momentarily for two hours of general speeches, then votes on executive nominations at 5:30 p.m. eastern, later in the week they'll take up a bill dealing with human trafficking. the house is out this week for their district period so we take you live to the senate floor here on c-span2. . the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. our father in heaven, clothed in dazzling splendor, we bow our hearts in your presence. you are our helper, our defender, and our refuge. you are our hope for years to come. strengthen our senators for today's challenges. direct their thoughts, words

and actions, enabling them to follow your leading. lord use them to transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. give them peace during turbulent moments and a faith that will not shrink under pressure. make their words fountains of life. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: 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 presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c, march 9 2015. to the senate under the provisions of rule 1 paragraph 3 of the standing rules of the senate i hereby appoint the honorable tom cotton to perform the duties of the chair. signed orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion on the motion to proceed be withdrawn. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president for the information of all senators the first vote of the week will occur at 5:30 this afternoon on confirmation of the marti nomination for intellectual property enforcement coordinator. there are three other votes in the series tonight and those nominations will be confirmed in a voice vote.

tomorrow the senate will begin consideration of legislation to combat human trafficking. members on both sides of the aisle have amendments to the bill. and those senators should be working with chairman leahy and chairman grassley and senator leahy to get in the queue for consideration. it is my expectation that votes in relation to amendments on the trafficking bill will kick in after policy lunches tomorrow. mr. president, senators from both sides of the aisle and from multiple committees have worked hard to address the terrible crime of human trafficking. this is a growing area of domestic and international criminal activity. and victims are counting on us to act. that's why tomorrow the senate will begin consideration of the justice for victims of trafficking act. it is authored by the senior senator from texas and both sponsors from both parties. victims groups and advocates have called this bipartisan measure the most comprehensive and thoughtful piece of antitrafficking legislation

currently pending. and similar legislation has already passed the house of representatives. it's no wonder the judiciary committee supported without opposition the bipartisan bill we'll be considering tomorrow. after a reasonable period of debate and amendment we hope to see strong bipartisan support here on the senate floor as well. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: on the human trafficking, i underscore i appreciate and agree with the statement my republican leader. mr. president, i feel very confident we will clear on our side today moving to that. i think it would be a waste of the senate's time to have a vote on a motion to proceed and a waste of time afterwards. so i would hope that we can get on this legislation tomorrow. i doubt if there will be problems on my side. if there is, i will work to clear them. mr. president, as i speak here

today, president obama and his administration engage in negotiations to prevent iran from building a nuclear weapon. this negotiation is unprecedented and very critical to our country and the world. the stakes really couldn't be higher. we as leaders should do everything we can to help these negotiations succeed. when it comes to preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, we should put partisanship to one side. sadly, though, the judgment of my republican colleagues seem to be clouded by their object horns of president obama. the republican senators sent a letter to the iranian leadership aimed at sabotaging these negotiations. let's be very clear. republicans are undermining our commander in chief. just last week president benjamin netanyahu was here in the capitol. republicans at that speech which took place down the hall where

we stand today in the house chambers stood applauded stomped their feet and yell supporting what the prime minister of israel had to say. today these same republicans are trying to negotiate with these very same leaders in iran that netanyahu said we should not be negotiating with. this simply doesn't make sense. the outcome of the negotiations between the united states, france the united kingdom germany, china russia and the entire world is so important. the main participants in this negotiations are the united states france, united kingdom germany, china and russia. even though we're the negotiators, one of the negotiators, the negotiations affect the entire world as i've said. this letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the united states but our allies. this is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite. we should always have robust debate about foreign policy but

it's unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president of the united states. throughout the years of president bush's presidency, democrats -- i -- agreed with his foreign policy. i spoke about it on the floor lots of times. we know the disaster of that war in iraq. even at the height of our disagreements with president george w. bush, senate democrats in which considered sending a letter to saddam hussein or other iraqi leaders at the time. it would be an embarrassment to the commander in chief george w. bush. so i say to my republican colleagues, do you so dislike president obama you would take this extraordinary step? obviously so. barack obama is the president. this is an extraordinary step, and why it was taken i really don't understand other than the dislike of the president. barack obama is president.

i've agreed with him on certain things and i've disagreed with him on certain things. but he is my president and he's all of our president. it's time for republicans to accept that the citizens of our country twice elected president obama by large margins as president of the united states. obviously. republicans don't know how to do anything other than juvenile political attacks against the president. congressional republicans don't know how to get things done. they don't know how to govern. and if you don't believe what i just said, look at the press today. read a newspaper. look at the news. the pundits all agree that the republicans are in a state of disarray here in the congress of the united states. they don't know what to do or how to do it. today's unprecedented letter originated by a united states senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago is the kind of pettyness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the

world. republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of president obama. i can only hope they do it sooner rather than later. mr. durbin: will the senator from nevada yield for a question? mr. reid: i would be happy to yield to the assistant leader. mr. durbin: thank you for your remarks on this letter. i can't think of a precedent where you've had one political party in the united states senate try to intervene in international negotiations, in this situation if these negotiations fail, it's pretty clear to me that one of the options on the horizon is military action against iran. i pray to goodness that we never reach that point. but i want to ask the senator from nevada, those who are so anxious to scuttle these negotiations to undermine these negotiations, do you think they've reflected on the fact that the alternative could be another war in the middle east? mr. reid: i say to my friend, who i've served with in this congress for 33 years i've never seen anything like it. i've never seen anything like

it. i disagreed with president bush so very, very much with what he was doing to our country but i would never ever have considered anything even close to this. the only thing i can figure out is what i've said. the dislike of the president is so intense by republican leaders that this is what they're doing. they cannot accept the fact that this good man, barack obama this man with the unusual name, was elected twice by overwhelming margins by the people of this country. and for him doing his very best to try to alleviate a problem that exists, it would be better for the world -- i think everyone should acknowledge that if we can work something out with iran so they don't get nuclear weapons. and we've got to try to do that. and to prejudge what's going to come, if anything, the president of the united states has said there's less than a 50% chance he can get it done, but shouldn't we let him try?

mr. durbin: if the senator would yield for another question. in the history of the senate that dates back to the 1940's when senator vandenberg from california joined in a bipartisan effort on foreign policy as one of the hallmark events in the history of this great body, and for decades when we served in the senate, kind of the stock phrase was that politics end at the water's edge when the president is representing the united states overseas. we can argue and use our constitutional powers and argue back and forth but we want to give the president the authority to try to protect and defend this country. can the senator from nevada, who is a student of history can he recall any other time when a group of senators, a partisan group of senators, reached out to a party in negotiations with the united states directly, as this letter has done? mr. reid: i say to my friend, i guess my thoughts have been clouded by the people i've worked with here. it was just a few years ago that two outstanding united states senators who will go down in

history books -- dan inouye and ted stevens -- they were -- one was a good republican, one was a good democrat. but they worked arm in arm on issues that made our country a better country. they would never ever consider -- if they were here today, they would be here on this floor demanding, what is going on here. one of these two men had your chairman, ranking member of the appropriations defense committee that funds the money for our military these two men worked together on that subcommittee for more than a decade, and they worked together. my judgment is clouded by what i've worked -- the people i've worked with here who would never consider anything like that. mr. durbin: i ask the senator from nevada further with a question didn't we also have a similar precedent when senator mccain and senator kerry were leaders in our effort to finally establish diplomatic recognition of vietnam and normalize

relations? this was a bipartisan effort to try to move us beyond the painful chapter in our history which cost so many american lives. that too was bipartisan, as i recall. mr. reid: if anyone should have ill feelings about vietnam john kerry who came to the house of representatives with you and i, he was in a prison camp for five years -- john mccain i'm sorry. and four of those years in solitary confinement. john kerry was shot. he was wounded. highly decorated but he had a little beef with the vietnamese. and they worked together because they thought it would be good for our country to reestablish relations with that country. so my mind is, i repeat, clouded with the experience i've had in this body with leaders like mark hatfield republican. these who would never ever consider anything like this. i just am dumbfounded that 47 of my colleagues would sign a

letter. last week they were over here, as i said, jumping up and down, cheering the prime minister of israel because he was denigrating what was going on in iran. you can't negotiate with these people. and now they're sending a letter to the same people that they were cheering against just a week ago? would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will be in a period of morning business until 5:00 p.m. with time equally divided in the usual form and with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president last saturday marked the 50th anniversary of what has become known as bloody sunday. in march of 1965, congressman john lewis then a young man fresh out of college and reverend hosea williams led workers across the edmund pettus

bridge in selma alabama. these courageous men and women and children marching with them were in pursuit of a fundamental right, the right preserve alternative of all others, the right preservative of all others the right to vote. what they received that day however, were brutal beatings from plit -- police batons and straight troopers. a few days later president johnson addressed the nation and called on congress to pass the voting rights act. within months the legislation was signed into law guaranteeing the fundamental right to vote would not be restricted through clever state and local schemes like poll taxes and literacy tests. i was proud to join congressman lewis on a trip to selma about ten years ago for a ceremonial walk across the bridge to mark the 40th anniversary of bloody sunday. we marched on a sunday morning in the footsteps of the civil rights giants. we celebrate bratted celebrated a bill passed by

congress. eight years later in 2013 the supreme court struck down a major provision of that law. in shelby county v. holder by a 5-4 vote, a divided supreme court struck down the provision that required jurisdictions to preclear changes to their voting laws with the department of justice. the decision effectively gutted the voting rights act. in the aftermath of the shelby county decision, several state legislatures pushed through discriminatory and onerous restrictions on voting that previously would have required department of justice clearance. we've heard disturbing stories of a 93-year-old veteran and a nearly 70-year-old doctor who were turned away from the polls in texas because their i.d.'s did not meet the specifications of the state law. we heard about faulty law that flag hispanic citizens for removal from the voter rolls and we heard about cuts to early

voting impacted minority voters in north carolina. mr. president, it is hard to pleive that 50 years after selma, we are watching state legislators -- state legislatures pass legislation restricting opportunities to vote in america. none of us want to subscribe or endorse voter fraud not a person on either side of the aisle. but this goes far beyond it. as the chairman of a judiciary subcommittee on the constitution i held hearings in florida and ohio where they were considering restrictive laws to limit opportunities to vote. limiting the time you can vote, requiring i.d.'s. in each of those states, i called as my first witnesses election officials of both political parties. i asked in both states the same question to the first panel of witnesses: what has happened in your state by way of voter fraud that has led you to restrict the

opportunity to vote for all the voters in your states of ohio andand florida? and the answer was nothing. nothing. then i asked, how many people have actually been prosecuted for voter fraud in ohio or florida that led to this tightening of the laws and limiting the opportunity to vote? and answer was we think 10 years ago one person might have been prosecuted. this clearly was not a problem seeking a solution. this was clearly an effort made at these state legislatures to restrict the opportunity to vote for certain americans. why? if you believe in this country if you believe in democracy if you believe in the right to vote why do so many state legislatures under the guidance a group called alec, why are they changing their laws to real estate strict the right to vote? clearly it is because they want certain people to piends it more

difficult -- to find it more difficult to vote. when i chaired this subcommittee and i had these series of hearings we heard over and over again that these laws have a disproportionate negative impact on lower-income individuals, minorities, youth elderly, and other vulnerable populations. i wish that 50 years ago after bloody sunday our society had reached a point where the protections of the voting rights act were no longer necessary but we have seen in state after state that we still need the protection of the law or people good american citizens will be denied their opportunity to cast a vote in an election. so in order to truly honor the foot soldiers of blood did i sunday we've got to do more than vote congressional medals. we've got to work to pass the voting rights act amendment to ensure the federal government is once again able to fully protect the fundamental right to vote of all american citizens.

the voting rights act amendment with senator leahy senator coons and i plan to reintroduce in a few days will undo the damage of the shelby county decision. our bill will restore the voting rights act by updating the formula that determines which jurisdiction must preclear changes to their voting practices with the justice department. in 2006 congress reauthorized the voting rights act with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. the spirit of bloody sunday, the spirit of selma alabama was alive and well nine years ago when both political parties stood up and say we're both going to endorse it; it is the right thing to do. 390 members of the house out of 435 voted for it and 98 senators voted to reauthorize it nine years ago. congress after all the hearings -- 21 of them -- 90 witnesses testifying produced a record of 15,000 pages and the bill was

solid in the law. we recognized then that despite progress we've made in the years since the famous march there still was unlawful and unfair discrimination against americans who wanted to exercise their right to vote. the supreme court ignored our work and in the shelby county decision overturn add key section of this law. that's why we need to once again step up, on a bipartisan basis to pass this voting rights amendment -- voting rights act amendment. i might also reflect on that victory 50 years ago and think about another civil rights milestone that we have an opportunity to act on this week -- this week in washington. two weeks ago the judiciary committee favorably reported the nomination of loretta lynch to the full senate. if confirmed, she will become the first african-american woman to serve as attorney general of the united states. in january she gave moving testimony to the committee about

sitting on her father's shoulders as a young girl so she could witness the civil rights activists planning marches in the 1960's. she is so well-qualified that in the course of two days of hearings, there was virtually no negative question asked of her. she handled it so well. she is now waited 121 days for confirmation to the senate. loretta lirchl lynch has waited longer than any nominee for nominee for attorney general. she languishes on the calendar. it is embarrassing to think that after all of the speeches and reflection of this last weekend on the progress we've made in civil rights in america that this woman whose nomination in and of itself is a civil rights victory is being held up in the

senate for no obvious reason. as congressman louis said in a recent letter to the judiciary committee, ms. lynch recognizes the value of all people and has fought vigorously to ensure their equal protection under the law. john louis said, she will carry the torch of justice to help make the united states a more perfect union. mr. president, we're not a perfect union. we'll strive throughout our history to reach that almost impossible goal. there's a lot of work we need to do and each generation must accept it. first, we need to confirm loretta lynch and let's do it soon. let's do it this week so that she can lead the department of justice and continue the fight to move our nation forward. and we must restore the voting rights act so the justice department has the tools it needs to ensure the efforts of those who marched 50 years ago. mr. president, i ask that a statement in support of loretta lynch in more detail be added as this place in the record

immediately following the remarks which i have just made. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: madam president, we spend a lot of time, as you would expect, in a legislative body talking about the technical aspects of legislation and the procedure that we use to consider it and pass it, a subject which perhaps many of us enjoy but which probably turns the public -- puts a glaze in their eyes and bores them, because they don't see the relevance of it. we talk about motions to proceed and cloture and filibusters but what's important here in the senate are -- is the subject matter of the legislation that we apply this procedure or these rules to, and this week in the senate, we will be undertaking a

very very important subject and that is how to protect our fellow citizens, many of them children, who are waiting out -- waiting out their -- needing our help and waiting to be rescued and these are children that are being trafficked in the commercial sex and forced labor trade, not over there not necessarily just in some other country but right here in the united states of america. you know, i believe that we are all created in the image of god that all human beings are entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. but the criminals who traffic in human flesh treat these same human beings created in the image of god as a thing. they treat these children as a commodity to be bought and sold. to me, that is the very

definition of evil. a few weeks ago the judiciary committee heard from several witnesses on what has been called modern-day slavery human trafficking. i know many of us thought that slavery was a thing of our -- an ugly part of our nation's beginning but certainly something only in our past. but the truth is there exists today something that you could legitimately call modern-day slavery, and that is human trafficking. now even though institutionalized slavery has long been cast into the dust bin of history and is something we read about in our history books human trafficking particularly sex trafficking still affects the lives of hundreds and thousands of our children. tragically, many of them are young girls. as the father of two daughters

it turns my stomach to realize that a majority of the people, the human beings that are trafficked are girls who are of middle school age. in the judiciary committee we heard from alika sardarsa who represents a wonderful organization called rights for girl. she spoke of a woman named aviva. aviva was in foster care when a kidnapper trapped her and held her hostage for almost a year. during this time we learned in the judiciary committee during that hearing that aviva was sold to as many as ten different men a night and of course she could not comprehend why an adult man would want to buy her body when she was just a child. when law enforcement officials found aviva, she was arrested for prostitution at the age of

15. let me repeat that because it's important. this young girl who was kidnapped and raped and sold nightly, daily was treated like a criminal, not a victim. in 1992, holly austin smith ran away from home and was forced into a sex trafficking ring the summer before her freshman year of high school. within hours of running away, 14-year-old holly was sold for $200 to a man who wanted her for sex because he said she reminded him of his granddaughter. when police eventually found holly, still only a child scared and confused, as you can only imagine they treated her as a criminal, not as a victim. too often these children who are not of the age of consent are treated as child prostitutes.

as many of us who have worked on this issue for some time know, there is no such thing as a child prostitute. if you are not of the age of consent, you cannot consent. you cannot agree to be used in such a horrific way. these are children who are bought and sold for sex plain and simple, and as nauseating as that truth is. as malika powerfully said during our hearing she said there should be no difference between raping a child and paying to rape a child. now the individuals who commit these crimes, not just the people who traffic in them, but the people who purchase these services too often pay a fine and get on with their lives. yet they are the child rapists who should be treated as the sex traffickers they are. if it weren't for the demand,

sex trafficking would not have a business model. but unfortunately, there is too great a demand, but often the people who purchase these children are treated with impunity. tomorrow i expect the senate will move to consider legislation that i've introduced with a number of our colleagues from minnesota from illinois, why oregon. and indeed there's a number of senators who have already contributed a lot of very good and constructive work to the product that we will turn to tomorrow. the bill is called the justice for victims of trafficking act and the most important thing that it does, it ends the culture of impunity for the people who purchase children and other victims of human trafficking. it holds the so-called johns and the pimps accountable and doesn't focus on the victim who should be treated like a victim and helped to heal and get on

with their lives. but too often they are the ones who are prosecuted and treated as the criminal. instead of being treated as criminals, this bill makes sure that the future avivas and hollys are treated as they are and that is as victims. what this bill also does is it takes the money and assets forfeited from convicted human traffickers and it takes that money and directs it to services for the victims. so future avivas and hollys would have a shelter a place to live a roof over their head, a bed to sleep in and somebody who loves them and cares for them to help them heal and get on with their lives. that's the kind of treatment these victims of human trafficking deserve not jail time. we know that washington is, can be a dysfunctional place more times than we'd like to admit. and so often there are political issues or ideological issues that divide us.

but the fight against human trafficking reminds us that it doesn't have to be this way. and indeed i was heartened a few weeks ago when this particular piece of legislation passed the judiciary committee with unanimous support. all republicans and all democrats on the committee voted to support it. indeed republicans and democrats, not just in congress but across the country support this legislation as evidenced by the more than 200 different organizations from victims' advocates to law enforcement groups that have joined forces to fight this modern-day slave trade and to support the legislation we'll turn to tomorrow. it is a fight sadly that must be acknowledged and it must be fought. but it's a fight we can win. finally delivering our nation's promise of freedom to those who are enslaved. not the kind of slavery we read about in our history books but the kind that resulted or

precipitate a civil war; the kind that goes on unbeknownst to most americans and most people but which represents that seamy underbelly of society one that we must expose and one we must reveal as the evil that it is. madam president, i yield the floor. madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 1213 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1213, an act to make administrative and technical corrections to the congressional accountability act of 1995. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection the senate

will proceed. mr. cornyn: madam president i'd ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: thank you madam president. now i do yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:?" quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

. quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president what is the parliamentary situation? the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business until 5:00 p.m. mr. leahy: thank you very much. madam president this past weekend americans gathered in selma, alabama. they did that to mark the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday. many of us are old enough to remember when hundreds of brave

men and women marched across the edmund pettus bridge there they were beaten because they dared to stand up for the right to vote a right that we in vermont take an an inalienable right. and their blood and their sweat their tears helped pave the tbier thethe wayfor the voting rights act. in commemorating the bravery of these soldiers for justice we're reminded of what we can accomplish when we stand on palestinian and-- whenwe stand on principle when we come together as republicans and democrats to do what's right. are at a time when lawmakers seem far too polarized on the important issues facing our nation, i was encouraged to see leaders from both political parties join president obama and congressman lewis and so many others this weekend in selma.

president george w. bush shared the stage with president obama to honor the brave men and women who inspired a nation and helped bring about historic change. i was proud to work with senator -- with president bush on the reauthorization of the voting rights act along with the republican chairman of the house and senate judiciary committee congressman sensenbrenner and senators specter. you could see them when he signed when president bush signed the bill. you see congressman sensenbrenner standing there the late-senatorsenator specter standing there. i was standing there with my camera as one of the people who helped put the bill through. president bush had invited me to be there. and i took this photograph. i'm going to give this to president bush because it is the

only photograph where you can actually see his hand and the signature going down. that's because i was the only person with a camera standing behind president bush. i don't say that to praise my photographic ability. i say this to praise president bush for signing the bill. and then in response to the supreme court's shelby county decision a decision where five members of the supreme court decided they had a far better idea of it than virtually all house members and senators. i had been working with congressman sensenbrenner on bipartisan legislation that would restore the voting rights act. so the president could sign a bill as president bush did. unfortunately, no republican senator has yet stepped forward to join me in introducing this legislation here in the senate.

the republican party of 2006, along with their president reached across the aisle to advance the cause of voting rights saying they were not there for any particular party; they were there for all americans. i'm still hopeful that the republican senate of 2015 will continue the bipartisan tradition that president bush and i and the republican leaders did in 2006. because the civil rights milestones we celebrate this month can't be just made as historic discussions to be talked about perhaps in a history class somewhere. the plain reality is that racial discrimination in voting still exists in this county. chief justice roberts acknowledged that very fact. his opinion in shelby he asked

congress to update the voting rights act. well i wish they had not had the shelby decision. i think it was wrong on many counts but the majority in the supreme court voted that way and now i agree with the chief justice, it's time for us here in the congress -- republicans and democrats alike -- to act. it isat his inspirational reach in selma saturday, president obama noted that 100 members of congress came to selma to honor people willing to die for the right to vote. he then laid out a challenge to them. he said, we want to honor this day that the 100 go back to washington and gather 400 more and together pledge to make it their mission to restore the voting rights act this year. and that's how we'll honor those people on this bridge. and i agree with him.

we should have come together, as this body has done so many times before to restore the voting rights act. and reaffirm our steadfast commitment to equal protection under the law. and so today in that same spirit, i would also urge all senators to come together to confirm loretta lynch to be our next attorney general and the first african-american woman ever to hold this position. the delay of her confirmation is unprecedented. it's unwarranted. it should end. it's been 121 days since president obama announced his intent to nominate ms. lynch. her nomination was reported by the judiciary committee on a bipartisan basis. in the last 30 years no attorney general nominee has waited longer than loretta lynch to receive a floor vote, after being reported from this committee. i think what we did when

president bush was in the last two years of his presidency -- democrats had just taken back over the majority in the senate. he nominated a person for attorney general actually a person i voted against. but -- but -- i moved that person forward because i felt the president of the united states deserved to have an attorney general. i moved that person through in half the time that we've had to wait for loretta lynch. she has broad support from democrats and republicans across the legal law enforcement communities. there is a no excuse. she shouldn't be treated differently than previous nominees. she should receive a vote tonight along with the other nominees we are confirming. she should not be treated any differently than he was president bush's nominee.

so in the wake of bipartisan inspirational celebrations in selma, let's come together and honor the difficult work of the justice department. let's schedule a vote to confirm the first african-american woman to serve as attorney general of the united states. let us show the american people what we can do when we kol together. let us finally vote to confirm loretta lynch. i also ask unanimous consent -- i see the majority leader on the floor. i don't want to take his time. i ask consent that my statement on two other nominees the senate will consider tonight michelle lee and daniel marti be entered in the record, so i will not take more time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and i yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that following morning business on tuesday march 10, the senate proceed to the consideration of s. 178 a bill to provide justice for the victims of trafficking. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island -- vermont. i'm sorry. mr. leahy: rhode island is one of those southern states. we're one of the northern states. mr. president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president earlier -- or a few minutes ago i was talking about why i had hoped that after 115 days we could finally have a vote on the confirmation of loretta lynch to be attorney general. she's been supported by leading

republicans and democrats from -- she's been supported by republicans and democrats in law enforcement especially in light of her very tough enforcement of terrorist laws. she has on -- on abuse of public trust, she has prosecuted both democrats and republicans. but i mentioned a few minutes ago that when george w. bush was in the last two years of his term, he was a lame-duck president democrats had just taken over the control of the senate and he nominated judge mukasey to be attorney general. now, because i disagreed with judge mukasey on the question of

torture, i told him i would vote against him but i also told the president that any president has a right to at least have votes on their nominees. and i moved him forward in 53 days. that's from the time he was announceed -- we had to take time for the paperwork to get up here and do all the rest -- i put him through the committee got him on to the floor and he was confirmed in 53 days. now we've been waiting 115 days for loretta lynch who came to the judiciary committee with far more law enforcement background. now, i don't know what the difference is between in the man, judge mukasey who took 53

days -- in fact, i'll give you another attorney general nominee i also disagreed with and voted against but i was chairman. president bush nominated john ashcroft former senator who had just been defeated nominated him to be attorney general. put him through in 42 days. 42 days from the time he was nominated to confirmed 42 days. so he went through in 42 days. judge mukasey he went through in 53 days. loretta lynch she has waited 121 days. now, let me correct what i said earlier, 115. so let's take john ashcroft because i was involved with the nominations of these two men

even though i disagreed with them. john ashcroft, 42 days. judge mukasey 53 days. actually republicans took back over the control of the senate. there was another attorney general in there but that took 86 days. but the two men when i was chairman 42 days for john ashcroft -- that's what he took --53 days for judge mukasey -- that's what he took -- but she has been waiting 121 days. ashcroft, he was 42 days. mukasey, he was 53 days. loretta lynch she has waited 121 days and still hasn't had a vote. mr. president, is it any wonder

people have concern about the united states senate when she has to wait all that time just to get a vote up or down? up or down, that's all we ask. so let's hope she can be scheduled and she can be voted on and she can be confirmed because with her record as a tough prosecutor that's the sort of person i'd like cracking down on terrorists, cracking down on those who defraud this country cracking down on traffickers as she has in the past. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i ask

consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: nominations executive office of the president, daniel henry marti of virginia to be intellectual property enforcement coordinator. department of commerce, michelle kay lee of california to be undersecretary. farm credit administration, jeffery s. hall of kentucky to be a member of the farm credit administration board. dallas p. tonsager of south dakota to be a member of the farm credit administration board. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 be equally divided in the usual form with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. leahy: and mr. president i understand for the senate, that means the vote will still be at 5:30. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. leahy: and with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that time be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana.

mr. vitter: i ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the question now occurs on the marti nomination. mr. vitter: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not on this vote, the yeas are 92, the nays are zero. the nomination is confirmed. question now occurs on the lee nomination. there's no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed? the yeas appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. question now occurs on the hall nomination. if there is know no further debate,

all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. question now occurs on the tonsager nomination. if there is no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. flake: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president i rise today -- first i'd like to ask the quorum call to be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you mr. president. i rise today to honor the 50th anniversary of the selma marches and to call on congress to come together and protect all americans' sacred right to vote. in march 1965 thousands of americans came together in alabama to march the 54-mile highway from selma to the state capital of montgomery. they marched in defiance of segregationist repression in the jim crowe south. they marched to demand that black american citizens be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote. on march 7 1965, 50 years ago this week, some 600 civil rights

marchers headed east out of selma on u.s. route 80. that day march 7 would go down in history as bloody sunday. they only got as part of the edmond pettis bridge where state and law enforcement attacked them with billy clubs and tear gas and drove them back into selma. this reflects the scene on the bridge where john lewis and others were being struck down with batons. images of peaceful marchers brutally attacked by uniformed state troopers were broadcast worldwide. seeing how peaceful activists who sought to ensure the franchise, the franchise to vote, were treated by the very law enforcement officers sworn to uphold the law shocked the conscience of americans everywhere and began an

awakening that would ultimately lead to the passage of the 1965 voting rights act. two days later march 9 martin luther king jr. led a symbolic march out to the same bridge where they were confronted by state troopers. still awaiting requested federal protection and seeking to minimize the risk of additional violence dr. king turned the marchers around and led them back to the church where they had started. dr. king knew that the threat of jim crow had to stopped by the law so he sought federal court protection for a third full-scale march from selma to the state capital in montgomery. ruling in favor of the demonstrators, federal district court judge frank johnson jr. wrote -- quote -- "the law is clear that the right to petition one's government for the readdress of grievances -- redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups and these rights may be exercised by marching even along public highways." on sunday march 21, two weeks

after bloody sunday, approximately 3,200 marchers set out from montgomery, walking 12 miles a day and sleeping in fields. by the time they reached the capitol on thursday, march 25, there werethey were 25,000 strong. as dr. king said, standing in front of the state capitol that day -- quote -- "selma alabama became a shining moment in the conscience of man. if the worst in american life lurked in its dark streets the best of american instincts arose passionately across the nation to overcome it." less than five months after the last of the three marches president lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act of 1965 landmark legislation that fundamentally transformed voting rights in the united states particularly in the south. as americans we all owe a debt of gratitude to those who marched, those who bled and in some cases those who died to

transform the voting rights act from an ideal into a reality. this past weekend a group of republican and democratic lawmakers traveled to selma alabama, to join president obama and former president bush in honoring those brave americans who worked tirelessly and at great personal cost to secure equal right for all citizens, regardless of their race. as our nation thinks about their tremendous patriotism and sacrifice this month, it is a particularly appropriate time to talk about the role that congress can play in safeguarding the hard-won rights of minority voters by working to restore the integrity of the voting rights act. the oath of office that each of us takes when we become a senator is to -- quote -- "support and defend the constitution." and that means supporting and defending voting rights which are explicitly enumerated in our united states constitution.

in her descent in the 2013 shelby county case, justice ginsburg highlighted the legislature's heightened responsibility where the protection of citizens' access to the polls is concerned. writing that, when it is confronting -- quote -- "the most constitutionally invidious form of discrimination and the most fundamental right in our democratic system congress' power to act is at its height." well, over the past 50 years congress has acted. we have worked on a bipartisan basis to ensure that our citizens do not face discrimination at the polls. in 1965, in response to a slew of violent attacks against civil rights activists culminating in the attack on peaceful marchers crossing the edmond pettis bridge we did pass the voter rights act a bill that aimed to to -- quote -- "remedy 95 years of pervasive discrimination in voting which had resulted in the

almost complete disenfranchisement of minorities in certain areas of the country." that act has been rightfully cited as a crown jewel of america's civil rights laws. and for the past 50 years it has expanded minority participation in elections by removing first-generation barriers to ballot access, such as literacy tests and poll taxes. moreover the law also helped tackle so-called second-generation barriers to voters -- to voting such as photo i.d. requirements, elimination or curtailment of early voting, voter registration restrictions and residency restrictions. and since the act was passed in 1965 congress has again and again reaffirmed its commitment to equality in federal elections by reauthorizing the law in

1970. in 1975, 1982 and most recently in 2006 when we voted to extend it for another 25 years. that 2006 vote was not close. the bill enjoyed what the press described as -- quote -- "overwhelming bipartisan backing backing." passing the house by a vote of 390-33 and by the senate of 89-0 89-0. that's pretty persuasive bipartisan backing for taking on the most invidious form of discrimination. discrimination in the right to vote. that vote represented a strong affirmation that equality is not a partisan issue. we can and we have worked together to ensure that all americans are able to participate in our democracy by exercising their right to vote. unfortunately the u.s. supreme

court has struck down key provisions of the voting rights act two years ago in 2013. so now it is once again congress' duty, our duty to work together to reform the voting rights act. to anyone who doubts the continued need for a robust voting rights act, i would submit the following. in 2006 while sections 4 and 5 were still in effect, the house judiciary committee found that the voting rights act was still a critical tool for countering discrimination. the committee observed that -- quote -- "discrimination today is more subtle than the visible methods used in 19565. however, the effects and results are the same; namely, a diminishing of the minority community's ability to fully participate in the electoral process and to elect their preferred candidates of choice." that report further found that despite the substantial progress

that has been made since the voting rights act was first passed in 1965, the evidence before the committee resembled the evidence before congress in 1965 and the evidence that was present again in 1970, in 1975, in 1982 and the in 1992. the behavior of various states in the aftermath of the 2013 shelby county ruling also highlighted the critical role that sections 4 and 5 played in protecting the minority voters. for example as the brennan center for justice has noted, on the same day the supreme court issued its decision texas officials announced they would implement a draconian photo i.d. law which had previously been blocked by section 5 because of its racial impact. initial estimates suggest the measure would impact between 600,000 and 800,000 registered voters in texas who did not have a government-issued photo i.d.

and certainly texas was not alone. north carolina also quickly enacted a series of laws to drastically reduce voters' access to the polls by imposing a strict photo i.d. requirement significantly reducing early voting and limiting the time frame for voting registration. so three different measures. it is particularly telling that north carolina legislators deliberately waited for the supreme court to strike down section 5's preclearance requirements to propose that legislation understanding that laws with such a discriminatory effect would likely not pass muster under the voting rights act. in north carolina, more than 300,000 registered voters lacked a d.m.v. issued i.d. of those one-third were african-american. moreover in 2008, the vast majority of african-americans 70%, who voted in north carolina voted during the early voting period so north carolina's significant reduction in early voting was cynically calculated

to reduce the turnout of african-americans at the polls. and these states are not alone. the brennan center for justice found that in the aftermath of the shelby county case -- quote -- "at least 10 of the 15 states that have been covered in whole or in part by section 5 introduced new restrictive legislation that would make it harder for minority voters to cast a ballot." simply put these states' behavior it showed that access to our most fundamental right the right of every citizen to be heard through elections is suffering in the wake of the shelby county decision. we cannot let our civil rights laws return to once again being as dr. king said before the passage of the voting rights act, mere dignity without strength. we owe it to those who sacrificed before us who sacrificed to form a more perfect union to work together

on a bipartisan basis to restore the voting rights act. i stand ready to work with any of my colleagues both sides of the aisle in this esteemed body to make that happen and i hope that every senator here feels the same understands that access to the polls the right to vote is the throbbing heart of a democracy. and without that, the democracy is deeply damaged. 50 years ago this month dr. martin luther king jr. said at the foot of the montgomery capital -- quote -- "the battle is in our hands. today, here in congress, here in the u.s. senate, the battle is in our hands. it is our responsibility to debate and pass such legislation to protect and defend the right to vote for every american.

thank you mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask further breedings on the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the appointments at the desk appear separately in the record as if made my bye the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tuesday, march 10, following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved, morning business deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for 2 two leaders reserved for

their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate be in a period of morning business until 11:00 with the time equally divided and the democrats control the second half. further, at 11:00 a.m. the senate proceed to consideration of s. 178 under the previous order, for debate only until 12:30 with the time equally divided. finally, the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. whitehouse: reserving the right to object. may i say that for many of our states climate change is a reality and even a daunting one and we look forward to working on this question posed by the energy committee chair what do we do, but in order to do so we need some thing from the majority to work with. and with that said, i do not object and i thank the majority leader for his courtesy.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president i might say to my friend from rhode island, his amendment on climate change was a part of the keystone bill that the president vetoed. i know he and i have very different views about this, what may be challenging for his state is equally challenging in mine. we have a depression in the coal fields of eastern kentucky. it's a pretty grim picture, and we all know that rhode island and kentucky may just see this issue quite differently. so mr. president if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator brown. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. whitehouse: i note the absence of a quorum, mr. chairman. the presiding officer: without objection the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: and i ask unanimous consent -- we are in morning business the presiding officer said. i rise in opposition to s.j. resolution 8 which was passed by this body earlier this week but without a veto-proof majority. it would protect corporations looking to rig union elections always at the expense of working

families. i'm sorry mr. president. our labor movement helped build the middle class. it fought for protections so many americans take for granted -- overtime pay brought about because of collective bargaining child labor laws, collective bargaining and talking to members of congress, child labor laws, safer workplaces unemployment insurance, workers compensation, all brought about because people came together in unions to organize and bargain collectively and came together in unions to talk to state legislators and members of congress in support of unemployment insurance in support of safer work laws, in child labor laws, in workers compensation. mr. president, i am wearing my lapel with a picture of a canary in a bird cage. it was given to me about 20 years ago at a workers memorial day rally in loraine ohio, a city about 25 miles west of

cleveland. this depiction of a canary in a cage illustrates what the mine workers used to do 100 years ago. they took a canary down in the mines. if the canary died from lack of oxygen or toxic gas the mine worker got out of the mines. he was on his own. he didn't have a union in those days strong enough to protect him. he didn't have a government in those days that cared enough to present him. since the canary in the bird cage down in the mine, since the canary in the mines, we have seen congress move forward on workers compensation, on minimum wage when unemployment insurance, on prohibition of child labor much of -- much of that progress, many of those advancements because of the labor movement. the growing voice of workers at the table is critical to all of these advances, nay especially in the early part of the 20th century. then it was social security, then it was medicare and medicaid then it was all of the other things that helped us together from head start to pell grants that helped create a middle class. the labor movement got children

out of the sweatshops and into the classrooms. we expanded the rights of workers, we expanded the rights of women we expanded the rights of people of color and prosperity followed shared by a growing portion of the country. i was this -- this week i led a delegation with senator scott a republican from south carolina, to selma alabama also to montgomery in birmingham to mark the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday where the young mostly sphiewnts were walking across the -- students were walking across the edmund pettis bridge in selma nonviolently and they were attacked by state troopers and local police and local deputized citizens of alabama who participated in the melee and beat up a number of those students. that got the nation's attention and the nation pushed congress to pass the voting rights act. labor unions were there. labor unions were there to ensure -- excuse me -- if you work hard and you take

responsibility you can work in a safe environment with decent wages and benefits that allow you to take care of your family. but over the last decade, that's changed. workers in working families have paid the price. profits -- it used to be as profits went up, wages went up with those profits because the workers that help those companies be profitable shared in the wealth they create. that's not socialism. that's -- that's what happened in american capitalism for decades after world war ii. when profits went up, wages went up in large part because unions at the bargaining table through the process of collective bargaining made sure that as their workers were increasingly productive and companies did better and better and executive salaries went up, that workers got a piece of the pie. but since the 1970's, profits have gone up, the wages have been pretty stagnant. workers continue -- american workers, our workers continue to be the most profitable and most productive and talented in the world, but the rewards for

productivity gains go to an ever-dwindling number of the richest americans. so as companies get -- do better and better and stockholders do better and better, as profits go up and up, workers simply haven't shared in the wealth that they have created. they haven't gotten their piece of the pie that they have earned. a big part of that is the decline of the labor movement. today the middle class accounts for the smallest share of our national income since world war ii. say that again. the middle class accounts for the smallest share of our national income since world war ii. it's not a coincidence that workers are reaping fewer of their rewards fewer of the rewards of their work while union membership has declined. that's why the national labor relations board proposed the rule change which is so important and why it's critical that republican efforts -- republicans, again doing it on behalf of the largest corporations in america -- that republican efforts to -- to --

to stop it simply have not -- are not successful. this change would make modest commonsense reforms to modernize and streamline the election process by which workers form unions. right now companies seeking to block worker rights to form a union can delay elections sometimes up to two years and they can drag out anti-union campaigns, they can intimidate worker they can find reasons to fire organizers. delay works in the corporations' favor as workers leave the jobs, workers who wanted the union get discouraged from the union and delay almost always works on the side of the employer. workers have a right to timely elections, the right to make up their own minds free of intimidation. choosing one's representation is a right we cherish as americans in the national labor relations board rule -- and the national labor relations board rule preserves it for our workers. the nlrb rule would cut back on

the frivolous court cases these corporations file over and over, these frivolous court cases that companies use to stall elections. it would allow nlrb hearing officers to move forward with an election despite pending litigation the stalling tactics of frivolous lawsuits to ensure workers aren't silenced by expensive legal battles. these reforms will not only help workers, they will also help businesses who act in good faith by streamlining the election process. this isn't an antibusiness move that the workers and the unions want to engage in. it's a cooperative move because moving quickly will get -- will bring everybody to the table more quickly. right now the election process varies widely from state to state. it relies on outdated forms of communication. this change will provide certainty to workers and businesses alike and will allow both to file electronically instead of only by mail, saving everyone time and money. the lobbying effort by corporations on this is opposed to filing electronically. imagine that.

it's 2015. why do they want to do that? because they want to slow the process down. we know the consequences -- stalling consequences have real -- stalling tactics have real consequences for workers. we've seen that over and over again. in ohio, a city near canton, northeastern ohio. nurses at affinity medical center elected to form a union in august, 2012. ann wyatt who was awarded nurse of the year -- she was nurse of the year, she was fired for leading the activities for unionization. the company did everything it could to crush the unionizing efforts. i have been to that hospital. i have met with those nurses. i've talked to them about this. the nlrb found in favor of the workers, ruling that affinity medical refused to bargain they used illegal coercion and intimidation tactics. still, the company refused to comply with federal labor law. the matter went to federal

court, which ruled in favor of the nurses and filed an injunction against affinity medical for failing to follow nlrb rulings for breaking federal law. last month a jury in a civil court ruled unanimously and awarded the wrongfully terminated nurse $2 million in damages. it was serious enough what they did to this nurse that they thought the jury unanimously of citizens ruled that this nurse was due $2 million. not just because the nurse -- because of the inconvenience to the nurse and the denial of her rights but the punishment for a company that breaks the law like that. two and a half years later affinity medical still stalling, no contract has been agreed to, the nurses in masslin deserve better all workers deserve better. that's the importance of this nlrb ruling, to make a more level playing field. that's why the american labor movement and our commitment to our workers is about to speak

out on behalf of honest pay for an honest day's work. it's the story of a nation and a government respecting the dignity of work and reflecting the decency and dedication of workers. it's been 80 years since americans' right to collective bargaining was confirmed. we have been doing this experiment for 80 years. rather than ending that right and with it squeezing the middle class, we should be working to preserve and expand the rights of workers. we need equal pay for women. we need a minimum wage that supports families. the minimum wage is worth 30% less today in real purchasing dollars than it was 30 years ago. we -- rather than eroding that, we need to strengthen and grow the middle class. we need paid family leave and paid sick leave. we need to be able to make it a little bit easier for union -- for workers to stand up to corporate interests when workers' interests are not respected. that should be the senate's agenda but sadly it's not. instead, we wasted our time on a resolution that we know will

fail all to pay back political scoring points for those corporations that fund campaigns and continuing the assault on organized labor. without a veto-proof majority, the resolution wasn't even close to that last tuesday. we know it's nothing more than an empty gesture. just as importantly we know if this resolution succeeded it would do real damage to working americans by impeding their ability to come together and to organize to build the power they have in numbers to be able to get their fair share of the american dream. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to insert the following into a different part of the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. president. i appreciate the cooperation of the senator from -- the presiding officer from oklahoma. it's been one month mr. president, since i took to the floor of this body to urge my colleagues to work together to extend funding for the children's health insurance program, so-called chip.

over the past month, i have held roundtables in almost every major city in ohio to hear more about what chip means to people in ohio. i spoke with families who depend on chip to get their children the care they need. understand the people, the 130 ohioans -- ohio children that are he will eligible for chip that have benefited from chip are in almost every case the sons and daughters of parents who work. these are parents who don't make enough money -- don't work at a place where the employer provides insurance. they maybe $9 to $12 an hour jobs and they are working in a place -- the income they are making simply isn't enough to buy insurance for their kids and for their families. so that's the importance of rewarding work, these 130,000 children now have children because of a bipartisan bill the children's insurance program, the children's health insurance program they've had it for 20 years. it's in jeopardy now. last week i was in the john maloney health center in

columbus where more kids rely on chip more than anywhere else in the state. 30,000 have coverage. i spoke with meredith mahona. she works full-time as a medical interpreter. she makes too much to qualify for medicaid but not enough to provide health insurance and her employer doesn't provide it. three of her four children have affordable insurance because of chip. it means better access to comprehensive care for the children -- for their children. providing health insurance to low-income children isn't just the right thing to do. it's the smart thing to do. and here's why it's the smart thing to do. it -- it allays the anxiety that so many families have about one of their children getting sick. it helps families feel more secure that they won't be wiped out financially and in other ways by a sick child. it helps that child do better in school because the child will miss fewer days and the child will feel better. it gives that child preventive

care. it means vaccines. it means preventive health care. it means getting physicals. it means dental care. it means better performance in school. chip means all of that. but, mr. president, the problem is that while chip, the law until 2019 -- we authorized it back a couple of years ago -- the funding runs out in september. my governor, republican governor of ohio, wants to see us re-fund chip so -- through 2019 so he can continue to provide that insurance so all of us can to the 130,000 children in my state. if we don't act now states will have to assume that chip is expiring as they go through their budget process. in other words chip funding runs out in september but states now through their legislative budget process where fiscal years often end during the early or midsummer they need to begin to work this through their budget right now. the utah legislature adjourns this week, march 12.

new mexico, the 21st of this month. idaho, april 3. tennessee, april 17. alaska, april 19. iowa april 21. montana, april 27. all but seven state legislatures adjourn before september. that makes -- makes the need to act more even dire. that's why i was proud to introduce legislation last month called the protecting and retaining our children's health insurance program or pro-chip. it's been endorsed by every children's hospital in ohio, almost every one around the country. several national groups, the march of times be, the academy of pediatrics, the children's hospital association families u.s.a. all kinds of people, all kinds of groups. a change that this just makes sense, mr. president. our protecting health coverage -- protecting health insurance and providing health insurance to low-income children isn't just the smart thing to do it's the right thing to do. i call on my colleagues to pass the chip re-funding bill so that it doesn't run out in september so states can plan so we can provide the health insurance to

10 million children almost all of whose parents work for a living just simply don't make enough money to provide insurance to their families. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: will the senator withhold his request? the senate stands adjourned then until 10:00 a.m.

>> increase rates for the consumers. the regulatory fees. taxes at the level i think, utilities, regulatory utilities. i have not found one government with ways to make more money. >> tonight at 8:00 o'clock eastern on the communicators on c-span2. >> with live coverage of the house and senate here we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and public affairs events. weekends communicators" on c-span2.

the home to american history tv with programs program to tell our nation story including six unique series. visiting battlefields of key events. touring museums and historic step -- historic sites. the best-known american history writers, the presidency looking at the policies and legacies of our nation's commanders in chief's. lessons of history, and real america. archival government and educational films from the 1930s through 70s. created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in watch us in hd like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> republican lawmakers warned the leaders of iran that any nuclear deal with pres. barack obama will expire the day he leaves office. forty-seven republican senators signed the letter. the white the white house

denounced it as a rush to war as president obama and five world powers try to strike a deal to limit iranian nuclear program. this is about one hour and ten minutes. >> good afternoon everybody. i hope you enjoyed some uncharacteristically springtime whether this weekend. i know i did. let's go straight to questions. >> a letter that senate republicans sent the iranian leader. does the president fearless letter could threaten the top -- talks for the delegates? >> i would i would describe this letter as the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president's ability to conduct foreign-policy.

the fact the fact is the effort that is currently underway by the united states alongside international partners, six significant commitment from the iranian government to curtail their nuclear program, to end and make clear to the international community their nuclear program exists exclusively for peaceful means. means. the international community and certainly the president is not prepared to take the word of iran for it. we are going to insist that the iranians agreed to intrusive inspection measures that will resolve the broader international community's concerns. the approach of the international community is to distrust and verify. the fact is we have heard republicans now for quite

some time including the principal author of this letter make clear their goal is to undermine these negotiations. that is not a position i am ascribing to senator cottons but one he is strongly advocated. he described it as a feature the fact is the president is trying to explore this diplomatic option with iran alongside international partners because it is in the best interest of the united states for two reasons the 1st of which is the best way for us to resolve the international community's concerns surrounding the iranian nuclear program is to get iran only commitment to not develop a nuclear weapon and verify that is whether good of the broader international community and the rush to war or at least the military option if -- as many republicans are advocating is not in the best interest of the united states. >> the effect of advancing

our goal, thwart these talks and making it harder to reach a deal. >> it certainly interferes in that effort. the fact that there are ongoing negotiations with, again the united states our p5 plus one partners that include allies like germany and france and the uk but also include partners like russia and china were cooperating with us in this effort to you no essentially throw sand in the gears here is not helpful and not, frankly the role that our founding fathers envisioned. >> tyra should be able to weigh in. >> this is a useful discussion that what we are seeking from iran are a whole a whole set of commitments from them that are related to commitments to rein in the aspirations of their nuclear program and

to commit to comply with an intrusive set of inspections to verify compliance. we are seeking commitments from the iranian government. this is not that different from the kind of commitment that we seek from other countries when we establish basing agreements with them. currently there are us military personnel serving in places like korea and japan. we have commitments from the japanese government and the korean government, for example, but what sort of rules and regulations will govern the us military presence there. that they're. that is an important agreement that has a substantial impact of the ability of our men and women in uniform to do their jobs and to do it safely but that is not subject to congressional approval but are specific commitments that in that situation,

korea and japan have made. made. there are other examples. the agreement that was put in place to eliminate serious chemical weapons program was the united states and russia working with syria to get syria to make specific commitments about dismantling their chemical weapons program. that is not an agreement that required congressional participation or approval, but it was a tangible set of commitments that were made by the syrian government and the united states and russia and a number of other countries and the international community working with us to succeed in that effort. let me give you one other example let me give you an example of multilateral agreements that relate to nonproliferation. there are some direct similarities between this

agreement that the p5 +1 is currently negotiating with iran and other agreements that issue or prevent the proliferation of weapons and in some cases nuclear weapons. a multilateral agreement related to interdicting weapons in international waters and that we work closely with the international community to prevent the shipment of illicit weapons shipments through international waters and work with other countries to enforce those agreements and to secure commitments are other countries that they will help us fight those efforts. again, that is a multilateral agreement with significant consequences for american national security that does not require congressional approval. and this is the way our founding fathers envisioned that the executive branch would be responsible for protecting the foreign-policy interests in the united states. >> a related question, many friday allege that cannot -- senator menendez is about to

face federal charges. suggestion of political retaliation. can you respond to that? >> i have seen those reports. they were not confirmed by the justice department, so we don't no exactly whether or not they are true. i am not i am not going to comment on them principally for that reason, but because we don't yet know that this is true the other reason that i am loath to comment on this is that there is a principle that this administration takes very seriously which is ensuring that criminal prosecutions are kept separate and apart from any sort of political interference, even the appearance of political interference. so that both explains why i am not in a position to comment on this specific story, but it also serves to undermine the claims that have been made by a number

of people, including apparently senator cruise. >> thanks. european council today and indicated that you are not ready. is the us prepared to go it alone and take other measures? waiting to see what happens? >> the president is pleased to have the opportunity to be visiting with the pres. here today at the white house. it is an opportunity for us to discuss a range of issues including whether the coordinated international effort to confront russia over the situation in ukraine. they will also have an opportunity to talk about the transatlantic trade and development partnership energy security climate change, and the situation in libya. along libya. along agenda. i anticipate they we will discuss the ongoing strategy with respect to russia and ukraine. i don't have any additional

announcements to make it is time about sanctions that may be contemplated on the part of the united states. obviously we have continued to watch the sort of an even implementation of the minsk implementation plan. there have been reports that heavy weapons have been withdrawn, but we continue to be concerned about russia and the behavior of the separatists that they back more specifically russia and the separatists preventing osce monitors from having full access to contested areas to verify compliance with the minsk clients plan which continues to be a subject of concern. and it represents that they expect them to live up to the terms of the agreement. we continue to have concerns

about that command as long as russia and the separatists continue to engage in that kind of behavior they are only increasing the likelihood that they could face additional isolation and costs imposed on them by the international community. we have sought from the beginning to work closely in coordination with our european partners to ratchet up the pressure and that we will continue to coordinate those efforts. >> the cbo made another downward revision. the supreme court the decision. >> it certainly is the latest in a long line of data points that indicate the affordable care act is contributing in a positive way to holding down the growth of health care cost in this country that has real economic benefits but also for businesses, large

and small. and one of the -- you know one of the goals here has been to recognize that the unrestrained growth in health care costs did pose a threat to government our government finances but also contributed to weakness in the economy and over the long term getting a handle on those trends is important and was one of the goals of the affordable care act. we are pleased to see that just after a couple of years of being in effect that the impact is both noticeable and positive. >> on this letter now reaction coming from craddick senators and others calling the iran letter cynical, brazen, weekends americans hands can

sabotage things, strong terms. you just said interfere. does he put the us in a weaker position for negotiating? could this letter hurt that process? >> as i mentioned at i mentioned at the top, this is the latest in an ongoing partisan strategy to undermine the president's ability to conduct foreign policy and advance our national security interest around the globe. everything that is notable is that when you have a letter that is signed by 47 senators of the same party being sent to the leader of another country it raises, i think, legitimate questions about the intent of those who signed the letter. >> you think that it could harm negotiations? i just want to be clear. >> again, i think the fact that there are ongoing diplomatic conversations --

again, not just between the united states and iran but between the united states and our p5 +1 partners that includes our allies like germany, france, germany france, the uk but also partners like russia and china, nations with whom we have significant disagreements but in this case are working closely with the united states because they agree that there are significant benefits associated with reaching a diplomatic agreement here. and if it is surprising to me that there are some republican senators were seeking to establish a back channel with hard-liners in iran to undermine an agreement between iran and the broader international community. >> what does threaten the negotiations? >> again, i think again, i think i said this as many ways as i can. >> sure, but you are saying that it could threaten the negotiations? >> your friend of mine -- >> over the weekend you are talking about how much your

asking from teefor, these commitments and over the weekend we heard the pres. say in an interview that the agreement would be extraordinarily reasonable for iran. >> the context that the president was making is if you assume what iran says their nuclear program exists solely for peaceful purposes that should be an easy thing for them to demonstrate. now, there. now, there are all sorts of reasons why we doubt those previous claims. the.of the pres. is that as iran is evaluating this agreement if they are willing to live up to there commitment to have a nuclear program exist for only peaceful purposes, that should be a relatively easy thing to demonstrate. now, they are going to have

to demonstrate it and agree to a a set of very intrusive inspections, principally because in the past they have explored some covert strategies for developing a nuclear weapon. but again if the frame of reference is the commitment by iran to a peaceful nuclear program, there should be a reasonable way to demonstrate that. and that is the.that the pres. was making. the concern that that the president and the international community have is that the behavior of iran in the recent past has not been consistent with promises of a peaceful nuclear program which is precisely why any sort of agreement that is reached we will require serious commitments on the part of iran two and intrusive inspections program that

allows international inspectors, not just in to their nuclear facilities but into the manufacturing facilities that are manufacturing parts and equipment for those facilities that would require inspections at uranium mines in iran to ensure that we have a lot of insight into there program essentially to prevent them from being a position of establishing another covert strategy for developing a nuclear weapon. again all of this is much more likely to be successful and more enduring than the military option that our republican opponents seem to be advocating. >> you said extranet -- extra ordinarily reasonable. is that what would be extraordinary? >> i think the.the president made in in of course that

interview is to demonstrate that if iran is different -- if iran is interested in a genuinely peaceful a genuinely peaceful nuclear program, but that is something they should be able to both agree to but also agreed to prove to the international community that that essentially should be something easy for him to demonstrate and therefore should be something that they would agree to. the fact of the matter is this is not something that iran has been honest about the past. that is part of why this is such an important strategy for resolving the international community concerns over the nuclear program. a military option is one that would be less effective principally because it would not be as enduring in terms of the impact that it would have but also you know, if

a military option were deployed it is not hard to imagine that iran would say we are not going to agree to these inspections any longer which means the international community would only have less insight into the iranian nuclear program. that is why it does not require the military commitment that some of our opponents are advocating. it does ensure greater transparency and is likely last longer. for a fraction of the time and the length of the diplomatic agreement currently negotiated. >> we heard officials practically begging the coalition to protect antiquities. why they could not do more to protect as isis was bulldozing the place.

is this something that concerns the president and administration? >> for the kind of tactical decisions that it would take take, the use of military airpower, i defer to the department of defense , they are in the position to have those -- resources be properly allocated. [inaudible question] >> what i would say is that the kind of commitment that we are seeking to extract from the ukrainians alongside our international partners is not one that falls in the realm of requiring congressional approval on the front end. what is important and another aspect of our position which is routinely

distorted by opponents opponents, the administration has long worked closely with congress in this effort. several years ago congress put in place tough sanctions against iran. the president signed the bill into law and he and his team then implemented a diplomatic strategy to maximize the impact of the sanctions that congress passed. so you did see effective coordination and cooperation between the administration and congress in that effort. since then you have seen the administration go to great lengths to work closely with congress to keep them in the loop on the status of ongoing negotiations taking place in a variety of settings. the pres. of the united states for goodness sake has has had senior members of congress to talk to him

about this issue directly and we have always envisioned a role for congress at some.in terms of essentially taking the sanctions away once we have seen demonstrated compliance on demonstrate compliance on the part of iran to the agreement. this is in some ways where the differences. differences. congress is insisting they should have a vote on the sanctions regime and deal shortly after an agreement is reached at the negotiating table. the fact is, the pres. the president does not envision substantial sanctions relief for iran right at the negotiating table. we want a demonstrated commitment on the part of iran to living up to the agreement before we contemplate offering relief from the statutory sanctions relief that congress has put in play. and play. and i'm not talking weeks or months but years. it would take years before we envision a scenario where

congress would take away sanctions that were so important to get them to the negotiating table in the 1st place. there is an important poll -- an important role for congress to play and has in the past and will and the future. but congress should not do and frankly republicans in congress not do, is to continue to pursue and undermining strategy before the deal is even reached. >> you accused trying to create a back channel to hard-liners in a run. >> kind of ironic, isn't it. >> kind of weird because it is an open letter to the leader of teefor. a secret effort to enlist these folks, that is what a back channel is, not a press release to the leader of iran. >> maybe it is a direct channel. iran -- ..

if they dedicate that it diplomatic agreement is not the right approach then he should explain that the right approaches. the fact that the only alternative that anyone has put on the table as is the military option the fact is this republican track record of putting military options ahead of diplomatic options has a long and rather sordid history. marx. >> and efforts to root with rhianna matter -- iran no matter what they do --. >> again i don't know if i brought up the letter, i guess i did. i think the message they are delivering is an open letter so i guess you can ask them about

the message they are trying to send. i can talk about the impact it's going to have. >> you said there are necessary sanctions. >> yes but that is a scenario we would envision only years of designated compliance with the agreement. the president does not think it's a good idea right after reaching a deal with iran particularly given their history of noncompliance with the national standards. it doesn't make a lot of sense to take away right away essentially the toughest weapon we have used so far. by putting in place the statutory sanctions the congress passed several years ago we did succeed in putting enormous pressure on the iranian economy and a lot of that is thanks to the good work of the semesters and i worked with the international community to maximize the impact of the sanctions that we saw that oil exports plummeted in iran and iran's currency was ignorantly devalued -- significantly

devalued and there were a whole host of impact they sustained as a result of international isolation. in the mind of the president we should make sure that iran is serious about living up to the terms of this agreement over a number of years before he contemplates thinking those sanctions away. >> what i'm suggesting is we should not take down we should not dismantle our sanctions architecture until iran has over the course of a number of years demonstrated a willingness to comply with international agreement. >> i wanted to go back to your favorite topic from last week. we heard from the president with an interview with cbs about that and he said he first became aware of it in the report.

i'm wondering if implicit in that the president said secretary clinton never e-mailed one another when secretary clinton was secretary of state. >> that may be one conclusion but it wouldn't be an accurate one. the present as many people expected them to do over the course of this for several years in office traded e-mails with the secretary of state. i would not describe the number of e-mails as large but they did have the occasion to e-mail one another. the point the president was making is not that he didn't know secretary clinton's e-mail address, he did. but he was not aware of the details of how that e-mail address and how that server had been set up or how secretary clinton and her team were planning to comply with the federal records act.

>> to expand on that a little bit does that mean he didn't know it was up clinton e-mail.com? >> again i'm not going to get into a lot of detail here but the point is the president did e-mail with secretary clinton. i simply recognize e-mail address that he was e-mailing back to that again the question here is about compliance with the federal records act and understandably the kinds of things that are present in the secretary of state talk about are pretty weighty national issues and i'm not sure they drove all the way down to the federal records act. but what is clear is that as the president said in his interview is that the e-mail that he sent are properly maintained consistent with the presidential records act and that by the way would be true of any e-mails he

received from the secretary of state. so the reason i raise that is because secretary clinton seen has pointed out rightfully so that a large number of e-mails that they provided to the state department in response to a request from her personal e-mail system were all ready maintained on the state department agency system. the reason for that is she was e-mailing people with state department employees with state.gov -- state.gov e-mail address is which means those e-mail address is had been properly maintained. the last thing i'll say about this is what we now also is the whole purpose of maintaining his records is to ensure that they can be properly used in responding to general questions and inquiries from congress and from a public. i understand hundreds of documents have been provided to congress consistent with their specific request out of these records.

>> i actually wanted to ask you about très galion galleon on cbs's weekend said in a request for e-mails and documents from the state department there were big holes and the secretary's e-mails were turned over. he said specifically there's a famous photo of a phone blackberry so if those e-mails haven't been produced by the state department does that suggest secretary clinton has not turned over all the e-mails that she should have and if the principle investigator from congress is saying that there are holes in existing record is that something you guys at the white house need to step in and say what's going on here and let's investigate this? >> i'm not sure that there is, think that might be a step too far. it's the responsibility of the state department to respond to legitimate requests from congressional committees and the

state department has cooperated at great length with the eight different congressional committees have been formed to investigate the situation. my point is if you were chairman gowdy have specific questions about specific e-mails that should be produced in response to a legitimate congressional inquiry. they should raise that directly with state department officials. back i would hazard a guess that at the white house were intimately involved in that kind of effort to reveal e-mail and make determinations about what should be provided to congress that he be complaining about that on national television as well. so, there is a process that's involved in the point is there is a strong track record of the state department working closely with legitimate and even some illegitimate congressional inquiries into this particular matter.

so if he has questions or concerns about that as the eighth chairman of the committee to review this matter than he should take that up directly with the state department and this administration will continue to be guided by a principle that we will work cooperatively with legitimate congressional inquiries. >> josh what is the timeline on when white house counsel's office found that secretary clinton had her on server? >> i don't know the answer to that question. what i can tell you is it's the responsibility of individual agencies to establish an e-mail system and to make sure that those e-mails as they are created are properly archived in maintained both so they can be used to respond to legitimate public inquiries and legitimate congressional inquiries and that's the responsibility of those agencies to do that. the agency of the state department specifically made the

request to secretary clinton and her team to provide the e-mails on her personal e-mail system that relate to her official government responsibilities. >> when did the white house learned that she had this other account or accounts that she had not turned them over to the previous committee's? was the one trey gowdy sent a subpoena or requested these documents? is that the timeline? >> again i don't know that answer to that specific question. what i can tell you is it's the responsibility of agencies to maintain these records and to administer the e-mails. >> is that the responsibly the white house to make sure that the secretary of state is complying with the law? >> that is why the state department made a specific request of secretary clinton all the previous secretaries of state to ask them to turn over her e-mails on their personal e-mail that may relate to the conduct of official u.s. government business and that is

to ensure compliance with the federal records act and again of secretary clinton's team did as they said they did and nobody has raised in a legitimate reason doubt that they have done anything other than they said they did then secretary clinton is in compliance with the federal records act. >> "the wall street journal" saying quote if they screwed up on e-mails and they skipped over her e-mails that would be a problem for them. it would be a scandal but it's not one that it will own. is there separation going on between the white house and the clinton camp? >> while i i think that quote refers to a specific fact which is secretary clinton's team that obviously has access to her personal e-mail server and it's their responsibility to respond to the state department request to turn over e-mails that were related to her official government business. now again they say they have done that and i don't see any reason to doubt that they have

done exactly what they said they would do. ultimately that is the responsibility of secretary clinton and her team. >> senator menendez, you are saying that he makes sure investigations are not politicize and this administration has been aggressive about investigating press leaks and whatnot. are you issuing eight --. >> i can't speak to the accuracy of those claims. >> i mean the justice department has quoted it. >> that has not been proven to be a fact. >> so nobody a justice has talked to the media? >> the point is to add that i'm not aware of anything like that because i shouldn't be. if there's a criminal investigation of the way it is one that has been done wholly separate and apart from any political interference. that's why not in a position to comment on if they are true or

not. i don't know nor should i. >> you don't milcon is there a firewall between the justice department and the white house? is the president being briefed simple question. >> i'm making a simple point. i don't know if there's a menendez investigation. you refer to it as if it's a fact that i'm not in a position to comment on it. >> you are not aware that there's an investigation, an investigation come as i write? >> i'm not aware that there's an investigation the point is that we work very hard and diligently as this previous administration to ensure for the integrity of these criminal investigations that there is not any political interference. >> the last thing on iran. he kept talking about sanctions and just reading tom cotton sweater i don't see the word sanctions and i don't see the word were paid understand that maybe the way you are framing it that they are pushing some alternative to go to war instead of a deal with the letter goes

into great detail about what these republicans claim they want. they want to vote in congress on the deal. my question to you is what is wrong with a little sunshine? what's wrong with saying we are going to negotiate a wonderful deal here and we are willing to let democrats or republicans vote on it. if you read their words and i get it but the letters saying we want an up-or-down vote in congress. something bob menendez has wanted. he didn't signed this letter because republicans -- my question is what's wrong with the up-or-down vote? they are saying they want a deal that's going to survive an up-or-down vote on the deal. >> senator cotton is referred to a strategy to undermine this deal as an effort to prevent a diplomatic agreement. he describes that as a feature of a strategy. i think he said on camera and so it is clear what their strategy is. if they want to -- as a civics

lesson that they want to share with iran's political leadership they are welcome to do. it might convince some reluctance or least hesitation about the wisdom of their strategy or at least the wisdom of their ultimate goal. the reason for that is simple. the only option to these diplomatic agreements that anybody else has raised is a military option. again we have seen republicans time and again tried to advance the military option ahead of the diplomatic option. the person doesn't think that that's good policy. he certainly doesn't think it's good strategy and the truth is the efforts of neocons in the previous administration to do that frankly hurt the country standing around the world. john. >> first, on the letter the letter says the next president could revoke such an agreement

with the stroke of a pen and future congress can modify the term in terms of doing it at anytime. i'm wondering is that an accurate statement? could the next present at this as on a ratified treaty, this is simply an agreement that the president has struck with the leadership of iran and our allies and a future president could say we are opting out of? >> well job and i will tell you that one of the things that has contributed to the united states diplomatic influence around the globe is this notion of continuity. when other countries are doing business with the leader of united states they understand that they are not just doing a business with one president, they are doing it with a country. for example on the campaign trail in 2008 there was no doubt about the fact that there was a substantial difference of opinion between president bush and president obama for funding a wide variety of foreign-policy challenges.

this president did not walk into office with the stroke of a patent undue a whole long series of agreements that president bush had reached with other countries. that would have been irresponsible and in fact you will recall that the debate throughout the 2008 campaign was about a responsible drawdown of u.s. troops from iraq and the fact is people around the globe understand that when they are doing business with the american president they are doing business with the united states of america and not just that one person. >> but isn't it true that history taken into consideration, isn't it true that the next president of the united states could undo this agreement with the stroke of the pen if it's not ratified by congress? >> again.

>> it may look bad but would there be anything legally that would stop the next present from undoing that agreement? >> at the present is focused on the best interest of the united states of america and focused on the assessment of whether or not iran's living up to the terms of the agreement and that the international community has confirmed that they are it would clearly not be in the best interest of the united states. it is hard to envision a president taking an unprecedented step that only weakens united states on his or her first day of office. >> back to the question of the e-mails. given your back and forth on this question and what mrs. clinton has turned over doesn't it make sense to have an independent auditor look at her server and determine which e-mails were official business and therefore under the records

act should be turned over to the archives? i mean doesn't make sense that there should be a third party an independent party to make that determination? >> ultimately as i mentioned before secretary clinton's team is that they have reviewed all of these e-mails and they have turned over 55,000 of them to the state department. a large number of them already existed on the state department system. i haven't heard anybody or seen anybody present any evidence to indicate that they didn't do what they said they did so again if they decide, if secretary clinton's team decides that they want to go to even greater lengths than they already have then that is ultimately a decision for them to make. they're the ones that are in charge of the e-mail server. >> the white house would not have a problem with a third-party taking a look at her server and determining which e-mails were official

correspondence? >> again ultimately this is a decision that will be left up to secretary clinton's team to make on this but again. >> it is their decision to make that you would have no objection to a third-party looking at her server if that's what they decided to do to reassure everybody that she was completely above board and the white house would have no problem at the third party were to look at her server and determine which of her e-mails are official business? >> i would be surprised if that would be required because no one has been in the position to provide evidence to indicate they haven't done that action. >> are you surprised that people would just take their word for it, and honor system and whatever she determines its official business? >> john what is clear as they have turned over thousands of records to the state department. the state department has properly archived and maintain them. they have already used them in response to questions that have been submitted by congress and no one at any point has

suggested that secretary clinton's team didn't turn over the e-mails that they were supposed to turn over the ones related to the conduct of official business. >> would it be strange for her did not have any e-mails to the region where she is photographed on her blackberry? >> again i can't speak to any e-mails that she may have sent on this. maybe she's using her blackberry to read the news. >> or tweeting in fact i think that's the joke about the whole thing. tax, okay. >> maybe we can get until whole other thing about her tax. >> let's not. >> on the question of the president to president was asked a direct question by bill plante said he was aware that she was using nongovernment e-mail to conduct official business and his answer was he was not aware that until he read the news reports. how is that possible because you

just told us he received e-mails from her? by definition with an e-mail going from the secretary of state to the president of the united states be official business? >> presumably although you know. >> something between those two. >> i think it was justin who brought this up the first time. the president was referring specifically to the arrangement associated with secretary clinton's e-mail. yes the person was aware of her e-mail address. they traded e-mails and that shouldn't be a surprise but the president was not aware of the fact that this was a personal e-mail server and this was the e-mail e-mail address she was using exclusively for all her business. the president was not aware that until that i've been more widely reported but again the president's commitment to the

guidance offered to employees of the government to use official e-mail or official business is one that is important and one that he himself follows. >> with the president if he had been aware suggested to mrs. clinton, secretary clinton that she should be using official e-mails since that was the guidance? >> that's a hard hypothetical to speculate on. richard. >> thank you josh. a couple of questions on -- last friday soldiers with special operations was killed in a friendly fire incident. i was just wondering first how you see this and when we talk about a coordinated effort in strategy to fight isil how can such an incident happened? >> let me start by saying that the united states extends his deepest condolences on the loss of armed forces dolan who was

tragically killed during a friendly fire incident. we offer our sympathies to the people of canada and the family and loved ones of sergeant dorland. our thoughts are with the three injured members of the canadian armed forces as we wish them a speedier recovery. united states and more than 60 coalition partners proudly stand with canada and recognize the extraordinary contributions and sacrifices of the canadian armed forces and of all the men and women serving in the coalition campaign to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. you know obviously as we have said and as you have heard me observe on a number of occasions iraq is a very dangerous place right now and that is the reason we have seen the international community respond under the leadership of this president, to try to support iraqi forces on the ground kurdish security forces on the ground as they try to roll back the gains made by isil. it's very dangerous work and is why we are so grateful for the contribution not just of the canadian people and the canadian

military but of the military resources that have come from coalition countries around the globe. >> again they are studying possibly renewing the mandate of the soldiers over there. the canadian soldiers are doing paris strikes targeting on the ground and the perception is they are doing this and the americans are not on the ground doing it taking big risks that the americans are not taking to make sure that these types of missions are prolonged. when will we see american soldiers doing this type of airstrike targeting? >> this is a question that was raised last fall by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff so in some ways he is probably the best position to answer this question. american military personnel will start engaging in that kind of activity once the chairman of

the joint chiefs of staff deems it necessary and make such a recommendation to the united states that the president then agrees with that and approves. that's the process we have established. this is an option that as chairman dempsey has said in the past is on the table. my rough understanding of the circumstances of the tragic incident that occurred over the weekend though is that it was not related to this issue of calling in airstrikes. it was a different engagement in which this tragedy occurred. april. >> what is the white house saying as they are dealing with boko haram in africa and particularly in nigeria? >> april we have seen reports of a twitter message and a the corresponding video purportedly from boko haram pledging -- and may be designed at least in part

for propaganda value. boko haram which previously expressed solidarity with aqim and al qaeda core and isil have demonstrated similar acts of wanton brutality brutality and they take any potential links between these groups as a matter of concern. the intelligence community will remain focused on potential indications of deepening ties. the part of this that i would commend to your attention is the note the boko haram has three boko haram has. so he sought to align themselves with other prominent terrorist organizations. it might be one that leads to conclude that boko haram is primarily interested in the propaganda value of such an announcement and at this point it's difficult to determine what sort of operation or value it may have but is one that i'm confident the international committee will be closely monitoring. >> on another subject and i hate to do this but back on e-mails when you talk about the presence e-mail, i'm sure they security

features and filters and things of that nature but when he e-mails i am sure and you tell me if i'm right or wrong, you have to plug-in a name or e-mail so the e-mail system recognizes that person you can't just send any kind of e-mail to that system meaning he it would recognize her.gov account. was it i guess program to accept other seat -- server e-mails as well? >> at this point april i'm not going to get into detail. one of the security precautions we take we don't talk about it publicly. safety first. but what i can tell you is the present in the secretary of state did exchange e-mails while she was serving as secretary of state and in accordance with the guidelines we follow here at the white house that e-mail and those exchanges were preserved pursuant to the federal records act.

the other point i would make him all of this particularly as it relates to the presence e-mail is that he himself has a keen awareness of how valuable when it comes to scholarly work that this e-mail could be in the future. that previous presidents have not used e-mail nearly as much as he has. he understands that there is legitimate scholarly value in having insight into those conversations that the president has over e-mail with cabinet officials and with other senior members of his administration. so he certainly understands personally while this is important and over the weekend the president had the opportunity to take his daughters to the library of congress to see the written text of president lincoln's second and not girl address that there is richest oracle value and document like that in some ways my guess is the mundane day-to-day e-mail certainly

wouldn't rise to the interest or eloquence to the second and nonreligious by lincoln that it has important scholarly value in the present recognizes that and that's why he takes seriously the responsibilities he has too insured those records are properly maintained.