[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3369-3381]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2015--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a serious crime 
and a violation of human rights that must be stopped--human 
trafficking. It is a form of modern-day slavery, people profiting from 
the control and exploitation of others.
  I rise as a doc, a fellow who has practiced in the public hospital 
system for 32 years, understanding the unique role nurses, physicians, 
and other health care providers play in this issue.
  Health care providers are frontline and one of the few to interact 
directly with trafficked women and children. A recent survey published 
in the Annals of Health Law reports that 28 percent of trafficked women 
sought a health care professional while being held captive.
  Now, this does not mean that the nurse, the doctor or other health 
care provider had the training to recognize it, but because of the 
unique and critical involvement with these victims, it is important 
these health care providers do have the tested tools and training to 
identify and help those being trafficked.
  The Trafficking Awareness Training for Health Care amendment would 
save lives and, as importantly, would begin the rebuilding of lives 
destroyed by modern-day slavery. It would provide for the development 
of best practices to enable health care workers to recognize and assist 
victims of human trafficking.
  It is proven that many trafficking victims report receiving health 
care from federally funded clinics and emergency rooms while in 
captivity yet, as I mentioned earlier, they go undetected. This 
legislation would improve the awareness of health care workers, 
ultimately helping these victims.
  Senator Tim Kaine recently spoke about a missive that Pope Francis 
gave on Ash Wednesday, calling for us to be ``islands of mercy in a sea 
of indifference.'' The ethic of nurses, physicians, and other health 
care workers is to be that merciful creature. This would give them the 
training to better enable them to be that ``island'' in what for that 
woman or child caught in captivity must seem a ``sea of indifference.''
  Having passed the House by unanimous consent, this amendment 
represents a bipartisan effort that will enable the medical community 
to bring relief to those suffering in ways that those of us who have 
never been there cannot imagine.
  Senator Peters is joining me in this bipartisan effort. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment and help transform victims of 
trafficking into survivors and people who blossom.
  I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore.


         Authorizing The Use Of Force Against The Islamic State

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most 
critical national security challenges facing

[[Page 3370]]

the Senate: specifically, how we should craft an authorization for the 
use of military force against the terrorist organization known as the 
Islamic State.
  I have spoken before on the floor about what I believe the outline of 
an authorization should contain. Now that the President has released 
his proposal--and with Secretary Kerry, Secretary Carter, and General 
Dempsey slated to testify tomorrow on behalf of this proposal--I feel 
compelled to address this topic in greater detail.
  Before delving into the specifics of the administration's proposed 
authorization, we should consider how this institution has grappled 
with these vital questions throughout our Nation's history. Dating back 
to 1798, Congress has on several occasions enacted legislation short of 
a formal declaration of war authorizing the use of military force by 
the President. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Congress 
authorized U.S. naval action against both state and non-state actors 
who attacked U.S. commercial vessels. More recent authorizations 
formally passed by the Congress include those intended to protect the 
Middle East, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia from communist aggression in 
the 1950s and 1960s. And since the end of the Cold War, we have passed 
authorizations concerning Lebanon, the September 11 attacks, and Iraq--
all in 1991 and in 2002.
  I voted for those latter four authorizations here in this Chamber. 
Each case was unique, but in every case the White House did not send 
the Congress ``take it or leave it'' language. Rather, the Senate and 
the House fashioned text that represented a negotiated outcome with the 
White House and within Congress.
  For example, Presidents Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush worked 
closely with Congress to obtain strong authorizations for the use of 
military force, despite Democrats controlling both Chambers. President 
George W. Bush twice did the same with a Democrat-led Senate. This 
approach yielded concrete benefits--a more thoughtful debate and 
strategy around our use of force, greater unity in supporting our 
military, and congressional willingness to fulfill our constitutional 
responsibilities.
  Historically, the Senate has fulfilled its role as a place of 
intelligent, informed debate in moving authorizations for use of 
military force. We must do so again as we consider this authorization 
to combat the Islamic State. Thirteen years ago, as the Senate began to 
deliberate over an authorization to rid Iraq of its violent dictator, I 
said: We all must leave our political party affiliations at the door 
when it comes to our national security and supporting our troops in the 
field.
  It is time for Congress to come together, to hold a public debate, 
and to craft the right authorization to defeat the Islamic State.
  Turning to the proposed authorization before us today, I agree with 
the legal interpretation offered by the Obama administration that the 
executive branch has the power to conduct operations against the 
Islamic State under article II of the Constitution and the existing 
authorizations from 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, the administration 
has undermined the credibility of its own proposal by continuously 
changing its position as to how the 2001 and 2002 authorizations should 
be employed. Therefore, in order to settle any legal questions about 
the power to use force against the Islamic State--and to demonstrate 
America's resolve in this fight against terror--I firmly believe that a 
new authorization should be enacted.
  Accordingly, the senior Senator from Oklahoma and I discussed in this 
Chamber last month three principles that we believe should be included 
in a new authorization for the use of military force against the 
Islamic State.
  First, the authorization must clearly articulate that the executive 
branch is authorized to use force--employed in accordance with the law 
of war--against the Islamic State.
  Second, the authorization must be flexible enough to be used against 
the Islamic State as it appears today but also in whatever form the 
Islamic State transforms into in the future. This flexibility must 
include the authority to use force against organizations that associate 
with or support the Islamic State.
  Finally, and most importantly, the authorization must not impose any 
artificial and unnecessary limitations, such as those based on time, 
geography, and type of force, which could interfere with our strategic 
objective of defeating the Islamic State.
  Unfortunately, the President's draft authorization does not fully 
adhere to these principles.
  First, the President's proposal ``does not authorize the use of the 
United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground operations.'' 
Obviously, this is an unwise artificial limitation on what type of 
forces we can employ. But the President's proposed operative text 
offers little to define what this restriction entails. Therefore, my 
initial reaction, one that is widely shared, is: What does this 
restriction mean?
  To be fair, the President's introductory letter that accompanied his 
draft does provide some insight into the administration's 
interpretation of this phrase. Specifically, the President argues that 
the authorization would provide him with the power to conduct rescue 
operations, to provide advice and assistance to partner forces, and to 
deploy the use of Special Forces in missions against the Islamic 
State's leadership, intelligence collection, and targeting missions.
  But in laying out his vision, the President's proposal also tells our 
enemies what he is not prepared to do. Knowing these limitations would 
provide the Islamic State with a critical advantage: The terrorists 
would exploit this information in crafting their strategies. Why would 
we telegraph our strategy to our enemies?
  The President's proposed legal limitations will also limit our 
ability to adjust our strategy as needed based on the military 
situation on the ground. For example, when our counterterrorism 
strategy in Iraq faltered during the mid 2000s, we changed it and we 
adopted a new counterinsurgency strategy commonly called the surge. As 
we all know, the surge was a great success.
  Therefore, ensuring any authorization has the flexibility to allow 
our forces to change and adapt their strategies and tactics is 
essential. Imposing the President's proposed artificial and 
unnecessary, yet legally binding, restrictions on our forces would be a 
colossal mistake.
  Indeed, General Jack Keane, who devised the principles of the surge, 
recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee about his 
own proposal as to how to conduct operations against the Islamic State. 
In his testimony, the general did advocate using Special Forces in a 
similar manner to what the President discussed in his letter 
accompanying his proposal. But the general went further. He stated that 
the United States and our coalition partners should position combat 
brigades in Kuwait if our current operation ``stalls or is defeated.''
  Obviously, the use of combat brigades would be prohibited under the 
President's proposal. Therefore, if the President's limited operations 
are not successful and additional ground forces are required, adopting 
the President's proposal would create significant uncertainty.
  This raises the question: Would Congress need to debate and pass yet 
another authorization before those units could be used in combat? On 
its face, this would be completely impractical and hardly in our 
national security interest.
  Another area in which the President's proposal does not provide 
sufficient flexibility is its 3-year time limitation. Simply put, if we 
advertise when the authorization expires at an arbitrary date and time, 
will our enemies not hunker down and wait for that date?
  Secretary of State John Kerry stated in his previous testimony before 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the administration does not 
believe a new authorization should include a geographic limitation. To 
its credit, the President's proposal does not. Specifically, the 
Secretary argued: ``In our view, it would be a mistake to advertise to 
ISIL that there are safe havens for them outside of Iraq and Syria.''

[[Page 3371]]

  Undoubtedly, the Secretary was concerned about creating artificial 
limitations that could negatively affect our ability to conduct 
necessary military operations. He is right. But his concern should 
extend to the other artificial restrictions that appear in this 
proposal. How else can we read the prohibition of ``enduring offensive 
ground combat operations'' and a 3-year time limitation?
  In conclusion, we can do better. Our forces must have the flexibility 
to use, or the ability to threaten to use, whatever tools and 
strategies are necessary to defeat the Islamic State. When America 
enters into a fight, we should enter to win. And we should not just do 
this in a halfhearted, stupid way.
  So I hope the White House will reconsider some of the things that 
they have advocated and that they have set forth and get this thing 
done right so that if we are going to enter into warfare, we ought to 
know what we are doing and ought to have the tools and the legal 
legalities to be able to do it well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 178.
  Mr. REID. 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. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk continued with the call of the 
roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot reserve the right to 
object.
  Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I know the Presiding Officer has other 
places to be, and I am going to be presiding in the chair in a moment.
  I will not offer amendments because my understanding is that even 
though we are on the bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
don't want me to offer noncontroversial amendments. So I will wait 
until they are ready for that just to keep the peace on the floor, but 
I will talk about the amendments because they are incredibly important 
to the underlying legislation.
  We are talking about the human trafficking legislation. This is 
something that as cochair and cofounder of the Human Trafficking 
Caucus, as a father, and as someone who represents the citizens of 
Ohio, who are directly affected by this, I have a strong interest.
  I am delighted the Senate is taking up this legislation. I do hope it 
will be not just bipartisan but nonpartisan. I do not see any reason 
for it not to move forward in the Senate, changing some of these laws 
that are in desperate need of changing to ensure that this horrific 
practice of human trafficking and sex trafficking can be curbed. It can 
be minimized by legislation that this Chamber should have taken up, in 
my view, some time ago.
  We really haven't been at this subject for a decade. We know a lot 
more about the problem now. We know, unfortunately, that about 300,000 
of our youth are subject to human trafficking--about 1,000 in my home 
State of Ohio alone.
  The amendments I will offer--once someone on this side comes to the 
floor who will allow me to offer them--have to do with human 
trafficking in the broadest sense.
  The first amendment has to do with those people who are, 
unfortunately, trapped in sex trafficking being treated not as 
criminals but as victims and with ensuring that those victims get the 
proper care they need and the help to be able to get back on their 
feet. These are young people--we are told many times--who are between 
the ages of 11 and 13 when they are first exposed to human trafficking, 
in this case sex trafficking. In fact, that is the average age, we are 
told.
  Having talked to some of the victims at home, having talked to some 
of those who are in the trenches working, trying to help these young 
women, girls, young men, and boys, this legislation is badly needed to 
ensure we are looking at this--not again as a criminal matter but--as 
victims who deserve our support.
  Specifically, it requires that every State put together a plan to 
improve child protection services--containing, among other things, 
provisions and procedures requiring identification and assessments of 
all reports involving children known or to be suspected victims of sex 
trafficking--with better information and better data, a description of 
efforts to coordinate State law enforcement, child welfare agencies, 
and juvenile justice agencies such as runaway and homeless youth 
shelters to help serve these victims.
  Finally, this legislation calls for an annual State report on the 
number of children identified as known or suspected to be a victim of 
sex trafficking.
  The other amendment I am going to offer will be an amendment with 
regard to homeless children and youth. As has been discussed on this 
floor before, the HUD definition of homelessness practically excludes 
the most common situations for families and unaccompanied youths--and 
that would be staying in motels or temporarily with others because 
there is no place else for them to stay. Even if local communities 
identified these families or youth as having the most pressing unmet 
needs, communities can't use the HUD homeless assistance funds to serve 
them except in extremely limited or near-impossible conditions.
  This is related to human trafficking and also to sex trafficking in 
that, unfortunately, many of these young people involved in these 
situations--where they are homeless, where they are not on the street 
but are going from house to house or perhaps staying in a motel--are 
targeted by these traffickers.
  I believe these two amendments, which are not only bipartisan--and 
they are; I have support on both sides of the aisle--but are also 
nonpartisan and are ones that would be appropriate to include in the 
legislation.
  At the appropriate time I will offer those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. We need to confer for a couple of minutes.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 270

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 270.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 270.

  Mr. PORTMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: 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, and 
                          for other purposes)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     TITLE IV--BETTER RESPONSE FOR VICTIMS OF CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Ensuring a Better Response 
     for Victims of Child Sex Trafficking''.

     SEC. 402. CAPTA AMENDMENTS.

       (a) State Plans.--Section 106 of the Child Abuse Prevention 
     and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(2)(B)--

[[Page 3372]]

       (A) in clause (xxii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xxiv) provisions and procedures requiring identification 
     and assessment of all reports involving children known or 
     suspected to be victims of sex trafficking (as defined in 
     section 103(9)(B) of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act 
     of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7102(9)(B)); and
       ``(xxv) provisions and procedures for training child 
     protective services workers about identifying, assessing, and 
     providing comprehensive services for children who are sex 
     trafficking victims, including efforts to coordinate with 
     State law enforcement, juvenile justice, and social service 
     agencies such as runaway and homeless youth shelters to serve 
     this population;''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) The number of children determined to be victims 
     described in subsection (b)(2)(B)(xxiv).''.
       (b) Special Rule.--
       (1) In general.--Section 111 of the Child Abuse Prevention 
     and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106g) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Special Rule.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 3(2) and 
     subsection (a)(4), a child shall be considered a victim of 
     `child abuse and neglect' and of `sexual abuse' if the child 
     is identified, by a State or local agency employee of the 
     State or locality involved, as being a victim of sex 
     trafficking (as defined in paragraph (10) of section 103 of 
     the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 
     7102)) or a victim of severe forms of trafficking in persons 
     described in paragraph (9)(A) of that section.
       ``(2) State option.--Notwithstanding the definition of 
     `child' in section 3(1), a State may elect to define that 
     term for purposes of the application of paragraph (1) to 
     section 3(2) and subsection (a)(4) as a person who has not 
     attained the age of 24.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(2) of the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended 
     by inserting (``including sexual abuse as determined under 
     section 111)'' after ``sexual abuse or exploitation''.
       (3) Technical correction.--Paragraph (5)(C) of subsection 
     (a), as so designated, of section 111 of the Child Abuse 
     Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106g) is amended by 
     striking ``inhumane;'' and inserting ``inhumane.''.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is the amendment I spoke about a 
moment ago to ensure a better response for victims of child sex 
trafficking.


                           Amendment No. 271

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 271.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for the moment on this side there is an 
objection to setting aside the pending amendment. I have no objection 
to the pending amendment being there, but--I have been told there is no 
objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. To my colleague from Ohio, go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. I call up my amendment No. 271.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Portman] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 271.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To amend the definition of ``homeless person'' under the 
  McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to include certain homeless 
              children and youth, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. AMENDMENTS TO THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE 
                   ACT.

       The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 
     et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 103--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (5)(A)--

       (I) by striking ``are sharing'' and all that follows 
     through ``charitable organizations,'';
       (II) by striking ``14 days'' each place that term appears 
     and inserting ``30 days'';
       (III) in clause (i), by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (IV) by striking clause (ii); and
       (V) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (ii); and

       (ii) by amending paragraph (6) to read as follows:
       ``(6) unaccompanied youth and homeless families with 
     children and youth defined as homeless under other Federal 
     statutes who--
       ``(A) are certified as homeless by the director or designee 
     of a director of a program funded under any other Federal 
     statute; or
       ``(B) have been certified by a director or designee of a 
     director of a program funded under this Act or a director or 
     designee of a director of a public housing agency as lacking 
     a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, which 
     shall include--
       ``(i) temporarily sharing the housing of another person due 
     to loss of housing, economic hardship, or other similar 
     reason; or
       ``(ii) living in a room in a motel or hotel.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Other Definitions.--In this section--
       ``(1) the term `other Federal statute' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 401; and
       ``(2) the term `public housing agency' means an agency 
     described in section 3(b)(6) of the United States Housing Act 
     of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6)).'';
       (2) in section 401--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(C)--
       (i) by striking clause (iv); and
       (ii) by redesignating clauses (v), (vi), and (vii) as 
     clauses (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively;
       (B) in paragraph (7)--
       (i) by striking ``Federal statute other than this 
     subtitle'' and inserting ``other Federal statute''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``of'' before ``this Act'';
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (14) through (33) as 
     paragraphs (15) through (34), respectively; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (13) the following:
       ``(14) Other federal statute.--The term `other Federal 
     statute' includes--
       ``(A) the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (42 U.S.C. 5701 et 
     seq.);
       ``(B) the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.);
       ``(C) subtitle N of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 
     (42 U.S.C. 14043e et seq.);
       ``(D) section 330(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 254b(h));
       ``(E) section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 
     U.S.C. 1786);
       ``(F) the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et 
     seq.); and
       ``(G) subtitle B of title VII of this Act.'';
       (3) by inserting after section 408 the following:

     ``SEC. 409. AVAILABILITY OF HMIS REPORT.

       ``(a) In General.--The information provided to the 
     Secretary under section 402(f)(3) shall be made publically 
     available on the Internet website of the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development in aggregate, non-personally 
     identifying reports.
       ``(b) Required Data.--Each report made publically available 
     under subsection (a) shall be updated on at least an annual 
     basis and shall include--
       ``(1) a cumulative count of the number of individuals and 
     families experiencing homelessness;
       ``(2) a cumulative assessment of the patterns of assistance 
     provided under subtitles B and C of this title for the each 
     geographic area involved; and
       ``(3) a count of the number of individuals and families 
     experiencing homelessness that are documented through the 
     HMIS by each collaborative applicant.'';
       (4) in section 422--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Restriction.--In awarding grants under paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary may not consider or prioritize the specific 
     homeless populations intended to be served by the applicant 
     if the applicant demonstrates that the project--
       ``(A) would meet the priorities identified in the plan 
     submitted under section 427(b)(1)(B); and
       ``(B) is cost-effective in meeting the overall goals and 
     objectives identified in that plan.''; and
       (B) by striking subsection (j);
       (5) in section 424(d), by striking paragraph (5);
       (6) in section 427(b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A)--

       (I) in clause (vi), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (II) in clause (vii), by striking ``and'' at the end; and
       (III) by striking clause (viii);

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) in clause (iii), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (II) in clause (iv)(VI), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (III) by striking clause (v);

       (iii) in subparagraph (E), by adding ``and'' at the end;
       (iv) by striking subparagraph (F); and
       (v) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (F); 
     and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3); and
       (7) by amending section 433 to read as follows:

[[Page 3373]]



     ``SEC. 433. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     an annual report, which shall--
       ``(1) summarize the activities carried out under this 
     subtitle and set forth the findings, conclusions, and 
     recommendations of the Secretary as a result of the 
     activities; and
       ``(2) include, for the year preceding the date on which the 
     report is submitted--
       ``(A) data required to be made publically available in the 
     report under section 409; and
       ``(B) data on programs funded under any other Federal 
     statute.
       ``(b) Timing.--A report under subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted not later than 4 months after the end of each 
     fiscal year.''.

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, this is the homeless and youth amendment 
I spoke about a moment ago. I thank everyone for their indulgence. I am 
pleased to have these amendments offered, and we will have an 
opportunity to speak on these amendments and another amendment I plan 
to offer later.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  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. PORTMAN assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. PORTMAN. 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.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support to the 
underlying legislation we are considering on the floor today. This is 
the most significant antitrafficking legislation to come before the 
Senate in over a decade. As I said earlier when I offered a couple of 
amendments, I am very pleased to be in this body on a nonpartisan 
basis, not just a bipartisan basis, to be able to address this issue, 
and I would like to thank the Senators who have worked hard in their 
committees to make that possible. I thank Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar 
for their work. I see Senator Wyden is here, Senator Leahy is here, 
Senator Grassley is here, and others who have been involved with this. 
They and their staffs are to be commended. It has been a good process.
  It is an issue a lot of us care about. Why? Because it is one that 
affects our States and our constituents in very significant ways.
  Last year I cofounded and I now cochair the Caucus on Human 
Trafficking with Senator Blumenthal, and we have had a number of good 
meetings and conferences here on the Hill bringing experts together and 
raising awareness of this issue.
  Unfortunately, this horrible crime affects every single part of our 
country. In Ohio this came to my attention initially because in parts 
of Ohio, along the I-75 corridor, particularly in Toledo, there were 
higher incidences of prosecutions of human trafficking. A school group 
actually brought this to my attention several years ago. The more we 
looked into it, the more we realized that this affects so many of our 
constituents, and it particularly affects the most vulnerable in our 
society--children, runaways, the missing. In the greatest country on 
the face of the Earth, almost 300,000 of our American children are at 
risk of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, more than 1,000 
each year in Ohio alone.
  In 2000 I did support the last major bill that directly addressed 
this growing problem of human trafficking. It was called the 
Trafficking Victims Protection Act. And I supported the reauthorization 
in 2011. But since that time we have learned a lot more about the 
problem. We now know more about how to eradicate what is really a 
modern form of slavery. Our new legislation, which is called the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, builds on what we know 
works, and it strengthens protections for the victims.
  I would like to take a moment, if I could, to talk about two of the 
bills that are contained within this underlying legislation that are 
the product of a lot of bipartisan work that exemplifies some of the 
finest traditions of this body.
  The first is the Bringing Missing Children Home Act. The Bringing 
Missing Children Home Act is something I coauthored with Senator 
Schumer on the other side of the aisle, and we did it because we know 
there is unfortunately a strong correlation between victims of sex 
trafficking and children who have recently been in and out of the child 
welfare system. We also know that children who have run away or who are 
missing are the most vulnerable to being abused, trafficked, and 
exploited.
  In 2014 an FBI sting recovered 168 children who were victims of sex 
trafficking. Nearly each one of those children--nearly all of them had 
been involved in some kind of foster care or the child welfare system. 
Many of them had been reported missing--by the way, with insufficient 
information to find them.
  It is a strong correlation, and it is one that any effort to stop 
human trafficking must also address. That is what my legislation does. 
The Bringing Missing Children Home Act strengthens law enforcement 
reporting and response procedures, making it easier to communicate and 
work with child welfare agencies. It accomplishes this in a number of 
ways.
  First, it amends the current Missing Children's Assistance Act so 
that Federal law makes clear that children who are trafficked or 
sexually exploited are treated as victims and not as criminals. You 
will hear this in this debate, and this is one of the great underlying 
aspects of this legislation, we are changing the way we look at this, 
to understand that there is simply no such thing as a child prostitute.
  Second, this legislation requires law enforcement to update their 
records of missing children within 30 days with all the relevant 
information obtained during the initial investigation. This is very 
important because this new information will allow us to find these 
children more easily and more quickly, to avoid them falling into the 
trap of sexual trafficking and traffickers.
  Specifically, the bill requires new dental and medical records, as 
well as photograph, if available. For almost all of these children, 
there is a photograph available if you take the time to try to find it. 
I can't stress this last part enough. It is so hard to find these kids, 
and without having a photograph, it is made much more difficult. Yet in 
most instances we apparently don't.
  We tracked this in Ohio. Let me give an interesting statistic. Since 
January 1 of this year there have been 87 children reported missing in 
the State of Ohio--87 kids. We only have photographs for 21 of them, so 
for 66 of these young people we have no photographs. It is tough to 
find them when you don't know what they look like. This bill will help 
change that.
  Third, it requires law enforcement to work directly with State and 
local child welfare systems after someone is reported missing so that 
all the relevant information can be obtained as quickly as possible.
  Finally, it removes all the roadblocks that prevent State attorneys 
general from modifying records in the National Crime Information 
Center. We want these records to be updated constantly as new 
information is provided.
  To put it simply, we think it is a commonsense bill that streamlines 
how missing children cases are handled. It makes it easier to share 
information that could lead to recovery.
  The second bill I wish to talk about that is part of this underlying 
legislation is called the Combat Human Trafficking Act which I 
coauthored with Senator Feinstein. The Bringing Missing Children Home 
Act is about helping victims. This legislation, the Combat Human 
Trafficking Act, is about punishing the traffickers.
  We start by giving prosecutors expanded tools to put traffickers 
behind bars. Our legislation enlarges the number of charges Federal 
prosecutors can level against traffickers and those who conspire with 
them. It also makes those engaged in trafficking strictly liable for 
their crimes. We also expand the training available for our Federal law 
enforcement tasked with investigating and prosecuting traffickers, and 
we require that the Bureau of Justice Statistics prepare an annual 
report detailing our success in this fight.

[[Page 3374]]

  Just as importantly, this bill strengthens victims' rights by 
providing more information to victims on ongoing prosecutions, 
requiring them to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreements 
or prosecution agreements in cases in which they are involved.
  The legislation we are considering passed out of the committee 
unanimously for a reason. There are things that do divide us in this 
place. We talk about those a lot, and everybody reads and hears about 
them. But this is an exception. This is about bringing us together, in 
this case to protect our kids from human trafficking. Human traffickers 
and sexual trafficking are issues on which we should not have any 
divide. This is legislation both Republicans and Democrats can 
enthusiastically support.
  Earlier today I joined with some of my colleagues in introducing some 
amendments to the legislation because although I support the underlying 
bill--it is a good bill--it can be made even better, and I am looking 
forward to the debate. In the process, I hope we will raise awareness 
about the issue, raise consciousness about the issue not just among our 
colleagues and around Capitol Hill but around the country because 
ultimately, if we are going to solve this problem in our communities, 
everyone needs to be part of it, everyone needs to be vigilant, and 
everyone needs to understand that this happens in your community, it 
happens in your State, and it happens, unfortunately, in our country.
  If we can raise awareness about this wicked practice of human 
trafficking and sex trafficking, that would do a lot to try to curb it, 
to reduce it, and eventually to stop it. This is what we came to 
Washington to do--to pass legislation that actually helps back home. 
With this legislation, we can stand together to protect the most 
innocent among us from the most heinous of crimes.
  I thank you the Presiding Officer.
  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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks 
I am going to make now not be part of the remarks on the bill that is 
before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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, yesterday the Democratic leader, Senator 
Reid, told us that Democrats and Republicans could finally agree on one 
thing; that is, we ought to focus not on the partisan politics and the 
ideology that so often divides us, but we ought to focus on the victims 
of human trafficking, largely middle school-age girls who are bought 
and sold like commodities.
  I came to the floor yesterday and said that I believe we are all 
created in the image of God, and it is a sin, it is the very 
personification of evil for people to treat those same human beings as 
if they were things. That is what the scourge of human trafficking is 
all about.
  I was very glad to see that finally we seemed to be chipping away at 
the dysfunction of the Senate that we have experienced over the last 
few years and, in the new majority, given an opportunity for an open 
amendment process on a subject that we all agree needs to be dealt with 
that we could work on together. So imagine my surprise when earlier 
today the same Democratic leader said the Democrats were going to 
filibuster this anti-human trafficking legislation. Why in the world 
would they take a 180-degree turn? Why would they do such an about-face 
or flip-flop? Well, they said because there was language contained in 
the bill they disagreed with. No, they didn't say they would use this 
open amendment process to file an amendment and have a vote to strip it 
out or to modify it or otherwise change it; they said: We are going to 
block the bill; it is dead unless this language comes out. Yet they do 
nothing to try to effect that outcome.
  We might wonder what this language is that they are so upset about 
that they would literally kick the tens of thousands of children and 
other victims to the curb because of their outrage that this language 
is contained in this legislation. Well, imagine my surprise to find out 
that the reason why the Democratic minority is going to filibuster this 
antitrafficking bill is because they object to language that has been 
the law of the land for 39 years--39 years. So I guess they woke up 
this morning and thought, well, we better do something about it. What 
is the provision that causes them so much discomfort, that they are so 
upset about that they are willing to block this legislation? Well, it 
is something called the Hyde amendment. Basically what that does is it 
prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions.
  I realize that in America we are of different minds on the subject of 
abortion. I am proudly pro-life, but others in our Senate are pro-
choice, and we probably have a whole spectrum of views on this very 
personal issue. But we have had a bipartisan consensus--unanimity 
almost--for the last 39 years that whatever else the law is, as handed 
down by the Supreme Court or by Congress, we are not going to use 
taxpayer funds for abortion.
  So imagine my surprise when that very language and very reference was 
included in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act bill that now 
today I find out for the first time our Democratic friends object to.
  Imagine my surprise when that very language was part of the bill that 
was filed in mid-January and a month later was marked up and voted on 
in the Senate Judiciary Committee and all members of the Judiciary 
Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for it. They voted 
for it unanimously. Well, I don't believe that was a mistake. Our 
friends across the aisle have outstanding staff. They are very talented 
people. I don't always agree with them, but they are good at what they 
do. I don't believe for a minute that they would have missed a 
reference in this legislation to a restriction on funding taxpayer-
provided abortions, and I don't believe that those staff members, being 
the diligent professionals they are, didn't tell their principal, their 
member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So this idea that there has 
been some kind of ambush is preposterous. It is just not credible.
  Well, imagine my surprise when not only did we have a 15-to-0 vote, I 
believe it was--in other words, a unanimous vote of the Judiciary 
Committee--for this bill, we have Democratic cosponsors of this bill. 
Not only do they support the bill, they have been actively working with 
us on the legislation. Just looking at the face of the bill, I count 10 
Democratic cosponsors. Do you think they didn't read the bill before 
they put their names on it? Do you think their staffs didn't tell them 
what is in the bill?
  Well, as we all know, this sort of thing is ordinarily very hotly 
debated. There are no shrinking violets in the U.S. Senate, no people 
who sit passively on the sidelines and say: Well, I better not speak up 
and express my views. That doesn't happen. We have strong-willed, 
talented people on both sides of the aisle, and there are no shrinking 
violets. Let's just lay that to rest. People are willing to speak up, 
and they do speak up every day, every hour, virtually every minute on 
things they feel strongly about.
  So this idea that we have created an ambush, that we have surprised 
our colleagues by including this language in a bill that is on the 
floor, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act--

[[Page 3375]]

voted unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, all Republicans and 
all Democrats, with 10 Democratic cosponsors--that we have somehow 
surprised them by including this restriction on taxpayer-funded 
abortion that has been the law of the land for 39 years is patently 
ridiculous. It is just not believable.
  Let me provide a little more information. The reference in the bill 
is on page 50 under limitations. It says: ``Amounts in the Fund, or 
otherwise transferred from the Fund''--that is, the crime victims 
compensation fund created by this legislation, $30 million that goes to 
help treat victims and help them heal and get on with their lives--this 
bill says that this fund ``shall be subject to the limitations on the 
use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of 
division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 . . . to the 
same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under 
division H of such Act.''
  I went to see how many Democrats voted for that consolidated 
appropriations act in 2014 that contained the Hyde amendment language 
and the limitations on taxpayer-funded abortions. Imagine my surprise 
when I saw that 55 Democrats voted for that language in the 2014 
consolidated appropriations bill that is referred to on pages 50 and 51 
of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
  This is the same bill the Democratic leader said Democrats were going 
to filibuster because they were so outraged, they were surprised, they 
were bushwhacked, they were ambushed, they were tricked. Twenty-three 
Democrats voted for that same appropriation language in 2014.
  But it gets better--or worse, as the case may be. Democrats have 
supported legislation consistent with the Hyde amendment for a long 
time. As I have said, it has been the law of the land for 39 years. 
When was the last time? Well, the Department of Homeland Security 
funding. Remember this back-and-forth we had over the defunding of the 
President's Executive action on immigration that so many on our side of 
the aisle are upset about because it is not within the President's 
authority to do it--and that is not just my opinion; it is the Federal 
judge's in Brownsville who has issued a preliminary injunction--but how 
many Democrats voted for the Department of Homeland Security funding 
bill that contains that same limitation on taxpayer funding for 
abortions? Forty-five Democrats voted for it.
  So imagine my surprise when 45 Democrats recently voted for that 
appropriations bill to come to the Senate today and be told: We are 
outraged. We are never going to support that. And, by the way, we 
didn't know it was in the bill when we voted for it in the Judiciary 
Committee or when we cosponsored the bill.
  Well, they presumably knew about it when they voted for the 
Department of Homeland Security funding in February of 2015, when 32 of 
them voted for the CR omni or CRomni in December of 2014. And, oh, by 
the way, remember ObamaCare? Every single Democrat voted to support 
ObamaCare which contained the same restriction on taxpayer funding for 
abortions.
  They have also voted for the Children's Health Insurance Program, the 
so-called SCHIP, for Defense authorization bills. In other words, our 
Democratic friends have voted time and time and time again for the 
exact same language they now say they are going to filibuster on the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, language they said they weren't 
aware of when they voted for it--they didn't read it, their staff 
didn't tell them about it.
  Well, if that is true, I would get new staff. But I know the staff on 
the Democratic side, like the staff on the Republican side, are highly 
professional people and they wouldn't fail to identify offensive 
language that their Senator could not and would not and never has voted 
for, or they would be out of a job.
  So I plead with our Democratic friends, please don't make this 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act another political football. For 
heaven's sake, if we can't agree to protect the most vulnerable victims 
of this heinous crime, what can we ever agree on? If we can't agree on 
that, if we are going to try to find a way to flyspeck legislation and 
say, well, I won't allow this bill to go forward if that language is 
included in there--even though it has been the law of the land for 39 
years, even though routinely Democrats have voted for that restriction 
on taxpayer-funded abortion time and time and time again--why start 
now, when we are talking about the most vulnerable victims of this 
heinous crime, and say: Well, we are going to punish you. We are not 
going to provide you the services you need in order to heal and get 
better and get on with your life, because we woke up this morning, 
March 10, 2015, and after 39 years we decided this is where we draw the 
line. We are drawing the line here. Never again will we ever vote for 
the Hyde amendment to be applied to any funds appropriated by or in the 
possession of the Federal Government.
  So I really would ask my colleagues: Please reconsider. Please let's 
not do this. Don't do this to these children and these victims of 
trafficking. Don't do it to this institution.
  We all understand that Washington can be a pretty tough place. All of 
us are volunteers, and we understand politics can sometimes be a tough 
business. But let's not take it out on these victims of human 
trafficking. That should be beneath us. They don't deserve that. They 
deserve better.
  If we pass this legislation and we get it to the President's desk and 
he signs it--which I believe he will--hundreds, if not thousands, of 
victims of human trafficking have a safe place to sleep, they will have 
people who love them and care for them try to help them heal and get 
better. We will take the money from the people who perpetrate these 
crimes and we will use that money to help provide needed services to 
these children and other victims of human trafficking.
  We will say ``no more'' to the teenaged girl who is arrested for 
prostitution, because she is a victim of trafficking--we will tell her, 
no more are you a criminal. We will recognize her for the victim she 
is, and we will treat her appropriately.
  We will deal not only with the supply side of this terrible crime, we 
will deal with the demand side--people who get off the hook too easily 
with impunity, people who purchase these illicit services, and somehow 
always seem to avoid responsibility and continue to participate in this 
crime with impunity.
  So the domestic trafficking victims fund in our legislation 
supplements existing authorized grant programs that are already subject 
to appropriation laws such as the Hyde amendment. They are already 
subject to the same provisions. Our legislation clarifies that the Hyde 
amendment also applies to any funds that are used to supplement those 
existing grant programs. Our legislation does not in any way expand or 
change the scope of the Hyde amendment. It just says these funds 
operate under the same rules that cover the existing grant programs 
they supplement.
  Everyone agrees the programs we supplement in this legislation need 
more funds. I know the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from 
Vermont, has made an impassioned plea to add more money beyond the 
victims compensation fund that we created. He is saying there needs to 
be more money. As a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, I 
hope the Appropriations Committee looks at that and makes a decision 
whether they ought to supplement what we do. But these funds are being 
subjected to the same limitation on spending as every dollar the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has appropriated during the last 39 years.
  So my hope is this, that Members of the Senate will rise above this 
disagreement, this posturing, this attempt to try to play ``gotcha'' at 
the expense of these victims of human trafficking. No Member should 
attempt to make this bill a debate about extraneous issues and policies 
that have been settled on a bipartisan basis for 39 years.

[[Page 3376]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ayotte). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have listened very carefully to my good 
friend from Texas. We have worked together on many pieces of 
legislation over the years. In fact, I hoped we could have gotten this 
trafficking bill up during the last Congress, as he knows. 
Unfortunately, there were objections raised and we couldn't. I hope we 
are not going to get into a question where we compare apples and 
oranges and forget what we are supposed to be doing.
  The distinguished Senator says on the one hand during the debate on 
the Affordable Care Act, according to him--and I will take him at his 
word--that this language was in there and every Democrat voted for it--
which meant, of course, that every Republican voted against it. If you 
are going to use and follow his argument that the language in the 
Affordable Care Act was voted for by Democrats, it was voted against by 
Republicans.
  I am not suggesting they don't care about the Hyde amendment because 
they voted against it, according to the Senator from Texas. But let's 
talk about things that should be on appropriations bills.
  I am one of the few Members of either party in this body who has 
actually prosecuted child molesters. I am one of the few Members of 
this body who has actually gone to crime scenes and seen the results of 
child molestation. I am one of the few people in this body who has 
prosecuted a child molester, not with evidence from the child, but 
because the child was dead. The young boy had been raped by the man 
whom I prosecuted, and molested over a long period of time.
  So I don't need to have people tell me about the horrors of child 
molestation. I have seen it. I remember being in a room and looking at 
that dead child, the same age as one of my children. And I remember the 
man who did it who would have done anything to escape my prosecution, 
and I worked day and night around the clock for weeks. I was a young 
prosecutor in my twenties, and I prosecuted him and convicted him. He 
went up on appeal to the Supreme Court--our Supreme Court--and I argued 
that appeal myself, and his conviction was upheld.
  So I know the need for this. Let's not let political ``gotcha'' games 
stop us from legislation that might protect these people.
  The Senator from Texas suggests I want more money. That is not quite 
what I said. He said he wanted $30 million based on fines. I said I 
just want to guarantee that $30 million was there. I think again of 
that child molester, that child murderer. He was just one of the many 
cases I prosecuted. We could have fined him $1 million or $20 million 
or $1 billion--or $200--and he would not have been able to pay it and 
wouldn't have paid it. If the victim had lived, there would be no 
money.
  All I want to make sure of--and I would be happy to see--is that if 
there are fines collected, that they go to help victims as they should. 
But if no money is collected from fines, I want to make sure there is 
money. We will prosecute somebody who has been involved with child 
trafficking or child molestation. We will prosecute them, as we should. 
They will go to prison and we will spend $25,000 to $35,000 a year of 
taxpayer dollars to keep them in prison, and we should. But we will say 
to the victim: I am sorry; we fined him $100,000 to go to the victims' 
fund, but he is basically judgment proof. I just want you to know we 
had good intentions. If he had paid that $100,000 fine, we would have 
given it to you to help you. But, gosh, go in peace. Have a good life.
  All I am saying is this: If there is money from a fine, sure. The 
Senator from Texas and I agree that it should be put in the Fund. But 
if there are no funds, don't promise a $30 million pot of money that 
will never be filled if there are no fines, if there is no money in it. 
If there is money from fines, put the money from fines in, but where 
there is a difference between the amount that is in there and the $30 
million, then shouldn't we, as a country that spends trillions of 
dollars, give the difference between the fines and the actual $30 
million? Shouldn't we care about these victims? Shouldn't we care about 
the people who are victimized?
  Shouldn't we also do this: If we have the money in there, we could 
take increased steps to prevent victims from becoming victims in the 
first place. I would have given anything if there had been some 
program, some money, to have found out that this child I talked about 
was being victimized, and then we could have stopped it before the 
State's attorney got called in to look at the dead body. How much 
better it would have been if we could have stopped it to begin with.
  So all I am saying is this: I am happy to work with the senior 
Senator from Texas on this bill, just as I was last year. We had a bill 
without this provision, and I was hoping and trying to get consent to 
bring it up and pass it when we had a bill without this provision. It 
is important to note, though, that when it didn't have this provision 
last year, I wish we could have passed it. Now let's work on a bill 
that will pass. If you want to score political points, do it on 
something that doesn't involve vulnerable children. Let's work together 
to get a bill passed that helps them. And let's make sure that on the 
point I raised, that we address this at some point. If there is going 
to be $30 million worth of fines that go in there, I am all for it. My 
guess is that we would be lucky to get a small percentage of that.
  Back when this came up in the House of Representatives, they rejected 
this method of funding, and they called it budgetary gimmickry. 
Actually, what the House did in authorizing the bill--they did what 
they were supposed to do. They authorized actual funding so we could 
stand up for the victims of human trafficking, not just stand here 
trying to score political points.
  In other words, let's have the money. Let's make sure the money is 
there. This is like saying: If you commit a crime, we are going to fine 
you $100 million or $300 million or $1 billion. But if the person never 
had more than a net worth of $1,000, what difference does it make? Put 
real teeth in here. Stop the traffickers, and ensure there is money to 
help the victims. Have money to help the victims.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer was one of the senators who 
testified at the Judiciary Committee hearing on human trafficking last 
month. Other senators testified as well. Their testimony had people 
tearing people up. The distinguished Presiding Officer was attorney 
general for her State. She understands the reality of this, as I do and 
others do.
  It has been years since I was State's attorney, but, I say to my 
friend from Texas, I still wake up some nights from nightmares about 
the crime scenes I went to. I would wake up from them at night when we 
were debating the Violence Against Women Act, and I am glad that 
Republicans and Democrats joined together on that both here and in the 
other body so we could pass it. A victim is a victim is a victim, not a 
number, not a concept. Those of us who have spent time with victims and 
those of us who have been at crime scenes of victims understand this. 
Too often victims could no longer speak, could no longer testify. We 
would hear about them at their funeral.
  We can do better. So let's not talk about who scores points or who 
doesn't score points. There are good people who worked on this, good 
people in both parties. We are not going to be voting on something 
tonight, I imagine. Let's spend the time between now and tomorrow 
sitting down and trying to work out a way forward. Save the political 
points for something where the most vulnerable in society do not 
suffer. We can talk about what we will do on stock frauds or who gets 
taxed or what regulations we will have for corporations. There, raise 
your points. Make political points there. But for anyone who has seen 
these victims and anyone who has talked with these victims and anyone 
who has been with these victims, they know this is not the time for 
politics.
  Let's get together this evening or tomorrow. Let's work it out so we 
can

[[Page 3377]]

have something that will really protect victims, something that will 
have real funding to protect them--not something illusion, but real 
funding. And maybe if we can do that, I might have less nightmares 
about some of those victims I saw.
  My friend from Texas was a judge; he certainly saw those cases. The 
Presiding Officer was attorney general; she saw those cases. We have a 
number of former prosecutors on both sides here. Any one of us who has 
handled these cases has to remember every single aspect of them.
  I remember preparing for trial in these cases, having young children 
at home. I would work late in the office. I wouldn't bring the 
materials home at all because I didn't want my kids to see what I was 
looking at. I will admit there is another reason: I didn't want my 
children to see their father cry as I read these police investigations. 
These aren't statistics; these are real people. Let's work together.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Thank you, Madam President.
  I have an amendment at the desk which has been slightly modified from 
its original form, and I ask unanimous consent that it be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will object until I have had a chance 
to see the modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Madam President, I have now filed my slightly modified 
amendment--I will explain the modification in a minute--and it is at 
the desk.
  I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so my 
amendment can be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I object. Some Members on my side of the 
aisle have concerns about certain aspects of the Senator's amendment, 
so on their behalf, I object to setting aside the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I will explain and speak on this 
amendment even though it is not pending as we speak.
  I will also file an ongoing objection to anyone setting aside the 
pending amendment for another or for any votes being scheduled until 
this matter can be worked out.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, the amendment I have at the desk is 
about a very important issue. Before I explain what it is, I will say 
that I strongly support the underlying bill.
  I compliment Senator Cornyn and others who have worked on a 
bipartisan basis on this bill. I certainly look forward to supporting 
this bill irrespective of how the vote goes on my amendment, but I 
obviously hope my amendment is adopted in the context of this bill.
  Clearly, this issue of human trafficking is a very serious one. It 
takes many forms, all of them ugly. One form is a phenomenon I am going 
to talk about today, which is the issue of birth tourism and 
trafficking in women and families who want to get into this country in 
order to physically have their children in this country because present 
policy recognizes those children immediately as U.S. citizens simply 
because they were born in this country.
  This phenomenon of birth tourism is a very real one, and it often 
puts these birth mothers and families in very dangerous situations, 
quite frankly, at the hands of human smugglers or the equivalent.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have two news reports 
which illustrate this phenomenon printed in the Record.
  The first news report is an article entitled ``No vacancy at 
California birth hotels,'' which underscores some of the abuses and 
horrendous conditions that go on as a result of this, and the second 
article is from the Washington Post, which is entitled ``Inside the 
shadowy world of birth tourism at `maternity hotels.'''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From WorldMag.com, March 12, 2013]

                 No Vacancy at California Birth Hotels

                  (By Alaina Gillogly and Les Sillars)

       It started last summer. Neighbors of a tan, sunbaked 
     mansion in Chino Hills, Calif, knew something was going on in 
     the large Spanish-style home with stucco walls and a tiled 
     roof overlooking the community. Cars sped up and down the 
     quiet little road: And a remarkable number of pregnant Asian 
     women came and went throughout the day.
       Then in September, disgruntled neighbors became anxious 
     citizens when 2,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled down the 
     hillside.
       City authorities discovered in the subsequent investigation 
     that the seven-bedroom house had become a 17-room ``birth 
     hotel.'' The 7,964-square-foot residence on Woodglen Drive 
     had been housing up to 30 pregnant Chinese women who wanted 
     to give birth to their children on American soil. Each room 
     had matching bedding and furniture, room keys, monogrammed 
     towels, and a portable hot water kettle.
       Last month, a local court shut down the operation, owned by 
     Los Angeles Hermas Hotel Inc., for building code violations 
     that included exposed wires, missing smoke alarms, improper 
     ventilation, and carpet stretched over a 3-foot-wide hole in 
     the floor. The owners have six months to fix the problems and 
     get the proper business permits, or they face permanent 
     closure.
       This operation was just one of about 15 baby hotels in the 
     heavily Asian Chino Hills area, with dozens more around the 
     country.
       ``Birth tourism'' has made the news recently, but the Chino 
     Hills incident touched off a crackdown in California as local 
     authorities apply zoning and building codes in an effort to 
     control the operations.
       It's also reopened the debate over the Fourteenth 
     Amendment. Birth hotels are legal in the U.S. because the 
     Fourteenth Amendment gives citizenship to children born on 
     American soil. They have the right to vote, immigrate from 
     their parents' home country, and apply for permanent visas 
     for their parents once they turn 21.
       Birth tourism is a rising industry in countries like China, 
     South Korea, and Saudi Arabia. A three-month stay, plus 
     medical fees, can easily run more than $50,000. Although the 
     Chino Hills operation had a variety of safety and health 
     issues, other birth hotels offer luxurious accommodations 
     with chefs to prepare food from the home country.
       Recent studies by the National Center for Health Statistics 
     have reported the number of babies born to non-resident women 
     topped 7,000 per year, up 50 percent since 2000, although 
     it's not clear how many are the result of birth tourism.
       That is a tiny fraction of the number of children born with 
     at least one parent in the country illegally--350,000 in 
     2009, according to the Pew Hispanic Research Center. But 
     critics say ``birth tourism'' is an abuse of an American law 
     designed to enfranchise slaves born on American soil.
       ``The practice is a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth 
     Amendment,'' said John Fonte, Hudson Institute senior fellow 
     and director of the Center for American Common Culture. 
     ``U.S. citizens should be very concerned.''
       Some Californians are concerned. Rosanna Mitchell started a 
     group called Not in Chino Hills to protest against the 
     facility. ``Our mission is to keep a vigilant eye and use all 
     our efforts necessary to do so,'' wrote Mitchell on the 
     website.
       She told WORLD that, aside from worries about sanitation, 
     traffic, and under-the-table businesses, she doubts those 
     patronizing birth hotels are genuinely pursuing the American 
     dream. ``Something needs to be done,'' she said. ``It's 
     outrageous that they would take advantage of the U.S.''
       Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican, introduced a bill in 
     January to amend the Fourteenth Amendment to ``clarify'' that 
     citizenship applies to those born in the U.S. provided at 
     least one parent is a U.S. citizen, a lawful immigrant, or 
     serving in the military. The bill, with 13 co-sponsors, is 
     currently in committee.

[[Page 3378]]

     
                                  ____
                   [From the Washington Post, Mar. 5]

   Inside the Shadowy World of Birth Tourism at ``Maternity Hotels''

                           (By Abby Phillip)

       In luxury apartment complexes in Southern California and in 
     grand, single-family homes in New York, ``maternity hotels'' 
     are brimming with pregnant women and cooing newborn babies.
       For wealthy foreign women, the facilities offer the promise 
     of a comfortable, worry- free vacation complete with a major 
     perk: a U.S. passport for their newborn.
       One such maternity hotel in New York resembled a nursery: 
     Newborn babies rested in a row of bassinets that lined the 
     wall, according to an NBC News report that offered a look 
     inside the facility.
       Women who book rooms at these properties can expect to live 
     in well-stocked apartment complexes or large suburban homes 
     with laundry and catered food as part of the package. Once 
     their babies are born in an American hospital, they are cared 
     for by nurses while the mothers rest for at least a month. 
     They can pass their time with shopping trips to luxury 
     stores, trips to amusement parks or poolside at the ``hotel'' 
     while attentive caretakers look after the infants, feeding, 
     bathing and putting them to sleep on a regimented schedule, 
     NBC News found.
       The cost--$40,000 to $80,000 per stay--is worth it for the 
     prospect that the visitor's child will automatically be 
     afforded the benefits given to U.S. citizens--and perhaps 
     will have an easier time gaining legal residency in the 
     United States when that child turns 21.
       ``For my baby, it's a chance to, a step to two countries' 
     cultures . . . Chinese culture and American culture,'' one 
     woman told NBC.
       There's nothing illegal about foreign nationals giving 
     birth in the United States. But traveling to the hotels 
     requires the illegal practice of lying about the real reason 
     for visiting the United States. Pregnant women purporting to 
     be tourists enter the country in the latter stages of 
     pregnancy, some overstaying their visas to recover in the 
     comfort of the ``maternity hotels.''
       Birth tourism companies have flourished in recent years, 
     according to federal officials--and many of them prefer hard-
     to-track cash to fuel their operations.
       That money, federal officials allege, is being pocketed by 
     a group of individuals who have skirted tax law, flouted 
     immigration laws and helped their clients defraud U.S. 
     hospitals of tens of thousands of dollars for each baby born.
       On Tuesday, federal agencies, including Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement and the IRS, along with the Los Angeles 
     Police Department, conducted a massive operation to raid more 
     than 30 California locations operated by ``birth tourism 
     businesses.'' Officials collected piles of evidence that will 
     likely be used against some of the ``maternity hotel'' 
     operators in future prosecutions.
       The companies advertise their services online--and no 
     foreign language skills are necessary to guess the subtext.
       What are the benefits of a U.S. passport for a foreign 
     national's unborn child?
       ``Too many,'' the Web site of StarBabyCare explains to 
     prospective clients. ``You can enjoy the free education from 
     junior high school to public high school. . . . You can apply 
     loans or grants which is only for the U.S. citizen. . . . You 
     can receive your senior supplement benefits when you are 
     living overseas. . . . To the parent, after the baby becomes 
     an adult, he/she can petition the parents for a green card.''
       According to court documents, an undercover investigator 
     was told: ``The baby will then have a birth certificate and 
     `freedom.' The baby will have a bright future having United 
     States citizenship.''
       Federal officials say that Chao Chen and Jie Zhu, the 
     couple that operated the You Win baby tourism company, 
     engaged in ``sham marriages'' to get green cards for 
     themselves. In documents filed in federal court this week, 
     officials said that the two ``divorced'' in 2012, but married 
     U.S. citizens in Las Vegas months later.
       Both applied for permanent residency, and an immigration 
     officer reviewing the cases noted that the marriages were 
     ``suspect'' based on the timing.
       Such companies have openly encouraged women willing to pay 
     for the service to commit visa fraud as well. They were 
     counseled not to tell customs and immigration officials that 
     they were pregnant, to wear loose clothes and to avoid 
     traveling to the United States while looking visibly 
     pregnant.
       ``U.S. might refuse entry due to the belly is too big,'' 
     StarBabyCare's Web site informed potential customers. 
     ``Therefore the size of the belly is quite important to 
     determine when you should arrive in Los Angeles.''
       According to court documents, birth tourists were told to 
     avoid traveling directly to Los Angeles International Airport 
     from overseas, to avoid raising suspicion. They might even 
     consider studying U.S. culture and booking recreational 
     visits in order to make their travel seem more legitimate, 
     the company advised. Alternate arrival ports such as Hawaii 
     or Las Vegas were preferable.
       You Win paid more than $60,000 a year to rent Southern 
     California apartments that housed the women, according to 
     court documents. Federal officials believe that StarBabyCare 
     operated a ``maternity hotel'' from at least 10 units at one 
     complex.
       As more attention has been trained on the practice in 
     recent years, the outrage has--predictably--followed.
       Los Angeles County officials have cited the ``hotels'' for 
     illegally operating business in residential homes in 2013. 
     Angry neighbors at a Chino Hills ``hotel'' picketed as the 
     report became public. Among its findings: The 17-bedroom, 17-
     bathroom operation was blamed for overloading the septic tank 
     in the community.
       Usually, the women participating in the programs paid 
     several thousand dollars up front as a deposit and thousands 
     more upon arrival in United States, according to 
     investigators. The balance was paid after childbirth.
       But ``some or all'' of that money--which for You Win likely 
     amounted to over $1 million--went unreported to federal 
     authorities in 2013.
       ``Chen failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
     income on his 2013 federal tax return,'' according to federal 
     officials.
       As women went into birth, they were taken to local 
     hospitals and declared jobless. As many as 400 babies 
     associated with just one of these companies were born after 
     2013 in Orange County, Calif., hospitals. Despite the fact 
     that many of these women paid tens of thousands of dollars to 
     participate in the ``maternity hotel'' scheme, they claimed 
     to be unable to pay the hospitals, which typically charged 
     about $25,000 per birth.
       Some paid nothing at all, while others paid a fee closer to 
     $4,000.
       No one was arrested during Tuesday's raids. But Immigration 
     and Customs Enforcement agents collected evidence and 
     potential witnesses for use in future prosecutions on tax, 
     immigration and fraud charges.

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, recently the Obama administration 
conducted a raid on some of these shadowy operations. I compliment them 
for doing that. There needs to be a crackdown on these operations, but 
the ultimate crackdown and ultimate solution is to change the policy of 
the Federal Government that recognizes these children immediately as 
U.S. citizens simply because they are physically born in this country 
even though both of their parents are here illegally. No parent is here 
under any sort of legal status, and that is the ultimate response and 
ultimate solution we need, and that is what my amendment--that I will 
call up as soon as that is allowed and get a vote on--is about.
  My amendment would change the present practice, policy, and law to 
say that only somebody born in this country who has at least one parent 
who is a U.S. citizen, a legal green card holder, or a serving member 
of the U.S. military, immediately gets that recognition as a U.S. 
citizen.
  As I suggested, this issue and practice--including this shadowy world 
of birth tourism and human smuggling--is a very serious issue. In fact, 
it is an exploding issue, as these recent cases in the press have 
brought to light.
  According to the Center for Immigration Studies, each year about 
300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal aliens in the United 
States, and under our present practice, all of them are immediately 
recognized as U.S. citizens. This is a huge magnet for more illegal 
crossings into our country, often at the hands of very dangerous 
people.
  Birthright citizenship draws women from Mexico and Central America to 
make that dangerous trek north, often in the hands of coyotes and drug 
cartels. These women put their lives into the hands of criminal gangs 
with a demonstrated pension for sexual assault and sex trafficking.
  In addition, there is a huge business of birth tourism, including 
those who market to women and families in China. As I mentioned, on 
Tuesday, March 3, Federal agents broke up an alleged birth tourism ring 
in southern California, raiding several homes and apartment complexes 
where pregnant Chinese women, who were here on fraudulent visas, paid 
up to $80,000 in some cases so their babies would be born here.
  DHS and IRS investigators were seeking evidence and statements 
against those alleged in the scheme. Besides visa fraud, authorities 
are looking into possible tax and money laundering charges. As I 
referred to the news reports that are now part of the Record, in some 
cases this involves horrendous conditions and a very shadowy world in 
terms of this so-called birth tourism.

[[Page 3379]]

  The ultimate solution to this enormous magnet for illegal crossings--
often at the hands of very dangerous people--is to not recognize 
everyone who is simply born in the United States to be a citizen of the 
United States because of that fact alone. Again, that is what my 
amendment would do. That is far more effective than any set of raids on 
these operations or on any enforcement provisions.
  If we move toward this, we would be in the company of a huge majority 
of countries in the world. Of advanced economies, only Canada and the 
United States grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal 
aliens. No European country does that. No other advanced industrialized 
country does that, nor should we. As I suggested, it is a huge magnet 
for more and more illegal crossings, and my amendment would fix that.
  Some people will argue this is not possible with a statutory change. 
This is embedded in the U.S. Constitution through the 14th Amendment 
and any change would have to be a constitutional amendment. I believe 
that is not the case and is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding 
of the Constitution in this regard, including the 14th Amendment.
  The 14th Amendment does not say that all persons born in the United 
States are citizens, period, end of story. If we look at the precise 
language, it is very instructive. It states that citizenship extends to 
``all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to 
the jurisdiction thereof.'' That latter phrase--``and subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof''--was included because it means something, and 
its original meaning clearly refers to the political allegiance of an 
individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that 
person.
  That is exactly why American Indians and their children were not 
immediately recognized as U.S. citizens simply because of their birth 
in this country. There was actually litigation about that going 
directly to this language of the 14th Amendment. The courts decided, 
no, the fact that these American Indian children were born in the 
United States in and of itself did not make them U.S. citizens because 
``and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' had a meaning. It meant 
these children could not be subject to any other governmental or quasi-
governmental authority and an American Indian tribe was such an 
authority.
  Because of that litigation and interpretation, in order for those 
American Indian children to be recognized as American citizens, it 
actually took specific congressional action, and Congress passed the 
Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I believe that goes directly to this 
issue that this practice is not embedded in the Constitution and in the 
14th Amendment, and so that allows the statutory fix my language would 
offer.
  Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, actually introduced a bill 
in 1993 titled the ``Immigration Stabilization Act,'' which included 
nearly identical language to my amendment and stand-alone bill. This 
language has broad support in the country, including broad bipartisan 
support.
  In Senator Reid's bill--now that is going back a ways--it stated ``in 
the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the 14th article of the 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has 
determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of 
enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the 
United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent 
resident will not be a U.S. citizen.'' So there we have language from a 
leading Democratic Member that goes to the same issue.
  There is broad bipartisan support, not just in the Congress but in 
the country for this fix, particularly in the context of these huge 
illegal alien flows into the country. I believe Americans recognize 
that we cannot continue to adopt and recognize this policy. It is an 
enormous magnet for the continuing flows of illegal aliens into the 
country.
  It brings up industries such as this shadowy world of birth tourism 
which was recently raided by Federal authorities. It puts those mothers 
and families in the hands of very unsavory criminal elements in many 
cases, and we should not allow this to continue.
  My amendment would stop that practice, stop those abuses, and stop 
encouraging those flows of illegal aliens. I strongly encourage the 
Senate to directly consider this amendment, vote on it, and to adopt it 
as part of this very important underlying bill.
  Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have two letters that were 
written by leading groups on immigration reform, FAIR and the Eagle 
Forum, printed in the Record.
  They are in strong support of this measure. I will submit additional 
letters of support as they develop over the next day or two.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Federation for American


                                           Immigration Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 2015.
     Hon. David Vitter,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Vitter: I am writing to thank you for your 
     efforts as a United States Senator to end birthright 
     citizenship--the practice of automatically granting U.S. 
     citizenship to anyone born in the United States, regardless 
     of the parents' immigration status.
       Your amendment to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking 
     Act of 2015 (S. 178) would close this loophole that is based 
     on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment. Specifically, 
     your amendment would amend the Constitution so that children 
     born in the U.S. only gain citizenship automatically if one 
     parent is either a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident, or 
     a non-immigrant active member of the Armed Forces. Your 
     language is consistent with the intent behind the ``subject 
     to the jurisdiction thereof'' clause of excluding from 
     automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance 
     to the United States is incomplete.
       Even the Obama Administration recognizes that the current 
     practice of birthright citizenship encourages unlawful 
     behavior and abuse of the system. Indeed, just last week 
     federal and local law enforcement officials raided the 
     Southern California offices of a company that encourages 
     foreign pregnant women to come to the U.S. to give birth, 
     promising them benefits like citizenship and free education. 
     Known as ``birth tourism,'' these companies arrange for 
     pregnant women to come to the U.S. and advise them to provide 
     false information on visa applications. This particular 
     Irvine business made approximately $2 million in 2013, with 
     fees ranging from $15,000 to $50,000.
       Your amendment would end this magnet of illegal immigration 
     because the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens will not be 
     eligible to sponsor family members for legal permanent 
     resident status (green cards) once they reach the age of 
     twenty-one. Again, we thank you for sponsoring this 
     commonsense legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Dan Stein,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                  Eagle Forum,

                                   Washington, DC, March 10, 2015.
       Dear Senator Vitter, On behalf of Eagle Forum and the 
     families we represent, we express our support for your 
     amendment to S. 178 ending the practice of birthright 
     citizenship. Automatically granting citizenship to any child 
     born on U.S. soil, even if the child's parents are temporary 
     visitors or illegal aliens, cheapens the value of American 
     citizenship. Action by Congress to clarify the long-
     misinterpreted intent of section 1 of the Fourteenth 
     Amendment is both necessary and appropriate.
       Birthright citizenship is an invitation to exploit the 
     benefits of American citizenship. Simply being born in our 
     country, whatever the citizenship of the parents, entitles a 
     child to government aid. It circumvents the lengthy process 
     of naturalization, including the pledge of new citizens to 
     ``support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United 
     States.'' This loophole encourages illegal immigration and 
     even ``birth tourism,'' which brings pregnant women to this 
     country just in time to give birth. Both illegal immigration 
     and birth tourism fuel human trafficking, which stems from a 
     desire to claim the protections of our laws and the support 
     of the welfare state.
       Permitting birthright citizenship is a misreading of the 
     Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment states that U.S. citizens 
     are ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States 
     and subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' Those final five 
     words are critical and clearly limit the application of the 
     amendment. Visitors who are not U.S. citizens are ``subject 
     to the jurisdiction'' of their country of origin, not the 
     United States. Furthermore, the Constitution vests control 
     over immigration law to Congress. It is past time for the 
     legislative branch to exercise its power to end birthright 
     citizenship.

[[Page 3380]]

     Eagle Forum thanks you for your leadership on this critical 
     issue and stands ready to assist you.
           Faithfully,
                                                 Phyllis Schlafly,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 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. KIRK. 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. KIRK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment to consider my amendment No. 273.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I have to object.
  The Senator has the right, of course, to file his amendment, but 
there is an amendment presently pending and it would have to be set 
aside. There is someone on this side who does not want it set aside, so 
I will object. Of course, the Senator can file his amendment, but the 
request, as I understand it, is to set aside the pending amendment. On 
behalf of several Senators on this side, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I ask the Senator from Vermont if he 
opposes the amendment that was also cosponsored by Senator Feinstein.
  Mr. LEAHY. I don't know who is cosponsoring the amendment.
  Madam President, addressing the Senator through the Chair, as we are 
required to do by the Senate rules, I would say that my objection is to 
setting aside the pending amendment. I would further address the 
Senator from Illinois--but through the Chair--that when the amendment 
is up, I will be glad to look at it and take a position on it. Of 
course, he and I have known each other for a long time. I will be happy 
to tell him whether I will vote for it or not.
  Mr. KIRK. Madam President, I would say that this amendment is 
directed at backpage.com, probably the largest provider of online 
slavery services in the United States. I would hope the Senator is not 
defending Lacey and Larkin, who make $30 million a year off of slavery.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, to respond to the Senator, I may very 
well support his amendment. The technical question is, Should the 
amendment of the Senator from Ohio be set aside so that this one may be 
the one pending? On that issue, there is objection. When the Senator's 
amendment is pending before the Senate, it may very well be one I will 
vote for, and I will be happy to discuss it at that time.
  Mr. KIRK. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, this is an amendment that is directed at attacking 
backpage.com, which stands on the principle that was well established 
in the Civil War--that we Americans have freedom and we should not be 
free to enslave other Americans. I think, as the largest provider of 
online slavery services, Lacey and Larkin should be put out of 
business.
  I think it is incumbent on us, in the underlying legislation--I would 
remind the Senator from Vermont that we would live up to the full 
spirit of this legislation to make sure that just because the Internet 
was invented, slavery should not be empowered by the Internet.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KIRK. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, through the Chair, I ask my friend from 
Illinois, who has been a warrior on these issues, particularly with 
this backpage.com and this advertisement of children and other people 
trafficked as part of this modern day slavery, if the Senator's 
amendment, the HERO Act, is actually included, if I am not mistaken.
  Mr. KIRK. Amendment No. 273 would include the SAVE Act, which has 
already substantially passed with huge bipartisan support of the party 
of the Senator from Vermont in the House of Representatives. If we 
look, we will find that backpage.com is active in every State, 
providing online services to the public.
  Mr. CORNYN. My question and point was that the SAVE Act, I 
understand, is the subject of the amendment that the Senator is seeking 
to offer and for which I hope our friends on the other side will relent 
and allow us to go forward, debating and amending this important piece 
of legislation. As distinguished from the SAVE Act, which is the 
subject of the Senator's your amendment, the HERO Act, I believe is 
already a part of the underlying legislation. I just wanted to 
congratulate the Senator from Illinois and thank him for his 
longstanding dedication to this issue and the contribution he has made 
to the underlying piece of legislation.
  Mr. KIRK. As a Senator from Illinois, our true gift to the people of 
this country has been individual freedom and dignity, epitomized by the 
Lincoln candidacy for the Senate, and by the victory in the Civil War. 
We should not allow the freedom of the Internet to allow freedom to 
enslave others. These two men have made tens of millions of dollars.
  I yield back to the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would just ask the Senator to yield for one final 
question.
  Would the Senator please outline his bill, his amendment, the SAVE 
Act?
  Mr. KIRK. The critical issue is how to restrict the ability of 
Americans to enslave each other. I don't think we should have that 
freedom. We want to make sure we thread the needle very carefully here, 
to make sure the freedom and commerce available on the Internet is not 
going to help people such as Lacey and Larkin to enslave others. We 
want to make sure that there is an ever-widening sphere of freedom 
inside the United States that is not inhibited by the Internet.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would ask, is the Senator's amendment targeted in a way 
that respects the freedom of the Internet and the right of the people?
  Mr. KIRK. Very much so. The way we thread the needle here is to make 
online providers of slavery services liable for the costs that local 
governments incur in cleaning up the mess they create.
  In the case of Cook County, IL, we have had our crusading sheriff, 
who I would note is also a Democratic sheriff, establish a great effort 
to recover the young, underage girls involved and to make sure the 
costs incurred in helping out these young women--these citizens of the 
United States--to make sure they can charge it against the online 
provider, which makes eminent sense.
  I would say that our freedoms are protected because Tom Dart was 
elected by the people of Cook County. As an elected official, he is 
trying to simply carry out his goal there. This makes eminent sense to 
do this.
  Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KIRK. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                  Remembering Jonathan Myrick Daniels

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, this past weekend we saw a huge 
commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery voting 
rights march. I rise to honor the work and sacrifice of Jonathan Myrick 
Daniels. He was a young Episcopalian seminary student from Keene. The 
Presiding Officer certainly knows his name and Keene, as well. He was 
from Keene, NH, and he answered the call of Rev. Martin Luther King, 
Jr., for clergy to travel to Alabama to join him on that march.
  Jonathan lost his life 5 months later, in an act that Reverend King 
called ``one of the most heroic Christian deeds of which I have heard 
in my entire ministry.'' Although Jonathan had originally intended to 
spend a short time in the South and then return to his studies at the 
Episcopal theological school in Boston, he felt compelled by events to 
remain in Alabama through the spring and summer to register voters with 
the Episcopalian Society for Cultural and Racial Unity.

[[Page 3381]]

  On August 14, 1965, Jonathan was arrested along with a number of 
other civil rights activists at a demonstration in Fort Deposit, AL, a 
small town outside of Montgomery. They had gone there to protest 
segregation in the town's stores. But their demonstration was over 
within minutes. Armed white men from the town descended on them and 
took them to jail.
  Jonathan and his fellow activists spent 6 days in the Hayneville 
jail. Many in the group were still teenagers. Despite the conditions, 
Jonathan somehow maintained an unflaggingly upbeat attitude and good 
humor. He wrote his mother in New Hampshire a brief letter from the 
jail, apologetically describing it as a peculiar birthday card for her. 
He wrote:

       The food is vile and we aren't allowed to bathe (whew!) . . 
     . As you can imagine, I'll have a tale or two to swap over 
     our next martini.

  He declined an offer of bail money from an Episcopal organization 
because the amount would not have covered the release of the rest of 
his group. On Friday, August 20, the whole group was suddenly released. 
Strangely, their bail had been waived, but no one was there to meet 
them or take them home. The town seemed completely deserted.
  Jonathan and a few others walked a block away to a store to buy 
something to eat and drink. As he climbed the steps of the porch to the 
store, he suddenly heard someone shout from inside and threaten to 
shoot if they didn't leave. Jonathan barely had time to react before 
the man opened fire, but somehow he managed to jump in front of his 
friend Ruby Sales, a 17-year-old African-American girl. He saved Ruby's 
life, but Jonathan was killed by the close-range shot that was intended 
for her. He was just 26 years old.
  The shooter called the murder in to the sheriff's office himself. He 
said: I just shot two preachers. You better get on down here. An all-
white jury later acquitted the man, taking just 2 hours to find him not 
guilty. While Jonathan was sacrificing his life for civil rights in 
Alabama, here in the Senate debate raged over the Federal Government's 
role in protecting the voting rights of disfranchised American 
citizens.
  Since 1870 the 15th Amendment to the Constitution had prohibited 
State governments from denying a citizen's right to vote based on race. 
However, in precincts throughout the South, Black Americans were 
subjected to discriminatory poll taxes, literacy tests, and other forms 
of voter intimidation. In many places, town clerks outright refused to 
register Black voters.
  Just 2 weeks before Jonathan was killed, Congress finally passed the 
Voting Rights Act, which outlawed electoral practices that 
discriminated against minority groups. Well, 2015 marks the 50th 
anniversary not just of that march in Selma but of this landmark law. 
While this anniversary presents an obvious time for reflection, it is 
also a time to look forward and address the challenges still facing our 
country.
  The impact of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. 
Holder, which struck down a critical section of the law requiring 
Federal approval for electoral law changes in districts with the 
history of discrimination, is particularly troubling. This ruling now 
allows States to implement restrictive voting requirements that will 
make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots. In fact, since 
this ruling, almost all of the affected States have already begun 
attempts to restrict voting, targeting seniors, students, minorities, 
and threatening their access to the polls.
  The right to make your voice heard as a citizen of this Nation is a 
fundamental principle of our democracy, and it should never be 
infringed upon. We have a responsibility to protect this right and 
address these injustices.
  While our Nation has made a lot of progress since the 1960s and 
1970s, the struggle is far from over. Inequality and racism remain in 
our society. As long as discrimination and racial disparities exist, 
the full protections of the Voting Rights Act are necessary to 
guarantee the rights of citizenship for every American.
  Jonathan Daniels should be turning 76 years old in March. He is 
widely recognized as a martyr of the 20th century. In Keene, his 
hometown, an elementary school bears his name. As we mark the 50th 
anniversary of his passing, as well as the passage of the Voting Rights 
Act, we must strive to honor his legacy by ensuring that all current 
and future American citizens can exercise the rights he died to 
protect.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________