John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi have negotiated a package which enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the House. The one missing element is a pay-for for the so-called doc fix, for the sustainable growth rate fix. What my amendment does is offer that pay-for so that this is a deficit-neutral bill if it is adopted. In order to find that pay-for, we would repeal the individual mandate. The latest CBO score shows it would save as much as $400 billion. It hasn't been scored this year, so the number may be off a little bit, but there is more than an adequate amount of money to offset the deficit caused by this permanent doc fix. I ask my colleagues to join me, along with then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008 in his campaign against Hillary Clinton, who when he was running for the Democratic nomination campaigned against the individual mandate. Let's make that reality.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, hopefully this afternoon we will take up a very important piece of legislation coming over from the House of Representatives that received an overwhelming vote of Republicans and Democrats alike--a package negotiated at the highest levels of the House leadership between Speaker Boehner and his staff and Nancy Pelosi and her staff. What could it be that brings the political parties and the leaders of the parties in the House together to try to build a consensus and come up with a solution? Well, it is really to right a wrong or remedy a mistake Congress made back in 1997. Basically, at that time, Congress decided, in order to save money on health care costs, it would begin periodically to cut the amount of money that was reimbursed to health care providers--primarily doctors and hospitals. That is how Congress thought way back then we were going to save money. What has happened in 17 of the 18 times these cuts will have been implemented? Well, Congress has realized it was a mistake. Here is the problem. When you tell doctors in rural parts of Texas ``You are going to earn 20 percent less to treat a Medicare patient tomorrow than you did today,'' well, what they are going to decide is ``Can I afford to keep my doors open? Can I afford to pay the bills? And maybe I can't afford to see any more Medicare patients.'' When doctors simply refuse or are unable to afford to see Medicare patients, then our seniors lack access to health care they need and they deserve. So in very difficult, contentious times politically, I think this so- called sustainable growth rate--or doc fix--bill I am alluding to which is over here from the House and which I hope we will vote on this afternoon actually represents a commonsense solution to one of our big challenges and certainly will get Congress out of this embarrassing position of every 6 months to a year or so having to come back and backfill and fix a problem we ourselves created back in 1997. Hopefully, we will be able to pass this legislation and get it done and give physicians and health care providers the certainty they need about the reimbursement rates under Medicare and thus will allow more of them to see more seniors and provide them health care benefits under Medicare. Now, some people may say: Well, this bill is not perfect. They would be right. It is not perfect. But actually there is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation, particularly when it is the product of bipartisan negotiations where both sides had to give in a little in order to get to an agreement. But I do commend Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi for working in a bipartisan way and producing something that has received resounding support from the House of Representatives. As I said, this legislation provides our health care professionals with a predictable expectation for reimbursement rates--an idea that has, sadly, only been a dream for many physicians in Texas and across the country and one that Congress can now and should make a reality. But this legislation also does something else very significant. It not only addresses the reimbursement rate of doctors, it also introduces other changes to Medicare that will help reduce the deficit over the long term--not just for the next 10 years but 20 years out and beyond. Now some people might say: Well, if Congress passes this legislation now, can't they come back and undo it next year? The pattern has actually been when there have been negotiated bipartisan agreements on things as important as Medicare and Social Security that they tend to stick and they tend to stay in place. So I believe that while this negotiation certainly was no easy task and while it is a modest first step, the good news is it does represent real meaningful entitlement reform--something the President of the United States said he supports and something now that both parties here in Washington and Congress have been able to support. This bill does make important strides on a difficult issue. When I said a moment ago it is not perfect, let me explain exactly what I mean by that. Not all of this bill is paid for. Today I plan on offering an amendment that would keep our country from growing into greater debt by offering a pay-for for this piece of legislation. How would we do that? Well, my amendment--which I hope, again, we will vote on this afternoon in a series of as many as eight votes and final passage of the bill--would repeal the individual mandate from ObamaCare. That would, according to the Congressional Budget Office, free up literally close to $400 billion that could then be used to satisfy the deficit for this so-called doc fix. Many have rightly demanded an offset for the bill. I am very sympathetic to that, and my amendment is designed to address it, because--as the Presiding Officer knows, given his long service not only in the Bush administration, at OMB, and in the Congress as well as the Senate--we have to do something about the long-term debt and unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government. I am amazed almost daily about the lack of urgency. Perhaps that is because interest rates are relatively low and we are not feeling the drain of debt service payments to our country's creditors because they buy our debt and they demand to be paid interest or debt service on that debt. When interest rates begin to creep back up again, as they invariably will, that is going to put a real dent in everything from national security to the safety net programs that we all believe are important. So my amendment will repeal the individual mandate in ObamaCare and help pay for this appropriate fix in doctor reimbursement rates in Medicare. You may ask, well, isn't that a pretty dramatic or controversial thing to do, to repeal the individual mandate in ObamaCare? I asked my staff to go back and get some quotes from a candidate running for President in 2008, who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. Here is what then-Senator Obama said on February 28, 2008, on one TV show: Here's the concern. If you haven't made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. Well, as the Presiding Officer knows, the President actually said when we passed ObamaCare--frankly, without my support and the support of this side of the aisle--the President claimed it would lower health care premiums by $2,500 a year for a family of four. That has proven not to be the case. But quite clearly, the President himself, when he was running for office in 2008, opposed the individual mandate. Here is another quote from CNN in 2008. This is Senator Obama running for President. He said: In some cases there are people who are paying fines and they still can't afford it, so now they are worse off than they were. They don't have health insurance and they are paying a fine. That is what the individual mandate is all about, as you know. I will go on with the quote. ``And in order for you to force people to get health insurance, you've got to have a very harsh, stiff penalty.'' So President Obama, back when he was candidate Obama, back when he was Senator Obama, opposed the individual mandate. All my amendment would do would be to repeal the individual mandate and allow us to obtain a savings to pay for this legislation. I will read one more quote, because I find the irony pretty rich. Senator Obama said--and this was when he was running against then- Senator Clinton, who apparently is now again running for President. Senator Obama said in 2008: She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it, otherwise there will be a lot of people who don't get it. I don't see those folks, and I think that it is important for us to recognize that if you're going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have healthcare fines or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that I don't think is helping those without health insurance. So my amendment that would offer to pay for this bill would repeal the mandate that then-Senator Obama, candidate for President, was so critical of. It would repeal a tax on the American people that coerces our citizens into purchasing health care they apparently don't want or they wouldn't otherwise buy but for the threat of government coercion. The better way to do it, in my view, is to make health care more affordable, not to make it more expensive and say if you don't buy the government- approved care--even if you don't want what it provides--then we are going to coerce you to do it. We are going to penalize you for it. This is bad for America and hurts people instead of giving them the helping hand they need when it comes to health care. We are going to have a lot more to say about how we need to repeal and replace ObamaCare with more affordable health insurance that gives people access to the doctors and services they want and need. But on the present bill, no one denies the need for a long-term permanent solution to the way we pay health care providers under Medicare. So for the benefit of physicians, our seniors, and the American people, we need to do this, but we also need to find a way to pay for it. I am hoping we pass this legislation today. I believe the current provision expires at midnight tonight. It is important that we stop kicking the can down the road and we allow our family doctors to do what we want them to do most, which is to focus on what they do best and what our families need the most. At the same time, it will ensure seniors access to the care they need. Such a meaningful solution is long overdue. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, like every Member of this body, I am frustrated we haven't been able to reach an agreement to pass the bipartisan Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. So today--just now--we have offered a compromise amendment that provides a path forward on this important legislation. I want to express my gratitude to the majority leader for teeing up this amendment and this vote and helping us move forward to resolve this problem. Briefly, this proposal would completely strike a provision in the underlying bill that Members on the other side have objected to regarding the application of the Hyde amendment. The proposal would replace this language with a provision negotiated by Leader Pelosi from H.R. 2, the so-called doc fix bill that we just passed overwhelmingly and that passed the House a few weeks ago 392 to 37--180 House Democrats supported this language in the House bill. The Pelosi language from this bill is similar to my proposal, in that it simply says that any funds used to provide services to human trafficking victims would be subject to the same requirements as funds under the Public Health Services Act. This would clarify that all money in the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund must be derived from the General Treasury, the routine and ordinary source of all Federal funding. In other words, requirements placed upon funds under my bill would not be placed on money derived from criminal fees or penalties, something our Democratic friends seem to have some objection to, but they would only be placed upon money drawn from the General Treasury. This is exactly what Members on the other side have asked for. Finally, as an additional measure of good faith, my proposal would also include an amendment drafted by Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that has been supported by every Democratic Member of that committee. This amendment would authorize the appropriation of additional funds into the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund. Some Members on the other side of the aisle have filibustered this important legislation because they say they objected to language I included that references the Hyde amendment. I have now agreed to strike that language. They are also filibustering because they objected to attaching routine Hyde restrictions that have been the law of the land for nearly 40 years--the money that is outside of the General Treasury process. Now, I have agreed to change the language of my bill so the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund only includes money drawn from the General Treasury. I have also agreed to accept the amendment from Senator Leahy that I previously opposed in the interest of trying to get to ``yes.'' I plan to speak more on this tomorrow, but I am hopeful that by finally making these changes, we can be met at least halfway by our friends across the aisle. I feel like we have continued to try to make changes in this legislation in an interest of giving them an opportunity to vote for a bill they said they all support but which they ultimately filibustered because of the objections I just addressed, and both of the major objections are addressed by this amendment and this legislation. So I hope we can get to a resolution on this bill. The victims of human trafficking are typically young girls between the ages of 12 and 14 years old. This is justly called modern-day slavery, because these victims of human trafficking are literally enslaved and sold for sex or held for involuntary servitude against their will. Many of them come from other countries, but the vast majority of them come from right here in the United States of America. We need to do something about this. This legislation does that ``something,'' and I think we have more than demonstrated good faith in trying to meet our colleagues' objections across the aisle by proposing language that works, that accomplishes the result but removes the objectionable language our colleagues across the aisle have seen fit to filibuster on. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H. Con. Res. 9, which is at the desk.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, April 15; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, and that the time be equally divided, with the Democrats controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half. I further ask that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2 p.m. for the bipartisan luncheon; finally, that the Senate observe a moment of silence at 2:49 p.m. in honor of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombings.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 95 be discharged from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and be referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 135, submitted earlier today.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from New Hampshire (Ms. Ayotte), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we yield back all remaining time.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.