John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I would say to my friend that I can't vouch for the House's product. I can just say what the Congress as a whole has done since 1976, and it has limited the expenditure of funds for this purpose under the terms of the Hyde amendment. That was the reason we referred in the legislation, on page 50, which my colleague has blown up here, referring to the language in the Committee on Appropriations, which I am confident my friend, the Senator from California, voted for, just as she did in the limitation that was contained in the Affordable Care Act and all the other times that Hyde has been part of our process. This has become so unremarkable and so routine that it hardly seems like something someone would point out because this language doesn't change the status quo at all. So we have talked about ways to get past this impasse, and I would just have to say I think abandoning the Hyde amendment would be a dramatic mistake and something I am not willing to be a part of. It has become this one area, in a divisive area of abortion, where there has been bipartisan consensus for 39 years, at least to the point it has remained the law of the land effectively. To take it out and say somehow we are going to depart from that today or this week would, to me, be a dramatic expansion of taxpayer funding for this purpose that I can't support. So I would say, if there are ways we can deal with this fund, as a fund that can be appropriated on an annual basis subject to the normal restrictions--that is something I talked about with the ranking member, our friend from Vermont, that possibility--I think there are ways we might be able to get to a solution. But stripping out this limitation, which has been the law of the land for 39 years, is not acceptable because it would represent a huge expansion on the use of taxpayer funding for abortions in ways many of my pro-choice friends don't support.

Mr. CORNYN. Otherwise, we are going to have to keep addressing questions through the Chair and keep asking for permission. I think it is great to have an honest conversation with my friend. So it is clear that the Senator from California has voted for this restriction on use of taxpayer funding for abortions previously, correct?

Mr. CORNYN. I am not going to engage in a debate about whether the Senator should have known or how she voted in the past. I believe the record would demonstrate that she and others voted for the Affordable Care Act, which actually National Abortion Rights Action League says is an expansion of the Hyde amendment. I ask the Senator, you rightly point out that these child victims of sexual assault will have been raped, either statutory rape--they are below the age of consent--or they are adults and they have been assaulted, criminally assaulted. Isn't it your understanding of the Hyde amendment that the exclusion to the Hyde amendment would still allow them to gain access to the services that you believe they need or deserve?

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I obviously don't agree with my friend from California, but I respect her for answering the questions I have posed here today. I just find it a terrible shame we are going to relitigate what has been the law of the land for 39 years on this bill in a way that would block help to the very people I know the Senator from California cares so passionately about. If we are going to undo the Hyde amendment, which the Senator has voted for in some form or another repeatedly over the years, then we are not going to make any progress. If we can find some other way to structure the funds so the appropriators will have a more direct role in appropriating the fines and penalties paid into this fund on an annual basis, I think maybe there is some room to talk. But I thank the Senator for her courtesy in answering my questions. I am sorry we find ourselves at this loggerhead, but I hope at some point that can be resolved.

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. 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. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Benji McMurray, a detailee to the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of this Congress.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Deepening Political and Economic Crisis in Venezuela: Implications for U.S. Interests and the Western Hemisphere.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water of the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Immigration Reforms Needed to Protect Skilled American Workers.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Securing the Southwest Border: Perspectives from Beyond the Beltway.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``America's Health IT Transformation: Translating the Promise of Electronic Health Records Into Better Care.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 17, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Building a Competitive U.S. International Tax System.''

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this morning was a sad day for the Senate, when a straightforward bill designed to help the 100,000 or so children who are sex trafficked in America goes down because of the advocacy of a group that wants to turn this into an abortion debate and to change the settled law of the last 39 years. As I said before the vote, I really feel as if this is a time when the very soul of the Senate is being tested. Are we going actually to break out of these shackles that we seem to be bound by, which say that we are going to turn every issue--no matter how sensitive or how much good could be done--into a political issue that divides us? I would have thought of all the topics where there would be bipartisan consensus, it would be combating the crime of human trafficking. Indeed, everything that went on before today seemed to give me hope that we would be able to do that. For example, there is the fact that there were 12 Democratic cosponsors of the underlying legislation. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, there were 20 votes, a unanimous vote including 9 Democrats, in favor of the bill in committee, and it came to the floor of the Senate. As the Presiding Officer knows, ordinarily we would have to jump through some procedural hoops. But thanks to the consent of 100 Senators, we did not have to do that so we could get on the bill and begin the open amendment process without having to jump through those hoops. At least that is what I thought. Then somehow, somewhere, somebody decided they wanted to pick a fight on something that has been the settled law for 39 years; and that is the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment basically says that no taxpayer funds can be used to fund abortion except in the case of rape and in the case of the health of the mother being in jeopardy, as certified by a physician. So one might wonder why people want to fight over the Hyde amendment when the Hyde amendment itself has an exception for sexual assault, which obviously would be the major concern on behalf of any of these victims of human trafficking. That is why this has been called a phantom issue. I would use another word. I would say it is a phony issue. It is a fake fight in order to derail legislation which would demonstrate that we, on a bipartisan basis, can work together and try to solve a real problem and make progress. I suspect the Presiding Officer had the same experience I did during this last election. Back in Texas, people would say: Can't you guys and gals get anything done in Washington, DC? Why is it so broken and so dysfunctional? Why can't you find common cause on something and make some progress and deal with real problems that confront the people of Texas or the people of Oklahoma or the people of the United States of America? Now, that doesn't mean we come up here and leave our principles behind. It is just the opposite. I am not suggesting for a minute, in the interest of compromise, that we leave our principles behind, but there is a lot we can do, consistent with our principles, to help pass legislation which will have a very positive impact on the American people. The President mentioned issues such as trade as something we can work on together. But little did I imagine that the powers that be would pick on an anti-human trafficking bill in order to try to divide the Senate--in order to peel off the 12 Democratic cosponsors who didn't even vote. Many of them didn't even vote for the bill. In other words, they were for the bill--enough to cosponsor it--and then this morning they did not vote to see the bill progress to final passage. I don't know how they can explain that or, frankly, how they can reconcile that in their own conscience, recognizing that this legislation was designed to help vulnerable children, by and large, who are victims of what we call modern day slavery--sexual, economic bondage. This legislation was designed not only to rescue them but to help them heal and begin a path toward a better, more productive life. That is why this morning I said I really felt this was a vote for the soul of the Senate. I cannot imagine any Senator who does everything they have to do to be elected to get to serve here--the hardship for your family, raising money, and all the stuff you have to do to get here--and then to squander it by refusing to take a step to help the most vulnerable people who exist in our country. It is just beyond my imagination. But I am afraid this is more than about a piece of legislation. There is an idea here in the Democratic leadership that they really don't want the Senate to be able to function. They don't really want us to be able to pass legislation or solve problems. What they want to do is to have the talking point that after the last election nothing has really changed in the Senate--that it is just as dysfunctional as it was when they were in charge. I am happy to say I am optimistic--despite this morning's vote--that we will begin to make some progress as soon as next week, when we will, I think, take the first step to pass a budget. It will be the first time a budget has been passed since 2009. I am grateful to the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for saying that we are going to come back and vote again and again and again on this human trafficking bill until it passes. He is not going to schedule the nomination confirmation vote on the next Attorney General until such time as we get this passed. Unfortunately, that is what this place has degenerated into-- everybody looking for leverage to try to get a little bit more of what they want, and in the process, the very people we are supposed to be trying to work for and trying to help get lost. I am very disappointed. This is not why I came to the Senate. This is not the kind of Senate I want to serve in. This is not what my constituents--the 26.9 million people I work for in Texas--sent me here to do. They expect more of us. They deserve more of us. I hope, now that this initial vote has been cast--thank goodness for the four Democrats who broke ranks with their leadership on that side of the aisle and decided to vote to advance this legislation, but we still need two more. We still need two more brave Democratic Senators who are going to defy their leadership and not simply follow them off the cliff. This is what, from a practical political standpoint, I don't understand. One reason why Republicans are in the majority now is because, frankly, the President's policies were repudiated in the last election and the people who ran for reelection as incumbent Senators didn't have a record of accomplishment they could point to. So what they were left with was a referendum on the President's record which they followed down the line, and they had nothing else they could point to that they actually had done on the Senate floor because the Senate had been locked down and no amendments, no good ideas, no votes occurred. We literally had a U.S. Senator from Alaska, for example, who was running for reelection after serving in the Senate for 6 years who could not point to a single bill or amendment that bore his name that had been passed. So when people wondered, What are the issues in this election, they were left with the President of the United States saying: My policies are on the ballot, even though my name is not. Then we had the incumbent U.S. Senator with no record of accomplishments separate and apart from that referendum on the President's policies, and that referendum--the President's policies--lost and the people who enabled them and supported them. Frankly, I really don't understand the calculation of our colleagues on the other side who have now slavishly voted according to the dictates of their party leadership and said no to the victims of human trafficking who would have benefited from that legislation. I don't know how they reconcile that in their minds. I don't know whether they have had sleepless nights worrying about it or whether their hearts have become so hardened, whether they have become so accustomed to this sort of mindless partisanship that they don't even think about it anymore. Thanks to the majority leader, we are going to have another opportunity for them to rectify their ``no'' vote. All we need is two additional Senators who will vote to progress this legislation given the next opportunity. So I hope our colleagues will reconsider.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, at 11 a.m. this morning we will be having a very important vote on human trafficking in an important piece of legislation, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. I am glad this issue is finally getting the kind of attention it deserves, but I would be lying to you if I said I wasn't disappointed in the way this bill has become a political football for people who want to cause the Senate to cease to function entirely or to relitigate issues that have been resolved 40 years ago such as the Hyde amendment. We in the Senate have an opportunity to do a great deal of good for thousands of people, including children who are victims of sex trafficking, many of whom are young girls not even of high school age. On average the typical victim of human trafficking is between the age of 12 and 14. But instead of voting to pass this bill last week, as I had originally hoped, the minority leader, the Democratic leader, blocked the vote, and he has consistently taken the position that they are not going to allow us to progress with this legislation. The majority leader offered to give the other side a vote to strip out the language which they find offensive, but that was declined; and instead, the obstruction and the blocking of this legislation continues. I would like to come back to the question that I have asked myself privately and I have asked here publicly repeatedly, and that is, Why are so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle objecting to language they have repeatedly voted for time and time and time again? Why do they want to make this an issue on this piece of legislation, which is one of the rare islands of bipartisan comity, cooperation, and collaboration we have seen in recent times? Most importantly, why are Democrats going to the wall to block a bill that would help thousands of innocent victims of sex trafficking across the country who are crying out for our help? It truly baffles me, but that is what is going on. Of course, we know human trafficking is a problem all across the country, including my home in Texas. I was recently reminded of a couple of Texas stories about how important it is that we pass this legislation, including a recent story out of Waco, TX, involving the Border Patrol, where it was reported that over the last 5 months the Border Patrol has apprehended 144 known sex offenders trying to sneak back into the United States illegally. So reportedly 100,000 people are trafficked each year, according to the Washington Post. They say an estimated 100,000 children are trafficked each year for sex. Why in the world can't we find some way to set these differences aside, to fight them another day, and to move on doing some good where we can by passing this legislation? It has, unfortunately, become clear that this obstruction is about politics, plain and simple, because you know there is actually a whole lot of agreement about the importance of this legislation. For example, we have 12 Democratic cosponsors to this legislation. This bogus story you have heard about language being slipped in the bill that they didn't know was there is just that, completely bogus. Each of these Democrats has highly skilled professional staff, and they themselves weren't born last night, didn't fall off the turnip truck. They know what the legislation included, and it had language in it they had voted in favor of repeatedly in previous pieces of legislation. Then there is the fact that all 20 Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of this legislation, including 9 Democrats, all Members of the Judiciary Committee. Then when it came to the floor last week, all 100 Senators basically consented to bring this legislation forward. So why is it that after so much bipartisan cooperation and trying to work together to solve a real problem and help the victims of human trafficking--particularly those 100,000 children trafficked for sex--how is it this legislation became a political football to relitigate the Hyde amendment? Well, unfortunately, we know the abortion lobby has been working very hard to derail this legislation. Why? Because they care about these victims of human trafficking? Absolutely not, because everyone knows the Hyde amendment language contains an exception for rape and the health of the mother. So under this act, these limitations on spending wouldn't have anything to do with the services available to help those victims of human trafficking. I know that Members of the Senate on the Democratic side care deeply about this issue. I know the ranking member, the former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, cares deeply about this issue. I believe all 12 Democratic cosponsors of this legislation care deeply about this issue, and all Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee--all 20 of us who voted in favor of the legislation--care deeply about this issue. But there is one person who appears not to care one bit about this issue, and that is the senior Senator from Nevada, the Democratic leader. He apparently doesn't care at all about the victims of human trafficking. If he did, then I think he would find a way to work with us to pass this legislation. Unfortunately, we are going to have a vote here at 11:00 which is going to be very telling. I hold out some hope that our Democratic colleagues who cosponsored this legislation or who previously voted for legislation that includes this same type of language or the members of the Judiciary Committee who voted to support this bill at the committee markup will find a way to vote for cloture to allow us to progress to final passage of this legislation. There is going to be a very important choice. The choice is simply between the victims or party and lobbyists and outside groups who are trying to blow this piece of legislation up in order to relitigate the settled law of the land for the last 40 years. In fact, the Washington Post editorial yesterday I think stated the issue very well. They said, at the conclusion of their editorial, ``the question is whether the Senators who want to accomplish something can overcome the advocacy groups and politicians who would rather use this controversy as one more opportunity to raise funds and to sharpen divisions.'' That is absolutely pathetic, that someone would use the plight of these victims of human trafficking to raise funds and to drive divisions between Americans. So we will find out what the choice is and what Democrats choose. Will they follow the lead of the Democratic leader who apparently does not care about the consequences of this obstruction, and will they find a way in their heart to do what they know is right? Because they voted for this legislation previously, they have agreed to cosponsor it, and, of course, as I said, they voted for previous language that is identical to that contained in this bill. I will quote from a Texas newspaper, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, which published an editorial with the headline ``Anti-Trafficking bill is nothing to bicker about.'' That should be obvious, but unfortunately, the obvious has to be said, apparently time and time again. The editorial closes with this line, which I find to be poignant. It says: This fight is supposed to be against human trafficking. Distracting attention from that fight is shameful. It is shameful. Scripture reminds us that it does not profit a person to gain the whole world and lose your soul, and I worry that the Senate is losing its soul and its unique role as an institution where we can actually work out our differences, we can have debate, and we can have votes, and we can actually make some discernible progress forward on behalf of the people we represent. This is an important time of choosing for Members of the Senate. At 11 o'clock when we have this vote, we will need a handful of brave and courageous Members of the Senate on the other side of the aisle who will say to their leader: This is a bridge too far. We are not going to march in lockstep with the leader and take what could be legislation that will help these victims of human trafficking and turn it into a failure. This is a time for choosing. I know there are Senate Democrats who care deeply about the victims of human trafficking. Unfortunately, not everybody does, or else we would not be having this obstruction. So I hope that our colleagues, in thinking about this vote today--or perhaps during a sleepless moment last night as they were contemplating this very important time of choosing--I hope that they will examine their conscience and that they will reflect on the reason why they came to the Senate in the first place. Was it to play these kinds of partisan political games to advance the fundraising interests of the abortion lobby or some other group who wants us to derail this legislation or to relitigate issues that were settled 40 years ago? That is not the reason why I believe the overwhelming number of the Senators came to the Senate. They came here because they wanted to do something good, something positive, something that would help the most vulnerable among us. We will have that opportunity here today with this vote at 11 o'clock. Shame on us if we cannot rise to the occasion, if we cannot transcend this sort of partisan division and the tug at our sleeves by the outside groups who want to derail this important piece of legislation. Shame on us. There is going to be a time of choosing. Everybody who votes will make a record. That record will be part of their permanent legacy in this body. History will reflect whom they chose in this fight--the 100,000 children who are trafficked for sex in America who might benefit from this legislation or the abortion lobby that wants us to relitigate this issue based on language that every single Democrat has voted for in one fashion or another time and time again. This is a phony fight and a phony issue. We ought to do what is right. We ought to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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