[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 47 (Thursday, March 19, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Page S1638]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in a few hours, the Senate will vote for a 
third time on whether to end debate on human trafficking. The result 
will be the same the third time as it was the second time and the first 
time, which indicates to me that this week was a waste of time.
  I indicated that the vote will fail, and it will fail because the 
debate is such that this is an important issue. We are determined to 
fix this bill, and we will fix it by removing the unrelated abortion 
provision from the pages of this legislation. I hope we can do that 
soon.
  My friend the majority leader referenced reports that Democratic 
staffers should have--it should not have been plural--a Democratic 
staff member knew about the abortion provision prior to the legislation 
coming to the floor. Perhaps that is true, but I don't really know how 
the abortion language got in the bill for sure. I think I know. But it 
got in the bill. I think I know who put it in there, but it really 
doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is it is in the bill, and I am 
more concerned about getting the bill out.
  We have had some columnists make fun about the fact that we should 
have read the bill more closely. I will not go into a lot of detail, 
but page 4 of the original bill--the section to which a lot of people 
love to point--was eliminated. If you look at it, it is crossed out.
  If you go to page 50 or 51, it is stuck back in that part of the 
bill, and this is where the controversy gets pretty interesting. A 
Republican Senator who was responsible for this bill in the committee 
sent out a notice to all Senators, including Democrats, saying that we 
made some changes in the bill that passed last year--one, two, three, 
four, five, six changes that were made. The problem is he didn't 
indicate that they put the abortion language back in. It was really 
misleading, as was indicated on the floor yesterday by Senator 
Feinstein.
  We can go into why the language is in the bill. I have indicated I 
think I know who put it in and why they put it in. But they did put it 
in the bill. It is in the bill. We can have all of these accusations 
about paper trails and why it is in the bill, but it is in the bill, 
and it needs to come out.
  Remember, Speaker Boehner, who has good qualifications for being the 
protector of abortion rights, as seen by the Republicans, was able to 
pass a version of this legislation without the abortion language. No 
one can question Boehner's qualifications for being anti-abortion. If 
they passed it in the House, why can't we do the same thing here?
  Were the House Republicans wrong to pass the bill? I don't think so.
  So before we embark upon a third iteration of the vote today, which 
is going to fail, I ask the Republican leadership: Are you interested 
in working toward a solution on this human trafficking legislation? If 
so, take this language out.
  My friend the Republican leader was talking about leftwing lobbyists. 
The leftwing lobbyists are women, who--as indicated on the floor 
yesterday by Senator Feinstein--are concerned about protecting their 
bodies and reproductive rights. They are interested in protecting 
themselves, as they should be, and they are protecting women all over 
America.
  So are they only interested in scoring political points by forcing 
these show votes or are they interested in reaching a solution? If they 
are interested in a solution, we are willing to work with them, but the 
abortion language is going to come out of this legislation.
  For the first time in the history of our country, we are now focused 
on not doing what has been done with the Hyde amendment for 30 years, 
and that is making sure there are no government taxpayer dollars spent 
for performing abortions. Now they have moved beyond that to private 
funding. It is wrong and we are not going to go there.
  Would the Chair announce the business of the day.

                          ____________________