mr. schumer. mr. durbin. mr. franken. >> mr. blumenthal. >> the amendment is defeated. i turned to senator schumer. >> i thank you carried i have an amendment i would like to offer. it is avonte's law. i want to thank senator cornyn and the sponsors of the legislation for including my missing children's bill in the trafficking legislation. this is not exactly about traffic thing but it is about kids. the legislation is named after

mr. schumer: mr. president? mr. president? would my colleague from -- mr. cornyn: i will not yield the time, mr. president. i will be glad at the conclusion of my remarks, if the senator still has a question, to respond. then there's the senator from montana who said "i would prefer that congress act. yes." then there's the senator from delaware who said "what i'd say to congress, i'm going to give you a little bit of time in the new congress, and i expect you to do something." so that's one two three four, five six seven eight. eight members of the minority party who said they're more than a little uncomfortable about what the president's done. yet, today the members of the minority party have voted in lock step to deny a debate, any opportunity to discuss how do we fund the department of homeland security how do we rein in a reckless president who's overreached his constitutional authority. here's some other things that are actually in the house bill that perhaps some of the members of the minority are a little bi

mr. schumer. mr. durbin. mr. franken. >> mr. blumenthal. >> the amendment is defeated. i turned to senator schumer. >> i thank you carried i have an amendment i would like to offer. it is avonte's law. i want to thank senator cornyn and the sponsors of the legislation for including my missing children's bill in the trafficking legislation. this is not exactly about traffic thing but it is about kids. the legislation is named after avonte attendo. he had autism. as you know, young kids wander. whether they are in school or with their parents, they just wander and get in trouble. avonte went missing, and it became more than a face on a missing poster. new yorkers were searching for aponte -- avonte. we felt he was a child we knew personally. he had wandered almost 50% of children after age four years old attempt to run or wander. sometimes it is a bright light or a loud noise. we are learning how autism works, and these things that don't affect us that way affect them. i offer the amendment because unfortunately his wandering is not an isolated incident. a few months ago w

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator schumer. now senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for taking up the justice for victims of trafficking act today, and i couldn't want to express my gratitude to senator klobuchar widen and kurt for serving as michael authors and sponsors of this important legislation. legislation. senator portman, senator feinstein, senator schumer deserve credit for their great contributions but the truth is this has been a collective effort of a lot of the numbers of the committee. indeed, i would daresay the whole committee. and i hope that we were successful us as we can get the bill to the floor passing this important legislation. the fight against human trafficking is one of the most important human rights issues of our time. in 1865, the 13th amendment was ratified out long slavery in the united states forever. yet nearly 150 years later thousands of american children will wake up every morning to a life of forced prostitution. today, we are here to help them put an end to that nightmare. at its core the justice for victims

senator schumer. >> mr. chairman, thank you. and i have an amendment that i'd like to -- [inaudible conversations] i apologize. >> can i call the roll then on the leahy amendment? >> mr. chairman if i can just interject briefly. again, i appreciate what the ranking member is trying to do, but i would note that owl d that all of these programs are authorized at much higher levels, so the only thing lacking is appropriations to add additional money. and certainly again, as the appropriations committee and congress is free to add additional money if we don't hit our benchmarks here. but, again to preserve the bipartisan consensus and to get this important piece of legislation out of committee and passed on the floor, i think it's important to vote against the ranking member's amendment to preserve that concept. >> i hope that the committee will defeat this amendment. i ask the clerk to call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] >> the votes are 9 yeas11 nays. so the amendment is defeated. i turn to senator schumer now. >> thank you, mr

mr. schumer: thank you. first, i want to once again compliment my colleague the senior senator from maine. she is always looking for a compromise. she is always looking to try to work in a constructive way and i appreciate -- i don't appreciate the results she's asked for which i'll talk about in a second, but i'll always appreciate her efforts. mr. president, we have a very simple position here. it's a position that's logical. it's a position even republicans, as leader reid has mentioned, have talked about. pass a clean homeland security bill and then go to the foor and debate amendments. debate senator collins' amendment. debate senator cruz's amendment. debate any immigration amendments you want. but to repeat, we will not be held hostage. the american people don't want a gun to their head, particularly when it involves security, to debate immigration. we know that. we know what the junior senator from texas is doing. everyone on the other side knows it. and of course we're not going to go along. so my d

mr. schumer: first it's good to follow my good friend, chair of the rules committee which i am ranking member. i don't agree with him but he's a fine man. now, i rise to dispel attempts by the other side of the aisle to dodge responsibility for funding the homeland security department in a responsible way. here's what's happening. the right wing of the republican party is risking a d.h.s., a department of homeland security, shutdown to get their way on immigration. they're saying take our hard right stance on immigration or we won't fund national security. now most americans don't agree with that view. most americans are for a rational immigration policy. the large majority in this body, bipartisan led by senator mccain and myself, voted on that in 2013. but you have a small group led by the junior senator from texas who says it's our way or we're going to shut down one of the premier agencies dedicated to our security. as i engaged in a colloquy with my good friend from texas the majority leader, our republican colleagues have the majority, they can debate immigration any time they want. and

schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, chair yellen for your testimony, your hard work, your dedication. what i believe is your sound judgment and timely decision making have been a driving force behind the recovery. but i don't envy your position. you and other members of the fomc have important decisions to make in the coming months. let me urge you to act with caution before raising rates. while there may be data points positive signs of economic growth, let me be clear, i believe the fed should remain committed to its current accommodative policy until it sees clear evidence that shows a consistent improvement in wages. in the current environment, wage growth needs to be a major factor, maybe even a load star for the fed, when it's deciding whether to raise rates. as i have said over and over again, to me, the single biggest problem the country faces is the decline of middle-class incomeses and while economic progress has been seen the past year strong expectations for growth of gdp, for instance, wage gains

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. now senator schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm so glad that committee is finally, finally moving to a vote on loretta lynch is a nomination. she's already been pending on the calendar longer than any other attorney general nomination in recent history. and i want to take a moment to commend her on her performance. i thought she was levelheaded, courteous, and credibly thoughtful in her responses. from constitutional questions to personal questions, and everything in between. she knocked it out of the park. i am discouraged and disappointed however by what i'm hearing from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle about ms. lynch and why they are voting against her. i know some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been waging all-out war against the president's immigration policy. first, they wanted to hold the money for the department of homeland security unless the president's policies were overturned. fortunately, my colleagues in the senate are helping us move past that invest and we hope the house

schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, secretary lew. i want to applaud the good work you and the president and all you could have done on the budget. i think it's focus on the middle-class is really excellent. i think your efforts to find some common ground and yet stay true to your principles, you thread the needle extremely well. i was impressed with the budget and i thank you for your hard work. on that budget, obviously one of the things you are focused on we are all focused on is infrastructure. one of the ways you talk about paying for it is the one time 14% tax on previously untaxed foreign income that comes back. i'm very interested in that idea or some variation of but i think it makes a great deal of sense something i can talk about for quite a while and i think you have refined in a much better way than just that anybody has. here's my question. do you believe it is feasible to consider the toll charge deemed repeat repatriation by itself or in coordination with other international tax reform even if we cannot reach an agreem

schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your hard work and dedication and sound judgment and timely decision making have been a driving force beyond the recover. ry. you and other members have important decisions to make in the coming months. let me urge you to act with caution before raising rates. while there may be some -- while there may be data points positive signs of economic growth, let me be clear. i believe the fed should remain committed to its policy until it sees clear evidence that shows a consistent improvement in wages. in the current environment, wage growth meeds to be a major factor and a loadstar for the fed whether deciding to raise rates. as i have said over and over again, to me, the single biggest problem is decline of middle-class incomes, strong expectations for growth of g.d.p., wage gains have remained sluggish through the recovery, middle-class americans have not seen the benefits of this growth in their take-home pay. we know the statistics is declining by 6.5%. 3,6000 hours lower

schumer. >> thank you, mr.on what i believe is your sound judgment in timely decision making. you've been a drying force behind the recovery but i don't envy your position. you and other members of the fomc have important decisions to make in the coming months. let me urge you to act with caution before raising rates. while there may be data points, positive sinds of economic growth, let me be clear. i believe the fed should remain committed to its current accommodative policy until it sees clear evidence that shows a consist consistent improvement in wages. in the current environment, wage growth needs to be a major factor, maybe even a load star for the fed when deciding to raise rates. as i have said over and over, to me, the single biggest problem the country faces is the crime of middle class incomes and while economic progress has been seen the past year, strong expectations the growth of gdp for instance, wage gains have remaineded sluggish. middle class americans have not seen the benefits of this growt

schumer? >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for holding the hearing. and i want to thank you, madame secretary, for the great job you do. you're a star. you're a star. first, just a.c.a. despite all the nay saying, has some huge successes. healthcare spending, growth has decreased significantly. that's huge in terms of not just healthcare, itself, but our budget. $600 billion less through 2020. uninsured level, lowest in decades. 9.5 million insured in my state of new york. we have, you know, really done a good job. i salute our state. our health exchange, new york state of health, has signed up 2 million people for low cost health coverage. 80% of those enrolled said they were previously uninsured. so it's great. now i have and i appreciate the emphasis you put on research, early learning, and your support for c.h.i.p. i'm now sitting in the seat where senator rockefeller sat for a long time and i'm mindful of c.h.i.p. all the time. i have two questions for you. the first is on g.m.e. a place where i oppose the administration strongly and vehemently.

schumer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your hard work and dedication and sound judgment and timely decision making have been a driving force beyond the recover. ry. you and other members have important decisions to make in the coming months. let me urge you to act with caution before raising rates. while there may be some -- while there may be data points, positive signs of economic growth, let me be clear. i believe the fed should remain committed to its policy until it sees clear evidence that shows a consistent improvement in wages. in the current environment, wage growth meeds to be a major factor and a loadstar for the fed whether deciding to raise rates. as i have said over and over again, to me, the single biggest problem is decline of middle-class incomes strong expectations for growth of g.d.p., wage gains have remained sluggish through the recovery, middle-class americans have not seen the benefits of this growth in their take-home pay. we know the statistics is declining by 6.5%. 3,6000 hours lower

mr. leading up to devote beginning the vote beginning with senator cornyn, blun t and schumer. >> yesterday would have paid the funds necessary to keep the department of homeland security up and running through the rest of this fiscal year. now, i understand that they have some differences over the content of the legislation that the house passed. but it's undeniable that the house acted responsibly by passing the appropriations bill for my particularly at the time of heightened security concerns not only here at home but around the world. and of course, the part that i guess confused me the most is our democratic friends said we don't want to debate the bill. what we want is a clean appropriations bill. so they want to get to the end of the process without even starting the process which strikes me as odd. as i pointed out last week in the senate debate on the keystone pipeline senator durbin the assistant minority leader spoke sincerely in support of a process and grounded until. we we didn't all agree the keystone pipeline bill should be passed but we did have an open amendment process t

mr. chairman and ranking member leahy. i am honored to be here today with senator schumer to introduce united states attorney for the eastern district of new york loretta lynch. as president obama's nominee to serve as the next attorney general for the united states. to serve as united states attorney general requires deep experience in the field of law. it also requires a brilliant intellect, and it requires a steady moral compass. i have met with miss lynch two months ago and i can tell you, she meets all of those criteria. she is strong, tough, independent, and fearless. and as one of our country's most accomplished and distinguished women serving in law enforcement, i urge my colleagues to support her nomination. she is an outstanding candidate for this job. miss lynch began her service as the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york in 1990, where she rose quickly to serve as chief of the long island office, and then deputy chief of general crimes and chief of intake and arraignments. for 15 years she has been a prosecutor in the u.s. attorney's office for the eastern district of new york and since 2010 she h

mr. chairman. secretary, welcome. good to see you again. first off, a short statement. i know senator schumer and senator stabenow asked you about currency. i want to echo their remarks. i also want to remind you and ambassador froman that there is strong, strong support in the senate for real currency provisions, both tpa and tpp. better and stronger negotiating objectives, but enforceable currency standards. i've heard your comments before, but i'm hopeful as we move forward on that, we can bring you in our direction a little bit more. i want to walk through the country by country among the tax that you and the president have proposed. just a series of questions, because i think that it's often difficult to sort of process this. the tax -- the global minimum tax you're proposing is 19%, is that correct? >> that's correct, senator. >> if there's 85% of the effective tax rate they've paid for the last five years in every country where they do business, correct? >> that's correct as well. >> if a corporation shifts its profits to bermuda where the corporate tax rate is zero that they would now

mr. schumer: i enjoy these debates. mr. cornyn: while i don't agree with his answers i appreciate the spirit we're having the discuss discussion. i wonder if he could explain how it is the majority is blocking homeland security funding when the house has passed a $40 billion bill, republicans have been united in voting to proceed to get on the bill and then to allow an amendment process where the minority can then move to strike the provisions you don't like. that's the way the senate is supposed to operate. how is that that republicans are blocking homeland security funding under these circumstances? don't understand it. mr. schumer: okay. i would just ask the rhetoric question. i thank my colleague. why did they attach these provisions inimical to president and to us, to the homeland security bill which it has nothing to do with? not because they wanted a debate debate. not because they wanted to fund homeland security. there are easy ways to do that. they wanted to say unless you do it our way we're not going to fund hom

mr. schumer: first it's good to follow my good friend, chair of the rules committee which i am ranking member. i don't agree with him but he's a fine man. now, i rise to dispel attempts by the other side of the aisle to dodge responsibility for funding the homeland security department in a responsible way. here's what's happening. the right wing of the republican party is risking a d.h.s., a department of homeland security, shutdown to get their way on immigration. they're saying take our hard right stance on immigration or we won't fund national security. now most americans don't agree with that view. most americans are for a rational immigration policy. the large majority in this body, bipartisan led by senator mccain and myself, voted on that in 2013. but you have a small group led by the junior senator from texas who says it's our way or we're going to shut down one of the premier agencies dedicated to our security. as i engaged in a colloquy with my good friend from texas the majority leader, our republican colleagues have the majority, they can debate immigration any time they want. and