[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.

                          ____________________