Justice For Victims Of Trafficking Act Of 2015 -- Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, again today, just like yesterday, we saw all but four Senate Democrats filibuster a bill that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously, including nine Democratic Senator votes. This is a bill that is cosponsored by 12 Democrats and a bill that came to the floor by unanimous consent of the Senate--all 100 Senators. Any single Senator could have barred that from happening and forced us to go through procedural hoops. I would like to believe they did so because all of us agree--Democrat and Republican alike--that helping the victims of human trafficking should be our sole and solitary focus in this legislation. And that is what this bill does.

This bill is probably the last bill you would imagine would be controversial--certainly one that people would be loath to politicize--but, indeed, that is exactly what has happened. I just can't explain it. Maybe some of our colleagues who have done this can. How can you cosponsor a bill, how can you vote for it and then come to the floor of the Senate on two occasions and vote to kill it?

Well, as I said earlier, we have four Senate Democrats who have joined with Republicans to pass this piece of legislation, then reconcile it with the House bill, and send it on to President Obama, where I am confident he would sign it. I am confident he would sign it because this is an issue where, if we can't do a bill to help victims of human trafficking, I wonder what we can possibly accomplish. If politics and the divisiveness here in Washington so polarizes people on this bill, how are we going to do the other things we need to do, such as pass a budget? How are we going to take care of our national security needs? How will we deal with the immigration issue? How will we deal with other things that are far more controversial?

Just to reiterate what this bill does, it focuses on the people on the demand side of sex trafficking and the sex trade. In other words, the people who actually pay for the services provided by these 12-to-14-year-old girls and the pimps that basically manage them.

This takes the money from the people who create the demand. Once they have been convicted and penalized, they pay into a crime victims compensation fund. We estimate, if our calculations are correct, that could generate as much as $30 million a year--$30 million a year. That money would then be subject to grants to help organizations that are set up to help the victims of human trafficking.

So not only are we interested in trying to rescue these children from the grasp of these criminal organizations that run human trafficking rings, we want to find a way to help them heal and get better. We have all heard story after story about the tragedy of human trafficking. I have talked to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who, as a former prosecutor, understands this issue and the human wreckage left in the wake of the people who purchase these services and help facilitate these criminal organizations. So somehow, some way, we need to find a way to help the victims. Our focus ought to be on them and them alone.

We have heard a lot of, to my mind, phony excuses about this bill. I actually had some Senators tell me they didn't know of this provision that limits the use of the fines and penalties. This is a rule that has prevailed for 39 years, known as the Hyde amendment. They say they didn't know it was there. They didn't read the bill, apparently.

I don't actually quite believe that. I know that staff on both sides in the Judiciary Committee and generally the staff in the Senate are highly professional people. They are not going to let something slip by. But if there is a reason why they did, I believe it is because this language has become routine. It has become routine. It has been in literally every appropriations bill since 1976. It had been in things such as the Children's Health Insurance Program. It has been in Defense authorization bills. It has been in ObamaCare. All of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have voted for this sort of language over and over and over again.

I happen to be proudly pro-life, but we have many colleagues who consider themselves pro-choice who have said: Well, I don't think we ought to appropriate tax dollars to pay for abortions. I agree with the Hyde amendment. So they have clearly had an opportunity to read and understand the bill. I don't believe 12 Senators on the other side would cosponsor a bill they hadn't read and didn't understand. I don't believe nine members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the other side would vote for it, including the distinguished ranking member, without knowing what was in the bill.

The reason why this was so unremarkable is because, as I said, it has become routine, and virtually all the legislation that touches on this area has passed since 1976. So why here and why now? Why are we threatening to kill this important piece of legislation to help the most vulnerable victims that exist in America?

It is estimated that about 100,000 children are sex trafficked a year in the United States. It happens in Texas, sadly; it happens in Vermont; and it happens everywhere. The fact of the matter is, most Americans are simply unaware of it because this is an underbelly of life, a criminality that is really unbeknownst to most of us because it happens outside of our view and outside of our experience. But we have thousands of scared and abused children who need our help.

By killing this bill, as our friends across the aisle have done, with the exception of four brave exceptions, instead of our helping hand we are giving them a shrug of indifference. We are saying: You know what. Our political fights here in Washington are more important than your future and your life and the fact that you have been treated as human baggage.

I happen to believe--and I know many share this belief--that we are all created in the image of God, and it is a terrible sin and it is an evil thing to treat a human being created in the image of God as a commodity, as a thing to be bought and sold.

We went through a terrible period in our Nation's history where we had African Americans treated as less than human. We fought a civil war, where 600,000 people died, and then we passed a constitutional amendment and other important legislation to try to heal those wounds that existed from the very beginning of our Nation. Indeed, it has not yet finished healing even today.

Knowing what we know about human slavery and what that has been in our history, why in the world wouldn't we want to do something about modern-day human slavery to try to rectify, to try to rescue, to try to help heal these victims, which is what this legislation does?

To summarize: We have a piece of legislation that contains a provision that has been the law of the land for 39 years. We have a bill on the floor that was cosponsored by 12 Democrats on the other side of the aisle. Unfortunately, most of them have voted to filibuster this bill now that it has come to the floor because of this provision they said they didn't know about or they weren't aware of or they object to.

We have a piece of legislation that will not cost taxpayers anything because it is financed by the fines and penalties assessed against people who demand and purchase these illicit services. That is why this is the sort of bipartisan consensus legislation I think the American people would like to see us pass.

We need to overcome this obstacle. I know the majority leader, Senator McConnell, is determined to give those who are filibustering this bill a chance to change their mind and a chance to let us finish this piece of legislation. Indeed, we need two, maybe three more Senators on that side. I would think that among the 12 people who cosponsored the bill, among the 9 who voted for it already in committee, we could find at least 3 more who would vote for this legislation and allow us to finish it.

I know the distinguished ranking member from Vermont has an amendment he wants to offer on the bill, and he has that right. He should have that right. But we can't do it unless we get past this hurdle of the filibuster. This bill is simply too important to let politics get in the way of helping the innocent victims who need our support.

So the Senate being the way it is, which is somewhat broken these days, how in the world do we get to the point where we can actually help the victims of human trafficking, given the filibuster? Well, Senator McConnell has said he is going to keep bringing this bill back again and again--and, indeed, this is now the second vote we have had on this--until we can recruit at least two more Democrats to vote to close off debate to allow us to finish the bill. He has also said we are not going to be able to get to the confirmation of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, which has been voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, until we finish this bill. I agree with that. I think the majority leader has made the right call, because, apparently, if the cries and the needs of the innocent victims of human trafficking aren't enough to move our friends across the aisle to let us finish this bill, then we are going to have to look for whatever leverage we can.

Indeed, I would say this does not bode well for the future of the 114th Congress if this is the way we are going to be operating. I don't know how many nominations will be voted out of committee and be eligible for floor action that will not be considered on the Senate floor because we are stuck in situations such as this--where we know what the right thing to do is, all of the Senators know what the right thing to do is, but somehow we can't quite seem to get it done. We have to get it done. We have to get all of the Senate's business done, including considering the President's nominees.

So I hope we do. I look forward to having another opportunity, perhaps tomorrow, to vote to close off debate. My hope is that overnight, sometime during the next 24 hours, at least 2 more of our colleagues--we would be glad to have more--can examine their conscience, can think about why it is they actually ran for the Senate, why it is they are here. Is it to try to actually do something good to help people who can't help themselves? I believe it is. I think that is why all of us came here, to try to do that. But somehow, some way, we have gotten off track, and some people think that political games and obstruction are more important than actually doing what we got elected to do and the reason why we actually volunteered to serve in the United States Senate.

So I hope we have at least two more Senators on the other side examine their conscience and reconsider their ``no'' vote and decide to close off debate by providing the votes. We need to do that tomorrow.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont, whom I have worked with closely on a number of pieces of legislation and whom I would love to be able to work with to find a solution to the current impasse that we have on this legislation--I would say to my friend that if the objection is that this fund is not subject to the appropriations process, then that is something we ought to discuss and talk about.

Why the fund is so important to me is because the fines and penalties that go into this save the taxpayers money. It actually takes the money from the people who create the demand and uses that to help heal and save and rescue the victims.

I guess I would have a little difference of opinion--and maybe it is just semantics--that once the fines and penalties are paid to the Treasury, my view is they become public dollars although they technically aren't derived from taxes, per se. But beyond that point, I would say once this money is paid into the fund, I think we could come up with a mechanism that would then allow the Appropriations Committee to play its traditional role in directing the money to the purposes for which Congress designates. And I know, as a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator believes--and I respect--that is an important part of the process.

It is important, though, to note that this would still be subject to the same rule which has prevailed for 39 years, and that is the Hyde amendment. Here is where I don't understand the principle of the objection--because the Hyde amendment has an exception, as the Senator knows, for the physical health and mental health of the mother, as certified by a physician, and also in cases of rape. I can't imagine any case where a potential beneficiary of this fund would be excluded from services that would be allowed under the legislation as written. But I would say if the Senator thinks that might be a fruitful area for us to continue conversations and to figure a way to structure this so that it would be subject to an annual appropriation process--subject to those limitations that have prevailed now since 1976--I think there might be some room for discussion.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source