youth that much.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Responsible Seafood Certification and Labeling Act which I am introducing today. This bill addresses an issue of great importance to fishermen, seafood producers and coastal communities in my state and around the country-- the issue of how fisheries are managed sustainably. Based on the most recent economic data, the Alaska seafood industry supported more than 63,000 direct jobs and contributed over $4.6 billion to the state's economy. Nationally, those numbers go up to 165,800 total jobs and an economic contribution of $15.7 billion.

The salmon fisheries are a major part of my State's seafood economy and commercial fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million salmon this season. With nearly 1 in 7 Alaskans employed in the commercial seafood industry, and numbers like the ones I just shared, you can understand why I take seriously how the Federal Government affects my State's fishermen.

On June 5, the National Park Service announced new guidelines to promote healthy food options for concessionaires at National Park Service facilities. These guidelines include the following statement:

Where seafood options are offered, provide only those that

are `Best Choice' or `Good

Alternatives' on the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch

list, certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship

Council, or identified by an equivalent program that has been

approved by the NPS.

Within the week, I was hearing from constituents, and they were not happy. Digging further into the origins led to policies developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration that served as precursors to the NPS Guidelines, and an indication that this is a broader problem within the Federal Government.

How bad could this be? Why are these guidelines a problem? Why I am so concerned? Before delving into those questions, I want to acknowledge what some of you may know: Alaska salmon is a `Best Choice' according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. You can check your smart phone app. Problem solved, no impediment to the Park Service allowing its vendors to serve Wild Alaska salmon to its visitors, or any other Federal agency creating a problem for wild Alaska seafood . . . right? Wrong! It is a problem, a big problem, and here is why.

I believe it is bad Federal policy to allow third party certifiers, including Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs, from the UK, to be the arbiters of what seafood is allowed to be sold in National Parks, or procured by Federal agencies. Not too long ago, wild Alaska salmon served as the flagship species for--MSC. Now MSC is disparaging the ``sustainability'' of Alaska salmon. These NGOs have political agendas, lack transparency, and are soliciting payment for their certification schemes. These NGOs are meddling, and their efforts to usurp Federal and State management expertise is harming U.S. seafood interests. What started as voluntary efforts to differentiate well-managed fisheries, to create market value for seafood products, to reward responsible fishermen and processors, has turned into an aggressive scheme apparently intent on taking over federal and state management responsibilities, intruding into the fabric of fisheries management in my State and around the country. The U.S. currently spends almost a billion tax dollars each year to sustainably manage American fisheries in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. There is no reason to let groups with no accountability interfere with this process.

On July 12 I sent a letter to HHS, GSA, and the Park Service stating my concerns, defending wild Alaska seafood, and requesting that all three agency heads meet with me to discuss how to change these guidelines. At an Energy and Natural Resources Committee oversight hearing on the Park Service's maintenance backlog, I questioned Director Jarvis on this issue. When Director Jarvis responded that he would make sure wild Alaska seafood would be included, I said that is not good enough, this is a national issue important to seafood interests around the country, and federal agency regulations, policies and guidelines need to be changed to eliminate the references to third party certification NGOs.

The bill I am introducing today will prohibit any U.S. Federal agency from requiring or endorsing the use of any third party non-governmental organization's label, criteria or other scheme to certify fish or seafood as sustainable. This prohibition will apply to any federal agency's purchase of fish or seafood, the sale of fish or seafood by a vendor or lessee on federal land or property, and any reference to a seafood sustainability standard developed by a third party non- governmental organization in any regulation, policy or guideline.

This is the right Federal policy for the Alaska seafood industry, and for our Nation's fishermen and coastal communities that depend on healthy and sustainable fisheries. It also is the right policy to ensure that hard working fishermen and the coastal communities that depend on them are not disadvantaged by the agenda of several misguided NGOs.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Responsible Seafood Certification and Labeling Act which I am introducing today. This bill addresses an issue of great importance to fishermen, seafood producers and coastal communities in my state and around the country-- the issue of how fisheries are managed sustainably. Based on the most recent economic data, the Alaska seafood industry supported more than 63,000 direct jobs and contributed over $4.6 billion to the state's economy. Nationally, those numbers go up to 165,800 total jobs and an economic contribution of $15.7 billion.

The salmon fisheries are a major part of my State's seafood economy and commercial fishermen around the State harvested more than 265 million salmon this season. With nearly 1 in 7 Alaskans employed in the commercial seafood industry, and numbers like the ones I just shared, you can understand why I take seriously how the Federal Government affects my State's fishermen.

On June 5, the National Park Service announced new guidelines to promote healthy food options for concessionaires at National Park Service facilities. These guidelines include the following statement:

Where seafood options are offered, provide only those that

are `Best Choice' or `Good

Alternatives' on the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch

list, certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship

Council, or identified by an equivalent program that has been

approved by the NPS.

Within the week, I was hearing from constituents, and they were not happy. Digging further into the origins led to policies developed by the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration that served as precursors to the NPS Guidelines, and an indication that this is a broader problem within the Federal Government.

How bad could this be? Why are these guidelines a problem? Why I am so concerned? Before delving into those questions, I want to acknowledge what some of you may know: Alaska salmon is a `Best Choice' according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium. You can check your smart phone app. Problem solved, no impediment to the Park Service allowing its vendors to serve Wild Alaska salmon to its visitors, or any other Federal agency creating a problem for wild Alaska seafood . . . right? Wrong! It is a problem, a big problem, and here is why.

I believe it is bad Federal policy to allow third party certifiers, including Non-Governmental Organizations, NGOs, from the UK, to be the arbiters of what seafood is allowed to be sold in National Parks, or procured by Federal agencies. Not too long ago, wild Alaska salmon served as the flagship species for--MSC. Now MSC is disparaging the ``sustainability'' of Alaska salmon. These NGOs have political agendas, lack transparency, and are soliciting payment for their certification schemes. These NGOs are meddling, and their efforts to usurp Federal and State management expertise is harming U.S. seafood interests. What started as voluntary efforts to differentiate well-managed fisheries, to create market value for seafood products, to reward responsible fishermen and processors, has turned into an aggressive scheme apparently intent on taking over federal and state management responsibilities, intruding into the fabric of fisheries management in my State and around the country. The U.S. currently spends almost a billion tax dollars each year to sustainably manage American fisheries in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. There is no reason to let groups with no accountability interfere with this process.

On July 12 I sent a letter to HHS, GSA, and the Park Service stating my concerns, defending wild Alaska seafood, and requesting that all three agency heads meet with me to discuss how to change these guidelines. At an Energy and Natural Resources Committee oversight hearing on the Park Service's maintenance backlog, I questioned Director Jarvis on this issue. When Director Jarvis responded that he would make sure wild Alaska seafood would be included, I said that is not good enough, this is a national issue important to seafood interests around the country, and federal agency regulations, policies and guidelines need to be changed to eliminate the references to third party certification NGOs.

The bill I am introducing today will prohibit any U.S. Federal agency from requiring or endorsing the use of any third party non-governmental organization's label, criteria or other scheme to certify fish or seafood as sustainable. This prohibition will apply to any federal agency's purchase of fish or seafood, the sale of fish or seafood by a vendor or lessee on federal land or property, and any reference to a seafood sustainability standard developed by a third party non- governmental organization in any regulation, policy or guideline.

This is the right Federal policy for the Alaska seafood industry, and for our Nation's fishermen and coastal communities that depend on healthy and sustainable fisheries. It also is the right policy to ensure that hard working fishermen and the coastal communities that depend on them are not disadvantaged by the agenda of several misguided NGOs.

Mr. President, today I am proud to partner with Senator Sherrod Brown to introduce the Rebuilding America's Schools Act. This legislation would provide a permanent path forward so our Nation's students can learn in high-quality settings. Investing in education is key to the future success of our Nation, so we have to make choices that support teachers and strong curricula, textbooks, and technology. We must also invest in school facilities.

Studies show that the learning environment affects students' academic achievement, as well as their behavior. It also makes a difference in the effectiveness of teachers. When the Department of Education asked principals about the caliber of their facilities in 2005, 43 percent reported that environmental factors like excessive noise, poor lighting, or inadequate ventilation interfered with instruction. The number was even higher when it came to portable or temporary buildings and classrooms. Building on these sentiments is a recent report by the American Society of Civil Engineers, which gave our Nation's school facilities a grade of ``D.'' Clearly, we have significant work to do.

I have fought for many years to provide the Federal support needed to help improve our existing schools and build new ones, so that our students have the best environment possible to learn and grow. For most students, their school is the center of their lives. School is where friendships are built, knowledge is gained, and the foundation is laid for them to excel in society.

The Rebuilding America's Schools Act would provide important additional Federal resources to build and renovate schools through the qualified zone academy bond program and the Qualified School Construction Bond Program. Since 1998, qualified zone academy bonds have helped renovate and repair schools in every State. In 2010-2011, school districts in 49 States used $11 billion in qualified school construction bond financing to build and renovate 21st century schools in communities across the country. The need is great--the National Education Association estimates that our public school systems need as much as $322 billion to bring our school facilities up to modern standards. Our legislation would make significant progress in helping to finance these desperately needed improvements.

In addition to helping make sure that no child has to attend classes at a deteriorating school, this legislation will help create good- paying construction jobs and stimulate our local economies. In fact, our legislation is an important opportunity to make an investment in our schools, our students, our teachers, and ultimately, our communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation that invests in the future success of our youngest generations and our Nation.