Human Trafficking Legislation
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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, 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source