[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3462-3463]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join several of my 
colleagues this morning in submitting a substitute amendment to the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.
  Human trafficking is a global scourge, and we should be working on a 
bipartisan basis and on a bicameral basis to stop it. However, I am 
deeply concerned to learn that our friends on the other side of the 
aisle have inserted a worrisome provision into this year's version of 
the bill. This provision would expand upon the so-called Hyde amendment 
which restricts funds for women's reproductive health choices. The new 
language, which has been offered by Senator Cornyn from Texas, would 
set a new, dangerous precedent by enabling Hyde restrictions to apply 
to nontax funding streams set forth in this bill.
  This language paves the way for political leaders in the future to 
interfere even more with a woman's basic personal health decisions, and 
it sets the tone for a dramatic expansion of abortion restriction for 
years to come.
  I am upset about this provision in that it shouldn't be in this bill. 
This bill is not about abortion, it is about human trafficking. 
Instead, this provision has now become another opportunity for 
political speeches and delay.
  The good news is the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act can still 
be bipartisan, and we have high hopes it will be. Democrats are ready 
to work with Republicans to fix this bill and move past the partisan 
obstacle which literally stopped us this week from doing anything.
  The substitute amendment removes the Hyde restrictions from the 
Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. It includes two important 
bipartisan pieces of legislation, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and 
Trafficking Prevention Act, originally offered by Senator Leahy, and 
the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act sponsored by Senator 
Klobuchar.
  We know that colleagues can work on a bipartisan basis to effectively 
address this issue. I urge my colleagues, when we look at what we have 
done so far in this session of Congress, we have very little to show 
for the time we have spent here. This is an opportunity to pass a 
bipartisan human trafficking bill--not a grab bag for every notion or 
idea any Senator has on any subject, but one that addresses a very 
serious issue.
  I also know that another Senator from Louisiana on the Republican 
side has an amendment which he wishes to offer on this bill which, 
again, has nothing to do with human trafficking.
  Senator Vitter offers an amendment that would deny citizenship at 
birth to children born in the United States unless one of the parents 
of the child is a U.S. citizen, national permanent resident, or an 
actively serving armed services member.
  As the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee on the 
Judiciary Committee, let me begin with the obvious for my colleagues in 
the Senate: Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right. Congress 
can't amend that amendment with a statute. I would think that every 
Senator knows that. To put this provision before us is merely to try to 
provoke a debate on a bill which has no impact on the Constitution.
  The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment states: ``All persons 
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the 
state wherein they reside.''
  I urge my colleagues, particularly the one offering this amendment, 
to pick up the Constitution and read it. The 14th Amendment is as clear 
as can be.
  The citizenship clause has been restated and established by four 
centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence. The 14th Amendment raised 
the short-lived exception to birthright citizenship that was 
established by the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. We certainly 
remember that. It was one of the provocations that led to a civil war 
in this country. We should take this issue extremely seriously.
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 14th Amendment 
applies to U.S.-born children of noncitizens. What part of that does 
the author of this amendment not understand?
  The Court rejected arguments that the son of Chinese nationals, who 
were forbidden under the Chinese Exclusion Act from ever becoming U.S. 
citizens, could be deprived of citizenship because of his parents' 
status.
  The Supreme Court ruled that: ``Nothing is better settled at the 
common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens . . . 
are subjects at birth.'' Subsequent decisions have backed that up.
  The famous case of Plyer v. Doe basically said--the Court reasoned 
that even if the Court wanted to control the conduct of adults, 
``legislation directing the onus of the parent's misconduct against his 
children does not comport

[[Page 3463]]

with fundamental concepts of justice.'' The law is clear.
  So this amendment being offered by Senator Vitter is a provocative, 
unnecessary, and basically feckless effort to stall an important bill 
that should be passed on a bipartisan basis.
  I hope my colleagues, whatever their feelings on this issue, will 
understand, you cannot amend the Constitution by a statute. I thought 
that was in basic Senate 101, but we have to get back to it to make 
clear that my colleagues understand this important human trafficking 
bill should not be bogged down or stopped with issues such as 
abortion--as important as it is--which should be saved for a separate 
debate, or this effort to amend the U.S. Constitution with an amendment 
on the floor to a statute. That certainly is not a good way for us to 
accomplish things in the Senate.

                          ____________________