Its just simply shocking that this is going on to the extent it is in our country right in a ribald way on the internet. Law enforcement officials and antitrafficking organizations say there are a number of key indicators that allow them to identify ads that are likely for Trafficking Victims. In this advertisement we see three key of those key indicators. First, the title states the victim is new to your city. Antitrafficking organizations say this is code for being underage. You may also see girls in ads described as young fresh or new in town, to indicate they are underage. Second we see a victim is listed from outside the area. Here she is listed as from miami for a posting thats in the houston area. And third the victim also has an outofarea phone number. Those are three indicators of what this ad is to sell sex with children. Law enforcement and experts confirm this point. The Cook County Sheriffs Office in illinois found that 100 of women claiming 100 of women claiming to be massage therapists or platonic escorts on one web site, backpage, were being sold for sex. This isnt my this is the Cook County Sheriffs department. The Sheriffs Office set up socalled dates with 618 girls via backpage. All 618 agreed to provide sex for money. The Sheriffs Office concluded and this is a quote this presents irrefutable evidence that backpage is indeed a haven for pimps and sex solicitors who are victimizing women and girls for their own gain. Any notion that backpage employs a legitimate Business Model simply does not stand up to the facts, end quote. This is a direct letter from sheriff tom dart, cook county, illinois and i would ask for unanimous consent to place the letter in the record. The presiding officer without objection. Mrs. Feinstein a study of ads placed during this years super bowl held in phoenix concluded that 65 of the ads placed on backpages phoenix web site around the weekend of the game had indicators that the ad was for a victim of sex trafficking. 65 of the ads. Simply put there are Internet Companies that are profiting and purveying the rape and abuse of children. This must stop. One way we can combat sex trafficking over the internet is to make it a crime for a person such as the owner of a web site to knowingly advertise a commercial sex act with a person. As i said, senator kirk and i have introduced such an amendment. It would create a new offense of knowingly advertising a commercial sex act on the internet. The amendment is identical to a house bill that has 52 cosponsors and passed that chamber by voice vote. If we come to a point where we are voting on amendments to senator cornyns bill, i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i know that senator the senator and i will bring it to the floor senator kirk and i. Last october 53 attorneys general authored a letter to the Senate Judiciary committee in support of a bill that senator kirk and i introduced last june that is similar to the amendment. And heres the list of the a. G. s and i would ask that that list be placed in the record at this point. The presiding officer no. Mrs. Feinstein thank you mr. President. The attorneys general wrote and this is a quote the use of the Adult Services sections on web sites such as backpage. Com has created virtual brothels where children are bought and sold using euphemistic labels such as escorts. And the quote from the letter to this effect i dont want anybody to think its what im saying its what they are saying the use of the term this is a quote Adult Services sections on web sites such as backpage. Com has created virtual brothels where children are bought and sold using euphemistic labels such as escorts. Put simply, if you have knowledge that an advertisement placed on your web site is for commercial sex with a minor then you should be prosecuted. Thats what our amendment would do. I have no doubt that prohibiting this conduct by a web site owner is constitutional. As the Supreme Court has held on several occasions quote offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection end quote. In fact, the Supreme Court in 1973 wrote and i quote we have no doubt that a newspaper constitutionally school board per gidden forbidden to public a want ad proposing a sale of narcotics or soliciting prostitutes end quote. This amendment targets illegal conduct, commercial sex with minors that would not be protected by the First Amendment. It imposes liability on web sites who know that their sites are being used to advertise minors for sex. In conclusion, mr. President the internet has made this industry what it is, the second largest criminal industry in the world, second only to drugs. And its up to us to do something about it. One of our duties in this body is to protect the most vulnerable of individuals. That that is what that amendment does. Others say other parts of the bill will stop sex trafficking and we dont need to touch the internet. That makes no sense to me. 76 of sales of sex Trafficking Victims begin on the internet. So you can touch just a small part of it. This touches 76 of victims. We cannot allow these web sites to continue to operate with impunity. Its time we take a stand stop these ads and stop the exploitation of children. So i look forward to senator kirk coming to the floor presenting our amendment assuming we can get past this block time. This is so much more important than putting the Hyde Amendment amendment, cloaked in difficult language in this bill when the house bill doesnt contain it. The house understands that its going to have difficulty passing in this bill. Why isnt that recognized in this house . You take that out and this bill swims through. A senator would the senator yield for a question . Mrs. Feinstein i sure will. Mr. Cornyn i was in my office and watching the senator on tv. So i thought id come down here and maybe we could get to the bottom of this. There seems to be ships passing in the night it seems to me, and i know the senator from california cares passionately about this issue and i dont question that for a moment. Its very clear to me. But i would just ask the senator from california she graciously agreed to cosponsor this legislation. She voted for it in the Senate Judiciary committee that passed unanimously. It does contain on page 50 and 51 of this bill the language that the senator referred to, i saw it on my tv screen in my office. Which incorporates the limitation that was contain in contained in the consolidation act of 2014, incorporates it into the bill by reference. Not only i believe the senator voted for the bill in committee and cosponsored it, the senator voted for that legislation in the consolidated appropriation act of 2014. This is the same or similar language to what was contained in the Affordable Care act contained in Defense Authorization bills and contained in literally every appropriation bill since 1976. So heres what i would love to have my friend and the senator from explain to me. Why is it that it all of a sudden becomes objectionable on this legislation when you care and i care so passionately about getting help for these victims that this is the reason to derail the legislation . Mrs. Feinstein because of what this legislation is. This legislation is the raping and the misconduct sexually with young girls girls 14, 15, and 16. What if theyre impregnated . Should they be entitled to be able to go and get an abortion . Does this body really want them to be forced to bear somebodys child . And so this offers the opportunity for some funding. These arent wealthy girls. They dont live in Beverly Hills or hyde park or any of these places that are prominent. Theyre on the streets. Theyre lost, maybe lost mentally lost physically, they may have been abused, and now theyre caught up in an industry where theyre held hostage at night ive read of some in a neighborhood of my city being handcuffed at night stripped so they dont have clothes and cant run away, theyre put out on the streets theyre watched theyre moved around it becomes too hot in one area, theyre moved to another, theyre moved to another state. They come from other countries. And it just seems to me to have this in this bill and senator, i have Great Respect for you. I have wanted to work with you on this. I know you are sincere. Its not in the house bill. So maybe the house understands this. I cant speak for the house. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , i would ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mrs. Feinstein i would be happy to. I think we ought to discuss this. Mr. Cornyn otherwise well have to keep addressing questions to the chair and asking permission. Id like to have a chance to have an honest conversation with my friend. So it is clear that the senator from california that has voted for this restriction on the use of taxpayer funding for abortion previously correct . Mrs. Feinstein not to my knowledge. Let me put it that way. Now, you can blame me and you can say i should have known. Mr. Cornyn im just mrs. Feinstein im not the only one in our committee who is in this position either, who communicated with your staff and was under the impression that the bill was identical to last year. Mr. Cornyn i mrs. Feinstein with the exception of seven pieces which is not this. The seven were detailed to us. Mr. Cornyn im not going to engage in a debate about whether you should have known or how you voted in the past. I do believe the record would demonstrate you among others voted for the Affordable Care act which actually the National AbortionRights Action league says is an expansion of the Hyde Amendment. But let me ask the senator you rightly point out that these child victims of Sexual Assault will have been raped either statutory rape, theyre below the age of consent or theyre adults and have been assaulted criminally assaulted. Isnt it your understanding of the Hyde Amendment that the exclusion to the Hyde Amendment would still allow them to gain access to the services that you believe they need and deserve . Mrs. Feinstein yes i think thats correct and i suppose we could change this to have a rape implication. But the gantlet has been thrown down and its not up to me alone to remove it. There was no open discussion in our committee when we discussed this that there was a highly sensitive in it, senator. Now, you can say and ill plead mia culpa and guess what, i will wave a whip and get my staff, they will look henceforth at every code change and you know and you and i know that occasionally things slip through. I will plead mea culpa on that but once i found out i had an obligation to do something about it. And so i am pleading with you lets just take it out. Lets just pass this bill. Lets put the kirkfeinstein amendment, lets go after the internet purveyors lets go after 19 sites who put pictures of girls 12, 13, and 14 to be sold all around the united states. To be sold after big Football Games in various areas of the country. Lets go after them. Isnt that more important . I ask you a question. Mr. Cornyn thats the reason im so confused by the filibuster of this legislation by people, including my friend who were the cosponsor of the legislation who already voted for it. And im not about pointing fingers in terms of what staff or members should have read or understood by the legislation but i believe the reason why it was not debated at the Judiciary Committee level is because it had become a routine matter since 1976 when the Hyde Amendment was passed. Every appropriation of laborh. H. S. Or other funding that could argue arguably used tax dollars for abortions has been limited by the Hyde Amendment. I have a couple of senators . My office who are proudly prochoice people proudly pro life. But even they said taxpayer funds should not be used for abortions except in the case of rape or to protect the health of the victim. Mrs. Feinstein may i ask you a question respectfully . Why, then, isnt it in the house language . Mr. Cornyn i would say to my friend i cant vouch for the houses product. I can just tell you what the congress as a whole has done since 1976, and its to limit expenditure of funds for this purpose under the terms of the Hyde Amendment. That was the reason why we referred in the legislation on page 50 that youve blown up here, referring it to the language in the Presentation Committee which im confident my friend, the senator from california voted for just like you did in the limitation that was contained in the Affordable Care act and all the other times that hyde has been part of our process. This has become so unremarkable and so routine that it hardly seems like something you would point out because this language doesnt change the status quo at all. So i would you know, weve talked about ways to get past this impasse and i would just have to say that i think abandoning the Hyde Amendment would be a dramatic and mistake and something im not willing to be a part of. Its become this one area in a divisive area of abortion where there has been bipartisan consensus. For 39 years at least to the point that its remained the law of the land effectively. So to take it out and say somehow were going to depart from that today or this week would be a dramatic expansion of taxpayer funding for this purpose i cant support. I would say if there are ways we can deal with this fund as a fund that can be appropriated on an annual basis subject to the normal restrictions, i talked to the Ranking Member our friend from vermont about that possibility. I think theres ways that we might be able to get to a solution. But stripping out this limitation which has been the law of the land for 39 years is not acceptable because it would represent a huge expansion on the use of taxpayer funding for abortions in ways that many of my prochoice friends dont support. Mrs. Feinstein well, see i guess i disagree with that. Those of us that believe that a woman should control her own reproductive system, in concert with her family and her doctor, really have objection to the government getting involved and telling us what to do. Its actually not your reproductive system. And i say you general naturecally as a man. It is our reproductive system fl and so, in a sense this has been a battle for our identity. I sat on a termsetting authority in california in the 1960s when abortion was illegal illegal. I sentenced women to state prison for abortion. It had then an indetermined sentence of between 6 months and 10 years. I saw abortion come bam back to prison. I asked one when i was setting the sentence, why do you keep doing this . Her name was anita. And her answer was because i feel so sorry for the woman. And that was the way it was. I remember passing the plate for a young woman to go to tijuana for an abortion. The morbidity that was done to women through backalley abortions. Youve opened a pandoras box of big, emotional issues for women. And the Hyde Amendment you know there either is rape, if you can approve it, thats right, and then there is a 12yearold, a 13yearold thats out on the streets as a prostitute. Its a different thing. Sort of the same, but sort of different. And the overwhelming evil of this trade overcomes any of this because you take a young woman and you probably change their life for the worse for the rest of their life. Can you imagine your daughter being out on the street . My daughter being my granddaughters being out on the street like this, and what it does to them being handcuffed and moved and traded around the country and girls brought from nepal, through india all over europe . This is whats going on in the world today. So were sitting here arguing essentially about the availability of an abortion in this area, and to me, that is so secondary to the enormous harm thats being done. And so i really beg you know, i have Great Respect for you. You have been a very distinguished jury nist your state. You make sense when you speak on the Judiciary Committee. Weve listened to each other for more than a decade now. Let this drop. Let us get on with the work of this bill, the work of this bill isnt completed until we get some of the amendments that relate to the bill. And then i think we can debate this another day. I would say i would plead a may culpa. I wish i knew. All i can till can it will you is, i did not know. Is that my fault . Probably. But i did not know. So if you did not know and you make a mistake isnt the right thing to try to set that right . And thats what weve tried to do. And women on our side, and some on your side, feel very strongly about this. And you know over the years weve lost voterly every battle thats been on this floor. And were tired of it. So were taking a stand and were going to hold that stand. Mr. Cornyn mr. President i obviously dont agree with my friend from california, but i respect her for answering the questions that i have posed here today. I just find it a terrible shame that were going to relitigate the whats been the law of the land for 39 years on this bill in a way that would block help to the very people that i know that the senator from california cares so passionately about. Because thats if were going to if were going to undo the Hyde Amendment which the senator has voted for in some form or another repeatedly over the years then were not going to make any progress. If we can 2350eu7bdz find some oth