Human Trafficking Legislation

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for the last several weeks we have been trying to get unstuck on an important piece of legislation that would combat modern-day slavery.

At a time, I think most people were unaware of this phenomenon of sex trafficking primarily of teenaged girls between the ages of 12 and 14. I think the country has become much more aware about this scourge, this dark side to our culture and our society, and much more interested in trying to figure out what we can do to address it.

At a time when we are really beginning to see some true bipartisan cooperation and progress here in the Senate--and I say that because of things like the budget we passed last night, which was a very important piece of legislation we passed to reform Medicare, particularly to improve access for our seniors to Medicare services performed by doctors and hospitals by making sure they had a predictable and sustainable reimbursement rate, and what happened yesterday in the Foreign Relations Committee, where we had a unanimous vote on Congress's prerogative to represent our constituents on having a voice on the very important negotiations taking place between Tehran and the United States and our allies on Iran's aspirations for nuclear weapon.

Then I think about other things that are happening that are encouraging here, after a long period of stagnation and dysfunction over the last 2 years. I think we are on the cusp of a breakthrough on trade. Why in the world wouldn't we want to be open to markets when basically 80 percent of the purchasing power of the world and 95 percent of the world's population lies outside of our shores? Why wouldn't we want to open those markets to our farmers and ranchers and our manufacturers--people who grow things and who make things--and wouldn't that be great for our economy and job creation?

So imagine my surprise when after these past few weeks we have been stuck on something that has enjoyed such broad bipartisan support as combating human trafficking. Senator after Senator has come to the floor and talked about this and why we ought to act to do something about it.

Just to refresh everyone's memory, what we are trying to do is pass the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. What it would do is create a victims compensation fund, in essence, from the fines and the penalties assessed against people who are engaging in child pornography and other sex-related crimes. In other words, it would address the demand side, and take the money from fines and penalties assessed against the demand side and use that to help the victims--to help them be rescued, and to help them heal and get on with their lives.

This legislation has enjoyed broad support outside of these Chambers. More than 200 different organizations--law enforcement organizations, victims rights organizations, faith-based groups, people who want to lend a helping hand to provide beds and a secure place to stay while people heal. Unfortunately, there is just not enough money. There is a huge need across America for the resources this legislation would provide. We estimate, based on historic data, that there could be as much as $30 million generated from the fines and penalties associated with the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act that would then be available to be granted by the Department of Justice to help these victims.

So imagine my surprise when after Senator after Senator on both sides of the aisle endorsed this legislation--I think at last count we had 30 cosponsors, an almost equal number on the Democratic side as the Republican side. Then this legislation sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee and got the unanimous vote of all Democrats and all Republicans. Then it came to the floor, and at least initially we bypassed the traditional procedures to bring legislation to the floor because all 100 Senators agreed that this was important enough and significant enough and urgent enough that we needed to act on it quickly.

So imagine my surprise when, all of a sudden, it was brought to my attention that some people objected to a provision in the legislation known as the Hyde amendment, which has been the law of the land for 39 years.

To refresh everybody's memory, in the very polarizing debate over abortion, this is the one consensus item that has been the law of the land for 39 years that Republicans and Democrats have voted for repeatedly.

What it says is that no taxpayer dollars can be used to fund abortion except in the case of rape or in the case of the mother's health. Those are basically the exceptions. Do you know what? I cannot imagine that those exceptions would not apply in the vast majority of cases involving human trafficking because tragically they do involve rape, certainly sexual assault of a minor who is incapable by virtue of their tender age, unable to legally consent, and certainly people who are coerced into this sort of activity who do not want to be.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Hyde amendment itself would provide broad exceptions to provide health care services to the very victims we are talking about, some of our colleagues across the aisle said that what this bill does is it expands the Hyde amendment. The way it does it, they claim, is that it now would apply to the fines and penalties that would be assessed on criminals, primarily child pornographers, consumers, purveyors, and other people guilty of various sexual crimes. They claim that is somehow an expansion of the Hyde provision.

This is getting more and more baffling because actually last night, in an overwhelming vote--I think it was 92 votes in favor of the so-called doc fix and also funding community health centers and an extension of the Children's Health Insurance Program--the very same Hyde-type provision that was contained in the bill we voted on last night is contained in the amendment we are going to vote on tomorrow on the Senate floor. If this provision is good enough for doctors and hospitals, why in the world isn't it good enough for victims of human sex trafficking? I think the answer is obvious: It is and it should be.

In an effort to try to get us unstuck in order to try to catch a wave based on what we are doing generally here in the Senate--finally being productive and making things work--I have tried to take something that virtually all Democrats have voted for previously and to put that in the bill in order to eliminate their cause for concern. I am not going to question at this point whether it is a legitimate complaint. I, frankly, disagree. But let's get on with getting the bill passed and getting something important done.

This morning, I heard a familiar argument that was made by the Democratic leader, Senator Reid. The good news is that I have made a change in the legislation that would directly address what the Democratic leader said is their main objection. Here is their objection. I don't agree with it, but here is what it is and here is what I have done to try to address it. Their claim is that the fines and penalties are private dollars, not public dollars, and that attaching the Hyde language to those fines and penalties is somehow an expansion of the Hyde provision.

As I said, I disagree with that, but what I would ask my colleagues to do is look at page 3 of the legislation, lines 3 through 7. What we have done to address their concern is to say that no longer will the fines and penalties associated with this fund be directly appropriated and paid out in grants to the victims of human trafficking. Instead, what page 3 of our amendment says--which we will vote on tomorrow, S. 178--this paragraph is entitled ``Transfers.'' It says:

In a manner consistent with section 3302(b) of title 31, there shall be transferred to the Fund from the General Fund of the Treasury an amount equal to the amount of the assessments collected under this section, which shall remain available until expended.

What we tried to do in order to maintain the status quo on the Hyde amendment is say that the money which will actually be used to help the victims will now come from the general fund. It will be an amount equal to the fines and penalties that were going to be available under the original bill. But because of the objection, because of the stated concern, we are trying to find a way to get unstuck and keep our focus on these victims and not on some phantom objection based on--again, I am not going to reargue here today; I am just going to say we need to get this done, and this provision does that.

Mr. President, may I ask what the order of business is?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time reserved for the majority under morning business has expired.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes to speak in morning business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will wrap up.

As I have told a number of our colleagues across the aisle who believe passionately in the importance of this topic, I think this amendment we will vote on tomorrow addresses their stated concerns. It certainly addresses the concerns stated by the Democratic leader this morning.

I would just say that of all the Senators on the other side of the aisle who agreed to cosponsor this legislation, who previously objected to voting on the bill and passing it--I would ask them to please take a close look at that provision. Again, page 3, lines 3 through 7 of my amendment now would provide that instead of the fines and penalties being directly appropriated into these programs for grant purposes, that money would come from a general fund of the Treasury in an equivalent amount of the fines and penalties. So, money being fungible, there is no loss of funds, but what we have done is we have tried to address their concerns, I think in a way that eliminates them.

All the Senators who cosponsored this legislation, for which I am very grateful--Senator Klobuchar, Senator Wyden, Senator Coons, Senator Udall, Senator Casey, Senator Feinstein, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Heitkamp, Senator Schumer, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Peters, and Senator Durbin--I hope all of our Democratic friends who previously objected based on the original provision will take a look at this change because it does directly address their stated concerns.

Let's get this done. We will vote on this tomorrow. But I would rather not wait for that time. I would rather try to get this done today if we can. We might be able to do that by agreement if everyone agrees that this provision, this change, addresses those stated concerns.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source