the provision they have voted for that has been a lot of land 39 years for carol so we're joined by senators from south dakota who i know has been very concerned about the dysfunction in this place is all this as an opportunity to demonstrate we can do the people's business once again for 34 knickknack. . . so i would yield the floor to the senator from south dakota for any comments he'd care to make. mr. thune: i appreciate it. i thank the senator from texas for his leadership on this issue, as well as the senator from iowa, senator grassley, for moving this legislation to the floor. as the senator from texas who has authored and been involved with this legislation for a really long time, knows if there was ever an issue -- ever

an issue that we deal with here in the united states senate that goes beyond the line of partisan politics it's this. it's this. i mean, we're talk about untold stories of thousands of american children and adults who are sold into modern-day slavery. those stories are bone-chilling and are undeniably some of the most deplorable acts of humankind. and what the senator from texas's bill was designed to do is start attacking this issue in way that we reason for a very long time and gives law enforcement the tools in order to target these traffickers to bring them to justice provides the tools that are necessary to help restore the lives of the victims of these heinous heinous crimes. and so i would ask the senator from texas because it is interesting to me that we are where we are. i mean, this is clearly a bipartisan issue. so much so that my understanding is when this was marked up,

debated, and voted on in the judiciary committee that it came out unanimously. in other words all the democrats on the committee voted for it. is that correct? is that the way it proceeded from the judiciary committee? mr. cornyn: i would say he's absolutely correct, which is one way why i'm so perplexed about where we find ourselves today. 10 cosponsors on the democratic side for this underlying bill that was filed on january 13, was marked up in the judiciary committee a month later and got a unanimous vote. and i would just add to that, in response to my friend's question that we also saw something we haven't seen here in a long time on the senate floor. that is an agreement by all 100 senators that we would proceed to consider this bill and begin the amendment process and debate process without having to jufn through all the -- jump through all the procedural hoops that we traditionally have to do on

cloture motions and the like. so what happened a couple of days ago when apparently some of our friends woke up and found this -- what's been called a phantom problem is really just very disturbing. mr. thune: yes and could i just ask as well, because the senator from texas in drafting this bill, my understanding is that the bill itself is 68 pages or thereabouts long. is that correct? mr. cornyn: i would sty my friend, that's correct. this includes the strikeout provisions ofprovisions of the substitute. so the text is roughly about half of that. but the provisions that our friends discovered a couple days ago was written in plain sight and it incorporates by reference a bill stloated for, which is the last -- a bill stloated for which is the last appropriations bill we voted for in the last dame-ducklame-duck session.

mr. thune: this bill was filed on january 13. when was it plarkd up? mr. cornyn: it was marked up or passed out of the judiciary committee roughly a month later. mr. thune: so this has been around now this legislation has been here in the senate at least for weeks months. mr. cornyn: months. the. mr. thune: and it's 6 pages long. it's been -- and it's 68 pages long. it was naffed back in of -- it was introduced back in january. it was reported out unanimously. all the democrats voted for it when it left the judiciary committee. when it was brought up on the floor of the senate, all voted to get on this bill. so all of a sudden here at the 11th hour on a piece of legislation that clearly has unanimous support, i would think -- or thought should have had unanimous support, they are now objecting because there is language in this legislation which evidently 68 pages long is a lot to read. now, obamacare obviously was a

story where it was argued that after it was passed we had-to-figure out what was in it. but that was several house pages. this is a 68-page bill. so you have an opportunity when the bill is filed people look at this, the bill goes to markup countless staffers and members of congress have read this thing and youal of a sudden now at the 11th hour there is an objection because there is language included in this bill which was voted on by 55 democrats as recently as december. is that correct? was there a spending bill that came out of the congress last year in december of 2014? mr. cornyn: i would say to my friend, that was the cromnibus, so called, the continuing resolution omnibus bill that passed in november during the lame duck session included very similar language and was actually incorporated by reference into the justice for victims of trafficking bill. same bill -- the same language that our friends our democratic friends, voted for then and now

they complain on this bill for no apparent reason. mr. thune: and is it correct that that particular provision referred to as the hyde amendment has been a part of spending bills dating back to 19 1976? so literally 40 years now the hyde amendment language has been included in bills that we passed here particularly bills that are appropriations bills and spending and funding bills? mr. cornyn: i would say to my friend from south dakota, he's exactly correct. this has been the lawsuit of the land for 39 -- this has been the law of the land for 39 years in an area that has been very controversial, that is abortion generally, this has been one -- a rare area of bipartisan consensus, that no tax dollars be used to fund abortion. but this is really a red herring and the phantom problem that was reefortd toreferredto here. and i just can't believe that our friends on the other side,

that they would throw their staff under the bus who were responsible for bringing to their attention what's in legislation, and i can't believe they would throw the victims who will benefit from this bill under the bus and say that they should have to pay the price for this phantom problem they discovered. it gorks to me, gorks to just, to me, doesn't make any sense whatsoever. mr. thune: my friend who has been so instrumental in getting to this the floor a 68-page bill is readablable. when a bill has been reported out of the committee its h. it's been anized, open to -- analyzed open to amendment. it came out unanimously i.f.r. democratic voting for it, voting to a provision that literally has been a matter of policy in law in this country dating back to 1976 and was voted on as

recently as december of last year. 55 democrats in this chamber voted for this language, very similar language in december of last year. and now they are objecting to a piece of legislation that they reported out unanimously on the judiciary committee which does something to stop the brutal violation of the innocent in this country and they're objecting to it over this language. mr. cornyn: i would -- mr. president, if i could just interject. the senator from south dakota is exactly right. but i would add to that that not only does this enjoy broad bipartisan support within the senate and the congress, we have more than 200 law enforcement and victim rights organizations that have endorsed this bill that are begging us to pass it. groups like the coalition against trafficking in women because they know that we need

to focus on take 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 12 to 14 years of age. can you imagine the scars both physical and psychological that they bear having experienced this terrible crime? and so every day we delay in getting this bill passed because of the political shenanigans here is another day that these victims of this terrible crime can denied access to the services they need. mr. thune: well, and if they survive, if they survive imagine how messed up some of these young victims are going to be for rest of their lives. we have an opportunity to do something about it. and, you know, they, on the other side, the democratic leader has described this as a

sleight of hand. that's not what this is. this is a clear choice, this is a clear choice by democrats to choose partisan politics over the victims of human trafficking. it's as simple as that. and i would urge my democrat colleagues to stop 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