Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 40 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1366-S1378]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a serious crime
and a violation of human rights that must be stopped--human
trafficking. It is a form of modern-day slavery, people profiting from
the control and exploitation of others.
I rise as a doc, a fellow who has practiced in the public hospital
system for 32 years, understanding the unique role nurses, physicians,
and other health care providers play in this issue.
Health care providers are frontline and one of the few to interact
directly

[[Page S1367]]

with trafficked women and children. A recent survey published in the
Annals of Health Law reports that 28 percent of trafficked women sought
a health care professional while being held captive.
Now, this does not mean that the nurse, the doctor or other health
care provider had the training to recognize it, but because of the
unique and critical involvement with these victims, it is important
these health care providers do have the tested tools and training to
identify and help those being trafficked.
The Trafficking Awareness Training for Health Care amendment would
save lives and, as importantly, would begin the rebuilding of lives
destroyed by modern-day slavery. It would provide for the development
of best practices to enable health care workers to recognize and assist
victims of human trafficking.
It is proven that many trafficking victims report receiving health
care from federally funded clinics and emergency rooms while in
captivity yet, as I mentioned earlier, they go undetected. This
legislation would improve the awareness of health care workers,
ultimately helping these victims.
Senator Tim Kaine recently spoke about a missive that Pope Francis
gave on Ash Wednesday, calling for us to be ``islands of mercy in a sea
of indifference.'' The ethic of nurses, physicians, and other health
care workers is to be that merciful creature. This would give them the
training to better enable them to be that ``island'' in what for that
woman or child caught in captivity must seem a ``sea of indifference.''
Having passed the House by unanimous consent, this amendment
represents a bipartisan effort that will enable the medical community
to bring relief to those suffering in ways that those of us who have
never been there cannot imagine.
Senator Peters is joining me in this bipartisan effort. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment and help transform victims of
trafficking into survivors and people who blossom.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.

Authorizing The Use Of Force Against The Islamic State

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most
critical national security challenges facing the Senate: specifically,
how we should craft an authorization for the use of military force
against the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State.
I have spoken before on the floor about what I believe the outline of
an authorization should contain. Now that the President has released
his proposal--and with Secretary Kerry, Secretary Carter, and General
Dempsey slated to testify tomorrow on behalf of this proposal--I feel
compelled to address this topic in greater detail.
Before delving into the specifics of the administration's proposed
authorization, we should consider how this institution has grappled
with these vital questions throughout our Nation's history. Dating back
to 1798, Congress has on several occasions enacted legislation short of
a formal declaration of war authorizing the use of military force by
the President. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Congress
authorized U.S. naval action against both state and non-state actors
who attacked U.S. commercial vessels. More recent authorizations
formally passed by the Congress include those intended to protect the
Middle East, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia from communist aggression in
the 1950s and 1960s. And since the end of the Cold War, we have passed
authorizations concerning Lebanon, the September 11 attacks, and Iraq--
all in 1991 and in 2002.
I voted for those latter four authorizations here in this Chamber.
Each case was unique, but in every case the White House did not send
the Congress ``take it or leave it'' language. Rather, the Senate and
the House fashioned text that represented a negotiated outcome with the
White House and within Congress.
For example, Presidents Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush worked
closely with Congress to obtain strong authorizations for the use of
military force, despite Democrats controlling both Chambers. President
George W. Bush twice did the same with a Democrat-led Senate. This
approach yielded concrete benefits--a more thoughtful debate and
strategy around our use of force, greater unity in supporting our
military, and congressional willingness to fulfill our constitutional
responsibilities.
Historically, the Senate has fulfilled its role as a place of
intelligent, informed debate in moving authorizations for use of
military force. We must do so again as we consider this authorization
to combat the Islamic State. Thirteen years ago, as the Senate began to
deliberate over an authorization to rid Iraq of its violent dictator, I
said: We all must leave our political party affiliations at the door
when it comes to our national security and supporting our troops in the
field.
It is time for Congress to come together, to hold a public debate,
and to craft the right authorization to defeat the Islamic State.
Turning to the proposed authorization before us today, I agree with
the legal interpretation offered by the Obama administration that the
executive branch has the power to conduct operations against the
Islamic State under article II of the Constitution and the existing
authorizations from 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, the administration
has undermined the credibility of its own proposal by continuously
changing its position as to how the 2001 and 2002 authorizations should
be employed. Therefore, in order to settle any legal questions about
the power to use force against the Islamic State--and to demonstrate
America's resolve in this fight against terror--I firmly believe that a
new authorization should be enacted.
Accordingly, the senior Senator from Oklahoma and I discussed in this
Chamber last month three principles that we believe should be included
in a new authorization for the use of military force against the
Islamic State.
First, the authorization must clearly articulate that the executive
branch is authorized to use force--employed in accordance with the law
of war--against the Islamic State.
Second, the authorization must be flexible enough to be used against
the Islamic State as it appears today but also in whatever form the
Islamic State transforms into in the future. This flexibility must
include the authority to use force against organizations that associate
with or support the Islamic State.
Finally, and most importantly, the authorization must not impose any
artificial and unnecessary limitations, such as those based on time,
geography, and type of force, which could interfere with our strategic
objective of defeating the Islamic State.
Unfortunately, the President's draft authorization does not fully
adhere to these principles.
First, the President's proposal ``does not authorize the use of the
United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground operations.''
Obviously, this is an unwise artificial limitation on what type of
forces we can employ. But the President's proposed operative text
offers little to define what this restriction entails. Therefore, my
initial reaction, one that is widely shared, is: What does this
restriction mean?
To be fair, the President's introductory letter that accompanied his
draft does provide some insight into the administration's
interpretation of this phrase. Specifically, the President argues that
the authorization would provide him with the power to conduct rescue
operations, to provide advice and assistance to partner forces, and to
deploy the use of Special Forces in missions against the Islamic
State's leadership, intelligence collection, and targeting missions.
But in laying out his vision, the President's proposal also tells our
enemies what he is not prepared to do. Knowing these limitations would
provide the Islamic State with a critical advantage: The terrorists
would exploit this information in crafting their strategies. Why would
we telegraph our strategy to our enemies?
The President's proposed legal limitations will also limit our
ability to adjust our strategy as needed based on the military
situation on the ground. For example, when our counterterrorism
strategy in Iraq faltered during the mid 2000s, we changed it and we
adopted a new counterinsurgency strategy commonly called the surge. As
we all know, the surge was a great success.
Therefore, ensuring any authorization has the flexibility to allow
our

[[Page S1368]]

forces to change and adapt their strategies and tactics is essential.
Imposing the President's proposed artificial and unnecessary, yet
legally binding, restrictions on our forces would be a colossal
mistake.
Indeed, General Jack Keane, who devised the principles of the surge,
recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee about his
own proposal as to how to conduct operations against the Islamic State.
In his testimony, the general did advocate using Special Forces in a
similar manner to what the President discussed in his letter
accompanying his proposal. But the general went further. He stated that
the United States and our coalition partners should position combat
brigades in Kuwait if our current operation ``stalls or is defeated.''
Obviously, the use of combat brigades would be prohibited under the
President's proposal. Therefore, if the President's limited operations
are not successful and additional ground forces are required, adopting
the President's proposal would create significant uncertainty.
This raises the question: Would Congress need to debate and pass yet
another authorization before those units could be used in combat? On
its face, this would be completely impractical and hardly in our
national security interest.
Another area in which the President's proposal does not provide
sufficient flexibility is its 3-year time limitation. Simply put, if we
advertise when the authorization expires at an arbitrary date and time,
will our enemies not hunker down and wait for that date?
Secretary of State John Kerry stated in his previous testimony before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the administration does not
believe a new authorization should include a geographic limitation. To
its credit, the President's proposal does not. Specifically, the
Secretary argued: ``In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to
ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq and Syria.''
Undoubtedly, the Secretary was concerned about creating artificial
limitations that could negatively affect our ability to conduct
necessary military operations. He is right. But his concern should
extend to the other artificial restrictions that appear in this
proposal. How else can we read the prohibition of ``enduring offensive
ground combat operations'' and a 3-year time limitation?
In conclusion, we can do better. Our forces must have the flexibility
to use, or the ability to threaten to use, whatever tools and
strategies are necessary to defeat the Islamic State. When America
enters into a fight, we should enter to win. And we should not just do
this in a halfhearted, stupid way.
So I hope the White House will reconsider some of the things that
they have advocated and that they have set forth and get this thing
done right so that if we are going to enter into warfare, we ought to
know what we are doing and ought to have the tools and the legal
legalities to be able to do it well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 178.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The senior assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the
roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot reserve the right to
object.
Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer has other
places to be, and I am going to be presiding in the chair in a moment.
I will not offer amendments because my understanding is that even
though we are on the bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
don't want me to offer noncontroversial amendments. So I will wait
until they are ready for that just to keep the peace on the floor, but
I will talk about the amendments because they are incredibly important
to the underlying legislation.
We are talking about the human trafficking legislation. This is
something that as cochair and cofounder of the Human Trafficking
Caucus, as a father, and as someone who represents the citizens of
Ohio, who are directly affected by this, I have a strong interest.
I am delighted the Senate is taking up this legislation. I do hope it
will be not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. I do not see any reason
for it not to move forward in the Senate, changing some of these laws
that are in desperate need of changing to ensure that this horrific
practice of human trafficking and sex trafficking can be curbed. It can
be minimized by legislation that this Chamber should have taken up, in
my view, some time ago.
We really haven't been at this subject for a decade. We know a lot
more about the problem now. We know, unfortunately, that about 300,000
of our youth are subject to human trafficking--about 1,000 in my home
State of Ohio alone.
The amendments I will offer--once someone on this side comes to the
floor who will allow me to offer them--have to do with human
trafficking in the broadest sense.
The first amendment has to do with those people who are,
unfortunately, trapped in sex trafficking being treated not as
criminals but as victims and with ensuring that those victims get the
proper care they need and the help to be able to get back on their
feet. These are young people--we are told many times--who are between
the ages of 11 and 13 when they are first exposed to human trafficking,
in this case sex trafficking. In fact, that is the average age, we are
told.
Having talked to some of the victims at home, having talked to some
of those who are in the trenches working, trying to help these young
women, girls, young men, and boys, this legislation is badly needed to
ensure we are looking at this--not again as a criminal matter but--as
victims who deserve our support.
Specifically, it requires that every State put together a plan to
improve child protection services--containing, among other things,
provisions and procedures requiring identification and assessments of
all reports involving children known or to be suspected victims of sex
trafficking--with better information and better data, a description of
efforts to coordinate State law enforcement, child welfare agencies,
and juvenile justice agencies such as runaway and homeless youth
shelters to help serve these victims.
Finally, this legislation calls for an annual State report on the
number of children identified as known or suspected to be a victim of
sex trafficking.
The other amendment I am going to offer will be an amendment with
regard to homeless children and youth. As has been discussed on this
floor before, the HUD definition of homelessness practically excludes
the most common situations for families and unaccompanied youths--and
that would be staying in motels or temporarily with others because
there is no place else for them to stay. Even if local communities
identified these families or youth as having the most pressing unmet
needs, communities can't use the HUD homeless assistance funds to serve
them except in extremely limited or near-impossible conditions.
This is related to human trafficking and also to sex trafficking in
that, unfortunately, many of these young people involved in these
situations--where they are homeless, where they are not on the street
but are going from house to house or perhaps staying in a motel--are
targeted by these traffickers.
I believe these two amendments, which are not only bipartisan--and
they are; I have support on both sides of the aisle--but are also
nonpartisan and are ones that would be appropriate to include in the
legislation.
At the appropriate time I will offer those amendments.

[[Page S1369]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. We need to confer for a couple of minutes.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 270

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 270.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes an amendment
numbered 270.

Mr. PORTMAN. 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 amend the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to
enable State child protective services systems to improve the
identification and assessment of child victim of sex trafficking, and
for other purposes)

At the end of the bill, add the following:

TITLE IV--BETTER RESPONSE FOR VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Ensuring a Better Response
for Victims of Child Sex Trafficking''.

SEC. 402. CAPTA AMENDMENTS.

(a) State Plans.--Section 106 of the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(2)(B)--
(A) in clause (xxii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(xxiv) provisions and procedures requiring identification
and assessment of all reports involving children known or
suspected to be victims of sex trafficking (as defined in
section 103(9)(B) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102 (9)(B)); and
``(xxv) provisions and procedures for training child
protective services workers about identifying, assessing, and
providing comprehensive services for children who are sex
trafficking victims, including efforts to coordinate with
State law enforcement, juvenile justice, and social service
agencies such as runaway and homeless youth shelters to serve
this population;''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
``(17) The number of children determined to be victims
described in subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv).''.
(b) Special Rule.--
(1) In general.--Section 111 of the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106g) is amended--
(A) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) Definitions.--For purposes''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Special Rule.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 3(2) and
subsection (a)(4), a child shall be considered a victim of
`child abuse and neglect' and of `sexual abuse' if the child
is identified, by a State or local agency employee of the
State or locality involved, as being a victim of sex
trafficking (as defined in paragraph (10) of section 103 of
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C.
7102)) or a victim of severe forms of trafficking in persons
described in paragraph (9)(A) of that section.
``(2) State option.--Notwithstanding the definition of
`child' in section 3(1), a State may elect to define that
term for purposes of the application of paragraph (1) to
section 3(2) and subsection (a)(4) as a person who has not
attained the age of 24.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(2) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended
by inserting (``including sexual abuse as determined under
section 111)'' after ``sexual abuse or exploitation''.
(3) Technical correction.--Paragraph (5)(C) of subsection
(a), as so designated, of section 111 of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106g) is amended by
striking ``inhumane;'' and inserting ``inhumane.''.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is the amendment I spoke about a
moment ago to ensure a better response for victims of child sex
trafficking.

Amendment No. 271

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 271.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the moment on this side there is an
objection to setting aside the pending amendment. I have no objection
to the pending amendment being there, but--I have been told there is no
objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. To my colleague from Ohio, go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. PORTMAN. I call up my amendment No. 271.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes an amendment
numbered 271.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 amend the definition of ``homeless person'' under the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to include certain homeless
children and youth, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AMENDMENTS TO THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE
ACT.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301
et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 103--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in paragraph (5)(A)--

(I) by striking ``are sharing'' and all that follows
through ``charitable organizations,'';
(II) by striking ``14 days'' each place that term appears
and inserting ``30 days'';
(III) in clause (i), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(IV) by striking clause (ii); and
(V) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii); and

(ii) by amending paragraph (6) to read as follows:
``(6) unaccompanied youth and homeless families with
children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal
statutes who--
``(A) are certified as homeless by the director or designee
of a director of a program funded under any other Federal
statute; or
``(B) have been certified by a director or designee of a
director of a program funded under this Act or a director or
designee of a director of a public housing agency as lacking
a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, which
shall include--
``(i) temporarily sharing the housing of another person due
to loss of housing, economic hardship, or other similar
reason; or
``(ii) living in a room in a motel or hotel.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Other Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `other Federal statute' has the meaning
given that term in section 401; and
``(2) the term `public housing agency' means an agency
described in section 3(b)(6) of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6)).'';
(2) in section 401--
(A) in paragraph (1)(C)--
(i) by striking clause (iv); and
(ii) by redesignating clauses (v), (vi), and (vii) as
clauses (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively;
(B) in paragraph (7)--
(i) by striking ``Federal statute other than this
subtitle'' and inserting ``other Federal statute''; and
(ii) by inserting ``of'' before ``this Act'';
(C) by redesignating paragraphs (14) through (33) as
paragraphs (15) through (34), respectively; and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following:
``(14) Other federal statute.--The term `other Federal
statute' includes--
``(A) the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et
seq.);
``(B) the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
``(C) subtitle N of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994
(42 U.S.C. 14043e et seq.);
``(D) section 330(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 254b(h));
``(E) section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42
U.S.C. 1786);
``(F) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.); and
``(G) subtitle B of title VII of this Act.'';
(3) by inserting after section 408 the following:

``SEC. 409. AVAILABILITY OF HMIS REPORT.

``(a) In General.--The information provided to the
Secretary under section 402(f)(3) shall be made publically
available on the Internet website of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development in aggregate, non-personally
identifying reports.
``(b) Required Data.--Each report made publically available
under subsection (a) shall be updated on at least an annual
basis and shall include--
``(1) a cumulative count of the number of individuals and
families experiencing homelessness;
``(2) a cumulative assessment of the patterns of assistance
provided under subtitles B and C of this title for the each
geographic area involved; and
``(3) a count of the number of individuals and families
experiencing homelessness that are documented through the
HMIS by each collaborative applicant.'';
(4) in section 422--

[[Page S1370]]

(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Restriction.--In awarding grants under paragraph (1),
the Secretary may not consider or prioritize the specific
homeless populations intended to be served by the applicant
if the applicant demonstrates that the project--
``(A) would meet the priorities identified in the plan
submitted under section 427(b)(1)(B); and
``(B) is cost-effective in meeting the overall goals and
objectives identified in that plan.''; and
(B) by striking subsection (j);
(5) in section 424(d), by striking paragraph (5);
(6) in section 427(b)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--

(I) in clause (vi), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(II) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
(III) by striking clause (viii);

(ii) in subparagraph (B)--

(I) in clause (iii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(II) in clause (iv)(VI), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(III) by striking clause (v);

(iii) in subparagraph (E), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(iv) by striking subparagraph (F); and
(v) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (F);
and
(B) by striking paragraph (3); and
(7) by amending section 433 to read as follows:

``SEC. 433. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress
an annual report, which shall--
``(1) summarize the activities carried out under this
subtitle and set forth the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Secretary as a result of the
activities; and
``(2) include, for the year preceding the date on which the
report is submitted--
``(A) data required to be made publically available in the
report under section 409; and
``(B) data on programs funded under any other Federal
statute.
``(b) Timing.--A report under subsection (a) shall be
submitted not later than 4 months after the end of each
fiscal year.''.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is the homeless and youth amendment
I spoke about a moment ago. I thank everyone for their indulgence. I am
pleased to have these amendments offered, and we will have an
opportunity to speak on these amendments and another amendment I plan
to offer later.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
(Mr. PORTMAN assumed the Chair.)
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lankford). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the
underlying legislation we are considering on the floor today. This is
the most significant antitrafficking legislation to come before the
Senate in over a decade. As I said earlier when I offered a couple of
amendments, I am very pleased to be in this body on a nonpartisan
basis, not just a bipartisan basis, to be able to address this issue,
and I would like to thank the Senators who have worked hard in their
committees to make that possible. I thank Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar
for their work. I see Senator Wyden is here, Senator Leahy is here,
Senator Grassley is here, and others who have been involved with this.
They and their staffs are to be commended. It has been a good process.
It is an issue a lot of us care about. Why? Because it is one that
affects our States and our constituents in very significant ways.
Last year I cofounded and I now cochair the Caucus on Human
Trafficking with Senator Blumenthal, and we have had a number of good
meetings and conferences here on the Hill bringing experts together and
raising awareness of this issue.
Unfortunately, this horrible crime affects every single part of our
country. In Ohio this came to my attention initially because in parts
of Ohio, along the I-75 corridor, particularly in Toledo, there were
higher incidences of prosecutions of human trafficking. A school group
actually brought this to my attention several years ago. The more we
looked into it, the more we realized that this affects so many of our
constituents, and it particularly affects the most vulnerable in our
society--children, runaways, the missing. In the greatest country on
the face of the Earth, almost 300,000 of our American children are at
risk of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, more than 1,000
each year in Ohio alone.
In 2000 I did support the last major bill that directly addressed
this growing problem of human trafficking. It was called the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act. And I supported the reauthorization
in 2011. But since that time we have learned a lot more about the
problem. We now know more about how to eradicate what is really a
modern form of slavery. Our new legislation, which is called the
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, builds on what we know
works, and it strengthens protections for the victims.
I would like to take a moment, if I could, to talk about two of the
bills that are contained within this underlying legislation that are
the product of a lot of bipartisan work that exemplifies some of the
finest traditions of this body.
The first is the Bringing Missing Children Home Act. The Bringing
Missing Children Home Act is something I coauthored with Senator
Schumer on the other side of the aisle, and we did it because we know
there is unfortunately a strong correlation between victims of sex
trafficking and children who have recently been in and out of the child
welfare system. We also know that children who have run away or who are
missing are the most vulnerable to being abused, trafficked, and
exploited.
In 2014 an FBI sting recovered 168 children who were victims of sex
trafficking. Nearly each one of those children--nearly all of them had
been involved in some kind of foster care or the child welfare system.
Many of them had been reported missing--by the way, with insufficient
information to find them.
It is a strong correlation, and it is one that any effort to stop
human trafficking must also address. That is what my legislation does.
The Bringing Missing Children Home Act strengthens law enforcement
reporting and response procedures, making it easier to communicate and
work with child welfare agencies. It accomplishes this in a number of
ways.
First, it amends the current Missing Children's Assistance Act so
that Federal law makes clear that children who are trafficked or
sexually exploited are treated as victims and not as criminals. You
will hear this in this debate, and this is one of the great underlying
aspects of this legislation, we are changing the way we look at this,
to understand that there is simply no such thing as a child prostitute.
Second, this legislation requires law enforcement to update their
records of missing children within 30 days with all the relevant
information obtained during the initial investigation. This is very
important because this new information will allow us to find these
children more easily and more quickly, to avoid them falling into the
trap of sexual trafficking and traffickers.
Specifically, the bill requires new dental and medical records, as
well as photograph, if available. For almost all of these children,
there is a photograph available if you take the time to try to find it.
I can't stress this last part enough. It is so hard to find these kids,
and without having a photograph, it is made much more difficult. Yet in
most instances we apparently don't.
We tracked this in Ohio. Let me give an interesting statistic. Since
January 1 of this year there have been 87 children reported missing in
the State of Ohio--87 kids. We only have photographs for 21 of them, so
for 66 of these young people we have no photographs. It is tough to
find them when you don't know what they look like. This bill will help
change that.
Third, it requires law enforcement to work directly with State and
local child welfare systems after someone is reported missing so that
all the relevant information can be obtained as quickly as possible.
Finally, it removes all the roadblocks that prevent State attorneys
general from modifying records in the National Crime Information
Center. We want these records to be updated

[[Page S1371]]

constantly as new information is provided.
To put it simply, we think it is a commonsense bill that streamlines
how missing children cases are handled. It makes it easier to share
information that could lead to recovery.
The second bill I wish to talk about that is part of this underlying
legislation is called the Combat Human Trafficking Act which I
coauthored with Senator Feinstein. The Bringing Missing Children Home
Act is about helping victims. This legislation, the Combat Human
Trafficking Act, is about punishing the traffickers.
We start by giving prosecutors expanded tools to put traffickers
behind bars. Our legislation enlarges the number of charges Federal
prosecutors can level against traffickers and those who conspire with
them. It also makes those engaged in trafficking strictly liable for
their crimes. We also expand the training available for our Federal law
enforcement tasked with investigating and prosecuting traffickers, and
we require that the Bureau of Justice Statistics prepare an annual
report detailing our success in this fight.
Just as importantly, this bill strengthens victims' rights by
providing more information to victims on ongoing prosecutions,
requiring them to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreements
or prosecution agreements in cases in which they are involved.
The legislation we are considering passed out of the committee
unanimously for a reason. There are things that do divide us in this
place. We talk about those a lot, and everybody reads and hears about
them. But this is an exception. This is about bringing us together, in
this case to protect our kids from human trafficking. Human traffickers
and sexual trafficking are issues on which we should not have any
divide. This is legislation both Republicans and Democrats can
enthusiastically support.
Earlier today I joined with some of my colleagues in introducing some
amendments to the legislation because although I support the underlying
bill--it is a good bill--it can be made even better, and I am looking
forward to the debate. In the process, I hope we will raise awareness
about the issue, raise consciousness about the issue not just among our
colleagues and around Capitol Hill but around the country because
ultimately, if we are going to solve this problem in our communities,
everyone needs to be part of it, everyone needs to be vigilant, and
everyone needs to understand that this happens in your community, it
happens in your State, and it happens, unfortunately, in our country.
If we can raise awareness about this wicked practice of human
trafficking and sex trafficking, that would do a lot to try to curb it,
to reduce it, and eventually to stop it. This is what we came to
Washington to do--to pass legislation that actually helps back home.
With this legislation, we can stand together to protect the most
innocent among us from the most heinous of crimes.
I thank you the Presiding Officer.
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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks
I am going to make now not be part of the remarks on the bill that is
before the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Grassley are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Democratic leader, Senator
Reid, told us that Democrats and Republicans could finally agree on one
thing; that is, we ought to focus not on the partisan politics and the
ideology that so often divides us, but we ought to focus on the victims
of human trafficking, largely middle school-age girls who are bought
and sold like commodities.
I came to the floor yesterday and said that I believe we are all
created in the image of God, and it is a sin, it is the very
personification of evil for people to treat those same human beings as
if they were things. That is what the scourge of human trafficking is
all about.
I was very glad to see that finally we seemed to be chipping away at
the dysfunction of the Senate that we have experienced over the last
few years and, in the new majority, given an opportunity for an open
amendment process on a subject that we all agree needs to be dealt with
that we could work on together. So imagine my surprise when earlier
today the same Democratic leader said the Democrats were going to
filibuster this anti-human trafficking legislation. Why in the world
would they take a 180-degree turn? Why would they do such an about-face
or flip-flop? Well, they said because there was language contained in
the bill they disagreed with. No, they didn't say they would use this
open amendment process to file an amendment and have a vote to strip it
out or to modify it or otherwise change it; they said: We are going to
block the bill; it is dead unless this language comes out. Yet they do
nothing to try to effect that outcome.
We might wonder what this language is that they are so upset about
that they would literally kick the tens of thousands of children and
other victims to the curb because of their outrage that this language
is contained in this legislation. Well, imagine my surprise to find out
that the reason why the Democratic minority is going to filibuster this
antitrafficking bill is because they object to language that has been
the law of the land for 39 years--39 years. So I guess they woke up
this morning and thought, well, we better do something about it. What
is the provision that causes them so much discomfort, that they are so
upset about that they are willing to block this legislation? Well, it
is something called the Hyde amendment. Basically what that does is it
prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions.
I realize that in America we are of different minds on the subject of
abortion. I am proudly pro-life, but others in our Senate are pro-
choice, and we probably have a whole spectrum of views on this very
personal issue. But we have had a bipartisan consensus--unanimity
almost--for the last 39 years that whatever else the law is, as handed
down by the Supreme Court or by Congress, we are not going to use
taxpayer funds for abortion.
So imagine my surprise when that very language and very reference was
included in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act bill that now
today I find out for the first time our Democratic friends object to.
Imagine my surprise when that very language was part of the bill that
was filed in mid-January and a month later was marked up and voted on
in the Senate Judiciary Committee and all members of the Judiciary
Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for it. They voted
for it unanimously. Well, I don't believe that was a mistake. Our
friends across the aisle have outstanding staff. They are very talented
people. I don't always agree with them, but they are good at what they
do. I don't believe for a minute that they would have missed a
reference in this legislation to a restriction on funding taxpayer-
provided abortions, and I don't believe that those staff members, being
the diligent professionals they are, didn't tell their principal, their
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So this idea that there has
been some kind of ambush is preposterous. It is just not credible.
Well, imagine my surprise when not only did we have a 15-to-0 vote, I
believe it was--in other words, a unanimous vote of the Judiciary
Committee--for this bill, we have Democratic cosponsors of this bill.
Not only do they support the bill, they have been actively working with
us on the legislation. Just looking at the face of the bill, I count 10
Democratic cosponsors. Do you think they didn't read the

[[Page S1372]]

bill before they put their names on it? Do you think their staffs
didn't tell them what is in the bill?
Well, as we all know, this sort of thing is ordinarily very hotly
debated. There are no shrinking violets in the U.S. Senate, no people
who sit passively on the sidelines and say: Well, I better not speak up
and express my views. That doesn't happen. We have strong-willed,
talented people on both sides of the aisle, and there are no shrinking
violets. Let's just lay that to rest. People are willing to speak up,
and they do speak up every day, every hour, virtually every minute on
things they feel strongly about.
So this idea that we have created an ambush, that we have surprised
our colleagues by including this language in a bill that is on the
floor, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act--voted unanimously
out of the Judiciary Committee, all Republicans and all Democrats, with
10 Democratic cosponsors--that we have somehow surprised them by
including this restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion that has been
the law of the land for 39 years is patently ridiculous. It is just not
believable.
Let me provide a little more information. The reference in the bill
is on page 50 under limitations. It says: ``Amounts in the Fund, or
otherwise transferred from the Fund''--that is, the crime victims
compensation fund created by this legislation, $30 million that goes to
help treat victims and help them heal and get on with their lives--this
bill says that this fund ``shall be subject to the limitations on the
use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of
division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 . . . to the
same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under
division H of such Act.''
I went to see how many Democrats voted for that consolidated
appropriations act in 2014 that contained the Hyde amendment language
and the limitations on taxpayer-funded abortions. Imagine my surprise
when I saw that 55 Democrats voted for that language in the 2014
consolidated appropriations bill that is referred to on pages 50 and 51
of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
This is the same bill the Democratic leader said Democrats were going
to filibuster because they were so outraged, they were surprised, they
were bushwhacked, they were ambushed, they were tricked. Twenty-three
Democrats voted for that same appropriation language in 2014.
But it gets better--or worse, as the case may be. Democrats have
supported legislation consistent with the Hyde amendment for a long
time. As I have said, it has been the law of the land for 39 years.
When was the last time? Well, the Department of Homeland Security
funding. Remember this back-and-forth we had over the defunding of the
President's Executive action on immigration that so many on our side of
the aisle are upset about because it is not within the President's
authority to do it--and that is not just my opinion; it is the Federal
judge's in Brownsville who has issued a preliminary injunction--but how
many Democrats voted for the Department of Homeland Security funding
bill that contains that same limitation on taxpayer funding for
abortions? Forty-five Democrats voted for it.
So imagine my surprise when 45 Democrats recently voted for that
appropriations bill to come to the Senate today and be told: We are
outraged. We are never going to support that. And, by the way, we
didn't know it was in the bill when we voted for it in the Judiciary
Committee or when we cosponsored the bill.
Well, they presumably knew about it when they voted for the
Department of Homeland Security funding in February of 2015, when 32 of
them voted for the CR omni or CRomni in December of 2014. And, oh, by
the way, remember ObamaCare? Every single Democrat voted to support
ObamaCare which contained the same restriction on taxpayer funding for
abortions.
They have also voted for the Children's Health Insurance Program, the
so-called SCHIP, for Defense authorization bills. In other words, our
Democratic friends have voted time and time and time again for the
exact same language they now say they are going to filibuster on the
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, language they said they weren't
aware of when they voted for it--they didn't read it, their staff
didn't tell them about it.
Well, if that is true, I would get new staff. But I know the staff on
the Democratic side, like the staff on the Republican side, are highly
professional people and they wouldn't fail to identify offensive
language that their Senator could not and would not and never has voted
for, or they would be out of a job.
So I plead with our Democratic friends, please don't make this
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act another political football. For
heaven's sake, if we can't agree to protect the most vulnerable victims
of this heinous crime, what can we ever agree on? If we can't agree on
that, if we are going to try to find a way to flyspeck legislation and
say, well, I won't allow this bill to go forward if that language is
included in there--even though it has been the law of the land for 39
years, even though routinely Democrats have voted for that restriction
on taxpayer-funded abortion time and time and time again--why start
now, when we are talking about the most vulnerable victims of this
heinous crime, and say: Well, we are going to punish you. We are not
going to provide you the services you need in order to heal and get
better and get on with your life, because we woke up this morning,
March 10, 2015, and after 39 years we decided this is where we draw the
line. We are drawing the line here. Never again will we ever vote for
the Hyde amendment to be applied to any funds appropriated by or in the
possession of the Federal Government.
So I really would ask my colleagues: Please reconsider. Please let's
not do this. Don't do this to these children and these victims of
trafficking. Don't do it to this institution.
We all understand that Washington can be a pretty tough place. All of
us are volunteers, and we understand politics can sometimes be a tough
business. But let's not take it out on these victims of human
trafficking. That should be beneath us. They don't deserve that. They
deserve better.
If we pass this legislation and we get it to the President's desk and
he signs it--which I believe he will--hundreds, if not thousands, of
victims of human trafficking have a safe place to sleep, they will have
people who love them and care for them try to help them heal and get
better. We will take the money from the people who perpetrate these
crimes and we will use that money to help provide needed services to
these children and other victims of human trafficking.
We will say ``no more'' to the teenaged girl who is arrested for
prostitution, because she is a victim of trafficking--we will tell her,
no more are you a criminal. We will recognize her for the victim she
is, and we will treat her appropriately.
We will deal not only with the supply side of this terrible crime, we
will deal with the demand side--people who get off the hook too easily
with impunity, people who purchase these illicit services, and somehow
always seem to avoid responsibility and continue to participate in this
crime with impunity.
So the domestic trafficking victims fund in our legislation
supplements existing authorized grant programs that are already subject
to appropriation laws such as the Hyde amendment. They are already
subject to the same provisions. Our legislation clarifies that the Hyde
amendment also applies to any funds that are used to supplement those
existing grant programs. Our legislation does not in any way expand or
change the scope of the Hyde amendment. It just says these funds
operate under the same rules that cover the existing grant programs
they supplement.
Everyone agrees the programs we supplement in this legislation need
more funds. I know the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from
Vermont, has made an impassioned plea to add more money beyond the
victims compensation fund that we created. He is saying there needs to
be more money. As a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, I
hope the Appropriations Committee looks at that and makes a decision
whether they ought to supplement what we do. But these funds are being
subjected to the same limitation on spending as

[[Page S1373]]

every dollar the Senate Appropriations Committee has appropriated
during the last 39 years.
So my hope is this, that Members of the Senate will rise above this
disagreement, this posturing, this attempt to try to play ``gotcha'' at
the expense of these victims of human trafficking. No Member should
attempt to make this bill a debate about extraneous issues and policies
that have been settled on a bipartisan basis for 39 years.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have listened very carefully to my good
friend from Texas. We have worked together on many pieces of
legislation over the years. In fact, I hoped we could have gotten this
trafficking bill up during the last Congress, as he knows.
Unfortunately, there were objections raised and we couldn't. I hope we
are not going to get into a question where we compare apples and
oranges and forget what we are supposed to be doing.
The distinguished Senator says on the one hand during the debate on
the Affordable Care Act, according to him--and I will take him at his
word--that this language was in there and every Democrat voted for it--
which meant, of course, that every Republican voted against it. If you
are going to use and follow his argument that the language in the
Affordable Care Act was voted for by Democrats, it was voted against by
Republicans.
I am not suggesting they don't care about the Hyde amendment because
they voted against it, according to the Senator from Texas. But let's
talk about things that should be on appropriations bills.
I am one of the few Members of either party in this body who has
actually prosecuted child molesters. I am one of the few Members of
this body who has actually gone to crime scenes and seen the results of
child molestation. I am one of the few people in this body who has
prosecuted a child molester, not with evidence from the child, but
because the child was dead. The young boy had been raped by the man
whom I prosecuted, and molested over a long period of time.
So I don't need to have people tell me about the horrors of child
molestation. I have seen it. I remember being in a room and looking at
that dead child, the same age as one of my children. And I remember the
man who did it who would have done anything to escape my prosecution,
and I worked day and night around the clock for weeks. I was a young
prosecutor in my twenties, and I prosecuted him and convicted him. He
went up on appeal to the Supreme Court--our Supreme Court--and I argued
that appeal myself, and his conviction was upheld.
So I know the need for this. Let's not let political ``gotcha'' games
stop us from legislation that might protect these people.
The Senator from Texas suggests I want more money. That is not quite
what I said. He said he wanted $30 million based on fines. I said I
just want to guarantee that $30 million was there. I think again of
that child molester, that child murderer. He was just one of the many
cases I prosecuted. We could have fined him $1 million or $20 million
or $1 billion--or $200--and he would not have been able to pay it and
wouldn't have paid it. If the victim had lived, there would be no
money.
All I want to make sure of--and I would be happy to see--is that if
there are fines collected, that they go to help victims as they should.
But if no money is collected from fines, I want to make sure there is
money. We will prosecute somebody who has been involved with child
trafficking or child molestation. We will prosecute them, as we should.
They will go to prison and we will spend $25,000 to $35,000 a year of
taxpayer dollars to keep them in prison, and we should. But we will say
to the victim: I am sorry; we fined him $100,000 to go to the victims'
fund, but he is basically judgment proof. I just want you to know we
had good intentions. If he had paid that $100,000 fine, we would have
given it to you to help you. But, gosh, go in peace. Have a good life.
All I am saying is this: If there is money from a fine, sure. The
Senator from Texas and I agree that it should be put in the Fund. But
if there are no funds, don't promise a $30 million pot of money that
will never be filled if there are no fines, if there is no money in it.
If there is money from fines, put the money from fines in, but where
there is a difference between the amount that is in there and the $30
million, then shouldn't we, as a country that spends trillions of
dollars, give the difference between the fines and the actual $30
million? Shouldn't we care about these victims? Shouldn't we care about
the people who are victimized?
Shouldn't we also do this: If we have the money in there, we could
take increased steps to prevent victims from becoming victims in the
first place. I would have given anything if there had been some
program, some money, to have found out that this child I talked about
was being victimized, and then we could have stopped it before the
State's attorney got called in to look at the dead body. How much
better it would have been if we could have stopped it to begin with.
So all I am saying is this: I am happy to work with the senior
Senator from Texas on this bill, just as I was last year. We had a bill
without this provision, and I was hoping and trying to get consent to
bring it up and pass it when we had a bill without this provision. It
is important to note, though, that when it didn't have this provision
last year, I wish we could have passed it. Now let's work on a bill
that will pass. If you want to score political points, do it on
something that doesn't involve vulnerable children. Let's work together
to get a bill passed that helps them. And let's make sure that on the
point I raised, that we address this at some point. If there is going
to be $30 million worth of fines that go in there, I am all for it. My
guess is that we would be lucky to get a small percentage of that.
Back when this came up in the House of Representatives, they rejected
this method of funding, and they called it budgetary gimmickry.
Actually, what the House did in authorizing the bill--they did what
they were supposed to do. They authorized actual funding so we could
stand up for the victims of human trafficking, not just stand here
trying to score political points.
In other words, let's have the money. Let's make sure the money is
there. This is like saying: If you commit a crime, we are going to fine
you $100 million or $300 million or $1 billion. But if the person never
had more than a net worth of $1,000, what difference does it make? Put
real teeth in here. Stop the traffickers, and ensure there is money to
help the victims. Have money to help the victims.
The distinguished Presiding Officer was one of the senators who
testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing on human trafficking last
month. Other senators testified as well. Their testimony had people
tearing people up. The distinguished Presiding Officer was attorney
general for her State. She understands the reality of this, as I do and
others do.
It has been years since I was State's attorney, but, I say to my
friend from Texas, I still wake up some nights from nightmares about
the crime scenes I went to. I would wake up from them at night when we
were debating the Violence Against Women Act, and I am glad that
Republicans and Democrats joined together on that both here and in the
other body so we could pass it. A victim is a victim is a victim, not a
number, not a concept. Those of us who have spent time with victims and
those of us who have been at crime scenes of victims understand this.
Too often victims could no longer speak, could no longer testify. We
would hear about them at their funeral.
We can do better. So let's not talk about who scores points or who
doesn't score points. There are good people who worked on this, good
people in both parties. We are not going to be voting on something
tonight, I imagine. Let's spend the time between now and tomorrow
sitting down and trying to work out a way forward. Save the political
points for something where the most vulnerable in society do not
suffer. We can talk about what we will do on stock frauds or who gets
taxed or what regulations we will have for corporations. There, raise
your points. Make political points there. But for anyone who has seen
these victims and anyone who has talked with these victims and anyone
who has been with these victims, they know this is not the time for
politics.

[[Page S1374]]

Let's get together this evening or tomorrow. Let's work it out so we
can have something that will really protect victims, something that
will have real funding to protect them--not something illusion, but
real funding. And maybe if we can do that, I might have less nightmares
about some of those victims I saw.
My friend from Texas was a judge; he certainly saw those cases. The
Presiding Officer was attorney general; she saw those cases. We have a
number of former prosecutors on both sides here. Any one of us who has
handled these cases has to remember every single aspect of them.
I remember preparing for trial in these cases, having young children
at home. I would work late in the office. I wouldn't bring the
materials home at all because I didn't want my kids to see what I was
looking at. I will admit there is another reason: I didn't want my
children to see their father cry as I read these police investigations.
These aren't statistics; these are real people. Let's work together.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President.
I have an amendment at the desk which has been slightly modified from
its original form, and I ask unanimous consent that it be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will object until I have had a chance
to see the modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I have now filed my slightly modified
amendment--I will explain the modification in a minute--and it is at
the desk.
I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so my
amendment can be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I object. Some Members on my side of the
aisle have concerns about certain aspects of the Senator's amendment,
so on their behalf, I object to setting aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will explain and speak on this
amendment even though it is not pending as we speak.
I will also file an ongoing objection to anyone setting aside the
pending amendment for another or for any votes being scheduled until
this matter can be worked out.
Mr. VITTER. Madam President, the amendment I have at the desk is
about a very important issue. Before I explain what it is, I will say
that I strongly support the underlying bill.
I compliment Senator Cornyn and others who have worked on a
bipartisan basis on this bill. I certainly look forward to supporting
this bill irrespective of how the vote goes on my amendment, but I
obviously hope my amendment is adopted in the context of this bill.
Clearly, this issue of human trafficking is a very serious one. It
takes many forms, all of them ugly. One form is a phenomenon I am going
to talk about today, which is the issue of birth tourism and
trafficking in women and families who want to get into this country in
order to physically have their children in this country because present
policy recognizes those children immediately as U.S. citizens simply
because they were born in this country.
This phenomenon of birth tourism is a very real one, and it often
puts these birth mothers and families in very dangerous situations,
quite frankly, at the hands of human smugglers or the equivalent.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have two news reports
which illustrate this phenomenon printed in the Record.
The first news report is an article entitled ``No vacancy at
California birth hotels,'' which underscores some of the abuses and
horrendous conditions that go on as a result of this, and the second
article is from the Washington Post, which is entitled ``Inside the
shadowy world of birth tourism at `maternity hotels.' ''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From WorldMag.com, March 12, 2013]

No Vacancy at California Birth Hotels

(By Alaina Gillogly and Les Sillars)

It started last summer. Neighbors of a tan, sunbaked
mansion in Chino Hills, Calif, knew something was going on in
the large Spanish-style home with stucco walls and a tiled
roof overlooking the community. Cars sped up and down the
quiet little road:And a remarkable number of pregnant Asian
women came and went throughout the day.
Then in September, disgruntled neighbors became anxious
citizens when 2,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled down the
hillside.
City authorities discovered in the subsequent investigation
that the seven-bedroom house had become a 17-room ``birth
hotel.'' The 7,964-square-foot residence on Woodglen Drive
had been housing up to 30 pregnant Chinese women who wanted
to give birth to their children on American soil. Each room
had matching bedding and furniture, room keys, monogrammed
towels, and a portable hot water kettle.
Last month, a local court shut down the operation, owned by
Los Angeles Hermas Hotel Inc., for building code violations
that included exposed wires, missing smoke alarms, improper
ventilation, and carpet stretched over a 3-foot-wide hole in
the floor. The owners have six months to fix the problems and
get the proper business permits, or they face permanent
closure.
This operation was just one of about 15 baby hotels in the
heavily Asian Chino Hills area, with dozens more around the
country.
``Birth tourism'' has made the news recently, but the Chino
Hills incident touched off a crackdown in California as local
authorities apply zoning and building codes in an effort to
control the operations.
It's also reopened the debate over the Fourteenth
Amendment. Birth hotels are legal in the U.S. because the
Fourteenth Amendment gives citizenship to children born on
American soil. They have the right to vote, immigrate from
their parents' home country, and apply for permanent visas
for their parents once they turn 21.
Birth tourism is a rising industry in countries like China,
South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. A three-month stay, plus
medical fees, can easily run more than $50,000. Although the
Chino Hills operation had a variety of safety and health
issues, other birth hotels offer luxurious accommodations
with chefs to prepare food from the home country.
Recent studies by the National Center for Health Statistics
have reported the number of babies born to non-resident women
topped 7,000 per year, up 50 percent since 2000, although
it's not clear how many are the result of birth tourism.
That is a tiny fraction of the number of children born with
at least one parent in the country illegally--350,000 in
2009, according to the Pew Hispanic Research Center. But
critics say ``birth tourism'' is an abuse of an American law
designed to enfranchise slaves born on American soil.
``The practice is a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth
Amendment,'' said John Fonte, Hudson Institute senior fellow
and director of the Center for American Common Culture.
``U.S. citizens should be very concerned.''
Some Californians are concerned. Rosanna Mitchell started a
group called Not in Chino Hills to protest against the
facility. ``Our mission is to keep a vigilant eye and use all
our efforts necessary to do so,'' wrote Mitchell on the
website.
She told WORLD that, aside from worries about sanitation,
traffic, and under-the-table businesses, she doubts those
patronizing birth hotels are genuinely pursuing the American
dream. ``Something needs to be done,'' she said. ``It's
outrageous that they would take advantage of the U.S.''
Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, introduced a bill in
January to amend the Fourteenth Amendment to ``clarify'' that
citizenship applies to those born in the U.S. provided at
least one parent is a U.S. citizen, a lawful immigrant, or
serving in the military. The bill, with 13 co-sponsors, is
currently in committee.
____

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 5]

Inside the Shadowy World of Birth Tourism at ``Maternity Hotels''

(By Abby Phillip)

In luxury apartment complexes in Southern California and in
grand, single-family homes in New York, ``maternity hotels''
are brimming with pregnant women and cooing newborn babies.
For wealthy foreign women, the facilities offer the promise
of a comfortable, worry-

[[Page S1375]]

free vacation complete with a major perk: a U.S. passport for
their newborn.
One such maternity hotel in New York resembled a nursery:
Newborn babies rested in a row of bassinets that lined the
wall, according to an NBC News report that offered a look
inside the facility.
Women who book rooms at these properties can expect to live
in well-stocked apartment complexes or large suburban homes
with laundry and catered food as part of the package. Once
their babies are born in an American hospital, they are cared
for by nurses while the mothers rest for at least a month.
They can pass their time with shopping trips to luxury
stores, trips to amusement parks or poolside at the ``hotel''
while attentive caretakers look after the infants, feeding,
bathing and putting them to sleep on a regimented schedule,
NBC News found.
The cost--$40,000 to $80,000 per stay--is worth it for the
prospect that the visitor's child will automatically be
afforded the benefits given to U.S. citizens--and perhaps
will have an easier time gaining legal residency in the
United States when that child turns 21.
``For my baby, it's a chance to, a step to two countries''
cultures . . . Chinese culture and American culture,'' one
woman told NBC.
There's nothing illegal about foreign nationals giving
birth in the United States. But traveling to the hotels
requires the illegal practice of lying about the real reason
for visiting the United States. Pregnant women purporting to
be tourists enter the country in the latter stages of
pregnancy, some overstaying their visas to recover in the
comfort of the ``maternity hotels.''
Birth tourism companies have flourished in recent years,
according to federal officials--and many of them prefer hard-
to-track cash to fuel their operations.
That money, federal officials allege, is being pocketed by
a group of individuals who have skirted tax law, flouted
immigration laws and helped their clients defraud U.S.
hospitals of tens of thousands of dollars for each baby born.
On Tuesday, federal agencies, including Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and the IRS, along with the Los Angeles
Police Department, conducted a massive operation to raid more
than 30 California locations operated by ``birth tourism
businesses.'' Officials collected piles of evidence that will
likely be used against some of the ``maternity hotel''
operators in future prosecutions.
The companies advertise their services online--and no
foreign language skills are necessary to guess the subtext.
What are the benefits of a U.S. passport for a foreign
national's unborn child?
``Too many,'' the Web site of StarBabyCare explains to
prospective clients. ``You can enjoy the free education from
junior high school to public high school. . . . You can apply
loans or grants which is only for the U.S. citizen. . . . You
can receive your senior supplement benefits when you are
living overseas. . . . To the parent, after the baby becomes
an adult, he/she can petition the parents for a green card.''
According to court documents, an undercover investigator
was told: ``The baby will then have a birth certificate and
`freedom.' The baby will have a bright future having United
States citizenship.''
Federal officials say that Chao Chen and Jie Zhu, the
couple that operated the You Win baby tourism company,
engaged in ``sham marriages'' to get green cards for
themselves. In documents filed in federal court this week,
officials said that the two ``divorced'' in 2012, but married
U.S. citizens in Las Vegas months later.
Both applied for permanent residency, and an immigration
officer reviewing the cases noted that the marriages were
``suspect'' based on the timing.
Such companies have openly encouraged women willing to pay
for the service to commit visa fraud as well. They were
counseled not to tell customs and immigration officials that
they were pregnant, to wear loose clothes and to avoid
traveling to the United States while looking visibly
pregnant.
``U.S. might refuse entry due to the belly is too big,''
StarBabyCare's Web site informed potential customers.
``Therefore the size of the belly is quite important to
determine when you should arrive in Los Angeles.''
According to court documents, birth tourists were told to
avoid traveling directly.to Los Angeles International Airport
from overseas, to avoid raising suspicion. They might even
consider studying U.S. culture and booking recreational
visits in order to make their travel seem more legitimate,
the company advised. Alternate arrival ports such as Hawaii
or Las Vegas were preferable.
You Win paid more than $60,000 a year to rent Southern
California apartments that housed the women, according to
court documents. Federal officials believe that StarBabyCare
operated a ``maternity hotel'' from at least 10 units at one
complex.
As more attention has been trained on the practice in
recent years, the outrage has--predictably--followed.
Los Angeles County officials have cited the ``hotels'' for
illegally operating business in residential homes in 2013.
Angry neighbors at a Chino Hills ``hotel'' picketed as the
report became public. Among its findings: The 17-bedroom, 17-
bathroom operation was blamed for overloading the septic tank
in the community.
Usually, the women participating in the programs paid
several thousand dollars up front as a deposit and thousands
more upon arrival in United States, according to
investigators. The balance was paid after childbirth.
But ``some or all'' of that money--which for You Win likely
amounted to over $1 million--went unreported to federal
authorities in 2013.
``Chen failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in
income on his 2013 federal tax return,'' according to federal
officials.
As women went into birth, they were taken to local
hospitals and declared jobless. As many as 400 babies
associated with just one of these companies were born after
2013 in Orange County, Calif., hospitals. Despite the fact
that many of these women paid tens of thousands of dollars to
participate in the ``maternity hotel'' scheme, they claimed
to be unable to pay the hospitals, which typically charged
about $25,000 per birth.
Some paid nothing at all, while others paid a fee closer to
$4,000.
No one was arrested during Tuesday's raids. But Immigration
and Customs Enforcement agents collected evidence and
potential witnesses for use in future prosecutions on tax,
immigration and fraud charges.

Mr. VITTER. Madam President, recently the Obama administration
conducted a raid on some of these shadowy operations. I compliment them
for doing that. There needs to be a crackdown on these operations, but
the ultimate crackdown and ultimate solution is to change the policy of
the Federal Government that recognizes these children immediately as
U.S. citizens simply because they are physically born in this country
even though both of their parents are here illegally. No parent is here
under any sort of legal status, and that is the ultimate response and
ultimate solution we need, and that is what my amendment--that I will
call up as soon as that is allowed and get a vote on--is about.
My amendment would change the present practice, policy, and law to
say that only somebody born in this country who has at least one parent
who is a U.S. citizen, a legal green card holder, or a serving member
of the U.S. military, immediately gets that recognition as a U.S.
citizen.
As I suggested, this issue and practice--including this shadowy world
of birth tourism and human smuggling--is a very serious issue. In fact,
it is an exploding issue, as these recent cases in the press have
brought to light.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, each year about
300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal aliens in the United
States, and under our present practice, all of them are immediately
recognized as U.S. citizens. This is a huge magnet for more illegal
crossings into our country, often at the hands of very dangerous
people.
Birthright citizenship draws women from Mexico and Central America to
make that dangerous trek north, often in the hands of coyotes and drug
cartels. These women put their lives into the hands of criminal gangs
with a demonstrated pension for sexual assault and sex trafficking.
In addition, there is a huge business of birth tourism, including
those who market to women and families in China. As I mentioned, on
Tuesday, March 3, Federal agents broke up an alleged birth tourism ring
in southern California, raiding several homes and apartment complexes
where pregnant Chinese women, who were here on fraudulent visas, paid
up to $80,000 in some cases so their babies would be born here.
DHS and IRS investigators were seeking evidence and statements
against those alleged in the scheme. Besides visa fraud, authorities
are looking into possible tax and money laundering charges. As I
referred to the news reports that are now part of the Record, in some
cases this involves horrendous conditions and a very shadowy world in
terms of this so-called birth tourism.
The ultimate solution to this enormous magnet for illegal crossings--
often at the hands of very dangerous people--is to not recognize
everyone who is simply born in the United States to be a citizen of the
United States because of that fact alone. Again, that is what my
amendment would do. That is far more effective than any set of raids on
these operations or on any enforcement provisions.
If we move toward this, we would be in the company of a huge majority
of countries in the world. Of advanced economies, only Canada and the
United States grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal
aliens. No European country does that. No other advanced industrialized
country does

[[Page S1376]]

that, nor should we. As I suggested, it is a huge magnet for more and
more illegal crossings, and my amendment would fix that.
Some people will argue this is not possible with a statutory change.
This is embedded in the U.S. Constitution through the 14th Amendment
and any change would have to be a constitutional amendment. I believe
that is not the case and is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding
of the Constitution in this regard, including the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment does not say that all persons born in the United
States are citizens, period, end of story. If we look at the precise
language, it is very instructive. It states that citizenship extends to
``all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof.'' That latter phrase--``and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof''--was included because it means something, and
its original meaning clearly refers to the political allegiance of an
individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that
person.
That is exactly why American Indians and their children were not
immediately recognized as U.S. citizens simply because of their birth
in this country. There was actually litigation about that going
directly to this language of the 14th Amendment. The courts decided,
no, the fact that these American Indian children were born in the
United States in and of itself did not make them U.S. citizens because
``and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' had a meaning. It meant
these children could not be subject to any other governmental or quasi-
governmental authority and an American Indian tribe was such an
authority.
Because of that litigation and interpretation, in order for those
American Indian children to be recognized as American citizens, it
actually took specific congressional action, and Congress passed the
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I believe that goes directly to this
issue that this practice is not embedded in the Constitution and in the
14th Amendment, and so that allows the statutory fix my language would
offer.
Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, actually introduced a bill
in 1993 titled the ``Immigration Stabilization Act,'' which included
nearly identical language to my amendment and stand-alone bill. This
language has broad support in the country, including broad bipartisan
support.
In Senator Reid's bill--now that is going back a ways--it stated ``in
the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the 14th article of the
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has
determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of
enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the
United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent
resident will not be a U.S. citizen.'' So there we have language from a
leading Democratic Member that goes to the same issue.
There is broad bipartisan support, not just in the Congress but in
the country for this fix, particularly in the context of these huge
illegal alien flows into the country. I believe Americans recognize
that we cannot continue to adopt and recognize this policy. It is an
enormous magnet for the continuing flows of illegal aliens into the
country.
It brings up industries such as this shadowy world of birth tourism
which was recently raided by Federal authorities. It puts those mothers
and families in the hands of very unsavory criminal elements in many
cases, and we should not allow this to continue.
My amendment would stop that practice, stop those abuses, and stop
encouraging those flows of illegal aliens. I strongly encourage the
Senate to directly consider this amendment, vote on it, and to adopt it
as part of this very important underlying bill.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have two letters that were
written by leading groups on immigration reform, FAIR and the Eagle
Forum, printed in the Record.
They are in strong support of this measure. I will submit additional
letters of support as they develop over the next day or two.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Federation for American

Immigration Reform,

Washington, DC, March 10, 2015.
Hon. David Vitter,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Vitter: I am writing to thank you for your
efforts as a United States Senator to end birthright
citizenship--the practice of automatically granting U.S.
citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless
of the parents' immigration status.
Your amendment to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking
Act of 2015 (S. 178) would close this loophole that is based
on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. Specifically,
your amendment would amend the Constitution so that children
born in the U.S. only gain citizenship automatically if one
parent is either a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, or
a non-immigrant active member of the Armed Forces. Your
language is consistent with the intent behind the ``subject
to the jurisdiction thereof' clause of excluding from
automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance
to the United States is incomplete.
Even the Obama Administration recognizes that the current
practice of birthright citizenship encourages unlawful
behavior and abuse of the system. Indeed, just last week
federal and local law enforcement officials raided the
Southern California offices of a company that encourages
foreign pregnant women to come to the U.S. to give birth,
promising them benefits like citizenship and free education.
Known as ``birth tourism,'' these companies arrange for
pregnant women to come to the U.S. and advise them to provide
false information on visa applications. This particular
Irvine business made approximately $2 million in 2013, with
fees ranging from $15,000 to $50,000.
Your amendment would end this magnet of illegal immigration
because the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens will not be
eligible to sponsor family members for legal permanent
resident status (green cards) once they reach the age of
twenty-one. Again, we thank you for sponsoring this
commonsense legislation.
Sincerely,
Dan Stein,
President.
____

Eagle Forum,

Washington, DC, March 10, 2015.
Dear Senator Vitter, On behalf of Eagle Forum and the
families we represent, we express our support for your
amendment to S. 178 ending the practice of birthright
citizenship. Automatically granting citizenship to any child
born on U.S. soil, even if the child's parents are temporary
visitors or illegal aliens, cheapens the value of American
citizenship. Action by Congress to clarify the long-
misinterpreted intent of section 1 of the Fourteenth
Amendment is both necessary and appropriate.
Birthright citizenship is an invitation to exploit the
benefits of American citizenship. Simply being born in our
country, whatever the citizenship of the parents, entitles a
child to government aid. It circumvents the lengthy process
of naturalization, including the pledge of new citizens to
``support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United
States.'' This loophole encourages illegal immigration and
even ``birth tourism,'' which brings pregnant women to this
country just in time to give birth. Both illegal immigration
and birth tourism fuel human trafficking, which stems from a
desire to claim the protections of our laws and the support
of the welfare state.
Permitting birthright citizenship is a misreading of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment states that U.S. citizens
are ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' Those final five
words are critical and clearly limit the application of the
amendment. Visitors who are not U.S. citizens are ``subject
to the jurisdiction'' of their country of origin, not the
United States. Furthermore, the Constitution vests control
over immigration law to Congress. It is past time for the
legislative branch to exercise its power to end birthright
citizenship. Eagle Forum thanks you for your leadership on
this critical issue and stands ready to assist you.
Faithfully,
Phyllis Schlafly,
Chairman.

Mr. VITTER. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam 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. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to consider my amendment No. 273.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I have to object.
The Senator has the right, of course, to file his amendment, but
there is an amendment presently pending and it would have to be set
aside. There is

[[Page S1377]]

someone on this side who does not want it set aside, so I will object.
Of course, the Senator can file his amendment, but the request, as I
understand it, is to set aside the pending amendment. On behalf of
several Senators on this side, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Vermont if he
opposes the amendment that was also cosponsored by Senator Feinstein.
Mr. LEAHY. I don't know who is cosponsoring the amendment.
Madam President, addressing the Senator through the Chair, as we are
required to do by the Senate rules, I would say that my objection is to
setting aside the pending amendment. I would further address the
Senator from Illinois--but through the Chair--that when the amendment
is up, I will be glad to look at it and take a position on it. Of
course, he and I have known each other for a long time. I will be happy
to tell him whether I will vote for it or not.
Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I would say that this amendment is
directed at backpage.com, probably the largest provider of online
slavery services in the United States. I would hope the Senator is not
defending Lacey and Larkin, who make $30 million a year off of slavery.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to respond to the Senator, I may very
well support his amendment. The technical question is, Should the
amendment of the Senator from Ohio be set aside so that this one may be
the one pending? On that issue, there is objection. When the Senator's
amendment is pending before the Senate, it may very well be one I will
vote for, and I will be happy to discuss it at that time.
Mr. KIRK. I thank the Senator.
Madam President, this is an amendment that is directed at attacking
backpage.com, which stands on the principle that was well established
in the Civil War--that we Americans have freedom and we should not be
free to enslave other Americans. I think, as the largest provider of
online slavery services, Lacey and Larkin should be put out of
business.
I think it is incumbent on us, in the underlying legislation--I would
remind the Senator from Vermont that we would live up to the full
spirit of this legislation to make sure that just because the Internet
was invented, slavery should not be empowered by the Internet.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KIRK. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, through the Chair, I ask my friend from
Illinois, who has been a warrior on these issues, particularly with
this backpage.com and this advertisement of children and other people
trafficked as part of this modern day slavery, if the Senator's
amendment, the HERO Act, is actually included, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. KIRK. Amendment No. 273 would include the SAVE Act, which has
already substantially passed with huge bipartisan support of the party
of the Senator from Vermont in the House of Representatives. If we
look, we will find that backpage.com is active in every State,
providing online services to the public.
Mr. CORNYN. My question and point was that the SAVE Act, I
understand, is the subject of the amendment that the Senator is seeking
to offer and for which I hope our friends on the other side will relent
and allow us to go forward, debating and amending this important piece
of legislation. As distinguished from the SAVE Act, which is the
subject of the Senator's your amendment, the HERO Act, I believe is
already a part of the underlying legislation. I just wanted to
congratulate the Senator from Illinois and thank him for his
longstanding dedication to this issue and the contribution he has made
to the underlying piece of legislation.
Mr. KIRK. As a Senator from Illinois, our true gift to the people of
this country has been individual freedom and dignity, epitomized by the
Lincoln candidacy for the Senate, and by the victory in the Civil War.
We should not allow the freedom of the Internet to allow freedom to
enslave others. These two men have made tens of millions of dollars.
I yield back to the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. CORNYN. I would just ask the Senator to yield for one final
question.
Would the Senator please outline his bill, his amendment, the SAVE
Act?
Mr. KIRK. The critical issue is how to restrict the ability of
Americans to enslave each other. I don't think we should have that
freedom. We want to make sure we thread the needle very carefully here,
to make sure the freedom and commerce available on the Internet is not
going to help people such as Lacey and Larkin to enslave others. We
want to make sure that there is an ever-widening sphere of freedom
inside the United States that is not inhibited by the Internet.
Mr. CORNYN. I would ask, is the Senator's amendment targeted in a way
that respects the freedom of the Internet and the right of the people?
Mr. KIRK. Very much so. The way we thread the needle here is to make
online providers of slavery services liable for the costs that local
governments incur in cleaning up the mess they create.
In the case of Cook County, IL, we have had our crusading sheriff,
who I would note is also a Democratic sheriff, establish a great effort
to recover the young, underage girls involved and to make sure the
costs incurred in helping out these young women--these citizens of the
United States--to make sure they can charge it against the online
provider, which makes eminent sense.
I would say that our freedoms are protected because Tom Dart was
elected by the people of Cook County. As an elected official, he is
trying to simply carry out his goal there. This makes eminent sense to
do this.
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. KIRK. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Remembering Jonathan Myrick Daniels

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, this past weekend we saw a huge
commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery voting
rights march. I rise to honor the work and sacrifice of Jonathan Myrick
Daniels. He was a young Episcopalian seminary student from Keene. The
Presiding Officer certainly knows his name and Keene, as well. He was
from Keene, NH, and he answered the call of Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr., for clergy to travel to Alabama to join him on that march.
Jonathan lost his life 5 months later, in an act that Reverend King
called ``one of the most heroic Christian deeds of which I have heard
in my entire ministry.'' Although Jonathan had originally intended to
spend a short time in the South and then return to his studies at the
Episcopal theological school in Boston, he felt compelled by events to
remain in Alabama through the spring and summer to register voters with
the Episcopalian Society for Cultural and Racial Unity.
On August 14, 1965, Jonathan was arrested along with a number of
other civil rights activists at a demonstration in Fort Deposit, AL, a
small town outside of Montgomery. They had gone there to protest
segregation in the town's stores. But their demonstration was over
within minutes. Armed white men from the town descended on them and
took them to jail.
Jonathan and his fellow activists spent 6 days in the Hayneville
jail. Many in the group were still teenagers. Despite the conditions,
Jonathan somehow maintained an unflaggingly upbeat attitude and good
humor. He wrote his mother in New Hampshire a brief letter from the
jail, apologetically describing it as a peculiar birthday card for her.
He wrote:

The food is vile and we aren't allowed to bathe (whew!) . .
. As you can imagine, I'll have a tale or two to swap over
our next martini.

He declined an offer of bail money from an Episcopal organization
because the amount would not have covered the release of the rest of
his group. On Friday, August 20, the whole group was suddenly released.
Strangely, their bail had been waived, but no one was there to meet
them or take them home. The town seemed completely deserted.
Jonathan and a few others walked a block away to a store to buy
something to eat and drink. As he climbed the steps of the porch to the
store, he suddenly heard someone shout from inside

[[Page S1378]]

and threaten to shoot if they didn't leave. Jonathan barely had time to
react before the man opened fire, but somehow he managed to jump in
front of his friend Ruby Sales, a 17-year-old African-American girl. He
saved Ruby's life, but Jonathan was killed by the close-range shot that
was intended for her. He was just 26 years old.
The shooter called the murder in to the sheriff's office himself. He
said: I just shot two preachers. You better get on down here. An all-
white jury later acquitted the man, taking just 2 hours to find him not
guilty. While Jonathan was sacrificing his life for civil rights in
Alabama, here in the Senate debate raged over the Federal Government's
role in protecting the voting rights of disfranchised American
citizens.
Since 1870 the 15th Amendment to the Constitution had prohibited
State governments from denying a citizen's right to vote based on race.
However, in precincts throughout the South, Black Americans were
subjected to discriminatory poll taxes, literacy tests, and other forms
of voter intimidation. In many places, town clerks outright refused to
register Black voters.
Just 2 weeks before Jonathan was killed, Congress finally passed the
Voting Rights Act, which outlawed electoral practices that
discriminated against minority groups. Well, 2015 marks the 50th
anniversary not just of that march in Selma but of this landmark law.
While this anniversary presents an obvious time for reflection, it is
also a time to look forward and address the challenges still facing our
country.
The impact of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v.
Holder, which struck down a critical section of the law requiring
Federal approval for electoral law changes in districts with the
history of discrimination, is particularly troubling. This ruling now
allows States to implement restrictive voting requirements that will
make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots. In fact, since
this ruling, almost all of the affected States have already begun
attempts to restrict voting, targeting seniors, students, minorities,
and threatening their access to the polls.
The right to make your voice heard as a citizen of this Nation is a
fundamental principle of our democracy, and it should never be
infringed upon. We have a responsibility to protect this right and
address these injustices.
While our Nation has made a lot of progress since the 1960s and
1970s, the struggle is far from over. Inequality and racism remain in
our society. As long as discrimination and racial disparities exist,
the full protections of the Voting Rights Act are necessary to
guarantee the rights of citizenship for every American.
Jonathan Daniels should be turning 76 years old in March. He is
widely recognized as a martyr of the 20th century. In Keene, his
hometown, an elementary school bears his name. As we mark the 50th
anniversary of his passing, as well as the passage of the Voting Rights
Act, we must strive to honor his legacy by ensuring that all current
and future American citizens can exercise the rights he died to
protect.
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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________