Senate Dems Threaten Filibuster of Bipartisan Anti Human Trafficking Bill Claim They Did'nt Read The Bill

Harry Reid -  Just a minute, we
democrats didn't really read the bill.

Today in Washington, D.C. - March 11, 2015
The House is not in session.

The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today and resumed consideration of S. 178, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015.

Yesterday, Democrats threatened to block  S. 178.  Justice for Victims of Trafficking  is a bipartisan. Democrats are opposed to the abortion restrictions in the bill.

CNN reports, “Dysfunction and confusion struck the Senate again on Tuesday as Democrats threatened to derail a popular bipartisan bill to combat human trafficking. Top Democrats pointed fingers at Republicans, claiming they added abortion restriction to the legislation without their knowledge. . . . Republicans said they were stunned Democrats didn't know the provision was in the bill, since the text was made public in January and passed unanimously in the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. They noted the measure has several Democratic co-sponsors. ‘This idea that there has been some sort of ambush is just preposterous,’ said Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican and chief sponsor of the bill. ‘It's just not credible.’”

The Washington Post adds, “On Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) locked arms in calling on their colleagues to support the measure. ‘I doubt if there will be problems on my side,’ Reid said, according to The Hill. ‘If there is, I will work to clear them.’ But by midday Tuesday, the good feelings had eroded into a bout of finger-pointing, with Senate Democrats accusing Republicans of subterfuge in slipping language into the bill that would extend the longstanding Hyde Amendment barring the use of taxpayer funds for abortions to the new Domestic Trafficking Victims’ Fund. . .

“But Republican leaders — including Cornyn, the majority whip — pushed back on the notion that the abortion language represented any kind of subterfuge. A Cornyn aide suggested that Democrats knew very well about the language before the committee vote -- including, the aide said, Leahy staffers [on the Judiciary Committee] -- and thus were being ‘disingenuous.’

“‘It was out in the public domain for a month before it was marked up in Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26, and all members of the Judiciary Committee voted to support it,’ Cornyn said. ‘So that leads me to believe that some of the suggestions being made now that there were provisions in the legislation that people didn't know about are simply untrue. That presupposes that none of their staff briefed the senators on what was in the legislation, that nobody read a 68-page bill and that senators would vote for a bill, much less co-sponsor it, without reading it and knowing what's in it. None of that strikes me as plausible.’”

Indeed, National Journal notes, “Cornyn argued Tuesday that the legislation including the abortion language was posted publicly on Jan. 13. It earned a dozen Democratic cosponsors and passed the Judiciary Committee unanimously without a single Democratic member or aide flagging the abortion language. It was on page four. Democrats discovered the problem Monday night, sending staffers and members into a frenzy.”

And The New York Times writes, “Democrats said they were snookered by Republicans who prohibited money from a new victims fund established by the bill from being used for abortions. They said Republicans did not include the restriction, a potential deal-killer, in a list of changes made to the measure since it was considered last year.

“Republicans said that the prohibition might not have been on the list of changes. They say that it was included in the legislation all along and that Democratic staff members apparently did not read the bill.

"Sheepishly, top Democrats admit that might be true. The future of the legislation remains uncertain, but the embarrassing episode reinforced the advantage of the old refrain often heard on Capitol Hill: Read the Bill.”

So where does this leave things? According to National Journal, “Not long after agreeing unanimously to move forward with a bill to combat human trafficking on Monday, Democrats discovered the abortion language that had been sitting near the start of the bill. They're now refusing to allow Republicans a final vote on the bill, potentially carrying out a filibuster that could last well into next week.”

But Democrats have been demanding a vote on Loretta Lynch’s nomination to be Attorney General, which is scheduled for next week, and if they decide to filibuster this bipartisan bill that was uncontroversial until Democrats apparently starting reading it, they’re going to delay that vote, too.

Will Democrats now filibuster this bill that has 13 Democrat cosponsors, passed unanimously out of committee, and has broad support from advocacy groups?

---

Tags: U.S. Senate, anti human trafficking bill To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!