[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3622-3623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in about an hour the Democratic Party 
will confront a momentous choice. Will Democrats launch a historic 
filibuster against helping oppressed victims of modern slavery because 
leftwing lobbyists appear to demand it? Will they do that at the behest 
of these leftwing lobbyists?
  Democrats filibustering help for terrified children and abused women 
would represent a new low in the Senate. Filibustering help for 
terrified children and abused women certainly represents a new low for 
the Senate, and the American people will not soon forget it--nor should 
they. It is hard to even keep straight anymore why Democrats would 
filibuster this human rights bill.
  The bill Democrats apparently now oppose was introduced months ago by 
a Democrat and a Republican. The bill Democrats now oppose was 
originally cosponsored by 13 of our Democratic friends. Thirteen of 
them cosponsored it. The bill Democrats now oppose was approved by 
every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Every single Democrat on the 
Judiciary Committee supported the bill.
  The bill Democrats now oppose was brought to the floor last Monday 
after Democrats agreed unanimously to do that. But that was Monday. By 
Tuesday, Democrats were threatening to launch a historic filibuster 
against helping the abused and the enslaved--launching a filibuster 
against the abused and the enslaved.
  Democrats' supposed rationale was that they had not bothered to read 
the very bill they introduced, cosponsored, and voted for. That in 
itself is a stunning admission. But as embarrassing as this admission 
might be for Democrats, it doesn't tell the full story. It is obviously 
absurd to believe that not a single one of the 13 Democrats who 
originally cosponsored this bill and not a single member of any of 
these Democrats' well-educated staff would have read this bill before 
agreeing to support it. It is really hard to believe; isn't it?
  The bipartisan Hyde language Democrats now cite as the basis for 
their human rights filibuster would not have been hard to find. It was 
sitting right there on page 4.
  Democrats would have recognized the bipartisan Hyde provision easily 
because so many Democrats voted to support the same bipartisan 
provision just 3 months ago in December. It was in the CRomnibus that 
most of our Democratic friends voted for in December--the very same 
language. So they surely would have recognized it sitting right there 
on page 4.
  The top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee certainly would have 
noticed the Hyde provision he supported in December. He actually 
offered an unrelated amendment to the very same page as the provision 
he now objects to.
  The bipartisan Hyde language is supported by about 7 in 10 Americans. 
How do the American people feel about the Hyde language? The Hyde 
language is supported by 7 out of 10 Americans as a policy principle 
and has been part and parcel of the legislating process for decades. It 
appears in just about every funding bill we consider, and it appears in 
numerous authorizing bills that have received bipartisan support.
  Not surprisingly, the leadership of the House of Representatives said 
last night that ``any House-Senate agreement on a trafficking bill that 
includes a victims fund will'' have to contain ``the Hyde Amendment, as 
we have done for nearly 40 years.'' So the House of Representatives 
says that any bill that passes the House will also include this 
language.
  What about that great bastion of conservatism--the Washington Post? 
The Washington Post recently noted in an editorial that ``the Hyde Act 
has been in force for four decades,'' and pointedly asked whether the 
inclusion of this bipartisan provision ``justifies the defeat of this 
important legislation.'' Given the long legislative history of this 
bipartisan provision and the overwhelmingly popular support for what it 
does, the answer, obviously, is no. No, most of our colleagues on the 
other side voted for this very same provision 3 months ago.
  Let's remember what this debate should really be about. It should not 
be about what leftwing lobbyists want. It should be about helping the 
victims of modern slavery--victims such as Melissa, whom my colleague 
Senator Cornyn has spoken about before. She was sold into the sex trade 
when she was just 12 years old. She was beaten regularly and chained to 
a bed in a warehouse. She was even set on fire by those who enslaved 
her. That is Melissa's story. She said she just wanted to die.
  When Melissa finally escaped the grasp of her tormenters, she was not 
treated like a victim. Melissa was treated like a criminal by our 
justice system. It is stories such as Melissa's that should motivate 
every Member of this Chamber to act.
  The victims who suffer in dark warehouses may not have the same clout 
as the lobbyists who appear to oppose this bill, but these victims need 
our help,

[[Page 3623]]

and they need it now. So if there truly are Senators who are concerned 
with removing a bipartisan provision they have supported so many times 
in the past, they should offer an amendment to strike it and then stop 
blocking this human rights bill. I offered them a chance to do just 
that last week.
  Let's have a vote--a simple majority vote--on a measure they now 
belatedly find they object to, having supported it in the past, and 
then, as an official with the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women 
put it: ``Win or lose and move on.'' But as it stands now, in her 
words, ``Senate Democrats are choosing a phantom problem over real 
victims.'' That is the spokesman for the Coalition Against Trafficking 
in Women.
  The White House needs to get involved here too. So far the White 
House has barely lifted a finger to help us pass this legislation, and 
that needs to change. I think the White House should do this because it 
is the right thing to do. But if that is not enough, they should also 
consider the consequences of Democrats making a historic mistake.
  If Democrats actually vote to filibuster help for oppressed victims 
of modern slavery, I cannot imagine that the American people will 
forget it.

                          ____________________