n exchange for insular policy gains. the short-term insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shift of politics. it is far more difficult to regain. if a passion for the constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. president obama will not be our last president. however, these acquired powers will be passed on to his successors. when that occurs, members may loathe the today that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. ..

we are allowing the president to erode and destroy the voice and the voice of the right of the people. i vote for the nominee in my opinion, who favors will defend this unconstitutional action does provide support for the president's agenda. and i don't think we should provide that support.

so this is a matter all of us will have to wrestle with. it's not an easy question but i think it's clear. it's time for congress to say no and we will not confirm a person as the chief law enforcement officer in the united states. that's the department that provided the legal opinion that allowed the president to carry out his agenda. wrongfully, in my opinion. we should not confirm someone to the position who contends -- intends to continue that unlawful policy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. now senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm so glad that committee is finally, finally moving to a vote on loretta lynch is a nomination. she's already been pending on the calendar longer than any other attorney general nomination in recent history. and i want to take a moment to commend her on her performance.

i thought she was levelheaded, courteous, and credibly thoughtful in her responses. from constitutional questions to personal questions, and everything in between. she knocked it out of the park. i am discouraged and disappointed however by what i'm hearing from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about ms. lynch and why they are voting against her. i know some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been waging all-out war against the president's immigration policy. first, they wanted to hold the money for the department of homeland security unless the president's policies were overturned. fortunately, my colleagues in the senate are helping us move past that invest and we hope the house will do the same in short order. but now some of my friends on the other side are saying we should hold up loretta lynch to get the president to overturn his immigration executive order. well, let me be crystal clear.

the place for this battle is in the courts. political fights over immigration should not hold up loretta lynch, dhs funding or anything else especially at this crucial and delicate time in our nation's security. but the hard right have said over -- upset over the presence immigration policy is grasping at straws to have a fight, any fight over immigration. loretta lynch, a supremely qualified nominee, for a vital national security law enforcement post should never never have been pulled into the fray. we are happy to debate immigration on the merits but we refuse to allow a monkey wrench to be thrown into the process of governing and protecting this nation over political disagreements. i have to tell you i feel a little i climb in the twilight

zone this week. it's like an alternative reality. when my colleagues across the aisle who have strong records in history of supporting our national security our first blocking the funding for dhs and second, blocking the chief law enforcement officer. regardless of your views on the president's executive order, loretta lynch has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that should be an outstanding attorney general. now, the other objection i hear is that ms. lynch has not answered questions. let me be clear. that is a canard. ms. lynch has answered more qfrs, ma over 800, and any other nominee in history. and her responses have not been substantively different from her predecessor. for example, when michael moe casey was nominee for attorney general by president bush, i asked him what he would investigate the immigration backload and tell us what further authority and resources

were needed to solve the problem. in response he said quote, as i'm not familiar with the specifics of the current backlog i cannot give a responsible or informed estimate. i agree that it is critical for the department that sufficient resources to carry out its responsibilities, unquote. i also asked him if he thought the doj need stronger tools to combat voter intimidation in federal elections. and the answer, i have not studied this issue in sufficient detail to offer comment. these answers are the same as what my colleagues are complaining about ms. lynch is saying. and guess what? i voted for him and did so, and so did all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are in the senate at the time. so i don't really think this objection has a lot of credibility. i won't take up any more time mr. chairman, but in conclusion

i would urge my colleagues not to be fooled by some of the over hyped rhetoric and not to let this nomination admired in a political fight that is totally, totally unrelated. i want to remind my colleagues that you are not voting today for or against the president's policies. you are voting on this eminently qualified law enforcement professional, a first rate legal mind, and someone who's committed in her bones to the equal application of justice for all people. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator schumer. now senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for taking up the justice for victims of trafficking act today, and i particularly one to express my gratitude to senator klobuchar, wyden and kirk for serving as michael authors and sponsors of this important legislation. senator portman, senator feinstein, senator schumer deserve credit for their great contribution but the truth is this has been a collective effort of a lot of the members

of the committee. indeed, i would daresay the whole committee, and hope that we were successful as soon as we can get the bill to the floor, passing this important legislation. the fight against human trafficking is one of the most important human rights issues of our time. in 1865, the 13th amendment was ratified outlawing slavery in the united states forever. yet nearly 150 years later, thousands of american children will wake up every morning to a life of forced prostitution. today, we are here to help them put an end to that nightmare. at the core the justice for victims of trafficking act is about breaking down the barriers between victims, law enforcement, and society by adopting a holistic approach to fighting domestic human trafficking. if we're going to end slavery in the united states, we need to think big, and always keep the victims in mind. to this end this legislation

will tackle the scourge of human trafficking head on by enacting tough financial penalties for sexual predators, and sending these funds directly to services for victims of these crimes. a victim of human trafficking in the united states should never be turned away for the healing services that he or she needs. this bill will put an important down payment down on our commitment to the brave children, women and men who are survivors of some of the most unspeakable acts. a holistic approach to ending human, modern-day human slave will require us to forcefully break the cycle of violence and exploitation associated with the crime, the justice for victims of trafficking act will help us achieve that by giving law enforcement additional tools and resources they need. finally this legislation will help to end the culture of in punitive, responsible for him trafficking by making clear that every individual involved in the for-profit sexual exportation of human beings should be brought

to swift and certain justice. to eliminate human trafficking in the united states we need this type of comprehensive approach focusing as senator feinstein said, not just on supply but on demand. the days of tolerating commercialized sexual violence must come to an end and this legislation will take important steps towards that goal. i'm proud that the justice for victims of trafficking act is endorsed by more than 200 victims rights and law enforcement associations across the country, including the human rights4girls fraternal order of police to the national center for missing and exploited children, shared hope international, the national children's alliance, the national district attorneys association, the national conference of state legislators. it's time for this legislation to become law and i urge my colleagues to join in making this a reality. now briefly if i can just turn as the chairman instructed us to the nomination nomination before us particularly the nomination of loretta lynch for attorney general. there is no doubt in my mind

that loretta lynch is an conflict by turning with an impressive record, but her unwillingness to answer directly and completely my questions and those of some of my colleagues prevents me from supporting her nomination. i know almost no more about her understanding of the law after a daylong hearing and a number followed questions than i did before she appeared before the committee. six years ago i was one of the few to oppose the nomination of eric holder as attorney general, because i was concerned as it proved to be true, that he would politicize the department of justice in ways it had never been done before. i was concerned at the time that his record betrayed i feel the a politics above the law and he would be unwilling to serve as a check on the president if the president overstepped his legal boundaries. in my view, attorney general holder tenure has been a disaster. he is the first attorney general to my knowledge who was been held in contempt of congress for

failing to cooperate with the legitimate oversight responsibilities of the congress. and he is enable the president to commit violations after violations of the constitution and our laws. i invite ms. lynch to distance your self from this sad legacy but regrettably she took a pass on that opportunity. among other things her conclusion is the legal foundation of the present action is reasonable, demonstrates either an unwillingness to oppose illegal actions by this president, or a flawed understanding of the constitution. neither is acceptable. she has failed to acknowledge what the president himself said 22 different times publicly before he issued his executive action last november, and a judgment of united states federal district judge ruling on a case brought by 26 states in brownsville, texas, recently. so i cannot support her nomination. i do wish her well and hope her record will be better than that

mr. holders, but after six years we'll all learn that hope is not enough. finally, i want to acknowledge to service district judge for the southern district of texas. each of them bring the qualifications experience and commitment to public service we need and the federal judiciary. i want to thank the good work of the members of the texas the judicial if i texas the judicial if i do wish and cruz and myself as well as the white house counsel's office who's worked with us on these nominees. these three fine nominees demonstrate how we can work together to get qualified nominees on the bench regardless of party affiliation. so i'm pleased to support these nominees and appreciate your putting them on the day's agenda. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cornyn. now senator durbin. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. before any of us can serve in the united states senate we stand in the well of the senate

chamber and publicly take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the united states. i know we all take that series leader, as we showed. this is not just another government document. it is really the inspiration of this government and it still conference our actions to this day. yet, if we view this document with honesty, we know that it was fatally flawed from the start. it got the issue of slavery wrong in addition to some other issues. it got the issue of race wrong and since the days when the document was drafted and signed, we have struggled as a nation to right that wrong. it has taken a long, long time. we properly celebrate those moments in history where we finally moved on the air of the constitution on race and really move on a new path. we celebrate that day 152 years

ago when a republican president of the united states, abraham lincoln, issued an executive order, an executive order, the emancipation proclamation which freed 3 million slaves in america. it is proper that we celebrate that moment because america stepped forward because of that president's courage and the use of his executive power. we also are celebrating now on march 7 the 50th anniversary of the march across the edmund pedis bridge in selma, alabama. it is fitting and proper that members of president lincoln's party, the republican party, and democratic party members, are cosponsoring legislation to give a congressional gold medal to those who marched across the bridge and risks their lives to further the cause of civil rights. it's not only fitting and proper. it is necessary. but it's not sufficient. what we are required to do in

our generation is to stand behind those elements and moments in history where we can further the cause of civil rights. i am saddened that what was once a strong bipartisan issue, the voting rights act, has become a partisan issue but for one brave republican house member. and it's become a pars issue and we've forgotten why they were marching across that bridge in selma. it was about the same voting rights act which is now sadly, been politicized. and let's reflect on the moment we have before us today. this is the first african-american mormon in the history of the united states who would serve as our attorney general. this is a solemn come important and historic moment for america. to say that she is unqualified or doesn't deserve a vote for this because she agrees with the president on the issue of executive orders i believe is

fundamentally unfair. what else would you expect of her? she is serving at the invitation of this president. the issue of whether one side is right and the other side is wrong on the constitutionality of this executive order will ultimately be decided in the courts. it's already started a long that process. and to hold her responsible because she stands by the president? i came away from the hearing with one very clear message. it wasn't just no way that any republican senator on this committee was ever, ever going to vote for the real nomination of eric holder for attorney general of the united states. but that wasn't the issue before us. the issue was whether loretta lynch can serve as attorney general. and i will tell you having watched a lot of witnesses, including some extraordinary witnesses like john roberts i cannot remember a better more professional and complete presentation by any witness before the senate judiciary committee. my friends, no one laid a glove on this lady because she is so

good. it is unfortunate that as we celebrate events that took place 50 years in the cause of civil rights we can't join unanimously or on a bipartisan basis and celebrate this civil rights achievement today. >> thank you, senator durbin. now senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i stated previously some of the concerns that i have with ms. lynch. i'm not going to belabor all of us know, but many of them are similar to those that have been described by some of my colleagues in this committee today, and rather than rehash all of those i will just refer back to those basic concerned that i had and that will cause me to vote against this nominee. she's undoubtedly a very bright lawyer. she's at an incredibly successful career. i nonetheless have concerns

about her willingness to stand as an independent evaluator of legality and constitutionality of this administration actions that have caused me great concern. i had hoped and expected that my concerns would be alleviated during the hearings that we held. instead, they were intensified at that hearing, and that is a source of disappointment to me. as for bills that are under consideration today at this market, in the last congress i was very pleased to support senator cornyn's important legislation to protect the victims of trafficking. i hope to be able to do so again today. but i think some of that may depend on the outcome of our votes on some of the amendments. i support senator blumenthal's amendment and ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

>> without objections ordered. >> there are others to cause be some concern including a of the proposals dealing with other grant programs that have yet concluded that i can support. i've also got got concerns with want and it will be addressing that would create effectively a strict liability offense would carry them maximum and minimum mandatory since. we have debates about the use of minimum mandatory penalties and we do and they think will continue to have those debates in this committee. but i would hope that at a minimum we could agree as a committee about the very real substantive injustice and threat to liberty that can be presented by applying severe criminal punishment without requiring the government to prove that the defendant acted with intent to commit the crime at issue. acted with the guilty state of

mind. the concept of mens rea runs very very deeply in the anglo-american legal system, and i hope we can all stand the on that basic principle, that people in our system are in fact innocent until proven guilty and that the come is the one that carries the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding. a special was we're talk about creating a very significant minimum mandatory penalty. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. now senator whitehouse. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a statement regarding ms. lynch that i would like to put into the record if i may have unanimous consent to do that. >> without objection, so ordered. >> i would like to make two observations that have been prompted by what i've heard today. the first is that as senator durbin has said, this is an historic nomination for a country with a record on issues

of race that our country has to not be presented with the first female african-american attorney general nominee in our history is not nothing. it is significant, significant in our history. and how we react to it i think is also significant in our history. the republican committee staff have had months and months and months to do their job prowling through her background and her history to look for damaging information. that is the prerogative of the staff. that is what they do. i do not fault them for doing that. what's noteworthy though is that after all that lengthy effort, at the hearing not one witness could be produced not one to

oppose her nomination. senator leahy made this very clear when he asked the entire panel, do any of you oppose a nomination? instead, we brought in an array of witnesses who would there is grievances about the department of justice but nothing ill to say about this nominee. so we stand up this historic juncture, and we have a completely unblemished nominee. and yet man after man down the other side of the aisle come the warnings that we must vote no. she may disagree with you about the presidents immigration policy and i have to say i disagree with you as well. i'm not asking you to change your opinions about the

presidents immigration policy, but i do think there is something fundamentally unfair about punishing another person for holding a different view than your own. there is an element of impatience and well i believe it at that come in doing it. this country was founded -- i will leave it at that in doing it. this country was said at a gathering that have a lot of disagreements, and at the end of the gathering, esther franklin stood -- mr. franklin stood and he asked, let us gentlemen, doubt each a little bit of our own infallibility and adopt this constitution and make this start. i would simply ask that each of

us just about enough of our infallibility not to punish someone simply for disagreeing with our views. i to disagree with -- i too disagree with your views and to think my position is reasonably held. my last point is that there was an enormous amount of criticism of attorney general holder during the course of the nomination hearing. and i took the time to defend him then and i intend to take the time to defend him now. because i think the criticism is both wrong and unfair, and it is particularly unfair to suggest that the attorney general has politicized the office in ways that have never been done before. immediately before we had attorney general gonzales who we cleared the white house

counsel from a point of view independence. we lived by the u.s. attorneys scandal but we lived through the office of legal counsel torture memo scandal. but we lived through the hiring political litmus test scandal. we lived through the civil rights division scandal and the scandal of politicization that surrounds the office was such that even former republican appointed united states attorneys were horrified and made their views public, and the attorney general of the united states was forced to resign. in my view eric holder has done a remarkable and commendable job of cleaning up that mess and it is again both unfair and wrong to try to put him in the category from which he pulls the department through his leadership. the rest of my statement i will just have on the record. >> thank you, senator whitehouse. now senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today this committee is set to

consider 11 nominees, i support 10 of those nominees. among those nominees are three judges in my home state of texas. judge bennett george hanks and judge armando bonilla. all three of those nominees participate in the federal judiciary evaluation committee that senator gordon and i've established a bipartisan committee of experienced practitioners throughout the state of texas -- senator cornyn -- i would note those nominees, to our african-american judges one is an hispanic expanded judge, all three have earned reputations for fairly and impartially applying the law. all three came through the bipartisan judicial evaluation committee with flying colors. all three impressed both senator

cornyn in me with their record and their intention to remain faithful to the law. so i am pleased to see the committee moving forward on those nominations. among the 11 nominees being considered is of course is loretta lynch. like many of the members of this committee i am an alumnus of the department of justice and the department for centuries has built a tradition of remaining above the partisan fray. of remaining faithful to the constitution, faithful to the law, and not engaging in partisan battles. and like many in this body i have been saddened and then horrified to see the current attorney general eric holder break that tradition. turn the department of justice into a partisan arm rather than

an institution faithfully upholding the law. when ms. lynch was nominated, i very much hope to support her nomination. number one i would be very happy to see a new attorney general who would remain faithful to the law leading the department. number two, ms. lynch has a remarkable career, professional achievements. and entertain you as u.s. attorney in eastern just in new york just aren't a reputation among practitioners in new york with whom i've spoken as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor. so i came into the ring with high hopes dashed into the hearing with high hopes. i must say, however, that the answers ms. lynch gave him this hearing room, in my judgment rendered her unsuitable for the position of chief law enforcement officer for the

nation. i wish that were not the case. she had ample opportunity to make clear where she stood. the most difficult thing for any attorney general to do is to have the courage to stand up to the president who appointed that attorney general but it was asked, what would you put her to do? welcome for an attorney general i would expect and attorney general nominee to candidly state that she would be faithful to the law and the constitution, and not simply rubberstamp the authority of the president. the answer is ms. lynch gave at this hearing were nothing short of breathtaking. when she was asked how she would differ from eric holder, she could provide no way whatsoever in which she would differ from eric holder. that was not a good start. when she was asked about president obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive

amnesty, amnesty which i might note, no less a legal scholar and barack obama, has 22 times noted he lacks the authority to issue, and amnesty which i would note just last week a federal district court declared illegal. ms. lynch pledged to support executive amnesty saying she found a legal justification reasonable. but it doesn't just stop at that. it's not super this is an attorney general who will carry out this illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty. ms. lynch went must -- much for the. when ms. lynch was asked in her legal judgment with a series of -- president obama to extend amnesty to all 12 million people here illegally she refused to answer that question. when ms. lynch was asked if in her understanding of prosecutorial discretion a

subsequent president could instruct the treasury department to no longer collect taxes in excess of 25%, she refused to answer that question. when ms. lynch was asked if a subsequent president exercising her theory of prosecutorial discretion could instruct the federal government that no federal labor law or environmental law would be enforced in any way against the state of texas, she refused to answer that question. that was by design and absurd hypothetical. that should've been easy answer the answer is no that is patently unconstitutional. throughout the course of the hearing ms. lynch consistently refused to acknowledge any limitation whatsoever on the authority of the president of the united states. over and over and over again.

when ms. lynch was asked if she agreed with the holder department of justice's position that the government could place a gps tracker on the automobile of every single american in this nation with no probable cause whatsoever, a position i might note it was rejected unanimously by the united states supreme court, she refused to answer that question. when ms. lynch was asked if she agreed with the holder justice department's position that the first amendment provides no protection whatsoever for a church or synagogue selecting its pastor or priest or rabbi, a position that was also rejected unanimously by the united states supreme court, she refused to answer that question. when ms. lynch was asked if she believed the federal government could constitutionally use a drone to kill an american citizen on american soil if that

individual posed no imminent threat, at a hearing she refused to answer that question. and when ms. lynch was asked about the irs targeting of american citizens for their political views, targeting that was found by the inspector general of the department of treasury, targeting which at the time the president of the united states said he was angry but in the american people how to write to be angry about when ms. lynch was asked if she would be willing to go a different path than eric holder not to assign the so-called investigation to a partisan democrat who is a major donor to present obama and the democratic party, but instead to follow the path that alisa richardson took under richard nixon and that janet reno took under bill clinton of appointing a special prosecutor to faithfully and fairly investigate corruption and abuse of power she refused to answer that question. i would note my friends on the

side of the aisle everyone of us is deeply dismayed by the lawlessness of eric holder. but there's a difference. mr. holder began disregarding the law after he was confirmed. in this instance ms. lynch have sat in his room and told the members of this committee what she intends to do. if those answers are not sufficient to vote against the nominee, i don't know what answers would be. because for those of us who vote for her, we should not be surprised if president obama comes back trying to grant amnesty to 12 million instead of 4 million. and ms. lynch rubberstamps that as acceptable. we should not be surprised if over the next two years we continue to see abuse of power, abuse of executive authority regulatory abuse of the department of justice rubberstamping it over and over

and over and over again. when a nominee for attorney general cannot identify any limit whatsoever on the authority of the president then each of us are on note she has told us her views. those views are radical. those views undermine the rule of law. and in my view, no senator who is serious about her obligation to defend the constitution and rule of law should be willing to confirm any attorney general republican or democrat, who is unwilling to stand up to the constitution in limiting the president who appoints them. and for that reason i believe the only responsible course of action for the senate is to reject this nomination. >> thank you, senator cruz. now senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to all the members. as i was listening to our

colleague, senator cruz, talk about loretta lynch, i was thinking of your last statement that people should be unwilling to confirm someone that has somehow, in your view, not upheld the law or said they will uphold the law. and i was thinking one issue which i think is a major one for a lot of our colleagues across the aisle. this is the immigration issue. the fact that the president has issued this executive order in fact that loretta lynch has said she felt that this was cracked under the law. every president since eisenhower has issued such an order, and presumably this means that they were advised by their attorney general, many of them were confirmed by people in this room or voted for by people in this room that it was okay to do that. you look at george h. w. bush 1.5 million immigrants involved in an executive order. 1.5 million immigrants involved in an executive order. and for those of my republican colleagues that were around at that time, i assume that his

attorney general said that that was legal and that attorney general was voted for by this committee. and they see that senator cruz is getting out right now but i do believe when he said it was breathtaking, her performance. i thought it was breathtaking as a look at her father, reverend lynch as how well she did at the to and how was she was able to answer the questions that were put before her. the other thing i just cannot look at this pragmatically when my constituent from sunday morning woke up to a video from a terrorist sang from al-shabaab saying that he wanted to target and is asking people to target our mulder senator franken and i are both at the minnesota. our mall as well as malls in canada and london, and jewish owned malls across the country i like it is did put a person in for attorney general that has prosecuted more terrorism cases in her office by any of u.s. attorney's office in the country. that has that ability to take on

those cases. for my constituents who i represent, that's a real positive. and also when i hear my friends for so many years talk about how they don't like eric holder and they think he is in the words of senator cruz ben wallace, this is an opportunity for them to put someone new into the office. in the last thing i would say and this was based on one of our colleagues talking about likening this to a business interview in the last hearing. i've done those entities. i was in the private sector for 14 years and if you believe a ceo should be able to put a general counsel and. it's different because where the constitutional -- to advise and consent by the ceo here is the president treki wants to put a councilman. we have waited months and months and months, and the issue was raised how can we make this decision on a 10 minute job interview? it was an eight hour job interview. our colleagues were welcome to stay for the entire job interview. not only that they could conduct their own job interviews in the own office, look at hundreds and

hundreds of pages of documents and ask whatever questions they want. they may not have been happy with those answers but to say that she is somehow disqualified because this process wasn't long enough and there wasn't enough of an interview i think it's just wrong. so i am very pleased to vote for her today. i'm glad some of our republican colleagues are doing the same. i always am reminded of senator graham's comments when graham's comments women and the supreme court justices in front of us. he said i'm john mccain's best and. of john mccain had won that election would've been different people in front of us as nomination for supreme court but he said my job is to whether or not i agree with every single decision they take her everything position the president takes. my job is to decide if they are qualified to do this job if they have the ability to make those decisions. and i believe that's our job right now with regard to loretta lynch. a woman who has confronted so many obstacles in her life as only her dad does. a woman who when she took a test in elementary school and was

told well, we don't think you got that great, that score it was too high, she said okay i will take it again and scored even higher by a woman who when she became valedictorian of her high school class was asked if she would share that with a white student so wouldn't be so controversial, her parents had to live through that and said okay fine. so she is waded through the confirmation process everything should be a great attorney general. i wanted to also comment on the bipartisan work that has been done on the sex trafficking bills, and i'm so, just so grateful that senator grassley at our great ranking member senator leahy, have worked on this agenda for this hearing today. and that we are not only putting senator cornyn's bill, for which i'm the lead democrat, but that we also have my build the safe harbor bill, senator cornyn in the lead republican on. and i am also grateful for all the members of this committee that is cosponsored this bill. i want to focus very briefly on my bill which is the safe harbor

bill version that is very similar, has already passed the house of representatives that services creates incentives for states to look at adopting laws like a dozen states have already done safe harbor laws because you're not going to go after victims of prostitution. just this last week in rochester, minnesota, we had a 12 year-old girl, 12 year-old girl, and indict was brought up, ma a man was charged battery for this crime. a 12 year-old girl gets the text. she goes to the parking lot with her friend and goes to a mcdonald's parking lot. pic i put you in the car brings up to the twin cities and rachel. event takes sexual explicit pictures, threatens with him push those pictures on on craigslist and cells are the two who also raper off of craigslist. that's what happened to those with the facts out of rochester minnesota. that's why this bill is so important. that's why it is supported by the fraternal order of police the conference of state legislators, why it is supported by many sex trafficking groups

across the country and what it is such a strong bipartisan support. it creates a national sex trafficking strategy. it includes a very important provision that senator sessions and senator whitehouse worked on together regarding federal marshals. and most importantly it creates incentives for states to do what has been working so many states, and that is treating these young predominately girls as victims giving them the services they need so they can turn their lives around and also making sure that they can then build stronger cases against the perpetrators that are running the sex trafficking rings. i really appreciate the republican support for this bill because it's a new approach, it's looking at the stiffly at it has meant a lot to me and want to thank my colleagues for their support and all the work that needs to be done on this important matter going forward. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. now senator aiken. >> thank you, mr. chairman but i will support loretta lynch as nomination to be attorney general today.

i've always felt that is my position here to try to determine if somebody is qualified for the position, not whether i agree with their position they take. i don't agree with every position that she put forward. i disagree with the president's executive action, for example, and she thinks that it was it was reasonable to be put forward. it like i said my position is not to have to agree with every position that is taken. i concede that there are differing opinions on this, but i think that she is eminently qualified. and anybody who has met with her and attended the hearings where she came forward had to be impressed with her background and experience, and i've been particularly impressed with the opinion of her by those who have worked with her in the past. and that has been uniformly positive. so i will support her -- there

is one issue that has come up since with regard to this executive action on fedora 17th, judge hansen of the southern district of texas ruled, well he issued an order, temporarily adjoining this action before. since the department of justice has asked that the injunction be limited simply to the state of texas, we thought some of us thought might be important to determine whether or not she agreed with that position, or more importantly, if the district court rules i'm sorry the circuit court rules to keep this injunction whether she at the department of justice would abide by it. so myself and senator hatch and senator graham sent a letter to ms. lynch and asked following questions, will you commit to follow that you should courts injunction against the

implementation of president obama's november 2014 executive action until the injunction is either lifted posted by the court of appeals or the supreme court? number two, will you commit to follow the district court's injunction as it is worded specifically as it applies nationwide and not limit its application to the state of texas unless the court, it was the court of appeals or the supreme court limits the scope of its jurisdiction? her answer to us was, in response to your letter on february 25 with respect to the permanent injunction entered in by the district court of southern district of texas regarding the president's executive action on immigration, the answer to both of your questions is yes. if i am confirmed as attorney general i commit to follow the injunction as it is worded unless and until the injunction is dead, lifted, or altered by the district court itself by the fifth circuit or by the supreme court. i'd like to enter the full text of the letter and response into the record, without objection.

>> i'm sars because i would ask to enter the text -- >> without objection, so ordered. >> and the response. to those of my colleagues have been critical, as many of them have at some of the actions of the department of justice taken under the current attorney general of its we know that the longer this nomination is held up the longer the current attorney general and the department justice stays in place. so i it this time i'm pleased to support this nomination. i would encourage my colleagues to do the same. i appreciate the chairman for giving me time. >> senator -- thank you senator flake. senator franken will be next and senator vitter then because senator lindsey graham had to be at another important committee meeting, i will call him unless another democrat comes in and it will take the democrat ahead of lindsey graham. [inaudible] >> senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

is with immense pleasure that i endorse ms. lynch's nomination to be next attorney general. i'm proud to be part of this historic moment as we consider and hopefully confirm the first african-american woman to serve as attorney general. she was easily confirmed twice i believe unanimously, as u.s. attorney, what are the most prominent offices in this country. i've been continuous, continually impressed by her and find she lives up to her reputation as a smart, tough but fair attorney. the eastern district of new york office has flourish under capable leadership or no one denies that. she has prosecuted cases of terrorism as probably the most in any, any office as senator klobuchar pointed out.

public corruption white-collar crime, police brutality to name just a few areas. she has coupled these courtroom successes with meaningful community engagement and relationship building with a variety of stakeholders. these experiences have given her important insights into some of the most troubling threats our country faces and makes her uniquely qualified to run the department of justice. ms. lynch is an admirable public surgeon, servant, and i urge all of my colleagues to confirm her. i would just like to make some response to senator cruz about the hypothetical questions that he asked her. i was there for a lot of those and you know i do not recall my college on the other side of the aisle raising an issue when attorney general michael mukasey, not attorney general,

declined to provide centers with his legal opinions based on hypotheticals. because he said it would be irresponsible to provide senators with, this is a quote and uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances. and that's what, that was exactly what was happening. notably what mr. mukasey to do most hypotheticals established facts about the treatment of detainees in u.s. custody. he was unable to offer an opinion whether waterboarding was torture because such hypothetical was different from, he said different from real life in any legal opinion and the actual facts and circumstances are critical. the point is there was no issue raised from my good friends on

the other side when mr. mckay c. -- mr. mukasey said he would not answer those hypotheticals competitive think that's exactly parallel to what was going on when senator cruz asked those hypotheticals. so i'm looking forward to voting for her, ms. alleged. >> thank you, senator franken. since senator coons is your, senator coons and then senator lindsey graham. senator vitter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will vote no on the confirmation of loretta lynch because of her views on the apparently boundless authority of the president, and including specifically this issue of the recent executive amnesty. and let me say i think any suggestion that somehow focusing on this is far afield of what we should be focused on in this confirmation process is

ridiculous. this is at the center of her prospective job. this is at the absolute center of her responsibilities, being a top lawyer, not for the president, the president has lots of lawyers and political lawyers and others, including the white house counsel eating the top lawyer for the country. in these sort of issues are at the center of her job. now, why did i reach the conclusion? well, i questioned her at length in my office and in committee, and you know, in contrast to a lot of the folks who spoke, i was not at all impressed with her responses because they were completely superficial and political, in my opinion. i asked her obviously, about the president's executive order in my office and her first response was, she thought a very legitimate for any executive to

set priorities, and that's what he was doing. i followed up and said, ms. lynch, i think his orders clerk ago beyond setting priorities. they give a new and different legal status to almost 5 million illegal aliens. and she had no specific response to the. she just sort of pointed to the administration legal opinion. i said ms. lynch, this action goes further than that. it hands these folks a new document made out of the blue with the word work permit on top. where is the legal authority for that? she had no specific response to that. in a hearing i asked her detailed questions in the same thing. i said, ms. lynch, the only authority in the law for this sort of thing demands that any company action approaching this inmate on a case-by-case basis and i said, do you think granting amnesty to about by the

illegal aliens is acting on a case-by-case basis? she had no significant response. i said that same portion of the law says the attorney general has to make the decision on a case-by-case basis, and yet there is no plan for you as attorney general if you're confirmed to be in the middle of that process. what is your position as attorney general in that process? how can it be moved to other people in homeland security? she had no detailed response to that. so that's really concerned me regarding her views of executive authority and this executive amnesty in particular and that goes to the heart of her job what would be her job as the top lawyer again, not of the president but of the country. i'm also concerned by two other issues which i will mention very briefly. first of all as i mentioned

previously ms. lynch as u.s. attorney in eastern district of you negotiate a real slap on the wrist the first prosecution agreement with hsbc, a megabank, despite their admission that they laundered money on behalf of mexican drug cartels terrorist organizations, and other sanctioned enemies come entities rather. this is a truly too big to prosecute and jail, and i'm very concerned about that sort of approach. secondly with regard to fraud allegation in hurricane sandy issues, i'm very concerned about the action of her office as u.s. attorney. just yesterday in a texas court there was activity that uncovered that certain fraud insurance companies involved, in terms of making settlements with

homeowners, tried to demand that those homeowners signed agreements not to cooperate and participate in criminal investigation of them. that's ridiculous. what's even more ridiculous is that ms. lynch his office them are u.s. attorney's office, made a motion to keep that proposed settlement document out of the record. now, which side are they on and what art they taken a proposed settlement document and making it part of their criminal investigation, rather than trying to block it from being in the public record? they said no specific reasons i plan to vote no. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator vitter. now senator coons. >> thanks for the opportunity to comment on both the exceptional nominee to serve as next attorney general of the united states and on the two bills related to human trafficking which i hope we will get to today. loretta lynch has been an exceptional u.s. attorney.

as many of my calls have mentioned before me, it's also my view just been an exceptional nominee. she has endured in more than 110 day wait and it is my hope and expectation that this would be her last day before this committee before moving to the floor. she performed admirably at her daylong nominations hearing, offering substantive answer some questions that were appropriate to answer, across many many topics but declined to in a properly prejudge certain legal conclusions when given complex hypotheticals. hypotheticals. she's also afghanistan is great, answered 897 questions for the record, which must be some sort of record. this combination of pedigree and grace under fire convinced me she is the right person for the job, the right one for the job and a be happy to support her today. i also want to thank senator cornyn, senator klobuchar for the hard work to put together substantive and meaningful bipartisan legislation to address the terrible scourge of modern day human trafficking. i think these bills will go a long way towards holding offenders responsible come

ensuring victims get the care that they need to have the best chance of possible recovery. i'm proud to be a cosponsor and look forward to moving toward on each of them. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and now senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much. i will support ms. lynch because i think she is well qualified. i think she's a decent person. i think she has lived a good life. i think she's done a good job as u.s. attorney and all things being equal i think a democratic president is well within bounds of choosing her. nobody on our side would have chosen her, but i mean when you run the white house certain things come your way. what i like most about her is that she seems to understand the war on terror and as will as attorney general will make sure all the tools on the toolbox will be viable to defend this nation including holding

american citizens as enemy combatants to collaborate with the enemy. she seems to be a tough person when it comes to terrorism, and i do believe her experiences in life and as the u.s. attorney make her well-qualified. secondly eric holder is ready to go and i wish them well. [laughter] he is about to go make a lot of money. republicans are into that, so -- [laughter] he will be one come he will be the 1% are here soon. and i wish him well. i appreciate his service though quite frankly it would be good to turn the page and have a new attorney general to look at some old issues and new. and everything my colleagues have said about executive the executive action by the president i associate myself with. -- >> we are going to lead this hearing at this point for live coverage of the u.s. senate. our coverage of this debate and the nomination of loretta lynch will continue live online at c-span.org. if approved her nomination will go to the full senate and, of

course, we'll let you know the outcome of that vote. now to live coverage of the as soon as they are about to begin their day. members will continue work at home which could funding after this include the bill for consideration your debate time in that 9:15 p.m. tonight unless time is yielded back. live now to the u.s. senate. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. we have thought, o god, of your loving kindness. you have blessed our nation far more than we deserve. you have provided us with a goodly land of spacious skies and golden waves of grain. you have helped us create a

durable government of, by, and for the people. you have protected us through wars and rumors of war. may our lawmakers show their gratitude for your loving kindness by being responsible stewards of your generous gifts. give them the wisdom to refuse -- protect the fragile gift of freedom. lord unite them in their commitment to do what is required to keep america one nation controlled by your sovereignty with liberty and justice for all.

we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the president pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president it's good to see democrats

finally bring an end to their weeks' long filibuster of the homeland security funding bill. once the measure we voted on yesterday is complete the senate will consider sensible legislation from senator collins. her bill is really quite simple. it would protect our democracy from the most egregious example of executive overreach we saw back in november. it's overreach described by president obama himself as ignoring the law. senator collins' measure simply takes the president at his word and helps him follow the law instead of ignoring it. it's hard to see how any senator could oppose such a good commonsense idea. so we look forward to that vote. now on a different matter, later today the obama administration's f.c.c. will take autopsy proposal favored by the president -- take up a proposal favored by the president that would stroke a blow to the future of innovation in our country. it's the so-called net neutrality rule. the growth of the internet and the rapid adoption of mobile

technology have been a great american success story and they were made possible by a light regulatory touch. in fact, it's this bipartisan light touch consensus that allowed innovators to develop and sell the products people want and to create the kind of high-quality jobs americans need without waiting around for government permission. the obama administration needs to get beyond its 1930's rotary telephone mind-set and embrace the future. that means encouraging innovation not suffocating it, under the weight of an outdated bureaucracy and poorly named regulations like this one. mr. reid: mr. president? the president pro tempore: the minority leader. mr. reid: the essential department of homeland security faces a shutdown in less than 24 hours.

i'm sorry -- 48 hours. 12:01 a.m. saturday morning the government will be forced to shut down this most essential part of our government and is set up to protect the homeland. it's really unthinkable that america is less than two days away from letting its guard down in the midst of such rampant global terrorism. yesterday three brooklyn men were arrested for joining isis. the director comey said yesterday his agency is investigating suspected isis supporters in every state all 50 states. as the republican congressman peter king said, and here's a direct quote -- quote -- "we can't allow d.h.s. not to be funded. people think we're crazy. there are terrorists all over the world and we're talking about closing down homeland security." listen to this snen. this is like -- sentence. this is like living in the world

of the crazy people. republican congressman peter king said what is going on with the republicans here in the senate and the house is like living in the world of the crazy people. yesterday the senate voted to begin the process of considering and passing a clean homeland security funding bill. without an agreement to speed up the process final passage would take place on sunday. as i said yesterday we're on this side of the aisle willing to expedite passage of this bill by consent. we're ready to do it right now. once a clean full-year funding bill for the department of homeland security is passed and signed into law we look forward to debating how to best fix our nation's broken immigration system just as we did 20 months ago with the help of the presiding officer and others. would the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. and under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to h.r. 240 which the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed

to calendar number 5 h.r. 240 an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. rubio: madam president. madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: madam president i ask unanimous consent that the senate recess from 12:45 p.m. until 1:45 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. rubio: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: madam president? the presiding officer:quorum call: a senator:a senator: madam president? i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: are we in morning

business? the presiding officer: we are on the motion to proceed to cloture. mrs. shaheen: i will be speaking on the bill before us. we are just days away from an unthinkable shutdown of the department of homeland security. a shutdown of the department whose mission is to protect the citizens of this country is reckless and dangerous while we're under threat of attack by terrorist groups. what kind of message does it send to isis, to cyber criminals, to criminal drug gangs if congress can't keep the department of homeland security open? this weekend we learned that a terror group from somalia al shabaab, released an on-line video calling for attacks on the mall of america in minnesota as well as malls in canada and england. just yesterday we learned that three brooklyn, new york, men were arrested for plotting to travel to syria to join isis. and if they weren't successful in getting to syria they

allegedly planned to commit an act of terrorism in the united states and one even offered to kill president obama if ordered to do so. the department of homeland security's role in protecting our country from these threats and so many others cannot be overstated. it's d.h.s. that's working with state and local officials in minnesota to coordinate a response to the mall of america threat and it's d.h.s. and the secret service that help provide the counterterrorism and intelligence gathering efforts that led to the arrests of the brooklyn men who wanted to do harm in this country. referencing yesterday's arrests in brooklyn, new york city police commissioner bill bratton said, "this is not the time to engage in activities that would threaten our counterterrorism capabilities and effectively hold our counterterrorism agencies hostage to political machinations. this is not the time to be engaging in political rhetoric

political grandstanding." i think commissioner bratton is right. our nation is already on high alert for terror threats after attacks in sidney, australia and ottawa, canada, and in paris. the mall of america threat and the brooklyn arrests reinforce the fact that we need our law enforcement community operating on all cylinders. and, sadly these aren't isolated threats. a few weeks ago i spoke with the deputy commissioner of the new york police department. he told me about the many terror attacks that have been thwarted in new york city since 9/11 and he credited d.h.s., the funding and programs that are coordinated through d.h.s. the personnel there for helping new york prevent attacks from happening. i've heard the same thing at home in new hampshire from our law enforcement and first responders. i was in the town of hampton which is a coastal community on

monday of this week. they talked about the importance of d.h.s. support in developing a unified command for all of law enforcement in new hampshire. they talked about the importance of the fusion center that's funded through the department of homeland security because of the intelligence gathering they do there and how they share that information with law enforcement agencies all across new hampshire. and then they took me in and showed me a diagram of a human trafficking case that they're working on with the help of the department of homeland security. so this is not just about the big cities in the united states. it's about our rural communities, it's about states across this country who rely on the department of homeland security to help with their internal security. and yet here we are less than

two days away from shutting down the department of homeland security because of unrelatedded ideological disagreements. i am, however very encouraged by recent developments here in the senate. with yesterday's 9 you 8-2 vote to allow the senate at some point in the future, hopefully sometime today to pass a clean full-year funding bill for d.h.s. and i want to again applaud senators mcconnell and reid for their efforts to get us to this point. i think we need leaders who are willing to work together, who are willing to encourage us here in the senate and we saw that in the last few days with senators mcconnell and reid. now, once the senate acts, however, we need the house of representatives to join us in putting aside our ideological and our political differences and passing a bill without controversial riders, a bill

that will fund the department of homeland security. as we have discussed in this chamber, there are disagreements about grace and about the -- immigration and about the president's executive action and i'm certainly happy to have gate about that, i know there are others who are happy to have a debate. but first we need to fund the department of homeland security. we need to put safety and security ahead of our ideological differences. we're just two days away from a devastating shutdown of d.h.s. we do not have time to waste. i certainly hope that we will act quickly here and that the house will also act quickly. thank you madam president. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you madam president. a battle has been raging on line in the past year.

millions of citizens, companies, innovators and entrepreneurs have been sounding an alarm calling us to electronic arms. these 21st century netizens raised their voices and demanded the if you can protect the world's greatest platform for communications and commerce and today we declare victory. today we say the economy and the free expression of ideas depend on net neutrality. today we say an open and free internet is as important as keeping our air and water clean and our roads and highways safe. today we say net neutrality is here to stay. today is internet freedom and innovation day. just today the federal communications commission is making historic decisions to

enshrine net neutrality protections. the commission is voting to use its power to protect a tremendous power of the internet. this battle for net neutrality means that the internet is protected for decades to come. it is protected for all the students and start-ups for all the businesses and online buyers for all the interest venters and the internet users. by banning and priority todaytyization of blocking and thoughtening the f.c.c. is applying the principles of nondiscrimination which is what net neutrality is, nondiscrimination to the broadband world. this is the next chapter in the history of american innovation. it's our country's declaration of innovation. and chairman wheeler and the f.c.c. are on the right side of history. this battle for net neutrality was not fought without opposition.

the deep pocketed broadband barons want to turn the internet into a set of gated communities. they say it will raise taxes they say it is an overreach they say it won't stand up in court. some claim it will harm investment. but then companies like sprint and verizon say it won't, in fact influence how they invest. so i say to the critics do you want to return to the days when a few telecommunications giants which today we would call big broadband barons control the vital wires and spectrum we use to communicate or do we want a free dynamic open market where the best in ideas survive and thrive? the choice is clear. and the f.c.c. commissioners supporting the open internet order have made the right choice. today the people won. i applaud the f.c.c. and chairman wheeler for standing up for students and their -- in their dorm rooms engineers in

their basements innovators in their garages. i applaud the f.c.c. for standing up for the best ideas not merely the best funded ideas. the f.c.c. has chosen the right path forward and i commend the commission for that action. reclassifying broadband under title 2 is a major victory for consumers, for our democracy and for our economy. consider that in 2013, 25% of the funds not went were invested in software companies. the free flow of ideas supported by the internet are launching the global revolutions and supporting the communication that we rely on every day. we want a free, dynamic open market where the best in ideas survive and thrive. today is an historic revolutionary day for

consumers, innovators, entrepreneurs, anyone who counts on the internet to connect to the world. i applaud and i thank the millions of american revolutionaries who stood up and fought for net neutrality. the fight isn't over. there is much more work to be done but today is an historic victory. it is internet freedom and innovation day. let's celebrate this transformative power of the internet today and for generations to come. we are going to ensure that the architecture of the internet remains one where the smallest entrepreneur who can go to the capital markets and raise the funding for the new idea, for the follow-on ideas to google and e bay and hulu and yew tube are -- yew are joined by new companies like vimieo and hundreds of thousands of others whose names we do not yet know because now they are going to

have the capacity to be able to say to their investors we now have the capacity to reach a market and with our idea we can transform some part of the way in which people communicate in this country and on this planet. that is what we're celebrating today. the power of the net. the power of individuals to come up with the capital that they can then transform some part of the way in which we communicate in this life. so just remember when the 1996 telecommunications act passed, there were no companies like the ones i've just been mentioning and that was because it was an old world. but in the blink of an eye a technological eye we've moved to this new world where each of us is carrying a device in our pockets, each of us is wondering how we ever got along without the capacity to be able to tap into all of these wonderful new companies and the products that they provide.

that's what today is all about. net neutrality day. it will not impact the investments of the big companies but it will ensure that the small companies those that receive 62% of all venture capital in america in the last year, will be able to provide their new products, their new innovations, their new challenges too the way in which we communicate and i think that's the whole key. we need to maintain the darwinian paranoia inducing competition that the net has introduced and if we do that, i think america will be number one looking over its shoulder at number two three four in the world in terms of our innovation in the communication sector. so congratulations to the federal communications commission and congratulations to all entrepreneurs across america in this space today today is a day when you should be celebrating. i yield back the balance of my time madam president.

i ask that we recess until 1:45 p.m. as provided by the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate stands in recess until 1:45 p.m.

a modern economy is built innovation and commercialization to promote widespread gains for its citizens. now some tensions exist between these two ingredients for the strong economy. because coming up with novel ideas is risk-taking, focus on future possibilities. some ideas or inventions -- or inventions were filtered by turning ideas into successful products require is capitalizing on already existing ideas. the trick is to balance one with

the other so that we can produce the products of today efficiently and at the same time invest integrating the product of tomorrow. both our competition and our intellectual property laws played by the role and balancing our goals for today and the others just over the horizon. our competition laws focusing on promoting our economic goals for the near-term with and i in particular on producing efficiencies. we ensure a level plain view by eliminating anticompetitive conduct and help create incentives for businesses to enter and compete as efficiently and as aggressively as possible. this competition translates into lower prices and higher quality for consumers and can even yield long-term gains by reinforcing the drive to innovate and beat competitors over time. as the supreme court wrote just yesterday, federal antitrust law is a central safeguard to

nation's free market structure. in this regard it is as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free enterprise system as the bill of rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms. on the other hand the intellectual property laws are designed with an eye to future competition and economic growth. the supreme court said i.t. system is important a great an incentive to inventors -- in terms of time, research and development. the productive effort thereby fostered will have a positive effect on society through the introduction of new products new processes of manufacture into the economy. in exchange for this reward for inventions, the patent laws require the inventor to disclose his or her idea so that after their period of -- required the knowledge that invention goes to the people who are thus enabled without restriction to practice

it and profit by its use. combining strong i.t. rights with smart competition enforcement can promote a strong economy with both innovation and commercialization. let me close by noting that there is an international dimension to all of this that people should keep in mind. many countries are far behind the united states in terms of developing valuable intellectual property. this is especiallespeciall y true of countries whose emerging economies that are oriented to manufacturing export like china. these countries are actively evaluating how to treat i.t. rights, and importantly, some of these nations are focused on how to reduce the control by american firms of the ip that serves its input into the goods made in those overseas markets. these emerging markets have the

most to gain from efforts in america to weaken intellectual property rights as it will offer their government cover to minimize ip protection, low the cost of goods for their domestic companies, and reduce payments to potential competitors and ip owners in the u.s. i think that people should keep that in mind the next time they considered devaluing here as that acumen unintended consequences globally. -- unintended consequences globally. [applause] >> thank you all. for some of you who have just joined us or for our joining us, this is about intellectual property. it's the stuff that makes up the things that we use everyday and our three panelists have made some very interesting comments. i own a house and if somebody wants to come into my house i don't want them to i can call

the police. and say please take this individual off my property. this person does not have my permission. i know that with intellectual property people can hire a lawyer. and there's been some discussion about something called a patent control. when is it appropriate for somebody to hire a lawyer to say, please protect my property? and when is that lawyer merely a troll who's feeding off of the lives of others? >> that's a great question, and you hear this phrase patent troll use a lot today and discussions about patents and one of the real problems of the term is that it's not really defined in any way shape, or form. and by the way, there's an interesting correlation in the same way that you often heard

about robber barons at the turn of the 20th century with the rise of the importance of industrial property. you now have a new term to attack the creators and owners of intellectual property, patent decision, patent troll and is being used to drive legislation and regulation. and this term is basically used to attack anyone who owns a patent who brings a lawsuit to defend, i mean against some who infringes their patent. and it's been used would cover great inventors like thomas edison and charles goodyear, vulcanized robber, and nicholas tesla of electricity. insults used to cover great companies. >> what do you mean used? >> include when they attack -- >> they would be -- >> yes. in fact, it would be called, accused of being patent troll study. it's part of a rhetorical push to try to weaken patents. because just when people infringer property rights just

like you have to call a policeman to defend your home, if some infringer property rights and a new invention have to contact a lawyer to bring a lawsuit to stop them. and durability to go into the market and to license freely and to sell products predicated on the ability to stop people from infringing upon your right in the same way you can use your home, predicating you're going to kick people off if you don't want them in your home. >> now, there is a definition of patent troll, sure fire went there anyone who is suing me for patent infringement is a patent troll. that's the most surefire way to define it. we have to keep in mind that this legislation that limits access the axis of inventors and patent owners to the courtroom hurts the little guy not the big guys. they can overcome those obstacles. big companies, they have the money to enforce their right. it's the garage inventors, the little guys who can't afford to

enforce their right. and that's why so many big countries are behind this push because they know it will make it easy for them to do business because it will make the input of their businesses cheaper. they don't have to innovate. they can take others innovation and not worry about those little guys suing them. >> as in so many issues, there's a kernel of truth to this concerned that having raised about patent troll's. there are perhaps a very small number of entities law firms who have tried to blanket small businesses, mom and pop, coffee shops with false claims that they were infringing some kind of patent. i think the question of there is to look at the type of harm and to address the director. so the fcc is the ftc has assumed a patent assertion entity that sent that abuse demand letter to small business. they were prohibited from doing in future.

>> when you sit ftc that's the federal trade commission. >> the federal trade commission were i in the commission of but we already have the tools meant to address that abusive behavior. >> your comments are very well-made because it's exotic the point that yes, there's always a kernel of truth which is used to leverage the rhetoric that is always used to weaken property rights. a grumpy old man owns his own who terrorize the people in the neighborhood, we don't decide okay we are going to weaken everybody's property rights in the entire country because there's a particular individual who is being abusive with respect to property rights and his land. and yet that's excited with your doing with expect -- with respect to the patent system. >> mark, you made it very interesting comment that the more people who own property, the more freedom there is in society. well some property is, the thought process of the writer who writes a novel who writes the script. what if i want to see batman

fighting communal, a marvel character? how can i make that happen if there are certain copyrights to prevent that? speedwell, this is a common critique of copyright these days, that some of it stops people from creating the expression they want because they say they need to use of the expression to express themselves. but here's the thing we need to understand what talk about, and where word about patentization can worry about copyright we are only look at a very small part of the intellectual property system property rights facilitate cooperation. you invite your friends over your house every day. people go part of the congregation. the congregation of the church. you worship there every sunday. that's what property rights are for. they enable us to cooperate in a

joint our property. and everyone so i went to go to court to defend them. so look, if someone wants to see spiderman team up with batman, those two countries can get together and make a deal. and it has happened many times before. as a kid i collected those comics are so that kind of private cooperation happens. people want to use their property rights not stop other people from enjoying them. >> i want to tease out two interesting things here, on one hand, people deserve the right to own the fruits of their labor. i heard that from all three of you, the fruits of your labor i think it was a john locke wrote what you put your hand to. that becomes yours, something to that effect. yet at the same time we want everybody to have access to the

benefit that is created by these inventions. how do we strike that balance? >> well, the commercial market is what enables that access. we all know this, right? the reason a free economy gives us so much choice is because of that freedom, because there are many different products from which to choose. that's what facilitates action access, the profit motive. that's what gets people to great new drug. that's what gets people to write new songs and write new books. that's why you get access to the great product of intellectual labor by giving people freedom and property rights. >> property rights is the foundation of a flourishing healthy free market. property rights. what does probably make possible? cooperation, consensual exchange in the marketplace and this is what people don't see. we hear about the lawsuit, apple versus samsung. but you don't hear about are

these billions of dollars that exchange hands a daily between individual inventors, small companies, trade associations and large companies with the deal they're constantly entering in to maximize their profits and to bring products and services to the market place. this is why james madison said in federalist number 43 that copyrights and patents are an instance for private clients coincides fully with the public good. and history has proven that again and again and again. >> and looking to the competitive, some companies some property owners may choose to share their intellectual property freely and some may choose to give it through some kind of license for money, and some may do it for ways where they can it's an agreement to share intellectual property across companies. and mighty is that as a government i shouldn't be picking favorites among those business models but that's something for the market to decide. the market will decide who is the winner and loser, and there

can be a wide variety of business models that all thrive. >> i know we need to wrap up but it's clear that this is a very important topic. what can people do are concerned about this issue? >> get involved, the where the actual truth in fact let your congressperson know, especially republicans. do not weaken property rights, the foundations of a free market and are innovation economy. do not think that this is purely tort reform to address litigation issue but this about the strength of property rights. so get involved write letters signed petitions of the thing that you oppose legislation is currently under consideration in congress. >> i agreed, and get past the buzzword. there's way too many buzzwords. >> absolutely. >> thank you. really appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> thank you all. [applause]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> my goal i always thought we

could be their friend and not just them that they would take our criticism and our have access checks and balances. and that they would collect themselves. that we would become better citizens. they have chosen not to go that route and i really believe and i'm committed to the destruction of the old media guard. and it's a very good business model but i believe that from that something better will come because nothing could be better than a group of people that collectively -- think it's an obvious joke that the people ought to have redress for their grievances that they are called tea baggers in it but has a great laugh at it. so we have to defend ourselves for having this conversation it's despicable. than media class is a law that

we have to -- the wall we have to climb over in order for our voices to be heard. once our voices are heard, then democracy will happen. >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome laura ingraham and governor chris christie. ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> hello. hi, everybody. wow it this is in the ground. this is like vegas. i love it. it is great to see everybody. governor, thank you for spend some time. we are really close here. >> yeah, we are. >> i was thinking about this one was

asked to do this today. it's been about two and half years, governor, since you graced my readership if you're not exactly a regular on the talk radio circuit. what gives? are we the ugly step to? >> no, i have my own radio shows i don't want to help the competition. i do my own radio but we will so disgusted it, maybe we will come back more. >> gee thanks. >> instant feedback. >> look, this has been a rough couple of months for you in the medium. we have read articles about how you came in as a reformer and now some of these reforms haven't panned out. i think gail collins, a liberal columnist, she savaged you today and said that your campaign is over, you're not a reformer. how do you survive the onslaught day in until? >> the elite folks from immediate who cover me every day, understand were i come from everyday. i'm in new jersey. i have in your times in my media

gaggle every day. and when you do things like i've done in new jersey to take on a lot of these special interest, they support they just want to kill you. that's what the tragedy to me every day and here's the bad news for them to their i am and i'm so state of god continue to do because what matters more is the fact that i wake up every morning knowing how to fight for the people of my state. that's why did i don't care what to write about me in "the new york times." they can keep the. i don't subscribe by the way. [applause] >> common core is a huge issue for conservatives, everyone in this audience knows what the struggle is. in 2010 you actually signed the application for the race to the top fund, and signed on to common core even though states like virginia right nearby virginia did the virginia standard didn't do the federal standard. what gives with the common core thing? i know you have now some hesitations speak with the

hesitations i have now come in new jersey we've always been for standards and for high standards and we had those before and. but my concern now as we begin to try to get intimidation is it's not only the heavy foot of the federal government that is coming in but it's not doing what we need have done in new jersey. we need to have local control, parents, teachers in the classrooms, they the ones who should be helping us at the state level set the standards. so that was all teed up when they came in by governor corzine. we signed on to try to get funds to a really difficult fiscal time but as we've now -- >> regrets? >> of course. >> not political regrets? >> this is a limitation regrets. unlike other people which is good to talk about this stuff we actually have to do it. once you start to do it what i've seen is the concerns i have are significant and i said the commission of that is now coming back to me with recommendations but my charge to them is we've got to keep government at the

local level, education most important has to be parents involved, teachers involved. it hasn't part of this process and it needs to be part of this process and will be as we move forward in new jersey. jersey. >> scott walker is making strong pitch for social conservatives. mike huckabee and others as well, ted cruz but when you think of someone like scott walker, back in the fall he was a little bit softer on the issue of abortion. i think you get a 30-second commercial is that i'm pro-life but old what i signed legislation that leaves the decision between a woman and her doctor. nevius pivoted back to the right. he is pro-life but he is nuanced the language a little bit. where does social conservatism and chris christie lived together? how do you compete with walker and all these others strong social conservative? >> i just and on my record. iran as a pro-life candidate in 20002009 unapologetically, spoke of the pro-life rally. the first governor to speak at a pro-life rally on the steps of the statehouse in new jersey, and the just plain spirited

funding five times out of the new jersey budget. [applause] and i have always thought, lore, but what the people of the right to note is what you really believe in feeling are. people make certain assumptions because you're from new jersey. if you're a republican from new jersey. what they should do is look at my record. when you look at my record on those issues it has been strong. and by the way, don't believe what the media won't tell you about the fact that if you're a pro-life candidate you can't get elected. not only did i get elected the first time in 2009 but i got elected with 51 -- cq 1% in 2013 as a straight out unabashed pro-life candidate. what they care about is what is in your heart and are you willing to fight for them. >> you assume the words used to describe you. >> here we go. [laughter] >> ready? >> is beautiful the first one? tell me the truth. >> supermodel. explosive, short tempered

hothead, inpatient. and that's just what your friends are saying. that temperament, the presidency -- >> hears the word they missed. the words they missed is passionate. i am, i'm the son of -- [applause] i'm the son of a sicilian mother and an irish father which means in my house like a to learn about dispute resolution really early. the fact is that what my parents taught me was that if you really care about something, then you need to go all in. this is not about half measures. there were no half measures and the christian also going up and there's none now. i care about fighting for the people that i represent. i care about fighting the fight worth fighting the end of going to be passionate about it. him speak my mind and i will be direct. i do not have political consultants whispering in my ear's saying here's how you said so everyone sounds like charlie

brown's teacher. no. you hear it directly from me and bluntly because i care. if i didn't care there's no reason to do this. >> not sit down and shut up? >> sometimes people need to be told to sit down and shut up. [applause] and you know -- >> i'm sitting down by the way. >> and you know quite frankly, lore, some of that stuff should be happening in washington, d.c., because there's so much ridiculous stuff been spewed out of the white house. someone should say to congress shot of applause but. >> the teachers union, the teachers unions has been a rock relationship. to say the least. you have an adverse court ruling the other day in the state about how you decided not to fully fund the teachers pension after you agree to do so. that wasn't a great willing to i know you are appealing but how are you bringing people together in the state, such a constant

adventure relationship within the educational arena. what do people take from that into possibly a national putting? >> let's talk about, quickly by the court ruling. once again liberal judges getting themselves inserted into the decisions that are supposed be made by the elected officials. those decisions made by me and the legislature which is controlled by democrats. but more important listen, the teachers union and i've not had the warmest relationship. i went after the early on because i want to reform education in our state. now when you're tough like that, that's when you finally get in position to build to negotiate and bring people together. you don't do it from a position of weakness. you do it from strength to they understand what my positions are. i believe teachers tenure needs be reformed or ugly when he got more choices in schools. but we have a school choice program at a charter school choice in new jersey. now when it comes time to try to really resolve a problem that all 40 states have on pension, i brought teacher unions to the

table and we're having an initial roadmap agreement that will help the state pension system in new jersey. >> we have a shortfall in the budget. how are you going to make that up? >> listen, we don't have one. the judge has ordered us to do that. the fact is i will do what i've done before. we are spending 2.3 billion than discretion spend today than we spent in fiscal year 2008. recounting the budget 8500 to employees. that is a was fiscally responsible and we will cut spending if we have to. [applause] >> the last got a full, governor, only about 7% of americans think that we should have increased levels of immigration. 7%. and following on that jeb bush has recently said that immigrants are more entrepreneurial, harder working and more fertile than others. even suggested governor that detroit should be read populated

with foreign workers immigrant workers to spur the economy in detroit. at a time where we have so many people unemployed, tens of millions of americans out of the workforce, what is evident christie an international setting template so you decide what for president, there seems be a disconnect with the people, governor and the calls on immigration. >> first off i think that is misdirected priorities with that statement because what i would be concerned about are the people who are in detroit right now. the hard-working people who are stuck with detroit and to stay there, we want to great in equal opportunity for them. we want to create a better educational system so that children have a better future. spent jeb bush says they are more entrepreneur hard-working and more fertile than america. >> i'm not going to get into the fertility thing. effect of the matter is the most onto people in the world of the

people in the united states and that's why folks want to come here because that's the system we set up and what we have created. [applause] what we need to get back to in this country is creating an economic atmosphere where people want to come here in come here legally and create a great life. because the people who are already here by doing that for themselves and for the families. so my focus on detroit would be to say, how do we make that city for the people who are their, how do we make it better for them from an economic perspective? how to make a better from economic perspectives more people want to come to detroit because there's a great opportunity and not for other recent? >> what happened and 58 million americans now working age were basically operating outside of the workforce. a stunning number of people, 62% labor participation rate abysmal, embarrassing for our country. and yet there is an unending hunger for foreign workers coming into this mostly pushed by big business. a disconnect between what

american people need and what politicians in both parties this is a bipartisan deal walked. and how to get the middle-class hard-working americans in i don't know columbus come to look at the democrats and republicans is a red -- said a rep as any? >> what can you do look it is more than democrats and republicans. at a look at what the person is saying and what they've done in their career, and in my career i've always tried to put the hard-working people in my state first. we vetoed five different income tax increases that the democrats passed and put my desk because we cannot hard-working taxpayers first. we have given parents a choice in education because we could but the people who are paying bills and working hard. so the focus unfortunately with a lot of people in politics right now is what they said in a two-page of new times and "washington post" to what we should be concerned about is what we're hearing like what i heard when i traveled to 37 states last year. they want opportunities for great careers for themselves and

for the children and we're not talking about that. we better start talking about it because these folks the the hard-working middle-class and discourage the backbone of our society and that's what we have to be focused on. [applause] >> 5% is what you got in the recent public policy poll that came out a few days ago. chris christie a year ago was kind of one of the front-runners now you're down near the bottom. jeb bush, scott walker, ben carson ahead of you. that's pretty low low in a bunch of polls. how do you overcome that deficit, pretty big deficit? >> is the election next week? i don't know. laura, let me do this. in 2009 when the republican has been elected in new jersey in 12 years, now when there's been 42 years since he sent a republican to the u.s. senate in new jersey but he said there's no what chris christie could win in 2000.

they said he wanted but it was because the other guy was bad and not that he was good to in 2013 we'll kick it out and i got 61% of the votes 51% of the hispanic vote 22% of the african-american vote and 54% of votes from women. if i decide to run for president i'm not worried about what polls say 21 months before we're going to elect a president of the united states. if i decide what i will be one thing. i will run a hard fighting campaign where i will fight for the hard-working taxpayers of this country, and i will take my chances. i have done pretty well so far. [applause] >> i kind of remember, i will say one thing, i kind of remember in february 2000 who's going to be rudy giuliani against hillary clinton to that's what the polls said then so feel pretty good. >> but you do have the jeb bush fund-raising machine. i know it. i've seen it. its formidable. you have the jeb bush family

pedigree which is for medical. carries some baggage but that's a from edible thing to overcome the you discuss how and we'll talk with a record of your scott walker, but just on bush, a lot of the fancy political consultants and a lot of the media types covering this today they think this is jeb bush's race to lose. >> is what happens is if the elites in washington make backroom does decide who the present will be and he is the front-runner. if the people of the united states decide to pick the next president and they want someone who looks at them in the eye connects with him and is one of them, i will be okay if i run. >> there's a sense of -- [applause] you get the sense in the country, one of the tweets that came in my facebook questions on my show today ask people to ask questions, one of the points was, we seem like we can't get ahead. we work and we work and work two jobs yet we can't get ahead. we can't save money for a rainy

day. and yet politicians are always fighting with each other about things that don't really matter to us, don't affect our lives. and more people seem to do now politics than ever before today. the credibility of both parties is in the toilet and they don't believe you when you say one thing, too much later he would do something different. how would a chris christie with your experience in new jersey, difficult at times, how would you try to break that logjam of distrust in the country today what people are saying, i don't like the two-party system in more? >> i wake up everywhere with the up everywhere with a democratic legislature so we cannot am not going to get everything i want. at what you need to stand firm and tell people what you believe. the reason why the new york times used to write awful things about me is because every time read something they disagree with i don't change my mind. i stick with where i have been. so when you are pro-life in 2000 that you don't cut a commercial for your sweater the new york times that says you're less than that. when you say i'm not going to sign a tax increase under any circumstances over income tax

and estate, just because they write bad things that you don't change your mind. once you do that just what ronald reagan did, when you stand up firmly for your principles, then you're in a position to negotiate and break the logjam. i've done that with a democratic legislature, so if i decide to do something else with a little more difficult group in washington, d.c., you have to ask, you're willing to fight but also you're willing to talk. i'm going to do both and i shown that and that's the way we've done it. it's all in the end about standing up for what you believe in, and that's what you get some of those comments you made about me before, you know his loud and brash and all the rest of those things. sometimes those special interests, they hate anything more than anything else they hate the truth and that's what i said as i sit and that's why we'll continue to do. >> when we look at this election -- they are clapping for the truth, good. we need that in washington. we look at the next election let's say hillary is the democratic nominee. republicans haven't beaten it

the clintons since coming in 1992, okay? bill clinton i think lost one election. how do you beat hillary clinton? >> i think you make sure very directly that you talk about your different vision for the united states. different than the obama-clinton vision of the united states. >> which is? >> our vision for the united states is one, to make sure that as republicans the way they'll try to tack as this they will stay with the party of the rich. i tell you something i don't mind which people at all. you don't need to be standing up defending and to we need start fighting for the people trying to lift themselves up who have not had a wage increase adjusted for inflation in 15 years. mrs. clinton, raise the minimum age. i would say this. no parent are sitting on the kitchen table saying if our child can get a higher minimum wage, every one of our aspirations for them will be realized. it's not happening. [applause]

i wanted to ensure those parents who want to get on with a look at the children and say you can aspire to anything you want in this country no matter where you come from. listen, my dad put himself through college at night. he worked at an ice cream plant in york new jersey to put himself through college and not at taking back from the army. and the next generation isn't it the governor of the state of new jersey. the fact is that's what i want our kids dream to be about if that's what they want. i want parents to be up to look him in the eye and also say that. the. that's not about a bigger government lifting you up. that's about your dreams and your effort and work ethic lifting you up. that's the kind of country we need again. [applause] >> we are almost out of time but going a little over on the time, don't kill me on that. there's a lot of politicians are canceling townhall event. i know a lot of people in this room are very frustrated. they feel like they call, the enough, they try to get in touch with a congressman or senators

including of this executive amnesty deal that's going down in washington right now. they are very angry about how the republicans have handled this and if you like to matter what they do, they call, they know they're in the majority public opinion on this issue yet they can't have an effect. there's a transparency problem in washington, d.c. what about you? >> anyone is frustrate comes to new jersey. yesterday i held my 128th town hall meeting since i've been governor. and by the we don't do things like with cars and we have to fill out cards and then people screened them for you and we so which answers to which much i might like to answer. i sit in them like this come with 500 people yesterday, i come out and speak and i take my coat off and we took questions for an hour. raise your hand. i call on you and i take questions and answer it. that's what elected officials go to the constituents. applause but and you can't be afraid.

i get a lot you've seen these clips. people get up and yell at me and let me have it. what i tell the managers is this but if you're nice and kind i will disagree kind in chile back but we are all from new jersey. so if you give it you will get in return and that's the kind interaction we should have with the people that we are working for. >> hold on. i since a failed reference to jeb bush because there have been a few events i know when we write prescreened questions and is that what you're talking about? to think the other republican candidates at least the front runners are not being as transparent? >> what i'm saying is everybody who conspires the high position of leadership in their state or in the country should be willing to take unscreened i'm rehearsed questions from the people who pay their salary. [applause] -- underrehearsed. and i've got come anybody who's here, i've got another one next week in new jersey in bergen

county. come see it. it is not a informative but it's also good theater. it's fun. we have a good time. >> we need good theater in washington. we are out of time, but would you get up what could you give up for lent speak as well laura, good catholics often give up something for lent. -giving up the new times for lent. [laughter] -- "the new york times." don't cheer. it's bad news. he said chris, that's not acceptable. you have to give up something you will actually miss. 's back thank you governor. >> appreciate it very much. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ >> one of the amazing things with the leadership institute is, it's been going on for 30 some odd years and understand over close to 150,000 kids have gone through this. in our office -- >> i think what's great about the leadership institute is a do something when no one else is doing. there are think tanks in town that are conservative and libertarian think tanks, people who believe in the free market. there's really nobody training the next generation of people who be the leaders in our country. so i'm amazed not only here in washington but as i troubled throughout the united states that any kid who came out of the leadership institute. to me it's an amazing thing and

it's ingenious. >> [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome carly fiorina. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause]

>> hi. thank you so much. thank you so much, and good afternoon. when i was a little girl my mother in sunday school gave me a plaque that read what you are is god's gift to you. what you make of yourself is your gift to god. [applause] years later i was fortunate enough to enroll in stanford university where i would earn a degree in medieval history and a loss of the. all dressed up and nowhere to go. [laughter] all of that degree has come in handy recently since our president he's talking about the crusade. [applause] yes, mr. president ice is indeed wants to drive the whole world back to the middle ages but the rest of us moved on

about 800 years ago. [applause] and while you seek moral equivalence, the world waits for moral clarity and american leadership. [applause] with a degree in medieval history and philosophy i was unemployable comments i went to law school. i hated it. i quit after a single semester and had to go back to work full time doing what i've done part-time to help put myself through school. i type i filed come on answer the phones for a little nine person real estate firm. i would eventually become the chief executive of the world's largest technology company, hp. [applause] and together with the great people of that great company, we would double the size of the business from 45 billion, 1,090,000,000,000.

we were tripled its rate of innovation to 11 patents a day and go from a laggard two-liter in every product category and every market segment in which we competed. i know that is only in this country that a young woman can go from secretary to ceo. [cheers and applause] and that is because that is because our founders knew what my mother taught me. everyone has god-given gifts. everyone has potential, often far more than they realize. ..

and so we became the greatest nation in the world and throughout all human history because here more things were more possible for more people from more places. here people could fulfill their potential. [applause] when i was typing in that little company and indeed throughout my career i needed someone to take a chance on me. when i battled cancer, i needed many helping hands. when my husband frank and i lost our younger daughter lori to the demons of addiction, we relied on the strength of our family

the solace of our faith but we also were lifted up by the prayers and the kindness of so many strangers who became blessings in our lives. everyone needs a helping hand but no one wants to be trapped in the web of dependence that has been woven over decades in our nation. [applause] to fulfill their potential, people need an education, tools, training and support and they need a job. the president of the chicago teachers union once said this. we cannot be held responsible for the performance of the children in our classrooms because too many of them come from poor and broken families. liberals may be prepared to dismiss and disregard americans because of their circumstances.

liberals may be prepared to confine some to lives of dependence while others who think they are smarter and they are better will take care of them. but we as conservatives are not. [applause] we know that no one of us is better than any other one of us. we know that each one of us has god-given gifts and can live a life of dignity and purpose and meaning. work is a central part of such a life and so we must rebuild main street. alyssa moran is right, crony capitalism is indeed alive and well. government and government programs have grown so big, so powerful, so costly and so complex that only the big in the powerful can prosper. but elizabeth warren is dead wrong about have it and crony capitalism because you see whether it's dodd-frank or obamacare or net neutrality, all

this government complexity means the big get bigger, the small disappear and the powerless are trapped. [applause] we are now the story more businesses we are creating for the first time in u.s. history. most americans get their start the way i did, in a small business the dry cleaners the coffee shops, the hairdressers in the real estate firms of american main street create most of our new jobs and employ half of our people. so if we want more jobs we need more small businesses. [applause] and we need more leaders, not managers. you see managers or people who do the best they can with an existing constraints and conditions. managers are people who tinker around the edges of the problem.

we need leaders who do not accept what is broken simply because it has always been that way. [applause] we need leaders who will change the order of things leaders who see and sees possibilities and know that the highest calling of leadership is to unlock the potential of others. [applause] technology technology gives us the tools to engage american citizens in reforming our government as never before. why should we accept that veterans have to spend many months filling out paperwork when they return from the battlefield and many more months waiting for a bureaucrat to approve them before they get the services they have earned. why should we accept that? [applause] we must unlock the potential of every american. we must fundamentally reform

government and we must restore american leadership in the world. i know bibi netanyahu and as i sat in his office five years ago, he spoke then of the dangers posed by iran. he travels here next week not to offend our president but to warn the american people that our president insistence on a deal with iran at any cost is a dangerous problem. [applause] i know, i know king abdulah of jordan. and i applauded king abdullah's leadership when his response to the beheading of a jordanian pilot was to immediately execute to convicted terrorists and begin bombing. [applause] he came to this country seeking our support and he has still not

received it. neither have the kurds nor the ukrainians and when the egyptians bombed targets in libya in response to the beheading of 21 christians, this administration stood silently by and neither condemn nor condone egypt's forceful response. this is not leadership. [applause] nor is it leadership nor is it leadership when secretary clinton asks what difference does it make when our embassy is deliberately attacked by terrorists and for americans are murdered? it makes all the difference in the world mrs. clinton and the required response has never come. [applause]

like mrs. clinton, i too have traveled the globe. unlike mrs. clinton, i know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment. [applause] i have met vladimir putin and i know that his ambition will not be deterred by a gimmicky red reset button. mrs. clinton please name an accomplishment. [applause] and in the meantime, in the meantime please accept and explain why we should accept that the millions and millions of dollars that have flown into the clinton foundation from foreign governments do not represent a conflict of interest. [applause]

she tweets about women's rights in this country and takes money from governments that deny women the most basic human rights. [applause] she tweets about equal pay for women but will not answer basic questions about her own offices pay standards and neither will our president. [applause] hillary may like hashtag's but she does not know what leadership means. [applause] and so ladies and gentlemen, now is the time to declare without apology and without equivocation that this is the greatest nation the world has ever known.

[applause] we are a force for good in the world. [applause] now is the time to reaffirm that every american regardless of their circumstances has the right and the opportunity to fulfill their potential. we must rise together to meet our challenges. now is the time for citizenship and leadership. let us declare the end of identity politics that seeks to divide rather than to unite. let us declare the end of lowered expectations. let us refuse to accept what has been broken about our politics and our government for so long.

so, let us together restored the promise of this, our beloved are beautiful are blessed united states of america. [applause] thank you so very much ladies and gentlemen and god bless you all. [applause] thank you. >> thank you carly fiorina thank you. the tweets have been coming in. we have got just a few questions. along with that hashtag seatback q i should mention. first off in helping the middle class the current president wants to redistribute income through changes in income tax code and make two years of community college free in doing that. is there a counter approach to

that and what would that be? >> you know one of the things this president loves to do is to distract us so i think he is trying to distract us from the fact that we have too many failing high schools in this country by offering community college for free. if we want to educate our children let us make sure that every parent has a choice and a chance to educate their children so that they can fulfill their potential. [applause] and as far as the passcode is concerned you know our tax code has grown so incredibly complex. tens of thousands of pages and so while of course we should lower rates so we did not have the highest business tax rate in the world in an era where we have to compete for every job what we really have to do is

radically simplify the tax code. because regular people and small businesses simply can't deal with the complexity anymore and all those loopholes and all those write-offs. they benefit the powerful in the connected in the wealthy and their large. [applause] >> thank you. the next question people can't get enough of hearing about job creation so what's the best way to improve unemployment, to increase the hiring of more quality jobs? >> well i think first of all we have to recognize that while we talk a lot about rebuilding america which is true, we also have to retrain america. we can't give up on workers to add 45 or 50 or 55 or 60 lose their jobs through no fault of their own. we need to retrain them so they are qualified for the 21st century jobs. i go to too many towns were seen organization manufacturing

facility perhaps with help wanted signs up and unemployment that is too high so we have to retrain america as we must make sure that everyone of our children gets a quality education. we have to as i said in my speech, we have to rebuild main street. it's a shocking statistic that we are now destroying more businesses than we are creating and when we are destroying small business we are destroying jobs for the middle class. two-thirds of new jobs are created by small businesses. half the people are employed by small businesses so we have to do everything in our power to compete for every job by simplifying our tax code, lowering our rate. simplifying a regulatory structure, retraining our workers and rebuilding small businesses in the united states. [applause] >> one last question. this is very important. how important is it to have a female candidate in the race this year for the white house and the next two years for 2016

and do you have any suggestions on who that should be? [laughter] >> well i think our party needs to be as diverse as the nation we hope to represent. women are now 53% of voters and so as i like to tell some of my democratic friends who continue to talk about the war on women we are not a special-interest group. we are the majority of the nation. [applause] and i will say this, if hillary clinton had to face me on the debate stage at the very least she would have a hitch in her swing. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you so very much ladies and gentlemen. god bless you. ♪

♪ ♪ >> the voice of conservatism has made itself heard in the media. it isn't always easy but at this we can be sure. while the "washington times" is alive and well conservative views will never be drummed out. and if they are heard, they will prevail. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen please welcome senator ted cruz.

[applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> wow. [applause] god bless cpac. so there is not a single democrat here. [laughter] it's almost like cpac invited benjamin netanyahu to speak.

well you know we could have had hillary here. but we couldn't find a foreign nation to foot the bill. [applause] this is a roomful of patriots. america is in jeopardy and we are met today on a great battlefield. the men and women who are gathered here today are gathered to fight for freedom in our country. [applause] and the men and women of cpac are going to play a fundamental decision and how we turn this country around. [applause] >> we leave this cpac conference

now go live to the u.s. senate. we will have more live coverage starting at 5 p.m. with governor scott walker of wisconsin and bobby jindal of louisiana and sarah palin coming up to me. now to the florida senate where members are debating the homeland security spending bill. a vote could occur as late as 9:15 eastern.

mr. schatz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you mr. president. with the day before funding expires for the department of homeland security, i rise to urge the adoption of a clean funding bill. it seems that we're on a path to ensure that at least in the senate we're going to adopt a bill that funds the critical safety and national security

functions of the department of homeland security without extraneous immigration riders. i want to encourage my colleagues in both chambers to embrace what members on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged is the best way to resolve this issue: avoid a shutdown, enact a clean bipartisan homeland security bill and address immigration policies through the regular order on the floor. by now we've all heard from a host of people spelling out the many negative impacts of a shutdown. our colleagues, secretary johnson, previous secretaries many of our mayors. we'd be unnecessarily disrupting funding, which all of our states' emergency managers rely upon and which allow for programs that function to keep us safe and keep people and goods moving securely and efficiently throughout our country. my home state of hawaii is 2,500

miles from the closest land mass. it hosts the nation's fourth-largest airport for international arrivals and is currently responding to and recovering from presidentially declared disasters relating to lava threats and tropical storms. for these and many other reasons, i'm concerned that congress would consider risking timely funding for agencies that keep our airports safe, our coasts and waters secure, and provide for critical planning and response support to our states' first responders. additionally, i don't think anyone should attempt to trivialize a shutdown based on the argument that many department of human -- excuse me, department of homeland security employees will have to report to work regardless. what an insult for the thousands of hawaii residents employed by the homeland security department. this is significant. these are middle-class jobs

helping to support middle-class families. these employees will still have to make rent, pay a mortgage, buy gas food, child care, and the like, and the coast guard's men and women who will have to report for duty, not for pay we owe them better than that. we shouldn't subject these families to uncertainty about their next paycheck. our path forward is actually totally simple. pass the original funding bill that was negotiated in good faith by both parties and both chambers last december. because of where we are right now, it's important to remember that the underlying department of homeland security funding bill was the result of a bipartisan negotiation and compromise between both chambers and both parties. that means we have to resist the temptation in either chamber to make political decisions that have no chances of success in

the senate or would be vetoed by the president. for example reinsserting partisan immigration riders into this bill is a nonstarter. the senate has not wavered on this point and that dynamic is not going to change. let's just do our jobs. let's fund the department of homeland security, anden this we can debate -- and then we can debate comprehensive immigration policy anytime the leadership desires to bring it to the floor. mr. president, i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democrat assistant leader. mr. durbin: i ask consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask consent to speak in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. speaker tomorrow on february 27, the

department of homeland security will run out of money and be forced to at least partially shut down. this is the department responsible for protecting america against terrorism. it faces a government shutdown in about 24 hours. last year the congressional republicans insisted that when we pass the overall federal budget we cut out of it the department of homeland security and not fully fund the department. they insisted on this so that they could enter into a debate with the president over the issue of immigration. and the house of representatives sent us funding for this department contingent on five riders anti-immigration riders, going after the president's position on immigration. they have created an artificial unnecessary, dangerous funding crisis. i've come to the floor over the last several weeks while this has been under consideration in

the senate urging the passage of a clean appropriations bill for the department of homeland security. i was heartened yesterday by the overwhelming vote of 98-2 to move toward passing this clean appropriations bill. it appears that finally we've come together on a bipartisan basis to fund this critical agency at the 11th hour. but sadly there's no response from the house of representatives as to whether they'll even consider the timely funding for this department. and so we run the real risk that we will have to shut down this department and put america at risk as a result of it. that is unfortunate because we know how important this department is and we know that the threats are real. it was last weekend when we disclosed intelligence gathered that there were extremist groups threatening the mall of america.

there were specific threats to malls that were owned by jewish enterprises whatever that meant but that's what they said. and that's what we're up against. we see it around the world. real terrorism and real extremism. and now the question is does the speaker of the house see this threat? do the republicans in the house see this threat, see it enough to want to fund this critical agency? this morning on television there was an interview from one of the republican congressmen from alabama. he said, no, this is really a debate about the constitution, not about convenience. convenience? i don't understand that word. when we talk about protecting america from terrorism, this is not a convenience. this is a necessity. this is part and parcel of why we exist as a congress, to keep america safe. so now the ball is in the court of the republicans in the house. i think we'll pass a clean bill here and i think it will be

overwhelmingly positive and bipartisan. what is the issue that is sticking in their craw over there that troubles them so much that the house republicans would jeopardize funding the agency to keep america safe? it is the issue of immigration particularly executive orders issued by the president and one particular part just absolutely gnaws at them if they think about the possibility that the president's order of 2012, the so-called daca order, will be carried out in the future. what is that order? it's an order which said if you were brought to the united states as a child an infant, a toddler, small child undocumented and you went to school in this country and you have no criminal record, we're going to give you a chance to stay here, not be subject to deportation. you can go to school here. you can work here, and you're protected by the president's executive order so-called daca. the republicans in the house

hate this idea like the devil hates holy water. they can't understand why these young people who have no wrongdoing in coming to this country should be given this chance and they are prepared to shut down the department of homeland security if we don't relent. i come to the floor regularly to tell stories about these young people and today i want to tell you the story of one of these dreamers. her name is maria frerrer. brought to the united states from mexico at 9 grew up in detroit, michigan. an excellent student. she spent a lot of her spare time in community service a member of the national honor society, the key club and school newspaper. volunteered twice a week tutoring middle school students. performed over 300 hours of community service and graduated high school with a 3.97 grad point average. there aren't too many of us in the senate that can boast that kind of grade point.

maria was admitted to the university of michigan, one of the top state colleges in the nation. she couldn't attend it because she is undocumented. instead, she entered the university of detroit mercy a private catholic school. at detroit mercy, she was elected vice president of the student senate. she also helped found the campus kitchen, taking leftover meals from the school cafeteria and delivering them to seniors who had difficulty staying in homes. and she participated in the alternative spring break where she spent her vacation time helping people in need. one year she went to south carolina and helped rebuild an elderly couple's house and another year worked with the homeless in sacramento, california. maria graduated as valedictorian of her class with a major in english and social work, and after graduation, her options were limited because she was undocumented. i might add she didn't have a penny of government assistance going through college. undocumented students don't qualify for any of it. but she dedicated herself to community service volunteered for the jesuit volunteer corps

a catholic nonprofit organization. then in 2012, president obama issued this order to give protection to a young person like herself. she was able to get a temporary work permit to work in the united states. she didn't run out and get a high-paying corporate job. she continued her community service and now is a full-time program coordinator for the jesuit volunteer corps. she has applied to graduate school for social work. she wants to become an advocate for victims of domestic violence. she wrote me a letter and talked about this executive order which many house republicans can't wait to rescind and defund. here's what she said -- daca means showing the rest of the country, society and my community what i can do. i have always known what i am capable of but daca has allowed me to show others that the investment and opportunity that daca provides is worth it. the republicans have their way maria will be deported. having spent the majority of her

life in this country pledging allegiance to that flag, singing our national anthem, the only one she knows they want her out of this country as quickly as possible. america's better if maria can stay. people will get a helping hand from her as they have thought their entire life. i cannot understand this mean-spirited political strategy that cannot wait to deport this wonderful, amazing young woman from america. 600,000 young people, many just like her are only asking for a chance to make this a better nation. i hope that we do have a debate on immigration and i hope that members of the united states senate congress, will reflect on the fact that we are a nation of immigrants. our diversity is our strength. young people like this who come to america make us a better nation. i yield the floor.

ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you mr. president. mr. president, three weeks ago i came to the senate floor to speak on an amendment which i had hoped would provide a framework that would accomplish three goals. first, to provide funding for the department of homeland security so that it could perform its vital mission of protecting the people of our country. second to put the senate on record as opposing the president's extraordinarily broad immigration actions issued by executive order last november in 2014. and third to ensure that individuals who were brought to this country as children and to

qualify for treatment under the june 2012 executive order on delayed action on childhood arrivals the so-called dreamers that senator durbin has just spoken of could continue to benefit under that program. i'm very pleased that it looks like we are moving forward on a bill to fully fund the department of homeland security. we had a very strong vote on that yesterday and indeed, mr. president, i have not heard a single senator on either side of the aisle say that we should shut down the department of homeland security. each of us recognizes its vital mission, and as someone who has served on the homeland security

committee as the chairman for several years or the ranking member for several years -- and i was on the committee for a decade -- i certainly understand how vital the mission of this department is. i'm keenly aware as a member of the intelligence committee of the threats against our country and the risks that our country faces for those who would do us harm. at the same time, mr. president as members of the executive branch, we have an obligation to speak out and to register our opposition when we believe that the president has exceeded his grant of executive authority under the constitution in a way that would -- in a way that

would undermine the separation of powers doctrine. i want to read you what one scholar, a constitutional scholar, has said about the president's executive order and how far the president could or could not go. this is what this constitutional scholar says -- congress has said here is the law when it comes to those who are undocumented. what we can do is to carve out the dreamers, saying that young people who have basically grown up here are americans that we should welcome but if we start broadening that, then essentially i would be ignoring the law in a way that i think

would be very difficult to defend legally so that's not an option. who was that constitutional scholar? it was the president of the united states president barack obama. he said this in september of 2013. mr. president, president obama got it right back then. i believe that he was within the scope of his executive authority when he issued the 2012 executive orders that created daca that allowed for the dreamers to stay here. and let me also make clear that i'm a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, and while i

was disappointed that the immigration reform legislation of some sort did not become law when we passed it a few years ago, i reject the notion that its failure can serve as justification for the actions taken by the president last november. he simply cannot do by executive fiat what congress has refused to pass, regardless of the wisdom of congress' decision. such unilateral action is contrary to how our constitutional system is supposed to work and it risks undermining the separation of powers doctrine, which is central to our constitutional framework.

and, mr. president that is really what this debate is about. it is about the proper constitutional constraints on unilateral executive action. it happens to be an executive action that deals with immigration, but it could be an executive action on any other issue. that's why it's important that we draw those lines. and indeed, mr. president i would tell you that the legislation that i proposed that we will be voting on at some point is fully consistent with the court ruling in texas which my colleague the senior senator from texas is very familiar

with and knows much more about than i do, but it's fully consistent with that ruling, which lets stand the 2012 executive order but stayed the implementation of the 2014 executive order. there is a difference. now, the senator from illinois i consider to be an excellent senator and a dear friend, and it truly pains me to disagree with his analysis of my amendment. i know that he acts in good faith, but they are either -- there are either misunderstandings or misinterpretations or just plain disagreements, and i would like to go through some of the points that he has made about my

amendment. one of the senator from illinois' chief objections to my bill is that it strikes provisions of the november 2014 immigration action that would expand -- that's the key word -- it would expand the 2012 daca program to add certain individuals who are not eligible under that program. he talks about expanding the age limit, for example. now, let's take a look at exactly what the criteria are for dreamers under the 2012 executive order. and these are criteria that were praised by my friend from illinois and numerous other

senators on the democratic side of the aisle when the president issued his executive order and i, too agree with these criteria. in order to qualify an individual has to have come to the united states under age 16, has to have continually resided in the united states at least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and has to be present on the date of the 2012 -- the june 15 2012, memorandum. the individual has to currently either be in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate or has to be an honorably discharged member of the coast guard or our

military. in addition, the individual has to have a pretty good record. the person cannot have been convicted of a felony offense a significant misdemeanor offense multiple misdemeanor offenses or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety and cannot be above the age of 30. these are reasonable criteria that the president came up with. frankly, i'm not enthralled with the one that allows for multiple misdemeanors, which although the executive order says that the individual cannot have multiple misdemeanors. the form that's used by d.h.s. says that the individual can have you up to three misdemeanors. i personally would require an absolutely clean record.

but these are reasonable criteria, and these are not changed by the collins bill in any way. the 2012 executive order stands. so really my friend from illinois' argument is focused on the fact that he wants an expansion of these criteria and to add other categories of individuals, and that's what the november 2014, immigration action does. it has nothing to do with the status of the individuals who were allowed to stay in this country as a result of the 2012 executive order. my amendment protects the 2012

executive order and those who benefited from it. so we have a sincere disagreement over what is appropriate to be done by executive action and what needs to be done by legislation even though i support many of the policies that are in the 2014 executive order i just don't think the president can unilaterally proclaim those changes. mr. durbin: would the senator yield for a question? ms. collins: if the senator's question is a brief one, i will be happy to yield. mr. durbin: i will make it very brief. if the senator acknowledges -- and i believe she has -- that the president had the authority in 2012 to issue an executive order under daca and to spell out the criteria, which includes at the very bottom of your chart that the person is not above the

age of 30, why does the senator disagree with this situation? someone who is 29 years old in june of 2012, eligible for daca, the executive order? now we are two and a half years later and the president tried to amend in november 2014 that last line to expand so that those who have aged out would still have a chance because congress has not acted otherwise? why would the the senator from maine draw that distinction, say the president has the authority to write this order but not the authority to amend this order? ms. collins: mr. president i'm happy to respond to the senator from illinois' point. the point is that the president's 2014 executive order goes far beyond those who would age out in his words.

it adds entirely new categories of people. in fact, the estimates are that some five million undocumented individuals would be covered by the 2014 executive order. should the president unilaterally be allowed to make that kind of executive order that kind of change in our immigration law? the court has said no, and i believe the court is right about that. and in fact, when these drier i can't -- when these criteria were issued in 2012, the senator from illinois said that press release as recently as june of last year, before the november executive order that this was a

smart and lawful approach. so the answer is how do you draw the line and what is the appropriate role of the executive branch vis-a-vis the legislative branch. and i say that as someone who believes and hopes that later this year we'll take up a comprehensive immigration bill, and i hope to be able to support it again. but this is -- this is an issue of what is the proper role of congress vis-a-vis the president under our constitutional system. and i was not surprised when the texas court kept the 2012 executive order but blocked the

2014 executive order. now, there's another issue that the senator from illinois has raised that i think is a really important point to make. he has said that my bill could bar some of those who received the ability to stay in this country through the 2012 executive order from renewing their status. mr. president, that is simply not how i read the executive order, and i think it is really clear. let's look at the 2012 executive order. this is what it says. this is what janet napolitano

talked about in exercising prosecutorial discretion. the june 15, 2012, daca executive order grants deferred action for a period of two years. here are the key words: subject to renewal. so there's nothing in my amendment that prevents children and young adults, people up to age 30 from getting a renewal of the deferred status that they have been granted through this executive order. it says it right there. subject to renewal. but let's look further at the data. this is on d.h.s.'s web site. according to the data from the u.s. citizenship and immigration services the government has

renewed more than 148,000 2012 applications as of the first quarter of this year. and many of which were -- of this fiscal year. and many of them were completed before the november 2014 executive orders were even issued. so there's nothing in my bill that prevents the renewal of those individuals who received this status. and it's very cleerks 148,000 of them have had their applications renewal. the senator from illinois has said that i would prevent d.h.s. from issuing a memorandum that allowed further renewal.

there's no need for such a memorandum. otherwise 148,000 of these young people would not have been able already to have gotten a renewal. and before the 2014 executive order was even issued. the senator has also said that my bill calls into question the very legality of the 2012 daca order because it is a -- quote -- "very similar program to the 2014 executive action." to restate my basic point my bill does not affect the 2012 daca program. it is substantially different from the 2014 executive order. in fact, if you read the

language of the 2014 executive order, it embraces that distinction. it specifically states that it does not rescind or supercede the 2012 daca order. let me say that again. the 2014 executive order specifically states that it does not rescind or supercede the executive order that was issued in 2012. instead it says it seeks to supplement or amend it. a senator: will the senator yield for a question? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. ms. collins: i would be happy to yield to the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i appreciate the senator from maine's leadership on this issue. in her typical attention to detail i think she has shown objections on a vote to the

collins amendment that would be scheduled for sunday, or saturday i guess it is unless moved up, are not well taken. but i would just ask the senator from maine is your interpretation of the president's executive action in november of 2014 any different from what the president himself said 22 different times when he said he did not have the authority to issue such an executive action? ms. collins: mr. president, if i could respond to the senior senator from texas he raises an excellent point. i would bring up the quote that is just one of those 22 coats in which the president has said over and over again that he would like to do more on immigration. he was very disappointed the

house didn't take up the comprehensive immigration bill, but that his hands were tied, that i believe at one point he even said i'm not a king. mr. cornyn: would the senator yield for further questions? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i would ask the senator from maine, you were not alone and the president is not alone in stating your objections to the 2014 order which you your amendment would seek to get a vote and to put senators on record for. is the senator aware that there are a number, perhaps seven or eight senators on the other side of the aisle who at different times, around the november thowrt order said -- november 2014 order said they were uncomfortable with the president taking this authority to himself. in other words, i think the junior senator from maine was

one of those who said while you may agree with the outcome, this is not the way to do it. are you familiar with the fact that there are many of our democratic friends who have expressed similar concerns about the illegality of president's executive action? ms. collins: mr. president it doesn't surprise me that there are both democratic senators swems republican senators who are extremely uncorvel with a what the president did last november because it is so outside of the scope of his authority as president that i think that most of my colleagues in their heart, on the other side of the aisle must have qualms and misgivings about what the president did. in fact, i would almost guarantee you that if a

republican president had exceeded his executive authority to that degree there would have been an up roar. so i think it is rs important in terms of of our protecting the checks and balances that our founding fathers so wisely incorporated into the constitution. and i do believe that there are even more senators on the other side who may not have said what they were thinking but really do have qualms about it, even if they agree with the policy. and we need to distinguish between the policy, whether or not some members agree with the policy some members don't. but the question is does the

president's frustration with congress' fails lure po tass immigration foreman allow him to unilaterally write the law? the senator from texas is a former supreme court justice in texas and through the chair i would pose that question to him. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: well, i would say to my friend from maine, the senator from maine, that the constitution is written in a way in a divides government's authority between the executive legislative and the judicial branches. i of course agree with you that there can be no justification on the part of the president that somehow congress hadn't acted enough or quickly enough or expansively enough to justify the extension of his authority under the constitution. but if i can ask my friend from

maine another question to drill down on her earlier point it seems to me that the senator from illinois, the distinguished minority whip, he is making some suggestion that really what we are mad at is the people who benefit from this executive action which to my mind, could not be further from the truth. we all understand the aspirations of people who want a better way of life and opportunity, but isn't it true that as you have said -- and i'll just ask you to repeat it perhaps or expand upon it. isn't it true that when we all take an oath to uphold the constitution laws of the united states, whether you're the president or whether you're the senator, we have a sacred obligation to make sure that no branch including the president usurps the authority of another branch or violates those constitutional limitations? ms. co -- ms. collins: mr. president the senator from texas who has

a fine legal mind, served on the supreme court in texas is exactly right. ms. collins: and moreover, i'd like to read to you what president obama himself said about the very point that the senator from texas said about the oath that we held up our hands and took when we were sworn into this body, and that the president took when he became president. here's what the president said in july 2011 -- "i swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. now i know some people want me to bypass congress and to change the laws on my own but that's not how our system works. that's not how our democracy functions. that's not how our constitution

is written." mr. president, president obama had it exactly right when he stated that reality. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: the senator has been very patient with me. if i could just ask two final questions. given the 22 different public statements that the president of the united states has himself said about his lack of authority to do what he did in november of 2014 given the reservations publicly expressed and reported by a number of members on that side of the aisle about what the president has done and given the fact that there are 11 democratic senators who come from states that filed a lawsuit to block the president's executive action, can you understand why that the

democratic minority would try to block your amendment which would put all senators on record as to whether they agree with the president when he said that 22 times whether they agree with the court that issued the preliminary injunction and whether they agree with their own states that participated in this litigation to block the implementation of this unlawful order. can you think of any reason why they would try to block or defeat your amendment and put all members of the senate on record? ms. collins: mr. president to respond to the senator from texas, i really hope that won't happen. i have put forth a way forward for this body. i want to ensure that the department of homeland security is fully funded throughout the fiscal year. i want to ensure that we do not

overturn the 2012 daca executive order, which is narrow enough that it does not raise the very troubling issues that the senator from texas has so eloquently outlined, but i do believe it's important for us to each take a stand against the president's overreach here. this is important. this matters. it is our job to protect the constitution and to uphold our role. and that's what the -- that's what i'm trying to do here, accomplish those three goals and that is what the senator from texas is discussing. mr. cornyn: mr. president if i can ask the senator from maine

one final question. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: she has been enormously patient with me, but we're trying to drill down here and so all of the members of the senate understand exactly what the collins amendment does and does not do. and we have talked about the fact that not only are there people on record saying that what the president did was an overreach, members of the senate, 11 democratic senators who have come from states that filed suit claiming irreparable damage to their states who will have an opportunity to vote for the collins amendment hopefully here soon, but i just want to ask the senator, there is one part of what the president's executive order does that has -- to me stands out above and beyond the constitutional issues. and that is the ability of people who have committed

domestic violence, child exploitation sexual abuse and child molestation to get -- somehow get kicked to the back of the line when it comes to being repatriated to their state. for example we all understand, as i said earlier that immigrants come here for a better life. we all understand that. we hoped they would come playing by the rules as opposed to not playing by the rules but why in the world would the president want to reward in effect people who have committed domestic violence child exploitation, sexual abuse and child molestation by moving them down to a second tier status of priority when it comes to repatriation. is the senator familiar with what i am referring to and perhaps you can enlighten us further on that? ms. collins: mr. president. mr. president, i am familiar with the provision that the

senator from texas refers to, and i kept it included in the bill that we will be voting on at some point and that is it seems to me that if you have been convicted -- if you are a convicted sex offender, why do we want you in this country? and the irony is, mr. president that just this week, the senate judiciary committee held a hearing on sex trafficking and we heard heart breaking stories of very young girls who have been abused by men who had been prostituted, who had been taken from state to state coerced into prostitution, and i don't want those individuals if they

come from another country, to be allowed to stay here. and all 20 of the women of the senate requested this hearing from the judiciary committee and the senator from texas and the senator from minnesota have bills that deal with this kind of human trafficking. so we are trying to send a message that these individuals should be a high priority for deportation, but i want to make clear that contrary to allegations that have been made about my bill -- and frankly it's a completely specious amendment -- there is nothing in my bill that deprives the department of homeland security from having the authority it needs to pursue those who would seek to harm our country.

those, for example, who are terrorists or belong to gangs or pose some sort of public safety or national security threat. indeed the public safety threat is -- is big enough to cover the people we're talking about but we think that they merit special mention in our bill. why would we want to keep in our country someone who is deportable, who is a sex offender who has been convicted of child molestation or domestic violence? it makes no sense. mr. cornyn: mr. president if i could just close. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i want to thank the senator from maine for your leadership on this important amendment, and to me it's just unthinkable that senators would

block a vote on the collins amendment at some point in this process this week, because what it does, as you point out is basically reinforce what the president said himself 22 different times when he said he didn't have the authority. it reaffirms what the federal district court held in browns ville recently that 26 states filed suit on, and i share the senator's bewilderment really, at how on one hand we could be condoning people coming into the country showing disrespect not only for our immigration laws but compounding that disrespect with these heinous expenses like violence sexual abuse and child molestation, particularly at a time when today i will report to the senator that we actually voted unanimously out of the senate judiciary committee on a

bipartisan basis these antitrafficking bills that the senator testified about last tuesday. i just want to close by thanking her or the women of the senate for leading us toward passage of this antitrafficking legislation, but to point out again the complete unacceptability of this idea that somehow we're going to play games by blocking the collins amendment vote and somehow condoning the same conduct on one hand that we condemn through the passage of this antiaffecting legislation on the other, so i thank the senator. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i want to thank the senator from texas for his contributions to this very important debate. i think he helped to clarify a lot of important issues that i hope members on both sides of the aisle will consider as they

cast their votes. i am for comprehensive immigration reform. i have voted that way. that is not what this is about. my bill simply prevents the executive branch from usurping the legislative power by creating categorical exemptions from the law for whole classes of people. that power belongs to congress. whether congress was wrong or whether congress was right it does not give the president the authority to write the law on his own and that is what he has done with his november, 2014 executive order. and again mr. president let me make two other points before i

will close. the first is there is nothing in my legislation that in any way in any way undoes the more limited 2014 executive order that applies to the dreamers, nothing. it doesn't prevent them from being renewed. it doesn't take away their status. there is nothing that changes that executive order. now, the first version of the house bill did and i opposed that provision and it is not in my bill. and the second point that i will make mr. president is this debate is not about immigration. it really is about the power of

the president versus the powers delineated in our constitution for congress and the judicial branch. so let me close once again with president obama's own words because he got it right back in september of 2013. he said -- "congress has said here is the law when it comes to those who are undocumented. what we can do is to carve out the dream act" -- and that's what he did with his 2012 executive order -- "saying young people who have basically grown up here are americans that we should welcome. but if we start broadening that," which is exactly what he did in his 2014 executive order -- "then essentially i would be ignoring the law in a

way that i think would be very difficult to defend legally. so that's not an option." and that is why the court struck down or stayed the implementation of the 2014 executive order. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: mr. president i rise today to talk about the historic decision by the federal communication commission in a 3- 2 decision a landmark case that will go down as a way to protect an open internet economy. consumers all across america should applaud and i know they will be in the public health because -- pacific northwest because we will be protecting that aspect of our economy that has created thousands of jobs and millions of dollars for our economy. this decision known as net neutrality simply says that cable companies and telecom companies cannot artificially

charge more on the internet by slowing down traffic or making a two-tier system in which some applications would be given access to faster service and others not just by on what they paid for. this is an important decision because it champions an open internet an open internet economy that has built so many new aspects of the way we communicate, the way we educate, the way we continue to transact business around the globe. in 2010 the internet economy accounted for 4.7% or approximately $68 billion of america's gross domestic product and next year that internet economy is expected to pass $100 billion and comprise 5.4% of our country's estimated $18 trillion g.d.p. so in the six years the internet's value has climbed over 30%. so what this decision says is let's protect that open

internet let's not artificially travel it, let's not artificially slow it down, let's not artificially create two tiers of an internet system and stymie innovation. so many of us know now we go and buy a starbucks coffee and use an app to pay for it or use an app to get an an airplane or so many other ways that we communicate in an information age. slowing all that down by just one second causes big problems and curtails an economy of growth. we all know we have questions about the way cable companies and phone companies charge us for data. let's make sure the federal communications commission does its job by overseeing those companies who might want to charge more for those services than need to charge. let's keep an open internet, let's have net neutrality be the law of the land and i applaud the f.c.c. for this historic decision today. i thank the president and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise today in partnership with thad cochran from mississippi to in a few moments introduce a resolution recognizing and celebrating black history month here in the united states of america. but i'd like to take a few moments before that to address something that very poignantly has been anguishing my heart for my entire life from the time i was growing up in a small town of hairington park, new jersey through my career in college and school and most particularly this has been grieving my heart since i started working in a pro dominantly minority city, the city that i love, newark, new jersey. i bring this up in the context of a previous speech i gave

about our broken criminal justice system that makes us singular in all of humanity on the planet earth for the amount of our population that we incarcerate. we have 5% of the globe's population but about 25% of all the globe's imprisoned people. this explosion is not consistent with our history. in fact, it is inconsistent with our history. it is incongruent with our values and to be very specifically this overincarceration has exploded as a result of the war on drugs. the bottom line is this -- there were more people incarcerated in 1980 for any reason of all the people incarcerated in 1980, the truth is now in america we have more people incarcerated today in prison just for drug crimes than all of the people incarcerated in the year 1980.

in fact, due to the drug war fueled by the drug war our federal prison population has exploded about 800%. but in the context of what i'm about to talk about in this resolution recognizing african history, i want to particularly point to today this grievous reality that our war on drugs has disproportionately affected african-americans, latinos minorities and the poor in general. it's painful for me to have seen in my lifetime many of my friends using drugs like marijuana. many of them buying drugs like marijuana. many selling drugs like marijuana in the town i grew up in in stamford or yale, but the reality is the justice system that experienced for breaking the law was very different than the justice system i saw in

newark, new jersey. the reality is, we have in this country not what we talk about equal justice under law but we have a system that disproportionately affects minorities in our country in a way that is stunning and in and an affront to our values. arrest rates for drug use have a disparate impact on people of color. there is no questioning that. and this is unacceptable. when it comes to people who break the law in america there's actually no difference when it comes to drug crimes between blacks and whites. none whatsoever. but african-americans, for example, when it comes to marijuana are arrested at 3-point times the rate -- 3.7 times the rates are whites are in this country while the usages was similar the reality is the focus of the law arrests far more minorities in our urban

communities than in other communities. between 2007 and 2009, drug sentences for african-americans actually were even longer for the same crimes, blacks would see about a 13.1% longer sentence than someone that was white. so not only are more african-americans and latinos and people of color being targeted and arrested at rates greater than whites for the same crimes but they're also serving and getting longer sentences. human rights watch put it simply. they found that even though the majority of legal drug -- illegal drug users and dealers nationwide are white three-quarters of those people in prison for drug offenses are minorities. this should call to the conscience of everyone in our country we believe fundamentally at the core of our

american values in this ideal of equal justice under the law. and the punishing thing about this are not only arrest rates higher, not only are they receiving longer sentences but when you get such a disproportionate amount of people being arrested, incarcerated the class ral consequences which they see at the end of the system become even more punishing on certain communities. we now have cities in america that for certain age demographics upwards of 50% of the men african-americans or even latino have been arrested before. and what that means is that once you have a felony conviction for the nonviolent use of drugs your ability to go to college to get a pell grant to get a job, even many business licenses is undermined. right now we see this punishing impact destroying many

communities. instead of empowering people to succeed, we're getting people trapped in a criminal justice system. instead of the solid rock of success, people are being sucked into the quicksand of a broken criminal justice system. we see this, for example the blacks and latinos in my state are combined 29% -- excuse me in the united states are the 29% of the population but make up almost 60% of the prison population. in new jersey blacks and latinos are 32% of the total state population but blacks and latinos make up 81% of our prison population. and often -- an often overlooked group in this is our native americans. for example in north dakota native americans make up a 5% of the total state population but 29% of the prison population. these numbers again, go against the truth of who we are as a country. and so now on this moment when

we are celebrating our history where blacks and whites, christians jews, and muslims came together to advance our nation indeed i stand here today because of the collective conviction of this country to live up to its values and ideals that all of us are created equal under god and that all of us should have an equal opportunity to succeed and be seen equally by our government. it is this moment that i say we can and must do better. and, in fact, many states, including red states, led by republicans, are showing that there is a different way. for example states such as texas and georgia and north carolina are leading on this issue. texas is known for its law and order but has made tremendous strides in adopting populations that are lowering he lowering the amount of their prison population and therefore also affecting the minorities in

their state. in fact, the governor of georgia continually talks about the fact that he has been able to lower his black male incarceration rate by about 20%. and so as we prepare -- as i prepare to join with the great senator from mississippi i just want to say from the bottom of my heart that it is time that we reform our legal system to make it a truly ajustice system that everyone under the law faces equal treatment that we empower our entire community in america to be successful, not tie them up unnecessarily when even though they've done -- paid their price for their crime that the punishment does not continue to haunt the rest of their existence. i remember these words by the great langston hughes one of our

american poets an african-american man who once said there is a dream in this land with its back against the wall to save this dream for one we must save it for all. this is the dream of america. we can do better. indeed, we are in many communities that are committing themselves to creating a justice system which we can be proud of and we know here in the united states senate with members on both sides of the aisle whether it's senator lee or senator durbin, whether senator cornyn or senator whitehouse, we know that together we can evidence these values. mr. president, it is with that that i'd like to stand proudly and recognize and yield for a moment to a friend and an ally, the senator from mississippi thad cochran. mr. cochran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. cochran: mr. president i'm very pleased to join my friend

in introducing legislation celebrating black history month. this opportunity provides us with an excuse, if we need one, to not only remember the past and the challenges and the failures and the embarrassment and the criminalities, and so many challenging and horrible things that have characterized the treatment of citizens in the united states with injustice with discrimination, with segregation and all of the horribles that we can remember as we contemplate this subject. but today the senator from

mississippi is senator from new jersey, with others in getting us another opportunity to not only remember past injustice and celebrate victories over it, but also to commemorate contributions being made today throughout our country, to ensure equality and justice and opportunity for all americans. so the rich history we have as a nation should include a promise for the future, carved by african-americans as central contributors. they were here during the darkest times. they're still here, and they're continuing to make huge and important contributions to our nation. so i'm pleased to join my

friend the distinguished senator from new jersey, to support the passage of our resolution. mr. booker: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i cannot tell you how grateful i am for those good words from my colleague. truly, they resonate with my heart and the gravity of this historic moment is not lost on me. it is tribute to his characteristiccharacterthat he cosponsored this with me. as he understands that american history is a beautiful mosaic with contributions from every corner of the globe being made on this great earth that we call the united states of america. and i.t. with that spirit -- and it's with that spirit and that recollection of our past with a commitment to forge an even brighter future that i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 88 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution

88 celebrating black history month. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. booker: i further ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. booker: mr. president i'm grateful for that. again, i thank my colleague for his partnership. and now i would like to ask unanimous consent that the republicans control the next hour and that the democrats control the following hour. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order the majority will control the next hour and the democrats will control the following hour.

the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i would ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president on july 14 of last year, i wrote a letter to lawmakers on both sides of the aisle warning that the president was planning to issue an executive amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants, people history unlawfully in america, just to issue an amnesty for them. congress was at the time considering a supplemental funding measure for the department of homeland security. i wrote -- quote -- "congress must not acquiesce to spending more taxpayer dollars until the president unequivocally rescinds his threat of more illegal executive action. if congress simply passes a supplemental spending bill without these preconditions, it

is not a question of if the president will suspend more immigration laws but only how many he will suspend." so executive amnesty became a major issue in the elections last november. many members of our senate and house who had supported these immigration policies of the president didn't come back. they were sent home and many returning on both sides of the aisle opposed these policies and said they opposed these policies. still, on november 20, after the historic midterm election defeat, president obama defied the will of the american people and congress and issued his executive amnesty for 5 million persons. this amnesty included not just the right to stay in america but an explicit photo i.d. work

authorization, work permits social security numbers and social security benefits, medicare benefits and payments, cash tax credits and the right to basically take any job in america that might be a job that a lawful immigrant or an american citizen would want to take. at a time of high unemployment, pulling down wages as economists have told us is happening. so each of these measures had been considered and explicitly rejected by congress. it wasn't as if this was something that the president just did. it had been considered and rejected. congress decisively opposed the president's legislation and to maintain, in effect, the current laws of the united states, as codified in the immigration and

nationality act. president obama's executive action nullified the immigration laws we do have and replaced them with the very measures congress and the american people had time and time again rejected. not even king george iii had the power to act without parliament. president obama himself describes such an action as being something only an imrerrer could do. those were his words. 22 times the president declared such an action would be illegal. president obama ignored his own warnings and issued an edict that defies the congress the constitution and centuries of legal heritage that gave birth to our present republic. the founders, in their wisdom, gave the congress the tools it would need to stop a president. but first congress gave the

power to pass laws to the congress as every child in school knows. congress passes the laws, not the president. this is a matter so great of fundamental importance. and it gave the congress the tools it would need to stop a president, because they anticipated presidents may overreach in the future. chief among those powers is the power of the purse and that's what we're talking about today. should congress fund the president's actions that are contrary to law contrary to congressional wishes, and contrary to the american people's wishes? that's the question. so let me now read from the great federalist papers, "federalist 58" authored by the father of the constitution,

james madison. he is talking about the house of representatives. the house of representatives now has funded homeland security fully everything that needs to be passed to fund the homeland security operations, they passed. they simply said, but you cannot spend money to provide amnesty and these benefits and these social security and i.d. cards cards. you can't spend money on that. we don't approve you spending money acon that. so what has happened in the senate? our democratic colleagues have filibustered the bill. they won't even let it come up on the floor. they won't even let it be voted on in any significant way or vote -- they don't want to vote on amendments. senator mcconnell told them they would have amendments. so it has put the congress and the country in a very difficult position. so this is what madison said. "the house of representatives cannot only refuse, but they

alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government. they in a word, hold the purse that power instrument by which we behold in the history of the british constitution an infinite and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of of government. this power over the purse may in fact be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people for obtaining a redress of every grievance and for carrying into effect every just and salutory measure." close quote.

it's a complete power of the elected representatives of the people of america. and, first of all the american people through their elected representatives, rejected the president's policies on immigration. they chose to keep current law. but this did not satisfy the president, and he asked congress to change it, and congress refused. they refused in 2006, 2007, 2010 2013, 2014. been rejected by congress repeatedly. so that's where we are. and congress has no duty to do this. congress has no obligation to fund those actions which it believes simply are unwise. and it has an absolute duty, it seems to me, not to fund actions which are unlawful and

unconstitutional. congress cannot fund an action which dissolves its own powers. mr. president, i don't -- i see my good friend, senator inhofe, here. but i'll move forward and -- so congress shouldn't fund presidential actions that are against law and congress certainly cannot fund an action which dissolves its own powers. weeach is a coequal brafnlg of government. congress cannot become a marble building that tourists visit and hear about in great debates long ago. it cannot exist merely to approve that which the president demands. doesn't have to approve one

thing the president asks for. if i.t. not it's not a correct thing. so consider the precedent being established here. congress passes a law just as congress passed the immigration and nationalityimmigrationand nationality act. the president proposes a new law to replace the current one. hearing vast opposition, congress rejects the new law that the president proposes. frustrated the president deny issues an edict eliminating the current law and replacing it with measures he has proposed but the people's representatives had rejected. the president then demands congress provide the money to execute his unlawful program and congress says no. the president then accuses congress of shutting down the government. for not funding his unlawful operation. congress surrenders, quits gives up, and the president

gets what he wants. have the people of the united states been served in that fashion? has the constitution of the united states again served? has the congress of the united states not acquiesced in its own diminishment? violating its duty to ensure that every dollar spent by the government of the united states from whatever source is spent on policies that are appropriate? is this to be the new normal? congress must provide the president with the funds he wants for any project he dreams up? no matter how illegal or unconstitutional? is the power of the purse now a historic concept never to be used again when it's needed most? there is no more basic application of congressional power than to establish where funds may and may not be spent indeed that is the very

definition of an appropriations bills and there could never be a procedure important time to exercise such a power than when a heritage of free government, our republican heritage itself, is at stake. so we cannot let this congress go down in the history books as the congress that established a new precedent that we will fund any imperial decree that violates the american law. so this is not a minor constitutional violation it's an explosive violation it threatens our very sovereignty the extent of which exceeds anything i've ever seen in my i'm in the senate and i can't imagine and can't recall one in the past so blatant in violation. essential to any sovereign nation is the enforcement of its borders. the application of uniform rules for can exit and entry and the delivery of consequences for any who violate the laws of entry and exit. but the president has suspended

those borders erased those rules, and replaced consequences with rewards. entered unlawfully, stayed unlawfully rewarded with work permits, social security benefits i.d. cards legal status. he has arrogated for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who comes to the united states. that's the -- in effect what it is. he gets to decide unilateral require who can stay and live in the united states. and who works in the united states. at this very moment he's continuing despite a court order to allow new illegal immigrants by the thousands to stream across the border to violate -- and violate visas and to wait for their amnesty too. which they expect will occur sometime in the future. why not? every expert in the border

patrol and immigration service officers have told us if this stands, it will encourage more illegal immigration in the future. in confident belief that they, too, will be rewarded with the benefits of legal status even though it violates the law. so i can't vote for any legislation that funds this illegal amnesty. there must be a line in the sand a moment where people say this is where it stops. that is why i will propose -- oppose the legislation if these amnesty restrictions are removed from the house bill. i'll support the house bill, but i cannot support the restrictions -- the bill if the restrictions are removed and i'll urge my colleagues to do the same. look, the american people are right and just and good and decent people. they have asked of congress, begged of congress, pleaded with congress for years for our laws to be enforced.

they want us to have a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest, one they can be proud of. one that people can rely on when they apply to come to the united states. and they have demanded that congress and congress responded and has passed laws over the years that create a lawful system and a lawful system that protects their jobs and their wages of the american people. they've elected lawmaker after lawmaker however who has pledged to do this and make this system work, and to end the lawlessness, but each time their will has been nullified. each time, their laws that have been passed, have been ignored. each time, the special interests, the open border billionaires the global elites get their way.

in the simplest of terms here's with where we stand now. truly, six of our democratic colleagues need to switch their votes, and end the filibuster of the house bill. six senate democrats are standing in the way of the interest of 300 million americans, six senate democrats are keeping us from protecting american workers and american borders. they uniformly in lockstep are blocking the consideration of the house bill that funds homeland security but does not fund the unlawful actions of the president. so we'll have to take this case to the american people and see whether it is indeed possible that these democrats are able to defy the hopes dreams, and sacred right of every law-abiding american citizen. mr. president, i'm excited about an event today and i

have the honor senator booker was on the floor earlier today he's a cosponsor with me and we celebrate today the passage of a gold medal. and so i'll ask consent, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 24 s. 527. the presiding officer: is there objection? the clerk will report. mr. sessions: i ask consent the bill be read a third time and passed the motion to reconsider considered made and laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 24, s. 527 a bill to award the congressional gold medal to the foot soldiers who participated in bloody sunday, turnaround tuesday or the final selma to montgomery voting rights march

in march of 1965 and served as a catalyst for the voting rights act of 19 of 5. mr. sessions: i would ask that the further reading of the bill be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: mr. president this marks the 50th anniversary of the historic --. the presiding officer: i women the senator suspend. -- will the senator suspend. without objection the bill is considered read a third time and patched and the motion to reconsider considered made and laid on the table. the senator is recognized. mr. sessions: i thank the president. so this does mark the 50th anniversary of the voting rights act of 1965, and that historic event in selma, alabama in march of 1965. so this bill i believe is a fitting honor that recognizes the courage and determination of the civil rights marchers at

selma 50 years ago selma to montgomery march was a pivotal event in drive to achieve the right to vote for all americans, a right which was being systemically denied in that area and other places in the country. so this action was historic, it dealt a major blow to deliberate discrimination and produced a positive and lasting change for america. those who stood tall for freedom on that fateful day deserve to be honored with the congressional gold medal. it's a rare thing we don't give it out often but this is a very special occasion and i think it's it's greatly worthy, these courageous individuals are greatly worthy of this high recognition from the united states congress. i would note that two alabama congresswomen, a new younger members of the house martha

roby, terri sewell, democrat, introduced a similar bill into the house of representatives it passed unanimously 420-0. the senate bill today that senator booker and i have moved moved, moved out of the senate banking committee that my colleague from alabama senator shelby chairs and moved out of that committee unanimously and now has been passed through the senate. it was a very historic day and it marked an alteration in the history of america. it changed an unacceptable abuse of american rights, the right to vote. and it created a more positive world, country, and region. i grew up not too far from there.

i was in high school or junior high school, high school, when that happened, and i remember reading about it, thinking about it and -- but i don't think i fully understood the significance of it until time has gone by. so i think this is a very fitting honor. i'm pleased that it has passed today and i'm pleased for those who will receive the honor. mr. president, i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent i be recognized as if in

morning business for such time as i shall consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: mr. president i'm reminiscent with the snow on the ground of five years ago and the occupier of the chair i say, mr. president was not here at that time, and so you don't have the advantage of knowing the story that's behind this. and the story that's behind this was that's back when they first started all the hisssterria on global warming and it happened to be a snowstorm that had been unprecedented. set a record that year and there's a charming family of six i say to my friend in the chair that built this and their picture is here. and that happens to be my daughter and her family of six. and at that time it got a lot of attention, actually got a lot of national attention and in case we have forgotten because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record i ask the chair, you know what this is?

it's a snowball just from outside here. so it's very very cold out. very unseasonable. so mr. president catch this. we hear the perpetual headline that 2014 is -- has been the warmest year on record. but now the script has flipped and i think it's important since we hear it over and over and over again on the floor of this senate. some outlets are referring to the recent cold temperatures as the siberian express, as we can see with the snowball out there, this is today this is reality. others are printing pictures of a frozen niagara falls 4,700 square miles of isles that formed on the great lakes in one night. it's never happened before. so let's talk more about the warmest year claim. on january 16, nasa's goddard

institute of space studies and the national oceanic and atmospheric administration -- that's noaa -- concluded that 2014 was the warmest year in modern record which starts in 1880. nasa relied on readings from over 3,000 measuring stations worldwide and found an increase of just .2-degree over the previous record -- .02-degree over the previous record. the point left out was that the margin of error which on average is 0.1% degree celsius several times greater than the amount of warming, and so in reality it is so far within the margin of error that it is not really recordable. this discrepancy was questioned at a press conference and nasa's giss director backtracked. this is the goddard institute of

institute of sprays studies backtracked on the warmest year headline saying there was only a 38% chance that 2014 was the warmest year on record. another recent report issued by the berkey earth surface temperature project using data from more than 30,000 temperature stations concluded the -- that in the event -- if 2014 was the warmest year on record, it was by less than 0.01 degrees celsius. again, below the margin of error ultimately making it impossible to conclude that 2014 was the warmest year. additional climate experts including a university of oklahoma geophysicist david democratting have stated that the warmest year on record statement is only relevant when the record actually began. others state that the

record-setting conclusions issued in the january -- issued in january require the use of incomplete data because the preponderance of the data rise much later from underdeveloped and developing nations. by the way i've just been reminded, in order developling nations.

yo test. george. george. george. global warming. global warming. in global warming. global warming. global warming.

the 1975 "newsweek" published an article entitled "the cooling

wrorld arguing that global temperatures were falling and terrible consequences for food production were on the horizon and all of that. we know we know about that. this highlights that the climate is changing. it always has been changing. in fact, our recent vote during the keystone x.l. pipeline debate showed that 97 of us in this chamber democrats and republicans, agreed that climate has always been changing. made a little talk on the floor at that time and he said, i think this is something we can all agree on. if you look at archeological diggings the history the scriptures climate has always been changing. and despite a long list of unsubstantiated global warming claims climate activists and environmental groups will cling to any extreme weather-related headline to support their case for global warming and to instill the fear of global warming in the american people. you know, that's -- and people

sometimes ask me why? why do you suppose they're doing this spending all this time and trying to pass -- they tried it through legislation. we defeated it. now through regulation are that would cost between $300 billion and $400 billion a year. and yet it wouldn't have any effect on what they perceive to be global warming. so they ask the why why is it? there is a scientist by the name of richard lindzen with m.i.t. some have argued that he is the most knowledgeable of all the climate scientists. the and he answered that question. he said, you know, regulating carbon is like regulating life. if you regulate carbon, it's a bureaucrat's dream because regulating carbon regulates life. and so it's a power struggle. the and i think that's probably the best answer. i'm not a scientist and i don't claim to be. but i quote scientists and they have the answers to these questions. now, president obama is using a similar tactic in order to scare

americans into supporting his extreme climate change agenda. in a recent interview, president obama agreed that the media overstates the dangers of terrorism while downplaying the risks of climate change. his press secretary josh ernest later reiterated that president obama believes climate change affects far more americans than terrorism. now, that's the first time we've heard that. but wait until you hear later on what the president obama the president himself and his secretary of state said. the biggest threat we face is not extreme terrorism in the middle east, afghanistan pakistan somalia yemen or nicaragua and the greatest threat that we face is not russian aggression in nato in the u.s. as well as its invasion of georgia in ukraine. i.t. not the expansion of

iranian influence it's sponsorship of terrorism throughout the middle east or its pursuit of a nuclear weapon and a system to deliver it to be able to hit the united states of america. and the greatest threat is not north korea's continued development of its nuclear weapon stockpile and the improving -- and improving their delivery systems to include january 23 launch of a sea-launched ballistic missile which is called a kn-11. i think we're all aware of that. and the greatest threat is not the continued capture and killing of reporters missionary businessmen, christians, and other non-muslims in what has clearly been a religious confrontation being pursued. the present position is that global warming is our greatest threat greater than all the things i just mentioned and is underscored by the fact that he won't even publicly state that the 21 egyptians executed by isil in libya were christians,

and he won't recognize that, won't recognize it has anything to do with the radical islam. he goes out of his way to downplay the actions and dangers of isis, even though the group continues to terrorize the world. just this past weekend isis abducted over 70 syrian christians including women and children from villages in eastern syria. to my knowledge we don't know what they've done with them yet. but that's 70 of them. the previous 21 were killed because of their christianity. according to the president our biggest threat is not the continued threats made by extremists against the united states and its citizens. i.t. notit's not the successful attacks carried 0 out in the united states in places such as new york boston, fort hood or potential attacks of lone wolves or sweeper cells against soft targets like the mall of

america, which is the most recent subject of an isil threat and we had yet even as these atrocities are taking place, president obama is telling the world that climate change is a greater threat to our nation than terrorism. that's just another illustration that this president and his administration are detached from the realities that we are facing today and into the future. his repeated failure to understand the real threat to our national security and inability to develop a coherent national security strategy has put this nation at a level of risk that has been unknown for decades. his failure of leadership and his gutting of our military have weakened our ability to influence and respond to crises. this all comes at a tremendous cost to our national security. the president has accused the media of overstating the problem, heightening the fears -- fear of population, as he

downplays the threats threats and we see photos of young children standing in military, like foreign nations being brain brain-washed into isil. it's a natural outgrowth of the president of the united states's failed leadership. in 2012 and 12013 president obama spoke of helping libya fight terrorists. yet as he addressed this nation, both countries spiraled into chaos creating terrorist safe havens. just days after his speech, yemen's prime minister and his cabinet resigned amidst a coup by the iranian rebels. the administration aided instability in afghanistan by releasing the most senior leaders of the taliban. the taliban dream team. we all remember that. we had just passed a law saying that the president cannot

release anyone from gitmo from guantanamo bay without giving a 30-day notice to congress, and yet he totally ignored that and let these people go. some of the terrorists out of gitmo. i carry this card with me because its really not a believable thing. of the five that he turned loose, one of them's name was mohammed fazil. the taliban commander said -- this is a quote -- "the president'spresident's -- mohammed fazil's release is like pouring 10,000 fighters into the battle on the side of jihad. now they have the right lion to lead them in the final victory in afghanistan." we don't know where they all are. i suggest they probably all have returned to battle. that's the record of those who have been released, some 29% have gone back to the battle.

so that is taking place. that's umar, the taliban's leader called the release a great victory. this allowed the men to rejoin the fight against our servicemen and women. this is a big deal, you guys. the president quickly withdrew from iraq, leaving the vacuum for isis to fill, which is now requiring our military to return. the president wants to repeat our errors with a speedy withdrawal from afghanistan. this is in spite of the fact of the advice of the commanders on the ground and requests by afghanistan's newest president president ghani to reexamine our withdrawal plan. he has de-reaganizeed europe by drastically cutting our forces, cutting our ballistic missile defense site in poland and our radar in the czech republic. i remember what that happened, i was so concerned about that because we were -- we put the radar site and the ballistic

missile defense site in poland and the czech republic because that was for the protection of western european and eastern united states. and because we don't have the capacity to offer the protection the american people should expect. but he did that anyway. and by failing to provide assistance to part of the m.r.e.'s and sending in send instead of weapons, he sends blankets. we had had poroshenko come in and the president of ukraine and give a speech to a joint session of congress. in that speech, he sates, we need to have some defenses against what putin and the russians are doing with the separatists in the country of ukraine. i happened to be over there. i was over there during the parliamentary elections. and not many people in america realize that in the ukraine our very good friends in the ukraine, they had the parliamentary elections in october.

president poroshenko looked me in the eyes and said very proudly, what the outcome was. this is the first time in 96 years that ukraine had parliamentary elections didn't elect one communist as a seat in parliament. that's the first time that that's ever happened. yet the president detailed in the state of union message we're upholding the principles of bigger nations can't bully the small ones by opposing russian aggression supporting ukraine's democracy, and reassuring our nato allies. that's what he said, standing in the house chamber in his joint speech of the state of the union. and yet under the president's failed leadership, we have seen two cease-fire failures in the ukraine, thousands of civilians displaced and approximately 5,000 people killed. america's assistance is vital to denying putin's attempts to de-stable ewes the region. yet it's not happening. i.t.it's not happening under the

obama administration. this administration is overwhelmed by world events and blind to the fact that terrorists are at war with america and our way of life. we now live in a world where our allies don't trust us and ash enemies don't -- and our enemies don't fear us. when will the president and the administration take steps required to minimize the risk to americans and our allies by providing this country with a national security strategy? one that addresses today's global security environment and deals with our enemies from a position of strength not weakness and not apiecement. -- peesment. these are the biggest threats facing our nation today. it is decidedly not global warming. the threat of war has plagued the earth for centuries. the united states is 23409 immune. we must take all threats seriously and take every responsible took secure our freedom. threats to our national security are always the most serious

threats we face. issues like global warming or global cooling 40 years ago are not what we need to be worrying about. the same thing we were talking about national defense. i say this because i have a deep concern. i was the ranking member on the senate armed services committee. i am in a position to see what is happening around the world. and the threlts that we're facing -- and the the threats that we're facing are unprecedented mr. president. just yesterday we had a hearing. we had james clapper, who is the director of central intelligence. he is the one who said, looking back over my now over a half-century in intelligence, i have not experienced a time when we've been beset by more crises and threats around the world. and at the same time we had the national -- he had stated previously "when the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45

years such data has been compiled." so this goes on and on. this is what the military says. this is the threat that we face. everyone understands this except the white house. it was just yesterday where i guess -- or i guess it was a couple days ago that the secretary of state kerry said -- that was on the 25th of february. he said, -- now keep in mind all of these threats that we're facing. he sated "today is actually despite isil, despite the visible killings that you see and how horrific they are, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to americans and to the people of the world than normally. less deaths, less violent deaths today than throughout the last century." we owe all know better than that. we know how threatened we are. everyone knows it except the white house and they're is going to have to wake up to save our nation. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent to speak for three minutes notwithstanding the

order. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. at 4:15, i'm leading a group of seven or eight senators to talk about trade promotion authority and transpacific partnership but i'd like to take this opportunity while the floor is empty and thank my republican colleagues, to talk about an ohio civil rights pioneer and that's congressman lou stokes. i've known him for 35 years. he was celebrated on monday. i had the opportunity to speak to him his 90th birthday. he's a proud son of cleveland in the city i live in. he was born in that city nine decades ago. grew up in one of the first federal housing projects in the country. he's risen -- he rose to prominence as a lawyer and a legislator. his father worked in a laundramat. his mother cleaned houses. lou himself shined shoes to earn extra money. he served in the army during world war ii. he went to college at night on the g.i. bill. he is the american success story. he was stationed in the deep south during segregation. he was appalled by the

discrimination he witnessed even for those wearing the uniform and serving our country. it compelled him to dedicate his life to fighting injustice. he handled matters big and small in his legal practice. he argued the landmark case of terry v. ohio before the u.s. supreme court. the ruling in terry addressed police stop-and-frisk policies, defining what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure. first african-american to represent ohio in the u.s. congress. first african-american to serve on the appropriations committee. his mere presence was groundbreaking. he never wrested on his laurels while serving as a congressman for 15 terms. he was a fierce advocate for the is it he loves and for civil rights. he didn'ts use his success to seek glory for himself. he used his powerful position to expand opportunities for men and women and people of all colors and young people and old people. after retiring from congress, he didn't retire.

he returned home to cleveland. he played a key role in cleveland's civic life. his role at squire sanders was instrumental in the firm's growth working alongside of his longtime friend and my friend john lewis. the john lewis lawyer in cleveland, not the john lewis congressman in washington. he made a difference in so many ways. he served on the community -- on the ohio task force and community police relations. he's known always to fight for his neighborhood. the projects where he and his brother, carl, the first black mayor of a major american city carl was elected to mayor right before lou was elected to congress. their labor of love to work to improve schools and opportunities in cleveland. the cleveland v.a. center is named after lou stokes, as are buildings throughout the nation. they illustrate his hard work and his dedication. it's fitting mr. president that as we celebrate his milestone birthday this week the final week of black history month we renew our commitment to the cause of lou stokes' 90

years. he means so much to me personally. he means so much to cleveland. he means so much to our country. i know that the presiding officer senator inhofe, got to serve with him in the house as i did and it was an honor to do that and a privilege to call lou stokes my friend. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: before the colloquy -- the presiding officer: excuse me. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. whitehouse: may i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: mr. president before we get under way with

this colloquy on trade i just wanted to respond briefly to what i understand was a presentation made by one of the republican senators suggesting that the continued existence of snow disproves climate change. first of all that's not the only measure. you can take a look at sea level rise, which you can measure from fort pulaski in georgia up to alaska where lisa murkowski has acknowledged that climate change is causing sea level rise that's eroding her native villages to the sea level rise in my home state of rhode island at the naval station. you can look at the p.h. changes in the ocean which you actually measure. it's not complicated. kids measure their p.h. in their aquariums all the time. you can measure ocean temperature, which is absolutely clear. it involves something called a thermometer. it really isn't all that complicated. and if you want to understand why the existence of snow might

actually be consistent with climate change, i would urge people to get their personal device here, their ipad, whatever it is that they have, and load up the earth now app. the earth now app is run by a group called nasa. nasa is pretty capable. they are driving a rover around on mars right now. these are folks who know a little of what they are talking about. and they map the temperature of the planet, and you can see the cold arctic air drawn down to new england drawn down to our area and it's in large part because the ocean is warming offshore that we have this snow. so not only does the continued existence of snow not disapprove global warming, if you actually know what's going on and take the least bit of effort to understand it, you would see that it's actually completely consistent with global warming as it is understood by scientists like those from nasa.

so i will have more to say on that later but let's get on with this other business, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you mr. president. i know there is a u.c. order that colleagues, about seven or eight of us, senators casey and merkley and whitehouse, also markey and warren and baldwin and sanders we believe will be here for the next 45 minutes under an agreed to order to talk about our concerns with trade promotion authority and the transpacific partnership. i will lead off and i know that senator casey will then speak and senator merkley and i believe senator whitehouse then. we know a number of things. we know, mr. president that american workers are the most competitive and the most productive in the world. we also know that far too many have been left behind because of wrongheaded trade deals. in the 20th century we built the world's strongest economy in the history of the world by building the strongest middle-class in the history of the world.

we invested in the health and safety of our work force. we guaranteed workers the right to bargain to bargain for fair pay and reasonable hours. it was a fight to do so. more remains to be done. we have expanded opportunity for women and people of color which society had never done to realize their full potential in the labor force. americans up and down the income spectrum reaped the rewards. workers got more productive, wages went up, profits were good communities were strong. we led the world with a booming economy fueled by a skilled and powered work force. the talent and tenacity of american workers have not changed but our leaders including in this body, our leaders' commitment to those workers, frankly and unfortunately, has. nowhere is that abandonment more clear than the free trade agreements we now approve with little oversight and minimal debate. these binding trade agreements affect all american workers and they cut in small business -- in small business and industry, and they cut to the heart of the

values we hold dear or say we hold dear as a sovereign democracy. too often, they are pushed through this body so quickly that the corporations pushing them hope we won't notice that these agreements are loaded with corporate handouts that weaken our nation's ability to chart its own course. the last thing we need, mr. president, is another nafta. we know what the north american free trade agreement did to us 20 years ago when it passed. we know that -- we know the damage it did to workers in filibuster. we know the damage it did to small companies in oregon. we know what it did to communities in rhode island. and i know up close what it's done to far too many communities from troy to piqua to toledo to dayton in my state. we always talk about american exceptionalism. we give lip service to american exceptionalism. our nation's exceptional but we see these same people that always talk about american exceptionalism and criticize anyone who doesn't talk about it we see these same people

pushing trade agreements that undermine american laws and bypass our legal system. for what end? the end to benefit big companies that can't get what they want through our democratic system. let me take one example. i urge my colleagues and anyone else to read the editorial today, the article today written by senator warren of massachusetts about something called investor state dispute settlement. that's what i wanted to talk about for a moment. take the issue of tobacco. tobacco use is the world's leading cause of preventable death. tobacco companies have been one of the most successful companies -- group of companies of any in american history. more trade deals give big tobacco a new tool to peddle its poison. how does that work? big tobacco turns to trade deals as the most fertile avenue to defeating public health efforts. big tobacco knows they can't win in this body, even with a conservative majority that too often does the bidding of wall

street and large companies. senator merkley senator blumenthal have helped to lead this charge to make our tobacco laws strong. so what did tobacco companies do if they can't win in a democratic body here? they use a trade provision called investor state dispute settlement. the case of big tobacco it uses isds to challenge public health measures around the globe. let me give examples. big tobacco and its supporters are suing australia for its tobacco plain packaging act of 2011. they are challenging it under the australian hong kong bilateral investment. they have good lawyers. they know how to do darn near anything to use these laws that they helped write under trade policy to benefit them and sell more cigarettes and poison our young people in far far too many cases. the plain packaging act simply says in australia passed by a democratically elected legislative body signed onto by the executive branch in australia simply says that tobacco companies can't use their really -- their market

test of logos. they have to put plain black and white packaging. also on the tobacco pack, they have to -- they put pictures of -- of diseased lungs or pictures from -- of people that have been sick from tobacco. so it's -- pick that tobacco pack up, you get the message. well big tobacco sued them in australian court even though the court sued them under the world trade center, despite the fact that the australian courts had already ruled in favor of the country, of the public health law. tobacco companies have launched similar cases against uruguay over its proposed graphic warnings on cigarette packages. uruguay accepted -- think about this. you have a big tobacco company threatening to sue a small relatively poor company like uruguay in saying if you pass a public health law we're going to sue you in court not in a uruguayan court but an international court made up mostly of trade lawyers.

so what does uruguay do, a country of that size they give up. they say we can't afford to defend ourselves in an expensive court proceeding. fortunately for uruguay michael bloomberg, one of the richest men in the world and former mayor of new york, stepped in and helped them fight back. togo simply gave up when philip morris sued them. the people of togo wanted a law to protect their children from big marketing from tobacco companies. philip morris came in, threatened to sue them, and the people of togo, the government backed off. what is good about that? it's appalling it's antidemocratic. it's been left to a comedy show. watch john oliver talk about this on hbo to expose the practices of big tobacco. trade policies should ensure a level playing field for all companies competing in a global economy, not serve as a tool for the richest corporations to overturn laws enacted by sovereign governments particularly not when in this country we're facing stagnant

wages, we're facing increased middle-class anxiety and insecurity, we're facing rising inequality at home. so we're going to pass a trade agreement, mr. president as c.e.o. pay reaches record highs as average wages stagnate, as profits go up, as unionization goes down, as wages fall, as a share of g.d.p. while productivity -- think about this, productivity has increased 85% in our country in the past 30 years. it used to be as productivity went like that, wages went like that but now productivity goes up 85% wages went up 6%. the minimum wage in the united states today has 30% less buying power than it had 35 years ago. that's why mr. president this trade agreement is a bad idea, it's why we know what's happened to manufacturing lost five million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010. just look at the impact of trade on u.s. manufacturing for more than 16 million jobs dropped

here and here. we had the auto rescue here which meant a little bit of an increase but an increase is only back to 12 million manufacturing jobs. we know that bad trade agreements, bad policies on immigration, on globalization bad policies on taxes mean lost jobs lost manufacturing jobs. that's the ticket to the middle class. ever since nafta in 1993, taking effect in 1994, ever since nafta, we have seen the acceleration of that decline in manufacturing jobs. it's bad for our communities it's bad for our families, it's bad for our workers it's bad for the states of pennsylvania and oregon and ohio and rhode island and it's bad for our country, mr. president. mr. casey: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: thank you mr. president. i rise to speak about the same topic that senator brown just spoke to, and i appreciate what my colleague from ohio brought

to this -- brought to the senate floor today talking about trade. i want to especially commend him for not just his advocacy and his passion for standing up for workers but for the persuasive case he makes against some of our trade policies, not just now but over time. we stand now poised to debate something that -- set of issues which we really haven't debated all that much in the eight years i have been in the u.s. senate. in this case, first trade promotion authority and then of course the transpacific partnership. the people that i represent in pennsylvania know what's at stake here. we're going to have a chance, each of us, as the american people will, to review the details of this proposals but just based upon past experience with trade agreements in our lifetime and especially the last

25 years that past experience causes me concerns and really grave concerns about what's in store first and foremost for our workers, which, of course, means our economy. time and again time and again pennsylvania workers and pennsylvania businesses of all sizes have ended up with the short end of the stick on trade deals. the question they ask now is what's in it for them. what's in it for workers. what's in it for companies across pennsylvania and across the country and therefore what's in it for all of us when it comes to our economic bottom line? take the free trade agreement with south korea just as a recent example. that was passed in 2011. i didn't support it, but here's what we were told before that. in december of 2010, the administration said the agreement would support 70,000, 70,000 additional american jobs,

and it would increase american exports by $10 billion to $11 billion. however, what do we see? during the first two years that the agreement took effect, exports actually fell by $3.1 billion imports imports grew by $5.6 billion, contributing to the loss of thousands of jobs. so that's one agreement one example. let's take a -- the impact on a particular industry, the steel industry. by any measure any review of world war ii would indicate very clearly that the american steel industry and steelworkers played a substantial role in our ability to win world war ii, to prevail in the most difficult of conflicts. and what's happened since then? well we know that, for example import surges from south korea have caused real damage to the steel industry in recent years which has led directly to job

losses in places like pennsylvania just for example. so workers want to know what's -- where's the benefit that's promised to them? over and over again we hear assertions of if we pass this agreement, this will be the impact on exports and imports. if we pass this agreement, this will be the net benefit to job creation and therefore, to workers. and too often the result is otherwise. if you look at the numbers if you look at an agreement, if you look at an industry and then you look at the numbers, in the united states we've had a -- or i should say we had a $66.5 billion deficit with free trade agreement partners in 2013. our trade balance with our largest free trade agreement partners canada, mexico and korea, is decidedly negative, not positive. so how is this time going to be different? i'm concerned, a lot of americans are concerned that past experience suggests broadly

negative impacts on jobs especially as senator brown made reference to by way of the chart and in other ways, especially as it relates to manufacturing jobs. the ones that you can support a family on the jobs that lead to the kind of innovation that allows us to step -- be one step ahead of the world. the economic policy institute for example estimates that 26,300 jobs were lost due to the trade deficit with mexico between 1994-2011, in the aftermath of nafta as senator brown referred to. 122,600 jobs were lost to china in the 12 years since china joined the world trade organization. between these two countries alone pennsylvania, the adverse impact to pennsylvania was some 100,048 jobs lost in

pennsylvania. so you lose almost 150,000 jobs in pennsylvania directly attributable to two factors -- the impact of china joining the world trade organization and the impact of the trade deficit with mexico. so when you look at the big picture, we have two possible areas of concern with the so-called t.p.p., the transpacific partnership. and by proxy the trade promotion authority that's part of that. labor and human rights concerns as well as currency manipulation manipulation. so when members of congress and labor groups across the country express concerns about the so-called t.p.p. and the countries that we're negotiating with in particular, malaysia, vietnam, brunei and mexico. give you an example of vietnam just start with that. vietnam does not allow for the

establishment of independent labor unions and has opposed the inclusion of any provision that would change this aspect of domestic laws. the state department has noted that basic labor freedoms are often restricted by both -- in both mexico and malaysia. and brunei has recently implemented a harsh form of sharia law that violates basic human rights standards. how about currency manipulation? american manufacturers feel the pain from undervalued foreign currencies all the time and they've time and again demanded action from both parties in both houses here in congress. currency manipulation in -- in the t.p.p. are -- or i should say concerns are urgent, not just because of japan's policies and the potential future inclusion of china in t.p.p. down the road but also because virtually every negotiating partner has a currency that is

undervalued relative to the dollar. every partner in the proposed t.p.p. january of this year, according to "the economist," 10 -- 10 -- of the u.s.'s 11 negotiating partners had undervalued currency. seven of those countries including japan had currencies that were at least 25% undervalued relative to the dollar. so for far too long this administration has allowed foreign countries to stack the deck whether it comes to currency policy stack the deck against u.s. workers by manipulating their currency, if depending on what country it is. we have a chance in the t.p.p. negotiations to do something about it. we believe all of us believe that our workers can outcompete any workers in the world if they're given the chance if they're given basic -- basic fairness and a level playing field. pennsylvanians, i believe want congress and the administration to focus on policies that lead

to both good jobs and good wages wages. so let's give our workers the kind of support that we gave them in past generations give our workers a level playing field so that they can outcompete and therefore outproduce any workers in the world. i'm afraid these agreements are not a step in that direction. and i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you mr. president. i appreciate the points that have been made by my colleagues from ohio and pennsylvania and remarks yet to be made by my colleague from rhode island. we're here on the floor together to raise fundamental issues that should be part of the discussion about a proposed trade deal or a fast-track to a trade deal. now, i love the concept of trade trade. the idea that our particular

economy, based on our natural resources and based on our skills do certain things very, very well and we would like to be able to take and sell those products to the world and that other nations do other things very well and we can benefit by their expertise and import those products. that's a win-win on a level playing field between nations that have roughly the same structure of environmental laws roughly the same structure of labor laws, roughly the same level of wages. that's a win-win for both nations or multiple nations involved in an agreement. and, indeed, our trade agreements after world war ii were very much in that line as we expanded to the economies of europe we saw substantial prosperity. and we saw prosperity that affected people just throughout our economy. my parents couldn't believe the difference between their

experience as children and their experience during the 1950's and 1960's as they started to raise children in terms of going from extraordinarily humble means -- lack of electricity and running water and insulation and all the things that became part of the basic housing structure post-world war ii, the environment they were able to raise their children in -- that prosperity was from a nation producing things and sharing the wealth throughout its economy. my father, as a working man as a blue-collar mechanic, he brought those mechanical skills to the mill, became a millright. loved that job. kept the machinery running. he loved that job. he was living the american dream. but you are on recent trade deals have created something quite different. they've been based on an unequal relationship.

they've been based on a relationship between our nation, with strong environmental and labor laws and good wages and high enforcement and the exact opposite in other countries like china, for example. and, indeed, the result of the period since nafta -- and my colleague spoke to it but let me reemphasize it -- a lost of fos loss of 50,000 factories a loss of 100,000 factory workers. if you are making things, you're going to move that factory to places cheapest to make things. now, this is how the vision works out. there's a conversation about reducing barriers and companies say, look at all the additional amount we can sell to, say that emerging economy in china. we can make a lot more in the u.s. and sell it to china. that's stage one. stage two is, oh, hey now we

can move our manufacturing overseas and produce things at a much lower price not only sell them to the foreign nation but also sell them back to the customers in the united states. and that's exactly what we've seen and that's why we've lost these 5 million jobs. so the initial publicity campaign is all about creating jobs through increasing american manufacturing but the reality in an unequal relationship is the opposite. let us make sure that we create a standard for the consideration of future trade deals a standard that is whether this deal will create good-paying jobs here in america will expand prosperity to the middle class in america or will it do the opposite. that's the standard we should bring and apply. well now i'd like to evaluate the provisions of the proposed deal in that light but i can't

because the negotiations are secret. the draft text is secret. but we need to demand that there not be secrecy about something as important as creating jobs in america or destroying jobs in america. but that will be my standard for evaluating what is to come. and let's talk for a minute about the rosy promises on enforcement. a couple years ago a group of ten u.s. senators took a trip to china and we were meeting with the ambassador and we were asking how he felt about enforcement against china of their currency manipulation. and he basically said, here's the deal. we have broad strategic concerns that involve china and we don't want to put ripples in the water. well so can you really have a level playing field in a situation where you're not willing to enforce even the

provisions that are on the books? can you really have a fair deal for america? now, during the conversations a couple years ago i proposed a bill legislation that would require china to actually honor what it was responsible for doing under the w.t.o. under the w.t.o., it's supposed to notify americans about all the subsidies it provides for items of export deductions and credits, but china had not honored that responsibility. so i proposed that we exercise another part of w.t.o., which was counterednotifications by our trade representatives. within two weeks of putting this idea forward guess what? our trade representative put forward a list of 200 subsidies through the counternotification process. and if you look at those things carefully, you can see a vast strategy in renewable energy to subsidize exports. not allowed under the w.t.o. to subsidize paper.

not allowed to subsidize exports of paper in the w.t.o. and what is the result? paper planted afterpaper plant after paper plant going out of business in the united states of america. the blue heron plant recently went out of business, a place where paper was made in a very long period of time. it was first the energy from that water wheel that was first there provided some of the first electricity in america. a longtime industrial production. but those jobs are gone. so that is a real concern. and my colleague mentioned the interstate dispute settlement and the fact that it gives a foreign investor rights that a domestic investor does not have. it puts constraints on consumer protection that can be overrun consumer protection that's done by a state or by a nation can be overrun by an investor from a foreign nation. you have, for example, a bill on america to stop producing toxic

flame retardants and putting them into our carpets. well the foreign investor says we built a plant to produce that chemical. sorry, you can't have that consumer protection even though the result will be a lot more cancer for american citizens. that's an example of the concerns about handing over the sovereignty of our nation over consumer laws, over environmental laws to an independent board that operates outside of our constitutional framework. that's a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed in this conversation. so from issues of enforcement and issues of secrecy issues of whether we're creating jobs or destroying jobs i encourage americans to become as familiar as possible with the provisions that have been leaked about the transpacific partnership and to think carefully and give concerns to us here in congress that we will work to address. when we have the -- the legitimate text before us then we can engage in a more detailed debate. but right now we need to push to

end this secrecy on an issue so important to the future prosperity of our nation and of our families. thank you mr. president. and it is my pleasure to yield the floor and i anticipate the remarks from my colleague. mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i thank the distinguished senator from oregon. i'd like to start by sharing the experience that i had when i first started running for the senate asking people around rhode island to give me the chance to represent them here. one unforgettable day was walking along a factory floor and as i was walking along i looked down and i noticed there were holes in the floor, in the concrete pad of the factory floor. and i asked why are the holes there?

and they explained oh, well, we used to have manufacturing machinery here. those are the bolt holes. and we unbolted the machinery and we shipped it overseas to a central american country where the same product is made for the same buyers on the same machine but it's made by foreign workers. that's the memory that i have when i think about these trade agreements. it's not just with that one machine that went overseas. rhode island, not a big state has lost more than 50,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs since 1990. so i start with a state that has been on the losing end of these trade deals. people say that they're going to enforce the environmental and

human rights and labor and safety requirements of these agreements. i haven't seen it. i'm now at the stage where i don't believe it. you're going to have to prove to me you're going to have to establish a record of forcing these things before i believe it again. i've been told this for too long and i don't believe the enforcement any longer and i got to say i don't like the process very much, either. it is secret, we are kept out of it, who's in it are a lot of really big corporations. and they are up to, i think no good in a lot of these deals. look at this private deals in private forums where they can litigate against a government. they secure that right through these treaty agreements. it is outrageous. first of all a lot of it is done for the sake of pollution it's the big folks it's chevron, exxonmobil, dow chemical and cargill who brought

nearly 600 disputes pursuing billions of dollars in damages against governments. former member of the w.t.o.'s appellate body said in 2002 the w.t.o. agreements allow member nations to challenge almost any measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enacted by any other member. so the war on the environment continues through this mechanism. in march 2013, more than a third of the disputes pending before the world bank's investment dispute settlement tribunal were related to oil mining or gas. guess what they want. the public health around the world is suffering because of this. in africa, the tobacco industry has bought these types of claims against the governors of gabon togo and uganda. they probably add up to about a hundred billion dollars in all

g.d.p. all four countries which is a quarter of the revenues of big tobacco worldwide. so this is a question of pure, raw, economic power by massive corporate interests being used to make governments knuckle under on public health issues like tobacco. that's just wrong. and it can displace the regular systems of courts. chevron was asked to clean up contamination that it had left behind it lost in the courts in ecuador it lost in the courts of america and so it went and got a third bite at the apple in front of three private lawyers in one of these forums. where do you think the motivation is of private lawyers? who are their clients going to be next? another government? i don't think so. it's going to be the big corporate companies. after many states in the united states created a pap on something called mmt a

gasoline additive, as a probable cars inowe general u.s. -- carcinogen, a nafta with was filed against cap which reversed its national ban on the potentially carcinogenic chemical and they pick on themselves as well. under nafta provisions, a canadian company sued the quebec government over a decision to put a moratorium on fracking. so i guess quebec can't make its own decision about fracking any longer because some company can sue it under these agreements which involve private lawyers and were cooked up in the dark in these trade agreements. the whole thing is preposterous. yes, sir. mr. brown: think about that what mr. whitehouse just said. a u.s. company that made an additive to gasoline filed suit against a canadian -- a public health law that the canadian

legislative body passed because they believed in clean air and under nafta that company in the united states sued the canadians, the canadian taxpayers had to pay the company and repeal their public health law. i thought this was a democracy. think about what that -- that multiplied by how many times that senator warren talked about in her peas in "the washington post." mr. whitehouse: and how long is it until they sue the state of louisiana or the state of rhode island or the state of massachusetts or the state of ohio. it's up for grabs about it's a private remedy. since i'm on her subject and since her piece in "the washington post" is something we've all read today i yield to the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you very much. i appreciate it. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you. mr. president, the united states is in the final stages of negotiating the transpacific partnership, a massive free trade agreement with mexico,

canada japan singapore and seven other countries and i come to the floor today to ask a fundamental question -- who will benefit from the t.p.p.? american workers consumers small businesses, taxpayers or the biggest multinational corporations in the world? one strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. the provision an increasingly common feature of international trade agreements is called investor dispute settlement or isds. the name may sound mild but this provision fundamentally tilts the playing field further in favor of big multinational corporations. worse yet it undermines u.s. sovereignty. isds allows foreign companies to challenge american laws and potentially pick up huge payouts from taxpayers without ever stepping foot in an american court. here's how it works. imagine that the united states bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline. we ban it because we believe it is dangerous for people's health

or harmful to the environment. if a foreign company that makes this toxic chemical wants to sell it in the u.s., it would normally have to challenge that in a u.s. court. but with isds the company could skip the u.s. court and go before an international panel of arbitrators. if the company wins, the ruling cannot be challenged in u.s. courts. and the arbitration panel could require the american taxpayers to cough up millions, even billions of dollars in damages. isds has the power to impose gigantic fines but it doesn't have independent judges. instead, highly paid corporate lawyers go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment of corporations the next. now, i don't know maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments.

we should have real doubts about how likely it is that a lawyer looking to attract high-paying corporate clients will rule against those corporations when it's his or her turn to sit in the judge's seat. it's also a real problem that the only international investors, only international investors, get to use these courts. investors that are by and large large, large corporations. if a vietnamese company with american operations wants to challenge an increase in the u.s. minimum wage, it can use isds but if an american labor union believes the vietnamese companies are paying slave labor wages in violation of trade commitments, the union has to try to wind itself through the vietnamese courts. good luck with that. these rigged sued owe courts were created after -- sawedo courts were varied after world war ii because investors worried about putting money into

developing companies are where the legal systems were not dependable. they were concerned a corporation might build a plant today to see a dictator confiscate tomorrow. isds was born to encourage investment in companies with weak legal systems. i don't know if these justifications made sense back then but they sure don't make sense now. countries in the t.p.p. are hardly emerging economies with weak legal systems. australia and japan have well-developed well-respected legal systems. and multinational corporations navigate those legal systems every single day. but isds would preempt their courts too. and to the extent there are countries that are riskier politically, market competition can solve that problem. countries that respect property rights and the rule of law like the united states should be more competitive and if a company wants to invest in a country

with a weak legal system, then it should buy political risk insurance, which is available. the use of isds is on the rise. from 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than a hundred isds claims worldwide. but by 2012 alone, there were 58 cases. that's in one year. here are some examples of recent cases under various treats treaties with isds provisions. a french company sued egypt because egypt raised its minimum wage. a swedish company sued germany because germany decided to phase out nuclear power after the talk ashama disaster. a dutch company sued the czech republic because the czech republic didn't bail out a bank that the dutch company partially owned. and american corporations are getting in on the action, too.

philip morris is trying to use isd -- isds to stopperingway -- uruguay for regulations aimed at cutting smoking rates. isds advocates say it hasn't hurd hurt the united states and our negotiators who refuse to make the text of this trade agreement public claim it will include a bigger, better version of isds that will protect our ability to regulate in the public interest. but with isds cases exploding in the last several years and more and more multinational corporations headquartered abroad, it is only a matter of time before such a challenge does serious damage here. letting a panel of arbitrators replace the u.s. legal system with a complex and unnecessary alternative on the assumption that nothing could possibly go

wrong seems like a really bad idea. this isn't a partisan issue. now, i don't often agree with the conservative cato institute and i suspect they don't often agree with me but this morning the head of cato's trade policy program said isds -- and i quote -- "raises serious questions about democratic accountability sovereignty checks and balances, and the separation of power." he went on to say "these concerns about isds are ones that libertarians and other free-market advocates should share." i think that's right. conservatives who believe in american sovereignty are outraged that isds shifts power from american courts as envisioned by our constitution to unaccountable international tribunals. libertarians are offended that

isds effectively offers a free taxpayer subsidy to countries with weaker legal systems and progressives should oppose isds because it allows big multinationals to weaken labor and environmental rules. giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system is a bad deal. so long as t.p.p. includes investor state dispute settlement the only winners will be international corporations. thank you. mr. president, i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you mr. president. i want to thank senator brown for putting this group together to discuss the important trade issues facing our nation. in massachusetts, we know what a good trade deal looks like and