Support NeoGAF

[Zubz]

OP's spinning this is still pretty bad, but this is still a reason I loathe our two-party system.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Title II of Division B is the "Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2014," and it is in Title II that the Hyde Amendment first appears. Section 202 of that title provides that "[n]one of the funds appropriated by this title shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or in the case of rape."

The specific provisions cited by the Cornyn bill are sections 506 and 507 of Division H (the "Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014"), and, again, state the restriction in terms of "funds appropriated in this Act,"

Okay. I'm just wondering how fines collected from those convicted of Child Trafficking could be considered to be appropriated funds. Isn't the sticking point here that the funds being used aren't coming from any appropriations, (which is public money/taxes, correct?) but from penalties assessed and collected from those convicted of the crime?

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it appears that the whole reason there's a fight (beyond the purposeful obfuscation of the insertion of this wording into the bill) is that this is attempting to enforce the Hyde Amendment where it doesn't apply, thus overextending its reach.

 

[benjipwns]

Okay. I'm just wondering how fines collected from those convicted of Child Trafficking could be considered to be appropriated funds. Isn't the sticking point here that the funds being used aren't coming from any appropriations, (which is public money/taxes, correct?) but from penalties assessed and collected from those convicted of the crime?

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it appears that the whole reason there's a fight (beyond the purposeful obfuscation of the insertion of this wording into the bill) is that this is attempting to enforce the Hyde Amendment where it doesn't apply, thus overextending its reach.

Those fines would presumably go into the general fund like taxes to be appropriated out.

 

[davepoobond]

Those fines would presumably go into the general fund like taxes to be appropriated out.

They aren't being put into the general fund. All of the money would go to fund this bill, as far as I understand it

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Those fines would presumably go into the general fund like taxes to be appropriated out.

Can they though? Or did this particular bill specify those fines not go into the general fund, but be specifically earmarked for uses including the providing of abortions?

edit: or as dave points out, ALL of it goes toward the bill, and none of it goes to the general fund?

 

[benjipwns]

Actually, I have no idea if Congress can earmark incoming revenue or not. I've always assumed they can't.

 

[way more]

The difference is where the money comes from. The Hyde amendment comes from government funds. The funds in this bill are from FINES from cases of human trafficking.

There is a difference because the fines are essentially private money being directed to fund this bill and the abortion clause is needed because the Hyde amendment doesn't cover those fines.

That's how I understand it at least from what I heard on NPR

If that's true then yeah, repubs take the blame for obstruction. They can try to argue that the fines should fall under the Hyde amendment, there is probably a good case there, but it's still on them as the ones holding it up.

 

[davepoobond]

Actually, I have no idea if Congress can earmark incoming revenue or not. I've always assumed they can't.

I don't know why they couldn't. The gas tax is used for the highway fund, for instance, isn't it? But that is a tax and where money goes is codified typically. If this is essentially always private funds because it is from civil/criminal lawsuits they can go towards particular purposes, which is the purpose of the bill to begin with.

 

[pigeon]

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed you didn't bother to respond to me.

What, exactly, is the status of this bill?

Has McConnell attempted to bring it to a vote? Has anyone objected?

Has McConnell scheduled a cloture motion on this bill?

Has there been any cloture vote on this bill that Democrats have participated in defeating? Is there a reliable whip count suggesting that Democrats will unite to defeat this bill?

Does this post describe, in any way, any actual events taking place?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Okay. I'm just wondering how fines collected from those convicted of Child Trafficking could be considered to be appropriated funds. Isn't the sticking point here that the funds being used aren't coming from any appropriations, (which is public money/taxes, correct?) but from penalties assessed and collected from those convicted of the crime?

No, appropriation is the (Constitutionally mandated) process of authorizing the expenditure of Treasury funds. (The House and Senate break this process into two steps, the first of which is referred to as "authorization," and the second as "appropriation," but my previous sentence uses the term "authorizing" in the usual sense, not this special sense.) The Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund is established "in the Treasury," and the appropriation of money from that Fund is made through this language:

From amounts in the Fund, in addition to any other amounts available, and without further appropriation, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2020, use amounts available in the Fund to award grants or enhance victims' programming under [various sections of other statutes that I've already mentioned.]

EDIT:

What, exactly, is the status of this bill?

You waited all day for a response when a quick Google search would have answered your question? I feel so loved. According to the NYT, "[t]he Senate is expected to vote to end debate on Tuesday [i.e., tomorrow]." According to NPR, "it's expected to fail."

 

[ivysaur12]

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed you didn't bother to respond to me.

What, exactly, is the status of this bill?

Has McConnell attempted to bring it to a vote? Has anyone objected?

Has McConnell scheduled a cloture motion on this bill?

Has there been any cloture vote on this bill that Democrats have participated in defeating? Is there a reliable whip count suggesting that Democrats will unite to defeat this bill?

Does this post describe, in any way, any actual events taking place?

It looks like cloture was filed on the 12th, but it doesn't seem as if a vote has been scheduled since then.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

No, appropriation is the (Constitutionally mandated) process of authorizing the expenditure of Treasury funds. (The House and Senate break this process into two steps, the first of which is referred to as "authorization," and the second as "appropriation," but my previous sentence uses the term "authorizing" in the usual sense, not this special sense.) The Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund is established "in the Treasury," and the appropriation of money from that Fund is made through this language:

Okay, so where is the split over how the money specifically coming from fines collected from Child Traffickers even coming from then? The way you explain it, that particular distinction isn't even being made, and yet that distinction appears to be the specific point at the center of the fight over that wording being introduced between the bill being agreed upon and the bill being submitted for a vote.

(again, this completely sidesteps the fact this wording was only discovered due to aides/assistants going through the bill after Republicans had been asked to submit a list of changes to the bill, a list which omitted this specific change)

 

[FriedConsole]

More politics. Introduce stuff so you can run on and solicit funds that Republicans are for human trafficking. I guess it isn't worth the good it could do if it gets people elected. Republicans do the same crap. Both parties suck.

 

[davepoobond]

More politics. Introduce stuff so you can run on and solicit funds that Republicans are for human trafficking. I guess it isn't worth the good it could do if it gets people elected. Republicans do the same crap. Both parties suck.

The reason this is important is because we shouldn't be burdening with victims of sexual abuse from human trafficking, including children who become pregnant, with the cost of having an abortion if that is something they want.

Politics and failing of the overall process aside, it is important, and whoever added that portion is trying to insert ideology into this important bill

 

[Metaphoreus]

Okay, so where is the split over how the money specifically coming from fines collected from Child Traffickers even coming from then?

I don't know. I'd be interested in hearing a fuller explanation from those making the claim.

 

[gcubed]

A correction that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand and is simply pendantic, but okay.

Now back to how Coryn torpedoed his own bill by slipping in an amendment that he never told any Democrats about that explicitly didn't mention the words abortion or Hyde amendment.



The average voter does not care about such things in March 2015.

Pedantic? Metaphorsys? Why I never would have expected such a thing!

 

[Metaphoreus]

Pedantic? Metaphorsys? Why I never would have expected such a thing!

Note that though ivysaur12 called the distinction I drew "pedantic" and irrelevant, the fact that the bill has included the controversial language since its introduction in the Senate is an important part of this discussion.

Also, the Paulsen bill he mentioned earlier in the thread is not the House version of Cornyn's bill, and the House version does include the Hyde Amendment.

 

[ivysaur12]

Note that though ivysaur12 called the distinction I drew "pedantic" and irrelevant, the fact that the bill has included the controversial language since its introduction in the Senate is an important part of this discussion.

Yes, because the bill was voted on in committee without any knowledge by the Democratic members of the committee regarding this particular provision. Yes, it was up to the Democrats themselves to read it, but it's also not great that Republicans were not open about inserting something that was not in the House bill and then failing to include it in a list of changes. Maybe if they had, we would have avoided this entire exercise all together.

And whether or not the text of the abortion provision is a amendment or provision or in the original draft of the bill or text that flew out of Coryn's asshole is irrelevant to the discussion we were having. I found it pedantic because you knew what I meant. We weren't discussing the origins of this provision but rather its merits and correcting me on an incorrect word choice seemed smug. And I'd prefer not to go down this road.

Also, the Paulsen bill he mentioned earlier in the thread is not the House version of Cornyn's bill, and the House version does include the Hyde Amendment.

It looks like HR 159 is the bill that has already passed the House by voice vote. HR 296 was only referred to committee. Is there something I'm missing?

EDIT: HR 159's latest actions:

Date Chamber All Actions
02/04/2015 Senate Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Type of Action: Introduction and Referral
Action By: Senate

01/28/2015 Senate Received in the Senate.
Type of Action: Introduction and Referral
Action By: Senate

01/27/2015-1:14pm House Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Type of Action: Floor Consideration
Action By: House of Representatives

01/27/2015-1:14pm House On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H592-593)
Type of Action: Floor Consideration
Action By: House of Representatives

HR 296 was also introduced after HR 159 but never went anywhere after only having two cosponsors.

EDIT 2: Okay, if your issue is that I said:

as we can see from the Republican House sponsor of the bill:

as to somehow referring to that this is the identical bill in the House, sure. Fine. But if that's case, that's absurd because we're trying to discuss actual legislation, and the one that actually passed the House (by a voice vote!) seems to be the most germane.

 

[gdt]

The spin coming out of this is making me dizzy.

Good on Dems for protection abortion. Don't give them an inch.

 

[Metaphoreus]

And I'd prefer not to go down this road.

Deal. But, for the record, and in the interest of comity, here are the points on which we agree:

(1) The Democrats should have read the bill.
(2) The Republicans should have expressly disclosed that the controversial provision was being included in the bill.

It looks like HR 159 is the bill that has already passed the House by voice vote. HR 296 was only referred to committee. Is there something I'm missing?

In a moment, I'm going to address a mistake I may have made, but first, let me say the following (since I had already typed it up by the time I discovered my potential error): 159 is a completely different bill. Yes, it omits the Hyde Amendment language, but it also omits every other part of the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act, because the bills are not the same in any respect. (There may be some overlap, but we're comparing a 70-page bill with a six-page bill.)

Now for my potential mistake: further investigation indicates that the article you quoted may have* been referring to HR 181, which was cosponsored by Paulsen, passed the House, and was called the "Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act." It also included a number of provisions similar to the Cornyn bill. Even 181, however, did not include the creation of the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund, on which Cornyn's restriction in the Senate bill is placed. The absence of the Fund from 181 explains the absence of the restriction from 181.

*I say "may have been," rather than "probably was," because I'm still not sure what it means for a person to "carry" a bill in this context, and the article refers to multiple "House versions."

 

[Metaphoreus]

Update: Sex Trafficking Bill, Ensnared by Politics, Is Left in Limbo By a Senate Vote

On Tuesday, a measure that would create a victims’ fund, using fines collected from perpetrators of sex trafficking, failed to clear a procedural hurdle, leaving a bill that once had majority support in Congress in limbo.

...

The procedural bill fell five votes short of the 60 needed to go forward. Four Democrats — Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who has long championed measures for victims of sex trafficking, and Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who are opposed to abortion — voted yes on the measure with their Republican colleagues. Two Republicans did not vote, and Mr. McConnell voted against the measure for procedural reasons.

 

[davepoobond]

What procedural issues did McConnell vote against it for?

 

[Stet]

What procedural issues did McConnell vote against it for?

Probably can't vote for it and still re-introduce it at a later date as Republican Majority Leader.

 

[Metaphoreus]

What procedural issues did McConnell vote against it for?

The same reason Harry Reid often voted against cloture:

As Sarah Binder, a Senate rules expert at George Washington University, told me, it's not that the majority leader has to vote no. It's that somebody on the winning side of the cloture vote — in this case, the side voting against cloture — has to file a "motion to reconsider" if the matter is to be taken up again. "I suppose the broader parliamentary principle here is that it would be somewhat unfair to give someone on the losing side of a question a second bite at the apple," Binder explains. So the rules provide for senators whose opinion has changed to motion for another vote, whereas those whose opinion stays the same don't get to keep filing to reconsider.

Reid, and other majority leaders before him, have developed a clever workaround: Just change your vote at the last minute if it looks as though you're going to lose, then move to reconsider. In theory, any supporter of the bill or nomination in question could do the same, but traditionally it's been the majority leader.

 

[davepoobond]

The same reason Harry Reid often voted against cloture:

I see. Interesting rule.

 

[ivysaur12]

Deal. But, for the record, and in the interest of comity, here are the points on which we agree:

(1) The Democrats should have read the bill.
(2) The Republicans should have expressly disclosed that the controversial provision was being included in the bill.

Yes. I completely agree, and if either of those things had been done, I really don't think any of this would have been occurring.

In a moment, I'm going to address a mistake I may have made, but first, let me say the following (since I had already typed it up by the time I discovered my potential error): 159 is a completely different bill. Yes, it omits the Hyde Amendment language, but it also omits every other part of the Justice for Victims of Human Trafficking Act, because the bills are not the same in any respect. (There may be some overlap, but we're comparing a 70-page bill with a six-page bill.)

Now for my potential mistake: further investigation indicates that the article you quoted may have* been referring to HR 181, which was cosponsored by Paulsen, passed the House, and was called the "Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act." It also included a number of provisions similar to the Cornyn bill. Even 181, however, did not include the creation of the Domestic Trafficking Victims' Fund, on which Cornyn's restriction in the Senate bill is placed. The absence of the Fund from 181 explains the absence of the restriction from 181.

*I say "may have been," rather than "probably was," because I'm still not sure what it means for a person to "carry" a bill in this context, and the article refers to multiple "House versions."

It also has no related bills on congress.gov, which is odd. I didn't see this either. Regardless, I think the most important aspect of that article was that Paulsen has been a cosponsor of -- it seems -- multiple (similar) bills on the issue in the House. It still seems relevant to bring up the fact that he wants the issue stripped from the Senate version.

 

[PhantomHound]

Just saw this on the daily show:

How can you defend the Democrats on this? They don't read the bill, they won't settle on a compromise, and now they're playing the race card.

Also, federal funding of abortion isn't cut off in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. So, it wouldn't hurt sex trafficking victims considering they would fall under the category of rape.

 

[luxarific]

Really hope the Dems don't cave on this. So sick of the forced pregnancy brigade.

 

[gtj1092]

Just saw this on the daily show:

How can you defend the Democrats on this? They don't read the bill, they won't settle on a compromise, and now they're playing the race card.

Also, federal funding of abortion isn't cut off in cases of rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger. So, it wouldn't hurt sex trafficking victims considering they would fall under the category of rape.

So if they are all rape victoms why the need to put in the Hyde rule?

 

[PhantomHound]

So if they are all rape victoms why the need to put in the Hyde rule?

Existing law has included annual restrictions on taxpayer spending for abortion for decades. But the victims' fund envisioned by the trafficking legislation would be made up of fees paid by criminals, and Democrats say applying restrictions on abortion spending to that new pot of money is an expansion they can't accept.

So someone a long the line won't be able to use funds taken from illegal sex trade to be used as federal funding for someone wanting to get an abortion without being involved in sex trafficking. It's putting that money aside for victims, rather than letting the general public use it.

 

[AntoneM]

So someone a long the line won't be able to use funds taken from illegal sex trade to be used as federal funding for someone wanting to get an abortion without being involved in sex trafficking. It's putting that money aside for victims, rather than letting the general public use it.

Because something might happen at some unknown time in the future we should make a law about it now?

 

[benjipwns]

Because something might happen at some unknown time in the future we should make a law about it now?

That's like 80-90% of law and regulation.

 

[benjipwns]

Just saw this on the daily show:

Shots fired at Toad.

 

[not psycho]

This is a bill creating a permanent fund separate and apart from annual appropriations bills. So it makes sense that the provision restricting the use of the funds would be permanent with respect to that fund. And it also makes sense why the restriction appears in this bill.

I have to agree with you here. It's not like Republicans put something totally random into the bill; they put something in that is directly related and which they consider important.

They just happen to be incredibly wrong.

All the arguments in this thread can be flipped either way. "Anyone victimized by human trafficking automatically counts as a rape victim without any additional process and wouldn't be subject to the restriction" sounds like a good argument (if true). But it can be flipped into "if anyone victimized by human trafficking automatically counts as a rape victim, and there is no potentially painful process or loophole to deny choice to some of those victimized, why does the restriction exist and why would Republicans think it is important?"

The bottom line for me is I can't think of any non-malicious reason to expand the restriction so that a private fund for victims cannot help them with abortions if they so choose. Democrats were idiots to either not read or not understand the restriction, but the restriction is really wrong and should just be removed.

 

[PhantomHound]

Because something might happen at some unknown time in the future we should make a law about it now?

With government funding? Hell yeah.

 

[PhantomHound]

I have to agree with you here. It's not like Republicans put something totally random into the bill; they put something in that is directly related and which they consider important.

They just happen to be incredibly wrong.

All the arguments in this thread can be flipped either way. "Anyone victimized by human trafficking automatically counts as a rape victim without any additional process and wouldn't be subject to the restriction" sounds like a good argument (if true). But it can be flipped into "if anyone victimized by human trafficking automatically counts as a rape victim, and there is no potentially painful process or loophole to deny choice to some of those victimized, why does the restriction exist and why would Republicans think it is important?"

The bottom line for me is I can't think of any non-malicious reason to expand the restriction so that a private fund for victims cannot help them with abortions if they so choose. Democrats were idiots to either not read or not understand the restriction, but the restriction is really wrong and should just be removed.

Existing law has included annual restrictions on taxpayer spending for abortion for decades. But the victims' fund envisioned by the trafficking legislation would be made up of fees paid by criminals, and Democrats say applying restrictions on abortion spending to that new pot of money is an expansion they can't accept.

So they can put the money towards helping the victims of the bill rather than letting the money spill out into the public? Republicans are in the right here. Without the regulation, this funding could be used to fund public abortions of non sex trafficking victims.

 

[not psycho]

So they can put the money towards helping the victims of the bill rather than letting the money spill out into the public? Republicans are in the right here. Without the regulation, this funding could be used to fund public abortions of non sex trafficking victims.

I don't think I understand you here. You're saying that a restriction against abortion, in a fund for sex trafficking victims, is there to prevent the money from being used for people who are not sex trafficking victims?

If so, shouldn't there also be a restriction like "the money in this fund cannot be used to purchase military aircraft", "the money in this fund cannot be used to fix that pothole on 12th avenue", etc?

How does restricting abortion specifically make sure the money is used for sex trafficking victims?

 

[PhantomHound]

I don't think I understand you here. You're saying that a restriction against abortion, in a fund for sex trafficking victims, is there to prevent the money from being used for people who are not sex trafficking victims?

If so, shouldn't there also be a restriction like "the money in this fund cannot be used to purchase military aircraft", "the money in this fund cannot be used to fix that pothole on 12th avenue", etc?

How does restricting abortion specifically make sure the money is used for sex trafficking victims?

Yes.

I guess that could be a possibility, but federal law already dictates this stuff on taxes which democrats already agree to... so why is there a snag here? It literally doesn't change anything from our current law.

 

[speculawyer]

Screw the Hyde Amendment. They need to get rid of it.

If some really poor woman wants to have an abortion, I'd like the government to pay for it. That saves the government a lot of money in medicaid, welfare, food stamps, etc.

Fiscal conservatism. Give it a try, GOP.

 

[not psycho]

Yes.

I guess that could be a possibility, but federal law already dictates this stuff on taxes which democrats already agree to... so why is there a snag here? It literally doesn't change anything from our current law.

Well, it does change the current law, because it applies to money from fines rather than taxes. But that's not what I'm asking about.

I'm asking why you think this has anything to do with making sure the money goes to victims of sex trafficking. You just claimed that the reason for the addition is to prevent the money from going to places other than victims of sex trafficking.

But how do we know they aren't going to use the whole fund buying fighter jets? Where is the "no fighter jets" addition to the bill? Shouldn't you be demanding it be added to the bill?

If not, I think we have to agree that you are not worried about money going to other places than helping victims. You didn't make even a single amendment preventing its use for fighter planes. You are worried about money going towards funding abortions for victims, or you want to make it more onerous for victims to get that funding. And that is what I think is very, very wrong.

 

[Stinkles]

Btw, abortion is legal in this country and human trafficking is not. Just a detail.

 

[PhantomHound]

Btw, abortion is legal in this country and human trafficking is not. Just a detail.

Federally funded abortions are not legal in this country. No one is saying non victims can't get an abortion... It just won't be federally funded.

 

[PhantomHound]

Well, it does change the current law, because it applies to money from fines rather than taxes. But that's not what I'm asking about.

I'm asking why you think this has anything to do with making sure the money goes to victims of sex trafficking. You just claimed that the reason for the addition is to prevent the money from going to places other than victims of sex trafficking.

But how do we know they aren't going to use the whole fund buying fighter jets? Where is the "no fighter jets" addition to the bill? Shouldn't you be demanding it be added to the bill?

If not, I think we have to agree that you are not worried about money going to other places than helping victims. You didn't make even a single amendment preventing its use for fighter planes. You are worried about money going towards funding abortions for victims, or you want to make it more onerous for victims to get that funding. And that is what I think is very, very wrong.

I want funding to go to victims only. I don't want it going to fund public abortions, and i don't want it to fund fighter jets either. SO if they want to add more restrictions to the bill's spending i'd be in favor of it.

 

[Stinkles]

Federally funded abortions are not legal in this country. No one is saying non victims can't get an abortion... It just won't be federally funded.

I'm talking about the extreme gulf between the subject matter and the addition.

 

[davepoobond]

I want funding to go to victims only. I don't want it going to fund public abortions, and i don't want it to fund fighter jets either. SO if they want to add more restrictions to the bill's spending i'd be in favor of it.

Where are you getting that this money would go to fund public abortions?

It is supposed to only be for victims of sex trafficking at its very basis

It is a bill based on spending fines, not appropriations from the government

 

[Macam]

Well, this was a hilarious backfire of a thread. I sort of suspected it when I saw the title, and it delivered.

 

[xxracerxx]

I want funding to go to victims only. I don't want it going to fund public abortions, and i don't want it to fund fighter jets either. SO if they want to add more restrictions to the bill's spending i'd be in favor of it.

Are those held in town square or something?

Seriously, where are you getting this?

 

[benjipwns]

Btw, abortion is legal in this country and human trafficking is not. Just a detail.

What about human trafficking people to get an abortion?

 

[PhantomHound]

Are those held in town square or something?

Seriously, where are you getting this?

Federal funding for the public.

 

[gohepcat]

I want funding to go to victims only. I don't want it going to fund public abortions, and i don't want it to fund fighter jets either.

I think you have having difficulties in seeing your own bias here.

Saying "this money can't be used for this very specific thing" is absolutely absurd.

Tangentially legal abortion is something we should be proud of. We shouldn't be involved in medical decisions made by women and doctors.