quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. portman: i rise to offer my support to the legislation that we are considering on the floor today. this is the most significant antitrafficking legislation to come before the united states senate in over a decade. as i talked about earlier when i offered a couple of amendments, i'm very pleased to be in this body on a nonpartisan basis not just a bipartisan basis, to be able to address this issue. and i want to thank the senators who have worked hard in their committees to make that possible. senators cornyn and klobuchar for all their work. i see senator wyden is here, senator leahy is here, senator grassley is here; others who have been involved in this, they and their staffs are to be commended because this has been a argue process in my view. it is an issue a lot of us care

about and why? because it affects our states and our constituents in very significant ways. last year i cofounded and now cochair the caucus on human trafficking with senator blumenthal and we've had good meetings and conferences on the hill raising the awareness of this issue. this horrible crime affects every single part of our country. in ohio, this came to my attention initially because in parts of ohio particularly in toledo there were higher incidents of prosecutions of human trafficking. a school group brought this to my attention several years ago. the more we looked into it the more we realized this affects so many of our students, particularly children, runaways, the missing. on the greatest country on the face of the earth almost 300,000 of our american children are at risk of trfging --ing

trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. in 2000 i addressed the trafficking victims protection act and addressed its reauthorization in 2011. since that time we've learned more about the problem. we now know more about how to eradicate what is really a modern form of slavery. our new legislation called the justice for victims of trafficking act of 2015 builds on what we know works and it is then thence the protections for -- it strengthens the protections for the victims. i'd like to take a moment to talk about two of the bills that are contained within this underlying legislation that are the product of a lot of bipartisan work that exemplifies some of the finest traditions of this body. the first is the bringing missing children home act. bringing missing children home act is something that i coauthored with senator schumer on the other side of the aisle and we did it because we know there is, unfortunately this

strong correlation between victims of sex trafficking and children who have been in and out of the child welfare system. we also know children who have run away, who are missing are the most vulnerable to be abused trafficked and exploited. in 2014 an f.b.i. sting recovered 168 children who were victims of sex trafficking nearly each one of those children nearly all of them had been involved in some kind of foster care with the child welfare system. many had been reported missing. by the way with insufficient information to find them. so it is a strong correlation and it is one any effort to stop human trafficking must also address. this is what my legislation does; bringing children home strengthens law enforcement reporting and response procedures making it easier to communicate and work with child welfare agencies. it amends the missing children assistance act so federal law makes sure children who are trafficked or sexually exploited are treated as victims.

treated as victims and not as criminals. you'll hear this in this debate and this is one of the great underlying aspects of this legislation is we're changing the way we look at this, changing the paradigm to understand that there is simply no such thing as a child prostitute. second this legislation requires law enforcement to update their records of missing children within 30 days, with all the relevant information obtained during the initial investigation. this is really important because this new information will allow us to find these children more easily and more quickly to avoid them falling into the trap of sexual trafficking and traffickers. specifically the bill requires that new dental and medical records be provided. but it also requires that law enforcement enter a photograph of the child if it is available. and for almost all of these children there is a photograph available if you take the time to try to find it. i can't stress this last part enough. it is so hard to find these kids without having a photograph; it

is made much more difficult. and yet in most instances we don't. we tracked this in ohio over the last several months. since january 1 of this year there have been 87 children reported missing in the state of ohio. 87 kids. we only have photographs for 21 of them. so for 66 of these young people, we have no photograph. it's really tough to find them when you don't know what they look like. this bill will help change that. third, it requires law enforcement to work directly with state and local child welfare systems after someone is reported missing so that all the relevant information can be obtained as quickly as possible. finally it removes all the roadblocks that prevent state attorneys general from modifying records in the national crime information centers. we want these records to be updated as new information is provided. to put it simply, we think it is a commonsense bill that streamlines how cases of missing children are handled and makes it a lot easier to share the vital information that could lead to recovery. the second bill i want to talk

about that's part of this underlying legislation is called the combatting and trafficking act i coauthored with senator feinstein. the missing children home act we talked about is about helping victims. this legislation the trafficking act is about punishing the traffickers. we start by giving prosecutors expanded tools to put traffickers behind bars. our legislation at large is a number of charges federal prosecutors could level against traffickers and those who conspire with them. it makes those engaged in trafficking strictly liable for their crimes. we also expand the training available for our federal law enforcement, tasked with investigating and prosecuting traffickers and require the bureau of justice statistics provide an annual report detailing success in this fight. just as importantly this bill strengthens victims rights by providing more information to victims on ongoing prosecutions requiring them to be informed in a timely manner of any plea agreements or deferred prosecution agreement in cases in which they're involved. mr. president, the legislation we're considering this underlying legislation passed

out of the committee unanimously for a reason. there are things that do divide us in this place and we talk about those a lot and everybody reads and hears about them. but this is an exception. this is about bringing us together. in this case to protect our kids from human trafficking. human traffickers and sexual traffickers are issues where we should not have divide. this is legislation both republicans and democrats can enthusiastically support. earlier today i did join with some of my colleagues in introducing some amendments to the legislation because although i support the underlying bill, it's a good bill, it can even be made better. and i'm looking forward to the debate. and in the process, i hope that we will raise awareness of this issue, raise consciousness about the issue not just here among our colleagues and here on capitol hill, but around the country. because ultimately we're going to solve this problem in our communities. everyone needs to be part of it. everyone needs to be vigilant. everybody needs to understand that this happens in your

community. it happens in your state and it happens unfortunately in our country. if we can raise awareness about this horrific practice of human trafficking and sex trafficking that will do a lot to try to curb it, to reduce it and eventually to stop it. this is what we came to washington to do, to pass legislation that actually helps back home. and with this legislation, we can stand together to protect the most innocent among us from the most heinous of crimes. i thank you, mr. president and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:# quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorumming suspended. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president i ask that my remarks that i'm going to make now not be part of the remarks on the bill that's before the senate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: on a number of occasions i have had to take to the senate floor to note my opposition to the so-called smarter sentencing act. does that mean that i'm against all sentencing reform? no. but particularly something is wrong with the suggestions that have been put in bill form so

far. this -- my speeches on this have been necessary because there are so many misconceptions about that legislation and federal drug sentences and prisoners. before addressing them, i want to let my colleagues know that i do believe that there are some inequities in the criminal justice system. the judiciary committee will be looking at ways to address that. i will set out that part of the committee's agenda after discussing sentencing. the smarter sentencing act would arbitrarily cut in half the mandatory minimum sentences that are imposed on a host of serious -- very serious drug offenses. they include importation manufacture, and distribution of serious drugs like heroin,

p.c.p. l.s.d., and meth. the governor of vermont as an example, devoted an entire state of the state address to the heroin epidemic. the governor of maryland just launched an antiheroin antiheroin initiative. the smarter sentencing act would cut in half -- would cut in half -- mandatory sentences for importingimporting, distribution, and manufacturing heroin. it would cut the sentences for the same activityies with respect to l.s.d., a drug that causes psychosis and suicide. it would reduce sentences for the drug trade that two of president obama's appointees to

the drug enforcement administration and in the justice department have warned that the world's most dangerous terrorist organizations are engageed in this trade to fund the terrorist operations. it would harm the ability of prosecutors to obtain cooperation from lower-level offenders, to obtain intelligence regarding terrorist-planned attacks. as president obama's own united states attorney for the southern district of new york has warned -- quote -- "there is a growing nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism a threat that increasingly poses a clear and present danger to our national security" -- end of quote. the threat should determine the response. it would be foolhardy then to

meet the threat of narco-terrorism by cutting drug sentences. under federal sentencing law those who are low-level offenders avoid mandatory minimum sentences. i said that wrong. they avoid mandatory minimum offenses. just under half of all drug courier offenders were subject to mandatory minimum sentences but fewer than 10% received mandatory minimum sentences. one reason for the differences is that offenders who cooperate in prosecuting high-level drug conspirators avoid the mandatory minimum sentences. as the federal law enforcement

officers association wrote -- quote -- "any change in the mandatory minimum sentencing standard does a disservice to the brave men and women who are asked to put their lives on the line to protect us from terrorists and criminals" -- end of quote. further quotation from the federal law enforcement officers association: quote -- "currently, the system in place allows federal law enforcement agents to infiltrate and dismantle large-scale drug-trafficking organizations and to take violent armed career criminals off of the street. in turn, this allows progression up the scale of criminal organizations from low-level subjects to higher-ranking members through the effect of the mandatory minimum sentencing

act." end of quote. the second reason why mandatory minimum sentences are not imposed on many eligible drug couriers is the so-called safety valuevalve. defendants can qualify if they have no or a very light criminal history. that means those who are convicted but aren't violent do not serve mandatory minimum sentences. now, the average sentence for a federal drug courier offender is only 39 months. the offenders who qualify for the safety valve are drug couriers and drug dealers. they are not the people who are in prison for the possession of drugs. that is because drug possession does not trigger federal mandatory minimum sentences.

and it is also because according to the sentencing commission almost no citizen is in federal prison for mere drug possession. 88% of the drug possession prisoners were apprehended along the southwest border and the median amount of drugs in their possession was 48 pounds. so i want to emphasize 48 pounds. these, then, with 48 pounds are not low-level casual offenders. only 270 mere federal drug possession cases were brought anywhere else in the country in the most recent year for which the sentencing commission has statistics. and the average sentence for

drug possession for citizens is 1.3 months. that's months, not years. most citizens convicted of federal drug possession charges receive probation. proponents of the bill, then, say that there are too many people in prison and that the bill would save the taxpayers money. well, it turns out to not be true. the congressional budget office estimated that the bill even while releasing hundreds of thousands of prisoners earlier than under current law would increase direct spending by about $1 billion and would reduce revenues by $42 million over 10 years. the supporters of the so-called smarter sentencing act do not even attempt to contest my

points in opposition and i've made these points more than once before the united states senate. the supporters do not say that there is not a heroin epidemic. they cannot say that citizens are serving federal mandatory minimum sentences for possession possession, but they do say this this. their major ploy is to paint a picture that poor, innocent mere drug possessors are crowding our prisons. they do not argue that the obama administration officials did not warn of the link of drug crimes to terrorism and national security threats. they don't challenge the statistic from the sentencing commission or the existence of the safety valve or the effective mandatory minimum sentences in enhancing

prosecution of very serious drug offenders. they won't take on the congressional budget office's cost estimates. they do cite c.b.o.'s discretionary cost savings of $3 billion. but in the long run entitlement spending can be more costly because entitlement spending must be paid. they don't do any of these because they simply can't. they're committed to a bill as a matter of ideology. the facts simply do not matter to the supporters. they try to change the subject. all they can do is resort to rhetoric. in fact, the supporters of that legislation are even orwellian in their rhetoric.

i mean that literally. george orwell wrote a famous essay called "politics and the english language." he said -- quote -- "in our time time political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." this -- the arguments for the smarter sentencing act are merely a weak attempt to defend the indefensible. while i have called the leniency leniency -- what i have called the leniency industrial complex refers then positive the people who were sentenced to drug mandatory minimum sentences as nonviolent. they use that term even though any true nonviolent offenders would qualify for the safety valve.

they gloss over the fact that even if an offender was not violent in a particular case, he may have committed a prior violent offense that would make him, in fact, a violent person. and, of course, many drug-related crimes occur through force or the threat of force or are conducted by people in a criminal enterprise that relies on violence. the bill's supporters even refer to some drug offenders as "nonviolent." and these people are serving mandatory minimum sentences for carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime. few americans would call someone who carries a gun while committing a drug crime nonviolent. and the leniency industrial complex wants people to think

that people who are sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences are somehow low-level offenders. they neglect to mention that the true low-level offenders receive the safety valve and avoid mandatory minimum sentences and that many others avoid them by providing substantial assistance to law enforcement. many of the cases they cite involve repeat offenders. repeat offenders are not low level. lenient sentences did not stop them from dealing dangerous drugs and another lenient sentence won't stop their next drug deal. whether it comes to terms like "low level" and a term like "nonviolent," again quoting

orwell, the bill's supporters have their own -- quote -- "their own private definition but allow the hearer to think they mean something quite different." their political language has to consist largely of euphemisms, question begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. i regret to say that the elements in the media have uncritically accepted the orwellian rhetoric surrounding this bill. a recent "new york times" editorial swallowed the low-level rhetoric whole hog. it challenged my well-supported conclusion that high-level offenders would benefit from enacting -- enactment of the smarter sentencing act without even mentioning the serious

crimes and drugs the bill applies to. it editorialized that my opposition to the bill -- quote -- "defies empirical data data." even though my sources are the sentencing commission and the obama administration appointees. when the "times" attempted to back up its support for the bill bill it linked not to any authoritative evidence but to the report of an ideological advocacy group. this is the so-called empirical data that the "times" finds worthy. why should taxpayers fund the sentencing commission if the self-proclaimed paper of record shuns its statistics in favor of those offered by lobbying groups

groups. the "times" said that the federal policy-makers should rely on state experience in reforming sentences. so i would like to do that. only 270 citizens are prosecuted for drug possession in the federal system each year and most receive probation. the states have many drug possession offenders in prison so the actions they take for that class of offenders do not bairpbear onfederal prison populations nor do the states prosecute anyone for importation of heroin or l.s.d. or meth or cocaine. but the federal government does as you all know. so the state drug sentencing changes are not relevant to those prisoners as well and it is the federal government much more than the states that uses

lower-level offenders to take down the most serious drug offenders. meanwhile, i have offered to consider legislation that would lower some mandatory minimum sentences if others could be imposed or raised. for instance, the sentencing commission has identified child pornography and financial crimes such as insider trading as areas where federal judges are particularly lenient and where no mandatory minimum sentences exist. but it is the proponents of the smarter sentencing act who refuse to take me up on that good-faith offer. their ideology does not include compromise. the white house says that they

want to work with this senator on these issues but then invites other members of congress but not the chairman of the senate judiciary committee to a meeting to discuss this subject. since then i've had a discussion with the president inviting me to come down there and visit with him some time. but in the new "the new york times" orwellian world this senator is the roadblock to sentencing reform. that is upside-down and backward backward. problems do exist in the criminal justice system. i planned to have the judiciary committee address some important ones but rather than marking up ill-considered and dangerous legislation like the so-called smarter sentencing act we will take up bills that can achieve a large measure of consensus. i would like to take this opportunity to address some of the committee's criminal justice

agenda which will show my commitment to real problem solving through consensus. the first area we will address is reform of asset forfeiture. asset forfeiture can serve a valuable purpose for law enforcement and society by helping to deprive criminals and criminal organizations of their money. money from proceeds of their crimes and the instrumentality of that crime. it also helps to compensate victims who are injured or who suffer as a result of criminals' wrongdoing. it can also return that money to law enforcement who can use it to continue to combat serious crime and put more bad guys behind bars. but current law provides perverse incentives that have led to abuses. law enforcement can sometimes directly benefit from property that they seize.

sometimes contrary to state law. those whose property is taken often do not have access to fair procedures or lawyers to help them get that property back. these processes and procedures need real structural reform. innocent property owners must be able to challenge seizures and protect their property from government abuses. i am also looking into reversing a supreme court decision that denies property owners the opportunity to use their very own money to hire a lawyer to help defend them against the government. even though the administration has made some administrative changes to these practices and policies npt response to widespread criticism, i believe real legislative reform is needed. i look forward to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to make those necessary

changes. second as an alternative -- as a way of looking at reform i am very concerned that too many times in america equality under the law is not a reality. that the poor do not receive the same justice in many instances. for more than 50 years the supreme court has ruled that indigent people accused of felonies must be afforded council. and for more than 40 years starting with the decision of arger singer v. hamlin, the supreme court has found that the sixth amendment of the constitution requires that federal, state and local governments provide council to indigents who are accused of misdemeanors if their conviction could potentially lead to imprisonment. i regret to say that although i am aware of instances where the federal government is

responsible, it is particularly at the state level where the sixth amendment is violated numerous times on a daily basis. i cannot think of any supreme court decision that has ever faced such resistance and magnitude and time as that hamlin case. indigent maimed are pressured to waive counsel. sometimes they are threatened with rim prisonment if they seek to have counsel appointed. there are other ways it is violated and then there is the question of the competence of the counsel assigned, given how many cases are assigned to a individual lawyer and how quickly judges resolve them. i fear that some innocent people are being sentenced to prison, and there are other consequences as well.

we should make sure that there are collateral consequences imposed on people who are guilty of domestic violent misdemeanors , for instance, and we do not want collateral consequences imposed on people who did not actually commit misdemeanors. if people later get in trouble with the law we don't want them to qualify for the safety valve because some of their previous convictions were for misdemeanors in which they did not see -- they did not receive the right to counsel. we don't want people to have criminal records when they seek employment when they did not receive counsel who could have prevented a conviction. in some situations a misdemeanor will automatically become a felony if the accused has committed it repeatedly. we don't want a misdemeanor conviction to render a later

crime a felony if the questions of innocence surrounded the earlier crime. third, i want to address databases for criminal records. those databases can serve useful purposes such as enabling background checks. background checks on people who are being considered for a job or for volunteering to work with children. and there are proposals to expand the purposes for which the databases can be used. but i am concerned about the quality and the completeness of the records in the databases. if the database contains erroneous or outdated material, then the people being checked may unfairly lose out on a job or the ability to help children. there are procedures at the

federal level to challenge the information in the database if the person knows that their records are inaccurate. but that's a very, very steep climb. the states have their own procedures for people to challenge the accuracy of criminal records but success there may be even harder and may cost more than people can afford. records are also sometimes not expunged even when the law said they must be expunged. i do not want to see the arrest record turn up in a background check and deny someone the ability to work, deny the economy the benefit of our productivity, and deprive the government of tax revenue from that work because a background check turned up a record of an arrest from long ago that never resulted in conviction.

this is is a widespread problem. according to press reports when arrests are included, 32% of adults in this country have criminal records that are contained in databases. i'm sure that we can reach bipartisan agreement on legislation to address this problem in some form. so mr. president, there are dangerous and poorly considered proposals to change the criminal justice system that are divisive, are not based on reality, and will never become law. there are also problems in the criminal justice system that are clear, widely recognized, have serious consequences, and can be the subject of effective bipartisan legislative effort. i will do what i can to make sure that the judiciary

committee devotes its energy to the second category. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. cornyn: mr. president just yesterday, the -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. cornyn: i would beg your (. i ask -- your pardon. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: as i was saying, yesterday, the democratic leader senator reid, told us that democrats and republicans could finally agree on one thing, and that is we ought to focus not on the partisan politics and the ideology that so often divides us, but we ought to focus on the victims of human trafficking largely middle school-aged girls who are bought and sold like

commodities. i came out here yesterday and said i believe that we are all created in the image of god and it is a sin, it is the very personification of evil for people to treat those same human beings as if they were things, and that's what the scourge of human trafficking is all about. and so i was very glad to see finally we seem to be chipping away at the dysfunction of the senate that we've experienced over the last few years and in the new majority, given the opportunity for an open amendment process on a subject that we all agree needs to be dealt with, that we could work together. so imagine my surprise when earlier today the same democratic leader said that the democrats were going to

filibuster this human -- antihuman trafficking legislation. and why in the world would they take a 180-degree turn? why would they do such an about-face or flip-flop? well because they said there was language contained in the bill that they disagreed with. no they didn't say we will use this open amendment process to file an amendment and have a vote to strip it out or to modify it or otherwise change it. they said we are going to block the bill. it's dead. unless this language comes out but yet they do nothing to try to effect that outcome. so you might wonder what this language is that they are so upset about that they would literally kick the tens of thousands of children and other victims to the curb because of

their outrage that this language is contained in this legislation. well imagine my surprise to find out that the reason why the democratic minority is going to filibuster this antitrafficking bill is because they object to language that has been the law of the land for 39 years. 39 years. and so i guess they woke up this morning and thought well, we better do something about it, and what is that provision that causes them so much discomfort that they are so upset about that they're willing to block this legislation? well it's something that's called the hyde amendment. basically, what that does is it prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for abortions. now, i realize in america we are of different minds on the subject of abortions. i'm proudly pro-life, but others

of our senate are pro-choice and we probably have a whole spectrum of views on this very personal issue. but we have had a bipartisan consensus, unanimity almost since -- for the last 39 years that whatever else the law is as handed down by the supreme court or by congress, that we are not going to use taxpayer funds for abortion. so imagine my surprise when that very language and very reference was included in the justice for victims of trafficking bill that now today i find out for the first time that our democratic friends object to. imagine my surprise when that very language was part of the bill that was filed in mid january and a month later was

marked up and voted on in the senate judiciary committee and all members of the judiciary committee, democrats and republicans alike voted for it. they voted for it unanimously. well i don't believe this was a mistake. i mean, our friends across the aisle have some outstanding staff. they are a very talented people. i don't always agree with them, but they are good at what they do. i don't believe for a minute that they would have missed a reference in this legislation to a restriction on spending on funding taxpayer-provided abortions. and i don't believe that those staff members being diligent professionals that they are i don't believe they didn't tell their principal their member of

the senate, of the judiciary committee. so this idea that there has been some sort of an ambush is just preposterous. it's just not credible. well imagine my surprise when not only -- not only did we have a 15-0, i believe it was, in other words a unanimous vote on the judiciary committee for this bill, we have democratic sponsors cosponsors of the bill. not just did they support the bill. they have been actively working with us on the legislation. and just looking at the face of the bill, i count one two three, four, five, six seven eight, nine, ten democratic cosponsors. do you think they didn't read the bill before they put their name on it? do you think their staff didn't tell them this is what's in the bill? well as we all know, that sort of thing is orderly --

ordinarily pretty hotly debated. there are no shrinking vie lats in the -- violets in the united states senate. we have strong-willed talented people on both sides of the aisle, and there are no shrink ing violets. that's just lay that to rest. people are willing to speak up and they do speak up every day every hour, virtually every minute on things they feel strongly about. so this idea that we have created an ambush that we have surprised our colleagues by including this language in a bill that's on the floor the justice to victims of trafficking act voted unanimously out of the judiciary committee, all republicans all democrats, with ten democratic

cosponsors that we have somehow surprised them by including this restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion that's been the law of the land for 39 years is just patently ridiculous. it's just not believable. well let me provide a little more information. the reference in the -- the reference in the bill is on page page 50 under limitations. it says amounts in the fund or otherwise transferred from the fund -- that's the crime victims compensation fund created by this legislation. $30 million that goes to help treat victims and help them heal and get on with their lives. this bill says that this fund shall be subject to the

limitations on the use or expending of amounts described in sections 506 and 507 of division two of the consolidated appropriation act. 2014. to the same extent as if -- if amounts in the fund were funds appropriated under division two of such act. well i went to -- to look to see how many democrats voted for that consolidated appropriation act in 2014 that contained the hyde amendment language and the limitations on funding of taxpayer-funded abortions and imagine my surprise when i see that 23 democrats voted for that language in the 2014 consolidated appropriation bill that's referred to on page 50 and 51 of the justice for

victims of trafficking act. 23. this is the same bill the minority leader, the democratic leader said the democrats were going to filibuster because they were so outraged about they were surprised they were bushwhacked, they were ambushed, they were tricked. 23 democrats voted for that same appropriation language in 2014. but it gets better, or worse as the case may be. democrats supported legislation consistent with the hyde amendment for a long, long time. as i've said, it's been the law of the land for 39 years. when was the last time? well the department of homeland security funding, you remember this back in fourth, we had over

the defunding of the president's executive action on immigration that so many on our side of the aisle are upset about because it is not within the president's authority to do it. that's not just my opinion. that's the federal judge in brownsville who issued a preliminary injunction. but how many democrats voted for department of homeland security funding bill that contains that same limitation on taxpayer funding for abortions? 45 democrats voted for it. 45 democrats voted for it so imagine my surprise when 45 democrats just recently voted for that appropriations bill to come to the senate today and be told we're outraged. we're never going to support that. and by the way we didn't know it was in the bill when we voted

for it in the judiciary committee, or when we cosponsored the bill. well they knew about it presumably when they voted for the department of homeland security funding in february of 2015, when 23 of them voted for the c.r. omni or cromni in december 2014. and, oh, by the way, you remember obamacare? all the democrats, every single democrat voted to support obamacare which contained the same restriction on taxpayer funding for abortions. they have also voted for the children's health insurance program, the so-called schip for defense authorization bills. in other words our democratic friends have voted time and time and time and time again for the

exact same language they now say they're going to filibuster on the justice for victims of trafficking act. language they said they weren't aware of when they voted for it. they didn't read. their staff didn't tell them about it. well if that's true, i'd get new staff. but i know the staff on the democratic side, like the staff on the republican side, are highly professional people, and they wouldn't fail to identify offensive language that their senator could not and would not and never has voted for or they'd be out of a job. so mr. president i plead with our democratic friends please don't make this justice for victims of trafficking act another political football. i mean, for heaven's sake, if we can't agree to protect the most

vulnerable victims of this heinous crime, what can we enagree on? if -- what can we ever agree on? if we can't agree on that, if we're going to try to find a way to flyspeck legislation and say i won't allow this bill to go forward if that language is included in there even though it's been the law of the land for 39 years even though routinely democrats voted for that restriction on taxpayer-funded abortion time and time and time again. why start now when we're talking about the most vulnerable victims of this heinous crime and say well, we're going to punish you. we're not going to provide you the services that you need in order to heal and get better and get on with your life because we woke up this morning march 10,

i think it is -- march 10, 2015, and after 39 years we decided this is where we draw the line. we're drawing the line here. never again will we ever vote for the hyde amendment to be applied to any funds appropriated by or in the possession of the federal government. so i would i really would ask my colleagues please reconsider. please let's not do this. don't do this to these children and these victims of trafficking. don't do it to this institution. i mean, we all understand that washington can be a pretty tough place, and none of us -- all of us are volunteers, and we understand that politics can sometimes be a tough business. but let's not take it out on

these victims of human trafficking. that is, that should be beneath us. they don't deserve it. american public they deserve better. if we pass this legislation and we get it to the president's desk and he signs it, which i believe he will, there are going to be hundreds if not thousands of victims of human trafficking have a place to sleep a safe place to sleep. they're going to have people who love them and care for them, try to help them heal and get better. we will take the money from the people who perpetrate these crimes and we will use that money to help provide needed services to these children and other victims of human trafficking. we will say no more that the teenage girl who's arrested for prostitution because she's a

victim of trafficking, we will tell her no more you are a criminal. we will recognize her for the vic that she -- for the victim that she is and we will treat her appropriately. we'll deal not only with the supply side of this terrible crime, we'll deal with the demand side, people who get off the hook too easily with immunity people who purchase these illicit services and somehow always seem to avoid responsibility and continue to participate in this crime with impunity. so mr. president the domestic trafficking victims fund in our legislation supplements existing authorized grant programs that are already subject to appropriation laws like the hyde amendment. they are already subject to the same provision. our legislation clarifies that the hyde amendment also applies to any funds that are used to supplement those existing grant

programs. our legislation does not in any way expand or change the scope of the hyde amendment. it just says that these funds operate under the same rules that cover the existing grant programs they supplement. everyone agrees that the programs we supplement in this legislation need more funds. i know the distinguished ranking member, the senator from vermont has made an impassioned plea to add more money beyond the victims compensation fund that we created. he is saying there needs to be more money as a longtime member of the appropriations committee i hope the appropriations committee looks at that and makes a decision whether they ought to supplement what we do. but these funds are being subjected to the same limitation on spending that every dollar that the senate appropriations committee has appropriated

during the last 39 years. so my hope is this, my hope is this that members of the united states senate will rise above this this agreement this posturing, this attempt to try to play gotcha at the expense of these victims of human trafficking. no member should attempt to make this bill a debate about extraneous issues and policies that have been settled on a bipartisan basis for 39 years. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i've listened very carefully to my good friend from texas and we've worked together on many pieces of legislation over the years. in fact, i hoped that we could have done this trafficking bill up during the last congress, as he knows. unfortunately, there were objections raised; we couldn't. i hope we're not going to get

into a question where we compare apples with oranges and forget what we're supposed to be doing. the distinguished senator says on the one hand during the debate on the affordable care act, according to him and i'll take him at his word, that this language was in there and every democrat voted for it, which meant of course that every republican voted against it. if you're going to use and if you're going to follow his argument that the language in the affordable care act was voted on, voted for by democrats, it was voted against by republicans. i'm not suggesting that they don't care about the hyde amendment because they voted against it, according to the senator from texas.

but let's talk about things that should be on appropriations bills. i'm one of the few members of either party in this body who's actually prosecuted child molesters. i'm one of the few members in this body who's actually gone to crime scenes and seen the results of child molesters. i'm one of the few people in this body who prosecuted a child molester not from evidence of the child because the child was dead. a young boy had been raped by the man whom i prosecuted and molested over a long period of time. so i don't need to have people tell me about the horrors of child molestation. i've seep it. i remember being in the room and looking at that dead child the same age as one of my children.

i remember the man who did it, who would have done anything to escape my prosecution. and i worked day and night around the clock for weeks. i was a young prosecutor in my 20's and i prosecuted him and convicted him. he ran up an appeal to the supreme court our supreme court, and i argued that appeal myself and his conviction was upheld. so i know the need for this. let's not let political got-cha games stop us from legislation that might protect these people. now the senator from texas suggests i want more money. that's not sciet exactly what i said -- that's not quite exactly what i said. he said he wanted $30 million based on fines. i said i just want to guarantee that $30 million was there.

when i think of that child molester that child murderer -- and i use that as one of the many cases that i prosecuted -- we got a fine of $1 million or $20 million or $1 billion or $200. he would not have been able to pay it and wouldn't have paid it. if the victim had lived there would be no money for it. all i want to make sure, i'm happy to see if there are fines collected that they go in here to collect victims as they should. but if no money is collected from fines, i want to make sure there is money. we'll prosecute somebody who has been involved in child trafficking or child molestation. we'll prosecute them. they'll go to prison. we'll spend $245,000 -- spend $25,000 a year to keep them in prison and we should. but we'll say to the victim, i'm

sorry. we fined him $100,000 to go to the victims fund, but it's basically judgment proof. i just want you to know we had good intentions. if he paid the $100,000 fine, we would have given it to you to help you. but gosh, go in peace, have a good life. all i'm saying is that if there is money from fines sure. the senator from texas and i agree on that, put it in there. but if there's no funds don't promise a $30 million pot of money that will never be filled. if there are no fines if there's no known it, or if there is fine money put the fine money in. but where it misses between what amount is in there and the $30 million, then shouldn't we, we in a country that spends

trillions of dollars shouldn't we be able to put the difference between the fines and the actual $30 million? shouldn't we care about the victims? shouldn't we care about the people who are victimized? and shouldn't we also do this if we have the money in there, we can take steps to stop them from being victims in the first place. how i wouldn't have given anything if there had been some program, some money that found out that this child that i talked about was being victimized and we could have stopped it before the state's attorney gets called in to look at the dead body. how much better it would have been if we could have stopped it to begin with. so all i'm sailing is saying is this: i'm happy to work with the senior senator from texas on this bill, just as i was last year when we had a bill without this provision, and i was hoping and trying to get consent to bring it up and pass it when we had

that bill without this provision. and i -- it's important to note, though it didn't have the provision last year. i wish we could have passed it. now let's work on a bill that will pass. if you want to play political -- score political points either party against the other do it on something that doesn't involve vulnerable children. let's work together to get a bill passed that helps them. and let's make sure that on the point i raised, that we address this at some point. if there's going to be $30 million worth of fines that go in there i'm all for t it. my guess is we'd be luckcally to -- my guess is we'd be lucky to get $30,000 of fines that won't

help but one or two victims. when this came up in the house of representatives they rejected this method of funding. they called it budgetary gimmickry. but actually they did -- they did what authorizing bills in committees are supposed to do. they authorized actual funding so we can stand with the victims of human trafficking and not stand here trying to score political points. in other words let's have the money. let's say the money is there. don't give it an illusory thing. this is like saying, if you commit that crime we're going to fine you $100 million or maybe $300 million or $1 billion. if the person has a net worth -- or never had more than a net worth of $1,000, what difference does it make? put real teeth in here, stop the traffic,but have money to help

the victims. have money to help the victims. the testimony we heard -- the distinguished presiding officer is one who testified others who testified -- this had to tear people apart. the distinguished presiding officer was an attorney general for her state. she understands the reality of this as i do and others. it's been years since i was a state's attorney, but i saw to my friend from texas i still wake up some nights with nightmares from the crime scenes i went to. i wake up from those as i sit here at the violence against women act debate, and i'm glad that republicans and democrats joined together in here and the other body so we could pass it. a victim is a victim is a

victim. it is not a number, it is not a concept. and those of us who spend time with the victims those of us who've been at crime scenes with victims and too often victims who could no longer speak no longer testify -- we were there for their funeral -- we can do better. so let's not talk about who scores points or who doesn't score points. there are good people that worked on this, good people in both parties. let's -- we're not going to be voting on something tonight i imagine, but let's spend the time between now and tomorrow let's sit down and try to work out a way save the political points for something where the most vulnerable in society don't

suffer. we can talk about what we'll do on stock frauds or who go toes taxed for what -- or who gets taxed for what or what regulations we'll have on runaway corporations. the on there raise your -- on there, raise your points, make whatever points you want. but, madam president anyone who has seen, anyone who has talked about, anyone who's been with these victims, this is not the time for politics. this is a time -- let's lower the rhetoric. let's get together this evening tomorrow. let's work it out so we can have something that will really protect them, that will have real funding in here to protect them not something illusory but real funding. and maybe if we can do that, i might have less nightmares about

some of those victims i saw. my friend from texas was a judge. he certainly saw those cases. the presiding officer was an attorney general. she saw those. wrefwe have a number of former prosecutors on both sides here. any one of us who have handleed these cases have to remember every single aspect of it. i remember preparing for trial in these cases. young children at home -- i wouldn't bring my -- i worked late in the office. i wouldn't bring the material home from the office. i didn't want them to see what i was looking at. you'll admit there's another reason. i didn't want my children to see

their father because i read these police investigations investigations. these aren't statistics. these are real people. let's work together. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i have an amendment at the desk -- the presiding officer: excuse me. the senate is in a quorum call. mr. vitter: i'm sorry. madam president i ask unanimous consent to call off the quorum

call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i have an amendment at the desk which has been slightly modified from its original form, and i ask that it be called up. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. leahy: i will object until i've had a chance to see the modification. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: madam president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, madam president. madam president, i have now -- the presiding officer: we're snil a quorum call. mr. vitter: excuse me. let me ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you again. i have now filed my slightly modified amendment. i'll explain the modification in a minute. that is filed at the desk. and now i would ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment so that my amendment can be called up. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. leahy: reserving reserving the

right to object, madam president, i understand by -- because there are some concerns a expects of this, we have several members on our side who would object. so on their behalf, i would object to setting aside the pending amendment. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. vitter: okay, madam president. if i'd be allowed, i will go ahead and explain and speak on this amendment even though it is not pending as we speak. and i'll also file an ongoing objection to anyone setting aside the pending amendment for another or for any votes being scheduled until this matter can be worked out. but, madam president, the amendment i have at the desk is a very important issue. before i explain what it is, let me say that i strongly support the underlying bill. and i want to compliment senator cornyn and others who have worked on a bipartisan basis on

this bill and i certainly look forward to supporting this bill irrespective of how the vote goes on my amendment. but i obviously hope my amendment is adopted in the context of this bill. clearly, madam president this issue of human trafficking is a very serious one. it takes many, many forms all of them ugly. one form is a phenomenon i'm going to talk about today the issue of birth tourism and trafficking in women and families who want to get into this country in order to physically have their children in this country because present policy recognizes those children immediately as u.s. citizens simply because they're born in this country. this phenomenon of birth tourism is a very, very real one and it often puts these birth

mothers and families in very dangerous situations, quite frankly, at the hands of human smugglers or the equivalent. and, madam president, i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record two news reports that illustrate this. the first an article entitled "no vacancies at california birth hotels" that underscores some of the horrendous conditions that go about as a result of this and the second from "the washington post," a different article entitled" inside the shadowy world of birth tourism at maternity hotels." the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. vitter: thank you madam president. recently madam president the obama administration conducted a raid on some of these shadowy operations. i compliment them for doing that. there needs to be a crackdown on

these operations. but, madam president if the ultimate crackdown the ultimate solution is to change the policy of the federal government that recognizes these children immediately as u.s. citizens simply because they're physically born in this country even though both of their parents are here illegally. no parent is here under any sort of legal status. and that's the ultimate response and the ultimate solution that we need, madam president and that's what my amendment that i will call up as soon as that is allowed and get a vote on, is about. my amendment would change present practice and policy, present law to say that only somebody born in this country who has at least one parent who is a u.s. citizen a legal green cardholder, or a serving member of the united states

military immediately gets that recognition as a u.s. citizen. now, as i suggested madam president, this issue and this practice, including this shadowy world of birth tourism and human smuggling is a very serious issue, in fact, an exploding one as these recent cases in the press have brought to light. according to the center for immigration studies each year about 300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal aliens in the united states, and under our present practice, all of them are immediately recognized as u.s. citizens. this is a huge magnet for more crossings, illegal crossings into our country often at the hands of very dangerous people. birthright citizenship draws women from mexico and central america to make that dangerous

trek north often in the hands of coyotes and drug cartels. these women put their lives into the hands of criminal gangs with a demonstrated penchant for sexual assault and sex trafficking. in addition there is a huge business of birth tourism including those that market to women and families in china. as i mentioned federal agents on tuesday march 3 broke up an alleged birth tourism ring in southern california, raiding several homes and apartment complexes where pregnant chinese women on fraudulent visas and in some cases paid up to $80,000 so their babies would be born here. d.h.s. and i.r.s. investigate cares were -- investigators were seeking evidence and statements against those alleged in the scream, besides visa

fraud, there are possible tax and money loppeddering charges and as i refer to the news reports that are part of the record these involve in some cases horrendous conditions and a very shadowy world in terms of this so-called birth tourism. madam president, the ultimate solution to this is to not allow this enormous magnet for illegal crossings, often at the hands of very dangerous people, to continue. by not recognizing everyone who is simply born here in the united states to be a citizen of the united states because of this fact alone. and, again that is what my amendment would do. that is far more effective than any set of raids on these operations on any enforcement provisions. now, madam president if we move toward this, we would be

in the company of the huge majority of countries in the world. of advanced economies, only canada and the united states grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens. no european country does that, no other advanced industrialized country does that. nor should we. it is, as i suggested a huge magnet for more and more illegal crossings. and my amendment would fix that. now, madam president some people will argue that this is not possible with the statutory change this is embedded in the united states constitution through the 14th amendment and any change would have to be a constitutional amendment. i believe that is not the case, and is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution in this

regard, including the 14th amendment. now, the 14th amendment does not say that all persons born in the u.s. are citizens, period, end of story. if you look at the precise language it's very instructive. it states that citizenship extends to -- quote -- "all persons born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- close quote. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. that latter phrase was included because it was included to mean something, and its original meaning clearly refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that person. that's exactly why american indians and their children were not immediately recognized as u.s. citizens simply because of their birth in this country. there was actually litigation

about that going directly to this language of the 14th amendment, and the courts decided no, the fact that these american indian children were born in the united states in and of itself did not make them u.s. citizens because -- quote -- "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- close quote had a meeting, it meant that these children could not be subject to any other governmental or quasi-governmental authority and an american indian tribe was such an authority. and so because of that, because of that litigation, because of that interpretation, in order for those american indian children to be recognized as american citizens, it actually took specific congressional action congress passing the indian citizenship act of 1924. i believe that goes directly to

this issue that this practice is not embedded in the constitution and in the 14th amendment and so that allows the statutory fix that my language would offer. now, madam president senator harry lee -- harry reid, the minority leader, introduced the immigration stabilization act which included nearly identical language to my amendment and stand-alone bill. this solution, this language has broad support in the country including broad bipartisan support. in his bill -- that's going back a ways, but in his bill, it stated -- quote -- "in the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the 14th article of the amendment to the constitution of the united states the congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the

date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the united states nor admitted to the united states as a lawful permanent resident will not be a u.s. citizen." and so there we have language from a leading democratic member that goes to the same issue. there is broad bipartisan support not just in the congress but in the country for this fix, particularly in the context of these huge illegal alien flows into the country. i believe americans recognize that we cannot continue to adopt and recognize this policy. it is an enormous magnet for the continuing flows of illegal aliens into the country. it brings up industries like this shadowy world of birth tourism which were recent raided by federal authorities. it puts those mothers and families in the hands of very un

savory criminal elements in many cases and we should not be allow this to continue. madam president, my amendment would stop that practice, would stop those abuses, would stop encouraging those flows of illegal aliens and i strongly encourage the senate to directly consider this amendment vote on it and to adopt it as part of this very important underlying bill. and finally madam president i'd ask unanimous consent to introduce as part of the record two letters of leading groups on immigration reform, fair and eagle forum, who are in strong support of this measure. i'll be introducing additional such letters of support as they develop over the next day or two. but i ask that these two letters now be submitted as part of the record.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you madam president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. kirk: i ask unanimous consent that we suspend with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kirk: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that we have the pending amendment that i have offered number 273 be considered. mr. leahy: reserving the right to object, and i have to object. the senator has the right, of course to file his amendment but there is an amendment presently pending. it would have to be set aside. there are some on this side who do not want it set aside so i will object. of course, the senator can file his amendment and offer his amendment, but to -- if the request is, as i understand it, to set aside the pending amendment, on behalf of several senators over here, i have to

object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. kirk: i yield back, mr. president. mr. kirk: i ask the senator from vermont if he opposes the bill, that it was also cosponsored by dianne feinstein. mr. leahy: i don't know who has cosponsored -- madam president addressing the senator through the chair as we are required to under the senate rules i would say that my objection is to setting aside the pending amendment, and i would address further that the senator from illinois the chair that when the amendment is up here, i will

be glad to look at it and take a position on it, and of course he and i have known each other for a long time. i will be happy to tell him whether i am going to vote for it or not. mr. kirk: i would say this amendment is directed at backpage.com probably the largest provider of online slavery service in the united states. i would hope that the member is not defending lacey and larkin who make $30 million a year off of slavery. mr. leahy: madam president to respond to the senator i may very well be supporting his amendment. the technical question is should the amendment of the senator from ohio be set aside so that this amendment would be the one pending. on that issue, there is objection here. when the senator's amendment is pending before the senate, it may very well be one that i will vote for and be happy to discuss it at that time.

mr. kirk: i thank the gentleman. mr. kirk: this is an amendment that's directed at attacking backpage.com which stand for the principle that was well established in the civil war that we americans have freedom and should not be free to enslave other americans. they are the largest provider of online slavery services, lacey and larkin should be put out of business. i think it's incumbent on the underlying legislation. i would remind the member from vermont that it would live up to

the full spirit of this legislation to make sure that just because the internet was invented slavery should not be empowered by the internet. mr. cornyn: madam president would the senator yield for a question? mr. kirk: i certainly would. mr. cornyn: madam president through the chair i would just ask my friend from illinois, you have been a warrior on these issues particularly with this backpage.com and this advertisement of children and other people's trafficked as part of this modern day slavery. your amendment -- your hero act is actually included, if i'm not mistaken -- mr. kirk: it would include the save act which has already substantially passed with huge

bipartisan support of the gentleman from vermont's party in the house of representatives. if you look, you will find that backpage.com is probably active in every state providing online slavery services to the public. mr. cornyn: madam president my question and point was that the save act i understand, which is the subject of the amendment that you're seeking to offer and which i hope our friends on the other side will relent and allow us to go forward debating and amending this important piece of legislation, as distinguished from the save act, which is the subject of your amendment the hero act i believe is already a part of the underlying legislation, and i just wanted to congratulate the senator from illinois and thank him for his long-standing dedication to this issue and the contribution you made to the underlying piece of legislation. mr. kirk: as a senator from illinois, our true gift to the people of this country has been

in individual freedom and dignity epitomized by the lincoln candidacy for the senate senate, led by the victory in the civil war. we should notal not allow freedom on the interneat to allow internet to allow them to enslaved people that these men have made tens of millions of dollars. i yield back to the distinguished majority whip. mr. cornyn: i just ask the senator to yield for one final question. would you please outline the -- your bill -- your amendment the save act? mr. kirk: the critical issue is how to restrict the ability of americans to enslaved each other. i don't think we should have that freedom. and we want to make sure we thread the needle very carefully here to make sure the freedom and commerce available on the internet is not going to help people like lacy and larkin to enslaved other. we want to make sure that

there's an ever widening sphere of freedom inside the united states that is not enhanced by the internet. mr. cornyn: i would ask is the senator's amendment targeted in a way that respects that freedom of the internet and the right of the people -- mr. kirk: yeah. the way we thread the neelgtdz is toneedle isto make on-line providers of slavery services to be liable to clean up for the costs that local governments incur in leaning up mess that they create create. in the case of cooke county, illinois, we've had our crusading sheriff who i would note is also a democratic sheriff establish a great effort to recover the young underaged girls involved to make sure that the -- the costs incurred of helping out these young women these citizens of the united states and to make sure they can charge it against the on-line provider which makes eminent sense. i would say that our freedoms

are protected because tom dart is elected by the people of cooke county, and as an elected official he is trying to simply carry out his goal there. this makes eminent sense to do this. mr. cornyn: i would thank the senator. mr. kirk: thank you. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. madam president this past weekend we saw a huge commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the selma to montgomery voting rights march. i rise to honor the work and sacrifice of jonathan myrick daniels. he was a young episcopalian

seminary student from keen. the presiding officer certainly knows his name and keen very well. he was from keen, new hampshire and he answered reverend martin luther king jr.'s call for clergy to travel to alabama to join him on that march. jonathan lost his life five months later in an act that reverend king called one of the most heroic christian deeds of which i have heard in my entire ministry. although jonathan had originally intended to spend a short time in the south and then return to his studies at the episcopal theological school in boston, he felt compelled by events to remain in alabama through the spring and summer to register voters with the episcopalian society for cultural and racial unity. on august 14 1965, jonathan was arrested along with a number of other civil rights activists at

a demonstration in fort deposit alabama a small town outside montgomery. they had gone there to protest segregation in the town's stores but their demonstration was over within minutes. armed white men from the town descended on them and took them to jail. jonathan and his fellow activists spent six days in the hayneville county jail, many in the group were still teenagers. but despite the conditions jonathan somehow maintained an unflaggingly upbeat attitude and good humor. he wrote his mother in new hampshire a brief letter from the jail apologetically describing it as a -- quote -- "peculiar birthday card for her." he wrote "the food is vile and we aren't allowed to bathe. whew. as you can imagine i'll have a tale or two to swap over our next martini." he declined an offer of bail money from an episcopal organization because the amount would not have covered the release of the rest of his

group. on friday, august 20 the whole group was suddenly released. strangely, their bail had been waived but no one was there to meet them or take them home. the town seemed completely deserted. jonathan and a few others walked a block away to a store to buy something to eat and drink. as he climbed the steps of the porch to the store he suddenly heard someone shout from inside and threaten to shoot if they didn't leave. jonathan barely had time to react before the man opened fire fire. but somehow he managed to jump in front of his friend, ruby sales, a 17-year-old african-american girl. he saved ruby's life. but jonathan was killed by the close-range shot that was intended for her. he was just 26 years old. the shooter called the murderer into the sheriff's office himself. he said, "i just shot two preachers. you better get on down here."

an all-white jury later acquitted the man taking just two hours to find him not guilty guilty. while jonathan was sacrificing his life for civil rights in alabama here in the u.s. senate debate raged over the federal government's role in protecting the voting rights of ten and disenfranchised american citizens. since 1870, the 15th amendment to the constitution had prohibited state governments from denying a citizen's right to vote based on race. however, in precincts throughout the south black americans were subjected to discriminatory poll taxes, literacy tests and other forms of voter intimidation. in many places, town clerks outright refused to register black voters. just two weeks before jonathan was killed congress finally passed the voting rights act which outlawed electoral practices that discriminated against minority groups.

well 2015 marks the 50th anniversary not just of that march in selma but of this landmark law. and while this anniversary presents an obvious time for reflection it's also a time to look forward and address the challenges still facing our country -- the impact of the supreme court's 2013 ruling in shelby county v. holder which struck down a critical section of the law requiring federal approval for electoral law changes in districts with a history of discrimination is particularly troubling. this ruling now allows states to implement restrictive voting requirements that will make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots. in fact, since this ruling almost all of the affected states have already begun attempts to restrict voting targeting seniors students, minorities threatening their access to the polls.

the right to make your rose is heard as a citizen of this nation is "the" fundamental principle of our democracy and it should never be infringed upon. we have a responsibility to protect this right to address these injustices. and while our nation has made a lot of progress since the 1960's and 1970's, the struggle is far from over. inequality and racism remain in our society and as long as discrimination and racial disparities exist the full protections of the voting rights act are necessary to guarantee the rights of citizenship for every american. jonathan daniels should be turning 76 years old in marge march. he is widely recognized as a martyr of the 20th century. in keen, his hometown, an elementary school bears his name name. as we mark the 50th anniversary of his passing as

well as the passage of the voting rights act we must strive to honor his legacy by ensuring that all current and future american citizens can exercise the rights he died to protect. thank you madam president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 93. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 93, expressing the sense of the senate regarding the courageous work and life of russian opposition leader boris nimsav and calling for a swift and transparent investigation into his tragic murder in moscow on

february 27, 2015. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 tomorrow, wednesday, february the 11th. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for up to one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and that the time be equally divided with the democrats controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. finally, following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 178. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: my hope that the logjam on this bill which seems to have developed today

will be broken tomorrow and that we can begin to consider amendments under a fair and open process, which is what we would like to do on this measure that came out of the judiciary committee unanimously. chairman grassley and senator cornyn have been here all day trying to work through amendments and there are a number on our side in the cue and ready to go. if there's no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning.

>> tomorrow on washington journal: live tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. right after right after secretary of state kerry and defense secretary carter we will testify on their quest to use military force against isis joined by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at a hearing held by the senate foreign relations committee by wednesday 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this sunday on q&a:

>> the promotion of the drug actually starts seven to ten years before it comes onto the market. while it is illegal for a company to market the drug prior to fda approval it is not illegal to market a disease. drug drug companies have sometimes invented or exaggerated the importance or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of a drug for example. and the blanketed medical journals and meetings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a particular drug and also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night.

>> from today's washington journal. continues. host: joining is now to talk about issues when it comes to criminal justice and incarceration, christine leonard is with the coalition for public safety >> joining us now christie with the coalition for public safety. itwhat is your group and what are your issues and who supports you? guest: this is a very unusual venture in washington. became together as a result from groups on the progressive side of the spectrum. we have seven partners on board including the aclu and americans for tax reform and the center for american progress. freedom works and the leadership conference. all of them have decided to work together for terminal justice reform. we have four core supporting

entities right now including the john and catherine macarthur foundation and the koch brothers. it is the one topic where they all agree. it is not the case where they agree on much else, but this is an area where there is more that they agree on then they disagree. they decided to work together to see if we can get something done about the federal and state levels. host: because, no justice reform is a big term, what are you looking for? guest: all the groups are really committed to supporting meaningful substantive changes. this is in an effort to get press opportunity or to get some quick visibility. they are committed over the next three years to work with legislatures and other executive branch officials to see where we

can reduce the rising incarceration rates across the country as well as the changes that will maintain public safety in our neighborhoods. we want to see more effective systems of justice in place. host: for the partners involved what would be the interest from the republican side? guest: what has happened over the last 20 years is we have seen the cost of incarceration go up dramatically. at the same time, it is an unusual moment where crime rates are on the decline. the consequent is for people who are arrested or served time have large applications for all of our communities in terms of how they can return to work and have productive lives. one of the common themes for a lot of partnering organizations is we want to make sure the justice system respects the personality of the offense. for people who pose less serious

risks to our community is, we should probably make sure we have approaches reflective of what should happen with those individuals. perhaps lengthy incarceration stays are not the best. maybe treatment is better than a long time in jail. host: as of 2013, 7 million people total are part of the correctional system. about 1.5 million in prison and 4.7 million on probation or parole. you want to see numbers go down from that level? guest: the statistics are very sobering. and majority of the incarceration rates reflect populations across the country at the state and local level. what is very significant about that is that most of these individuals are not serving long sentences. a majority of them will come home. what we are focused on is when these individuals to come home do they have the tools for

success to find a place to live? in the have access to meaningful employment? what we want to try to avoid is the repeating cycle of crime that brings people back to the jail system because they haven't been able to find a path as they come back home. host: some will make the argument that you can relate crime rates directly to long, tough sentences. guest: the argument is made, but at the same time, our law enforcement leaders and prosecutors are the ones on the front lines. they deserve and equitable amount of credit for the reduced crime rates. they want the resources invested in the right place. when you talk to individuals who are running correction facilities across the country the disproportionality of people struggling with drug addiction is not what i think is a public safety concern. it is a flawed system.

corrections officials are the ones left trying to resolve the challenge. host: christine leonard with the coalition for public safety is our guest. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202748-8001 for republicans. send us an e-mail also at journal@c-span.org. how do you go about this? what is your plan of attack so to speak? guest: one of the most exciting aspect is even strong organizations with diverse memberships across the country the first task is to figure out where we can be most effective in their conversations. there is a lot of education that needs to happen on capitol hill and across the capitals throughout the united states.

the number one concern is we want to make sure people understand why crime rates have gone down and what are the most effective approaches to make sure we are maintaining public safety while being smart about reform. host: you mentioned the groups involved in different reasons why they are coming to the table. is that it can turn over how you go about doing this on a day-to-day level that everyone is looking for their best interests and that may cause friction? guest: it is a very unusual moment for me personally to work with a diverse range of groups. it is striking that so many of them or all of them actually have come to the table not with a predefined agenda but more about trying to find common ground. despite the rhetoric and a lot general disagreement here in washington, our discussions have been reductive because it has been about moving forward and being focused on solutions.

wanting to work together on solutions. host: christine leonard our guest joining us. on our independent line, calvin is up first. caller: good morning. i was wondering how you would feel about maximum sentences instead of me to month -- instead of minimum sentences. also how do you feel about the death sentence? guest: about minimum sentences are maximum sentences, i think one of the interesting moments we are at in this country is that a lot of people feel like each individual case should come before court and allow them to look at the circumstances. i have to say i am not sure that mandatory sentences that are minimums or maximums make sense when you need to look at the individualized circumstances

rate someone into contact with the justice system. with regard to your question about the death penalty, i have my own personal views. the important thing in all of these discussions is we want a system in place that makes sure people who are facing serious charges have had a due process and a fair hearing and adequate representation. more important than anything is that the system is working in a sense that when you look at all the exonerations that have taken place across the countries have had mistakes. host: the coalition will take a position all the -- on the death penalty formally? guest: we would take positions on issues where there is a consensu. the death penalty is an area where most americans still have strong disagreements. i don't expect that will be the first one we tackle.

where there is an agreement among our coalition partners is the right to due process and a sense of fairness for all americans. host: here is jim in new jersey. hi. caller: good morning. i just wanted to know how much attention will be spent on white-collar crime, specifically wall street time. that's it. thanks very much for taking my call. guest: that is a really good question because 10 years ago, i think a lot of the more conservative organizations in many corporations were becoming more focused on criminal justice issues in this country came to this table because they have had some contact with zealous prosecution or experiences they thought went on too long and cost of extra ordinary resources for the corporations.

i think that was the beginning of a conversation about the effectiveness of our justice system.. at this juncture the consensus extends way beyond white-collar crime. for our coalition and our supporting partners, there is no intent to focus narrowly on certain classes of offenders over others. we will not be specifically focused on white-collar offenses just like we won't be specifically focused on other types of offenses. host: allen on our republican line, go ahead. caller: hello. the incarceration is very necessary. some of them even do it to get in there again. i think it is ridiculous to leave these people out from guantanamo bay. they are criminals to start with.

one mr. obama leaves him out -- when mr. obama leaves them out i am sure they are causing problems again. that is not right for our soldiers and our serviceman. guest: i agree with you on the concern about public safety and all of our communities. it is true that people who have served time in jail or have even been arrested, often come back to the system. it is very important in a real principle for all of us that people who are out to cause harm in our communities are dealt with appropriately by law enforcement and the judicial system. at the same time, what we are try to think about is what is the appropriate penalty and does the punishment fit the crime? it is an opportunity for all of us across the country to think about the really serious

offenses that need serious consequences. there are other offenses which may not have caused harm to other individuals but can have lifelong consequences for the person who was arrested. host: at one time you were director of legislative affairs for the white house also be senior counsel to senator ted kennedy. the atlantic points out it was ted kennedy's the atlantic points out it was ted kennedy's influence along with strom thurmond. does that need to be revisited? >> guest: we are in a different place and time. the initiative was to make sure that there would be equal treatment of law and that at that juncture there was a lot of concern that judges were making decisions that were, perhaps a little bit subjective and there was not uniformity. i think overtime what we have learned is that having to rigid of a system does not work either.

i think you are seeing a lot of bipartisan legislation in congress and across the country. but with such greater flexibility for judges it moves away at after one who is responsible for sentencing guidelines? >> guest: the congress, of course sets statutory levels. again, i think that is why these issues are complicated complicated, and the congress has to come 1st at the federal level to re-examine some of those long, mandatory sentences. at the state level i think it is interesting that because there is so much concern about how we handle these complicated structures you are seeing states begin to think about whether or not they should have their own state sentencing commission so there is an entity that in

addition to the legislature. >> host: what is the republican congress attitude toward symptoms and -- since the two of sentence reform and incarceration? >> guest: i do not think it is monolithic. republican leaders have gotten out in front of the smarter sentencing act a measure that would repeal certain federal mandatory minimum sentences. an unusual development which did not exist for five years ago. there are other republicans who are not fully supportive of everything in those measures. they have incredible broad-based support and what i see as encouraging is some of the staunchest opponents have recognized we need an assessment of mandatory minimum sentences, and they and there may be some that need to be revisited. for me that is a huge pendulum shift from ten years ago where the congress was determined to pass more and more mandatory minimum

sentences. which ones might be able to be re-examined is a huge opportunity for us to have a meaningful conversation. host: one of the senators that comes up is senator grassley, now head of the judiciary committee. what is he bring to the table on this topic? guest: has had a long tenure on the judiciary committee. he is a very serious senator and a sense that he looks at how these issues are impacting his home state of iowa. to give a statement on the floor of the senate where he himself acknowledged he is not fully supportive of all mandatory minimum repeals, but there were some he would take under consideration. to me, that shows an opportunity for a lot more dialogue about how we can reach common ground. as the chairman, he will have the opportunity to bring up these issues. hopefully the committee can reach a consensus. host: he said the odds of an

american being subject to federal prosecution for drug possession in any given year is less than one in a million. guest: i think what is really important in all of this as you look at the totality of the situation at the federal level. the number of federal prisons on earth i know is around 200,000. and is a small fraction compared to the incarceration rate around the country. 50% of them more or less are serving time for drug offenses. i agree with chairman grassley that we need to examine which types of offenders we are talking about. lumping together those with a high low risk and those with high risk is not a way to proceed. me to think about what better

opportunities could the low offenders have for programming while serving their time in prison and what tools they need when they come back out. the last thing any of us want is to see those costs continue to rise in terms of the prison costs and the cost in our communities and families impacted by the issues. host: our guest is christine leonard from coalition for public safety. we have a caller from austin, texas. caller: i just wanted to commend what your coalition is doing. you brought my attention that you got my attention when he brought state capitals because this is one of the few issues in texas and my perception that we have been able to get some kind of consensus and bipartisan work going on. this conversation, intention. my question is which state capitals have you seen be able to have success when it comes to

building these partners in coalitions -- partners and coalitions. we have seen democrats and republicans coming to the table on this issue because of the benefits we get from it fiscally and across the table. the steps you have seen on state capitals taken in positive direction on this issue. guest: texas has been a leader in terms of kamal justice reform in terms of actions at the state legislature and the bipartisan coalition involved in texas that brings folks from all sides of the spectrum. it is accommodation of governmental leadership as well as those working outside of government. to your question, was really exciting about our current moment is it seems like texas

and mississippi and new york mobile home up a home a, kentucky hawaii, there is criminal justice reform going all across the country. i think texas is an example that comes up a line washington because and a lot of ways, texas has been out in front as an example. there is a lot of other places across the country that we are hoping to bring greater attention and inform federal policymakers. in a lot of ways, the states are leaving on this issue at this time. caller: good morning. we have a legislation right now before our legislature on this issue. i was part of writing it. what we need to be careful of his drugs and alcohol are medical issues. and should not be criminal issues. under the rockefeller laws, we

got mandatory sentencing which has now made the united states the largest incarceration country in the world. we will have drug courts. we already have mental health court and that we will have a drug court hopefully if the legislation passes. we have met with judges. judges despise these mandatory guidelines because they don't know who is in front of them or what their backbones are or what caused -- what their backgrounds are or what caused them to take this position. when they go to prison, they are not getting the treatment or any skills for when they come out. when they do come out, they will come back to the community where there are no jobs. guest: i am so glad you brought up the example of delaware. we were able to work with delaware.

delaware has taken some extraordinary strides. getting one bill passed does not in the work -- does not end the work. i really commend the perseverance to try to tackle some of these issues because as our coalition will say, there is no silver bullet that will solve all these challenges. we have to keep working away at the complexity of what is happening in terms of our justice system are now. host: rochester new york is next. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a comment to make. i feel that as long as there is money involved whether it is politics or the criminal system, there is money to be made. it is almost like a new form of slavery again. police make money arresting

people and stuff like that. it is hard for things to change, especially if they don't have equal school systems. guest: i thin you have raised -- i think you have raised some important concerns. when the crime bill passed, it incentivize the states to build prisons as a way to get more federal funding. we are now seeing the consequences of a lot of that 20 years later. this really does come back to spending and what are the incentives and appropriate budget priorities at the federal and state levels . if we are spending so much on incarceration costs, there will be fewer resources available for public education, health care, and other systems that keep our communities healthy and safe. host: lancaster california, hello. caller: good morning.

i am a retired ror investigator for 30 years. i have seen a lot of these laws. the previous caller was correct in the point about the money being involved. i would like to really see some intensive work done prior to funding so these measures can be taken care of. i fully agree that drug offenders need to be placed in a separate spot away from the main area of the more aggressive or more violent prisoners.

it is kind of a melting pot and creator of greater criminals along the line as they go back and. guest: what we are hearing is a lot of the same reasons that were participating organization and coalition have come together. people across the country that are in jail for low-level offenses are the ones we need to be spending resources on. are there more appropriate ways we can get help to those individuals so they are not getting treatment behind the bars but rather in a health care setting? host: jennifer is up next in tallahassee florida. caller: good morning. i also agree with the previous caller who said as long as there is money involved in decision-making, there will be corruption. i want to find out is who can we

turn to on the issue of sexual assault, especially the part that involves children? if the state doesn't handle it properly? guest: i think that depends on where you live. these crimes against children are very serious. it is certainly very important if there is any kind of concern to reach out locally. usually schools have very good resources in terms of who to speak to about any potential offense involving a child. you can go directly to your local prosecutor's office. we are all committed to make sure those types of offenses are handled seriously and probably. host: you will focus on civil asset forfeiture. what is that? guest: it is a phenomenon that has grown in the last several years on the state and federal

level. it is a process that allows law enforcement to seize property including cash, from an individual that suspected of potential criminal activity. these individuals may not yet have been adjudicated guilty. they may not yet have been charged with a crime. the institute for justice has than an incredible amount of work on this issue and recently released their work -- released a report. it is startling for a lot of americans to find that the government can take your money and hold onto it for a long time without giving you the right to a hearing and then hanging onto it for periods that go past people's expectations when individuals are never found guilty of a crime. is usually some type of base with law enforcement that there has been criminal activity with the funds. we are in a climate right now where there is incredible scrutiny around a lot of

transactions. a lot of our coalition partners feel it has been overly broad. host: curtis is up next in georgia. caller: good morning. i would like to make a few comments. keep things in a common sense perspective like the movie liar liar with jim carrey. when the guys called and they were in jail and jim carrey yells on the phone stop breaking the law. first of all, don't break the law. i have a brother in a texas federal penitentiary for murder. my big brother is back in jail for about the fifth time. as far as coming out of jail and needing this and that, first of all don't break the law. i am an iraqi veteran coming back. it is eight years later, and i am still not being helped.

i look at breaking the law versus a vet coming home and not getting help. bring common sense. leave all the therapist stuff out of it. guest: thank you for your service to our country. i think one of the issues you highlighted is that there are situations for people serving their time behind bars that impacts family members. it is definitely a complicated situation. one of the things i have learned a lot in my work in this area is housing and family members support even in terms of phone calls is a way for people that have made mistakes or broken the law can try to find a path back to having a more productive life and living in our communities and a way that is not harmful to others but also has employment and other ways to contribute to

the community. host: this is marie in arizona. hello. caller: my son is in jail because he was driving on pain medication. not only is he getting potatoes and beans, but they took it to another facility nearby and they could not fix his tooth because they had no drill. this is unbelievable. he hasn't been sentenced yet. guest: you bring up a really important issue. that is what happens to people who are held in jail. the macarthur foundation has launched an incredible initiative to look at this issue across the country. they will be working with communities everywhere. they are currently seeking partners to examine what happens to people who are being held in jail prior to arrest. the issue that was mentioned

around access to health care for individuals in jail is a very serious one. unfortunately, there have been serious reports about individuals who have died due to lack of access to appropriate medical care while in jail or prison. it is one i think a lot of us are concerned about. their are jurisdictions that are doing incredible things and making incredible practice improvements to how they handle these issues. there is a lot that can be done safely and appropriately and even cost-effectively. we need to make sure all jurisdictions have the best information. host: this is joe from ohio on the independent line. caller: i wanted to ask your guests if they have a policy concerning jail paid to stay at the state level if you are convicted of a crime. you have to pay. then i have a follow-up

question. guest: at this point, we are still a new coalition so we haven't looked at that issue specifically. if it is one our participating organizations are hearing from their members about, we will take under consideration. host: quickly, what is your follow-up? caller: i expect a double standard punishment for the same crime if i am infected right beside another person and i have assets and am able to pay the punishment. guest: you raise two really important questions. one is the appropriate access to counsel. that is appropriate in terms of those who cannot access a private attorney. do they and up spending more time behind bars because it did not have representation in court? the other is fairness. if you have two defendants

facing the same charge, should one of them spend more time behind bars because they haven't had an attorney of them seek will are there proper mechanisms in place? institute of justice put out a report on this exact issue.there are 12 million people each year for admitted to jail across the country. i think you hit the nail on the head of an area where we need to focus on. host: because of your background , i want to ask you about the states that are changing their laws to allow for immigration marijuana use. is that change future discussions about sentencing for drugs? guest: it is a hot topic across the country. in many places, there is a lot of popular support for those measures. at the same time, one of the things i think about a lot is what is happening for younger people in our communities and what are the signals we are

sending as the laws get changed. it is one thing to look at whether or not they should be penalties for those separate activities but at same time, we want to make sure we are working with law enforcement and local prosecutors because of the younger ages, people have access to recreational drugs that can lead them ton it can lead to a path of addiction. it is a complicated issue. and so it will be something we will take a close look at. >> host: wyoming, james, go ahead. >> caller: yes i would like to know why we are going at this behind the issue. these issues were discussed a long time ago command now there is a president's poll

of people that have not done almost nothing wrong, not nothing wrong but yet and still you cannot lock a person person up for all of this time and then expect them to come out different. >> guest: you raise an important issue. one of the things that i think is an exciting development in terms of prison population right now, there are a lot of programs happening around access to postsecondary education use of the internet to help people have better access to different kind of courses than just gd. again, what is surprising to me at the federal level is there is incredible bipartisan consensus. senators have come together on the legislative proposal

that would increase programming for federal prisoners, both in terms of access education access to employment opportunities. that again is unprecedented. it reflects the concerns and the new political moment we are in. >> host: you talked about that it comes from state efforts. you mentioned a lot but what other states are doing interesting things? >> guest: well again, i don't want to make any final decisions. we will make announcements on the bike. the one thing we will look at, states like kentucky where they have had incredible challenges around prescription drug abuse and incarceration. they have done things to try to expand access to

treatment. we look further down. taxes from the early years. california, another place with a lot of activity. the challenge would be to look at the states already engaged in the form. as well as those that have not begun. increased activity of a lot of participating organizations which may be more political. after one john from massachusetts independent line, go ahead. >> caller: thank you for taking my call on corporate stance. that may make it simple if money ends -- if money is beach and the middle class and poor are being discriminated against, they will not imprisoned teeseven prison corporate bankers who launder money and do business with

saudi's who actually tore down the towers what do you call this? this is fascism merging of corporations privatizing prisons, privatizing government, and leaving it to private individuals to imprison their own people for profit. >> guest: there are a lot of people with strong views about this topic. there is not consensus at this time. it is interesting, the color from massachusetts. on monday massachusetts is bringing together a bipartisan issue which is where part of the conversation bringing together as many people as we can who are passionate about the topic and try to see where we can find agreement. >> host: good morning.

>> caller: we have judges who send men and women to jail because they get behind on child support. if the me if they go back to jail for falling down the 2nd time. the 1st time is usually six months. if you get behind morning he should. then you go to jail for most two years. how do you expect someone who is now labeled a felon to be able to get a job to be able to pay the child support that you need to pay. >> guest: they raise an important issue. individual talk an expectation of child support along with what is called

technical revocations. bringing people back into the system. serve their initial sentence, this is an issue that is very collocated at the state level. it is a huge driver in terms of the number of people behind bars. it is an issue we can only continue to educate people about. as she said, it is a revolving door. it is not something that provides the kind of opportunities and is not cost-effective. it is a system that none of us works. when you look at things have not improved, most people would say we are not doing this the right way. we follow the same approaches in criminal justice and they have not all work. this is true in particular i think of how we can do things differently. michigan is one of the states that has some creative initiatives and is working with some colleges to bring greater

coursework back to their state prisons. this will be the kind of challenge that requires creative thinking and solutions from all different angles. i appreciate the comments the coaller made because this comes back to families. host: what are the next apps for the coalition? caller: we will continue -- guest: we will continue to me. -- meet. we will look to see what is happening at the federal level because there is a lot of enthusiasm and potential for what may happen here in congress in the next few months. it will take us a little bit longer to get organized and figure out where we will work at the state level. it has been incredible to get the feedback to see where our african be most helpful and componentry to a lot of -- where our efforts can be most helpful in couple mentoring and come to mentoring.

host: if you want to learn more about the coalition what is the website? guest: coalition for p >> live wednesday 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. right after secretary of state carry and secretary carter testified. testify. they will be joined by chairman of the joint chiefs at a hearing held by the

senate foreign relations committee. it's see it live wednesday 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of u.s. senate for proceedings in key public policy events and every weekend teesixteen, the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service. watch us watch us in hd like us on facebook or follow us on twitter. >> earlier today hillary clinton held a briefing. she said she used a personal account out of convenience. here is more now.

>> i opted for convenience to use my personal email account which was allowed because i thought it would be easier to carry one device for my work and my personal e-mails and service to. looking back it would have been better if i had simply used the 2nd e-mail account and carried a 2nd phone but at the time it did not seem like an issue. second the vast majority of my work e-mails went to government employees at they are government addresses which meant that they were captured and preserve immediately on the system at the state department. thirdly after i left office, the state department asked former secretaries of state for our assistance in providing copies of work-related e-mails from our personal accounts. i responded right away and

provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work related which totaled roughly 55000 printed pages, even though i knew that the state department already had the vast majority of them. we went through a thorough process to identify all of my work related e-mails and deliver them to the state department. at the end, i chose not to keep my private personal emails, emails about planning a wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements condolence notes to friends them as well as yoga routines, family routines family vacations the things you typically find in inboxes. no one wants their personal emails made public and i think most most people understand that and respect that privacy. a fourth i took the

unprecedented step of asking that the state department make all of my work related e-mails public for everyone to see. i am very proud of the work that i and my i and my colleagues and our public servants of the department did during my years as secretary of state and look forward to people being able to see that themselves. >> that was some of what the former secretary of state said during the briefing earlier today at the united nations. >> how pharmaceutical companies lobby congress and influence doctors. >> the promotion of the drug

start seven to ten years before coming on the market. while it is illegal it is not to market a disease. drug drug companies have sometimes invented diseases or exaggerated the importance of certain conditions or exaggerated the importance of a particular mechanism of the drug, for example and then blanketed medical journals and readings and other venues with these messages that are meant to prepare the minds of clinicians to accept a a particular drug and also to prepare the minds of consumers to accept a particular condition. >> sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. >> next the next the american public

transportation association holds their annual legislative conference focusing on transportation and infrastructure funding looking at current surface transportation legislation and the impact of transit systems on local economies. all right. all right. listen welcome to the 40th annual legislative conference and to our nation's capitol. yesterday we had some great sessions with the mayor of washington dc and various speakers. thanks, everyone, for being here. the conference comes at a momentous time in the

industry command we have a lot of things to do. this week we are gearing up for a new surface transportation bill. setting the stage for our discussions over the next few days. in this session we will hear from the president and ceo the us chamber of commerce and also others. first, our sponsor this morning help me welcome joseph hills vice president for business development who will share a few comments on stage year. joe. [applause] >> thank you phil. thank you. i am a vice president for three parts product

management, customer relations command business development. as a brief overview quickly we provide software for public transit in both rural and urban, small urban areas we figured we have worked with many people in this room and many other agencies in the office. they are our partners and every year we come to this event because it is, to me the epitome of peer partnership important for transportation, representing a group of people who do their own business separately but here are partners for the greater good of the overall. we are excited to be a part of this. we would like we would like to think that we could help in any way that we can. i hope to get to work with all of you the next few days

and learn about where things are going and hopefully make impact for the greater good of the industry. don't forget the purpose of this event is to directly industries advocacy effort and legislative strategy. the keywords work advocacy and 2nd you are doing it for the industry. please look please look out for your cohorts friends, people who could not be here the rural folks who don't get to come is often come command make sure you remember that as a partnership. finally please finally please participate if you have not signed up for the stand up for transportation day on april 9. 9th. that will be a great thing in terms of momentum. thank you for being here. i believe this is the most important event of the year. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you. appreciate your sponsorship of this opening session. before i get too far into the program around to recognize the executive committee, board of directors and passed active chairs. if you are in that group please stand up so that we can give you a round of applause. [applause] thank you for your work and service. many of the leaders in this room let me say that i was honored to share the strategic planning effort about one year or so ago. we get it approved by the full board of directors sharpening our focus, guarding our operations for the next five years. this is the cover of that

document. the marketing folks did a great job. five significant challenges that we put forth and we were calling these megatrends. the environment that we believe that we will be working in for the next five to ten years. very very quickly -- and you will not see them on the -- this is just the cover itself, but safety and security, resource advocacy or funding which we have talked about all week workforce development demographic shift technological innovation. those five things we identified in our strategic plan as megatrends that we will be facing over the next five years. ..

you can read it, support its objectives and help us address them. let me talk just a little bit about funding and i have been talking about this for the last six months or so. you have heard me talk about rebuilding our country's infrastructure. and this is one of the big reasons why we are here in washington at the legislative conference to advocate for

long-term transportation bill. this is about building our own country. this is about nation-building right here. this is about infrastructure investments and rebuilding our infrastructure in this country. and so i have called for this national day of efficacy to stand up for transportation that you have heard about. this is the logo that we have put together. and this april 9, this is actually the last conference that we will have you for that april night date or is there another one? there may be another apta conference coming up. this is it. we are gearing up for this. the strategy is collective power as we bring attention to our infrastructure and talk to

congress. on this day, april the ninth we are looking at media events press event and as many american cities as possible. i'm happy to say that i believe we have about 140 events or so. that is a lot of events all over this country. it's time for us to work together republicans democrats the white house, it's time for us to work together as you know, to make sure that we address this what i call embarrassingly massive infrastructure deficit. the last time i looked this infrastructure deficit was about 88, $90 billion. that is just to maintain our current infrastructure so it's time to find that state of good repair. it's time to do all of those things. as we move forward and i always talk about the whole car

analogy. it's almost like buying a car and not changing the oil for 10 years and expecting that card to continue to run. it's really ridiculous. i was at the board of directors meeting, i was talking a little bit about how ludicrous it is for us to have to beg for funding to maintain infrastructure. 10.8 billion trips last year, 10.8 billion trips. we are begging to maintain our construction this country. it's really a shame and i was talking about this at the board of directors meeting and usually i get kind of worked up. i get pretty passionate about this infrastructure thing and i was talking at an event. i was getting pretty passionate and i told myself to slow down or my taxes would be audited if i kept talking. [laughter] if i kept talking bad about our great leaders. but this stand up for

transportation day is very important. so if you have not signed up please do. i think we have a board out front and we will continue to do that. a couple of things and i wanted to show i was at the transit ceos meeting and i talked to the transit ceos about signing up and at that transit ceos meeting in phoenix we had mayor stanton there. that's mayor stanton actually signing to have phoenix as a part of the stand up for transportation day. everyone has a vital role in this. as i mentioned 147 agencies and businesses from coast to coast have signed up. look at that map right there. now if you are not on that map who is not on the map? you are not going to raise your hand. [laughter] we have got to fill up this map.

147 agencies and businesses with over 100 events so far. so now is your chance. grab a pen sign up. a few things that i would just mention in order to sign up for this. first is act now. the second is identify your partners. apta has a resource toolkit on the web site where you can look look, you can figure out who your partners are. we want to recruit all types of groups bicyclists groups environmentalists, seniors, veterans, students, people with disabilities. we want to have in your local areas, we want to engage everyone in this stand up for transportation day. the third piece is planning your event. a ribbon cutting, a rally, an employee roundtable turning

your buses and billboards, sharing stats in the fourth big piece is looking to apta for support. as i said apta has a resource toolkit on the web site providing messages, resources and customize to your area talking points, suggested talking points, all of these kinds of things, please do that. let me in my comments with something, another sort of priority of mine. we talk about the funding. i was talking about this yesterday and another meeting. we talk a lot about the funding but i like to talk about the career path and growing our own qualified workforce. i was talking the other day about if the money begins to flow, because i do think we are going to need a long-term transportation bill this year.

i really believe that because i don't think infrastructure apathy can last forever. and i don't think dysfunction at the highest levels can last forever in terms of infrastructure. so i do believe we are going to get a long-term bill. but what i have talked about is if we get that long-term bill and if money and mama falls from heaven tomorrow and we have a long-term transportation bill will we have the qualified workforce to build and rebuild its infrastructure in this country? and i'm not sure. i'm not sure that they have the track maintainers, the signal folks and their run cutters. i'm not sure that we have the qualified workforce in this country to maintain our infrastructure. so this idea of building career pathways for the hardest to fill positions in this industry are

very very important, because we have to grow our all in and that includes in this career pathway community colleges, that includes trade schools, building this type of career pathway where we can grow our own so when the money does flow we'll have a great pool of folks that are already trained to do this work that is much needed in this country rebuilding bridges and highways and legacy systems and all of those things. so get on board. let's get started and i hope to have 200 events by april 9 or on april 9 and i think we can do it. with that, please help me welcome apta's ceo michael melaniphy. please give him a hand. [applause] ♪

>> good morning everybody. how are we doing? didn't fill 28 great job. give him a hand, phil washington our chair. each year this time we gather at washington d.c. to share the message of public transportation with their elected officials and congress to help them understand the important it impact we have of the vitality of this nation and i'm so thrilled to have all of you join us here today. your commitment to come here to the nation's capital to share our story is so important. thank you for making that effort. opportunity as we come here together to meet with our colleagues to share ideas, to share concepts, to influence decision-makers. this year is more significant. this year's more pressing. map-21 expires in a short 83 days.

the presidential election that's only 610 days away not that far at all. the good news is we have a great message to bring to the administration and to bring to congress. do you know what it is? americans want more public transportation. and the numbers tell at all. it's extraordinary. look at the figures for 2014 hot off the press. last year there were 10.8 billion trips taken with by public transportation. say it with me, 10.8 million. it's outstanding. that is 101 billion more trips that were taken last year. this ladies and gentlemen is the highest public transportation ridership figure in 58 years. the last time ridership was this high gasoline was 23 cents a gallon. these are not -- isn't that

extraordinary? the public revolution for public transportation is happening. it's happening now and it's happening all across the country. this phenomenon isn't just in our largest cities. it's happening all across the nation in cities large and small. it's not just on the coast. some of the highest ridership happened in cities under 100,000 100,000. many people ask i'm in a rural area why does this matter to make? the ridership increases under 100,000 cities was double the national growth rate last year. this is extraordinary. there are great things happening. from san diego to nashville from harrisburg illinois to bolden creek from a match in washington to new york city, people opted for public transportation in record numbers. writers are telling us they want more public transportation. and now you need to let congress know that they need to make the investment in public transportation to meet this growing need.

it's incumbent upon all of us to educate our legislators. they need to know that this nation must have a robust multimodal surface prep -- surface transportation bill. we can't continue to have short-term extensions. over the last 10 years we have had 23 short-term extensions on the surface transportation bill. this is not how you build the greatest country in the world. this is not how you lead a national economy. this is short-term thinking. this is not how our country works. we need a big long-term surface transportation bill. are you with me? absolutely. when do we need a? now, absolutely right. the reason we didn't now is because there's a presidential election coming. we need to focus now. we need to make it happen now. you need to get up on the hill and make these things happen.

how do we achieve our goals? as chairman washington shared with all of this advocacy local education. sure we can share the messages in washington d.c. but you need to share that local message in your towns and communities. it's so important. when you grow up on the hill the next couple of days take this packet with you. it is loaded with information to help you educate our members of congress to help them see the $10.8 billion or 10.8 billion trips we have got going on in this country. you need to show them how this investment is paying off in growing demand and how we need it in order to continue to provide safe reliable dependable service each and every day. congress doesn't need to go far to see public infrastructure. look at the capitol dome. it's happening right where they work every day. now time for help -- for you to help share their message and how

we need to make investment in r. and the structure as when you're up on the hill, some of them might ask you why should we pay for this robust public transportation? certainly it's our job to explain surface transportation and why it's so vital to our nation's infrastructure and our nations future. for congress that's their job to find the resources. now you may hear that policymakers are asking and they're going to tell you hey you should be grateful for the status quo. it's okay to just get what you get. you should be thankful for that. do you know what you need to say to them? goodenough is not good enough. a short-term bill is not getting it. we need a long-term surface transportation bill. that is essential to operating a strong and secure public transportation system across this nation. remember that you all in this realm, you are the subject matter expert.

if we aren't out there saying we need to make these investments who will? don't be shy. don't hold back. let them know you need to make these investments. now some people will suggest that the monies that are going to transit our diversion of those highway dollars. if we could just get rid of that stuff we could solve the nation's highway problems. don't you fall into that trap. you let them know that story is not correct. remind your legislators in 1983 president ronald reagan put forth a program to raise the federal gas tax from 4 cents to 9 cents. do you know what he called a? a nickel for america. 4 cents for bridges roads and highways, 1 cent for transit. that's the origin of the 80/20 split. the dollars that go to transit

and the highway trust fund of the mass transit account have always been there for transit. there has never been a diversion. set the record straight. it's about a system working together, and we are going to defend a system to make sure the system worked well together. we have had a very long partnership, partnerships that would make this program work partnerships between passengers, state local and federal governments. that's what makes our nation so great and makes her transportation systems work so well. let us not forget it's an interdependent system. our buses and trains take cars off a city can have the free flow of goods throughout our roadway networks. it all works together as a system. so removing us from the highway trust fund, that's a bit like i don't know removing the steering wheel from a bus. it doesn't make any sense. it all has to work together.

no d.o.t. they have their own bill. a robust multimodal bill called the grow america act. it's true we may not agree with every single subsection of it. i have to tell you this build is a great job of telling congress that we need to move in the right direction and that this stuff matters. but we can't do it alone. we have to work together. we are very pleased that joining us in the conference today will be theresa mcmillan and joining her will be acting fra administrator sarah feinberg. they will be here to share the administration's positions and proposals and taking your questions on the audience. we are also thrilled that joining us up here in a few minutes on the stage will be two to great leaders in the transportation field that have worked tirelessly in washington d.c.. when you see me testify on capitol hill very often two people are standing next to me.

janet kavinoky and dr. pete ruane. they will help tell the story about how we have to work together to move the ball forward. passage of a surface transportation bill is a lengthy process. the first stage we pass that on december 2013. we gather the information. we information. together they needs. we put the data together and they brought it to the hill and we brought to our partners so they could see together what those needs were. now we we are in the second stage of that process were different ideas are put together to start the call as to what will become a bill. there are lots of different bills out there, lots of different ideas. do not be distracted by the shiny things in the water. stay focused on our mission, stay focused on our message as we shepherd through the next stage in actual transportation bill. we should be bold in our approach because we know the needs are real. we know the demand for the

public are real. we know of infrastructure investment needs are real. and we know that we have been able to functionally fully demonstrate public transportation has a significant financial impact on this nation's economy. in fact for every dollar invested in public transportation economic return is four times that, for dollars in economic return for each 1 dollar invested in public transportation. it's not just about that economic return. it's about getting americans to work. there are nearly 50,000 jobs created or sustained for each 1 billion-dollar investment of federal dollars into the public transportation system. this is a huge return. but even more importantly, the federal government doesn't build our buses and trains. the private sector does that.

the consultants, the oems make this business happen. those federal dollars of government dollars a come through to our industry, most of those are capital dollars. do you know that fully 73% of the government dollars the calm and to transit flow right through the private sector. they are creating jobs all across the nation. good high-paying high-quality jobs. be sure to share the job story with policymakers up on the hill. tell them how they are creating jobs and opportunities to get the jobs in cities large and small urban and rural across our nation. it doesn't end there. you are going to do a great job on the hill in the next few days. i know you are, you are going to storm that killed. when you go back to the communities that is where the real work happens. that's when you bring members of congress to your properties to your companies. show them, don't just tell them where the federal dollars are going.

let them see and touch and feel your transit shelters or factories, your office is in your job sites. let them make her drivers mechanics dispatchers and engineers and your fieldworkers. let them understand where these federal dollars are going and we are creating great public transportation options for people and all 435 congressional districts in all 50 states in this nation. help them understand the perspective of what these federal dollars are doing so when they are driving to the next rotary club or event they can point to that train to the shelter to that station and say these federal dollars at work and i'm proud to see them enhancing the ability in my community. they can see it's all part of a system and you will make that happen. you convey that message. as we finish up our meetings this morning as you take the hill and you hear from the administration members of congress and our partners appear

take these messages, taken to the hill. share the story that we need well-funded long-term surface transportation bill. we needed for our industry and ladies and gentlemen we needed for america. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you michael. very insightful remarks. thank you for your strong leadership and dedication to the industry. now it's my pleasure to introduce our future speakers. first up is janet kavinoky a nationally i probably chopped up your name again. janet a nationally recognized expert in transportation policy funding and finance with the u.s. chamber of commerce. janet wears several hats at the chamber. she is the chamber's executive director of transportation and

infrastructure and she is vice president of america for transportation mobility coalition. she also leads the chambers lets build america initiative. help me welcome her to the stage. jim, please. [applause] >> thank you phil and thank you michael for having me here today. wow what an energetic opening. i have not been to a conference that started out that this much energy in the morning maybe ever. i don't know what you guys were doing at 7:30. i don't know what they put in your coffee but that's pretty terrific. i'm so pleased to be here again at apta. you will hear repeatedly if you haven't already it's important for you to be here. how many of you have heard it's important to be here? this is a test by the way because you just heard it. if you don't raise your hands i'm afraid you are asleep.

how many of you believe that? okay well thank god i don't have to convince you of that. there is new staff on the hill. some of the people you are going to talk to you have talked to for years and they are going to say it's great to see you again but i already know your story. for some of you you are walking into offices with completely new staff. it's a 23-year-old who's looking at you like transit, what is transit? i thought they only have that here in washington d.c.. you have got to tell them your story and like transit is important to your community. how many of you have a newly-elected freshman member of the house or senate you are going to see today? these people do not know anything about what you do. i'm going to put money on that say you have a chance to go in and it's not just about talking about what's going on in your town and why this is important

and you can't sit there like this. you have got to explain to them how you fit and how transit fits into your economy, how it fits into your transportation system how it creates jobs, how sustains employment but most importantly how important the federal government is to that how important federal investment is to that. there is a lot of noise on capitol hill today. we transportation people tend to feel we are unique and special. we are transportation. we have a trust fund. this is all good except for the last 10 years or so it hasn't been quite all that good. and now when you go to capitol hill it took the senate six weeks to pass a department of homeland security bill in the senate and the house. justin appropriations bill by the way. nothing complicated, just an appropriations for the

department of homeland security. the senate spent three weeks debating the keystone pipeline. we have kind of done that one before. i don't know if you are familiar with that but we have done the keystone thing before the president vetoed it. but the senate took three weeks to do that. they have got a debt ceiling debate coming up. they need to pass a budget between now and i'll go i don't know may 31. in june the eximbank, the export-import bank is going to expire again. we have a medicare problem coming up. there's a lot of noise in capitol hill so you being here helps cut through that noise because you are a person from their district, from their state representing employees. you are buying things out of the supply chain. you can say yes i am buying buses are buying railcars. you are putting a face on it. you might have 10 minutes standing in a hallway with a

23-year-old who doesn't know anything about transportation. you might have a half an hour with a member of congress but this is your chance. here is why it's really important. transit is under attack in washington. i cannot open a newspaper during the week when i don't see an article when i don't see an op-ed that's been placed by the heritage foundation and i know it's heritage foundation because i have seen their stuff that says transit is a waste of money out of the highway trust fund. and if we just fixed that little problem we would solve all of the transportation funding problems because roads are all that matter. you are here today -- can i use a bad word? do you are here today to call bull on the people. you are here today to say i don't care if carly thierry and i in "the wall street journal"

or if one got placed this identical in los angeles times this is transit is a waste of money. you are looking at those members of congress in the eye and looking up at staff and saying you tell me this is a waste of money. you talk about the people who are writing your buses were who are writing your trains and you challenge them because it's real easy for them to say at meetings on capitol hill. by the way these are people the u.s. chamber helped put in office so when i get fired my resume is coming to you. i'm definitely not sending you my resume. [laughter] thank god i'm not qualified to work at -- we need another 10 or $15 billion. that's easy for them to say to each other but it's going to be real hard when you're in their offices. you're going to them say what the market out to decide. transit is really local.

private sector will deliver the local folks should pay for it. i was in south carolina doing a presentation in south carolina in the chamber of commerce infrastructure day. anyone here from south carolina? south carolina? in the back, thank you very much. you have a congressman they are for the most part that a lot of the right things including we have to raise the gas tax. i heard you got some phonecalls about that but i complement tom rice for saying what we probably ought to do is raise the gas tax. but then rice put up a chart and he said you know south carolina we don't get any real transit money back in if we just got rid of transit we could fix the highway problem to which i replied things to brian tiemann's quick e-mail as i'm typing on my phone south carolina 47% of the resources in south carolina for transit come from the federal government so don't tell me it doesn't matter. don't tell me it's a small amount. that's a pretty big deal and

that's in south carolina. then you say you know we give all of this money to washington and it only goes to like to transit systems in los angeles and new york. really? so you get to go to capitol hill today and explain to them look it's not all vocal. this is about the economy. you get to tell them look we have been investing in transit for years. this isn't all about the market should decide and again i will mention i do work for the u.s. chamber of commerce so i get to say all of the fun stuff. this isn't waste. this is about investment and it's about a complete system. so you are important today on capitol hill because you are going to go up there and you are going to take on those people who are saying transit doesn't need to be a part of this. you can take them on directly and do not let them off the hook. do not let them tell you i'm not

on the committee of jurisdiction. i don't have anything i can do about it. that's. they can call their leadership. they can show up on their monday or tuesday leadership meetings and they can say these transportation people are wearing out. we have to make sure we do a bill because you know how things get prioritized in the united states house and the united states senate? when members come back from recess and the house is in recess this week, when members come back they tell their leadership who has been beating them up and that helps determine the priority list. floor time gets managed in united states senate when they realize that we don't get something on the floor and get it done our members are going to get beaten up at home. so it's time not to let them off the hook. i'm going to give you one other thing to think about and that you are all in this together. we are all in this together. the u.s. chamber of commerce,

american road and transportation builders association come at americans were transportation mobility coalition for which apta has supported for years which arpa helped to start, we are all in this together but for you in transit you are all in this together. if you go to the hill and becomes us -- bus versus light rail or people drag in a conversation i don't know what you're doing a streetcar commute to do this instead rfid becomes big transit system versus soft transit systems that's just the kind of division that congress needs. it's just the excuse they need to say while there is no unity bear, we can get rid of those guys. you have to go with a unified voice today. you have to be representing transit. you have to be representing transportation passing a long-term transportation bill. don't let them drag you in your conversation about whether what part of transit is better. should we be using buses? i hate that d.c. streetcar. forget that.

that is not what this conversation is about. this conversation is about we need a long-term fully funded transportation bill that supports growth that supports investment, that supports jobs. just like michael said, we need it now. we are going to be standing up with you for transportation on april 9. what perfect timing phil. so for the 10 days before that because that recess starts on march 30, you can be taking people out and showing them projects, showing where federal investment happens. you can show how you are partnering with d.o.t.. you can show how transit is impacting your business community and then just in case and if you hadn't thought about what you are going to talk about on april 9 what a great story you have for the media in your

area. what a great op-ed you have to place for our blog posts or shoot a whole set of tweets because you can talk about what you have been doing for the last 10 days showing your members of congress and their delegations showing your communities where transportation is about and why transit matters and why we need a fully funded transportation bill. if any of you can pick up the phone and call your state or local chamber of commerce you need help with that let me know. michael has my cell phone number. i will give you my cell phone number if you really want it now but it might just be easier if michael gave it to you later. we will make that happen. phil is a tremendous opportunity for all of us to stand up together for transportation and i'm proud to stand there with you today so thank you all very much. [applause]

>> thank you janet. she is fantastic, isn't she? she really is. [applause] now we will hear from peter ruane present a corporate officer with the american road and transportation builders association. pete has 40 years of experience in economic development transportation, construction and national defense and i heard you were a marine as well. i'm army so you know. all one service. he is the vice president of the chambers of americas for transportation mobility coalition. he previously was a deputy director of the office of economic adjustment and the office of the secretary of defense and he was on the presence of economic adjustment committee. please welcome peter ruane. [applause]

>> good morning. i'm glad i got here early to hear the comments of phil and michael and janet. i have only one response. all right listen i picked up a great idea on how to fund our problems. anybody valet parked? [laughter] 42 bucs? holy moses. so you tell the members of congress they have to valet park at this hotel that every day of the week they are in town, that's only three and we will get 10% of that for the rest of the year to fund at least the transit program if not the whole bloody thing. yikes.

michael i heard you twice this morning on wtop. for those of yo who don't know, that's the leading radio station here also has the leading traffic reports every morning. you didn't tell me that truck was broken down onto 95. i would have been here on time. good message, two separate messages by the way. well done as always. okay folks, we don't have much time and you are on your way to hear some other speakers first thought i hope all of you know there is a t in her name and our members to sign as a member given the room all modes of transportation improvements transit capital projects and in fact that's a major market for many arpa members and that t has been there for nearly 40 years now or about 113, 114 years old.

that's a pretty long time. we are very pleased and janet made reference to this. recently michael and i cosign the letter or "the wall street journal" which got published and believe me to get that published published, responding to the wannabes presidential candidate carly carly, curly, that was a lot of fun and of course we did public opinion surveys at the end of last year together. and over the years i think many of you know this we have had a number of joint advertising programs together in our lobbying efforts and passed legislation and of course as phil and michael both referenced and janet as well we have been partners on various coalitions for many many years. so i feel very comfortable here

feel very much at home. i know there are still some out there that would like to divide us and think we only represent the highway industry. that's a crock. we represent the transportation infrastructure. generically our members build airports and all the rail, all the ports all the high-speed what little there is and of course the highways and transit bridges of this nation. so working together, they can't be overstated and it was said already but i'm going to say it again, the importance of us working together in these coming days and months. now you know that we have a problem and janet references for a well. i call them out. i'm not afraid to mention who they are. they have informed a lot of people with bad information and

they are out there trying to divide us. they are out there putting bond information in the mainstream and the media, to the public and frankly most of what they put out there is mythological. it's not fact-based and you know those two groups have one thing in common. they are both wrong. they are both wrong. zero-sum game is a metaphor we all like to use. we are not going to get trapped in not. we are here to advance the cause of transportation because frankly there is a chronic underinvestment and all the modes of transportation in this country. so we are not going to get trapped in a food fight. we are not going to do that for sure. that has happened a few times in the past. in fact i remember when i joined

apta in the last century. that is the way it was back in. some of your member that. we were a highway community and apta was a transit community. what a crock. i was sad. that was very sad. that has not been the case in recent years. so the vast majority of congress urj know this they do recognize finally what we are facing. the facts, not the myths that it adequately been conveyed by all of us over the years over the months, over recent days so none of them can say they don't know the truth. they may refer to the latest ad or radio ad that they have heard heard.

the need to invest but folks the facts are out there. that is one of the good news things. now the last eight years the last eight years of uncertainty have clearly led to some bad decisions around the country. a lot of states have held up their investments because they can't count on the federal government partnership. we have essentially have a frozen program in recent years. in fact we had major threats no one wants to talk about. we have taken nearly a 3 billion-dollar cut in the overall highway program for sure in recent years. so i am here not to talk about negative things to talk about positive things. i said the truth is out there.

we will now the facts and more important than that, more important than that after this eight year period of uncertainty uncertainty, of indecision, of putting things off i do believe and phil made this comment in his opening remarks i also believe we are going to get a long-term piece of legislation this year. i am among the minority. you see janet and others and nodding their heads. there are few of us here do believe that. a lot of our colleagues don't. they don't get a lot of our members don't. a lot of our member companies do not believe we are going to get a long-term piece of legislation this year. do you know what they are doing as a result? spare laying back in summer laying off. and that has caused serious problems in the economy and uncertainty and i'm not going to

ask -- to give you the latest on this but we monitor this very closely. you are well aware of some of the major states that a party announced they are cutting back and here we are march we got to the end of may. we deal with the extension but most importantly we still don't know what the solution to the highway trust fund problem is besides the valet parking which he mentioned. but look they know what they have to do. both sides of the aisle know what they have to do. we think that they will have the courage this time to do the right thing. we are very encouraged particularly on i won't call them jailhouse conversions, they might be that we have had some conversions of longtime or sisters, longtime opponents of doing the right thing.

they are now prepared to do the right thing. so we are going to roll out something here in a few days that will add to what's being discussed at the moment. nothing incredibly novel. in some regards simply a reiteration of past proposals. dressed up a little bit garnished with new information, new facts and aimed at getting this debate and you are going to be surprised at the bipartisan support. you are going to run into it this week. maybe not surprised that may be shocked. some of you will probably be shocked. i think it's real. i think you are going to see a very serious attempt to finally

deal with this in the coming weeks. now we can talk about specific things and i'm not sure you want to do that but a couple of things have happened recently. that's why we have this positive outlook, and we are naturally optimistic. sometimes people think we are foolish but we are not members of the surrender brigade. it's a pretty big brigade a pretty big brigade. they don't want to face the tough political opposition that still out there but you know just last week just last week 285 members of the house 285 412, 415 whatever the number is or 435. it's a majority on both sides of

the aisle signed a letter saying hey let's get it done. let's resolve this problem. let's get it done. we have also seen right after the election last november a new senate majority leader on national tv said there were only two things who want wants to deal with right away, tax reform and taking care of the transportation trust fund this year. so don't tell me there isn't support out there. there is real-world support. talk to us to close the deal. so, where are we? people love to ask that question. where are we pete? where are we? where are we? it's right there.

i love to say one hair short of ugly. do you know what that means? one hair short of ugly. well it is ugly and it's going to get uglier come the end of may. so the timing is perfect. you couldn't have scheduled a set of better time. your april offense and they also have the transportation construction coalition coming in after easter. the law of the gifts from the holiday and we are going to be storming the hill as well. so we are going to have a wave of industry representatives carrying the message and trying to get congress to do the right thing. but you know we could talk all day about specific solutions but the bottom line is this this

whole issue forget about the way you divide the pie and all. it's a political problem. it's a political problem. how do you solve political problems? you solve them politically. they are not going to listen otherwise. we have had facts commissions, studies, research up the ying yang for years, decades, centuries. this is a fact free zone. [laughter] you solve this politically and that is why you are here. it has been well said, phil and michael t. does a perfectly. janet added the icing on the cake. you have got to tell your story. you have got to tell the

specific facts and you have to say folks, you don't do the right thing there will be consequences. political consequences. now a lot of people don't like to do that. we tell our members you have got to talk to them back home you have to get in their face, you have to tell them your story but what good is all that? today they know most of that and that's very different than in the past. you now have to add that final sentence. we are keeping score. we are paying attention. we are not stupid. we are not naïve. you were sent here to do a job and guess what, it's a very tough job. with all respect, it is a very tough job that our elected representatives have but they wanted it. they knew that ahead of time.

we didn't force them to come here. i don't see these guys and gals up there in chains. they are here on purpose. and that is to solve our nation's problems to deal with our nation's challenges in the future. that is why they are here. you remind them of that. so how are we going to do at? well we have got to change the debate. the debate as i said its clarity in most quarters now. but you know you have to remove the bubble wrap around these discussions. i might get bruised, i might get hurt. boloney. these are the hard facts. these are the hard facts and if you ignore them there will be

consequences. we keep score. we are not appear on some trip. we are not here to go out and get ripped off. we are here to do a job. so it's no time for subtleties. no time for subtleties. and as janet said if you think you are talking up their you know be patient, the patient. remember what is the key after these meetings? to follow up, follow up. you have to follow up with everybody met with, everybody talked to and follow up back home. you'd go back and visit their local offices. i just went to d.c. and he said such and such and she said such and such.

i want you to know that and when they come back here to go to recess coming up i'm going to see them again. i'm going to take them out to my job site as janet mentioned. so also in terms of avoiding subtleties. you are going to hear ideas. we had i guess i don't know i was in annapolis yesterday. i live in annapolis and the new governor was leading the parade. i'm there with six of my nine grandchildren and my wife and of course i'm drinking lots of beer beer. so the governor comes up and he has a great big -- then i said

governor you are going to build the purple line, right? he said i'm in favor of the green line. i'm in favor of the green line. i'm serious. we did intervene over that project as some of you know. we don't normally do that. in fact i just sent a nice valentines letter to governor cuomo last week about the situation in new york. i'm sure we have plenty of folks are from new york. we don't normally do that either. but both of those situations have national implications far beyond their respective sites because if we don't invest in this state it affects all the adjacent states and affects the whole bloody country. now i have to tell you this. my 5-year-old grandson says pop how come he didn't give us any candy? he didn't give us any necklace. i said peter, they give you

candy after you give them candy. [laughter] okay. so you are going to hear some what i call jedi mind. i won't say the next word. in terms of how they are going to solve this problem. there's an elementary basic way to deal with this. what's it called? raise the bloody user fee. raise the bloody user fee and have the political courage to do this. it's right in front of you. it's the most proven the most efficient way to get it done. do it do it. the raw.

[applause] >> wow wow. give all three of our speakers a great hand. we are going to do a photo op and i'm going to ask the speakers to come back up. guess what, we have a t-shirt and a bag of chips. come on up, please. we don't have a bag of chips. i was just joking. [inaudible conversations] >> what are we going to do?

stand up. [applause] [applause] ♪ >> okay, we will hear more about transportation infrastructure in our next session. we have got the mayors transit roundtable starting promptly at 10:30 back in this room. we are adjourned. thank you for coming. [applause]

..

>> with historians talking about the closing weeks of the civil war in 1865 and sunday morning we continue with remark ons the surrender of the con federacy and the immigration of con federates to brazil.

let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us e-mail us or send us a tweet. like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> coming up the memorial service for former senator edward brooke. and then the headss of nih testify about medical innovation in the united states followed by a hearing examining the 2016 navy budgets. senator brooke who died on january 3rd was the first african-american lect today the senate by poplar vote. secretary state john