Human Trafficking Legislation

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, throughout the Democratic filibuster of the antislavery legislation, this is basically what they have been telling us: We don't read legislation we vote on. Even so, it was always a stretch to believe that not a single one--not one--of the 13 original Democratic cosponsors of this bill, nor the many Democrats who voted for this bill in committee, nor their well-educated staffs could not have been bothered to make it to page 4 before deciding to support it--well, support it at least until far-left lobbyists told them they could not support it anymore.

So yesterday's revelation that the Democratic side was indeed aware of the language in question could hardly have surprised anyone. It also makes clear that Democrats decided to yank their support for an antislavery bill for one simple reason: Because far-left lobbyists said they needed to--not because the American people said so.

Nearly 70 percent of Americans support the kind of bipartisan provisions Democrats now claim they object to, and many Democrats have voted for similar bipartisan Hyde language many times before in both appropriations and authorizing legislation. They voted for it many times before in other bills, most recently just this past December.

So our Democratic colleagues obviously lack a rationale for this continued filibustering of the antislavery legislation. If Democrats are truly sincere about wanting to move to an Attorney General vote as soon as possible, then they should consider some of the recent advice from the Chicago Tribune.

Here is what the Tribune said. ``Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have endorsed'' the same bill they are now filibustering, the Tribune noted. So ``all they have to do is allow a vote'' on the same bill to move to another vote they claim to want to have.

Yet, as the Tribune also noted, Democrats do not ``want to go on the record against a bill aimed at combating the evils of human trafficking. So they are blocking a vote--yes, blocking a law to combat human trafficking--in hopes that they can get their way.''

Here is how the editorial concluded--and this is the part our Democratic friends should listen to: ``Democrats,. ..... vote to move forward with the human trafficking bill. Then the Senate can get on with approving a new attorney general. And Democrats can resolve never again to vote for a bill they haven't read.''

Just resolve to never again vote for a bill you haven't read. It seems pretty simple. Ignore the lobbyists and vote to give hope to the victims of slavery instead. That is the right thing to do, and today we will give our friends another chance to show where they stand in this debate over modern slavery.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source