stop the partisan politics, stop derailing this important opportunity to come together in a spirit of bipartisanship to end human trafficking. putting part sang politics over the lives of hundreds of thousands of american children who fall victim to the brutal reality of human trafficking every year is just absolutely wrong. and to quote our distinguished colleague from the state of maryland senator milulski mikulski who said let's get it done and let's get it done now. i would say mr. president and to my colleague from texas life is too precious, these crimes are too serious for this issue to be caught up in the crosshairs of washington politics. this has got to stop. this has got to end. this is a piece of bipartisan legislation that will help literally hundreds of thousands, millions, i would say, of americans across this country and it is time that we begin to right the wrongs of

injustice by turning the tide in law enforcement's favor and helping those who are trying to combat these terrible, heinous crimes to succeed and help the victims of these crimes restore their lives. and so i appreciate the good work of the senator from texas and others who have been involved with this and would just urge my colleagues to end this shenanigans the charade going on on the floor of the united states senate and let's get this bill passed and on the president's desk. mr. cornyn: mr. president can i ask how much time remains in our allotted time. the presiding officer: there is no time limit. mr. cornyn: i thank -- mr. president. i express my gratitude to the senator from south dakota but we've neglected perhaps the most important person in this process and that's the senator from iowa the chairman of the judiciary committee who responded to a letter written by all 20 senators in the united states senate asking him to have a hearing on this important

topic and to move this bill forward. i know we had the senator from south dakota mention senator mikulski. she came to testify along with senator ayotte from new hampshire and senator klobuchar at that hearing and talked about how really important this was to all 20 of our women senators, and how proud they were of the fact that it moved forward and 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 here to the floor in such a -- in a unanimous fashion. but i would just close, mr. president, by saying that all members of the united states senate, presumably came here to try to do something important. not just to -- not just to march in place or fill up

space, but 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 something -- do something good, to try to help people who cannot help themselves. and so here is a perfect opportunity to do exactly that. and we're not asking people to do anything extraordinary. certainly not asking them to do anything they haven't done before which is to vote on language that is included in -- been the law of the lapped for 39 years that they have voted on before. we're not asking to change the status quo. we're just asking them to focus on the victims. so 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 they deserve better. shame on us if we don't get this problem solved and if we don't pass this piece of legislation this bipartisan legislation and get it to the president's desk where he will gladly sign it. mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent -- i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i'd ask consent these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president, our republican colleagues say they're here fighting for women. if that were the case, then they wouldn't have snuck into this bill a provision that hurts women, all right? and that's not just me saying it. it's a story in "the washington post" and i ask unanimous consent to place it into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boxer: in early january email reviewed by the post, a republican judiciary committee staffer sent a democratic staffer a summary of previous changes in seven bullet points. guess what. they left out the change they made to women's reproductive health. now, i've been around here a long time and i thought there was trust in this body. but don't stand up here and say it's a phantom problem when "the washington post" confirms it. they have the email that proves

this change was made and was not told to the democrats on the committee. if it had been told to the democrats on the committee we would have worked this out. and you want to fight for women, take this out. take this provision out that harms the victims of trafficking. you want to help the women bring up loretta lynch for confirmation a fantastic woman, qualified held up by the republicans longer than any other attorney general nominee ever. you want to help women? those are two ways to do it. solve this problem don't stand up and say it's a phantom problem when "the washington post" saw the email. look, we know the bill before us has an extremely worthy goal.

we want to help victims of human trafficking. but i want to ask rhetorically how does it help women who have been brutally trafficked when you don't let them access their legal right to end a pregnancy that resulted from their enslavement? a woman is enslaved. she becomes pregnant. shouldn't she have the ability to get the same kind of health care as any other woman? but no, in this bill they say he should can't use that victims' compensation for that legal right. republicans are doing this all over the place. they attach immigration to the homeland security bill. they're threatening to attach the keystone pipeline to a highway bill. and now they include abortion in a human trafficking bill. and then they tell us we're

seeing phantom problems. i don't think so. they've been in charge for eight weeks and all we see is them taking hostage after hostage after hostage legislatively to get their way on their philosophy. roe v. wade is the law of the land. if they don't like it, why don't they propose doing away with it? let's have that out. this bill singles out and hurts vulnerable women women who have been the victim of a heinous crime. women who face deplorable conditions ripped out of their homes, taking advantage of, treated brutally. women who many times are forced into pregnancy by their captors. and in an unprecedented manner because of sneaking this language into this bill, the bill imposed abortion restrictions on private funds. private funds that have been collected from the criminals and

the perpetrators. the perpetrators of these unspeakable acts. don't these women deserve better? shouldn't these victims have access to services that are guaranteed to them by the constitution? now, my friends on the other side don't like it. they want to tell women what to do. they want to get into the most personal decisions that women and their families make. you know what? let them do that for their families but if they want to change the law of the land, roe v. wade and tell women they're criminals and doctors make them criminals, too then why don't they just have the courage to bring it to the floor directly, not sneak it into a bill and have these staffers write a note to their colleagues saying, oh, they're silent, we didn't do anything on that, oh no. i tell you something there is

one advantage to being around here a long time. you have the sense of what used to be decent around here when your word was your word and your bond was your bond. thank goodness we have proof. we have proof that the republicans left this out of a memo in which they told the judiciary committee the changes that were made. we have proof. don't call this a phantom problem. because we've got it in writing. this is a clear pattern. injecting these unrelated,if extremely politically charged provisions into key pieces of legislation. i've not seen it. we used to have a little bit of an understanding around here that if we agreed on a piece of legislation, we keep out the poison pills we wouldn't put them in the bills whether they

were written by democrats or republicans. and we know at the end of the day what happens everybody gets hurt because nothing gets done. and i have to just say if this is the new way it's going to be around here, it's a bad way for the people. we should be working on a bill that protects the victims of the most heinous crime, human trafficking, protecting our society's most vulnerable people. and making sure they're not denied of their rights. the republican provision that was added here in secret and tried to be kept quiet would hurt every single woman we're trying to help. they inserted language that was not in the same bill last year that was supported by democrats and republicans they added the new language quietly hoping

nobody would notice, then we'd all march down there. i put my name on this bill, by the way. because my staff trusted the republican staff when they said there wasn't any change in abortion language. how awful it was for my staff that they said to me senator we feel terrible, we took their word and i got my name off this bill. why on earth would anyone want to single out these victims of human trafficking and take away their constitutional rights in essence? i -- at least own up to it, i say to my republican friends. you got caught we have the email. don't get up here and say it's a phantom problem don't make these speeches about how democrats want to hurt women when you put a poison pill, hurt the very women you say they're going to protect did it in secret, and then call us out for it like we're doing

something wrong. the american people were not born yesterday. they're pretty darn smart. and if i stop one of them on the street, i don't care if they're republican or democrat or what their view is on abortion and i said to them if a friend tells you they've made no changes to a letter you asked them to write and you took their word for it and signed the letter and later found out there was something in that letter that they knew would hurt you would you be angry? they'd probably say i don't even want to deal with that person anymore. they can't be trusted. and one thing i've learned around here is your word is your bond, and the relationships we have with one another across the aisle are precious. they're important. so let's not make these phony arguments.

let's fix the problem. let's remove this offending language. let's come together for once. let's pass a bill that helps these victims and then my colleague says all the groups want this bill anyway. well let me quote from one of them the polaris project. quote -- "the bipartisan support to address modern-day slavery should not be held up by a separate debate on partisan issues." that's a direct quote. and if ever there was a partisan issue, it's the right to choose. that's a partisan issue. then there's a letter from the national network for youth -- quote -- "this legislation is desperately needed and we cannot let this moment pass us because of the addition of partisan and division -- divisive provisions." let me read that again. "this legislation is desperately needed and we can't let this moment pass us by because of the

addition of partisan and divisive provisions." so, again, mr. president we're offering republicans a simple solution. remove the language, go back to the same language you had in the bill last year which has broad support. if republicans do that today we would pass this bill today. i know this is the democratic time to talk so i'm going to allow senator hirono to continue. we need to end this sneak attack on women's health so we can get the victims of human trafficking the services and support they need. we are ready and willing and able to sit down and work with our friends on the other side to drop this provision. the senate's not going to get things done if the republican majority continues to insist on putting politically charged extreme measures on bills that should pass with bipartisan support, and i hope my colleagues will work with us. i certainly want to be able to

trust the staffers again and trust my colleagues again and it would start with removing this provision and i would yield to my friend. i yield the floor. ms. hirono: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. ms. hirono: mr. president i would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend from california, senator boxer and i rise today to speak against attempts to turn this bill the justice for trafficking victims act into a political football. while there are many issues that may divide this congress and certainly the issue of choice for women is one of them, human trafficking should not be one of those divisive issues. this bill started off as a bipartisan bill, but along the way a provision was added to the bill that brings me to the floor today in opposition to that provision. not only do i oppose the

substance of that provision but i very much object to how the provision was added to the bill unbeknownst to the sponsors of this bill like me. so buried in this bill is a provision that allows government to dictate a woman's health care options, and this provision would limit choices for women who have been victimized by human trafficking women who are often forced to endure rape and violence on a daily basis. that is what human trafficking is. so this is an unprecedented and i have to say appalling expansion of government's role in women's health care decisions. the provision is antiwomen and antivictim. mr. president, this body should be working to help these victims of trafficking violence, not playing politics with their lives, but that's not what we

are seeing today. the truth is there are some in this body who have time and again put their own ideological agenda and the need to score political points ahead of consensus-driven legislation. we have seen this before. just a few weeks ago congress came close to shutting down the department of homeland security, the third largest department in the federal government, because a few members wanted to hold funding national security projects hostage to score points against the president's immigration actions. we saw it during the shutdown. we saw it during the debate over the shaheen-portman energy bill. we saw it during congress' drawnout debate over the reauthorization of violence against women act yet another issue that should be free of

partisan politics. this body shouldn't let ideological grandstanding on divisive issues stall and kill bipartisan legislation that will make a difference for people, particularly for the most vulnerable people in this country, victims of trafficking. this bill is no exception. a bill on human trafficking should not be a method of expanding the government's powers to dictate women's personal choices. women's health care decisions. i join my colleagues in urging the senate to stop using this legislation and others like it to advance an ideological agenda and help the women men and children who are being trafficked across this country. i yield my time.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i don't seek the floor to speak now because i think i'm infringing upon some other democrats that wanted to speak before i spoke. are they on their way? i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

intended to help women should be about helping women period. there is no reason for a political restriction on women's health in the justice for victims of trafficking act. just like there wasn't a reason for republicans to threaten a government shutdown over planned parenthood funding back in 2011 or tried to jam through reproductive health riders and

spending bills. the women senators who join us on the floor today have seen this inappropriate disappointing political stunts geared at rolling back women's rights before and republicans are not questioning -- are going to get the same response they've gotten every other time not on our watch. mrs. murray: mr. president right now the ranking member of the judiciary committee is working on alternative legislation that would take out the divisive, harmful expansion of the hyde amendment and keep this effort focused on survivors who need support and deserve justice. so democrats are laying out a path to keep this bill bipartisan and get it done, and i hope our republican colleagues will reconsider the partisan approach they've taken and work with us. i hope they will think about why it just doesn't make sense to choose partisanship over trying to just address a truly horrific problem in our country especially one that we have all agreed needs to be solved. and i hope that they will commit to putting politics aside and

join us to make this bill the bipartisan effort that we all hoped it would be. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: the language that we just heard the minority party complaining about -- i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. mr. president, we just heard members of the minority party complaining that there are things in this bill that nobody knew anything about and on our side i think we've done a good job of refuting it. i'm going to suggest again that they ought to read the legislation. they had plenty of time to read the legislation. but it's 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's in it. now, obviously this legislation before us isn't law it's a proposal but it's 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 that 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 is 20 people on the judiciary committee that 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 snuck into a piece of legislation, which is not true. so that's what i'm going to speak about mr. president. as one example of what i just 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're coming forward with this concern only now. weeks after the senate judiciary committee reported this legislation. and then we also heard the senator from california comment on emails. i want her to know that there are emails that clearly show the other side was aware of the hyde provision, and it's not our majority saying that the democrats are raising a phantom problem. the senator from california is criticizing a human trafficking advocate who is saying that very point. so it's pretty bad around here,

mr. president, when you have senators attacking antitrafficking advocates. we learned last week that law enforcement officials in texas just arrested 29 people in an online trafficking sting. as reported in the "waco texas tribune" on march 10, quote --" the sting was designed to catch suspects seeking underaged escorts for sexual acts or trying to become pimps by trafficking underaged prostitutes." end of quote. this is onlile 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 make the