[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4996-4997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the last several weeks we have been 
trying to get unstuck on an important piece of legislation that would 
combat modern-day slavery.
  At a time, I think most people were unaware of this phenomenon of sex 
trafficking primarily of teenaged girls between the ages of 12 and 14. 
I think the country has become much more aware about this scourge, this 
dark side to our culture and our society, and much more interested in 
trying to figure out what we can do to address it.
  At a time when we are really beginning to see some true bipartisan 
cooperation and progress here in the Senate--and I say that because of 
things like the budget we passed last night, which was a very important 
piece of legislation we passed to reform Medicare, particularly to 
improve access for our seniors to Medicare services performed by 
doctors and hospitals by making sure they had a predictable and 
sustainable reimbursement rate, and what happened yesterday in the 
Foreign Relations Committee, where we had a unanimous vote on 
Congress's prerogative to represent our constituents on having a voice 
on the very important negotiations taking place between Tehran and the 
United States and our allies on Iran's aspirations for nuclear weapon.
  Then I think about other things that are happening that are 
encouraging here, after a long period of stagnation and dysfunction 
over the last 2 years. I think we are on the cusp of a breakthrough on 
trade. Why in the world wouldn't we want to be open to markets when 
basically 80 percent of the purchasing power of the world and 95 
percent of the world's population lies outside of our shores? Why 
wouldn't we want to open those markets to our farmers and ranchers and 
our manufacturers--people who grow things and who make things--and 
wouldn't that be great for our economy and job creation?
  So imagine my surprise when after these past few weeks we have been 
stuck on something that has enjoyed such broad bipartisan support as 
combating human trafficking. Senator after Senator has come to the 
floor and talked about this and why we ought to act to do something 
about it.
  Just to refresh everyone's memory, what we are trying to do is pass 
the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. What it would do is create 
a victims compensation fund, in essence, from the fines and the 
penalties assessed against people who are engaging in child pornography 
and other sex-related crimes. In other words, it would address the 
demand side, and take the money from fines and penalties assessed 
against the demand side and use that to help the victims--to help them 
be rescued, and to help them heal and get on with their lives.
  This legislation has enjoyed broad support outside of these Chambers. 
More than 200 different organizations--law enforcement organizations, 
victims rights organizations, faith-based groups, people who want to 
lend a helping hand to provide beds and a secure place to stay while 
people heal. Unfortunately, there is just not enough money. There is a 
huge need across America for the resources this legislation would 
provide. We estimate, based on historic data, that there could be as 
much as $30 million generated from the fines and penalties associated 
with the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act that would then be 
available to be granted by the Department of Justice to help these 
victims.
  So imagine my surprise when after Senator after Senator on both sides 
of the aisle endorsed this legislation--I think at last count we had 30 
cosponsors, an almost equal number on the Democratic side as the 
Republican side. Then this legislation sailed through the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and got the unanimous vote of all Democrats and all 
Republicans. Then it came to the floor, and at least initially we 
bypassed the traditional procedures to bring legislation to the floor 
because all 100 Senators agreed that this was important enough and 
significant enough and urgent enough that we needed to act on it 
quickly.
  So imagine my surprise when, all of a sudden, it was brought to my 
attention that some people objected to a provision in the legislation 
known as the Hyde amendment, which has been the law of the land for 39 
years.
  To refresh everybody's memory, in the very polarizing debate over 
abortion, this is the one consensus item that has been the law of the 
land for 39 years that Republicans and Democrats have voted for 
repeatedly. What it says is that no taxpayer dollars can be used to 
fund abortion except in the case of rape or in the case of the mother's 
health. Those are basically the exceptions. Do you know what? I cannot 
imagine that those exceptions would not apply in the vast majority of 
cases involving human trafficking because tragically they do involve 
rape, certainly sexual assault of a minor who is incapable by virtue of 
their tender age, unable to legally consent, and certainly people who 
are coerced into this sort of activity who do not want to be.
  Notwithstanding the fact that the Hyde amendment itself would provide 
broad exceptions to provide health care services to the very victims we 
are talking about, some of our colleagues across the aisle said that 
what this bill does is it expands the Hyde amendment. The way it does 
it, they claim, is that it now would apply to the fines and penalties 
that would be assessed
on criminals, primarily child pornographers, consumers, purveyors, and 
other people guilty of various sexual crimes. They claim that is 
somehow an expansion of the Hyde provision.
  This is getting more and more baffling because actually last night, 
in an overwhelming vote--I think it was 92 votes in favor of the so-
called doc fix and also funding community health centers and an 
extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program--the very same 
Hyde-type provision that was contained in the bill we voted on last 
night is contained in the amendment we are going to vote on tomorrow on 
the Senate floor. If this provision is good enough for doctors and 
hospitals, why in the world isn't it good enough for victims of human 
sex trafficking? I think the answer is obvious: It is and it should be.
  In an effort to try to get us unstuck in order to try to catch a wave 
based on what we are doing generally here in the Senate--finally being 
productive and making things work--I have tried to take something that 
virtually all Democrats have voted for previously and to put that in 
the bill in order to eliminate their cause for concern. I am not going 
to question at this point whether it is a legitimate complaint. I, 
frankly, disagree. But let's get on with getting the bill passed and 
getting something important done.
  This morning, I heard a familiar argument that was made by the 
Democratic leader, Senator Reid. The good news is that I have made a 
change in the legislation that would directly address what the 
Democratic leader said is their main objection. Here is their 
objection. I don't agree with it, but here is what it is and here is 
what I have done to try to address it. Their claim is that the fines 
and penalties

[[Page 4997]]

are private dollars, not public dollars, and that attaching the Hyde 
language to those fines and penalties is somehow an expansion of the 
Hyde provision.
  As I said, I disagree with that, but what I would ask my colleagues 
to do is look at page 3 of the legislation, lines 3 through 7. What we 
have done to address their concern is to say that no longer will the 
fines and penalties associated with this fund be directly appropriated 
and paid out in grants to the victims of human trafficking. Instead, 
what page 3 of our amendment says--which we will vote on tomorrow, S. 
178--this paragraph is entitled ``Transfers.'' It says:

       In a manner consistent with section 3302(b) of title 31, 
     there shall be transferred to the Fund from the General Fund 
     of the Treasury an amount equal to the amount of the 
     assessments collected under this section, which shall remain 
     available until expended.

  What we tried to do in order to maintain the status quo on the Hyde 
amendment is say that the money which will actually be used to help the 
victims will now come from the general fund. It will be an amount equal 
to the fines and penalties that were going to be available under the 
original bill. But because of the objection, because of the stated 
concern, we are trying to find a way to get unstuck and keep our focus 
on these victims and not on some phantom objection based on--again, I 
am not going to reargue here today; I am just going to say we need to 
get this done, and this provision does that.
  Mr. President, may I ask what the order of business is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time reserved for the majority under 
morning business has expired.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
5 minutes to speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will wrap up.
  As I have told a number of our colleagues across the aisle who 
believe passionately in the importance of this topic, I think this 
amendment we will vote on tomorrow addresses their stated concerns. It 
certainly addresses the concerns stated by the Democratic leader this 
morning.
  I would just say that of all the Senators on the other side of the 
aisle who agreed to cosponsor this legislation, who previously objected 
to voting on the bill and passing it--I would ask them to please take a 
close look at that provision. Again, page 3, lines 3 through 7 of my 
amendment now would provide that instead of the fines and penalties 
being directly appropriated into these programs for grant purposes, 
that money would come from a general fund of the Treasury in an 
equivalent amount of the fines and penalties. So, money being fungible, 
there is no loss of funds, but what we have done is we have tried to 
address their concerns, I think in a way that eliminates them.
  All the Senators who cosponsored this legislation, for which I am 
very grateful--Senator Klobuchar, Senator Wyden, Senator Coons, Senator 
Udall, Senator Casey, Senator Feinstein, Senator Gillibrand, Senator 
Heitkamp, Senator Schumer, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Peters, and 
Senator Durbin--I hope all of our Democratic friends who previously 
objected based on the original provision will take a look at this 
change because it does directly address their stated concerns.
  Let's get this done. We will vote on this tomorrow. But I would 
rather not wait for that time. I would rather try to get this done 
today if we can. We might be able to do that by agreement if everyone 
agrees that this provision, this change, addresses those stated 
concerns.
  Mr. President, 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. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________