[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 44 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1517-S1522]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 178, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 178) to provide justice for the victims of
trafficking.
Pending:
Portman amendment No. 270, to amend the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act to enable State child protective
services systems to improve the identification and assessment
of child victims of sex trafficking.
Portman amendment No. 271, to amend the definition of
``homeless person'' under the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act to include certain homeless children and
youth.
Vitter amendment No. 284 (to amendment No. 271), to amend
section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify
those classes of individuals born in the United States who
are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, earlier this month, two Florida men were
charged with human trafficking. They drugged a runaway 16-year-old
girl. Then they forced her to have sex with up to 10 men a day. They
sold her to men in a gas station bathroom. They sold her on the street
and they sold her in the back of a car.
She was 16 years old. She had run away from home. She was terribly
vulnerable. They promised her food, then they beat her, drugged her,
and sold her. When she escaped, they tracked her down, beat her, and
sold her again.
All of us--I think we should have an agreement that Democrats and
Republicans alike must remember the many other survivors of this
heinous crime.
We have been working for almost 1 year on bipartisan proposals to
protect these vulnerable children, count the survivors, and then punish
those who put them through this hell. This effort had strong bipartisan
support until partisan politics was injected into the debate.
The fight against human trafficking should not be made into a
partisan issue to score political points. That is unfortunately where
we are today. Everyone expected this legislation to move smoothly
through the Senate, I know I did, just as it did through the House.
Instead, Senate Republicans have turned away from a comprehensive
solution that can garner broad support.
I am deeply saddened by this partisan fight. It is both destructive
and unnecessary. It is destructive because it threatens to derail
important legislation that would make a difference in the lives of
survivors--such as the 16-year-old girl in Florida.
This partisan fight is unnecessary because abortion politics have no
place in this debate. Congress has a long history of passing
legislation to address human trafficking. We have consistently done so
without abortion politics being injected into the discussion.
I know we have passed the Violence Against Women Act. We included a
trafficking amendment of mine in that. While I was disappointed that a
number of my Republicans colleagues voted against the Violence Against
Women Act, which had the sex trafficking
[[Page S1518]]
amendment in it, we still passed it by a bipartisan majority, as did
the House of Representatives, and the President signed it into law.
So I was pleased we were able to get that significant piece of
legislation passed, even though many in this body who say why aren't we
passing this voted against the Violence Against Women Act with the
sexual trafficking amendment.
But I wish to make clear to everyone that this partisan provision
that has now popped up is not something that survivors of human
trafficking are asking for. It is not something experts in the field
who work with them every day are asking for. We should look at these
experts who know what is going on and ask them what it is they want.
They do not want this.
In fact, those who are closest to the damage wreaked by this terrible
crime are asking all of us, Senate Republicans and Democrats, to take
out this provision. They are asking us to put politics aside and to
focus on the needs of those who have lived through a hell we will never
understand.
Holly Austin Smith, a survivor, was a girl who ran away at the age of
14 and was bought and sold for sex. She put it this way when she
testified before our committee:
Politics should not govern the options available to victims
of sex trafficking--especially when such victims often have
had their basic human rights taken away by criminals who had
only their own agendas in mind.
So I think we have to stand with these human trafficking survivors.
We have to put aside our agendas. They are asking us to take out this
unnecessary provision and move the bill forward to address their urgent
needs.
I support the rest of Senator Cornyn's bill, and that is why I
included it in the comprehensive substitute amendment I filed last
week. Also included in my substitute is a vital component to prevent
human trafficking by focusing on runaway and homeless youth.
If we are serious about helping to end this heinous crime, we should
be talking about all the good ideas to expand the protections of
trafficking victims. Don't try to score partisan points. We should all
come together to protect these vulnerable kids. That is why we are
here. I am confident that if we remember these children, Republicans
and Democrats, we can move forward and return to the bipartisan path we
have always walked on this issue.
One of the reasons I have that amendment--talking about preventing is
one thing and we should prosecute those people who do this--but
wouldn't it be that much better for the victims if we could prevent it
from happening in the first place?
I have spoken before of the nightmares I still have from some of the
cases I prosecuted when I was 26 years old and the chief prosecutor for
one-quarter of my State. I looked at these victims and the ages of my
own children, and all I wanted to do was to get--and did--the people
who perpetrated these crimes, prosecute them, and convict them.
We should prosecute people who do this, but I also thought how much
better it would have been if we had programs that would have given
these people somewhere they could turn to before they became victims,
some way to protect them so we wouldn't see it afterward.
I said on the floor the other night that in preparing for these
trials, the people I prosecuted, I wouldn't bring paperwork home in the
evening to do it. I stayed in my office and prepared it. One, I didn't
want to take the chance that one of my then-young children might see
some of the photographs I was going to introduce into evidence--but I
also didn't want them to see their father crying and wonder why,
because I always tried to tell them the truth. I was not about to tell
these young children the truth of what I was seeing.
Instead, I would tell the truth to the jury and the jury would
convict, but even the jury wishes it had never happened in the first
place.
The National Network for Youth sent a letter saying:
The National Network for Youth is writing this letter with
the hope that the U.S. Senate will remove the partisan piece
of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. This
legislation is desperately needed and we cannot let this
moment pass us by because of the addition of partisan and
divisive provisions.
The National Network for Youth is saying: Let's go back to why both
Republicans and Democrats wanted this legislation--to stop trafficking,
to help the victims of trafficking, and not to score political points.
Just as the majority of this body voted for the Leahy-Crapo bill, the
Violence Against Women Act, which had a provision on sexual
trafficking, a majority voted for it, Republicans and Democrats--I wish
that others--I wish everybody in this body voted for it.
I understand that some who now strongly support the partisan part of
the trafficking bill voted against the Violence Against Women Act. Each
Senator has the right to vote as he or she wants.
But I find it strange that they say: Let's go forward with this
partisan provision, when only 1 year ago or so those same Senators who
are now saying we should go forward with this voted against the
Violence Against Women Act. The very same Senators voted against it.
Let's get out of politics. That was a good act. It had a very strong
sex trafficking provision, which fortunately also was accepted by the
House of Representatives and signed into law by the President. Senator
Crapo and I set aside politics so we could pass that bill. That is what
we should do today.
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. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. I appreciate the work my colleagues have done on this
trafficking bill. It is an important issue that deserves debate and a
vote.
Lynch Nomination
Madam President, I will say why I believe the Lynch nomination should
not go forward. I think it is for a very important reason and,
unfortunately, it is one that I think Congress has to address.
In their wisdom, our Founders gave Congress certain powers as a
coequal branch of government, and one of those powers was the power to
confirm or not confirm nominees. Long before Ms. Lynch's nomination was
announced, I said I could not vote to confirm any candidate for
Attorney General who supported the President's unlawful Executive
amnesty. That Executive amnesty presents big constitutional issues that
we have to talk about and understand, and it relates directly to the
powers of the executive branch versus the legislative branch.
The Attorney General is the top law enforcement officer in this
country, and anyone who occupies that office, must have fidelity to the
laws of the United States duly passed, and to the Constitution of the
United States. It is that simple. The Senate cannot confirm any
individual, must never confirm an individual to such an office as
this--the one most responsible for maintaining fidelity to law--who
would support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and
eviscerates congressional authority. No person should be confirmed who
would do that.
Congress makes the laws, not the President, and Congress has
repeatedly rejected legislation to provide amnesty, work permits, and
benefits to those who have entered our country unlawfully. If you want
to receive benefits in the United States, you should wait your turn and
come lawfully.
We rejected such proposals in 2006, 2007, 2010, 2013, and 2014.
President Obama's unlawful and unconstitutional Executive actions
nullify the immigration laws we do have that are on the books--the
Immigration and Nationality Act--and replaces them with the very
measures Congress refused to enact. That is where we are. Even King
George III lacked the power to legislate without Parliament.
President Obama's Executive action provides illegal immigrants--those
who come into our country contrary to the immigration laws of the
United States, which are generous indeed, allowing a million people a
year to come to our country--with work authorization, photo IDs,
trillions in Social Security
[[Page S1519]]
and Medicare benefits, and tax credits of up to $35,000 a year,
according to the Congressional Research Service. I think the IRS
Commissioner has admitted that as well.
The President's action has even made chain migration and citizenship
a possibility, which he said repeatedly he couldn't do and wouldn't do.
Despite those assurances, his action opens up these possibilities as
well, it appears. And, again, all of these measures were rejected by
Congress.
I discussed these issues with Ms. Lynch. I asked her plainly whether
she supported the President's unilateral decision to make his own
immigration rules and laws. Here is the relevant portion of that
hearing transcript, because I wanted to be clear about it. This was
during the Judiciary Committee hearing when she was there as part of
her confirmation process.
Mr. Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this
question: Ms. Lynch, do you believe the Executive action
announced by President Obama on November 20th is legal and
constitutional? Yes or no?
Ms. Lynch: As I've read the [Office of Legal Counsel]
opinion, I do believe it is, Senator.
Well, first, we need to understand something. I served 5 years as a
Federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice, and this is the way it
works. The Office of Legal Counsel is a part of the Department of
Justice. The Office of Legal Counsel is the one that has been credited
with writing this pathetic memorandum that justified the President's
actions. But the Office of Legal Counsel works directly for the
Attorney General. The Attorney General is really the one responsible
for forwarding to the President a memorandum that says the President
can do what he wanted to do.
The President said on over 20 different occasions over a period of
years, ``I am not an emperor,'' ``I do not have the power to do this,''
``this would be unconstitutional.'' He made similar statements over 20
different times. Then he changed his mind as we got close to an
election, for reasons that I don't fully intend to speculate about at
this time, and then he asked that he be given the power to do this.
This puts great pressure on the Office of Legal Counsel, but that is
one of the historic roles they fulfill--to analyze these things. They
take an oath to the Constitution, and they are required to say no if
the President is asking for something he is not entitled to do. They
are supposed to say no, and the Attorney General is supposed to say no.
The Attorney General could review the opinion of the Office of Legal
Counsel and take it upon himself or herself to write their own opinion
and submit it as the position of the Department of Justice and say the
President can do this if he so desires. So that is the way the system
works.
But what I want to say, colleagues, is the Attorney General played a
key role in this Presidential overreach. It was the Attorney General's
office that approved this overreach. And this nominee says she believes
this is correct. She indicated her approval, and I am sure will defend
it in every court around the country and advocate for it. Some say:
Well, she works for the President. No, she works for the people of the
United States of America. Her salary comes from the taxpayers of this
country. Her duty, on occasion, is to say no to the President; to try
to help him accomplish his goals, like a good corporate lawyer would,
but at some point you have to say: Mr. Corporate CEO, Mr. President of
the United States, this goes too far. You can't do this. But Ms. Lynch
has indicated she is unwilling to do that.
One of the most stunning features of the President's actions is the
mass grant of work permits for up to 5 million illegal immigrants.
These immigrants will take jobs directly from American citizens and
directly from legal immigrants who have come into the country. U.S.
Civil Rights Commission member Peter Kirsanow has discussed this issue
and written at length about how allowing illegal immigrants to take
jobs undermines the rights of U.S. workers--the legal rights of U.S.
workers--especially African-American workers and Hispanic workers
suffering from high unemployment today.
At her confirmation hearing, I, therefore, asked Ms. Lynch about what
she might do to protect the lawful rights of U.S. workers. Here is the
simple question I placed to the person who would be the next top law
enforcement officer for America. And in my preamble to the question, I
noted Attorney General Holder had said that people who came to our
country unlawfully and who are in our country unlawfully today have a
civil right and a human right to citizenship in America, contrary to
all law. So I asked her what she thought about this.
Mr. Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country;
a lawful immigrant who's here or [a] citizen or a person who
entered the country unlawfully?
Ms. Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to
work is one that's shared by everyone in this country
regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone
is here regardless of status, I would prefer they would be
participating in the workplace than not participating in the
workplace.
What a stunning and breathtaking statement that is for the top law
enforcement officer in America--to say that a person has a right to
work in this country regardless of how they came here. So people who
enter don't have to follow the steps that are required? They do not
have to establish that they have lawful justification to enter the
United States and work in the United States anymore? If you can just
get into the country unlawfully, then you have a right to work? And our
current Attorney General Holder says they have a civil right to
citizenship.
This is not law. I don't know what this is, but it is so far from law
I don't know how to express my concern about it effectively. It is
unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement
office in America to declare that someone who is in this country
illegally has a right to a job. Make no mistake, we are at a dangerous
time in our Nation's history, particularly for our Republic's legal
system and our Constitution.
I would like to quote now from Prof. Jonathan Turley, a Shapiro
Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law
School, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar, and a self-
described supporter of President Obama and most of his policies. He has
been called as an expert witness on various issues by Senator Leahy and
other Democrats over the years. He described the current state of
affairs as ``a constitutional tipping point.'' He is referring to the
Presidential overreach. I would like to take a moment to read from the
testimony he delivered before the House of Representatives in February
of last year--9 months before the President even announced this
amnesty, but after the first DACA amnesty. This is what he said:
The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of
faith for members willing to see a president assume
legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The
short-term insular victories achieved by this President will
come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not
corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the
transient shifts of politics. It is far more difficult to
regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate
members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough
to unify members. President Obama will not be our last
president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to
his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day
that they remained silent as the power of government shifted
so radically to the Chief Executive. The powerful personality
that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers
will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point
for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must
begin before this President leaves office and that will
likely require every possible means to reassert legislative
authority.
Now that is Professor Turley, a supporter of President Obama, and a
fine constitutional scholar, who is warning the U.S. Congress of the
dangers to its powers that have been eroded in the recent months. To
stop it, he says that will require Congress to use ``every possible
means to reassert its legislative authority.''
So stopping an Attorney General nominee--not voting to confirm an
individual as Attorney General--is that a legitimate power of Congress?
Well, of course it is. Should we feel obligated and required to confirm
someone who has announced they intend to pursue and advance legally
through the powers of their office an unconstitutional overreach,
because the President nominates that person? Is that our duty? Doesn't
Congress have a right to say: Oh no, Mr. President, we understand how
this system works. You get to nominate, but you have overreached
[[Page S1520]]
here and we are not going to ratify. We are not going to consent or
approve someone who is going to continue to promote these kinds of
unlawful activities.
One glaring result of Congress's passivity is that executive branch
nominees no longer feel the need to be responsive to congressional
oversight. We are not getting sufficient answers from them. That is for
sure. I think Congress has too often been quiet and slept on its watch.
In the past, Members could perform their constitutional duty of
advice and consent, for example, by withholding consent until a nominee
provided information to which Congress was entitled. That is how
coequal branches of government are supposed to function. Congress has a
duty to demand accurate information from the executive branch before
providing funds to that branch, and they have a right to insist on it.
They don't have to fund any branch of government they believe is
unworthy.
When Ms. Lynch came before the committee, it quickly became apparent
that she had no intention of being frank and providing real answers.
That is a problem I think we have to confront.
I think the most telling example of this concern was illustrated by
an answer I was given to a straightforward question I asked, which goes
to the very core of this debate that we are having in America about the
President's powers and what we should do about establishing a lawful
system of immigration--one that we could be proud of, one that is
systemically and fairly applied day after day.
The question I asked her was simply this:
Do you believe that President Obama has exceeded his
executive authority in any way? If so, how?
She answered:
As United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New
York, I have not been charged with determining when and
whether the President has exceeded his executive authority.
But that was really not a good-faith answer or an attempt to answer
the question.
I will wrap up and just say, in conclusion, that we are dealing with
huge constitutional issues. I wish it weren't so. It is not anything
personal that causes me to complain about this nominee. But in truth,
we need to use the means this Congress has to defend its legitimate
constitutional rights, the power it has been given to legislate. And
the President's duties, as the chief law and executive officer of the
country, are to execute the laws passed by Congress. One of the key
players on his team is the Attorney General, and the Attorney General
in this situation has taken a position contrary to the fundamental
principles of the Constitution, as Professor Turley has delineated with
force and clarity.
That being the case, I think Congress has a duty to this institution,
to the laws and Constitution of this country, and to the American
people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles
and, indeed, has asserted boldly that she would continue in violation
of them.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Death Master File
Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I am going to defer to my colleague from
Connecticut, since at 5 p.m. we will be discussing the nominees which I
will speak to. But before we do, I just want to point out two things to
the Senate.
First of all, the lead story of ``60 Minutes'' last night was about
the death master file which is put out by Social Security.
Interestingly, the story was from the extraordinary standpoint that a
number of people are told they are dead when in fact they are very much
alive and all of the horror they go through in trying to correct
somebody's having made a mistake--a clerical error--that in fact they
were dead by the alteration of one number or a name or just sheer
overlook.
But there is another problem with the death master file, and we have
tried and tried to get that from Social Security. Unless you have an
immediate use--a legitimate use for the death master file to be made
public, such as a life insurance company--they would have a legitimate
use to know who had died so they could stop the payments. Something
else the ``60 Minutes'' program pointed out was that Medicare did not
catch a lot of payments going out. But unless you have a legitimate
use, by suddenly putting on line the death master file, it opens up all
of these Social Security numbers for criminals to come in and create a
new identity, file a tax return, and get a refund on a fictitious tax
return.
I want to continue to encourage the Social Security Administration.
They claim they don't have the legal authority until we can give them
the legal authority they are looking for. We think they have it
administratively in their power not to put it out there. That is the
right thing to do.
Negotiations With Iran
As I yield to the very distinguished Senator from Connecticut, a
tremendous member of our commerce committee, I want to say I was sad
last week--and am still sad this week--that nearly half of the Senators
of the Senate sought to inject themselves by writing to the Ayatollah,
trying to derail the negotiations that are ongoing on matters of life
and death. If they don't think Iran having a nuclear weapon is a matter
of life and death, they have another thing coming. Trying to derail the
negotiations, while in fact the negotiations are going on at the very
hour of the writing of that letter, and still are--and we won't know
until the 24th of this month if in fact they are successful.
I will come back when we get into the executive session about the
nominees. I look forward to hearing from the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, I am proud to follow the
distinguished Senator from Florida, and I join him in his observations
of the ``60 Minutes'' show, but equally, if not more importantly, in
his views on the letter that was sent to the rulers of Iran and its
divisive and destructive impact on a matter that should be above
partisan politics. To inject a partisan political issue into,
literally, a matter of life and death, in my view, is unfortunate,
inappropriate, and truly regrettable.
Lynch Nomination
Equally unfortunate, regrettable, and inappropriate is to inject
politics into law enforcement. The nomination of the chief law
enforcement officer in our Nation, the Attorney General--that position
truly ought to be above politics. In fact, as we know from the
structure of our government, it is generally regarded to be above
politics.
The President of the United States has his or her legal counsel to
provide advice to the President, but the Attorney General of the United
States enforces laws for this Nation--not for one party, not for one
official, not on one issue, but on all issues for all people in the
United States.
When my colleagues have said on the floor that the President deserves
his nominee, really it is the Nation that deserves a nominee to be
confirmed.
This nominee has been delayed longer than any in recent history. As
my colleagues have observed and as this chart illustrates, 129 days
have passed since Loretta Lynch's nomination. From announcement to
confirmation, her nomination has been delayed longer than any in recent
history--in fact, longer than any in modern history, putting aside the
Meese nomination, which was delayed because of an ongoing investigation
into alleged improprieties.
There is no investigation here. There is no question of impropriety.
There has been no hint of any reason to reject the Loretta Lynch
nomination.
The American people could be forgiven for thinking that some of the
Members of this body are simply looking for an excuse to delay or deny
her nomination.
First, it was in our hearing questions about her capacity and
qualifications. Those reasons or potential excuses for delaying or
denying her nomination were quickly extinguished. Then it was the
immigration issue. That too, as an excuse for delaying or denying this
nomination, has been dispensed. Now it is the antitrafficking bill.
No reason for delay could be more inappropriate, because the fact of
the matter is the threat to delay again her nomination is antithetical
to the very goal of stopping human trafficking. If my colleagues really
want to end sex exploitation and human trafficking,
[[Page S1521]]
they should confirm the chief law enforcement official who is
responsible for fighting it. They should confirm the nominee who has
indicated an anathema to this kind of abuse, who has shown her
determination to fight it and to use all of the laws and potentially
this new law in the war against human trafficking.
The Senate is perfectly capable of filling this crucial position--the
top law enforcement job in the Nation--even as it debates
antitrafficking legislation. In fact, it has shown itself capable of
doing so just last week when two nominees to Department of
Transportation positions--important transportation positions, as I can
say personally, because they involve the safety and reliability of our
system--even as it continued to debate the antitrafficking legislation.
Holding the Lynch nomination hostage--which is what is happening
here--is a disservice to the Department of Justice but even more so to
our system of justice. It undermines the integrity and trust in the
nonpolitical nature of justice in this Nation. It does so at a time
when vigorous and effective leadership is more important and necessary
than ever.
The Nation could be forgiven for assuming, as increasingly appears to
be so, that the Lynch nomination is being held hostage or is simply a
cynical excuse to prevent her from getting to work on protecting the
American public from human trafficking, which is so important.
There are legitimate points of debate between our sides on this
issue. Those points of debate and differences need to be resolved, and
I hope they will be. I trust they will be. I believe that they are
resolvable and that extraneous or irrelevant provisions now in the bill
can be removed so that we can focus on stopping modern-day slavery,
which is what the--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. If I may have another minute to finish.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Which is what we should be doing here, and I believe
we will do it.
Loretta Lynch has a stellar record. She served with incredible
distinction during her time as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District
of New York. I suggest to my colleagues that the best way to serve the
purpose of stopping trafficking is to confirm her so she can get to
work on enforcing that new law.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we have had competing claims about who
is really at fault. I think the answer to that question is becoming
unquestionably undeniable to any fair observer. Actions speak louder
than words and there is no denying the actions of the minority party,
which, before this Congress, was the majority party in the Senate for 8
years.
Even in the minority, they are up to their old tricks of blocking
amendments and grinding the Senate to a halt. Given the distortion of
the Senate rules during those 8 years, it is no wonder the American
public, and perhaps even some Senators, are confused about how the
Senate rules are supposed to work. So I wish to take a few moments to
talk about a procedure in the Senate called the cloture motion.
With cloture, the Senate is actually voting on the question: Is it
the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?
The proper use of cloture is when the Senate has had time for debate
and consideration of amendments and it seems as though the Senate is
getting bogged down. If a cloture vote fails, then that means the
Senate has decided, as a body, to keep on considering a particular
piece of legislation. This is a crucial point and one that was
routinely distorted under the previous majority, and they did it for
partisan ends.
A vote against cloture is a vote to continue considering a bill until
at least 60 Senators are satisfied they have had their say and are
ready to vote a bill up or down, yea or nay. It is not always clear
when the Senate has reached that point, so the bill can sometimes
require several cloture votes.
Under the previous majority leadership--and now that group happens to
be the Senate minority--we saw unprecedented abuses of Senate rules to
block Senators from participating in the deliberative process. This
included the repeated abuse of the cloture rule. In order to shield his
Members from having to take tough votes, the previous majority leader
routinely moved to shut down all consideration of a bill even before
any debate took place and even before any amendments could be
considered.
As I stated, cloture is supposed to be used after the Senate has
considered a measure for a period of time and a preponderance of the
Senate thinks it has deliberated enough, and not do it to end
consideration of a bill before it has begun, as the previous majority
leadership did for several years prior to this year.
Let's contrast how our majority leader, Senator McConnell, has been
running the Senate. He has not tried to block minority amendments, as
was done to us when we were in the minority. In fact, we have already
had more than twice as many amendment votes as all of last year.
As the manager of this bill, I have been running an open amendment
process, and I am not afraid to have votes on amendments of all kinds.
In fact, if you are fortunate enough to be elected to represent your
State as a U.S. Senator, it seems to me you have an obligation to the
people of your State to offer amendments on issues that are important
to your State. The American people saw that we were serious about
restoring the Senate tradition of having an open amendment process with
the very first major bill we took up in this new Congress.
Supporters of the Keystone Pipeline bill had the 60 votes to end
debate, but we didn't try to ram through the bill without consideration
of amendments. We had a full, open amendment process as we are supposed
to have in the U.S. Senate, because it is a deliberative and amending
body. There were more than a few ``gotcha'' types of amendments from
the other side, but that is OK because that is how the Senate is
supposed to operate. There was also an opportunity, for the first time
in a very long time, for Senators to get votes on substantive issues
that are important to the people of their individual States. That
should be a big deal for every Senator, but it was not a very big deal
the way the Senate was run previous to this year. When Senators are
blocked from participating in the legislative process, the people they
represent are disenfranchised. We were not elected to serve our party
leadership, but to represent our State, and that is why it was so
disappointing under the previous majority to see Senators repeatedly
voting in lockstep with their party leadership to block amendments and
end debate before it started. I think it is pretty clear from the last
election that that strategy backfired in a very major way. Yet the same
leaders, now in the minority, are up to their old tricks.
The previous Senate leadership routinely used a tactic called filling
the tree, where a former majority leader used his right of first
recognition to call up his amendments and thus block out amendments
from other Senators of both political parties.
When the Senate is considering a number of amendments at once, it
then requires unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment in
order to call up a new amendment, and that is a way to prevent other
Senators from then offering their amendments. If you don't get
unanimous consent to take down an amendment to make room for your
amendment, you don't get the chance to offer your amendment, and
usually that was blocked, and that is why there were only 18 rollcall
votes on amendments all last year, compared to this year. The last time
I counted, so far this year we had 43 votes.
Elections are supposed to have consequences, and the consequences of
the last election are that the new majority decided the Senate ought to
operate as a deliberative and amending body where every Senator can
participate, so Majority Leader McConnell has not filled the amendment
tree.
We have substantive amendments pending as we speak. Nevertheless, the
minority leadership has been objecting to even setting aside the
pending amendment or proceeding to a vote on pending amendments just as
when they used the procedure of filling the amendment tree.
After reporting the human trafficking bill out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee unanimously, they have decided there is one
provision they don't
[[Page S1522]]
like, so after 3 days of consideration last week the bill has not moved
forward. It looks as though the same trick is going on right now. Since
there is an open amendment process--and that is the way Senator
McConnell runs the Senate--we have naturally suggested that they offer
an amendment if they don't like something in this bill. They have
refused to do so, and instead are holding up the entire bill from being
amended and finally passed.
So after opening the bill up to amendments and having considered the
bill for a week, the majority leader has now filed cloture. I want to
be clear what this means. Again, a vote against cloture is a vote to
continue debate and consider amendments. I have voted against ending
debate many times in recent years out of principle when Senators were
being denied their right to offer amendments. No one can say this is
the case right now on this human trafficking bill. We have had a week
of debate, and it is the minority party that is blocking amendments.
Remember that many Members of the now minority party, when they were
in the majority, were adamant that a vote against cloture is a
filibuster and that it is illegitimate to filibuster. I say to my
colleagues, if they truly believe filibusters are wrong and it was not
just cynical political posturing, then you had better vote for cloture
tomorrow.
I will also note that a couple of Senators sent out a ``Dear
Colleague'' letter at the beginning of this Congress calling again for
what they term the ``talking filibuster.'' By this, those Senators mean
that if you vote against ending debate, you should be prepared to talk
nonstop on the Senate floor. Under their proposal, as soon as there are
no Senators talking on the Senate floor, the Senate would move to a
final vote. The problem with this idea under the previous leadership
was that amendments were routinely blocked so it meant Senators would
have to talk nonstop to preserve their right to offer an amendment with
no guarantee they would ever get the chance. That is not the issue this
time.
We have allowed an open amendment process, and it is the minority
party that is blocking amendments. So I would say to all the advocates
of the so-called talking filibuster, if you do vote against cloture,
you are saying you want to debate this bill more before a vote is
taken. In that case, you better put your money where your mouth is.
To all of my colleagues who support this so-called filibuster and
vote against this cloture motion, I expect to see you come down to the
Senate floor and talk nonstop. You can use the time to explain to the
American people why you object to moving forward with this very
important bipartisan legislation to combat sex trafficking. Then when
you are ready to move forward with the vote, let us know.
I yield the floor.
____________________