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 as the coalition against trafficking women said democrats are choosing a phantom a phantom problem of a real issues. shame on us. shame on us. we can do better. these symptoms deserve better.

they deserve better. shame on us and we'll get this problem solved and if we don't pass this piece of legislation that's bipartisan legislation that gets to the president's desk where he will gladly sign it. >> mr. president. >> i would ask unanimous -- unanimous consent request. they have the approval of majority and minority leaders. these requests will be printed in the record. without objection. >> mr. president, republican colleagues said they are here fighting for women. if that were the case they

would not have snuck into this bill a provision that hurts. and that is not just me. i ask unanimous consent to place it into the record. >> without objection. >> in early january e-mail reviews, republican judiciary committee staffers said a democratic staffer is changing. spurs of the bill. they are left out. women's reproductive health. a been around here a long time. but don't stand appear and say that it is an expensive problem. they have the e-mail that proves that this change was made and was not told to democrats on the community. if it had we would have worked this out.

and what a fight for women. take this out. take this provision out that harms the victims of trafficking. you want to help the women? bring up loretto lynch the confirmation a fantastic woman held up by the republicans wonder than any other attorney general nominee ever. want to help women? those are two ways to do it. solve this problem. don't stand up. the "washington post" saw the e-mail. look we know that the bill before us. we want to help victims of human trafficking. i want to ask rhetorically how it helps women who have

been brutally trafficked when you don't let them access their legal rights to end a pregnancy that resulted from enslavement. a woman is enslaved shouldn't she have the ability to get the same kind of healthcare as any other woman? but with this bill they say she cannot use that victim compensation fund without legal rights. republicans are doing this all over the place, attaching immigration to the homeland security bill threatening to attach the keystone pipeline to the highway bill. now they include abortion and human trafficking bill. and then we are seeing phantom problems. i don't think so.

this bill singles out women to have -- women who have been the victim of a heinous crime, who face deplorable conditions ripped out of their homes, taken advantage of, treated brutally women who many times are forced and a pregnancy by their captors. and in an unprecedented way of sneaking this language and to the bill and enforces restrictions on funds that have been collected from the criminals and 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? my friends on the other side do not like it. they want to tell women what to do. get into the most personal decisions that women and their families make. let them do that for their families. if they want to change the law of the land and tell women they are criminals why don't they just have the courage to bring it to the floor directly not sneak it into a bill and have staffers write a note to their colleagues saying, oh, they are silent, we did not do anything on that. zero, no. i tell you something, there is no advantage to being around. you have a sense of of what used to be decent around here.

your word was your word and your bond was your bond. we have proof. we proof. we have proof. the republicans left this out of the memo. we have proof. don't call this a phantom problem. we have it in writing. this is a clear pattern. unrelated extremely, unrelated, extremely, politically charged positions into key pieces of legislation. i have not seen it. we used to have a little bit of an understanding around here that if we agreed on a peace of legislation we keep out the poison pills not put them in the bill whether written by democrats or republicans. and we know at the end of the day what happens.

everybody gets hurt and nothing gets done. i have to just say that this is the new way that is going to be around here it is 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 are not denied of their rights. the republican provision added here in secret and tried to be kept quiet would hurt everything we're trying to help. they inserted language that was supported by democrats and republicans. they added they added the knew language quietly hoping that no one would notice. i put my name on this bill by the way because my staff

trust of the republican staff when they said there was no change in abortion language. they said to me senator, we feel terrible. 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? you know at least own up to it. you got caught. we have the e-mail. don't make these speeches about how democrats want to hurt women when you put a poison a poison pill, hurt the very women you say you will protect command do it in secret and then close sound like we are doing something wrong. the the american people are pretty darn smart. and if i stopped one of them republican democrat,

what their view is. i said to them they made no changes. and you took there word for it. later find out there is something in that vote that they knew would hurt you. would you be angry? i don't even want to deal with that person anymore. they cannot be trusted. one thing i have learned, your word is your bond. the relationships we have with one another they are important. so let's not make these phony arguments. let's fix the problem. let's remove the offending language, come together for once pass a bill that helps these victims and then my colleague says they want

this bill anyway. the bipartisan support to address slavery should not be held up by a separate debate on partisan issues. that is a direct quote. and if ever there was a partisan issue a partisan issue is the right to choose. that's a partisan issue. a letter for the national network of youth. the division's provision. and we can't let this pass us by. again again, we are offering republicans a simple solution.

go back to the same language you had in the bill last year with broad support. if they do that today we could pass this bill today. this this is the democratic time to talk. we are ready and willing and able to sit down and work with the friends and on the other side to drop this provision. if the republican majority continues to insist. it should pass with bipartisan support. i certainly want to be able to trust my colleagues and it would start with removing this position command i yield to my friend. i yield the floor.

>> i would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend from california senator boxer. this bill should be turned into a political football. there are many issues the issue of choice for women is one of them. the starts off as a bipartisan bill. 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 the provision i very much object to how the provision was added to the bill unbeknownst to the sponsors of the bill like me.

a provision that allows government to dictate woman's health care options and this provision would limit choices for women who have been victimized by human trafficking often forced to endure rape and violence on a daily basis. that is what human trafficking is. so this is an unprecedented and appalling expansion of government role in women's health care decisions. the provision is anti- women and anti-victim. anti- victim. mr. president, this body should be working to help these victims of trafficking violence not playing politics with their lives because that is 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, the need to score political points ahead of consent -- consensus driven legislation we have seen this before. before. a few weeks ago congress came close to shutting down the department of homeland security the largest probably in the federal government. national security priorities hostage to score points. we saw during the shutdown during the debate department of energy bill during the drawn out debate over the reauthorization of violence against women. yet another issue that should be free of partisan politics. this this body should not let ideological grandstanding on divisive issues stall and kill

bipartisan legislation that will make a difference for people, particularly the most vulnerable in the country, victims of trafficking. this bill is not exception. a bill on human trafficking should not be a method of expanding government power to dictate women's personal choices. women's health care decisions. i joined 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 being trafficked across the country. i yield my time. >> the language we just heard the minority party complaining about

mr. president we have just heard members of a minority party complaining that there are things in this bill that no one knew anything about. on our side we have done a good job of refuting it. i will suggest that they read the legislation. they had plenty of time but it is remind full of the story about speaker pelosi saying after the 2700 page obama care bill was written that you have to pass it to find out what is in. obviously this legislation before us is not law. it is a proposal but it is just like people evidently don't read the legislation before it gets out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote of 220.

the fact is this legislation was on the website several weeks before it was voted out of community. this language was in. and so you have to wait until a bill gets out of community before you read the language? no. there are plenty of people on the judiciary committee that had an opportunity to read this legislation before it ever got out of community there were no concerns that we hear from the minority of the senate that they have all of a sudden felt of notches and somehow it was snuck into a peace of legislation which is not true. so so that is what i we will speak about, mr. president. as one example of what i just referred to community yesterday we heard from the senator from vermont my

friend, the distinguished ranking member of the committee and former chairman of the community that an organization called a test is urging that we strike the hyde amendment language in this bill. one of many organizations that have the opportunity to review and comment on this legislation prior to the community markup of this bill. they bill. they met with my staff in february to discuss this bill and never raised any can find a concern with the amendment at that time. so now why they are 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 on emails. e-mails.

i want her to no there are e-mails that clearly show the other side is aware of the provision and it is not our majority saying that the democrats are raising of fandom problem. the sen. from california is criticizing the human trafficking advocate who was saying that very. so it is pretty bad mr. president, when you have senators attacking anti- trafficking 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 the 10th. this day was designed to catch suspects seeking underage escorts for sexual

acts were trying to become pimps by trafficking underage prostitutes. this is only the latest in a string of knew 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 situation all the more wrenching. it is it is vital that we act now to pass legislation to further protect these and other domestic victims of human trafficking and these reports are reasons why this bill should not be stalled by the minority members of the united states senate particularly when we in the majority placed as a result

of the last election we would have an amendment process, and this bill is under open amendment process anyone who does not like his language, offering amendment and let us vote on it and see where the votes are. so i want i want to take this opportunity to again urge my colleagues to support this justice for victim trafficking which would establish strong anti- trafficking measures that target predators who exploit innocent, young people. the measure focuses on both sex and labor trafficking. it would benefit both children and adults victims of these despicable crimes. the legislation would equip law enforcement with new tools to fight trafficking

enhanced services for victims, and increase penalties for perpetrators. the 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 is a meaningful solution supported by both large by by a large bipartisan group of senators and more than 200 outside organizations. the other day one human trafficking advocate characterized the concern raised for the minority with a height amendment provision as a phantom problem.

and i agree. the minority leaders focusing on the provision that passed the senate judiciary committee in february unanimously after committee members debate the bill and have the opportunity to even strike this provision that they find so obnoxious at this particular time. not only has this language called the heightened amendment language been in a part of this bipartisan bill for months as the law of the land today. consensus measure adopted in 1976. why will we agree on the inclusion of height amendment language and bills

on so many prior occasions when we at this time be unable to agree to its conclusion and a bill to help human trafficking victims. this bill includes amendment language creating a federal victims fund and money in the fund we will be derived from fines imposed on human traffickers. if the fund is used to support abortion services then it constitutes federal funding of abortion including the height language consistent with what we have always done in such cases. this is not the appropriate

time or place for the minority party members of the united states senate to seek a rollback consensus legislation that was adopted as far back as 1976. it has been it has been extended every year since then. 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 community 20 220 which means 11 republicans and nine democrats supported. the argument that this i do 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 domain, not after voted out of committee, not one day before. weeks before the committee considered it so it was in the public domain. no one can say it was not. so you can so you can read it and know that this language was in it. it was distributed by e-mail to numerous organizations and congressional offices for their input. it has been it has been posted for two months on the us government website accessible by any congressional staffer or member of the public. we have people coming to the united states senate thing that they did not know this is within their. it may not read the bill? did they not have their staff read the bill? for a long time it has been out there for 300 million people to access on the website. if lawmakers if lawmakers then are asserting that they

did not know it was included in the bill then it means they simply did not read this legislation. i, again call on my colleagues to support the justice for victim prefacing act focusing on helping survivors of trafficking heal and protect others from becoming victims of such a terrible crime. it is a meaningful solution supported by large bipartisan groups of senators. we have a real opportunity now to provide survivors of trafficking with the kind of support that is essential to the 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. and it also gives this senate an opportunity to do

what i hear from the people of grassroots iowa so often in my town meetings, saturday 32 people showed up. norwalk when 66 people showed up. and at those meetings they keep asking why can't you get democrats and republicans together? this is one of those republicans and democrats are getting together. we find people we find people that evidently do not read legislation until the midnight hour coming to the floor of the united states senate saying something along the lines we snuck something in to the bill when it had been out there on the website for a couple of months already. no. that is disingenuous. the bill is not moving along when it is brought for final vote the people will see republicans and democrats can work together if we can get over this hurdle of the

stonewalling of the minority party of the united states senate slowing this bill up for disingenuous reason. >> the senate continued working on an anti-human trafficking bill increasing penalties for human traffickers and provide services and restitution to victims. democrats have blocked action because it permanently prohibits any money from being used to pay for abortions were human trafficking victims. the senate confirmed a knew chairman for the national transportation safety board. ..