Justice For Victims Of Trafficking Act Of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am an optimistic person. As a matter of fact, I think everybody from Texas is an optimist. Can you imagine the challenges the people who founded our State had--Indians, wide-open hostile territory, tough weather. But they persevered because they were optimists. They thought the fight was worth the struggle. They thought the goal and the accomplishment--the hope for accomplishment--was worth the struggle.

I still remain optimistic--despite the last few weeks that have challenged that optimism--that we will actually break through here and get to consider and vote on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act and get help to the people whom the majority leader, Senator McConnell, described, the children who cannot help themselves. I mean, for heaven's sake, if we cannot help the most vulnerable people in our country--children who cannot help themselves, who are the victims of modern-day slavery--what in the world can we do?

So we have marked 100 days here in the Senate with the new Republican majority. As I look back, I do not think anybody can deny that under the majority leader's stewardship we have had some significant accomplishments in a relatively short period of time. Sure, it has been bumpy along the way. The Keystone XL Pipeline was a significant bump in the road. But we had a strong bipartisan vote. Unfortunately, the President decided to veto that legislation.

After years of this Chamber being used solely for the purpose of messaging and conducting political show votes, we are actually starting to get some things done.

It is pretty exciting. As somebody who has been here since 2002, it is hard to believe, when I say that, that I have actually been here during different phases and cycles of the Senate operating. I have to tell you that the last 4 years or so has been a dark period, a stain on the reputation of the Senate in terms of actually getting things done in the interests of the American people.

I understand the he said-she said and the blame game. The blame game is a world-class sport here in Washington, DC. But most of our constituents couldn't care less about the blame game; they actually want to see government function in their interest. Consistent with our principles, we are going to have some disagreements, there is no doubt about it. But they hate the dysfunction. They hate the political posturing. You know what. I do, too. I dare say that the vast majority of Senators hate the dysfunction the Senate has experienced.

So there is a new spirit of optimism and, yes, hope, not that the Age of Aquarius has suddenly broken out--peace, love and understanding and we are all going to hold hands and sing ``Kumbaya.'' That is not going to happen. But can we work together as Americans, as people who love our country, who have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States, who owe a fiduciary duty to the people we represent? I represent 26.9 million people. That just staggers my imagination when I think about it, when I think about the responsibility associated with it. But I am encouraged when we have the chance to help people, especially those who cannot help themselves.

Well, one reason for my optimism about the new Congress is that we have held a lot of votes. We had 15 votes last year, 15 rollcall votes in the Congress last year. We have had about 100 in the 100 days we have been here. As a matter of fact, I have heard some of our colleagues say: I am a little tired of voting quite as much as we have, particularly on the budget vote-arama which lasted until 4 in the morning. I understand that. But, you know, we have passed a balanced budget in the Senate without raising taxes. The Congress has not passed a budget since 2009. What more fundamental, basic function of government is there than to pass a budget?

The distinguished Presiding Officer was Governor of his great State. I am absolutely confident he viewed that as one of the fundamental responsibilities of his State government and of his office in particular--to get the fiscal house in order. The way you do that is by passing a budget and determining what your priorities are--things you absolutely have to do, things you perhaps want to do but maybe have to delay, and things you simply cannot afford.

Every State, every local government, and, yes, the Federal Government should pass a budget. We will in short order. The Senate has, and now we need to reconcile our differences with the House, which we will shortly. But it is not just government; every family and every business has to work on a budget. So that is progress. I am happy about that.

On Tuesday night, we actually fixed a problem that had been nagging the Congress since 1997. Back in 1997, we, the Congress--we were not here; the Presiding Officer and I were not here. The Congress had this bright idea: We are going to save money on health care by whacking the payments we make to providers and hospitals. Well, after a while we found out that if we do not pay doctors and hospitals for treating Medicare patients, they will not see them.

So our seniors, to whom we had made a sacred promise--we will continue to make sure Medicare provides quality service and is accessible--all of a sudden, it was not quite so accessible because people could not find a doctor who would take a new Medicare patient.

That is still a problem, so we came back over the intervening years and 17 times out of the 18 times those cuts would have been imposed, Congress reversed them. We had an expression around here that unfortunately we had to use a lot; we called it the doc fix. That is an inelegant way, perhaps, of describing what we were doing, but basically what we were trying to do was preserve Medicare and access to doctors and hospitals for our seniors who are the beneficiaries of the Medicare system. That, to me, represents some progress, that we have fixed that once and for all.

Then, imagine my surprise that, after the contentious issue of congressional approval of the anticipated Iranian-U.S.--along with our allies--nuclear negotiations, this deal that could be forthcoming this summer, imagine my surprise, after the President said he would veto it, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed a bill out of the committee. All Democrats voted for it. All Republicans voted for it. Oh, by the way, when the President began to count the numbers and the support in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, he said: You know what. I think I will sign that piece of legislation when it comes to my desk. I think that represents progress.

One other item that has made me somewhat optimistic on this 100th day of the new Congress is that we are very close to working out a trade deal that the President supports and I would say Republicans by and large support. Honestly, there is probably more controversy on the Democratic side than there is on the Republican side. But in a world where 80 percent of the purchasing power and 95 percent of the population exists beyond our shores, why in the world would we not want to open new markets to the stuff we grow--our farmers, our ranchers--the livestock we raise, and the things we make? I think it makes good sense.

So you can see why I, perhaps, am optimistic about this new Congress and what we have been able to do together on a bipartisan basis to make progress in the interests of the American people.

The one thing that has me completely bamboozled and befuddled is the objections over this antitrafficking legislation that had 30 cosponsors--roughly an equal number of Democrats and Republicans--and passed--sailed out of the Judiciary Committee.

My friend the Senator from Illinois, the Democratic whip, knows that the Judiciary Committee is no place for the faint of heart. We have a lot of disagreements. Maybe that is because we have a lot of lawyers on the Judiciary Committee. We fight a lot about things we believe in strongly. But this antitrafficking legislation sailed out of the Judiciary Committee on a unanimous basis.

I hope we can work out these differences, and I have made multiple suggestions and compromises in an effort to try to get everybody to yes.

I agree with the majority leader's description of the sordid, unspeakable, evil of human trafficking and the compelling reason we ought to do something to address it.

I know that is where the hearts of all of our colleagues are, but somehow we have just gotten stuck. We need to get unstuck, and I hope today will be that day. Of course, human trafficking is a plague in all 50 States, and my State, unfortunately, has way too much of its share.

I, like all of our colleagues, have had the chance to meet many of the brave victims of human trafficking. One victim I met last week in Austin is Brooke Axtell.

Our friends at Google convened a meeting in Austin. The technology community understands that a lot of the solicitation of underage girls and victims of human trafficking occurs online. So they have come together to try to work with law enforcement, work with victims' rights groups to try to come up with a comprehensive way to combat it.

At Google last week in Austin, I met Brooke Axtell, who was introduced to America when she gave a moving speech at this year's GRAMMY Awards. In Texas, she is better known for her work with a number of nonprofits that are focused on ending domestic violence and human trafficking. I can't begin to tell you how inspiring she is and her words were, particularly when you comprehend the horror, the absolute horror of what she had been through as a victim of human trafficking herself.

Starting at the age of 7--7 years old--Brooke was sexually abused. She was literally put in chains and a cage--treated like an animal--in a basement. She was repeatedly sold to men who raped and abused her.

[Page: S2231] GPO's PDF
Out of this horror that she experienced as a young child, Brooke has brought life to her pain, and I think her leadership in the antitrafficking effort has actually helped her heal. She is one brave, courageous, young woman. She founded a group called Survivor Healing and Empowerment, which is a healing community for the survivors of rape, abuse, and sex trafficking.

That is why, today, at 11 o'clock, I hope all of our colleagues listen not only to Brooke's voice and her experience, but each one of us on the floor could tell a similar story about somebody in their State, somebody they know, they have met, who would be helped by this legislation.

I hope we don't tell them no. I hope we don't shut another door in their faces.

I see some of our colleagues on the floor. I want to briefly give them a chance to speak before we vote at 11 o'clock, just to say that the underlying legislation is not partisan. It would strengthen law enforcement tools and authorities to rescue victims, while taking down the human traffickers and the criminal networks that support them. The goal is to provide at least $30 million through fines and penalties paid into the public Treasury that would then go to help heal and rescue the victims of human trafficking.

Now, this is not tax money, so it is deficit neutral. We are not raising taxes to do it. We are making the people who purchased these services, who were convicted and have to pay fines and penalties, pay to help rescue and heal the victims.

Shortly, we will vote on another compromise I have offered. I have tried to listen to the objections of our friends across the aisle--and I don't want to relitigate those because, frankly, that is not particularly productive. They seem to be locked in. I am sure they would say we are locked in, and so we are trying to find a way forward.

First, and most important, this amendment would completely replace a provision that Members on the other side have objected to regarding the application of the Hyde amendment. The amendment would replace the language or the provision negotiated by Leader Pelosi from the doc fix bill I mentioned earlier that passed the House with 392 votes; 180 House Democrats voted for this bill, including Leader Pelosi. So we have substituted that language for the original language.

Of course, in the Senate we had 92 Senators vote for that same language, and our colleagues across the aisle have repeatedly voted for similar language.

So the Pelosi language from this bill that my amendment includes would simply say any funds used to provide services for victims of human trafficking would be subject to the same requirements as funds of the Public Health and Services Act.

The majority leader has said it well: If this language is good enough to help the doctors and the hospitals, surely it is good enough to help young 7-year-old victims of human trafficking, such as Brooke Axtell.

To further clarify, to address the stated concerns of our friends across the aisle, this amendment would also clarify that all money--all the money in the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund--must be derived from the General Treasury. This is an objection I don't personally understand, but we want to make it clear--just perhaps to help our colleagues get to yes--that all of the money would be derived from the General Treasury, which, of course, is where all Federal funding comes from, and we would make clear that all of the money would be public dollars.

I don't get this because tax dollars are private dollars until you give them to the government, and then they are no longer public-private, they are public. Private penalties are private until you pay it to the government, and then it is public.

But we want to make clear, to eliminate any rationale for any objection, and say that explicitly these would be public dollars. The requirements placed on funds under the bill would not be placed on the fees and penalties. That seemed to be a matter of concern, and we tried to address that.

As I explained, the pending amendment would do what I have tried my dead-level best to do, to try to address the concerns our Democratic colleagues, who have blocked the bill so far, have continually expressed.

So the language is just the same as the doc fix, and we have made clear that none of the fines and penalties themselves--but rather funds derived from the General Treasury--would be used to pay for these services in an equivalent amount to the fines and penalties.

I would add, parenthetically, when I was talking to one of our colleagues about it, they said: Well, that is money laundering. You are taking fines and penalties and you are transferring it, you are substituting it into a general fund.

I mean, give me a break. What we are trying to do is find a solution. I think we have given our colleagues every opportunity to get to yes.

I know, because I have talked to a lot of them--including the Senator from Illinois--people want to get to yes. I hope we have found a way to do that. So I hope we will not let the political gamesmanship continue to get in the way of a bill that would bring relief and healing to victims of human trafficking.

I hope we will have that vote at 11 o'clock, and there will be broad, bipartisan support to proceed to the bill and to pass the legislation.

I yield the floor.

Source