Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to the following member of my staff: Francis Cissna, during the pendency of the remainder of the 114th Congress.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I don't seek the floor to speak now because I think I am infringing upon some other Democrats who wanted to speak before I spoke. I assume they are on their way. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we just heard Members of the minority party complaining there are things in this bill nobody knew anything about. On our side, I think we have done a good job of refuting it. I am going to suggest again they ought to read the legislation. They had plenty of time to read the legislation. But it is kind of remindful of the story about Speaker Pelosi saying after the 2,700-page ObamaCare bill was written that you have to pass it to find out what is in it. Obviously this legislation before us isn't law. It is a proposal. But it is just like people evidently don't read this legislation before it gets out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 20-0. The fact is this legislation was on the Web site several weeks before it was voted out of committee, and this language was in it. So you have to wait until a bill gets out of committee before you read the language? No. There are 20 people on the Committee on the Judiciary who had an opportunity to read this legislation before it ever got out of committee. There were no concerns about this language that we hear from the minority of the Senate that they have all of a sudden found obnoxious and somehow it was sneaked into a piece of legislation, which is not true. That is what I am going to speak about. As one example of what I referred to, yesterday we heard from the Senator from Vermont--my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the committee and former chairman of the committee--that an organization called ATEST is urging that we strike the Hyde amendment language in this bill. ATEST is one of many organizations that had the opportunity to review and comment on this legislation prior to the committee markup of this bill. They met with my staff in February to discuss this bill and never raised any concern with the Hyde amendment at that time. So now I can legitimately question why they are coming forward with this concern only now, weeks after the Senate Committee on the Judiciary reported this legislation. Then we also heard the Senator from California comment on emails. I want her to know there are emails that clearly show the other side was aware of the Hyde provision, and it is not our majority saying the Democrats are raising a phantom problem. The Senator from California is criticizing a human trafficking advocate who is saying that very point. It is pretty bad around here when you have Senators attacking anti- trafficking advocates. We learned last week that law enforcement officials in Texas arrested 29 people in an online trafficking sting. As reported in Texas in the Waco Tribune-Herald on March 10: The sting was designed to catch suspects seeking underage escorts for sexual acts or trying to become ``pimps'' by trafficking underage prostitutes. This is only the latest in a string of news stories showing that the commercial exploitation of children is a problem in the United States. The reality that adolescents are victims in many of these cases makes the situation all the more wrenching. It is vital that we act now to pass legislation to further protect these and other domestic victims of human trafficking. These reports are reasons why this bill should not be stalled by the minority Members of the Senate, particularly when we in the majority pledged, as a result of the last election, that we were going to have an open amendment process. This bill is under the open amendment process so anybody who doesn't like this language ought to offer an amendment, and let us see where the votes are--whether their side prevails or whether the people who want to pass an antitrafficking bill prevail. I take this opportunity to again urge my colleagues to support this Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which would establish strong antitrafficking measures that target predators who exploit innocent, young people. The measure focuses both on sex and labor trafficking. It would benefit both children and adult victims of these despicable crimes. The legislation would equip law enforcement with new tools to fight trafficking, enhance services for victims, and increase penalties for perpetrators. The bill would help fight demand for domestic sex trafficking by ensuring that any person who is trafficking an adult or purchasing a child for sex will be punished under the full force of law. In other words, it goes after the demand side as well as the supply side of these terrible crimes. So it is a meaningful solution that is supported by a large bipartisan group of Senators and more than 200 outside organizations. The other day, one human trafficking advocate characterized the concern raised by the minority with the Hyde amendment provision in this bill as a phantom problem, and I agree. The minority leader is focusing on a provision that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in February unanimously, after committee members debated the bill and had the opportunity to even strike this provision that they find so obnoxious at this particular time. Not only has this language, called the Hyde amendment language, been in a part of this bipartisan bill for months, it is the law of the land today--a consensus measure adopted in 1976. It has been included in appropriations bills every year for decades. As I mentioned yesterday, it has been included in authorizing legislation on occasions as well. Why, when we have agreed on the inclusion of Hyde amendment language in bills on so many prior occasions over a 39-year period of time, would we at this time be unable to agree to its inclusion in a bill to help human trafficking victims? It is fitting that this bill includes such Hyde amendment language. The bill creates a Federal victims fund, and money in the fund will derive from fines imposed on human traffickers. The fund will be a federally administered program. If the fund is used to support abortion services, then it constitutes Federal funding of abortion. Including the Hyde language is consistent, then, with what we have always done in such cases. This is not the appropriate time or place for the minority party Members of the Senate to seek a rollback of consensus legislation that was adopted as far back as 1976 and has been extended every year since that time. I urge my colleagues to find another place and another time for congressional debate on taxpayer funding of abortions--not to do it on a bill that has broad, bipartisan support and definitely not on a bill that was reported out of committee 20 to 0, which means 11 Republicans and 9 Democrats supported it. The argument that this Hyde amendment language was included by--you have heard these words--``sleight of hand'' is simply disingenuous. This bill, after its introduction, was put into the public domain--not after it was voted out of committee, not just 1 day before it was in committee, but weeks before the committee considered it. So it was in the public domain. Nobody could say it wasn't there. So you could read it and know this Hyde language was in it. It was distributed by email to numerous organizations and congressional offices for their input. It has been posted for 2 months on the U.S. Government Web site, accessible to any congressional staffer or member of the public. So we have people who come to the Senate saying they didn't know this was in there. Well, then, did they not read the bill? Did they not have their staff read the bill? For a long period of time it has been right out there where 300 million people could access it on the Web site. If lawmakers then are asserting that they did not know the Hyde amendment was included in the bill, then it means they simply didn't read this legislation. I again call on my colleagues to support the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, focusing on helping survivors of trafficking heal and protect others from becoming victims of such a terrible crime. It is a meaningful solution that is supported by large bipartisan groups of Senators. We have a real opportunity to provide survivors of trafficking with the kind of support that is essential to their recovery and future success. Working together, in a bipartisan way, we can restore dignity to survivors. That is why we need to pass this act right now. It also gives this Senate an opportunity to do what I hear from the people of grassroots Iowa so often in my town meetings, such as Saturday when I was in Truro, IA, and 33 people showed up. I was in Norwalk, IA, and 66 people showed up. At those meetings they keep asking: Why can't you Republicans and Democrats get together? This is one of those bills where Republicans and Democrats are getting together. Now we find some people--who evidently don't read legislation until the midnight hour--coming to the floor of the Senate saying something along the lines of: We snuck something into the bill. Snuck something into the bill when the bill has been out there on the Web site for a couple of months already? No, that is disingenuous. So the bill is not moving along. But when this bill is brought up for a final vote, the people will see that Republicans and Democrats can work together if we can get over this hurdle of the stonewalling by the minority party of the Senate, holding up this bill for a disingenuous reason. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. 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 11, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Three Years Later: Are We Any Closer to a Nationwide Public Safety Wireless Broadband Network.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 11, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``State Regulators' Perspectives on the Clean Power Plan.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 11, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The President's Request for Authorization to Use Force against ISIS: Military and Diplomatic Efforts.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 11, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on March 11, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 11, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 11, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to follow up on something that the Senator from Pennsylvania just said on the process--not on the substance of these amendments. We are in a situation where we have a bill before the Senate that has broad bipartisan support, and it came out of the committee I chaired, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a unanimous vote. Now we are stalled on proceedings, and I would like to emphasize what is different and why this bill should be moving forward in the year 2015 as opposed to the last few years when the other political party controlled the Senate. In the U.S. political system, elections are supposed to have consequences, and as a consequence of the last election, there is a new majority in the Senate. That new majority results from campaign positions taken in the last election that if we had a new majority, the Senate was going to be run in the way that James Madison implied that it ought to run--as a deliberative body, as a body where every Member could participate, where you would reach consensus, and where you give very serious thought to legislation that comes before this body--and do it in a way differently than the House of Representatives was meant to do business and has done business for the 230 years under our Constitution. So we ran on a platform that we would have the Senate debate and be open for amendments, and the leader announced that when this bill was going to come up, it would be an open amendment process. Everybody could participate. Now we are in a situation where the minority is not allowing us to move forward on amendments because they have objections to a provision that was in this bill since its introduction. Every Member had not only days but weeks to consider it before it came out of committee on a unanimous vote. And those provisions that were in this bill from the introduction--and every Senator knew they were in there, and every Senator's staff knew they were in there. If they didn't know that this language was in there, then they didn't read the legislation. There are plenty of people to read legislation around here, even beyond the Members of the committee. So this language deals with what is called the Hyde amendment, which for either 39 or 40 years has basically said that taxpayers' money should never be used to finance abortions. So all of a sudden there is objection to that language in this bill, which was in the bill when the very same Members who are objecting to it now on the floor of the Senate knew it was in there, and we can't move forward because they object to the amendment. So I proposed to them that they offer an amendment to strike what they don't like and find out where the votes are. If they win, they win. If they don't win, we move forward. But you can't hardly hold up a piece of legislation over language that is in the bill that has been part of the law of this country for 39 or 40 years and then say that you didn't know it was in there, when it was in there when you voted to get it out of committee. Senator Toomey just gave a speech about his amendment. He asked unanimous consent to bring it up. The minority in the Senate, which has the same right to offer amendments that any other Senator can offer, refused to let him get a vote on his amendment or even disputed the fact of laying an amendment aside to move forward on it. So we are at a standstill. Statistically, I would like to show how the new majority is intending to operate the Senate on a different basis than had been operated on in previous years and use statistics of last year. If the statistics are off by 1 or 2 numbers, I hope somebody will forgive me. But roughly, we had 18 rollcalls on amendments last year, because there was every effort to be made to stall the Senate so amendments couldn't come up for a vote. Already this year we have had approximately 40-some rollcall votes on amendments, and more than a majority of those have been amendments offered by the minority party in the Senate. So the elections showed that people want the Senate to work as a deliberative body, where every Senator can participate, and we ought to move forward on that. I would ask the people who object to moving forward on this amendment to offer an amendment to strike the provisions they don't like and move on so that the other several Members of the Senate who are stalled now on offering their amendments can offer their amendments and eventually we can get through those amendments and vote on a bill that got out of the Senate Judiciary Committee without a single dissenting vote from either Republicans or Democrats. I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of a unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. today.

Mr. GRASSLEY

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

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss what I discussed earlier in the day. In fact, I think it was this morning when I spoke to the reason why this legislation is not moving along. I am not going to repeat what I said then, but since then the minority leader came to the floor and gave reasons for this bill not moving along, and so I will once again bring up some important issues about this legislation and rebut the other side on why we are not moving forward with this bill. As we all know, this bill was unveiled in January after weeks of negotiation among our respective staff. It has been in the public domain since it was introduced in January. Since that time, we have followed regular order with respect to this legislation. We had a hearing on this bill. We scheduled a markup in February, and amendments were offered to the bill at that markup. The ranking member offered an amendment to the very same section of the bill that included this language. Numerous committee members took the opportunity to speak about the bill during the hearing and markup. The markup offered a prime opportunity for any member--including the minority members of the Senate--to ask questions and make changes and strip out language to which they might have objected. We promised regular order during floor consideration as well, just as we have on practically every other piece of legislation that has been before the Senate since the new majority has taken over. The language which they now object to on the floor, weeks after a committee markup took place--I remind everyone that this bill passed without a single dissenting vote in committee--is referred to as the Hyde amendment. We are talking about language that has been standard for the last 39 or 40 years. It is included virtually every time Congress appropriates taxpayer dollars for health services. The Hyde amendment has been and currently is the law of the land. Hyde amendment language has been added to appropriations bills every year for decades. We have heard: Well, it has been added to appropriations bills, but it has not been on authorization bills. That is not true because it has been included in more than one authorization statute. I will give some examples, including laws authorizing the SCHIP program and programs in the Department of Defense. We negotiated this bill and this language in good faith. I urge the Members of this body not to impede passage of a measure that over 200 groups have reviewed and endorsed. Yesterday I put letters from some of those groups or maybe even all of those groups in the Record so everyone can see the wide support this bill has not only in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee by being voted out unanimously, but also outside groups support it as well. The 200 outside groups who participated in the hours of helping us reach a consensus on this bill have made it clear that ending human trafficking is an important priority for all of them. We need to put aside partisan politics. We need to pass this bill for their sake and the sake of trafficking survivors who are being subjected to degradation every day while we wait to act. My asking that politics be put aside in order to get this legislation passed is not something new. Those politics were put aside in the Judiciary Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. I guess, based upon the experience of the supporters of the legislation and the expert advice they got in coming to the conclusion of how to fund this fund, they feel the money is going to be available to do that. You ask a legitimate question. I suppose I ought to have an answer for it, and I don't have from this standpoint. I think that I have great faith in the figures they have presented us and that we will have to deal with the issue you bring up at some future time because I think we will want everybody to be made whole if what you say happens.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I can say to the Senator that he raises a legitimate point because I know in other areas we have set up such funds and sometimes they come up short. But we have to remember that sometimes something is not paid out because a lot of times excess money is used for something else in the Federal budget and not paid out entirely the way it was intended originally. But I would urge my colleague to take the word of the people who have done the research on this legislation to bring it together and the consensus it has from 200 or more organizations and feel that it will be successful. If it isn't, then I pledge to help you deal with that at that particular time. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I am going to make now not be part of the remarks on the bill that is before the Senate.

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