Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 45 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1561-S1565]
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. Under the previous order, the time until 11
a.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees.
Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous
consent that the time be charged equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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the quorum call be rescinded.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, at 11 a.m. this morning we will be having
a very important vote on human trafficking in an important piece of
legislation, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. I am glad this
issue is finally getting the kind of attention it deserves, but I would
be lying to you if I said I wasn't disappointed in the way this bill
has become a political football for people who want to cause the Senate
to cease to function entirely or to relitigate issues that have been
resolved 40 years ago such as the Hyde amendment.
We in the Senate have an opportunity to do a great deal of good for
thousands of people, including children who are victims of sex
trafficking, many of whom are young girls not even of high school age.
On average the typical victim of human trafficking is between the age
of 12 and 14.
But instead of voting to pass this bill last week, as I had
originally hoped, the minority leader, the Democratic leader, blocked
the vote, and he has consistently taken the position that they are not
going to allow us to progress with this legislation. The majority
leader offered to give the other side a vote to strip out the language
which they find offensive, but that was declined; and instead, the
obstruction and the blocking of this legislation continues.
I would like to come back to the question that I have asked myself
privately and I have asked here publicly repeatedly, and that is, Why
are so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle objecting
to language they have repeatedly voted for time and time and time
again? Why do they want to make this an issue on this piece of
legislation, which is one of the rare islands of bipartisan comity,
cooperation, and collaboration we have seen in recent times? Most
importantly, why are Democrats going to the wall to block a bill that
would help thousands of innocent victims of sex trafficking across the
country who are crying out for our help? It truly baffles me, but that
is what is going on.
Of course, we know human trafficking is a problem all across the
country, including my home in Texas. I was recently reminded of a
couple of Texas stories about how important it is that we pass this
legislation, including a recent story out of Waco, TX, involving the
Border Patrol, where it was reported that over the last 5 months the
Border Patrol has apprehended 144 known sex offenders trying to sneak
back into the United States illegally. So reportedly 100,000 people are
trafficked each year, according to the Washington Post. They say an
estimated 100,000 children are trafficked each year for sex. Why in the
world can't we find some way to set these differences aside, to fight
them another day, and to move on doing some good where we can by
passing this legislation?

[[Page S1562]]

It has, unfortunately, become clear that this obstruction is about
politics, plain and simple, because you know there is actually a whole
lot of agreement about the importance of this legislation. For example,
we have 12 Democratic cosponsors to this legislation. This bogus story
you have heard about language being slipped in the bill that they
didn't know was there is just that, completely bogus. Each of these
Democrats has highly skilled professional staff, and they themselves
weren't born last night, didn't fall off the turnip truck. They know
what the legislation included, and it had language in it they had voted
in favor of repeatedly in previous pieces of legislation.
Then there is the fact that all 20 Members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee voted in favor of this legislation, including 9 Democrats,
all Members of the Judiciary Committee. Then when it came to the floor
last week, all 100 Senators basically consented to bring this
legislation forward. So why is it that after so much bipartisan
cooperation and trying to work together to solve a real problem and
help the victims of human trafficking--particularly those 100,000
children trafficked for sex--how is it this legislation became a
political football to relitigate the Hyde amendment? Well,
unfortunately, we know the abortion lobby has been working very hard to
derail this legislation. Why? Because they care about these victims of
human trafficking? Absolutely not, because everyone knows the Hyde
amendment language contains an exception for rape and the health of the
mother. So under this act, these limitations on spending wouldn't have
anything to do with the services available to help those victims of
human trafficking.
I know that Members of the Senate on the Democratic side care deeply
about this issue. I know the ranking member, the former chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, cares deeply about this
issue. I believe all 12 Democratic cosponsors of this legislation care
deeply about this issue, and all Members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee--all 20 of us who voted in favor of the legislation--care
deeply about this issue. But there is one person who appears not to
care one bit about this issue, and that is the senior Senator from
Nevada, the Democratic leader. He apparently doesn't care at all about
the victims of human trafficking. If he did, then I think he would find
a way to work with us to pass this legislation.
Unfortunately, we are going to have a vote here at 11:00 which is
going to be very telling. I hold out some hope that our Democratic
colleagues who cosponsored this legislation or who previously voted for
legislation that includes this same type of language or the members of
the Judiciary Committee who voted to support this bill at the committee
markup will find a way to vote for cloture to allow us to progress to
final passage of this legislation.
There is going to be a very important choice. The choice is simply
between the victims or party and lobbyists and outside groups who are
trying to blow this piece of legislation up in order to relitigate the
settled law of the land for the last 40 years.
In fact, the Washington Post editorial yesterday I think stated the
issue very well. They said, at the conclusion of their editorial, ``the
question is whether the Senators who want to accomplish something can
overcome the advocacy groups and politicians who would rather use this
controversy as one more opportunity to raise funds and to sharpen
divisions.''
That is absolutely pathetic, that someone would use the plight of
these victims of human trafficking to raise funds and to drive
divisions between Americans.
So we will find out what the choice is and what Democrats choose.
Will they follow the lead of the Democratic leader who apparently does
not care about the consequences of this obstruction, and will they find
a way in their heart to do what they know is right? Because they voted
for this legislation previously, they have agreed to cosponsor it, and,
of course, as I said, they voted for previous language that is
identical to that contained in this bill.
I will quote from a Texas newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times,
which published an editorial with the headline ``Anti-Trafficking bill
is nothing to bicker about.'' That should be obvious, but
unfortunately, the obvious has to be said, apparently time and time
again.
The editorial closes with this line, which I find to be poignant. It
says:

This fight is supposed to be against human trafficking.
Distracting attention from that fight is shameful.

It is shameful.
Scripture reminds us that it does not profit a person to gain the
whole world and lose your soul, and I worry that the Senate is losing
its soul and its unique role as an institution where we can actually
work out our differences, we can have debate, and we can have votes,
and we can actually make some discernible progress forward on behalf of
the people we represent.
This is an important time of choosing for Members of the Senate. At
11 o'clock when we have this vote, we will need a handful of brave and
courageous Members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle who
will say to their leader: This is a bridge too far. We are not going to
march in lockstep with the leader and take what could be legislation
that will help these victims of human trafficking and turn it into a
failure.
This is a time for choosing. I know there are Senate Democrats who
care deeply about the victims of human trafficking. Unfortunately, not
everybody does, or else we would not be having this obstruction. So I
hope that our colleagues, in thinking about this vote today--or perhaps
during a sleepless moment last night as they were contemplating this
very important time of choosing--I hope that they will examine their
conscience and that they will reflect on the reason why they came to
the Senate in the first place. Was it to play these kinds of partisan
political games to advance the fundraising interests of the abortion
lobby or some other group who wants us to derail this legislation or to
relitigate issues that were settled 40 years ago? That is not the
reason why I believe the overwhelming number of the Senators came to
the Senate. They came here because they wanted to do something good,
something positive, something that would help the most vulnerable among
us.
We will have that opportunity here today with this vote at 11
o'clock. Shame on us if we cannot rise to the occasion, if we cannot
transcend this sort of partisan division and the tug at our sleeves by
the outside groups who want to derail this important piece of
legislation. Shame on us.
There is going to be a time of choosing. Everybody who votes will
make a record. That record will be part of their permanent legacy in
this body. History will reflect whom they chose in this fight--the
100,000 children who are trafficked for sex in America who might
benefit from this legislation or the abortion lobby that wants us to
relitigate this issue based on language that every single Democrat has
voted for in one fashion or another time and time again.
This is a phony fight and a phony issue. We ought to do what is
right. We ought to pass this legislation as soon as possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I hope we will do what is right, but I hope
we will step back from either partisan name-calling or ascribing
motives to people. Even though my dear friend from Texas voted against
the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, I am never going to say
he is for violence against women or for human trafficking, even though
that bill had the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act as
an amendment in it.
While he and the distinguished majority leader, Senator McConnell,
Senator Hatch, Senator Grassley, and others voted against the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act, I would not ascribe to them a motive
that they believe in violence against women or in human trafficking.
Even though that legislation had a strong anti-human trafficking
amendment in it, I do not ascribe their vote against the bill as
admitting they are for violence against women or human trafficking.
One of the lessons that I have learned in my time as a Senator is
that if you listen to the people you serve, really listen to them, you
will almost always do the right thing. This morning, as

[[Page S1563]]

some Senators are trying to shut off debate and end our efforts to
provide a comprehensive, victim-centered response to the horrible crime
of human trafficking, I ask that we stop and listen. Listen to the
voices of the survivors. What they are saying is clear: Stop playing
politics with our lives.
Holly Austin Smith, a survivor, a girl who ran away at the age of 14,
who was bought and sold for sex, put it this way:

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.

We ought to stand with these survivors and put aside our agendas. The
survivors are asking us to vote against this bill because it includes
unnecessary and destructive, partisan language.
A letter signed by the Alliance To End Slavery & Trafficking,
Rights4Girls, Shared Hope International, and nearly 100 other anti-
trafficking groups says this:

We urge all members of the Senate to turn away from this
divisive debate and find a bipartisan approach to this new
initiative to protect and serve the needs of survivors.

Two years ago the Senate came together and passed an expansive new
authorization of the Violence Against Women Act. I realize some in this
body who now say we must vote for this bill voted against the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act. But I worked for months with the
remarkable people of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic
Violence, a coalition of thousands of organizations representing
millions of victims of domestic and sexual violence.
They spent hours upon hours explaining what we needed to do to ensure
that we protected all victims--and we listened. Together, we crafted a
bill that responded to those needs. I trust these advocates. They have
dedicated their lives to making sure survivors have a voice.
And here is what they are telling us:

We write today to express our deep concern about the
controversy of inserting the Hyde provision into the Justice
for Victims of Trafficking Act. The House passed a version of
that Act that did not include this new Hyde provision and we
ask the Senate to do the same.

They are right. The highly partisan House passed a version of the
very bill we are debating today that does not contain this unnecessary
and destructive provision. That deeply divided body came together and
they passed this bill with a unanimous vote just a few weeks ago,
without this divisive language that Senator Cornyn has insisted be in
the Senate bill. I am confident that if we did the same, we could also
pass it easily.
I want to make clear to everyone who is paying attention to this
vote, the partisan provision embedded in the Senate version of this
bill is not something the survivors of human trafficking are asking
for. It is not something the experts in the field who work with them
every day are asking for. In fact, those who are closest to the damage
wreaked by this terrible crime are asking us to take the provision out.
We are not talking about taxpayer money; we are talking about money
collected from the various offenders who have already controlled too
much of the lives of these women and girls. These survivors deserve
more options, not fewer. It is in response to the request of these
human trafficking survivors that I am opposing cloture on this version
of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. I support the rest of
this 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. These children
are exceptionally vulnerable to human traffickers and we must not turn
our backs on them.
If we are serious about helping to end this heinous crime, we must
stop playing politics and start listening. Let's listen to the people
who suffer from the trafficking. Let's listen to the victims. Let's
listen to the experts who have always stood with us on this. They say:
Take this provision out. Let's do so. The Republican-controlled House
came together and they passed the House version of this legislation
unanimously without this divisive language. Shouldn't we do the same
thing? This is not a question of whether you are for or against
trafficking. I do not think there is anybody who is for it. Those who,
like me, actually prosecuted these cases know how important it is. So
listen to the victims. They say: Take out this language and let's move
forward. I will vote no on cloture so that we can move forward and
return to the bipartisan path that we have always walked on this issue.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor with a simple message
for our Republican colleagues: Enough is enough. The bill we are
debating today, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, should
without question be bipartisan because the bill about combating
trafficking is no place for politics. That means it is no place for
harmful, partisan measures that restrict women's respective health
options. So it is deeply disappointing that over the last week,
Republicans have insisted on including such a provision in this Justice
for Victims of Trafficking Act. Then, instead of working with us to
take this provision out, get this bill done, and move on to other
important work, they have dug in their heels.
Democrats want to work with Republicans on this legislation and get
it back on track. We put forward a substitute that takes out the
politics and focuses on what matters in this debate, which is helping
the survivors of trafficking get the justice they deserve. It would be
shocking if Senate Republicans refused to support this alternative just
because it does not include an expansion of the so-called Hyde
amendment that restricts women's access to health services--especially,
by the way, since the House has already passed this bill without this
harmful women's health provision, just as the Senate did last year. So
we know Republicans can support an antitrafficking bill that does not
hurt women. There is no reason why we should not be able to shift this
back to something that both sides can support.
What makes all of this even worse is that the majority leader is now
insisting on even more gridlock and dysfunction. He has said that in
efforts to continue a political attack on women's health, he will not
only hold up the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act but also the
confirmation of a highly qualified nominee for Attorney General. That
is indefensible. Loretta Lynch deserves a vote. She has been waiting
longer than any of the last five nominees for Attorney General. She has
been confirmed by the Senate twice already for her position for
previous roles. She deserves to be able to get to work.
The majority leader has said the Senate will not move to her
nomination until we finish the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
I would like to note that we voted last night on two other nominations,
so it seems pretty absurd to say that we cannot work on both at the
same time.
The bottom line is that Senate Republican have a choice today--
politics as usual or working with us to get this done. They can
continue to hold up important work, to draw out a political fight we
have had again and again, or they can work with us to get our nominee
for Attorney General on the job, pass the Justice for Victims of
Trafficking Act, and move on to tackle the many other challenges our
country faces today. I really hope they will choose to work with
Democrats, fight human trafficking, and help women across the country.
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. CORNYN. 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.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the

[[Page S1564]]

Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a
close debate on the committee-reported substitute amendment
to S. 178, a bill to provide justice for the victims of
trafficking.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Shelley Moore Capito, Steve
Daines, Roger F. Wicker, James Lankford, Deb Fischer,
Tom Cotton, Ron Johnson, Richard Burr, Daniel Coats,
Roy Blunt, Chuck Grassley, Tim Scott, Pat Roberts, Bill
Cassidy, Jerry Moran.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
committee-reported substitute amendment to S. 178, a bill to provide
justice for the victims of human trafficking, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

YEAS--55

Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker

NAYS--43

Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--2

Cloture Motion

Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 178, a bill
to provide justice for the victims of trafficking.
Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Shelley Moore Capito, Steve
Daines, Roger F. Wicker, James Lankford, Deb Fischer,
Tom Cotton, Ron Johnson, Richard Burr, Daniel Coats,
Roy Blunt, Chuck Grassley, Tim Scott, Pat Roberts, Bill
Cassidy, Jerry Moran.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on S. 178,
a bill to provide justice for the victims of trafficking, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 55, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

YEAS--55

NAYS--43

NOT VOTING--2

Cruz
Graham
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are
43.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The Senate majority leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning was a sad day for the Senate,
when a straightforward bill designed to help the 100,000 or so children
who are sex trafficked in America goes down because of the advocacy of
a group that wants to turn this into an abortion debate and to change
the settled law of the last 39 years.
As I said before the vote, I really feel as if this is a time when
the very soul of the Senate is being tested. Are we going actually to
break out of these shackles that we seem to be bound by, which say that
we are going to turn every issue--no matter how sensitive or how much
good could be done--into a political issue that divides us? I would
have thought of all the topics where there would be bipartisan
consensus, it would be combating the crime of human trafficking.
Indeed, everything that went on before today seemed to give me hope
that we would be able to do that. For example, there is the fact that
there were 12 Democratic cosponsors of the underlying legislation. In
the Senate Judiciary Committee, there were 20 votes, a unanimous vote
including 9 Democrats, in favor of the bill in committee, and it came
to the floor of the Senate.
As the Presiding Officer knows, ordinarily we would have to jump
through some procedural hoops. But thanks to the consent of 100
Senators, we did not have to do that so we could get on the bill and
begin the open amendment process without having to jump through those
hoops. At least that is what I thought. Then somehow, somewhere,
somebody decided they wanted to pick a fight on something that has been
the settled law for 39 years; and that is the Hyde amendment.
The Hyde amendment basically says that no taxpayer funds can be used
to fund abortion except in the case of rape and in the case of the
health of the mother being in jeopardy, as certified by a physician. So
one might wonder why people want to fight over the Hyde amendment when
the Hyde amendment itself has an exception for sexual assault, which
obviously would be the major concern on behalf of any of these victims
of human trafficking. That is why this has been called a phantom issue.
I would use another word. I would say it is a phony issue. It is a fake
fight in order to derail legislation which would demonstrate that we,
on a bipartisan basis, can work together and try to solve a real
problem and make progress.
I suspect the Presiding Officer had the same experience I did during
this last election. Back in Texas, people would say: Can't you guys and
gals get anything done in Washington, DC? Why is it so broken and so
dysfunctional? Why can't you find common cause on something and make
some progress and

[[Page S1565]]

deal with real problems that confront the people of Texas or the people
of Oklahoma or the people of the United States of America?
Now, that doesn't mean we come up here and leave our principles
behind. It is just the opposite. I am not suggesting for a minute, in
the interest of compromise, that we leave our principles behind, but
there is a lot we can do, consistent with our principles, to help pass
legislation which will have a very positive impact on the American
people.
The President mentioned issues such as trade as something we can work
on together. But little did I imagine that the powers that be would
pick on an anti-human trafficking bill in order to try to divide the
Senate--in order to peel off the 12 Democratic cosponsors who didn't
even vote. Many of them didn't even vote for the bill.
In other words, they were for the bill--enough to cosponsor it--and
then this morning they did not vote to see the bill progress to final
passage. I don't know how they can explain that or, frankly, how they
can reconcile that in their own conscience, recognizing that this
legislation was designed to help vulnerable children, by and large, who
are victims of what we call modern day slavery--sexual, economic
bondage.
This legislation was designed not only to rescue them but to help
them heal and begin a path toward a better, more productive life. That
is why this morning I said I really felt this was a vote for the soul
of the Senate.
I cannot imagine any Senator who does everything they have to do to
be elected to get to serve here--the hardship for your family, raising
money, and all the stuff you have to do to get here--and then to
squander it by refusing to take a step to help the most vulnerable
people who exist in our country. It is just beyond my imagination.
But I am afraid this is more than about a piece of legislation. There
is an idea here in the Democratic leadership that they really don't
want the Senate to be able to function. They don't really want us to be
able to pass legislation or solve problems. What they want to do is to
have the talking point that after the last election nothing has really
changed in the Senate--that it is just as dysfunctional as it was when
they were in charge.
I am happy to say I am optimistic--despite this morning's vote--that
we will begin to make some progress as soon as next week, when we will,
I think, take the first step to pass a budget. It will be the first
time a budget has been passed since 2009.
I am grateful to the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for
saying that we are going to come back and vote again and again and
again on this human trafficking bill until it passes. He is not going
to schedule the nomination confirmation vote on the next Attorney
General until such time as we get this passed.
Unfortunately, that is what this place has degenerated into--
everybody looking for leverage to try to get a little bit more of what
they want, and in the process, the very people we are supposed to be
trying to work for and trying to help get lost.
I am very disappointed. This is not why I came to the Senate. This is
not the kind of Senate I want to serve in. This is not what my
constituents--the 26.9 million people I work for in Texas--sent me here
to do. They expect more of us. They deserve more of us. I hope, now
that this initial vote has been cast--thank goodness for the four
Democrats who broke ranks with their leadership on that side of the
aisle and decided to vote to advance this legislation, but we still
need two more. We still need two more brave Democratic Senators who are
going to defy their leadership and not simply follow them off the
cliff.

This is what, from a practical political standpoint, I don't
understand. One reason why Republicans are in the majority now is
because, frankly, the President's policies were repudiated in the last
election and the people who ran for reelection as incumbent Senators
didn't have a record of accomplishment they could point to. So what
they were left with was a referendum on the President's record which
they followed down the line, and they had nothing else they could point
to that they actually had done on the Senate floor because the Senate
had been locked down and no amendments, no good ideas, no votes
occurred. We literally had a U.S. Senator from Alaska, for example, who
was running for reelection after serving in the Senate for 6 years who
could not point to a single bill or amendment that bore his name that
had been passed. So when people wondered, What are the issues in this
election, they were left with the President of the United States
saying: My policies are on the ballot, even though my name is not. Then
we had the incumbent U.S. Senator with no record of accomplishments
separate and apart from that referendum on the President's policies,
and that referendum--the President's policies--lost and the people who
enabled them and supported them.
Frankly, I really don't understand the calculation of our colleagues
on the other side who have now slavishly voted according to the
dictates of their party leadership and said no to the victims of human
trafficking who would have benefited from that legislation. I don't
know how they reconcile that in their minds. I don't know whether they
have had sleepless nights worrying about it or whether their hearts
have become so hardened, whether they have become so accustomed to this
sort of mindless partisanship that they don't even think about it
anymore.
Thanks to the majority leader, we are going to have another
opportunity for them to rectify their ``no'' vote. All we need is two
additional Senators who will vote to progress this legislation given
the next opportunity. So I hope our colleagues will reconsider.

____________________