Executive Session - Unanimous Consent Request -- S. 178

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the bipartisan Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act will go a long way to fight the scourge of modern-day human slavery. It was introduced back in January by a Republican, Senator CORNYN, and a Democrat, Senator KLOBUCHAR. As is done with all legislation, it was posted on the Internet for everyone to read.

Not long after, 14 female senators on the Democrat side joined their female counterparts on the Republican side to call for a Judiciary Committee hearing on the matter. Chairman GRASSLEY is committed to fighting human trafficking. So not only did he hold the hearing they requested, he promptly scheduled a markup on legislation to combat modern human slavery, including the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. That markup was conducted in an open and transparent way. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act was debated and amended in committee.

For example, the senior senator from Connecticut offered an amendment to this bipartisan bill on behalf of himself and the junior senator from Illinois. That amendment was approved.

The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act was reported unanimously to the floor. Every single Democrat on the Judiciary Committee voted for it. Every single one. Soon after, the junior Senator from North Dakota called on me to take up this bill, which I was happy to do.

The Democratic Majority did not bring this bill to the floor in the last Congress, and I was determined to try to do something about the terrible problem of human trafficking. Just a few days ago, every single Democrat consented to the Senate taking up this bipartisan bill. The Democrat Leader even committed to work to clear any problems that would arise on his side of the aisle, although he said he doubted that any would.

Well, no sooner had these words been uttered, then our Democrat colleagues began complaining about a provision that was sitting on page four of the bill. This provision was in there when this bipartisan bill was introduced. It was in there when the committee held a hearing on it. It was in there when the committee marked it up--at which point every single Democrat voted for it. And it was in there when every Democrat in the Senate agreed to proceed to it on the floor. But now they are complaining about it and even threatening to filibuster this critical human rights bill over it.

Now, I understand threatening to filibuster a bill that you oppose. But our colleagues are threatening to filibuster a bipartisan bill that they have co-sponsored, voted for, or in some cases, done both.

We have been reasonable throughout this process. Consistent with that approach, I suggest we resolve this bizarre issue the way the Senate has traditionally done. I will be proposing a consent agreement where our friends on the other side of the aisle will get to offer a motion to strike a provision that so many Democrats voted to support in the past. As part of my offer, I would further propose that such an amendment be the first amendment in order, and that it be decided as a simple up-or-down vote. That is as fair as one can be. An up-or-down vote at a simple majority threshold.

Not only is that the regular order way to resolve this issue, it is also the way that leading antitrafficking groups have said we should resolve this issue. For example, an official from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women said, ``Senate Democrats are choosing a phantom problem over real victims.'' She said Senate Democrats should offer an amendment to strip out the provision if they don't like it. And then she said, ``Win or lose and move on.''

I think that is good advice, Mr. President. That is precisely what I am going to suggest. And I hope my Democratic colleagues will take ``yes'' for an answer.

Mr. President, the Senator from Texas, who has been a leader on this issue and is the craftsman of this bill--as has Senator Grassley, the chairman of the committee--has laid out how we got to where we are. It is sort of a mind-boggling, twisted path that makes almost no sense even to the casual observer. The dilemma seems to be that our Democratic friends, having read and signed off on this bill all along the way, have suddenly discovered a piece of it they do not like. Well, of course, the way to eliminate a piece you don't like would be to vote on it.

So I am going to offer a unanimous consent agreement that would give our friends on the other side an opportunity for an up-or-down, simple majority vote on the provision they have recently discovered, after reading the bill for 2 months, that they find offensive. I will give them an opportunity with a simple majority vote to strike the provision which they find objectionable and which Senator Cornyn has pointed out has been part of the law for 39 years.

In that regard, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 178, that it be in order for Senator Leahy or his designee to offer an amendment to strike the limitations language; that there be up to 1 hour of debate on the amendment equally divided between the managers or their designees; and that following the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate vote on the amendment; further, that following disposition of this amendment, the managers or their designees be allowed to offer amendments in an alternating fashion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to make sure everybody understands what has been objected to. The provision that was in the bill has been in there for 2 months. Everybody had a chance to read it. It came out of committee unanimously. No one objected to proceeding to it on the floor.

I just offered the minority an opportunity for a simple up-or-down vote to strike the provision they recently discovered, and they have objected to it.

Senator Cornyn, Senator Grassley, and a number of others of you have worked very hard on this extremely important legislation. I brought it to the floor the other day, open for amendment, but we have not been able to offer any amendments because the minority doesn't want to have an open amendment process and is insisting on trying to kill this important bill because of a provision they claim somehow they missed. After its being in there for 2 months, they now suddenly find it offensive.

So where we are is we are still on the bill, and we are going to pass this bill, I assure you. I want to assure Senators Cornyn, Grassley, and all the people out in America who have been clamoring for this bill--and I might ask Senator Cornyn, how many groups are there that are supporting this measure?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. So what I want to say to those groups is that we are going to stay on this bill until we pass it. I have offered the minority an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote to take out the provision they have suddenly discovered is offensive to them even after having it in the bill for 2 months. Even the most casual observer would have to conclude that the minority is going to great lengths to prevent the Senate from even doing business on things that are overwhelmingly supported. But I will say this to everybody out there who cares about this bill: We are going to stay on it until we finish it.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source