words. she only told her story through her tears. and that is a moment i won't forget. and it reminded me of something i heard when i visited a refugee camp once in jordan where a mother said she had seen things that would make stones cry. and that's what that little girl paloma was saying through her tears, that the experiences that she had had being trafficked at 11 years old would make stones cry. these are real stories. polaris, one of the major groups that is working on this issue of sex trafficking when they release their report, here's what they had to say the scope and scale of human trafficking within the united states presents a daunting challenge to policy-makers, service providers, law enforcement and advocates. originally human traffic was thought to be more of a problem in other countries but now it's known to be happening in our own back backyards. it is estimated there are hundreds of thousands of victims of labor and trafficking inside

our borders. so what we know today is that 83%, mr. president 83% of the victims in the united states are from the united states. it is not just girls at the bottom of a ship which does happen. it is girls right in our country country. girls right in minnesota on the streets of rochester where just in the last few months we had a 12-year-old girl that got a text invited to a party showed up at a mcdonald's parking lot where she was supposed to go, a guy puts her in a car takes her up to the twin cities, rapes her, takes sexually explicit pictures of her puts them on the internet. the next day she's sold on craig's list to two other men and raped. that happened in minnesota. that man has now been indicted by the u.s. attorney's office but we have seen these cases over and over again. and people say well, why is this getting worse? why is the senate debating this issue right now? well, it is because as much as we love the internet, we also know that it's provided a vehicle for this kind of activity that is much easier for people to do behind closed doors doors, that no one notices and

to basically get these young girls in their grasp. yesterday i spent nearly three hours reading from a book by nic kristoff and the cheryl uduhnn called "half the sky." i did that because i felt the tone had gotten so bad in this chamber with people hurling accusations and not talking about ways to resolve this. and i'm glad again that we are now finally talking today. they have another book that is also about -- it's also about domestic sex trafficking which really are the focus of the bill that's on the floor today as well as our safe harbor bill. and they tell a story of a girl namedkleming and the book is called "a path appears." they say one of the first women helped was kleming greenly an african-american woman who was raped repeatedly from the age of five. she began drinking at the age of

eight, dropping out of school in the forty grade and soon became a heroin addict and an expert at robbing johns. on one occasion she did more than steal. a custom was beating her so badly that she pulled out a knife and stabbed him. i didn't see blood so i stabbed him again, she said, four more times, she said. he almost died. but fortunately for greenly, he was a married man who begged the police not to press charges and without his testimony they didn't have a case and she was freed. by 2001, this young woman was a gaunt 85 pounds. she was sleeping on the streets or in abandoned buildings. all of her money was going to crack cocaine. she had had a sun who was killed in gang violence. she was seen as having so little commercial value then that pimps abandoned her. an old friend from the streets found her in a crack house and dragged her over to reverend stevens at magdeline. this is an example of what we're seeing across this country right in our own country mr. president. and i just tell these stories that are so raw and so ugly but

i tell these stories and read from that book yesterday just so people remember why we're here and what we're dealing with, that we can put some of these issues and extraneous issues, things that we need to change in the bill and fix in the bill, that we have some motivation to do it. because these girls really don't know how to change the laws in congress. they need our help to do that. cindy mccain, my good friend, with her work at the mccain institute -- i see senator rubio here from florida who's also familiar with that work -- and we know what she's done. she has undertook studies looking at some of the baseline data at sex trafficking around big events. she's seen what happened. when we've seen increases in web site advertising and other things. we've seen what happens when law enforcement actually comes together across all jurisdictional lines federal state and local. when private sector engages like our hotels, like the raddison

loatles in maryland. marilyn carson nelson has been such a leader on this, really set up and helped to fund foundations because they see it. they know their workers are on the frontline and they can actually stop it from happening. our airlines like delta united and american that are on the frontlines and they train their employees so threc they can stop this from happening. so yes these bills are help. the bill we have on the floor right now that senator cornyn and i have worked on and so many others in this chamber that will help to get some funds for the victims and for these shelters. the bill that i have that i'm leading with senator cornyn will actually help to make sure that our states get some incentive to make sure that we are handling these criminal prosecutions in a way that works that emboldens the victims so they don't go back to the pimps so they don't go back to that cycle of violence, so they actually feel that they're in a safe harbor, that they're in a safe place so that they will testify against these perpetrators the ones that are running these rings these crooks, these that are treating these young girls as chattels. that's what these bills are

about. so mr. president we need a path forward. i think for the first time today we are seeing despite no agreement yet and a lot of ideas out there we're seeing a different tone. and i just want people to remember that not only will this bill involve the fund that i'm talking about but once we either join it or pass separately our safe harbor law it will also create incentives for states to change their laws. it will also create a national sex trafficking strategy that's in my safe harbor law. it will also allow these young girls who are victims to be part of job-training programs and other things make it easier for our law enforcement with the amendment that i included in my bill from senator sessions and senator whitehouse, with the u.s. marshals. there is many good things that are going to help. and mostly we're going to send a message from this chamber finally, after all of this

acrimony over these last days and all of this blame that we finally can send a message to that little girl named paloma, that this country believes in them. they believe that these lives have value and that we must stand by these victims and stand up for these victims not only in our country but internationally. so thank you mr. president. i thank my colleagues. i know these conversations are continuing as we work to find a path forward. i thank senator cornyn for the work that we have done together and i look forward to getting this done. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? mr. rubio: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. rubio: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. rubio: let me again just by acknowledging the work that the sponsors of this human trafficking bill are doing. trafficking is a sanitized way to discuss this issue. it's actually slavery and i'm glad that term is finding its

its way into the lexicon of how this is discussed. it's not just the sex trafficking and slavery it's also the labor trafficking which is a major problem in this country as well. so i do hope we can find a way forward on this because it's an extraordinarily important issue one that has taken far too long to pay attention to. it's not just something that happens around the world. it happens here closer than you think. i wanted to talk about a separate topic today as well and it is one that a lot people are reading about in newspapers over the last 72 hours. as we all know, there was an election in israel this week and many people are wondering what is this aftermath of the election we keep reading about where there's this controversy and the back and forth? certainly some of that happened a few weeks ago when the prime minister of israel visited washington and spoke before the congress. people were wondering well, what is it that's going on here? and why is there so much controversy around all this? and i wanted to take a moment to delve deeper into this because this is important. first of all to answer the fundamental question, why should we care about what's happening with israel, in israel and about israel? and there's two reasons i think we should care. the first is because israel

represents everything we want that region of the world to be. israel is a democracy as evidenced by the vibrant election process that they just underwent. israel is a free enterprise economy, a developed economy that provides prosperity for its people and its partners in trade and commerce. and israel's a strong american ally a democracy free enterprise and a strong american ally. don't we wish the entire middle east looked that way? don't we wish we had more countries in the middle east that looked like israel, that were our allies, that were democratic and were -- and had a free and prosperous economy? how much better would the world be if the middle east looked more like israel? and less like iraq and syria and other places look like at this moment? there's another reason why we should care about israel. israel's not just another country. it has a special and unique purpose. it was founded as the homeland for the jewish people in the aftermath of the second world war and of the holocaust. where over 6 million human beings were slaughtered and it was founded on the promise that

never again in the history of the world would there not be a place for the jewish people to go and be safe. it's not just a nation. it is a nation with a special and unique purpose unlike any other nation in the world. and i for one am proud that the united states has stood with israel for all these years and i am proud that the american people, on a bipartisan basis have stood behind the jewish state of israel for all of these years. and so the security, safety and future of israel is in our national security as well as a moral obligation of every member of this body and us as a nation. want and what are the underpings of israeli security? -- underpinnings of israeli security? there are two things. first, the ability of israel to defend itself, and the second the reality that if israel ever has to defend itself, the united states will be there to support them. there is little doubt about the first pillar of its security. as the prime minister reminded us unlike many other countries israel is not asking us to send american soldiers or aircraft to support them. they are willing to defend themselves.

but the second pillar, about strong and unquestionable american support is increasingly being questioned. around the world. and there's good reason why. let's begin by the aftermath of this recent election. as far as i know -- and maybe this has changed in the last few hours -- after this election the president has yet to call the prime minister. that is unlike, of course, the fact that in march of 2012, he was among the first to call and congratulate putin in moscow. or that in june of 2012, he was among the first to call morsey and the muslim brotherhood when they one the egyptian presidency. or in november in 2012 they called the top chinese communists on their new position. which, by the way is not elected in the way you and i would consider there would be an election. or the fact that in 2013 the historic phone call they brag about, how they called the iranian president and congratulated him on his

election. and, of course, in august of 2014 he called co- congratulate turkey's president. and on and on. time and again this president has made a habit of quickly calling these leaders whether they win. but as of 4:40 eastern time, as far as i know that call has yet not been made. and thinking about all the things that have been going on with israel, you would think they would be quick to make that call. it hasn't happened. maybe it has already but it certainly didn't happen enough fast enough. but where does this come from? is this new? is this something that happened recently? it isn't. in account far you can start to see the trends here pretty early. in october of 2008, then-senator obama told an audience in cleveland, "there is a strain within the pro--israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-likud approach, which is one of the political parties in israel, unless you adopt an israeli pro-likud approach then you are antiisraeli, which is a silly comment to make since at that time that party had been out of power. in january of 2009 the

president, upon taking office makes a quick phone call to the palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas before he even phoned the israeli prime minister. this is my first phone call to a foreign leader and i am making it only hours after i took office abbas' spokesman was quoted -- quoted obama saying. in june of 2009 the president hosted american jewish leaders at the white house and he reportedly told them that he sought to put -- quote -- "daylight" between america and israel. here's the quote that someone at that meeting says he made. quote -- "for eight years during the bush administration there was no light between the united states and israel and nothing got accomplished," he declared. in september of 2009, in his first address to the u.n. general assembly, president obama devoted five paragraphs to the israeli-palestinian conflict in which he declared, to loud applause, by the way, in the united nations -- no surprise --

quote -- "america does not accept the legitimacy of continued israeli settlements." and he went on to draw a connection between rocket attacks on israeli civilians within living -- with living conditions in gaza. there was not a single unconditional criticism of palestinian terrorism. in march of 2010, secretary of state hillary clinton berated prime minister benjamin netanyahu on a now-infamous 45-minute call, telling him that israel had -- quote -- "harmed the bilateral relationship." by the way the state department triumphantly shared details of that call with the press. that same month the israeli ambassador was dressed down at the state department. and mr. obama's middle east envoy canceled his trip to israel and the united states under his leadership joined the european condemnation of israel. in may of 2011, the state department issues a press release declaring that the department's number two official would be visiting israel jerusalem and the west bank, as if jerusalem was not part of israel. so they leave that separate.

later in the month only hours before mr. netanyahu departed from israel to washington mr. obama delivered his infamous arab spring speech, which he focused on a demand that israel return to its indefensible pre-1967 borders with land swaps. in november of 2011, an open microphone caught part of a private conversation with the president and french president nicolas sarkozy. sarkozy said of the israeli premier, "i can't stand netanyahu. he is a liar." but rather than defend israel the president piled on. he said -- quote -- "you're tired of him? what about me? i have to deal with him every day." february of 2012, at a conference in tunis the secretary of state hillary clinton was asked about mr. obama pandering to -- quote -- zionist lobbyists end quote and she acknowledged that was a fair question and went on to explain during an election

season, there are comments made that certainly don't reflect our foreign policy. 2014 during the gaza conflict, the white house and the state department criticized israel for the deaths of palestinians who were being used as human shields by hamas but far worse was the president's true feelings -- with his true feelings was the decision to try and use arm supplies to israel as a pressure point against israel. in october of 2014, an anonymous administration official called prime minister netanyahu a chicken -- i can't even finish it. so that's what's happened up to this point. that's what's happened up to this point. now, what's happened now? an election just happened two days ago. the first thing the white house says is you used a lot of divisive language in that election. that is saying a lot from someone who has been elected at least once, probably twice on

extremely divisive language. but what about when iran had a fraudulent election in 2009 and the people of iran took to the streets to protest in the famous green revolution? do you know what the white house said? we're not going to comment on that election because we're not going to interfere in the sovereignty of iran. so they will comment on the elections of an ally, calling the rhetoric of the election divisive but when an enemy which is what iran is, has a fraudulent election and kills people that protest against it, we can't comment we can't comment because that would be infringing on their sovereignty. the other thing that's happened is the prime minister made a statement about how a two-state solution isn't possible, given the current circumstances. and what does the white house do? they jump up and say well, that means we have to reconsider. we may have to go to the united nations security council now and support a resolution. that means not use our veto authority to stop a resolution that calls on israel to create a palestinian state with 1967 borders. why would the prime minister of israel say that, by the way?

he's right. the conditions don't exist. do you want to know why the conditions don't exist? well, first of all let's go through the history of peace negotiations. in 2000 at camp david israel offered the palestinian authority nearly all of the west bank eastern jerusalem and gaza and the palestinians said no. in 2000, israel withdrew from southern lebanon. do you know what that is today? a place where they launch rockets against israel. in 2005, israel withdrew from gaza. do you know what that is today? a place that they lunch rockets against israel from. in 2008, israel offered again the palestinian authority nearly all of the west bank, nearly all of judea and eastern jerusalem. the palestinian authority said no. what about the palestinian record? let's begin with the fact that according to many reports about 6% of the palestinian budget is diverted to pay the salary of prisoners. that means the salary of terrorists, of people who have blown up centers and killed civilians, including americans

and they are being paid salaries and benefits, including with money from donors such as the united states, great britain norway and denmark. here's another material that routinely -- how the p.a. routinely depicts a world without israel. this is from a palestinian school book. quote -- "palestinian's war ended with a catastrophe that is unprecedented in history when the zionist gangs stole palestine and established the so-called state of israel." or what about this particularly horrific expression of ideology which appeared in a palestinian authority daily as for back -- far back as 8:00 -- quote -- "the difference between hitler and prime minister foreign minister was simple. hitler didn't have colonies to send the jews to so he destroyed them where as balforth killed the jews. they both wanted to get rid of the jews. zionism was crucial to the defense of the west by ridding

europe of the burden of the jews." end quote. this is from a daily of the p.a. and these are the people that were pressuring them to cut a peace deal with them. what about this? the palestinian authority has named numerous locations and events after palestinian terrorists responsible for killing israeli civilians. or what about this? this opinion piece that appears in "the new york times" in 2013. palestinian authority flition and request stations, public school summer camps children's magazines and web sites are being used to drive home four core messages -- that the existence of a jewish state is i will illegitimate because there is no history of jewish people. second the jewish scientists are horrible people that corrupt those in their vicinity. third, that palestinians must continue to struggle until the inevitable replacement of israel by a palestinian state. and fourth, that all forms of resistance are honorable and

valid even if some forms of violence are not expedient. instead of being schooled in the culture of peace the next generation of palestinians is being fed a rhetorical diet that includes the idolization of terrorists the demonization of jews and the conviction that sooner or later israel will cease to exist. these are the people that this president wants to put pressure on them to cut a peace deal with. i think netanyahu is right. the conditions do not exist for a peace deal with people who teach their children that killing jews is a glorious thing. the conditions for peace do not exist with a people -- with a government, i should say. not a people. the people are victims of this government the palestinian authority. and not to mention hamas. who teach people that killing jews is a glorious thing that there is no such thing as a jewish people, that any methods of destroying them is valid that pay them salaries and benefits. this president is making a historic mistake. allies have differences but allies like israel, when you have a difference with them and it is public, it emboldens their

enemies. to launch more rockets out of southern lebanon and gaza. to launch more terrorist attacks. to go to international forums and delegitimatize israel's right to exist. and this is what they're doing. this is a historic and tragic mistake. israel is not a republican or democratic issue. if this was a republican president doing these things, i would give the exact same speech. in fact, i would be even angrier. this is outrageous. it is irresponsible. it is dangerous and it betrays the commitment this nation has made to the right of a jewish state to exist in peace. no people on earth want peace more than the people of israel. no people have suffered more at the hands of this violence and this terrorism than the people of israel. and they need america's support unconditionally. if there are differences they need to be dealt with privately like you do with other allies. and more than anything else, they deserve to be treated with more respect not less than the respect this president and this white house is giving the supreme leader of iran. for he would not dare say the

things about the supreme leader of iran now that he is saying about the prime minister of israel because he wouldn't want to endanger his peace deal or his arms deal that he's working out with them. i hope he'll reconsider. i hope the bipartisan nature of our support of israel is reinvigorated. i hope that once again this body this congress and this government will recommit itself to this extraordinarily important relationship, because if america doesn't stand with israel who would we stand with? if israel, a democracy a strong american ally on the international stage if they are not worthy of our unconditional support, then what ally of ours around the world can feel safe in their alliance with us? with that, mr. president i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. cotton: today i want to comment on the recent election in israel and the obama administration's outrageous reaction to it. two days ago prime minister benjamin netanyahu's likud party won a decisive victory in the israeli election. for myself on behalf of three million arkansans i want to offer a hearty congratulations to prime minister netanyahu. i have the greatest admiration for the prime minister's visionary and courageous statesmanship, as well as his service as a young man in his country's elite special operations forces. prime minister netanyahu and his family have paid the highest price over the decades in the fight against the common enemies of israel and the united states. yet, let me also stress that the alliance between the united states and israel is not an alliance between this and that israeli statesman nor this or

that israeli political party nor for that matter does the alliance depend on whom or which party controls the white house or the congress. rather it's an alliance between the american people and the israeli people, between the ultimate defender of the west and the easternmost frontier of the west. our alliance rests on our shared experiences and principles, our judeo-christian heritage, respect for the natural rights of mankind democratic self-government, market-based economics and strong provision for our common defense. israel's commitment to democratic elections demonstrated just this week is an important distinction for many of their neighbors and why they are our closest ally in the region. apparently president obama harbors such deep-seated and irrational antipathy for prime minister netanyahu though, that he is now willing to up end this decades-long alliance. president obama's antagonism towards prime minister netanyahu is long-standing and well known.

last year, for example anonymous administration officials used a vulgar especially at that time to question prime minister netanyahu's courage. and i'll point out as an aside that an anonymity is the washington coward shield, just as i am also compelled to point out so far as i know neither the president nor his senior political aides served in our country's elite special operations forces, unlike prime minister netanyahu. but back to my main point. in the last 48 hours more anonymous administration officials have suggested a fundamental rethinking of the u.s.-israel alliance, citing prime minister netanyahu's simple restatement of the fact that there can be no palestinian state until conditions change. the palestinian authority must at a minimum eject hamas from its governing coalition reclaim control of the gaza strip accept control of the border, and recognize israel's right to exist as a jewish state. as prime minister netanyahu said the palestinians lay down

their arms, there will be peace but if israel lays down its arms, there will be no israel. the obama administration though has gone off the deep end and let their personal bitterness toward the israeli prime minister drive their public foreign policy toward our closest ally. here are just a few quotes from administration officials suggesting a fundamental change in our relationship with israel and a willingness to abandon israel at the united nations. one official said we are signaling that if the israeli government's position is no longer to pursue a palestinian state, we're going to have to broaden the spectrum of options we pursue going forward. according to reports that same official said that he wouldn't rule out a modified american posture of the united nations where the u.s. has long fended off resolutions criticizing israeli settlement activities and demanding its withdrawal from palestinian territories. another senior white house official said the premise of our position internationally has been to support direct

negotiations between the israelis and palestinians. we are now in a reality where the israeli government no longer supports direct negotiations. therefore, we clearly have to factor that into our decisions going forward. finally, state department spokeswoman ginsaki said we are currently evaluating our approach. we are not going to prejudge what we would do if there was u.n. action. some observers will dismiss these comments as the petulant response of a president and political operatives who didn't get their way in elections this week but there is something much more worrisome under way. while prime minister netanyahu won a decisive victory he still has just started assembling a governing majority coalition. these kinds of quotes from israel's most important ally could very well startle some of the smaller parties and their leaders with whom prime minister netanyahu is currently in negotiations. this raises the question, of course the administration intends to undermine prime minister netanyahu's efforts to

assemble a coalition by suggesting a change to our long-standing policy of supporting israel's position with the united nations. after all if you were an elected leader in israel's parliament you surely would worry about the united states refusing to exercise its veto at the u.n. security council. consider the u.n.'s long and dark history of anti-semitism. the u.n. human rights council condemned israel in 45 resolutions since its creation in 2006. in 2013, the u.n. general assembly adopted a total of 21 resolutions, singling out israel for disapproval and just four resolutions for the rest of the world. 50% of all emergency special sessions of the general assembly over the last six decades were convened to denounce israel. meanwhile, no emergency special session has been called for any other state in over 30 years. given this history and the

states here and abroad, let me speak bluntly so there can be no misunderstanding -- under no circumstances will i or this congress allow the obama administration to abandon israel to the united nations or any other international institution or to change fundamentally the terms of our alliance with israel. this administration's latest pronouncement is even-hour difficult to understand assume simultaneously coddle the terrorist regime in iran. the people of israel should know that the american people remain in solidarity with them and their quest to exist peacefully with their neighbors and that we will not allow them to be thrown to the jackals at the united nations. characterization made famous by a past member of this body, the late daniel patrick moynihan. i call on all members of this body including my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join me in one voice supporting our ally israel against the jackals. in the coming days, perhaps as soon as the debate over the budget resolution next week, i

will propose legislation that reaffirms the long-standing policy of funs to continue to defend israel tense attacks at the united nations and other international agencies. i i urge all members of this body clawing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have a long history of supporting israel to join me in supporting such legislation. further, should the united nations, its subordinate agencies the international criminal court or any other international agency take adverse action against israel, i will consider introducing legislation to restrict u.s. funding for the offending agency. finally, if the united states ambassador to the united nations does not exercise the american veto in the security council against any anti-israel resolution, i will consider introducing similar legislation to restrict funding to the ambassador's office. for decades the relationship between israel and the united states has transcended personal

differences. our shared interests were enough to overcome any disagreement but i fear mutual respect is of little concern to this administration. the president and the senior officials around him should care fully consider the diplomatic consequences of their words. this congress certainly will.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you

mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to discuss the ongoing crisis in syria. sunday march 15, marked the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the syrian civil war. since this are brutal war began, more than 3.8 million syrians have fled syria. 7.6 million have been displaced within syria and 12.2 million syrians are in need of humanitarian assistance. most tragically, more than 2,050,000 people -- 205,000 people have died as a result of the war. this past year was the deadly hest since the applicant began with 76,000 dying in 2014 alone including more than 3,500 children. one thing has remained clear over the last four years. the war tactics employed in syria by both government and opposition forces represent gross violations of human rights and fly in the face of

internationally accepted rules of war. the united nations independent international commission of inquiry on syria has reported that the pro-government forces have murdered, tortured, assaulted and raped civilians in syria. antigovernment groups have also engaged in murder, execution hostage taking and shelling of civilian neighborhoods. medical workers and hospitals across syria have also been targeted. but nowhere was the brutality of this war more evident than in the events of august 21 2013, when the syrian army under direction of president assad launched a chemical weapon attack good in the damascus suburbs killing 1,400 syrians. the united states along with the international community has a long are transition of upholding international norms including holding accountable those guilty of crimes against humidity and

war -- humanity and war crimes. the international community cannot stand by and allow the murder of innocent men women and children to go unchallenged. you must immediately bring assad and all the perpetrators of gross human rights violations in syria to justice. this cannot wait another year. earlier this week i reintroduced the syrian war crimes accountability act along with my colleague, senator rubio menendez shaheen and peters. this bipartisan legislation establishes a syria-specific standard of reporting and accountability for crimes against humanity. the bill requires the u.s. state department to report to relevant committees on war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in syria. this would include an account of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the regime of president bashar al-assad and extremist groups and other combatants involved in the

conflict. today as i stand here on the floor of the united states senate the violence is continuing unabated. so my colleagues may be aware of a syrian defector and photographer named caesar. he fled from syria in 2013 with more than 55,000 photos documenting the forure and murder of more than 11,000 civilians. last week some of those photos were put on display at the united nations. we must shine a light on the atrocities that have been committed in syria and demand accountability. ignoring these violations sends a message to the global community that war crimes and crimes against humanity are local rabble. -- tolerable. the syrian people deserve much more than that. on this fourth anniversary of the beginning of the syrian war, we must recommit to supporting the syrian people both through humanitarian efforts and holding these individuals and groups guilty -- that are guilty of

committing war crimes and crimes against humanity quill accountable for their atrocities. i ask my colleagues to stand with the syrian people and join me in supporting the syrian war crimes accountability act. mr. president, i would ask that my -- my following comments be separated from the comments i just made. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: mr. president let me also take this time to urge my colleagues to immediately bring loretta lynch's nomination to the floor of the united states to be the next attorney general of the united states. mrs. lynch serves as the senate confirmed for the eastern district of senator she has already been confirmed by the united states senate. she has served with great distinction as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district. i had a chance to visit with her last january and talk to her firsthand about her vision to be attorney general of the united states. she is extremely impressive, very well qualified and has

the right values to be the attorney general of the united states. let me give you a few examples. all of us are concerned about equal justice to the law. well ms. lynch has learned that through her own personal commitments at harvard law school she was a member of the legal aid bureau helping people otherwise would not afford access to our legal system. she has a lopping history of prosecuting terrorists, sex traffickers, corrupt politicians and dangerous gangs. she has been endorsed by a wide variety of law enforcement agencies and individuals. put it this way -- i haven't heard anyone question her qualifications. i haven't heard anyone question why she should not be confirmed to be the next attorney general of the country. loretta lynch's nomination has been pending on the senate floor as long as the five most recent

attorneys general combined. let me repeat that. take the five most recent attorneys general add all the time it took for their confirmations to be confirmed and loretta lynch is now exceeding that. that's just not fair. president obama is entitled to have his team in place and we have a responsibility to vote on his nominations. let's do the right thing and take up this nomination, debate it and then have senators vote up or down. not maybe on her nomination. we owe it to ms. lynch the employees of the justice department and the american people to have a newly designated attorney general in place as the nation's chief law enforcement officer and top defender of americans' constitutional rights. with that, mr. president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 106, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 106, designating march 22, 2015, as national rehabilitation counselors appreciation day. the presiding officer: without

objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the adjournment of the senate, that on friday, march 20, between 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. it be in order for the budget committee to report out a concurrent resolution and that it be in order for the senate to proceed to that resolution on monday march 23. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 p.m. monday, march 23. 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 with senators permitted

to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: on monday at 12:00 noon, the senate will proceed to consider the budget resolution. senators should expect at least one vote on an amendment to the budget at 5:30 p.m. on monday night. for the information of all senators the budget resolution is privileged and therefore will not displace the pending trafficking legislation. once the budget resolution has been adopted the trafficking bill will be the pending business before the senate. 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 12:00 noon on march 23. address

the senate as in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president i come to the floor today to address a very serious >> mr. president, i come to the floor today to address a very serious accusation leveled yesterday against republican members of this body by the democratic whip the senator from illinois. i do with some regret the

senator from illinois and i have been friends for many many years. we served in the house together and have worked together. that is why i was so surprised and disappointed in the comments that he made yesterday on the floor of the senate, comments totally inappropriate to be made on the floor of the senate. my colleague from illinois said and i quote, republican majority leader announced that he was going to hold this nomination of loretto lynch until the bill which is pending before the senate passes whenever that may be. and then he went on to say the rather lynch first african-american women nominated to the attorney general is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the selling calendar. it is unfair unjust beneath the

decorum and dignity of the united states senate. what is beneath the decorum and dignity of the united states senate i would say to the senator from illinois for him to come to this floor and use that imagery and suggest that racist tactics are being employed to delay this lynch's confirmation vote. such inflammatory rhetoric has no place in this body and serves no purpose other than to further divide s. perhaps my colleagues in the senator from illinois in per take alert me to be reminded of their own record when it comes to the treatment of african-american women whose nominations were before this body. in 2012, janice rogers brown, an african-american was nominated to serve on the u.s. political appeals for the district of columbia, a port that had never included an african-american woman judge.

the senator from illinois voted to filibuster her nomination in 2000 tree and again in 2005 when she was finally confirmed after waiting 684 days the senator from illinois voted against the historic nomination. i would never suggest even with failed rhetoric that judge rogers brown was the reason the senator from illinois opposition to nomination. and he should extend i say to my colleague from illinois he should extend that same courtesy to me and my colleagues. i'd also like to remind the senator from illinois how we were able to fill vacancies in the u.s. district court of arizona last year effectively alleviating a judicial emergency the tremendous bipartisan support and the nomination of senator flake and myself on the week confirmed a diverse and historic slate of

six nominees, which included an hispanic african-american in the first native american woman ever to serve on the federal bench. airways had nothing to do at their successful confirmation just as ms. lynch's race should have no impact on her consideration in this body. those six judges were approved by this body because each of them showed a commitment to justice public service and the people of arizona. each also demonstrated the judicial temperament and professional demeanor necessary to serve with integrity. i further point out to the senator from illinois that at no time as the majority leader ever indicated that he would not bury a lynch nomination to the floor. in fact, the opposite history. we have made it clear time and again that we will consider the lynch nomination once we have disposed of the bipartisan trafficking bill. the senator from illinois in my colleagues on the other side of

the aisle and i filibuster the bill and could it consider the lynch nomination this week. i deeply regret that the senator from illinois chose to come here yesterday and question the integrity and motivation, mine and my republican colleagues. it was offensive and unnecessary and i think he has this body ms. lynch and all americans an apology. mr. president, yield the floor. >> mr. president, i am glad that i heard my colleagues comments first-hand and i would like to respond to them directly. as of today, loretta lynch, who was the president's nominee for attorney general has been had her nomination pending before the united states senate 131 days. how does that compare with previous nominees for attorney

general? it is three times longer than the period of time attorney general ashcroft was pending before the united states senate. 2.5 times longer than the time taken to confirm attorney general mckay c. twice as long as the time taken to confirm attorney general holder. why? in some cases these nominees have rations that were raised by members of the senate, questions about their political views, their background, legitimate questions that require time to answer. i sat in the hearing, the senate judiciary committee hearing for this nominee, loretta lynch. there were no questions raised of any nature, of any kind questioning her ability to serve as attorney general. none. when my colleague from arizona notes the fact that i voted against african-american

nominees in the past, it is true and i am not arguing every member of the senate should vote for loretta lynch simply because she would be the first african-american woman to serve in that capacity. all i am saying, she deserves the same fair treatment we have given to other nominees of this job. she has now been pending before the senate longer than any nominee or attorney general in the last 30 years. she has been on the calendar now, on the calendar waiting for a vote for a longer period of time than the last five nominees for attorney general combine. why? it has nothing to do with her qualifications for the job which are the very best. why in the world are we taking this important post attorney

general of the united states of america. why are we taking this important civil rights moment when the first african-american women in history has been given an opportunity to serve and entangle a net and the politics of the senate. a week ago majority leader, senator mcconnell said red outside of this chamber he was going to call her nomination this week. she has been waiting so long. then over the weekend, the last weekend he announced she wouldn't be called until a bill pending on the floor has been passed. yes i am upset and frustrated on her behalf. to think that she is being treated in this manner. i am not going to use any pejorative terms. i will say i believe it is insensitive for the senate to hold are up for a lengthy period

of time with no objection to this woman's kerrick scherrer, fitness and ability to continue to serve the united states. she has served come you know. she's currently in a position as the u.s. attorney in new york. she had the support of the following organizations. the national district attorney association, one person officers as the nation. this cheap association, association of prosecuting attorneys. the fbi agents association and a long less of republican and democratic appointed for u.s. attorneys including patrick fitzgerald from my own state and scott lazar from the northern district of illinois. she has the support of the former fbi director louis freeh and former director attorney general from the george w. bush administration.

mr. president, under no ordinary circumstances, this would have been an easy after the president. to be a person of this quality to the senate for confirmation. she had three of those supporting her in the judiciary committee from the republican side. i don't understand objections of the others and i respect whatever the reason. all that i'm asking for all the senators asking for is a vote. bring her off the pages of the calendar before the senate for a vote. don't make it contingent on some bill or some political agreement in the future. let this woman who has led an extraordinary life has her chance to continue to serve the united states of america. that jimmy is only fair and only just and would be in keeping the traditions of the senate. i yield the floor. >> senator durbin talking about to talking about the rebel

clinches nomination to be attorney general still considered in the senate. the geordie leader mitch mcconnell saying he won't move forward until the senate completes work on an anti-human trafficking bill. earlier today the measure failed to advance for a fifth time because the democrats concerned over abortion language in the bill. the senate is done for the week. members return monday at noon eastern to consider the 2016 budget resolution. watch all of that here on c-span2.

earlier today, the senate budget committee met to markup my guess is these 2016 budget proposal that aims to balance the budget and cut $5.1 trillion in projected spending over the next 10 years. this is an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations] >> i want to call the committee to order and see if we can't have this staff send up some binoculars for senator sanders and i to see the other end of the table. hopefully the speaker systems

are working. you have to push the button of course in order to speak. we do have a very busy day ahead of us. i would like to summarize quickly the ground rules i stated yesterday. members may only offer amendments other than the complete substitute that are fully offset over the total years covered by the budget resolution. in addition to senate amendments because they are nonbinding will be ruled out of order as they always have been in this committee. also we will be consulting the parliamentarian regarding offered amendments to determine whether the amendments have adopted would cause the budget resolution to lose its privilege. at the parliamentarian advises us that such amendments as amendments will be ruled out of order. keep in mind members of the right to modify their amendment or restaurant. with regard to voting committee rules do not permit prophecies so members must be present in order to go. if a voice vote occurs coming member must speak up if they

wish to be recognized as a recorded nay on the voice though. my intention is to have senators offered debate amendments and has stacked those on the amendment throughout the day. he offered amendments will be alternating between the sides for recognition. members requested to attend the markup to the greatest extent possible. to that extent it will be consulting with the ranking member to determine the best times for the stacked votes to occur to avoid major conflicts with members schedules. with this many people it's pretty tough to do but we work to the best of our ability and give you as much advance notice as we can. i think members in advance for their flexibility to work with as. to keep the market moving my request and senators offered and that they will limit remarks to three minutes. rebuttal will be limited to two minutes and when the vote occurs, one minute equally divided with the reserve -- will be reserved prior to the vote.

of course one of the reasons we are able to get the amendments done in one day is usually the best ones are saved for the 480. the matter before us is the chairman's mark of the concurrent resolution budget for fiscal year 2016. will now turn to amendment. i would have the first opportunity to offer one. i would defer to the next senior at senator sessions is ready for an air. and then we will go -- >> thank you all. >> the money -- and maybe my green eye shades. mr. president i'm offering a deficit usual reserve on welfare legislation to help struggling americans remove the initial attendance. 70 million working age not

currently working. what are american from 25 >> 50 year the primaries is not working. four straight years, more than 40 million americans have been on food stamps. one in three americans receive some kind of means of support. one of three. i agree with senator sanders that we have a problem. it has been moving in this direction for a number of years and middle americans, working americans here. the federal government spends now around $750 million on welfare and poverty programs with state contributions at the million dollars a year and money is spread out over 80 programs administered by vast bureaucracy with little oversight and no guiding moral vision about the purpose ultimately of our government actions. only a miniscule 1% of the spending is dedicated to job

training while job training is fragmented into 47 different programs throughout the federal government. who among us can say there isn't a more effective, compassionate way to spend this $1 trillion each year. we could spend $30,000 a year on every household living in poverty and still spend half of what our current welfare bureaucracy consumes each year. so what i would urge colleagues is let's create a system, a deficit reserve system that will facilitate reform of these programs. my vision is all government assistance programs would be consolidated to one office here at a person in need would go to the office has started the office as part of the they receive, whether job training, food stamps or other programs. they would also be counseled and

evaluated for job programs and were programs that could move them. it's been over 20 years since the last welfare reform. at times for another one. get better facilitate the counter reform that would help people in need and also help less over time to reduce expenditures. thank you, mr. chairman. >> any opposition? senator sanders. >> with senator sessions is doing is focusing on an important issue. i think he's approaching it in the wrong way. as i understand it what he has done is lumped in his quote unquote welfare reform programs essential for the middle class and working families of this country within the umbrella term

quote unquote earned income tax credit, supplemental funding for breast cancer and cervical cancer, meals on wheels for seniors, chip program and many other programs. senator sessions is right to point out that we have more people in poverty today than almost any time in the modern history of america. the very next amendment offered i will offer will create millions of jobs to start putting people back to work when they need those jobs. we are going to be talking today about raising the minimum wage to a living wage so people don't need governmental programs. talking about pay equity the women workers get the same wages as mad and into a not significantly cutting poverty. right now we have a whole lot of people who are working full verbal and senator sessions amendment was us in the wrong

direction. >> @night, i just want to say certainly on the surface the title of this is something we would all support in terms of helping americans on the road to personal and financial independence. we see different paths. this budget pulls the rug out a those who are trying to get ahead at keeping things focused on those that are already wealthy or well-connected. i was basically if you want to get people out of poverty, half the women out of poverty and made sure we had equal pay for equal work. we literally would lift half of the working women out of poverty. i would like to join with the senator from alabama on those things. i don't punish folks working two or three jobs to make it to create a real path for opportunity. i think the intent of this goes in the opposite direction.

>> mr. chairman. one minute? >> you would get half a minute before we vote. we will stack the votes later. >> you get three minutes and we get two minutes. >> it on the three people. you might've got a yes. now we will go to senator sanders. >> i accept the goal of three and two. their limit on time i suppose. >> chairman, the amendment i am offering out addresses some of the significant problems facing our country. i doubt that there's any person around this table were very few americans who do not understand that our infrastructure roads bridges, water systems

wastewater, by the fans in this infrastructure crumbling. we spent half of what europe does some infrastructure and significantly less in china. today the world economic forum ranks are overall infrastructure at 12th and the world. we used to lead the world. we are now in 12th place. i hear all of us talking about what kind of debt with the stewart case. you know what, when your infrastructure is crumbling and the civil engineers tell us we need over $3 trillion in investment, if we don't do it that now we are leaving our debt to the kids as well. we can agree we need infrastructure significant efforts to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. when we do that we do something important getting to senator sessions point and that is real unemployment in this country is not 5.5%. if you count the people who have

enough looking for work or working part-time, it's 11% and higher among young people in very high in the construction industry. it seems to me now is the time to put substantial funding into rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, make our country more safe or and at the same turn create millions of decent paying jobs. this is good for the economy good for the country, good for future. i would hope that we can have unanimous support for an effort to put people back to work at good wages while we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. that is what this amendment is about. >> i guess we'd have to take just about the same approach you did on the last one, that the title sounds good but the details get into some problems.

i don't think any of us aren't interested in increasing the infrastructure. we are just interested in increasing in a logical way that is paid or. that is what a budget neutral deficit does. senator portman. >> mr. chairman, is interesting because ranking member sanders talked about world rankings and were 12 in the world on infrastructure. twelfth in the world now and our infrastructure. there's another ranking put out by the world a guinness says we are 41st in the country on our ability to get a permit for a construction project and we have bipartisan legislation to address that. senator mccaskill, senator king, myself and others to discuss solutions on tax loopholes and so on and there may be opportunities as someone

discussed to include funding for infrastructure. we've also got to look at the issue and this is why the afl-cio supports our legislation and others, how we greenlight something whether at energy project oil and gas solar, it takes so long and there so many liability issues that discourage investment in america versus other places. we've got lots of testimony including a hearing last year. i hope the members concerned to look at the legislation as one way to get our infrastructure back on track. >> i would mention that we are to have a deficit mutual infrastructure built into the resolution and it doesn't half to be done through tax increase as this one does. >> i think i have a little bit of time last.

this is paid for by addressing the tax scandals facing this country. that is we are using $100 billion every single year. large corporations and the wealthiest people are putting their profits in the cayman islands and bermuda and paying your federal income tax. we should eliminate provisions come up with the money into rebuilding crumbling infrastructure and create millions of jobs. that is what the proposal does. >> i hope that the tax reform folks working on those sides of the aisle can handle that. i think they can. that's where the appropriate action would be for that sort of thing. going back to our side. senator grassley, did you have an amendment? >> that would be grassley amendment one.

cosponsored by senator ayotte. this amendment will establish the spending neutral reserve funds to reform and improve and enhance 529 college savings plans. many of my colleagues and i were taken back by the president putting forward a proposal with his budget to tax 529 accounts. the president had to quickly backtrack on his proposal based on expressed concerns from across the political spectrum. i believe the big reason the president's proposal was met with bipartisan disapproval is we all know firsthand through communications with constituents that the typical family with 529 accounts is a family with very modest means. i have some statistics on that. on a national average, the average account balances under

21,004 my i.e. was to hold 529 the average balance is slightly lower than 18000. i was pleased to work with senator casey on a bipartisan bill that reaffirms congress' support for college savings. this bill is the basis for my amendment today. it would make three important yet very modest reforms to 529 plans. it would permit 529 funds to be used to purchase the computer on the same tax favorable basis as other required educational materials that can be paid for from 529. it eliminates an outdated and unnecessary aggregation rule that increases paperwork and costs on plan administrators. that is the first two reasons. the third and last reason is the

bill would exempt any refund tuition from income tax for the 10% penalty tax so long as the funds i read deposited in a 529 account within 60 days and if you think the necessity of that with the somebody's starting in september got sick in october, then if they had to drop out of school, the remaining funds could be taxed and if you put them back in the 529 account they would lose privileges. this will keep costs low and provide extra incentive for parents to put money away for a child's education. in addition to senator casey, my bill is your by three democratic finance committee members than for republican finance committee members. the same bill has passed the

house of representatives by a vote of 41-20. i hope colleagues will support my amendment to send a clear bipartisan commitment to college savings. thank you, mr. chairman. >> rebuttal? >> i think, mr. chairman senator grassley's amendment represents the first appearance in a budget markup as something called a spending neutral reserve fund. we had a very instructive comment from senator king yesterday pointing out if we want to address the dataset we have a considerable number of tools to do so. we can cut spending and cut a lot of spending in the course of the last years. we can also raise revenues by closing from various mellie loopholes that are ron their faith hard to justify. we can make improvements in health care, which i think both parties have agreed is the real

driver to our long-term deficit and we can make investments that grow the economy rose, highway infrastructure, better facilities, trains all the things the modern economy needs. by focusing on spending alone i think we take our eye off the ball and so i will categorically vote against everything that is a spending natural reserve fund. and this is the picture senator king so well laid out for us. at this rate deficit neutral reserve fund, fine. plenty of areas i support senator sessions and then if you just made because these are conversations worth having, even if i disagree with words like the conversation to go. when you start by saying the only thing we'll look at a spending cut and not any of the rest of it, you lose me. so i will vote no on this.

>> your site for an amendment. >> one more amendment. >> when we talk about our economy, i think there's a couple of important factors we can agree on. number one, real unemployment is much too high. we need to create lands of new jobs. wages are much too low. we have many many millions of working people, 40 50 60 hours a week. but the wages are so low and many don't have decent health care benefits. they are struggling to keep heads above water. sadly the federal minimum wage today paints only a little over $15,000 a year. that is nearly a thousand dollars below the poverty threshold for a single parent. since 1968, the real value of the federal minimum wage has

fallen at close to 30%. if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be worth at least $10.10 today. the amendment i am offering is a deficit reserve fund amendment which substantially raises the minimum wage. and what it says to people all over this country if your going to work 40 hours a week for war you are not going to live in poverty. as every person around this room knows there is widespread support. in those states where the issue has been placed on the ballot even in conservative seats, it has one overwhelmingly. what people understand is you cannot live on $15,000 a year.

you can forget the family. you can't pay rent. you can't do with health care. you can't deal with childcare if you earn a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. what this says to millions of working people, we understand your struggle. we will help a little bit by raising the minimum wage substantially so when you work 40 hours a week you can live in dignity. that is what this amendment is about. >> having been through a number of these minimum-wage debates now, the last time was when senator kennedy was with that and there was the reason the minimum wage. one of the substantial points that is always brought up is we have higher unemployment as you mentioned, underemployment. who's got a whole bunch of problems with employment right now. beginning wage is minimum-wage and beginning skills is the

reason for those minimum wages. what we need to do is increase the skills which we've given the opportunity through the workforce investment opportunity act. i've had some discussions with the people who were very offended that the other side referred to their job as dead end jobs. assisting with the person who called person who caught at a dead-end job and the person next to me said i work at overcame and i've shown up on time. i know how to wear dress customers. i've learned how to make change and i've been promoted to supervisor. and if i continue to do that one more year i will get to run one of these burger king's. what we need to do -- we have cried wyoming that allows single mothers to increase job skills tremendously in getting to nontraditional occupation and make a lot of money, which is

the direction i hope we can go with improving america, to get people into jobs that pay substantially more and get them the minimum skills so they can bypass the minimum skill position. senator sessions. the >> well, supply and demand of the roof that are in the world. cbo said the comprehensive immigration bill had reduced wages and raise unemployment and per capita, the key per capita gdp in america would fall. that is one issue we have to think about without government dictating precisely what the wages out to be. okay. the >> i don't know how we are doing

this. >> he says we've got two seconds back. >> well, i just want him to keep for the record that anybody working a full-time job should not be in poverty and not as what is happening with minimum wage. we're not going to grow an economy without a middle class and that means more people working with money and their pockets. >> next amendment by senator crapo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i improving crapo amendment number one, an amendment which most of the members of this committee are familiar with because i brought it in the last two times that a budget markup and it's been approved unanimously each time. i hope we get the same result this time. this amendment creates a point of order to prevent dedicated collections decrying the inside from being used and diverted for purposes other than the protection of victims of crime. most of you know was one of the biggest changes in mandatory spending programs that we utilize in congress in order to

mask our spending morels by stopping this fund from being utilized for the purposes for which it was intended. the fund now has $9 billion senate and congress will only allows $730 million to be spent to protect victims of crime. who are we talking about here? the most vulnerable in our society. i see no i was the republicans on serb violence within that. women and children and men who are big news of crime in their own homes are the ones who are being deprived of access to these funds by congress, which want to use these funds for some other purpose. these are not taxpayer dollars. these amateurs do not address or add to the debt for the deficit. instead, these are funds collected from perpetrators of crimes and are intended to be utilized for the victims of crime.

my amendment full text congress from what i consider, senator whitehouse mentioned smelling the polls, one of the smelliest loopholes we engage in is this one. this would stop congress from engaging in this terrible crack this and protect and preserve this fund. senator to me is the sponsor and i'd like to give the rest of my time to senator to me. i think senator crapo for yielding to me. it's been 15 years congress has been take hundreds of millions of dollars in the federal law should be going to victims of the most tremendous crime sex assault, domestic violence other crimes and not using money for the benefit of the guns despite the fact the law requires you it's outrageous. i'm enthusiastically supporting senator crapo. from 2010 to 2014 the fund collected $12 billion not from taxpayers some of that convicted criminals and gave the big as