[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17715-17716]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the following letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 2010.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McConnell: I am requesting that I be consulted 
     before the Senate enters into any unanimous consent 
     agreements or time limitations regarding S. 2925, Domestic 
     Minor Sex Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 
     2010.
       I support the goals of this legislation and believe 
     slavery, in any form, is morally reprehensible. Sex 
     trafficking is a global epidemic, and we should endeavor to 
     eliminate this industry, especially due to its effects on 
     minors who are victims of this practice. However, I believe 
     we can and must do so in a fiscally responsible manner that 
     upholds the Constitution. My concerns are included in, but 
     not limited to, those outlined in this letter.
       While the Judiciary Committee considered and amended this 
     bill in its Executive Business Meeting, making some positive 
     changes, I still have several concerns with the committee-
     reported language. First, although the new grant program 
     created by this legislation will be inserted into existing 
     trafficking law, the bill extends the current

[[Page 17716]]

     funding authorization period. The Trafficking Victims 
     Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) established 
     the current law regarding trafficking, but its funding 
     authorizations expire in 2011. However, in combining this 
     bill's new grant program with existing TVPRA grants, it also 
     extends the grant's authorization through 2014. Thus, the 
     bill authorizes new spending of $15 million per year from 
     2012-2014, totaling $45 million that is not offset by 
     reductions in real spending elsewhere in the federal 
     government.
       It is irresponsible for Congress to jeopardize the future 
     standard of living of our children by borrowing from future 
     generations. The U.S. national debt is now over $13 trillion. 
     That means over $43,000 in debt for each man, woman and child 
     in the United States. A year ago, the national debt was $10.2 
     trillion. Despite pledges to control spending, Washington 
     added $4.6 billion to the national debt every single day last 
     year--that is $3.2 million every single minute.
       Second, the Sex Trafficking Block Grants in S. 2925 go 
     beyond the responsibility of the federal government by 
     allowing grantees to use grant money for activities that are 
     rightly the responsibility of individual states. The grants 
     may be used to provide clothing, daily necessities, 
     counseling and legal services to trafficking victims. They 
     may also be used to provide training for state and local law 
     enforcement officers and social service providers. Finally, 
     the grants may be used to fund salaries for state and local 
     law enforcement officers and prosecutors, as well as 
     investigation expenses for minor sex trafficking cases 
     prosecuted by the state. All of these expenses can and should 
     be provided by the states, not the federal government.
       I agree the problem of sex trafficking, particularly when 
     the victims are children, is an important issue both state 
     and federal governments should address. As ranking member of 
     the Human Rights and the Law Subcommittee, I have seen the 
     effects of the sex trade industry both internationally and 
     domestically. As it pertains to domestic child sex 
     trafficking victims, however, I believe the federal 
     government should not be the primary provider of services for 
     these victims.
       Most cases involving child sex trafficking are prosecuted 
     at the state level, while the federal government typically 
     only joins cases involving large sex trafficking rings that 
     often include other federal criminal activity. As a result, I 
     have concerns that this legislation places too great of a 
     burden on the federal government to provide funding for 
     trafficking victims' services. In addition, the bill allows 
     grant funds to be used in many ways beyond basic services 
     that I believe both detract from the goal of assisting 
     victims and duplicates funding already provided by other 
     federal grant programs.
       Third, only 50% of the grant funds are required to go 
     toward actual victims' services. The other 50% can be used 
     for salaries for state law enforcement officers and 
     prosecutors, as well as state trial and investigation 
     expenses. While I do not support the federal funding of food, 
     clothing and other daily necessities for these victims, by 
     refusing to require a higher percentage of the grant to go 
     toward these types of direct victims' services, the bill does 
     not fulfill its goal.
       Finally, while I was encouraged by some of the compromise 
     language that was included in the bill the Judiciary 
     Committee ultimately passed, such as inserting the bill's 
     grant program into an existing federal program to avoid some 
     of the overlap and direct duplication it initially created, 
     there remain several broad Justice Department grant programs 
     that can be used for the purposes outlined in this bill's 
     grant program. All of the Edward Byrne Grant programs, 
     including the Discretionary Grants or earmarks, the Community 
     Oriented Policing Service (COPS) grants and multiple juvenile 
     justice grants offered through the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) contain broad language 
     that would allow these grants to be used for the purposes 
     outlined in S. 2925.
       While there is no question that the sex trafficking 
     industry has lifelong, horrific effects on its victims, 
     particularly minors, both federal and state governments bear 
     the burden of addressing this issue. It is the states who 
     should provide funding for the permissible purposes under 
     this bill's grant program, as it is state and local agencies 
     which have the responsibility to carry out these services. 
     Furthermore, the federal government already provides funding 
     to address trafficking issues, and grant programs are 
     available to state and local governments that can be used to 
     help sex trafficking victims. Congress should, like many 
     American individuals and companies do with their own 
     resources, evaluate current programs, determine any needs 
     that may exist and prioritize those needs for funding by 
     cutting from the federal budget programs fraught with waste, 
     fraud, abuse and duplication.
           Sincerely,
                                              Tom A. Coburn, M.D.,
     U.S. Senator.

                          ____________________