[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3532-3534]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, tomorrow morning the Senate will be

[[Page 3533]]

casting a very important vote. We will be voting on a piece of 
legislation called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which 
currently has 12 Democratic cosponsors and virtually an equal number of 
Republican cosponsors. In other words, this is generally bipartisan 
legislation.
  As further evidence of its bipartisan support, this bill passed 
unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, and it 
enjoys the support of more than 200 victims' rights and law enforcement 
organizations. But as everyone in this Chamber knows, Senate Democrats 
have said they will filibuster this bipartisan legislation that is 
designed to provide justice for victims of trafficking because it 
contains a particular provision they have voted for on a number of 
occasions and, indeed, have chosen to cosponsor. It is unconscionable 
and shameful and more than that it is just simply baffling to me.
  The reason it is so shameful is because there are children waiting 
for our help. The average victim of human trafficking in the United 
States is a young girl between the age of 12 and 14 years of age. 
Children are being abused and literally sexually assaulted while 
apparently some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
decided to try to make a political point. It is baffling because my 
colleagues have voted for essentially this very same provision in one 
form or another time and time and time again.
  Apparently, the Democratic leader, who is pressuring Members of his 
caucus to filibuster this bill is--well, he says we need to take out 
the language they object to, but I was standing on the floor just a few 
days ago when--I guess it was Thursday afternoon--the majority leader, 
Senator McConnell, offered them an opportunity to have an up-or-down 
vote to strip that language out of the bill and they objected to it. So 
it is getting harder and harder to believe the sincerity of their 
protests, and it is appearing more and more likely that what they want 
to do is have the Senate return to the same dysfunctional nature it was 
under for the last 4 years by the previous majority.
  I wish to pose several questions to our colleagues who insist on 
filibustering this bipartisan piece of legislation. The first question 
I have is: Isn't it the case that only 3 months ago 50 Democrats voted 
for the 2015 Defense authorization bill? Isn't that a bill a piece of 
authorizing legislation much like the underlying justice for victims of 
trafficking bill? If 50 Democrats voted for similar language with 
regard to the limitations on the use of funding just a few months ago, 
how in the world can they filibuster this bill for including the same 
language they voted for, more or less, just a few short months ago? In 
fact, it is true that in 2009 all of the Senate Democrats--in a 
partisan vote--voted to include this similar language as part of 
ObamaCare. Groups such as NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action 
League, protested that the language ``went far beyond even the Hyde 
Amendment.'' Yet 60 Democrats, including the then-majority leader--now 
minority leader--voted for that in the wee hours of Christmas Eve 2009.
  Again, I ask our friends who are filibustering this bipartisan piece 
of legislation designed to help the victims of human trafficking: Isn't 
it true that in 2009, 58 Senate Democrats voted to reauthorize the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, which like Medicaid is subject to 
the Hyde Amendment?
  To each of those questions, the record would demonstrate they should 
be answered with a resounding yes.
  So time and time again, our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, who now find themselves in the inexplicable position of 
filibustering a bill they are cosponsoring or which they have already 
voted for in the Judiciary Committee and which contains very similar 
restrictions on the use of the funding--how in the world have they 
decided to make the stand, here and now, denying even the opportunity 
they have been given by the majority leader to have an up-or-down vote 
to strip the language out that they object to?
  Well, despite the hypocrisy of their position, the question this 
really boils down to is this. This is the question, the only question 
that really matters: To our colleagues who are filibustering this 
legislation, Are you prepared to turn your back on the thousands of 
people living every day in bondage and who are desperately clinging to 
the hope that someone--someone--will lend them a helping hand? Are you 
prepared to abandon these children and these other victims of human 
trafficking who deserve a roof over their head, someone to lean on, and 
somehow, some way to get a fresh start in life?
  Do our colleagues who are filibustering this legislation really want 
to play politics with such a sensitive and vulnerable part of our 
population over an issue that some advocates have called a phantom 
problem? The reason why some advocates who support this legislation 
have called the objection of the Democratic leader a phantom problem is 
because not only have they voted for similar provisions over and over 
and over again, this essentially has been the settled law of the land 
for 39 years--since 1976. Just in case our colleagues think that the 
examples I mentioned are exclusive, there are a number of other 
provisions--32 Democrats voted for the so-called CR omnibus, the 
continuing resolution omnibus, in December. Thirty-two Democrats voted 
for that which contained very similar language. And I mentioned several 
others.
  I want to conclude with the Washington Post editorial for today. I do 
not always find myself in agreement with the Washington Post editorial 
board, but this morning I think they encapsulated the Democratic 
filibuster of the bipartisan antitrafficking bill perfectly. In urging 
the Senate to pass this legislation, they wrote: ``[T]his week the 
question will be whether Senators can put the interests of scared, 
abused children ahead of the chance to score political points.'' I 
could not agree more.
  So tomorrow morning, an hour after we convene, we will have a vote 
that will decide whether this legislation goes on to final passage. We 
need six brave Democrats--six brave Democrats--to join all the 
Republicans on this side to keep hope alive for these victims of human 
trafficking. We need six Democrats who are willing to break away from 
the tyranny of their party's own leadership here in the Senate and do 
what they know is the right thing to do. They know it in their heart, 
and they know it in their mind, and they know they have supported 
similar language in legislation time and time again.
  We need six Democrats willing to break away from the mindless, 
heartless filibuster of this legislation. I hope they will examine 
their conscience. I hope they will ask themselves, Isn't this exactly 
the kind of vote that I came here to the U.S. Senate to cast? I hope 
they will pray on it, and I hope they will think long and hard before 
saying no to the abused children and the victims of human trafficking.
  That is what this is all about. It is not based on any Hyde amendment 
language in this legislation. It is based on a determination to render 
this institution dysfunctional, not because of any principal policy 
disagreement, because, as I point out, our colleagues on the other side 
have voted for similar language time and time and time again.
  Our colleagues on the other side realize that on November 4, the 
voters rejected the then-majority and gave this side of the aisle the 
opportunity to serve in the majority because, frankly, they were sick 
and tired of the way that Washington operates and the dysfunction that 
prevailed here for so long. I had higher hopes that after the election 
we would all learn something from what the voters were telling us on 
November 4 and thereafter and that we would take advantage of the 
opportunity to try to work together to find areas where we could agree, 
in a bipartisan way, to actually move the ball forward and help people 
who need our help. If we cannot do that on an antihuman trafficking 
bill, what can we possibly work together on?
  This whole phony issue of the Hyde amendment provision in this bill 
is a joke. It is a sick, sad joke, after time

[[Page 3534]]

and time again voting for similar provisions in other legislation. As I 
pointed out, you have 12 Democratic cosponsors of the legislation. Do 
you think they did not read the legislation? That is ridiculous. Do you 
think their staff did not tell them what was in the legislation? Do you 
think before the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to pass it out 
people did not know what they were voting on? I do not believe that for 
a minute. I have too much respect for our colleagues and their 
professionalism to think they missed it.
  Our colleagues have an important choice to make tomorrow morning. I 
hope they will say yes to these victims of human trafficking and no to 
the kind of political gamesmanship that gives this institution a bad 
name.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

                          ____________________