John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, tomorrow morning the Senate will be casting a very important vote. We will be voting on a piece of legislation called the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which currently has 12 Democratic cosponsors and virtually an equal number of Republican cosponsors. In other words, this is generally bipartisan legislation. As further evidence of its bipartisan support, this bill passed unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February, and it enjoys the support of more than 200 victims' rights and law enforcement organizations. But as everyone in this Chamber knows, Senate Democrats have said they will filibuster this bipartisan legislation that is designed to provide justice for victims of trafficking because it contains a particular provision they have voted for on a number of occasions and, indeed, have chosen to cosponsor. It is unconscionable and shameful and more than that it is just simply baffling to me. The reason it is so shameful is because there are children waiting for our help. The average victim of human trafficking in the United States is a young girl between the age of 12 and 14 years of age. Children are being abused and literally sexually assaulted while apparently some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided to try to make a political point. It is baffling because my colleagues have voted for essentially this very same provision in one form or another time and time and time again. Apparently, the Democratic leader, who is pressuring Members of his caucus to filibuster this bill is--well, he says we need to take out the language they object to, but I was standing on the floor just a few days ago when--I guess it was Thursday afternoon--the majority leader, Senator McConnell, offered them an opportunity to have an up-or-down vote to strip that language out of the bill and they objected to it. So it is getting harder and harder to believe the sincerity of their protests, and it is appearing more and more likely that what they want to do is have the Senate return to the same dysfunctional nature it was under for the last 4 years by the previous majority. I wish to pose several questions to our colleagues who insist on filibustering this bipartisan piece of legislation. The first question I have is: Isn't it the case that only 3 months ago 50 Democrats voted for the 2015 Defense authorization bill? Isn't that a bill a piece of authorizing legislation much like the underlying justice for victims of trafficking bill? If 50 Democrats voted for similar language with regard to the limitations on the use of funding just a few months ago, how in the world can they filibuster this bill for including the same language they voted for, more or less, just a few short months ago? In fact, it is true that in 2009 all of the Senate Democrats--in a partisan vote--voted to include this similar language as part of ObamaCare. Groups such as NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, protested that the language ``went far beyond even the Hyde Amendment.'' Yet 60 Democrats, including the then-majority leader--now minority leader--voted for that in the wee hours of Christmas Eve 2009. Again, I ask our friends who are filibustering this bipartisan piece of legislation designed to help the victims of human trafficking: Isn't it true that in 2009, 58 Senate Democrats voted to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program, which like Medicaid is subject to the Hyde Amendment? To each of those questions, the record would demonstrate they should be answered with a resounding yes. So time and time again, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who now find themselves in the inexplicable position of filibustering a bill they are cosponsoring or which they have already voted for in the Judiciary Committee and which contains very similar restrictions on the use of the funding--how in the world have they decided to make the stand, here and now, denying even the opportunity they have been given by the majority leader to have an up-or-down vote to strip the language out that they object to? Well, despite the hypocrisy of their position, the question this really boils down to is this. This is the question, the only question that really matters: To our colleagues who are filibustering this legislation, Are you prepared to turn your back on the thousands of people living every day in bondage and who are desperately clinging to the hope that someone--someone--will lend them a helping hand? Are you prepared to abandon these children and these other victims of human trafficking who deserve a roof over their head, someone to lean on, and somehow, some way to get a fresh start in life? Do our colleagues who are filibustering this legislation really want to play politics with such a sensitive and vulnerable part of our population over an issue that some advocates have called a phantom problem? The reason why some advocates who support this legislation have called the objection of the Democratic leader a phantom problem is because not only have they voted for similar provisions over and over and over again, this essentially has been the settled law of the land for 39 years--since 1976. Just in case our colleagues think that the examples I mentioned are exclusive, there are a number of other provisions--32 Democrats voted for the so-called CR omnibus, the continuing resolution omnibus, in December. Thirty-two Democrats voted for that which contained very similar language. And I mentioned several others. I want to conclude with the Washington Post editorial for today. I do not always find myself in agreement with the Washington Post editorial board, but this morning I think they encapsulated the Democratic filibuster of the bipartisan antitrafficking bill perfectly. In urging the Senate to pass this legislation, they wrote: ``[T]his week the question will be whether Senators can put the interests of scared, abused children ahead of the chance to score political points.'' I could not agree more. So tomorrow morning, an hour after we convene, we will have a vote that will decide whether this legislation goes on to final passage. We need six brave Democrats--six brave Democrats--to join all the Republicans on this side to keep hope alive for these victims of human trafficking. We need six Democrats who are willing to break away from the tyranny of their party's own leadership here in the Senate and do what they know is the right thing to do. They know it in their heart, and they know it in their mind, and they know they have supported similar language in legislation time and time again. We need six Democrats willing to break away from the mindless, heartless filibuster of this legislation. I hope they will examine their conscience. I hope they will ask themselves, Isn't this exactly the kind of vote that I came here to the U.S. Senate to cast? I hope they will pray on it, and I hope they will think long and hard before saying no to the abused children and the victims of human trafficking. That is what this is all about. It is not based on any Hyde amendment language in this legislation. It is based on a determination to render this institution dysfunctional, not because of any principal policy disagreement, because, as I point out, our colleagues on the other side have voted for similar language time and time and time again. Our colleagues on the other side realize that on November 4, the voters rejected the then-majority and gave this side of the aisle the opportunity to serve in the majority because, frankly, they were sick and tired of the way that Washington operates and the dysfunction that prevailed here for so long. I had higher hopes that after the election we would all learn something from what the voters were telling us on November 4 and thereafter and that we would take advantage of the opportunity to try to work together to find areas where we could agree, in a bipartisan way, to actually move the ball forward and help people who need our help. If we cannot do that on an antihuman trafficking bill, what can we possibly work together on? This whole phony issue of the Hyde amendment provision in this bill is a joke. It is a sick, sad joke, after time and time again voting for similar provisions in other legislation. As I pointed out, you have 12 Democratic cosponsors of the legislation. Do you think they did not read the legislation? That is ridiculous. Do you think their staff did not tell them what was in the legislation? Do you think before the Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to pass it out people did not know what they were voting on? I do not believe that for a minute. I have too much respect for our colleagues and their professionalism to think they missed it. Our colleagues have an important choice to make tomorrow morning. I hope they will say yes to these victims of human trafficking and no to the kind of political gamesmanship that gives this institution a bad name.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. I say to my friend that was the so-called CRomnibus. It was the continuing resolution omnibus bill that passed in November during the lameduck session and it included the same or very similar language. It was actually incorporated by reference into the Justice for Victims of Trafficking bill. It is the same language our Democratic friends voted for then, and now they are complaining about it being in this bill for no apparent reason.

Mr. CORNYN. I hold the Senate seat that was first held by Senator Sam Houston who actually resigned his seat as Governor of Texas rather than participate in secession. He was a Union man and believed in the Union. I know the Senator from Illinois has worked very hard on a bipartisan basis with Mr. Blumenthal, the Senator from Connecticut, and others on this legislation, and that is why I find this situation so baffling. What has been a uniquely bipartisan effort has now turned into a partisan filibuster and, frankly, I am perplexed by that. Maybe some of our friends on the other side of the aisle will come out and explain why they are filibustering the bill they voted for in the Judiciary Committee. We had a unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee. We had 10 Democratic cosponsors. Yet the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, now says they will not allow a vote on any amendments and they are going to kill this bill because they don't want to vote for a bill that has a provision they have voted for time and time again, and indeed has been the law of the land for 39 years. I thank the Senator from Illinois. We are joined by the Senator from South Dakota who is head of our Republican conference and has been very concerned about the dysfunction in this place. We actually saw this legislation as an opportunity to start demonstrating that we can do the people's business once again after coming off of a very tough election--tougher for our Democratic friends than it was for our side of the aisle. It was an election where voter after voter said they were sick and tired of the dysfunction here. We want to show we can be responsive to the needs of the most vulnerable people in our country. I yield to the Senator from South Dakota for any comments he cares to make.

Mr. CORNYN. I say to my friend from South Dakota, he is exactly correct. This has been the law of the land for 39 years. This is an area that has been very controversial--that is abortion, generally--and this has been a rare area of bipartisan consensus that no tax dollars be used to fund abortion. Again, this is a red herring and a phantom problem, as it has been referred to here, and I can't believe our friends on the other side would throw their staff under the bus who were responsible to bring this language in the legislation to their attention, and I can't believe they would throw the victims who will benefit from this bill under the bus and say they should have to pay the price for this phantom problem they discovered. To me it is not plausible. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. His focus is exactly where we ought to be having our focus, which is how to take the profit out of this modern-day slavery and redirect it to help the victims, and that is what this bill does. It ends some of the impunity that some of these purveyors of human flesh--the rewards they are reaping--and plows it back in to help the victims. I know the SAVE Act has been a particular focus for the Senator from Illinois. Earlier I talked to Senator Feinstein, the Senator from California, about this issue. She is very concerned about how the Internet is becoming integrated as part of the business model of some of these perpetrators of this crime. I am also told--and the Senator from Illinois may be aware of this-- that veterans will participate.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to express my gratitude to the Senator from South Dakota. We have neglected perhaps the most important person in this process; that is, the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who responded to a letter written by all 20 female Senators, asking him to have a hearing on this important topic and to move this bill forward. The Senator from South Dakota mentioned Senator Mikulski. She came to testify, along with Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire and Senator Klobuchar, and she talked about how important this was to all 20 of our women Senators and how proud they were of the fact that it moved forward. It wouldn't have happened without the Senator from Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, willing to take that challenge up and to move the bill to the floor in such a unanimous fashion. I wish to close by saying that all Members of the Senate presumably came here to try to do something important--not just to march in place or fill up space. Presumably, they spend the time away from their families, they go through the rigors of political campaigns, they suffer the slings and arrows of partisan politics in order to try to do something good, to try to help people who cannot help themselves. Here is a perfect opportunity to do exactly that. We are not asking people to do anything extraordinary. We are certainly not asking them to do anything they haven't done before, which is to vote on language that is included and has been the law of the land for 39 years and that they have voted on before. We are not asking to change the status quo. We are just asking them to focus on the victims. As Ms. Gaetan, who is with the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, said: ``Senate Democrats are choosing a phantom problem over real victims.'' Shame on us if we allow that to happen. Shame on us. We can do better. These victims deserve better. The people we work for in the 50 States around this country deserve better. Shame on us if we don't get this problem solved and if we don't pass this piece of bipartisan legislation and get it to the President's desk where he will gladly sign it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I could interject. The Senator from South Dakota is exactly right. I will add to that that not only does this enjoy broad bipartisan support within the Senate and Congress, we have more than 200 law enforcement and victim rights organizations that have endorsed this bill and they are begging us to pass it. One of those groups includes the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. They know we need to focus on not only taking the profit out of this crime but, just as importantly, we need to get the services to the victims to begin to let them heal and get on with their lives. As we said earlier, these are typically young girls who are 12 to 14 years of age. Can you imagine the scars, both physical and psychological, they bear having experienced this terrible crime? Every day we delay in getting this bill passed because of the political shenanigans here is another day these victims of this terrible crime are denied access to the services they need.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my colleagues--the Senator from Illinois, the Senator from Ohio, and I think we are going to be joined by the Senator from South Dakota and perhaps others.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, before I turn to Senator Portman, I would like to put up a quote from one of the leaders of the anti-trafficking movement, the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, who expresses my sentiments exactly, my frustration over a partisan filibuster of a piece of legislation which has enjoyed broad bipartisan support and how somehow partisanship has infected what should be a bipartisan commitment to helping the victims of human trafficking. She says, ``Senate Democrats are choosing a phantom problem over real victims.'' I think that expresses the facts and certainly my sentiment. I want to turn to the Senator from Ohio first, who has been one of the leaders in this effort. He has offered an important piece of legislation which has already been incorporated in the bill which perhaps he will talk about but also has some additional amendments that I know he would like to get a chance to get a vote on to further improve the bill--in particular, his provision Bringing Missing Children Home Act with Senator Schumer, the Senator from New York, which is already in the base bill, and then with Senator Feinstein, the Senator from California--they offered the Combat Human Trafficking Act, which is already included in the base bill. So with that, I would yield to the Senator from Ohio for any remarks he would care to make, and then perhaps we could engage in a colloquy with our colleagues.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. If I could respond, Mr. President, there are about 200 different law enforcement and victims' rights organizations, including the one from the chart I mentioned earlier, the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women. This is one of those rare subjects where people have genuinely come together in revulsion to this terrible crime but also in an attempt to do something meaningful to address it.

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, all week we have been on an important piece of legislation on the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. Just to remind everybody, this is a bill to treat child prostitutes not as criminals but as the victims they are--obviously, beneath the age of consent--and to recognize that the criminal organizations that traffic in human flesh for sale, economic, sex, and other reasons, are a real problem in our society. So much of what happens in this trade is really nothing more or nothing less than modern-day slavery--something we thought was relegated to the history books and didn't exist in the United States of America, the freest country in the world. We got here through a rather strange set of circumstances, because the legislation that I introduced was broadly bipartisan--which is a novelty these days. We had 10 Democratic cosponsors of the legislation. Then, when we had a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee--Chairman Grassley kindly called up that bill in February--we had a unanimous vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee. All Republicans and all Democrats voted for it. Then we had another unusual development. Majority Leader McConnell was left wondering: Am I going to have to go through procedural steps to get the bill to the floor? The minority, our Democratic friends, said, I think, fairly: This is not a controversial piece of legislation. We are going to agree to get on the legislation. But then something very strange happened. All of a sudden, some of our Democratic friends, including the Democratic leader, said: We are going to filibuster this legislation. You can imagine my surprise after that bipartisan record of cooperation leading up to that point. I was even more surprised when the stated reason for that was a provision in the bill, which was as plain as the nose on your face, and it actually was a provision of the law that was voted on unanimously by all of our Democratic friends late last year. So it is a provision that has been the law of the land for 39 years, which they reaffirmed with their vote just late last year. This is what one of the 200 groups--law enforcement and victims groups--had to say about this discovery this week of this appropriations provision known as the Hyde amendment. It said: ``Senate Democrats are choosing a phantom problem over real victims.'' So I wish to take a minute to think about who is actually paying the price for the political games that are going on in the Senate. Who is bearing the consequences? Is it going to be the Republican Party or the Democratic Party in the next election? That seems to be the rage in Washington, DC. People want to talk about the politics. But here we have children, typically between the age of 12 and 14, mainly girls, who are trafficked for sex and who have nowhere to turn. Our bill gives them an opportunity to begin to heal by penalizing the very people who demand this sex trade, taking that money and diverting it into services for the victims. Reflecting on what has happened this week and thinking that surely we can all get together on something as bipartisan as combatting human sex trafficking for children, surely we can finally come together, all join hands together and support this important legislation, I had to reflect: Why in the world would they ever want to come to the Senate if they are not going to try to help make the lives of these victims of human trafficking just a little better? I mean, we are all used to the hardball of elections and politics. We get it. We are all volunteers. We are grownup men and women. But these children shouldn't have to pay the price for the political games that are going on in the Senate. And it is not only this legislation. I think it really speaks to: Why in the world would anybody want to serve in a body where all we are doing is filling space and throwing obstacles to the passage of bipartisan legislation that is going to help some of the vulnerable people in our society? If this is our legacy, I just have to say: Shame on us. Shame on those who would put partisan political games and phantom problems ahead of the welfare of these child victims of human trafficking. Is this the legacy that any Member of the Senate, Republican or Democratic, would want to be known by? Yes, they served in the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world. But do you know what they are remembered for? For stopping help for child victims of human trafficking. That is their legacy. Does anyone want that? I don't think so. Why in the world would we squander a perfectly good opportunity to do everything we can? This isn't a panacea. This isn't going to all of a sudden wipe out the issue of human trafficking in America, but it is a small first step to dedicate $30 million in a crime victims compensation fund--paid for by the very people who purchased these services and who are convicted and pay fines. This is a first step to take that $30 million and to divert it to help the victims of this sordid crime to begin to heal. So I ask our colleagues to reconsider, to reflect on why they are here--just to play partisan games, or are they actually here to do some good? Is this what they want to be known by? Is this how you want to be remembered by your children and grandchildren? Is this how you want to be remembered in our history books? And why in the world would you come to the Senate only to squander the opportunity to do something good for the most vulnerable people in our country by blocking this legislation over a provision of law which has been the law of the land for 39 years and which all of our Democratic friends have repeatedly voted for time and time again, as recently as late last year in the Omnibus appropriations bill? This is a phantom problem, and they are choosing a phantom problem over real victims. It is beyond belief and I think deeply depressing. But there is an opportunity for our colleagues to rise above this partisanship they have displayed and to do the right thing. One would think the 10 people who have been cosponsors of the legislation would be for advancing this legislation, as well as all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike. One would think that since they have already voted for this provision, they would do so again and let us consider it, along with an open amendment process. In the end, this isn't hurting us or other Senators. This isn't just poisoning the well here in Washington, DC, making it harder and harder for us to get things done; this isn't just poisoning our reputation in the eyes of the people we represent around the country who look to Washington and see nothing but dysfunction; it is squandering an opportunity to help vulnerable children who are the victims of this sordid sex trafficking. I hope my colleagues will reconsider and allow us to proceed.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2015, at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Bridging the Gap: How Prepared are Americans for Retirement.''

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

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 12, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

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 12, 2015, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Visa Waiver Program: Implications for U.S. National Security.''

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 12, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Protecting Taxpayers from Schemes and Scams During the 2015 Tax Filing Season.''

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 12, 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 Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 12, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SR- 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Examining the President's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.''