[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5148-5149]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     HUMAN TRAFFICKING LEGISLATION

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, human trafficking affects every State 
in this Nation--every single one of them. In Kentucky we have heard 
reports of victims as young as 2 months old--2-month-old victims of 
human trafficking. We heard about a Kentuckian who said she was sold 
for sex from the age of 5 until she was able to physically break free 
as an adult. Stories such as these may shock the conscience, but they 
are hardly unique in our country.
  The Judiciary Committee recently heard the story of Aviva, who was 
barely a teenager when she was kidnapped and forced into modern 
slavery. Listen to this. Aviva was sold to as many as 10 different men 
a night. Freedom was stolen from her, innocence ripped away. Aviva's 
trafficker tried to stamp out everything that made Aviva Aviva. Aviva 
even forgot what it felt like to be human anymore.
  Democrats have said they were in favor of helping victims such as 
Aviva. Democrats demanded that I bring the Justice for Victims of 
Trafficking Act to the floor. But now that the very legislation is here 
on the floor, our Democratic friends seem to have changed their tune 
completely--a totally different tune. Now that they have a chance to 
actually help the victims, they decided they are more concerned about a 
few sentences in the bill--a provision they seemed perfectly fine with 
until just recently. They are more concerned about those few sentences 
than actually solving the problem the bill would address.
  Now, this provision has been included in countless bills they have 
voted for and cosponsored. It is language they were perfectly happy to 
endorse again in another bill this very week--2 days ago. But that bill 
was designed to help doctors, not children enslaved by sex traffickers. 
So it is OK to vote for that kind of language if you are trying to help 
doctors, but not OK to vote for that kind of language if you are trying 
to help these poor young children. Obviously our Democratic friends 
think that doctors are worthy of their help. What about the victims of 
modern slavery?
  Now, the rationale for this filibuster seems to shift by the day, and 
it is almost incomprehensible. Their foremost concern seems to be about 
treating this specific kind of money this way, versus treating that 
specific kind of money that way. It is hard to follow; isn't it? 
Focusing all their attention not on the victims of these crimes but on 
financial assessments levied on the people who perpetrate them--the 
traffickers.
  Honestly, I am not sure why anyone would think money collected from 
criminals ought to get more consideration than money collected from 
law-abiding taxpayers. What a strange argument. But this is where they 
have planted their flag. That ridiculous argument is where they have 
planted their flag.
  Their contention is essentially that the victims of trafficking 
should get no help at all because Democrats say the money they would 
receive might be considered ``private'' and that this bill should not 
pass, therefore, because the bipartisan Hyde principles it contains 
might apply to those private funds. If that argument sounds contrived 
and illogical to you, you are not alone.
  Now we find out it is not even true. Let me repeat that. The very 
heart of the Democrats' argument isn't even true. That is what the 
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service told us just yesterday.
  So I would ask my Democratic friends to listen to this closely. CRS, 
the Congressional Research Service, answered some very straightforward 
questions posed by the senior Senator from Texas, my friend and 
colleague Senator Cornyn. Here is what they said to Senator Cornyn: 
Money deposited in the General Treasury from traffickers, as the 
Federal law requires, is Federal money, according to CRS.
  So let me repeat. The Democrats have been blocking an antislavery 
bill over money they call private, and they are not even correct about 
this. Our Democratic colleagues have also blocked this bill because 
they say Hyde has only applied to annual spending or appropriations--
not mandatory spending. It is another argument that the Congressional 
Research Service tells us is simply not true--not true.
  The experts at CRS say Hyde has applied to mandatory spending of 
Federal funds out of the General Treasury, as the Cornyn amendment 
provides. And CRS concludes that Hyde just applied to mandatory 
spending in the very doc fix bill that 100 percent of our Democratic 
friends voted for 2 days ago.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the CRS memorandum be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  I ask my Democratic friends to stop this. Stop this. Take a breath 
and think about what is being done. Children are being sold into sexual 
slavery, having their freedom and self-respect ripped away. Will they 
finally allow the Senate to help them or will they continue some 
debunked crusade?
  We have offered several compromises to address the concerns they have 
raised. We will soon vote on another one that Senator Cornyn has been 
offering. He has been reaching out to our Democrat friends for weeks 
now to try to find a solution to this nonproblem. The findings of CRS 
make it clear that we are doing nothing extraordinary or unusual here. 
We are simply applying long-accepted principles that Americans 
overwhelmingly support. Most people would think that sounds pretty 
reasonable. It is time to get serious and pass this important 
legislation.
  A large, bipartisan majority of the Senate has already voted 
repeatedly to approve this bill. With the support of a couple more 
courageous Democrats, we can bring an end to this debunked filibuster 
today.
  The victims who survive brutal abuse don't need more of our friends' 
illogical

[[Page 5149]]

contortions and justifications. They just need help, and they need it 
now. They need the help the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act 
would provide.
  Why don't we finally get around to fixing this problem? The time to 
do that is now.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Memorandum

                                                   April 15, 2015.
     To: Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
     From: Edward C. Liu, Legislative Attorney; Jon O. 
         Shimabukuro, Legislative Attorney.
     Subject: Analysis of S.Amdt. 1120 to S. 178.
       This memorandum responds on an expedited basis to your 
     request for an analysis of specific questions you have posed 
     regarding a draft amendment denoted ``ALB15639'' which 
     appears to be identical to S.Amdt. 1120 to S. 178. Your 
     questions have been reproduced below verbatim followed by our 
     responses.


 ``1. Does the text of ALB15639 require all special assessments to be 
               deposited in the General Treasury Fund?''

       Yes. Section 3302(b) of Title 31 of the United States Code, 
     also known as the miscellaneous receipts statute, requires 
     that all money received for the federal government must be 
     deposited in the General Fund of the Treasury unless 
     disposition of the receipts is otherwise specified by law. S. 
     178, as amended by S.Amdt. 1120 does not appear to specify a 
     different treatment for the assessments received.
       The new Sec. 3014(d) created by S.Amdt. 1120 would specify 
     that ``consistent with [the miscellaneous receipts statute], 
     there shall be transferred to the [Domestic Trafficking 
     Victims'] 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.'' 
     The transfer of funds from the General Fund does not affect 
     the disposition of the assessments in a way that would 
     supersede the miscellaneous receipts statute, though the end 
     result for the respective balances of the General Fund and 
     the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund appears to be 
     mathematically equal to directly depositing the assessments 
     into the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund. The conclusion 
     that the assessments are deposited into the General Fund is 
     reinforced by the clause requiring that the transfer occur 
     ``consistent with'' the miscellaneous receipts statute.


 ``2. Once the special assessments in ALB15369 are deposited into the 
  General Treasury Fund, would they be classified as federal funds?''

       Yes, amounts in the General Fund are considered ``federal 
     funds'' by the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB''). In 
     the Analytical Perspectives volume of the Budget for FY2016, 
     OMB provides background information on budget accounts. This 
     information would seem to be instructive for determining how 
     funds, i.e., amounts, in the Treasury account will be 
     classified. OMB observes:
       When money is received by the federal government, it is 
     credited to a budget account, .  . . . All budget accounts 
     belong to one of two groups of funds: federal funds and trust 
     funds. . . . The federal funds group includes the ``general 
     fund,'' the largest fund in the government used for the 
     general purposes of government and special funds and 
     revolving funds, both of which receive dedicated collections 
     for spending on specific purposes. Where the law requires 
     that federal fund collections be dedicated to a particular 
     program, the collections and associated disbursements are 
     recorded in special fund receipt and expenditure accounts. . 
     . . Money in a special fund must be appropriated before it 
     can be obligated and spent. The majority of special fund 
     collections are derived from the government's power to impose 
     taxes or fines, or otherwise compel payment.


 ``3. Do precedents exist for applying the Hyde amendment to mandatory 
               spending from the General Treasury Fund?''

       Yes. Mandatory spending can be generally defined as federal 
     spending which is controlled by laws other than 
     appropriations acts. In recent years the Hyde Amendment has 
     included a clause extending its scope to trust funds to which 
     money was appropriated in that same annual appropriations 
     act. For example, the consolidated appropriations act for 
     FY2015 includes a Hyde Amendment with this clause, and also 
     appropriates funds from the General Fund to the Federal 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. The Federal Hospital Insurance 
     Trust Fund is used to pay for services provided to Medicare 
     beneficiaries under Part A of the program. Because these 
     payments from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are 
     controlled by the Social Security Act and are considered to 
     be mandatory spending, this would appear to constitute an 
     example of mandatory spending that was subject to the 
     versions of the Hyde Amendment.


``4. Is not the language in Section 221(c) of H.R. 2 (Hyde language in 
 House-passed SGR legislation) attached to mandatory spending from the 
                       General Treasury Fund ?''

       Yes. Section 221(a) of H.R. 2 amends Sec. 10503 of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) which 
     appropriates funds to the Community Health Center Fund (CHC 
     Fund) for certain fiscal years, out of any monies in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated. Section 221 extends the 
     funding provided in Sec. 10503 for fiscal years 2016 and 
     2017. Pursuant to Sec. 10503, amounts in the CHC Fund are 
     available until expended, and are to be used by the Secretary 
     to increase funding of community health centers and the 
     National Health Service Corps. Subsection 221(c) of H.R. 2 
     further provides that:
       Amounts appropriated pursuant to this section for fiscal 
     year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 are subject to the 
     requirements contained in Public Law 113-235 for funds for 
     programs authorized under sections 330 through 340 of the 
     Public Health Service Act.
       On its face, this restriction would appear to apply to the 
     amounts appropriated to the CHC Fund for fiscal years 2016 
     and 2017. The spending of funds appropriated for those fiscal 
     years would appear to be controlled by Sec. 10503 of ACA, and 
     would not appear to be controlled by an appropriations act. 
     Therefore, spending from the CHC Fund would appear to be 
     classified as mandatory spending subject to the restriction 
     in subsection 221(c) of H.R. 2.


``5. Is the language on page 4, lines 8-14 of ALB15639 (Hyde language) 
  also attached to mandatory spending from the General Treasury Fund''

       Yes. The new 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3014(e)(3), as added by S.Amdt. 
     1120, states that:
       Amounts transferred from the [Domestic Trafficking 
     Victims'] Fund pursuant to this section for each of fiscal 
     years 2016 through 2019 are subject to the requirements 
     contained in Public Law 113-235 for funds for programs 
     authorized under sections 330 through 340 of the Public 
     Health Service Act.
       S.Amdt. 1120 further provides that amounts in the Domestic 
     Trafficking Victims' Fund shall be used by the Attorney 
     General, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, to award grants or enhance victims' 
     programming, ``without further appropriation.'' This 
     provision is found in an authorizing measure which amends 
     Title 18 of the United States Code, and not an appropriations 
     act.
       Therefore, using the same definition of mandatory spending 
     as provided above, the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund 
     would appear to be mandatory spending that is subject to the 
     restrictions in the new 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3014(e)(3) that would 
     be added by S.Amdt. 1120.

                          ____________________