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. .. i am not going to be labor all of those now but many are similar to those that have been described by colleagues in the

committee today. rather than rehash all of those i will refer back to those, it will cause me to vote against this nominee. she is undoubtedly a very bright lawyer she has had a successful career. i none of us have concerns about her willingness to stand as an independent evaluation of the legality and constitutionality of the administration's actions have caused me great concern. i hoped and expected my concerns would be alleviated during the hearings. they were intensified at that hearing and that is a source of disappointment to me. has for bills that are under consideration today, in the last congress, and i supported senator coin in's legislation to protect the victims of trafficking. i hope to be able to do so again

today but some of that made depends on the outcome of our votes on some of the amendments. i support senator blooms all's amendment and as unanimous consent to be added as a co-sponsor of that amendment. >> without objection so ordered. >> some amendments cost me some concern including a couple grant programs. i have not yet concluded i could support. i also got concerns with one amendment that would be addressing that would create effectively a strict liability in a sense that would carry a massive minimum mandatory penalty. we can have debates about the use of minimum mandatory penalties and we will continue to have those debates in this committee but i would hope, that

could be presented by supplying severe criminal punishment without requiring the government to prove that the defendant acted with intent to commit the crime at issue. active with the guilty state of mind. the concept runs very deeply in the a anglo-american legal system. i hope we can all stand behind that basic principle that people in our system are innocent until proven guilty and the government carries the burden of proof in a criminal proceeding especially where we are talking about creating a significant minimum penalty. >> senator whitehouse. >> i have a statement regarding

loretta lynch that i would like to put into the record if i have unanimous consent. >> this is an historic nomination with a fourth country with the record on issues of race that our country has to now be presented with the first female african-american attorney general nominee in history is not nothing. is significant. it is significant in our history and how we react to it is also significant in our history. the republican committee staff had have months and months and months to do their job of falling through background and history to look for damaging information. that is the prerogative of staff. that is what they do.

i do not fault them for doing that. what is noteworthy is after all that lengthy effort at the hearing, not one witness could be produced, not one to oppose her nomination. senator leahy made this clear when he asked the panel if any of you oppose turn nomination. instead we brought in an array of witnesses in agreement about the department of justice but nothing to say about this nominee so we stand up at this juncture and we have completely unblemished nominee comments and yet man after man down the other side of the aisle come zillow warnings that we must vote no.

she may disagree with you about the president's immigration policy. i have to say i disagree with you as well. i am not asking you to change your opinions about the president's immigration policy. buchanan punish someone for holding a different view than your own. there is an element of impatience. i will leave it at that. in doing it. this country was founded by a gathering that had a lot of disagreements and at the end of that gathering, mr. franklin

stood and asked let us gentlemen dow each of little bit of our own infallibility. and make this started. enough in fallibility not to punish someone for disagreeing with our views. i too disagree with your views and i think my position is reasonably held. my last point is there is an enormous amount of criticism of attorney-general eric holder during the course of the nomination hearings and i took the time to defend him then and i will take the time to defend him now because i think the criticism is wrong and unfair.

it is unfair to suggest the attorney-general politicize the office in ways that have never been done before. immediately before attorney general gonzalez who we cleared the white house scalpel from a point of view of independence. we live through the u.s. attorney scandal. we lived through the office of legal scandal torture memo scandal. we lived through the hiring political litmus test scandal. we lived through the civil rights division scandal and the scandal of politicization that surrounded 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 the that message

is unfair and wrong to try to put him in the category from which he pulled the department through his leadership. the rest of my statement i have in the record. >> thank you. senator ted cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today this committee is set to consider 11 nominees. i intend to support ten of those nominees. among those nominees are three judges in my home state of texas. judge alfred ben it, judge george hanks and all three of those nominees participated in the federal judiciary evaluation committees that we have established a bipartisan committee of experienced practitioners throughout the state of texas who vigorously

question nominees and african-american judges. one is a hispanic judge. for fairly and impartially holding above the law all three came through the bipartisan judicial evaluation committee with flying colors and all three impressed senator cohen and me with their record and their intention to remain faithful to the law. i am pleased to see the committee moving forward on those nominations. among the 11 nominees being considered is loretta lynch. like many 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 from partisan fray. remaining faithful to the constitution, faithful to the

law and not engaging in partisan battles. like many in this body i have been saddened and then horrified to see the current attorney general eric holder break that tradition. turned the department of justice into a partisan arm rather than institutions faithfully upholding the law. when loretta lynch was nominated i hoped to support her nomination. number one, and i would be happy to see a new attorney general who would remain faithful to the long leading to the department. number 2, loretta lynch has a remarkable career of professional achievements and in her tenure as u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york, she has earned a reputation among practitioners in new york from home i have spoken as a relatively no-nonsense prosecutor so i came

into the hearings with high hopes. primus say however that the answers loretta lynch gave in this hearing room in my judgment rendered her unsuitable for the position of chief law-enforcement officer for the station. 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 an attorney general. it was asked what would you expect her to do? for an attorney general i would expect an attorney general nominee to candid the state fish she would be faithful to the law and the constitution and not simply rubber-stamp the authority of the president. the answer is loretta lynch made at this hearing were nothing short of breathtaking.

when she is 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 is illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty, amnesty which i might note no less a legal scholars and barack obama noted he lacked the authority to issue. and amnesty which i would note just last week a federal district court declared illegal. and support executive amnesty. she found a legal justification reasonable. it doesn't stop at that. not just the attorney-general who will carry out this illegal and unconstitutional executive, loretta lynch went much further. when loretta lynch was asked in

her legal judgment the theory of prosecutorial discretion allowed president obama to extend amnesty to all 12 million people here illegally, she refused to answer that question. when miss lynch was asked if and 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 loretta 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 an absurd hypothetical. that should have been many the

answer. the answer is no that is patently unconstitutional. throughout the course of the hearings loretta lynch consistent refused to acknowledge any limitation whatsoever on the authority of the president of the united states. over and over and over again. when she was asked if she agreed with the holder department of justice's position that the government could place with gps tracker on the automobile of every single american in this nation with no probable cause whatsoever, position i might note that was rejected unanimously by the united states supreme court she refused to answer that question. went loretta lynch was asked if she agreed with the eric 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 loretta lynch was asked if she believed the federal government could constitutionally use a drone to kill an american citizen on american soldiers lower if that american posed no legitimate threat at the hearing she refused to answer that question. when loretta 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 about anti-american people had a right to be angry about, when loretta lynch was asked if she would be willing to go different path than eric holder, not to sign the so-called investigation to a partisan democrat who is the major donor, the president obama and the democratic party but instead to follow the path elliot richardson took under

richard nixon and 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 to my friends on this side of the aisle every one of us is deeply dismayed by the lawlessness of eric holder but there's a difference. eric holder began disregarding the law after he was confirmed. in this instance loretta lynch has sat in this room and holds members of this committee what she intends to do. of those answers are not sufficient to vote against the nominee i don't know what answers would be.

we should not be surprised if president obama tries to grant amnesty to 12 million instead of 4 million and loretta lynch rubber stamp that as acceptable. if over the next two years we see abuse of power and executive authority, regulatory abuse and the department of justice rubberstamp thing it 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 notice. she has told us her views. those views are radical. those views undermined the rule of law. 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 for the constitution in limiting the president who appointed him.

for that reason i believe the only responsible course of action for the senate is to reject this nomination. >> thank you. now senator amy klobuchar. >> thank you to all members. listening to senator ted cruz talk about lower in a lynch i was thinking of your statement that people should be unwilling to confirm someone that has somehow in your view not upheld the law or said they won't of told the law and i was thinking of one issue that is a major one for a lot of our colleagues across the aisle and this is the immigration issue the fact the president has issued this executive order and the fact that loretta lynch said she felt that this was correct under the law. every president since eisenhower has issued such an order and presumably this means they were advised by their attorney general many of whom were confirmed by people in this room or voted for by people in this room that was okay to do that.

look at george h. w. bush 1.5 million immigrants involved in an executive order, 1.5 million immigrants involved in executive order and for those of my republican colleagues that were around at that time i assume his attorney general, that that was legal and that attorney general was voted for by this committee. i see that ted cruz is getting up but when he said it was breathtaking on her performance i thought was breathtaking as a look at her father, reverent lynch, how will she did at the hearing and how well she was able to answer the questions that were put before her. the other thing i can't help but look at this pragmatically when my constituents woke up to a video from a terrorist from our al shabaab saying he wanted to target and was asking people to tie our malls. senator franken and i are from

minnesota. our malls in canada and london and jewish own malls across the country. i like the idea of putting a person in for attorney-general that has prosecuted more terrorism cases in her office than any other u.s. attorney's office and the country, that has that ability to take on those cases. for my constituents who i present that is power to them and when i hear my friends for so many years talk about how they don't like eric holder and they think in the words of ted cruz has been lawless now was their chance to put someone else into the office and the last thing i say is based on one of our colleagues talking about likening this to a business and to view in the last hearing, i was in the private sector for 14 years and i believe a ceo should be able to put a general counsel in. it was different as we have a constitutional invocation to advise and consent but the ceo is the president of the united

states. he wants to the council in. we have waited months and the issue was raised how could we make this decision on a 10 minute job interview? it was a eight hour job interview with our colleagues were welcome to stay for the entire job interview. not only that but they could conduct their own job interviews in their own office, hundreds of pages of documents and ask whatever questions they want. they may not have been happy with those answers but to say she is disqualified because this process wasn't long enough and there wasn't enough of an interview is wrong so i am pleased to vote for her today. i am glad some of our republican colleagues are doing the same. i reminded of senator gramm absconds when we had the supreme court justices in front of as lisa i am john mccain. john mccain at won at election there would be different people in front of us as nomination for supreme court but he said my job is not whether or not i agree with every position they take or every position the president takes, they're going to be the

lawyer for. my job is to sign it -- decided they are qualified. if they have the ability to make those decisions and i believe that is our job right now with regard to loretta lynch who has confronted so many obstacles in her life as a dad knows. a woman who when she took the test in elementary school and was told we don't think you got that score it was too high, said i will take it again and score even higher. woman who when she became valedictorian of her high school class was asked if she would share that with a white student so it wouldn't be so controversial her parents had to live through that and said fine, says she has waded through this confirmation process and i think she will be a great attorney general. i wanted to comment on the bipartisan work that has been done on the sex trafficking bills. i am so grateful chuck grassley endeavour great ranking member patrick leahy work done this and

we are not only putting john cornyn's bill which i am the lead democrat but we also have my bill, less safe harbor bill which john cornyn is the lead republican on and i am grateful that members of this committee co-sponsored this bill. i want to focus briefly on my bill which is the safe harbor bill. version that is similar pass the house of representatives. is simply says creates incentives for states to let adopting laws like the dozen states of arne duncan safe harbor laws, says you are not going to go after victims of prostitution. last week in rochester, minn. we had a 12-year-old girl a man was charged federally for this crime, 12-year-old girl gets a text inviting her to a party. egos to a parking lot with her friend and goes to a mcdonald's parking lot. the guy put her in a car, brings it to the twin cities and racer and then take such will explicit pictures, france to hurt her family, but those pictures on

craigslist and sells her to two men who raped her. that is what happens. those were the facts out of rochester, minnesota. that is why this bill is important supported by the fraternal order of police, the conference of state legislatures and important by supported by many sex trafficking groups across the country and why it has strong bipartisan support. it creates a national sex trafficking strategy and includes an important provision senator sessions and senator whitehouse worked done regarding federal marshals and creates incentives for states to do what has been working in so many states and that is treating young predominately girls as victims. giving them the services they need to turn their shows around and making sure they can build stronger cases against cut perpetrators that are running these sex trafficking rings and i really appreciate the republican support for this bill because it is a new approach looking at this differently and

it has meant a lot to me and i thank my colleagues for their support and the work that needs to be done on this important matter going forward. >> now, jeff flake. >> i will support loretta lynch's nomination to the attorney general today. to determine if somebody is qualified for the position whether i agree with their position to take. and she thinks it was reasonable to put forward. my position is not to agree with every position, i concede there are differing opinions on this. i think that she is eminently qualified and anyone who has met

with her and attended hearings where she came forward had to be impressed with her background and experience, when the opinion of her, and that has been positive. one issue has come up since, executive action on february 17th judge hanson in the southern district of texas issued an order temporarily enjoining this action from going forward. since the department of justice asked that the injunction be limited to the stage of texas, some of us thought it might be important to determine whether she agreed with that position or more importantly if the district court, the circuit court rules

to keep this injunction, whether she and the department of justice would abide by it. myself and senator hatch and senator gramm sent a letter to loretta lynch and asked will you commit to follow the district court injunction against the implementation of president obama's executive action until the injunction is either lived or state by the court of appeals for the supreme court? number 2 will you commit to follow the district court's injunction as worded specifically as it applies nationwide and not limited application to the state of texas unless the court of appeals for the supreme court limits the scope of its jurisdiction. her answer to us was in response to your letter of february 25th with respect to the preliminary injunction entered by the district court of the district of texas regarding the president's executive action on immigration the answer to both 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 state, lifted or altered by disastrous course itself by the fifth circuit or by the supreme court. i would like to enter the full text of the letter and the response into the record without objection. i have to enter. >> so ordered. >> to my colleagues who have been critical, many actions the department of justice has taken under the current attorney-general i would note that the longer denomination is held up the longer the current attorney general and department of justice stays in place so i at this time am pleased to support this nomination. i would encourage my colleagues to do the same. i encourage the chairman to give me time. >> thank you.

senator frank and will be next and because senator lindsey graham had to be at another committee meeting of ocala on him unless another democrat comes in and we will take a democrat ahead of lindsey graham. >> it is with pleasure that i endorse loretta lynch's nomination to the next attorney general and 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 unanimously as u.s. attorney of one of the most prominent processes in this country. i have been continually impressed by her and find that she lives up to her reputation as a smart tough but fair

attorney. the eastern district of new york office has flourished under her capable leadership. she prosecuted cases of terrorism, probably the most than any of us as amy klobuchar pointed up white-collar crime, police brutality to name a few areas. she has couples these court room successes with meaningful community engagement and relationship building with a variety of stakeholders. these experiences have given her important insights into the most troubling threats our country faces. it makes her uniquely qualified to run the department of justice. loretta lynch is an admirable public servant and i urge all of my colleagues to confirm -- i would like to make response to ted cruz about the hypothetical

questions that he asked her. i was there for a lot of those and i do not recall my colleagues on the other side of the aisle raising the issue when attorney-general -- clients to provide senators with his legal opinions based on hypotheticals because he said it would be irresponsible to provide senators this is a quote, and uninformed legal opinion based on hypothetical facts and circumstances. that is exactly what was happening. notably what mr. mckay's the determined was a hypothetical was established facts about the treatment of the team he's in u.s. custody. he was unable to offer an opinion whether water boarding was tortured because such a

hypothetical was different from what he said was different from real life and any legal opinion in actual fact and circumstances are critical. the point is there were no issues raised by the it is side when he said he would not answer those hypotheticals and that is parallel to what was going on when ted cruz asked those hypotheticals though i am looking forward to voting for loretta lynch. >> senator of bitter, and senator chris coons and lindsey graham. >> i will vote no on the confirmation of loretta lynch because of her views on the

apparently boundless authority of the president and including a specific leave this issue of the recent executive amnesty. let me say i think any suggestion of some of 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 prospect of job. this is that the absolute center of her responsibilities being the top lawyer not for the president. the president has lots of lawyers and clinical lawyers and others including white house counsel. being the top lawyer for the country and these issues are at the center of current job. why did i reach that conclusion? i questioned her at length in my office and in committee. in contrast to a lot of other folks who spoke, i was not at all impressed with her responses

because they were complete the 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 it very legitimate for any executive to set prosecution priorities and that is what he was doing. i followed up and said i think his quarters clearly go beyond setting priorities. they give a new and different legal status to almost 5 million illegal aliens and she had no specific response to is that. cheat simply eat pointed to the administration legal opinion. i said this action goes further than that. it hands these folks a new document made out of the blue with the words work permits on top. where is the legal authority for that? she had no specific response to

that. in the hearing i asked her detailed questions in the same vein, the only of floridian the law for this kind of thing demands for any action approaching this be made on a case by case cases. isis do you think granting amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens is acting on a case by case basis? she had no significant response. i said the same thing, the attorney general has to make the decision on a case by case basis. how can it be moved to other people in homeland security? she had no detailed response to her that. that really concerns me

regarding her views of executive authority and this executive amnesty in particular and that goes to the heart of her job or what would be her job as the top lawyer. i am concerned by two other issues i will mention very briefly. first of all as i mentioned previously, loretta lynch as u.s. attorney in the eastern district of new york negotiated a real slap on the wrist for prosecution agreement with hsbc, ama get bank despite their admission they laundered money on behalf of mexican drug cartels, terrorist organizations and other sanctions enemies, entities. this is truly in too big to prosecute and jail and i am very concerned about that sort of approach. secondly with regard to fraud

allegations in hurricane sandy, i am concerned about the actions of her office as u.s. attorney. just yesterday in a texas court there are certain private insurance companies involved in terms of making settlements with homeowners, tried to demand that those homeowners signed agreements not to cooperate or participating criminal organizations. that is ridiculous. what is even more ridiculous is loretta lynch's office, her u.s. attorney's office made a motion to keep that proposed settlement document out of the record. which side are they on and why aren't they taking the proposed settlement documents and make it part of their criminal investigation rather than trying to block it from being in the public record? based on those specific reasons i plan to vote no.

>> thank you. chris coons. >> thank you for the opportunity to comment on the exceptional nominee to serve as attorney general of the united states and two bills related to human trafficking which i hope we will get to run today. loretta lynch has been an exceptional u.s. attorney. has many of my colleagues mentioned before me and it is my view she has been an exceptional nominee she has endured a 110 day wait and it is my hope and expectation that this will be her last day before this committee before moving to the floor. she performed admirably at her day is long nomination hearing offering substantive answers on questions that were appropriate to answer across many topics but declining to inappropriately prejudged and legal conclusions when given complex hypotheticals. if my understanding is correct she entered a 97 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. and i will be happy to support her today. i also want to thank john cornyn and amy klobuchar for putting together a meaningful bipartisan legislation to address the terrible scourged of modern day cumin trafficking. these bills will go a long way towards holding offenders responsible and assuring victims get the care they need to have the best chance of possible recovery and proud to be a co-sponsor and look forward to moving forward on some. >> senator gramm. >> thank you, mr. chairman thank you very much. i will support loretta lynch because i think she is qualified she is a decent person, she has lived a good life, she has done a good job as u.s. attorney and all things being equal i think the democratic president is well within bounds in misusing her. nobody on our side would have

chosen her but when you win the white house certain things come your way. what i like most about her is she seems to understand the war on terror and less attorney-general make sure all the tools in the toolbox are available to defend this nation including holding american citizens as any combatants to collaborate with the enemy. she seems to be a tough minded person when it comes to terrorism and i do believe her experiences in life and as a u.s. attorney make her qualified. secondly eric holder is ready to go and i wish him well. he is about to go make a lot of money. republicans are in to that. he will be the 1%. i wish him well. i appreciate his service but quite frankly to turn the page and have a new attorney general to look at some old issues, everything my colleagues have

said about the executive action by the president i associate with a self with on 22 occasions he told people when pressed i can't wave of magic wand and get people beagles' status. apparently he found a magic wand. now he has decided to do something i think is chilling in a constitutional democracy. this is not about beavering prosecution. this is about getting somebody new status. to my democratic colleagues if you like this can you think this is ok on your watch other people can do similar things on other key issues. we are setting in motion a dangerous precedent here in my view that will have ramifications for years to come in terms of checks and balances but we have been independent branch called the judiciary and the reason we have independent judges is because if you expect partisan people to decide this

we are hopelessly lost. we will eventually decide what is right or wrong about the president's faction and that is the way it should be. as to the senate, the senate is changing all for the worst. to my colleagues, this would be a good time to go back to the 60 vote requirement of your upset that much about this lady. i will vote to change the rules and put a burden and getting 60 votes. i will be one of the 60 but that is what the 60 vote hurdle is required to make nominations using controversial challenging. i doubt if we will do that. to those who really believe this is a constitutional overreach of historic proportions, you have impeachment available to you. that is a process that can

control unconstitutional action. i doubt if anybody on our side will start impeachment. we are not going to go down that road because most americans would not like that as the outcome. we can yell and scream all we like but the courts are the right place for this to be resolved. the president has done this because he has frozen a wet blanket over what might be our alaska best chance to get immigration reform. we are more worried about the next election than the country as a whole. i have nothing but disdain for what he has done but here is my challenge. may i add fuel to the fire? i don't want to. she is qualified by any reasonable standard. i am sorry the senate is a dysfunctional. times are the president created this mess but i won't add to it. i will vote for this lady because i know she is qualified.

thank you. >> senator taylor. >> thank you for your leadership on this committee in going through this process. i can't help but go back to restate what i said earlier. there has been a lot of discussion of how this has gone on 100 days. i have been a senator for 45 days and a few fast--covers week as an organizing week this includes recess, holidays and weekends. it seems to me it is consistent with most others. not sure why we have to go there in the discussion but i have been here for 45 days and this confirmation process is within that time on flow. back in the north carolina house when i would go into a caucus meeting we would tell everybody that has already been said don't say it again. i was prepared to be brief in my comments. i will come back to the nomination.

first of 5 like to thank john cornyn for the bipartisan support for the justice trafficking act. is something we did in north carolina. i'm glad to see the bipartisan support for that. i would ask unanimous consent to be added to richard blumenthal's amendment. hopefully we will complete the market today. >> without objection so ordered. >> back to the nomination. i said in the last committee meeting that i was looking at loretta lynch who is extraordinary. i spent a lot of time watching her family and her supporters in the committee meeting beaming with pride for what a remarkable job she did in the committee, what a remarkable track record she has. she was raised right. she was clearly somebody who came up with strong work ethic, she has done a great job as u.s. attorney and i would gladly confirm her for that role.

the way i look at this role and i decided i will not support loretta lynch and keep in mind loretta lynch hails from north carolina. a lot of the family are proud citizens of north carolina. this is the most difficult decision i have made in 45 days in this job but i look at loretta lynch as somebody who is going to come in as the head of an organization that has 100,000 people in it. an organization that has problems with current management. an organization the inspector general cited several problems that when i asked loretta lynch what she thought of the inspector general's report and the management issues she is going to inherit and i am not prosecuting attorney general eric holder. what i'm doing is trying to look at it chief executive who has got to come in and convince me that there is going to be a change in management philosophy and is not clear to me that there will be because in that area there was a stark contrast

between the discussion that i had with loretta lynch and the discussion i had with dr. carter as secretary of defense. dr. carter was very clear that verbage challenges in the department of defense and all so clear on instances where he disagreed with the president's direction. by contrast loretta lynch, i am not going to get into the policy issues. i would be shocked if loretta lynch had a divergence of positions from the president before we interviewed her the president did. i am not going to judge her positions on policy. i am looking as is purely from the perspective, excuse me purely from the perspective of the chief executive of 100,000 person organization. i do not see someone who is going to recognize there are legitimate >> that need to be addressed and we need someone who will take that seriously. we can live to fight another day on policy differences but on that basis i cannot support

nomination. thank you. >> before turning to my remarks on the loretta lynch nomination eyes speak briefly about the process in considering that nomination. this nomination of rose during a unique set of circumstances. i only did the senate majority change a couple new members of the senate joined the committee in a january. very important to me as chairman to ensure those members had adequate time to consider this nomination and as is often the case with cabinet level appointments we had to gather all the relevant documents. i want to take this opportunity to thank the department of justice for its unwillingness and cooperation in working with us to gather those documents. it is true that we were still gathering documents up until a week or two before the hearing i think it is fair to say the department was working in good faith to get us some materials that we needed.

finally since our last executive business being a number of members submitted follow-up questions for the record, seeking additional priority from the nominee. they respond to these questions last week. one of the topics some of us myself included wanted additional information about was a settlement reached between loretta lynch's office and the hsbc bid saying. i won't take the time to go into details of the allegations raised in that bank matter but it is important for committee members to knows this. that we voted on loretta lynch's nomination during our last meeting our staffs wouldn't have been able to conduct the bipartisan interview and i want to emphasize bipartisan interview of a whistle-blower like they did last week. loretta lynch wouldn't have had an opportunity to respond to our questions on this subject. for that reason had be voted at our last meeting we wouldn't

have been discharging our duties under the constitution in an appropriate throwaway. that wouldn't have been that would have been irresponsible. so my goal was to consider loretta lynch's nomination in a pharaoh of fair and respectful way. i know some of you who sit to my left think we took too long and some of you who sit to my right don't think we have taken long enough. i believe we carried out our constitutional duties but we also kept the process moving. with that i will turn to my comments on the merits. from the outset what we need from the next attorney general, more than anything else, is independence. it is through the attorney general as a cabinet officer who served at the pleasure of the president but first and foremost the attorney-general of the united states is the nation's

top law enforcement officer. the attorney general may be appointed by the president but the job is not to simply defend the president and his policies. the job is not to be the president's swingman. those words were used by the present attorney general. the job is defined by a duty to defend the constitution and uphold the rule of law. the attorney general does not represent democrats, republicans or independents. the job is to represent all americans regardless of party and regardless of politics. unfortunately in my view the current attorney general has permitted politics to drive decisionsmaking. it is not only republicans to recognize the problem. i quoted the inspector general and i want to quote that again. in 2013 the department's and

inspector general listed as one of the top management challenges, restoring confidence in the integrity of fairness and accountability of the department. i make these observations about the current leadership as one of the few republicans, that served at that time. i happen to be one of those 19 who voted for attorney general eric holder. i had a lot of concerns regarding his nomination but i gave him the benefit of the doubt. i approached this nomination before us today with that vote in mind. i feel as though i should analyze it. beating the department of justice is an effective way requires more than impressive credentials. as all my colleagues have said

loretta lynch has those impressive credentials but so did attorney-general eric holder. i supported eric holder error but his tenure at least from where i sit particularly responding to my oversight request has been a huge disappointment. on the other hand recognize the most sure-fire way to replace attorney-general eric holder is loretta lynch as his replacement. the question for me from the start has been whether she will make a clean break and take the department in new direction. after thoroughly reviewing loretta lynch's testimony before the committee, written follow-up, i remain unconvinced she will lead the department in different direction. i am confident she had demonstrated more independence

from the president she would have garnered a lot of support today. we need to look no further than recent confirmation of secretary carter to be department of defense. when he testified before the senate armed services committee secretary carter demonstrated the type of independent streak many of us were hoping we would see from loretta lynch. most of the media reporting on nominations seem to agree i want you to compare headlines from several newspapers regarding the carter nomination. a nominee for defense secretary changed direction, new york times. new defense secretary airs differences with obama over ukraine, gitmo, washington times, obama pentagon says he won't bent to white house pressure to release gitmo

prisoners. defense nominee carter cast himself as an independent voice, the washington post. compare those headlines regarding loretta lynch from the same news actions, quote, loretta lynch defense obama's immigration actions, new york times, quote, lower at a lynch defense obama immigration actions, huffington post, quote, loretta lynch defense obama's executive actions, it is a surveillance newsweek, quote, attorney general nominee loretta lynch defense obama's immigration policies, and of quote. washington times, secretary carter was confirmed with 93 votes only five senators voted against his nomination. that was a reflection of his testimony before the senate

which demonstrated a willingness to be an independent voice within the administration. i suspect loretta lynch will be confirmed but i doubt she will garner 93 votes in support of her nomination and to the extent her support isn't as broad as secretary carter's it will reflect a reluctance to take the department in a new direction and an unwillingness to identify meaningful limitations on executive power. i sincerely hope loretta lynch proves me wrong and is willing to stand up to the president and say no when the duty of the office demands it. she does that, then i can tell you i made a mistake voting no today or when it comes up on the floor for nomination just like i made a mistake voting yes for general holder. based on my view of the record that i have stated my not support. let me say a couple words about

the legislation on the agenda before we take amendments. on tuesday we had an excellent informative hearing on human trafficking. witnesses told us about their efforts to end this terrible crime and help victims. we also learned some of the obstacles that they face in these efforts today will take up two bills that should help make progress in the fight against human trafficking. the first bill, 178, just as for victims of trafficking act of 2015 which john cornyn introduced last month, i am not co-sponsor the, that bill provides more services to victims while cracking down on those engaging in human trafficking. the other bill to stop exportation through human trafficking act of 2015 which was introduced by amy klobuchar

last month. the centerpiece is a harbor provisions which encourage states to adopt laws that treat children as victims rather than prostitutes. both bills have strong bipartisan support. i haven't amendment i will propose today and i believe several others will have amendments as well, work to make those amendments considered. i have seen richard blumenthal come in. would you like to speak on any of the bills? and senator perdue coming, if you want to speak, you may do so now. >> without undue be prolonging this part of our of meetings i would like to say that i will be supportive, strongly supporting loretta lynch for this position. i think she is qualified uniquely qualified based on her experience, background,

education, demonstrated skill in the quarter managers sense of integrity and intellect. i am aware that there is disagreement about her and the chairman has expressed it, but she is not eric holder she is not the current attorney-general. she has to be distinguished from him and from the policies that he has espousal though many of those policies i hope she will continue. ..

>> and then we'll have, hopefully, en bloc voice vote on all the other nominees. senator per due. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sorry i had to step on for a minute. to keep this moving on, i'll yield my time this morning. thank you. >> okay. thank you very much. now i would like to go to s. 178. so i'm asking all senators if you have amendments, would you offer them at this point? >> mr. chairman? >> senator cornyn? >> mr. chairman, i'd like to call up the manager's amendment which is work of several senators including senator portman, senator schumer. we incorporate their bringing missing children home act and senator boxer and representative ted poe from the house have we've incorporated a version of their survivors of human trafficking empowerment act. this manager's amendment also

addresses the requests of several victims' rights groups including the alliance to end slavery and trafficking. >> senator leahy. >> mr. chairman, i will speak very briefly, because i do not want to hold up the time for the vote on loretta lynch, she's waited so much more time far more time than the four men who were ahead of her for attorney general. but on senator cornyn's amendment, i have told him i will vote for it because i believe it does make important contributions in human trafficking, something both he and i expressed concern about. i don't think it goes quite far enough. i think we have to prevent victims from falling prey to sex traffickers which would mean reauthorizing programs for run and homeless youth. and i've told -- runaway and

homeless youth. and i've told senator cornyn that i will bring an amendment to that effect on the floor and i will consult with him before i do, but i will vote for his substitute amendment as it is. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator leahy. i commend senator cornyn for working with people on both sides of the aisle to get this consensus package, and i -- if senator cornyn's done, i would ask unanimous consent that the manager's amendment be -- manager's substitute be adopted. without objection? so ordered. are there any other amendments? okay. >> there is. >> oh, there is another amendment. okay. [inaudible conversations] >> i would call up an amendment to guarantee funding. it's alb 15235. or alb 15274 rather. it authorized additional funding

funding -- it authorizes additional funding for victims of trafficking if the special assessment does not work. senator cornyn's bill does promise more money to victims. i absolutely support that. i'm very concerned that money may not materialize. we talk about $5,000 fines in those convicted. we tried that in my own state of vermont. those of us that have been prosecutors know that you can have a fine for somebody prosecuted and convicted but often times they're never paid. and in vermont we -- this results in a net loss of funding for trafficking victims. the fines don't get paid, the victims don't get the services they need. senator cornyn's predicted the fund will raise up to $30

million every year. i certainly hope it does. i but that requires nearly every single defendant pays the $5,000 fine on top of any restitution they're ordered. i worry not all that would happen. so i'm hoping senator cornyn's approach works. what my amendment would do, if it doesn't raise enough money, it authorizes further money so that we can help the victims. too many times i saw again as a prosecutor, you could convict the person who committed a crime, but the victim was victimized again because there were no services, no money, nothing to help the victim. so i comment senator cornyn,

what he's done, all i'm doing is putting my money if that money doesn't materialize we could authorize more which would, of course, require appropriations anyway. >> mr. chairman? >> senator cornyn. >> mr. chairman one of the reasons why this package is a consensus package is it doesn't appropriate at this point any taxpayer funds -- >> i'm not appropriating anything. >> ono i understand. -- no, i understand. i'm talking about the underlying bill. it relies on a crime victims' compensation fund which i became familiar with in my state as attorney general, and it provided resources for a vast array of crime victims' groups to provide services. based on 2012 data this legislation would hit approximately 6,000 predators, sex offenders, human traffickers, rapists, child pornographers and commercial human smugglers with a fine that would offset the cost of their crime.

and i know senator leahy is sincere about his amendment but i don't believe that it helps us build the kind of consensus going forward we need to add additional proppings or to authorize additional -- appropriations or to authorize additional appropriations at this point. i would say senator leahy's a distinguished member of the appropriations committee, and nothing we're going to do will in any way tie the hands or limit the appropriations committee at an appropriate point to appropriate money but i'd prefer not to muddle the message here and to change the crime victims' compensation fund concept by authorizing additional appropriations. so i would respectfully suggest that i cannot support the ranking member's amendment, but i certainly appreciate the spirit in which it was offeredded and look forward to continue to work with him. >> of course, we'll work to get more money in appropriations if the fines don't do it. but the problem is we can't get

the appropriations without authorization. i so support what the senator from texas wants to do but i don't want to hold out an empty promise to victims. so i will ask for support of my amendment whether it passes or not, of course, is a subject people have to decide. but my amendment guarantees that victims will get support. we have no problem in spending a lot of money in locking up the people who commit the crimes and we should. i always worry that we end up saying man we took care of that we locked up that person. sorry, victim, we can't even give you cab fare to get home. >> i'd like to call the roll. senator schumer. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and i have an amendment that i'd like to -- [inaudible conversations] i apologize. >> can i call the roll then on the leahy amendment? >> mr. chairman if i can just

interject briefly. again, i appreciate what the ranking member is trying to do, but i would note that owl d that all of these programs are authorized at much higher levels, so the only thing lacking is appropriations to add additional money. and certainly again, as the appropriations committee and congress is free to add additional money if we don't hit our benchmarks here. but, again to preserve the bipartisan consensus and to get this important piece of legislation out of committee and passed on the floor, i think it's important to vote against the ranking member's amendment to preserve that concept. >> i hope that the committee will defeat this amendment. i ask the clerk to call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] >> the votes are 9 yeas11 nays. so the amendment is defeated. i turn to senator schumer now. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i thank you. i have an amendment i would like to offer. it's alb 5198. it's called avante's law. and before i do that, i want to thank senator cornyn and the sponsors of this legislation for including my missing children's bill in the underlying trafficking legislation. i thank them for that. now, this is not exactly about trafficking, but it's related because it's about kids.

the legislation is named after the late avante akendo. he wandered from his school in new york city. he had autism. and as you know young kids wander whether they're in school or with their parents or just anywhere, they just wander, and they get in real trouble. well avante went missing in october of 2013, and he became more than just a face on a missing poster. new yorkers of all stripes, everyone, was searching for avante. they felt for his family, i've gotten to know his mother, miss fontaine. he had wondered because he had asd, like many other children. almost 50% of children after age 4 attempt to run or wander. sometimes it's a bright light sometimes it's a loud noise. we are learning how autism works and these things that don't affect us that way would affect them. finish and i our the

amendment -- and i offer the amendment because unfortunately, avante's wandering, running away is not an isolated incident. just a few months ago we had a young boy from white plains who tragically drowned after he wandered away from his visiting family in california -- in south carolina. is so our children are too valuable for us to wait another day when we can prevent this. i'm offering avante's law which creates a fund -- it's not very large, but it would do the job -- to provide voluntary tracking devices. if these kids who wandered had a tracking device around their wrist, sometimes they pull it off, so they put it right into their clothes, when they wander, they could find them right away and save their lives. it would provide services for families who have children with autism spectrum disorder, they could be found when they wander. we have a model for this.

we do it for senior citizens people who have par kipson's disease -- parkinson's disease and alzheimer's disease also wander and it's worked. so we could do the same for kids x. the schools, law enforcement community members are all for this. is so i'm not going to offer this amendment right now. i know it's an important bill, and it's not quite on topic and you're trying to keep it focused on the bill itself and so many people worked -- but i hope, mr. chairman ranking member and my colleagues, we move to work this bill -- work to move this bill. it's a needed issue, and i withdraw the amendment but thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. >> bring it back please. >> thank you. i will do that. >> mr. chairman? >> the amendment is withdrawn. okay? >> speaking to the amendment just very briefly? >> yes, you may do that. >> there's a company in rhode island that is putting a chip --

>> yeah. >> -- into -- >> clothes. >> -- an insole of a shoe so that all you have to do is register and you can keep track of whether it's children who may wander off or elderly folks. so this is a wonderful technology, and i think senator schumer's on the right side of this issue and this may not be its time, but there will be a time, and i look forward to supporting him. >> i would, i would bring up a grassley amendment after schumer's is withdrawn. k.i.n. 150 67. my amendment would help us make further progress in the fight against domestic human trafficking. it has three objectives. first, it would encourage federal agencies to devote existing grant resources to street-based services for run and homeless youth. -- runaway and homeless youth. second, it would update the authorizing language for the cyber tip line of the national center for missing and exploited children to insure that the

statute specifically references child sex trafficking. third and finally, this amendment would help insure that trafficking victims' protection grants can be used to meet the housing needs of traffic victims. it also calls for the government accountability office report and charges an existing task force with outlining best practices that combat human trafficking. is there any discussion on my amendment? i would save -- i would ask for a voice vote. those in favor say aye -- >> mr. chairman? can i just mention one thing? >> you can. >> the only concern i have with this is that it amends laws that where the authorization has expired. and i was trying to think of the if i can ever recall a time

we've done that in my 40 years. it's possible we have, i couldn't find an example of it. so i just want, you know, i'm certainly not going to object to this going forward but i want your assurance that senator collins and i have a chance to offer our amendment which makes sure that there are reauthorizations this these bills so that we're not just saying something nice, but then having a bill that's not authorized anyway being amended. >> well, i know that you've agreed to work with me on runaway reauthorization, so how about if we would take that route? >> well, as long as we are going to be able to have, we're going to have the runaway and homeless youth trafficking act as an amendment, i just want to make sure that at some point we're going to have a vote on that. >> yeah okay. >> and so i i certainly won't

object to your -- >> okay. >> -- going forward. but i do want to make sure we get done that we haven't amended something that won't exist in the end. >> okay. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no. the ayes seem to have it. ayes do have it. it'll be amended. is there any other votes on -- any other amendments -- >> yes, mr. chairman. >> --178? >> mr. chairman? >> okay. oh, i'm sorry, senator blumenthal, proceed please. >> like senator schumer i had planned on filing a number of amendments related to human trafficking and the worker visa program, and i want to commend him and support him on the avante law amendment that he was going to offer and now has withdrawn, and i am not going to proceed with those additional amendments that i had intended to do out of a desire to avoid

anything that could jeopardize passage of the underlying bill. but i understand, mr. chairman, that you're willing to work on these important issues, the worker visa programs and trafficking online and i look forward to doing so. i'd like to offer a.l.b. 1520 270, the hero amendment -- >> that amendment's before us. go ahead, proceed. >> thank you. i want to, first of all, thank senator kirke for co-sponsoring this legislation with me and also senators lee and tillis for co-sponsoring as well and senator klobuchar senator cornyn, senator feinstein for their leadership on this very important cause. i've been honored to serve as ranking member of the veterans affairs committee, and i've seen over that time and well before -- as all of us have -- the continuing desire of our veterans to serve our nation. the qualities that they bring to

bear to public service are extraordinary and in many ways unique. their persistence tenacity, courage which makes them very well suited to be involved in law enforcement. the purpose of this bill is to give permanent status to a program that is actually succeeding in training our wounded and injured veterans in law enforcement tasks, specifically in computer forensic tasks and skills that they then use to track down apprehend and help prosecute the individuals who are predators who exploit children and who engage in that kind of very pernicious and insidious activity. this program has been in the cyber crimes center and its subcomponents, including the hero core as it's known, and the amendment would essentially give it permanent status in statute

since it's never been officially authorized and it would also give the service members who have these injuries and wounds the kinds of purpose and peace that will help them and provide very very valuable skills to our law enforcement officials. i might mention that law enforcement, actually, some of our most experienced and seasoned law enforcement officials have commented on how tenacious and effective these individuals are because of their attention to detail, their self-dismin and their possessor convenience -- self-discipline and their perseverance in task. bewe know there are a lot of false leads so i offer this amendment with thanks to senator

kirk. >> i would urge my colleagues to sport it. to support it. without objection senator leahy is co-sponsor. >> mr. chairman i was just going to say exactly what you just said. i appreciate senator kirk and senator blumenthal for their lineup on this and urge our -- leadership on this and urge our colleagues to support the amendment. >> thank you. >> -- by consensus we adopt the blumenthal amendment. it's adopted. okay? any other concern on 178? we'll set that aside momentarily, go to 166. do any senators have amendments to offer to 166? proceed, senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much. and, again i appreciate you bringing this safe harbor bill to the a. >> enda. senator cornyn and i have worked hard on this bill for a long time, and i very much appreciate it as well as i'm glad that his bill is progressing that i've also co-sponsored, and i want to

thank senator feinstein for leadership as well as senator leahy for his. i have a technical amendment that updates the subsection number in the u.s. code for the hotline section, and i ask that that be included. >> without objection that amendment will be included. i support or her amendment. senator leahy. >> i'm a co-sponsor of this. i'm very proud of senator klobuchar expect others -- and the others who have done it. i'll certainly vote for it. i'm also proud that vermont already has such a law. i hope that more states will follow suit. but this may encourage them to. it's worked well in vermont. >> i would like to move now, if i could to a roll call vote on the first bill that we just amended. >> mr. chairman -- [inaudible] >> yeah? without objection, senator hatch would be amended -- or be added as a co-sponsor.

>> senator whitehouse has also been added. >> okay. >> thank you. >> now i would go back to 178 and ask -- >> call the roll? >> yes. well, do you want to speak? >> no, no. >> okay. yeah. we're going to have -- [inaudible conversations] we would have a roll call vote on 178. call the roll please. [roll call] [roll call]

>> mr. chairman, the votes are 19 yeas no nays, one pass. >> i won't repeat the score. the bill is reported to the floor. now i'd like to go to 166 as amended. the clerk would call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

>> mr. chairman, the vote is 20 yeas, no nays. >> according to the vote just announced, 166 is reported. we'll now turn to the nomination of loretta lynch to be attorney general of the united states and the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

>> mr. chairman, the votes are 12 yeas, 8 nays. >> by that roll call vote just announced, ms. lynch will be reported to the floor. we will now consider the res of the nominees. -- the rest of the nominees. i'd like to consider them en banc unless there's objection. >> i so move. >> okay. i should name these, is so don't go until you get 'em named and then we vote. michelle lee alfred bennett george hanks jose olivera jim parrish, then to the courts of claims nancy firestone, thomas -- [inaudible] patricia mccarthy, jerry somers armando bonilla. >> mr. chairman? >> all those -- i'm sorry. >> i just don't want everyone to leave. i want to do a brief statement of personal privilege. >> would you please, would

everybody give senator feinstein the courtesy of listening to her? all those in favor of the nominees just named signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed, no. ayes appear to have it, do have can it. we do have over a quorum present, and the nominees are reported to the floor. and now senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'd like to just for a moment recognize my chief counsel neil equipmenter, who is leaving the senate to return to the private sector. he has served me and the people of california well for nearly half of my 22 years in the senate. serving as my chief counsel from '95-'99 and again since 2009. this between he served as an elected official in his own right, serving the maryland state legislature from 2003-2007. i've relied on him for able and candid advice, and i know many of you have gotten to know him very well.

he has provided consistent guidance and oversight and i just want to thank him for his decade of service to the senate. thank you very much -- >> will the senator -- mr. chairman? senator feinstein is known for having one of the most outstanding staffs on the hill, and we'll miss you. >> and i would like to join senator feinstein in thanking and congratulating her chief counsel and thanking him, more importantly, for his ten years of service here on the hill. we all know whether it's neil or a lot of other staff people around here we wouldn't be able to do our job without the ted candidated service that he -- dedicated service that he ex'em mifies. -- exemplifies. >> thank you, mr. chairman thank you. [applause] >> meeting is adjourned.

>> the u.s. senate is about to gavel in, and "the hill," has this preview today. in an effort to pass department of homeland security funding bill. the senate will take its first vote at 10:00 this morning setting the stage for a final vote on a clean dhs funding bill that would be stripped of any language defunding or overturning president obama's actions on immigration. they're also scheduled to vote on advancing a bill that prohibits funding for the president's executive order on immigration. the house appears poised to separately move a three week funding bill for the agency. if the senate agreed, it would keep the agency funded for three weeks and give house republicans more time to try to develop a funding bill for the rest of the fuss call year. and now -- fiscal year. and now to live coverage of the

senate here on c-span2 the house is on c-span. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. god, you are our refuge and

strength a very present help during challenging seasons. thank you for the opportunity to serve you and country. use our lawmakers for your glory. may they experience companionship with you throughout this day. permit this fellowship with you to impart wisdom, courage and inspiration. make them so aware of your presence that they will refuse to major in minors and minor in majors. remind them that lawmakers can work miracles with cooperation

but accomplish little with legislative brinkmanship. may they make the doing of your will their highest priority. we pray in your sovereign 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.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that following leader remarks the time until 10:00 a.m. this morning be equally divided in the usual form. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the mandatory quorum with respect to the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to s. 534 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that there be two minutes of debate equally divided before each vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now madam president, this morning the senate will complete work on a bill to fund the department of homeland security and then we'll turn to senator collins' bill, commonsense legislation that would protect our democracy from the egregious example of executive overreach we saw in november. it actually, in my view, deserves broad support. remember president obama said more than 20 times he couldn't take those kinds of actions.

he even referred to overreach like that as -- quote -- "ignoring the law." so explins senator collins' measure follows the law instead of ignoring it. it provides democrats who led constituents to believe there was executive overreach with a chance to show they were at least a little bit serious when they said that. democrats won't achieve that by filibustering homeland security and democrats won't achieve it by holding hypocritical press conference just hours after voting to block funding for d.h.s. but they can help us pass a sensible bill from senator collins that would hold the executive branch to account. after so many weeks of senseless filibustering, that's the least these democrats owe their constituents. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: we're about 14 hours

from a shutdown of the department of homeland security. the senate will do its part this morning and send the house a clean homeland security bill that fully funds the department until the end of the year. it will stop a government shutdown. then the house must act and it must act responsibly. we must pass the senate bill. we will not go to conference on some jury-rigged situation they send back dealing with something they don't for whatever reason. the senate is proving there is broad bipartisan support for a good bill that will fund the government and keep the government running. it would pass the house this legislation we pass here in an hour or so. it will pass on a broad bipartisan vote if speaker boehner would simply allow a vote on it. if he allowed democrats and republicans to vote in the house as has been done in centuries it would pass overwhelmingly.

the only point of his wanting a conference would be to take a clean bill they can pass in both houses and turn it into something that can't pass anything. this bill we'll pass today is not just the senate's product. it is a bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. last december the house and senate in some very difficult negotiations worked out an agreement that we passed 13 funding bills as part of an omnibus spending bill. but house republicans refused to pass the homeland security funding. we now have 12 of the 13 that we agreed to done. they now reneged on the bill to do the 13th. this bipartisan bicam rat bill deserves -- bicameral bill deserves our vote in the house. the republican chairman of the house foreign affairs committee said this -- quote -- "there is a clear majority in the senate and the house to pass this legislation." close quote. we can't govern by shutting down essential lifesaving departments

of the federal government. as the junior senator from illinois said yesterday -- quote -- "as a governing party we've got to fund d.h.s. and say to the house here's a straw so you can suck it up." close quote. this battle should be the end of the strategy of attaching whatever you're upset about with the president to a vital piece of government legislation. yesterday congressman peter king of new york put it more bluntly when he said -- quote -- "we can't allow d.h.s. not to be funded. people think we're crazy. there are terrorist attacks all over the world and we're talking about closing down homeland security. this is like living in the world of the crazy people." close quote. congressman king went on to say "i've had it with this self-righteous delusional wing of the party that leads us over the cliff. that says a lot about the party. it means trouble. how many times can we go over the cliff and survive?" close quote. i agree with his sentiments.

this is not just about the republican party. this is about our country. how many times can house republicans send our nation hurling toward a cliff. i listen carefully to the prayer every day. one other things, the senate chaplain barry black said, speaking to our heavenly father, remind them that lawmakers can work miracles with cooperation but accomplish little with legislative brinkmanship. that was the prayer that was offered here this morning. how many times can we narrowly avert catastrophe just so republicans get a gold star from radical pundits? they need to do the right thing pass the senate's clean bill and pass it today and quickly. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 240 which the clerk will report. the clerk: 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 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: under the previous order the time until 10:00 a.m. will be equally divided in the usual form. ms. mikulski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president as the vice chair of the appropriations committee i rise to speak on the homeland security funding bill. madam president, this morning we the senate moves to fulfill its responsibility, its national responsibility to pass the homeland security bill to fully fund it through the fiscal year 2015. this fulfills a constitutional

oath that we senators took to protect and defend the constitution and the people of the united states of america against all foes, foreign and domestic. the domestic is here today. the domestic is in homeland security. the domestic is in what we need to do to fulfill our responsibility. we take oaths to the constitution. we say we want a constitutionally driven government. so do i. we need to get off of our press releases and pass this bill. i am really proud of the fact that we on the appropriations committee did our job, and we did it in december. the subcommittee chairs on homeland security did their due diligence and came up with an affordable framework for funding

the homeland security bill that met the bottom line, met the budget caps but met our compelling national security needs. congressman hal rodgers from the house, whom i have nothing for great respect for and i came to a fiscal agreement. but we did not have the ability to move it forward because there were those who wanted to delay putting it in the omnibus because they were having a temper tantrum with the president of the united states over his executive authority. could he move his executive authority on the topic of immigration? so there was a solution to delay the funding so that we could have cooler heads prevail. oh golly do it after the election. and once again we punted and delayed and parsed, punted and issued press releases. that's what we got out of the house, somewhat out of the senate. now where are we today?

thanks to the leadership of the two leaders -- senator mcconnell and senator reid -- we have a path forward. i urge my colleagues to look at this path. a significant part of it is to pass a clean funding bill to make sure homeland security is funded the entire year so that we can meet the needs of the national programs like the coast guard and make sure that grants go out to our first responders who are truly our boots on the ground like volunteer fire departments that right now are out there in some parts of our community getting sick people out on snowmobiles. that's what i know senator collins of maine and i have talked about her maine and my garrett county. or when we've had a hurricane they can in and get elderly people out on zodiacs sometimes weading through -- wading

through water wondering if they're going to stop on power lines. there are those who want to increase defense funding so we can protect america against isil. we protect america against isil in this bill. you want to protect america vote for the clean funding bill. you want to protect america's border fight for the funding bill. you want to make sure we don't have illegal aliens in this country? make sure you're funding the border control. 23,000 people all in uniform out there on the border are manning the best technology we could afford to pay for them. so whatever we say we want to do, this is the way to do it. this is the way to do it. now we understand that the senate would like also to debate immigration. we respect that viewpoint. we also respect that the matter that is of concern about the president's executive authority is going through the courts.

don't punish the border patrol agent. don't punish the person working in the coast guard out on an ice cutter. don't punish the volunteer firefighter because you're angry at obama. so i say to my folks on my side of the aisle let's make sure we vote to fund the clean funding bill here today. and i say to the other side of the aisle to do it. now, i really appreciate the fact that senator reid and senator mcconnell have arrived at this parliamentary set of votes to get us where we need to be going. but say to my friends in the house, to delay this three more weeks is reckless and it is dangerous. what are we going to know? we're waiting for the courts to decide? who knows when the courts will decide. but what we do know not what the courts will decide, but we know we have a legal process.

a judge has made a decision. it's going to go through the court of appeals maybe even to the supreme court. let the court follow its process. but in the meantime, while the courts are doing their job could we at least get around to doing our job so that the men and women who provide us and fight every day whether it's at the local volunteer fire department or whether it's our secret service our coast guard those working on cyber security who director clapper the national director says cyber threats is a bigger threat than isil. let's get on with it and let's fulfill our constitutional responsibility when we said we will do, we take an oath to protect america against all foes foreign and domestic. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you madam president. madam president, i rise in strong opposition to stripping off all of the house language from the homeland security funding bill and proceeding with a --quote, unquote -- clean bill. and i do that, madam president because i took a constitutional oath and i take that oath very seriously and that language which we're debating in the homeland security funding bill from the house goes directly to that oath, goes directly to that responsibility. it does so for two reasons. first of all this executive amnesty had five million illegal aliens getting a blanket significant amnesty because of the president's executive action is a big deal. it's a big deal in terms of policy. it's a big deal regarding his

overreaching his legal and constitutional authority. first, madam president policy. you know, it's a fundamental rule of economics it's a fundamental rule of life that when you reward behavior, you get more of it. when you penalize certain behavior you get less of it. well an amnesty a blanket overarching amnesty that gives about five million illegal aliens in the country here amnesty is rewarding behavior. it's rewarding behavior we say we want to curtail we say we want to stop but we're rewarding it and we're going to get more of it. and that's just not me saying that theoretically. we have lived that over and over and over again. the president a few years ago took a similar but smaller executive action commonly referred to as daca.

that focused on younger illegal aliens. and guess what? soon after that action, a wave of new young illegal minors, unaccompanied minors started coming into this country in numbers like we had never seen before. does anyone think that was unrelated? does anyone think that timing was just coincidence? of course it wasn't. the president rewarded illegal crossings and surprise, surprise he got a whole lot more of them in exactly the class younger illegal minors, unaccompanied minors that he had acted on through daca. so this is going to happen again on a much larger scale. we're going to grow the problem through this policy, not get control of it. but the second concern i have, madam president, is far -- even

far more fundamental because it goes to his constitutional power and authority and the fact that he is going well beyond that constitutional power and authority i think clearly. you know, presidents have significant authority. they are the executive. they need to execute the law. in executing the law they often have to fill in the blanks, fill in the details that congress has not fully provided. but that's very different madam president, from acting contrary to the law. 180 degrees contrary to statutory law and that's what the president is doing in this instance, and no president has that authority. you want to do that, you need to change the law and as every school kid knows that goes through congress, and then the president obviously has a role in terms of veto. but -- but the president doesn't

want to do that, he can't do that. congress disagrees with him so he is just changing the law with a stroke of a pen. that is what is clearly illegal and unconstitutional because he is acting contrary to statutory law. now, some of his apologists including loretta lynch, for example, say well, every president can set prosecution priorities. we're simply setting priorities. we're simply saying this class of folks are not a priority for legal action, deportation prosecution. well i asked ms. lynch directly after she said that isn't it true that the president is going beyond that? isn't it true that he is giving this entire class of illegal alien a new legal status? she had really no substantive response. and i said isn't it true that the president is going beyond that, he is creating a new

document out of thin air with work permit at the top and handing it to these illegal aliens and suggesting they now have a right to work legally in this country even though statutory law makes it crystal clear that they do not. she had no substantive answer to that. so madam president i urge my colleagues not to strip out this important house language. the president's action is bad policy that will grow the illegal immigration problem and it's acting clearly beyond his legal constitutional authority. thank you madam president. i yield the floor. ms. collins: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: thank you madam president. madam president, this morning we have the opportunity to accomplish two important goals. first, we can pass legislation that will fully fund the department of homeland security

so that it can perform its vital mission. second we have the opportunity to stand up for our constitutional system of separation of powers. now, madam president i support and voted for comprehensive immigration reform, but the president's overreach usurps the role of congress and undermines our constitutional system of checks and balances. madam president, the failure of the president -- the failure of congress to pass a law to the president's liking cannot become an excuse for the president to usurp the powers of the executive branch. the president knows that he lacks the authority to write the

law. he has said so 22 times on 22 different occasions. now, allow me to describe my bill very briefly. specifically it does four things -- first it bars the administration from using funding to implement the immigration orders issued by the president in november of last year. second it has absolutely no effect on the much more constrained and limited executive order that the president issued in 2012, the so-called daca program that protects the dreamers, to whom i am very sympathetic. third, it directs the department to give the highest enforcement priority to the deportation of foreign nationals in our country

illegally who have been convicted of domestic violence, child abuse exploitation or a sex crime. why would we want to keep in this country someone who is deportable, who is a sex offender who has been convicted of child molestation or domestic violence? it makes no sense. ironically madam president just this week, the senate judiciary committee held an excellent hearing on sex trafficking. we heard heartbreaking stories of very young girls who had been abused by men. if there are foreign nationals in this country who have been convicted of these crimes, they should be deported. and fourth, it includes a sense of the senate resolution that the executive branch should not act to give foreign nationals who are here illegally an edge in competing for jobs against

american citizens or legal residents with green cards. madam president, the founders gave us a system of separation of powers and checks and balances, not to tear us apart but to pull us together. they gave us no short cuts on purpose. the president's november, 2014 executive actions are ill-advised, precisely because they attempt to short cut the process by usurping the congress' authority to pass legislation. my legislation would block that effort without in any way altering or diminishing the more constrained and important 2012 daca program. i want to see the department of homeland security fully funded. it has an absolutely vital

mission at a time when our country faces numerous threats. madam president, i would urge my colleagues this morning both to vote for the clean d.h.s. bill and for my legislation to stand up for the role of congress in our constitutional system. thank you madam president. mr. durbin: madam president. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: how much time is remaining on the democratic side? the presiding officer: four minutes remain on the democrat side. mr. durbin: thank you. let me say at the outset, senator collins is my friend and colleague. we have worked on many things together and i respect her especially because the department of homeland security was literally her creation, along with senator lieberman and others and the fact that we have now agreed on a bipartisan basis to set aside this immigration debate and to fully fund this critical department is the right thing to do. a 98-2 vote is unusual on the senate floor. it reflects the fact we finally reached that consensus on

funding the department of homeland security. i hope our vote later today also reflects that. but i do take exception to some of the statements she has made about her own measure which she is offering. and first i'd like to invite her, and i'm sure she has been here a thousand times to walk down this corridor and look up the staircase to the painting, a painting that shows abraham lincoln with his cabinet. it's the moment when he signed an executive order. president lincoln signed an executive order and with that executive order 152 years ago the emancipation prostate cancer cancer -- emancipation proclamation freed three million slaves in the united states of america. barack obama is not the first president to executive an -- to issue an executive order. which president held the record for an executive order giving rights to 1.5 million immigrants in this country before barack obama? george herbert walker bush.

in fact, virtually every president since eisenhower has issued an executive order relative to immigration. now, you didn't see republican hair on fire when it was being done by president george w. bush or herbert walker bush or any other republican president. it's only when barack obama does it that they stream and rage that it's unconstitutional. and yet let's look at the argument that they are making. senator collins is making the argument that the executive order signed by president obama known as daca that affected children who might qualify under the dream act and could protect up to two million young people in america was legal. i agree. and she says that her bill that she is offering today reflects that. and then she says that two years later when the president issued an executive order that could protect on a temporary basis up to five million, that was

clearly unconstitutional. what's the difference? well it's a difference that the courts will have to try to resolve, and i will tell you i think we ought to think twice before we try to defund or repeal the president's executive orders of november, 2014. president obama makes it clear that if you are the parent of an american citizen child or a legal resident alien child, you have to come forward pay a filing fee submit your name for a criminal background check and if you have a bad criminal record, you are gone. if your record clears and you have no criminal history to be concerned about then you can work in the united states on a temporary basis for two years. that's it. it doesn't give you permanent citizenship or legal status beyond that. and isn't it better that our country be safe enough to know that these millions of people are no threat to us, where they live who they work for? i think that makes sense.

it's a shame congress hasn't done it. we can still do it, and i hope we will, but the collins approach sadly is going to deny that and it's going to say frankly, that the priorities currently set for deportation of dangerous people will be swept away but for the specified crimes which she includes in her bill. i might tell you the president's executive order already covers every one of those offenses, every one of those felonies so she's not adding anything to the debate. i know she offered this in good faith and i believe she can be an important part in finding a bipartisan solution to the immigration question. but i urge my colleagues reject the collins bill that comes before us. it was crafted in anger over the president's executive order. it does not protect daca and the deerms and that