Justice For Victims Of Trafficking Act Of 2015 -- Continued
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, told us that Democrats and Republicans could finally agree on one thing; that is, we ought to focus not on the partisan politics and the ideology that so often divides us, but we ought to focus on the victims of human trafficking, largely middle school-age girls who are bought and sold like commodities.
I came to the floor yesterday and said that I believe we are all created in the image of God, and it is a sin, it is the very personification of evil for people to treat those same human beings as if they were things. That is what the scourge of human trafficking is all about.
I was very glad to see that finally we seemed to be chipping away at the dysfunction of the Senate that we have experienced over the last few years and, in the new majority, given an opportunity for an open amendment process on a subject that we all agree needs to be dealt with that we could work on together. So imagine my surprise when earlier today the same Democratic leader said the Democrats were going to filibuster this anti-human trafficking legislation. Why in the world would they take a 180-degree turn? Why would they do such an about-face or flip-flop? Well, they said because there was language contained in the bill they disagreed with. No, they didn't say they would use this open amendment process to file an amendment and have a vote to strip it out or to modify it or otherwise change it; they said: We are going to block the bill; it is dead unless this language comes out. Yet they do nothing to try to effect that outcome.
We might wonder what this language is that they are so upset about that they would literally kick the tens of thousands of children and other victims to the curb because of their outrage that this language is contained in this legislation. Well, imagine my surprise to find out that the reason why the Democratic minority is going to filibuster this antitrafficking bill is because they object to language that has been the law of the land for 39 years--39 years. So I guess they woke up this morning and thought, well, we better do something about it. What is the provision that causes them so much discomfort, that they are so upset about that they are willing to block this legislation? Well, it is something called the Hyde amendment. Basically what that does is it prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions.
I realize that in America we are of different minds on the subject of abortion. I am proudly pro-life, but others in our Senate are pro-choice, and we probably have a whole spectrum of views on this very personal issue. But we have had a bipartisan consensus--unanimity almost--for the last 39 years that whatever else the law is, as handed down by the Supreme Court or by Congress, we are not going to use taxpayer funds for abortion.
So imagine my surprise when that very language and very reference was included in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act bill that now today I find out for the first time our Democratic friends object to.
Imagine my surprise when that very language was part of the bill that was filed in mid-January and a month later was marked up and voted on in the Senate Judiciary Committee and all members of the Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, voted for it. They voted for it unanimously. Well, I don't believe that was a mistake. Our friends across the aisle have outstanding staff. They are very talented people. I don't always agree with them, but they are good at what they do. I don't believe for a minute that they would have missed a reference in this legislation to a restriction on funding taxpayer-provided abortions, and I don't believe that those staff members, being the diligent professionals they are, didn't tell their principal, their member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. So this idea that there has been some kind of ambush is preposterous. It is just not credible.
Well, imagine my surprise when not only did we have a 15-to-0 vote, I believe it was--in other words, a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee--for this bill, we have Democratic cosponsors of this bill. Not only do they support the bill, they have been actively working with us on the legislation. Just looking at the face of the bill, I count 10 Democratic cosponsors. Do you think they didn't read the bill before they put their names on it? Do you think their staffs didn't tell them what is in the bill?
Well, as we all know, this sort of thing is ordinarily very hotly debated. There are no shrinking violets in the U.S. Senate, no people who sit passively on the sidelines and say: Well, I better not speak up and express my views. That doesn't happen. We have strong-willed, talented people on both sides of the aisle, and there are no shrinking violets. Let's just lay that to rest. People are willing to speak up, and they do speak up every day, every hour, virtually every minute on things they feel strongly about.
So this idea that we have created an ambush, that we have surprised our colleagues by including this language in a bill that is on the floor, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act--voted unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, all Republicans and all Democrats, with 10 Democratic cosponsors--that we have somehow surprised them by including this restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion that has been the law of the land for 39 years is patently ridiculous. It is just not believable.
Let me provide a little more information. The reference in the bill is on page 50 under limitations. It says: ``Amounts in the Fund, or otherwise transferred from the Fund''--that is, the crime victims compensation fund created by this legislation, $30 million that goes to help treat victims and help them heal and get on with their lives--this bill says that this fund ``shall be subject to the limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 . . . to the same extent as if amounts in the Fund were funds appropriated under division H of such Act.''
I went to see how many Democrats voted for that consolidated appropriations act in 2014 that contained the Hyde amendment language and the limitations on taxpayer-funded abortions. Imagine my surprise when I saw that 55 Democrats voted for that language in the 2014 consolidated appropriations bill that is referred to on pages 50 and 51 of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act.
This is the same bill the Democratic leader said Democrats were going to filibuster because they were so outraged, they were surprised, they were bushwhacked, they were ambushed, they were tricked. Twenty-three Democrats voted for that same appropriation language in 2014.
But it gets better--or worse, as the case may be. Democrats have supported legislation consistent with the Hyde amendment for a long time. As I have said, it has been the law of the land for 39 years. When was the last time? Well, the Department of Homeland Security funding. Remember this back-and-forth we had over the defunding of the President's Executive action on immigration that so many on our side of the aisle are upset about because it is not within the President's authority to do it--and that is not just my opinion; it is the Federal judge's in Brownsville who has issued a preliminary injunction--but how many Democrats voted for the Department of Homeland Security funding bill that contains that same limitation on taxpayer funding for abortions? Forty-five Democrats voted for it.
So imagine my surprise when 45 Democrats recently voted for that appropriations bill to come to the Senate today and be told: We are outraged. We are never going to support that. And, by the way, we didn't know it was in the bill when we voted for it in the Judiciary Committee or when we cosponsored the bill.
Well, they presumably knew about it when they voted for the Department of Homeland Security funding in February of 2015, when 32 of them voted for the CR omni or CRomni in December of 2014. And, oh, by the way, remember ObamaCare? Every single Democrat voted to support ObamaCare which contained the same restriction on taxpayer funding for abortions.
They have also voted for the Children's Health Insurance Program, the so-called SCHIP, for Defense authorization bills. In other words, our Democratic friends have voted time and time and time again for the exact same language they now say they are going to filibuster on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, language they said they weren't aware of when they voted for it--they didn't read it, their staff didn't tell them about it.
Well, if that is true, I would get new staff. But I know the staff on the Democratic side, like the staff on the Republican side, are highly professional people and they wouldn't fail to identify offensive language that their Senator could not and would not and never has voted for, or they would be out of a job.
So I plead with our Democratic friends, please don't make this Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act another political football. For heaven's sake, if we can't agree to protect the most vulnerable victims of this heinous crime, what can we ever agree on? If we can't agree on that, if we are going to try to find a way to flyspeck legislation and say, well, I won't allow this bill to go forward if that language is included in there--even though it has been the law of the land for 39 years, even though routinely Democrats have voted for that restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion time and time and time again--why start now, when we are talking about the most vulnerable victims of this heinous crime, and say: Well, we are going to punish you. We are not going to provide you the services you need in order to heal and get better and get on with your life, because we woke up this morning, March 10, 2015, and after 39 years we decided this is where we draw the line. We are drawing the line here. Never again will we ever vote for the Hyde amendment to be applied to any funds appropriated by or in the possession of the Federal Government.
So I really would ask my colleagues: Please reconsider. Please let's not do this. Don't do this to these children and these victims of trafficking. Don't do it to this institution.
We all understand that Washington can be a pretty tough place. All of us are volunteers, and we understand politics can sometimes be a tough business. But let's not take it out on these victims of human trafficking. That should be beneath us. They don't deserve that. They deserve better.
If we pass this legislation and we get it to the President's desk and he signs it--which I believe he will--hundreds, if not thousands, of victims of human trafficking have a safe place to sleep, they will have people who love them and care for them try to help them heal and get better. We will take the money from the people who perpetrate these crimes and we will use that money to help provide needed services to these children and other victims of human trafficking.
We will say ``no more'' to the teenaged girl who is arrested for prostitution, because she is a victim of trafficking--we will tell her, no more are you a criminal. We will recognize her for the victim she is, and we will treat her appropriately.
We will deal not only with the supply side of this terrible crime, we will deal with the demand side--people who get off the hook too easily with impunity, people who purchase these illicit services, and somehow always seem to avoid responsibility and continue to participate in this crime with impunity.
So the domestic trafficking victims fund in our legislation supplements existing authorized grant programs that are already subject to appropriation laws such as the Hyde amendment. They are already subject to the same provisions. Our legislation clarifies that the Hyde amendment also applies to any funds that are used to supplement those existing grant programs. Our legislation does not in any way expand or change the scope of the Hyde amendment. It just says these funds operate under the same rules that cover the existing grant programs they supplement.
Everyone agrees the programs we supplement in this legislation need more funds. I know the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Vermont, has made an impassioned plea to add more money beyond the victims compensation fund that we created. He is saying there needs to be more money. As a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, I hope the Appropriations Committee looks at that and makes a decision whether they ought to supplement what we do. But these funds are being subjected to the same limitation on spending as every dollar the Senate Appropriations Committee has appropriated during the last 39 years.
So my hope is this, that Members of the Senate will rise above this disagreement, this posturing, this attempt to try to play ``gotcha'' at the expense of these victims of human trafficking. No Member should attempt to make this bill a debate about extraneous issues and policies that have been settled on a bipartisan basis for 39 years.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source