John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before the Senators from Arizona and South Carolina leave the floor, I want to say a couple of words about their contribution to our collective efforts on the budget. As I said a moment ago, the No. 1 priority for the Federal Government is national security. And while we are all concerned about runaway spending--and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has been quite determined to rein that in by producing a balanced budget over the next 10 years--it is due to the leadership of the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from South Carolina, along with our other colleagues on the Committee on the Budget, who also happen to serve on the Committee on Armed Services, who I think have led us to a much better place--a place where we can all feel better that we are closer to making sure our military has the resources they need in order to meet the commitments we have asked them to make. We maybe have a few things we need to still talk about, and we will keep talking until we get it right, but the fact is, without the leadership of the Senators from Arizona and South Carolina and others on the Committee on the Budget, we wouldn't be where we are today and able to hold our heads up high and say we believe in our duty to our men and women in uniform, we believe in America's leadership role in the world, and we will not shrink from that.

Mr. CORNYN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, writing and passing a budget is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any legislative body. Unfortunately, it is something we have not done in the U.S. Congress since 2009. It is outrageous. It should be considered a scandal. Today I will take a few minutes to discuss the budget we have before us today and how we intend to discharge our responsibilities to the American people in the 114th Congress. Of course, one of the most important parts of a budget is that you have to determine what your priorities are--things you have to have, things you want but maybe need to defer, and things you want but maybe cannot afford. When it comes to the budget Chairman Enzi and the Senate Budget Committee have produced, our priority is clear. Our priority is to protect the hard-working taxpayers of this country. Where do we start and how does the Senate Republican budget get America on the right track, boosting economic growth and job creation? To start with, this budget actually balances and puts us on the path so we can begin to pay down our national debt, and it is important to say that it does so without raising taxes. Those seem like pretty straightforward goals for any budget, but unfortunately that has not been the case in recent years. Throughout his 6 years in office and in the budgets he has sent to Congress, President Obama seems to be committed to the notion that the only way Washington can revive strong economic growth is by steadily growing the government. Unfortunately, at the same time you end up adding to deficits and debt in the process. Yes, it is true that we have had an experiment in the size and role of government over the last 6 years, and I must say we are no longer talking about esoteric theories that were debated in the Federalist Papers or during the founding of our country. We now actually have hard evidence. We have things we can point to that show this has been a failed experiment. Under this administration, our national debt--and the bills, not that I will have to pay, but these young people and my children will have to pay--has gone from $10.6 trillion to more than $18 trillion. I know those numbers are almost meaningless to most of us because we simply cannot conceive of numbers that big. The latest budget from the President adds another trillion in tax increases and never balances--ever, while, in fact, the budget which was voted out of the Budget Committee and is now before us on the floor of the Senate actually brings us a surplus, and the President's budget would leave our country with a massive deficit of over $800 billion in its final year. The last budget proposed by our friends across the aisle, Senate Democrats in 2013, would have hit the economy with another $1 trillion in taxes and added more than $7 trillion to our national debt. I believe, based on the failed experiment of the last few years, we should conclude that just taxing and spending is not going to allow us to achieve the kind of prosperity and economic growth we all so badly want. America's debt is a real danger, and one that apparently the President chooses to ignore, and our friends across the aisle, in their budget proposals, seem to ignore it as well. The reason our debt is so dangerous is because it makes us vulnerable to fiscal shocks and shocks to our national security and makes it much harder for us to respond to them, and our debt obviously costs money to service. We need to pay interest to the people who buy our bonds, our national debt, and when interest rates go back up from where they are now, which is a historically low rate, more and more of the hard-earned tax dollars the American people will be paying to the Federal Government will be used not to pay down the debt but will be used to pay interest on the debt to the people who own it, countries such as China and other sovereign entities that purchase that debt. We will be paying interest on that debt in a way that makes us dangerously vulnerable not only to fiscal shock, but also crowds out our ability to deal with other priorities, such as law enforcement, education, national security, and the like. Last year the Congressional Budget Office pointed out that in the past few years debt held by the public will be significantly greater relative to the gross domestic product than at any time just after World War II. Our debt will be higher relative to our economy than at any time since World War II. What does that mean to my fellow Texans? The CBO goes on to say that with a debt so large, Federal spending on interest payments will increase substantially as interest rates rise to more typical levels. That is what I was just referring to. The other thing that happens is that as the Federal Government's debt goes up, we basically reduce national savings and capital stock at the same time and wages will be smaller. In other words, our national massive debt is hurting economic growth today. It is hurting our economy, and it virtually assures that it will get worse in the days ahead. The good news is it doesn't have to be that way, and this budget puts us on a path to balance and one that begins to pay down the debt, not adding to the debt with more taxing and spending along the way. And the good news is we don't have to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel. There are better options, many of which are reflected in the budget we have proposed and will be voting on this week. There are policies and programs in the budget that we have borrowed which have proven to be successful around the country in States such as Texas and others. My State, in particular, has experienced an economic surge that has seen a boom in job creation and exports and it has been named the best State in the Nation in business 10 years running. Some people have actually called this the Texas miracle, but I take issue with that characterization. There is nothing miraculous about what has happened in Texas when we talk about the economy because you cannot explain a miracle, but it is no secret why Texas has been one of the leading job creation engines over the last several years. If we ask business leaders, they will tell us what makes Texas such an attractive place to do business. In Texas, we know we should not punish job creators with taxes that discourage investment and overregulation, which make it hard to make the bottom line balance. We are not ashamed of our abundance of natural resources, nor are we apologetic about encouraging its development. The results have been extraordinary. For example, Texas added nearly 460,000 jobs in 2014 alone--460,000 jobs in 2014--more than any other State. Despite being home to about 8.5 percent of the total U.S. population, Texas accounted for nearly one-third of all new job gains during the last 10 years for the Nation. Simply put, what we have shown is what can be accomplished with sound public policy that allows for job creation and economic prosperity, and that is the good news. It is not a fluke. It is not a miracle. It is about good policies actually working to benefit the people of my State and that could also be put to work for the American people. We can take strategies that have worked in the States and lessons we have learned in these laboratories of democracy and apply them here in Washington on a greater scale for the benefit of the entire Nation. Simply put, it boils down to lower taxes, sensible regulations, and a lower level of per capita government spending. What happens under those conditions is that the private sector is willing to invest, and when they invest, they create jobs and grow the economy, and we all benefit, including the government, by increased tax revenue. The government doesn't benefit, nor do the people benefit, when government policies discourage investment and job creation and economic growth, which is what has been happening over the last few years. In the budget before us, which balances without tax hikes, we can protect taxpayers and foster an economic environment that allows jobs and opportunity to blossom. Gallup released a survey earlier this month that talked about the biggest concerns facing the American people. The top concern was government. They are concerned about their government. The second was the economy, and the third was jobs. All three of those concerns actually tie neatly together because many Americans now feel they don't have the same opportunities they once had. Maybe they have been laid off or had a tough time finding a new job that is as rewarding for them personally and financially. Maybe they are actually working as hard as they ever did, but they are actually making less money than they did 10 years ago. If people are deeply concerned, as I am, about the availability of good jobs and the state of our economy, it only makes sense that people would not be satisfied with the government as well. These concerns transcend geographic, partisan, and demographic boundaries, and they are shared by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike. Sadly, one of the statistics that hasn't gotten better over the last few years, even though the unemployment rate has crept down, is the percentage of the American people--the workforce--who have actually left the job market and given up looking for a job, and that remains at a near historical high--about a 30-year high--the so-called labor participation rate. So when the unemployment rate goes down and we say, Oh, that is a good thing, a lot of the reason it is going down is because fewer and fewer people are actually looking for work and they have dropped out altogether. That is a bad thing. Most people don't see themselves as future business owners; they simply hope to find a good job doing something that provides them the ability to put food on the table and to take care of their families, and that gives them a sense of satisfaction for a job well done. Yet, as we know, small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy, and it is the small businesses that actually help create the jobs that most hard-working taxpayers are occupied in. So if we are making it harder for small businesses to create jobs, we are also making it harder on workers to find jobs. As I travel my State and talk to small business men and women, they tell me one of the biggest challenges they have had is something the President trumpets here in Washington as a grand success; that is, ObamaCare because ObamaCare has been a job killer. This budget assumes full repeal of ObamaCare, and it gives us the opportunity to make good on our promises and finally remove one of the biggest roadblocks to job growth. Is that because we don't care about health care? Well, no; exactly the opposite. What we intend to do as a replacement is to replace ObamaCare with affordable health care that provides people access to the kind of quality care they want for themselves and their families. The irony of ObamaCare is that it spends and taxes so much, and yet still 30 million people are uninsured. Many people find the health insurance they purchased--even on the exchanges--has high premiums, which basically render them uninsured to the extent that they can't even afford it, and it has raised their premium costs by adding mandates for coverage they don't want and they don't need. We can do much better. Now, I have heard the President and some of his allies say, Well, we have to have ObamaCare because we need to cover young adults up to the age of 26 who can be covered under their parents' policy or we need ObamaCare because we need to cover people with preexisting conditions. The fact is we can do both of those things. We will do both of those things, and we don't need everything else that comes with it. We also need to capitalize on an energy boom that is taking place across the United States. This budget boosts development of American- made energy. Unfortunately, the President decided to put his party and his politics ahead of American job seekers recently when he vetoed a bipartisan bill to construct the Keystone XL Pipeline that the State Department said would create 42,000 jobs--construction jobs to start with--and a number of other jobs thereafter. It would also provide an alternative means to transport oil from a friendly ally, Canada, and we wouldn't have to ship so much of it in railcars over the surface, which is admittedly a much more dangerous and volatile situation. The President, when he vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline, took basically the opposite approach to what we have taken in my State and other States around the country, where we have seen our natural resources and the development of those natural resources as a way to grow jobs and grow the economy. In Texas, we have produced 94 percent more oil between September 2008 and September 2012. That has been primarily due to the innovation of the oil and gas industry and the so-called shale oil and gas revolution, which transformed States such as North Dakota and Texas, and in places such as Pennsylvania where the Marcellus shale exists. The Eagle Ford, the Barnett, and the Haynesville shale plays in Texas have been economic boons in my State and created thousands of jobs and added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the tax rolls. As my friends along the border of Texas and Mexico remind me, those natural resources do not stop at the international border. Indeed, I was recently in Mexico City with our colleague, Senator Kaine from Virginia, where we met with a number of oil and gas company representatives at the American Chamber of Commerce in Mexico City, talking about the change in the Mexican law which now will encourage private investment in developing their natural resources in Mexico. Of course, the better the Mexican economy does, the better our economy does, and the fewer people who feel as though they have to immigrate to the United States in order to provide for their family. This budget is a responsible budget. It balances in 10 years, it doesn't raise taxes, and it begins a downpayment on our national debt. It sends a very important message that the 114th Congress and the new majority are very serious about discharging the most basic responsibilities of governance--something that hasn't been done since 2009, since the last time we had a budget, but we also learn from the States when it comes to protecting taxpayers and removing barriers to growth and how that helps not only the small businesses but the people who work at the jobs created by those small businesses. In conclusion, there is one other thing this budget does. We know that since the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the sequestration that occurred--the automatic caps on spending that occurred as a result of the failure of the supercommittee to come up with a grand bargain--our Nation has spent less and less on our national security. That has given rise not only to deep concerns by many of us, including the Presiding Officer, about America's role in the world and the message we are sending to our adversaries, but it also raises the question of what is the primary purpose--what should be the No. 1 priority of the Federal Government? I believe, and I think many of us believe, that national security is the most important priority of the Federal Government. We have kind of lost sight of that in recent years with the budget caps and sequestration. We have tried to be responsible about spending. Unfortunately, with an unhelpful partner in the White House, sequestration seemed to be the only way we could keep a cap on runaway discretionary spending, higher deficits, and greater debt. But I think now is the time for this Congress to step up and say that national security is our No. 1 priority. This budget does just that, and it provides additional resources necessary for the Department of Defense to make sure we not only maintain our status as the preeminent military power in the world but also keep our commitment to our military families and those who have chosen to make the armed services a career. We also send a very important message to our adversaries that America will not shrink or retreat from its leadership role on the world stage. Unfortunately, I think as a result of not only our budgetary decisions but also a number of missteps and missed signals by the administration, some of our adversaries have gotten the idea we are in retreat and that we are somehow pulling back and going to be rendered a spectator rather than a leader on the world stage. Perhaps the single most important thing this budget does is it says, America is back as the leader of the free world and we will not shrink and we will not turn our back on our responsibility not only to ourselves and our people but to our friends and allies across the world. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday, March 23, at 5:30 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 19; that the Senate then vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, that no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's actions, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I saw on television my friend from Vermont, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, talking about the virtues of the House human trafficking bill, and I thought it would be worthwhile for Members and whoever else is listening to understand the difference between the two bills. First of all, our bill, the one that is being filibustered by our Democratic colleagues--I should say, all but four of them--contains a $30 million fund that is financed through criminal funds. This is analogous to a crime victims compensation fund. For example, when I was attorney general of Texas, we administered one, and we were able to make grants to various organizations. That is what this $30 million fund would be. The bill on the House side actually has no fund. It is an authorization. It is a $5 million authorization. It has no money. It has no mechanism to generate funds like ours does. Our bill contains language increasing restitution for trafficking victims by using criminal assets to satisfy these needs and allowing law enforcement to pay witness-assistance award money to victims. The bill in the House does nothing. In other words, we have an asset- forfeiture provision in our bill to take the people who profit from human trafficking and to forfeit those funds and use that to add to the fines and use that money to help rescue and heal the victims. The House bill has nothing in it in that regard. Our bill requires law enforcement agencies to file regular reports of human trafficking case totals as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. That is important because so much of the human trafficking damage is never reported to law enforcement. First of all, many victims of human trafficking are children who may or may not actually consider themselves victims. They may be runaways. They may find some adult who has taken them under their wing, only to turn them out on the streets as prostitutes and the like. They may not actually consider themselves victims, at least initially, which they are. Our bill would make sure the statistics and reports of human trafficking totals are reported in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program so we would actually have a better objective record about the number of cases and so people could appreciate the severity of this problem. The bill in the House has nothing in that regard. Next, our bill clarifies that child pornography producers are engaged in commercial sex acts. The bill on the House side does nothing in that regard. Our bill requires persons indicted for human trafficking to be treated as violent criminals for purposes of pretrial, in terms of the availability of bail. The bill on the other side of the Capitol, in the House, does nothing in that regard. Our bill requires prosecutors and judges to undergo training to improve restitution in traffic cases. Again, our friends on the other side of the Capitol--their bill does nothing in that regard. Finally, our bill requires human traffickers to remain under supervision for at least 5 years after they are released from prison. On the House side, it doesn't touch on that. I don't say that to criticize the House bill, because I think they have done some good work. But it is important to recognize that the bill over here, which is being filibustered by our Democratic minority, does a lot more and a lot of different things, and things that I think are going to be a lot more helpful to the victims of human trafficking, which I can only imagine should be our collective goal. I came to the floor this morning, and I said that we would be willing to work with our Democratic colleagues to try to address some of their stated concerns with the original bill. I said that notwithstanding the fact that 12 Democrats cosponsored the bill, the original bill that is now being filibustered. Nine Democrats, along with all of the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, voted to pass the bill out of the Judiciary Committee. Literally all 100 Senators had to consent for the bill to come to the floor without going through the typical procedural hurdles with which we are all very familiar. Imagine my surprise, when in the middle of last week, these objections came up. What was the nature of the objection? The objection was that this bill contained a reference to an appropriations bill that was passed in 2014 and for which all of our Democratic colleagues voted. But that reference was to a restriction on the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, known as the Hyde amendment. Then after they saw that or after they claimed that this was something new and unbeknownst to them, they objected. I just simply cannot accept this argument that a provision that colleagues on that side of the aisle have routinely voted for on appropriations bills, that they routinely voted for on Defense authorization bills, and one they voted for on the Affordable Care Act, restricting the use of taxpayer funds under these circumstances--why they would pick this vehicle to object to that very same provision. I accept at face value that some of our colleagues said that this is something they perhaps should have read more closely but they failed to do. I personally find it a little hard to believe, given the nature of the professional staff we have here in the Senate, that Members did not know that this restriction, known as the Hyde amendment, was part of the underlying bill. But assuming that is the case, what we are now offering them is a middle ground--to say that instead of this fund being a separate pool of money outside of the appropriations process, we would agree that the Appropriations Committee would appropriate money out of this fund in the same manner as they do all appropriations, with the exception that the money would be specifically designated to help the victims of human trafficking and not be able to be used for any other purpose. So the reports are--after we made this proposal trying to address some of the concerns on this side of the aisle--that they would not be happy unless we stripped out all reference to the Hyde amendment in the bill. That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable for the same reason that they would object to a change in the status quo by an expansion of the Hyde amendment. We have now brought the Hyde amendment back within the appropriations process where it has been for 39 years. But to say we are going to eliminate any reference to those restrictions, which have been the law of the land for 39 years, would be viewed as an erosion of the Hyde amendment--hardly a status quo. I don't know how long this is going to take. I appreciate the perseverance and commitment of the majority leader who, as you know, determines what bills come to the floor and when and who says we are going to stay on this bill until it passes. We have had a number of votes, and four of our Democratic colleagues have joined us to get to a place where we could actually pass this legislation. We just need a handful more--two or three more--to help us. I know that a number of Senators are going to be hearing from their constituents back in their States because 200 different organizations-- law enforcement organizations and victims' rights organizations that are very concerned about this human trafficking plague--are going to be lighting up the phone lines, sending emails, and communicating with their elected officials--as they should. There is no reason we cannot get to ``yes'' on this bill unless this whole debate is a phony debate, and what the leadership on the Democratic side is more concerned about is trying to make the Senate as dysfunctional in the 114th Congress as they did in the 113th Congress. I suspect, unfortunately, because of the phony issues saying take out language we voted for time and again--yes, it was contained in a bill we cosponsored. Yes, it was contained in a bill we voted for already. Now we are going to come to the floor, and we are going to block it. We know who pays for this political gamesmanship. Sadly, it is the very same victims whom our colleagues here on the floor say they want to help--the children--the 100,000 children who are subjected to human trafficking each year. Other people who need our help and deserve our help are among the most vulnerable people we can possibly imagine. All of us are mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. We all understand this could happen to anybody's family. Why in the world would we want to indulge in this sort of gamesmanship and phony objections to provisions that have been voted for time and again by the same Members who now object to them on this legislation and say to these victims of human trafficking that we don't care and we are not going to help? I don't believe for a minute that is why Members of the Senate come here. I know virtually all 100 Senators, and I believe that most Senators--if not all Senators--come here because they actually want to do something. They actually want to solve problems. They actually want to help people who need the help. I cannot think of anybody more deserving than the victims of human trafficking. I see the distinguished Senator from Colorado here. I will yield for him momentarily. I wanted to come to the floor and respond to the comments made by the distinguished Senator from Vermont, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, that all we need to do is take up and pass the House bill. The House bill doesn't appropriate any money. It is an authorization bill. It authorizes $5 million in appropriations. The great thing about our bill is it doesn't take any tax dollars. These are all fines and penalties and asset forfeitures from people engaged in the criminal enterprise, and this takes some of the profit out of this terrible crime. It also does a number of other things, which I mentioned earlier. But the idea that we can somehow just take up and pass the House bill and avoid this bogus objection and somehow solve the problem, I think, just misses the point. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we find ourselves in the unusual posture of being stuck on a piece of legislation that had 12 Democratic cosponsors and was supported unanimously by all Republicans and all Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and which uncharacteristically was brought to the floor without having to jump through the regular procedural hoops that legislation usually has to jump through that requires consent by all 100 Senators. So when you think about combating human trafficking and particularly the targeting of 12- and 14-year-old girls who are of the typical ages and gender of the people who are victims of human trafficking, you would think that if there is anything that ought to be able to avoid the partisan wars here in Washington, DC, and the divisions that seem to separate us, it ought to be the subject of human trafficking. Well, I guess to say I was disappointed is an understatement. But I am determined to keep our focus on the victims of human trafficking, the people this would help rescue and help heal and get on with their lives. Yes, I am also determined to make sure we can demonstrate that we can function, something I thought Senators wanted to do. After this last election there were a number of people who said: Gee, we would really like to change the Senate to restore its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body, where we actually treasured and valued solutions more than we did scoring partisan political points. I come here today in the spirit of trying to offer a solution that will help us get unstuck from where we have found ourselves. I see my friend, the Senator from Maine, who has been working tirelessly to try to help us get unstuck, and perhaps this will help. Just to recap: The way this bill was structured is it would deal with the demand side of human trafficking; in other words, it would take the fines and penalties from the people who purchased these services and it would create a crime victims compensation fund, which in essence would be used to help provide the money to faith-based and other organizations that help rescue and help heal these victims of human trafficking. Then we heard from some of our colleagues on the other side that they wanted to change the way this was structured so that it was subject to the routine appropriations process and didn't enlarge the way the traditional limitations on appropriations were treated under the so-called Hyde amendment. Just to refresh everybody's memory: Since 1976, all funding, all appropriations bills, and many authorization bills, including the Affordable Care Act and the Defense authorization bills, have been subjected to a limitation on the use of tax dollars for abortions except in the case of rape and in the cases where a physician certifies the health of the mother is at stake. The bill we introduced that was passed out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously and has 12 Democratic cosponsors has a reference to an appropriations bill that had that same limitation. The idea was that we wouldn't try to change the status quo; we would try to maintain the status quo which has existed for 39 years. But then some of our colleagues on the other side said, when offered an opportunity to vote on an amendment stripping that language out, they would not even vote. They wanted to obstruct and filibuster this legislation instead. I, for one, am more interested in getting to a solution than I am engaging in this partisan point scoring. I believe there is a sufficient number of Members of the Senate who are sick and tired of the dysfunction and who don't want to be distracted by the politics but want to focus on how to help those 100,000 victims of human sex trafficking who are estimated to exist on an annual basis. What I have come to the floor to do is to say let's make this fund subject to the annual appropriations process that will preserve the money for the victims and it cannot be used for any other purpose, but it will be subject to the Appropriations Committee and the usual riders that have existed for 39 years. It won't represent an expansion of the Hyde amendment, as some of our colleagues have expressed concerns about. It would, basically, again, maintain the status quo. I came to the floor yesterday and my friend, the Senator from California, was here. I pointed out that not only did she cosponsor this legislation, she voted for it in the Judiciary Committee. But she now feels so strongly--and I know it is a matter of good faith and true conviction for her, but she feels like this is the place where we ought to fight this fight--we ought to relitigate the scope of the Hyde amendment. I don't think we have to do that. I am proudly pro-life and I believe the Hyde amendment represents one little island of consensus in the wars over abortion that we have. That is why for 39 years we have had a limitation on tax dollars. Indeed, fines paid into this fund would be public dollars. It wouldn't be generated from revenue, but it is not private money; once they are paid into this fund they are public dollars under my proposal, subject to appropriation on an annual basis by the Appropriations Committee. So now the money will flow from the victims fund through the relevant appropriations bills. It will be preserved for the victims and cannot be used for any other purpose, and all spending limitations that have routinely applied to those bills would apply to these funds as well. So the question is, Can our friends who have been obstructing and filibustering this legislation take yes for an answer? Can they take yes for an answer? I think this will also be very revealing, because we will find out whether people are actually interested in a solution or are they trying to shut down the Senate and prevent us from functioning on anything. As I said before, if we can't get the yes on an antitrafficking bill, Heaven help us on issues where there is not consensus, where there are genuine policy differences. I believe we can do exactly, for example, what Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, asked for on the floor on March 10. He said ``but let's have it on things it should be on-- appropriations bills.'' So I would say yes, my proposal would give what Senator Leahy asked for. Then the minority whip, Senator Durbin, the Senator from Illinois, said on March 16: Henry Hyde authored the Hyde amendment that said no Federal funds should be used to pay for abortion procedures except in very limited circumstances: rape, incest, and life of the mother. That has been put in appropriations bills every year since--without question, without challenge. That was stated by the minority whip, Senator Durbin from Illinois. My proposal would facilitate exactly what he is arguing for. Can he say yes, take yes for an answer? The minority leader, Senator Reid, said on the 11th: I served in the House of Representatives with Henry Hyde; a very fine man. He has had his name affixed to an anti-abortion bill, anti-abortion legislation for almost three decades. And it's been continued year after year in appropriations bills. That was spoken by Senator Reid, the Democratic leader. As I pointed out, what has perplexed me so much about all of this is that our Democratic friends have routinely voted for appropriations bills that contain the same restriction. When it was said, well, now you are extending it to an authorization bill, I pointed out that they voted for this very similar restriction in the Affordable Care Act and the Defense authorization bill, so that argument doesn't hold water; but I am giving them a chance to say yes, and, in essence, trying to find a way to break this impasse that has existed now for the last couple of weeks. So that is the question. Now that we have made a proposal to them to give them what they have asked for and still preserve the 39-year limitation on the use of public dollars for abortion, can they take yes for an answer? I can't wait to hear what their response is to that proposal. 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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend and colleague, the Senator from Vermont, whom I have worked with closely on a number of pieces of legislation and whom I would love to be able to work with to find a solution to the current impasse that we have on this legislation--I would say to my friend that if the objection is that this fund is not subject to the appropriations process, then that is something we ought to discuss and talk about. Why the fund is so important to me is because the fines and penalties that go into this save the taxpayers money. It actually takes the money from the people who create the demand and uses that to help heal and save and rescue the victims. I guess I would have a little difference of opinion--and maybe it is just semantics--that once the fines and penalties are paid to the Treasury, my view is they become public dollars although they technically aren't derived from taxes, per se. But beyond that point, I would say once this money is paid into the fund, I think we could come up with a mechanism that would then allow the Appropriations Committee to play its traditional role in directing the money to the purposes for which Congress designates. And I know, as a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, the Senator believes--and I respect--that is an important part of the process. It is important, though, to note that this would still be subject to the same rule which has prevailed for 39 years, and that is the Hyde amendment. Here is where I don't understand the principle of the objection--because the Hyde amendment has an exception, as the Senator knows, for the physical health and mental health of the mother, as certified by a physician, and also in cases of rape. I can't imagine any case where a potential beneficiary of this fund would be excluded from services that would be allowed under the legislation as written. But I would say if the Senator thinks that might be a fruitful area for us to continue conversations and to figure a way to structure this so that it would be subject to an annual appropriation process--subject to those limitations that have prevailed now since 1976--I think there might be some room for discussion. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend I appreciate her courtesy and her indulgence in having this conversation. I also feel on principle this limitation on tax dollars is an appropriate one. I understand the Senator disagrees and she would like to eliminate this from this point forward. But I am simply unable on principle to accommodate the Senator in that request. As I said, I do appreciate her courtesy.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would say to my friend, I don't blame her for asking, but why in the world would we change settled law for 39 years in order to accommodate the minority's view on this bill, and to change, as I said, what has been the law of the land? Since the Senator voted for this very language previously this year in the Judiciary Committee--since she cosponsored it, I don't really understand it since she voted for the legislation that is referred to here that has that amendment. Does the Senator see this as breaking new ground? Is she trying to expand or eliminate the Hyde amendment?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would just say, in conclusion, that I think it is a terrible shame that my colleague's side of the aisle has decided to take this bill hostage to try to litigate something that has been the law of the land for 39 years. I understand she feels passionately about it. I don't question that for a minute--the sincerity of my colleague's deeply held personal views. But why in the world would my colleagues take as a hostage a piece of legislation that is going to help those 100,000 children who are sex- trafficked each year? Why should they suffer so my colleagues can make a point on this particular piece of legislation? I don't understand that and I think it is a terrible shame.

Mr. CORNYN. I wish the Senator would.

Mr. CORNYN. I would say to my friend that when I was attorney general of Texas for 4 years, I had responsibility for administering the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund as part of my duties of office, and we worked very directly with victims groups, including those who took care of very young children who had been sexually assaulted, sometimes by members of their own family--just the worst, the most reprehensible sorts of crimes. But if I can ask the Senator just one last question. Of course, we have had the procedural vote on the floor, twice now, where Democrats have blocked our ability to both vote on amendments, including amendments the Senator may have with the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Kirk. Why is there an objection to processing those amendments and allowing the Senate to work its will? Why can't we vote on them? Why can't the Democratic minority take up the majority leader's offer for a vote to strip the language out that your side objects to?

Mr. CORNYN. Sure.

Mr. CORNYN. That is the reason I am so confused by the filibuster of this legislation by people, including my friend, who are cosponsors of the legislation and who already voted for it. I am not about pointing fingers in terms of what staff or Members should have read or understood about the legislation, but I believe the reason it was not debated at the Judiciary Committee level is because it had become a routine matter since 1976, when the Hyde amendment was passed. Every appropriation of Labor-HHS or other funding that could arguably use tax dollars for abortions has been limited by the Hyde amendment language. I had a couple of Senators in my office yesterday afternoon who are proudly pro-choice. I am proudly pro-life. But even my pro-choice friends said we still believe taxpayer funds should not be used for abortions except in the case of rape or to protect the health of the victim.

Mr. CORNYN. I was in my office and watching the Senator on TV, so I thought I would come to the floor and maybe we could get to the bottom of this. There seems to be a ship passing in the night, it seems to me. I know the Senator from California cares passionately about this issue, and I don't question that for a moment. It is very clear to me. But I ask the Senator from California, she graciously agreed to cosponsor this legislation?

Mr. CORNYN. She voted for it in the Senate Judiciary Committee that passed unanimously. It does contain, on page 50 and 51 of this bill, the language that the Senator referred to. I saw it on my TV screen in my office, which incorporates the limitation that was contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. It incorporates that into the bill by reference. Not only--I believe the Senator voted for the bill in committee and cosponsored it. The Senator also voted for that limitation in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. This is the same or similar language of what was contained in the Affordable Care Act, contained in the Defense authorization bill, and contained in literally every appropriations bill since 1976. This is what I would love to have my friend, the Senator from California, explain to me: Why is it that it all of a sudden becomes objectionable on this legislation--when you care and I care so passionately about getting help for these victims--that this is the reason to derail the legislation?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.