Human Trafficking Legislation

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join several of my colleagues this morning in submitting a substitute amendment to the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.

Human trafficking is a global scourge, and we should be working on a bipartisan basis and on a bicameral basis to stop it. However, I am deeply concerned to learn that our friends on the other side of the aisle have inserted a worrisome provision into this year's version of the bill. This provision would expand upon the so-called Hyde amendment which restricts funds for women's reproductive health choices.

The new language, which has been offered by Senator Cornyn from Texas, would set a new, dangerous precedent by enabling Hyde restrictions to apply to nontax funding streams set forth in this bill.

This language paves the way for political leaders in the future to interfere even more with a woman's basic personal health decisions, and it sets the tone for a dramatic expansion of abortion restriction for years to come.

I am upset about this provision in that it shouldn't be in this bill. This bill is not about abortion, it is about human trafficking. Instead, this provision has now become another opportunity for political speeches and delay.

The good news is the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act can still be bipartisan, and we have high hopes it will be. Democrats are ready to work with Republicans to fix this bill and move past the partisan obstacle which literally stopped us this week from doing anything.

The substitute amendment removes the Hyde restrictions from the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. It includes two important bipartisan pieces of legislation, the Runaway and Homeless Youth and Trafficking Prevention Act, originally offered by Senator Leahy, and the Stop Exploitation Through Trafficking Act sponsored by Senator Klobuchar.

We know that colleagues can work on a bipartisan basis to effectively address this issue. I urge my colleagues, when we look at what we have done so far in this session of Congress, we have very little to show for the time we have spent here. This is an opportunity to pass a bipartisan human trafficking bill--not a grab bag for every notion or idea any Senator has on any subject, but one that addresses a very serious issue.

I also know that another Senator from Louisiana on the Republican side has an amendment which he wishes to offer on this bill which, again, has nothing to do with human trafficking.

Senator Vitter offers an amendment that would deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States unless one of the parents of the child is a U.S. citizen, national permanent resident, or an actively serving armed services member.

As the ranking member of the constitution subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee, let me begin with the obvious for my colleagues in the Senate: Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right. Congress can't amend that amendment with a statute. I would think that every Senator knows that. To put this provision before us is merely to try to provoke a debate on a bill which has no impact on the Constitution.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment states: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.''

I urge my colleagues, particularly the one offering this amendment, to pick up the Constitution and read it. The 14th Amendment is as clear as can be.

The citizenship clause has been restated and established by four centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence. The 14th Amendment raised the short-lived exception to birthright citizenship that was established by the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857. We certainly remember that. It was one of the provocations that led to a civil war in this country. We should take this issue extremely seriously.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 14th Amendment applies to U.S.-born children of noncitizens. What part of that does the author of this amendment not understand?

The Court rejected arguments that the son of Chinese nationals, who were forbidden under the Chinese Exclusion Act from ever becoming U.S. citizens, could be deprived of citizenship because of his parents' status.

The Supreme Court ruled that: ``Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens.......are subjects at birth.'' Subsequent decisions have backed that up.

The famous case of Plyer v. Doe basically said--the Court reasoned that even if the Court wanted to control the conduct of adults, ``legislation directing the onus of the parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental concepts of justice.'' The law is clear.

So this amendment being offered by Senator Vitter is a provocative, unnecessary, and basically feckless effort to stall an important bill that should be passed on a bipartisan basis.

I hope my colleagues, whatever their feelings on this issue, will understand, you cannot amend the Constitution by a statute. I thought that was in basic Senate 101, but we have to get back to it to make clear that my colleagues understand this important human trafficking bill should not be bogged down or stopped with issues such as abortion--as important as it is--which should be saved for a separate debate, or this effort to amend the U.S. Constitution with an amendment on the floor to a statute. That certainly is not a good way for us to accomplish things in the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source