[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the quorum call be rescinded.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

     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 majority leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.


                             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

     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

     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.

                          ____________________