prepared to go and having that voice day in, day out in the tank i think will do everybody a lot of good. i just hope we can vote on this soon. i appreciate senator mccain and levin's leadership on this bill. i think we've got a good bill for our men and women in uniform. i look forward to bringing this up to the floor for a vote and to my colleagues who want to amend the bill, i appreciate the differences we have, but i think the time has come for the national guard to be a member of the joint chiefs of staff with a full voice and ability to be heard like they've never been heard before. and the reason they need to be heard, unlike any other time, is that we depend on them. unlike any other time, except maybe the first engagement. when you look at who has been around the longest, the first shot fired in creating this nation was fired by the citizen soldier. 200-something years later, let's make sure that they are

integrated into our defense infrastructure at the highest levels because their voice needs to be heard. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a senator: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the call of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: mr. president -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: christopher droney of connecticut to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes for debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: today, we in the senate will confirm judge christopher droney to be u.s. circuit judge second circuit. this will be the fifth nominee of president obama to be confirmed to this circuit, the second circuit. in just three years, president obama has matched the number of president bush's nominees confirmed to the second circuit over his entire eight years in

office. with this vote, the senate will have confirmed 57 article 3 judicial nominees during this congress. this is a great accomplishment, considering only six sessions of congress in the last 30 years have confirmed more judicial nominees. in total, over 71% of president obama's judicial nominees have been confirmed. the seat to which judge droney is nominated has been deemed to be a judicial emergency. this will be the 31st judicial emergency nominee to be confirmed this year. this seat being vacant in july, 2009, when judge calibrese took

senior status. the president first nominated judge chuckney to this vacancy. judge chuckney is a sitting united states district judge in connecticut. however, after reviewing his record, the senate determined that judge chuckney should not be elevated and his nomination was returned to the white house at the end of the 111th congress. the president did not renominated nature judge chuckney and instead sent us the nomination -- the nomination we're considering today, judge droney. i raise this bit of history to remind the senate and those who watch our proceedings of the importance of the role of advice and consent necessary by the united states senate for somebody to become a judge. so we in the senate and historically are not here to

simply rubber stamp president's nominees. even as we give the president's nominees a thorough review, we're not doing so -- we're doing so in a very reasonable time frame. during president bush's administration, circuit nominees were forced to wait on average 247 days for a hearing. president obama's circuit court nominees have had their hearing on average in just 66 days. the same can be said of president bush's district court nominees who waited 120 days compared to only 79 days for president obama's district court nominees. in addition, we have reported nominees in a more timely manner. circuit court nominees have been reported on average in just 113 days compared to 369 days for president bush's nominees. president obama's district court

nominees have been reported in just 128 days compared to 148 days for president bush's nominees. furthermore, for those who still contend that president bush's nominees are being treated unfairly, let me point out that we have reported a higher percentage of judicial nominees to the full senate compared to this point in president bush's presidency. 76% of president obama's judicial nominees have been reported to date. at this point in president bush's presidency, only 71% were reported. now, having set the record straight on the work in progress of this committee, i would tell my colleagues why they should vote for judge droney to be circuit judge second circuit. upon graduation from the university of connecticut school of law -- and that was in

1979 -- judge droney joined the firm of day, berry and howard and was responsible for civil matters such as personal injury defense, product liability, antitrust and corporate disputes in 1981, judge droney joined the law department of aetna life and casualty for a brief period, working on investment matters. following his time at aetna, he joined the private law firm of buckley and santos which specialized in complex civil and criminal trial work. in 1984, judge droney joined the hartford law firm of reed and reed. he became a stockholder and officer in 1987 and was a member of the firm's trial department for nine years. as u.s. attorney for the district of connecticut from

1993-1997, judge droney personally tried two cases, including the prosecution of the leadership of the ku klux klan in connecticut and argued three appeals in the u.s. court of appeals second circuit. president clinton nominated judge droney to be u.s. district judge for connecticut june 5, 1997. the senate voted 100-0 to confirm his nomination on september 11, 1997. as a u.s. district judge, he has presided over approximately 3,600 cases and over approximately 60 trials. all in all, judge droney's legal career includes 14 years in private practice litigation, four years as u.s. attorney, 14 years as a federal judge. the american bar association standing committee on the federal judiciary has rated judge droney with a unanimous,

well-qualified rating. i ask my colleagues to support the nomination. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i appreciate the comments of the senator from iowa and i appreciate his help in getting the droney nomination forward, and i do -- i do appreciate his concern moving these forward. i would note -- as i said, i truly appreciate his help in getting the droney nomination up here. there are 23 other judicial nominations pending on the floor going back to march of this year, and i would hope that those 23 could also be -- as i see going back to march. we might move them quickly

through the senate judiciary committee and they are then cleared by every single member of the democratic party, but the 23 sitting on the calendar since march, it would be good if we could finish them up before the end of the year. another matter, mr. president, i'm pleased on wednesday, senator crapo and i will introduce the bipartisan violence against women reauthorization act, 2011. for almost 18 years, the violence against women act, vawa, has been the centerpiece of the federal government's commitment to combat domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. the effort to see it reauthorized. since its passage in 1994, no other piece of legislation has done more to stop domestic and sexual violence in our communities. the resources, the training provided by vawa have changed

attitudes toward these reprehensible crimes. they have improved the responsible law enforcement of the justice system. they have provided essential services for victims struggling to rebuild their lives. it's a law that has saved countless lives. it is an example of what we could accomplish if we work together. years ago, when i was a prosecutor in vermont, i saw firsthand the destruction caused by domestic and sexual violence. those were the days before vawa when too often people dismissed these serious crimes with a joke, there were few, if any, services for victims. desperately trying to find somebody to help the victim, there were no services. after calling people to volunteer. my wife and i paid oftentimes for the expense of taking care

of victims. and it was the same everywhere around the country. we have come a long way since then. there is much more we can do. i would love to say there is no more domestic violence and we don't need this, but we know that there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of cases that have to be resolved. over the last few years, the judiciary committee has held several hearings of vawa in anticipation of reauthorization. we have heard from people from all over the country. they have told us the same thing i hear from service providers and experts and law enforcement officials in vermont. while we have made great strides in reducing domestic violence and sexual assault, these difficult problems remain. there is more work to be done. the victim services funded by vawa play a particularly difficult role in these difficult economic times.

the economic pressures of a lost job or home can add stress to an already abusive relationship. it can make it harder for victims to rebuild their lives. but at the same time, the state budget cuts are resulting in fewer available sftz. just this summer, topeka, kansas, took the drastic almost unbelievable step of decriminalizing domestic violence because the city did not have the funds needed to prosecute these cases. in other words, no matter how badly somebody is beaten or abused or violated, they say sorry, we can't prosecute this case. we can't afford to. we can. we have to do better than that. how do you tell tell a battered, bruised, beaten victim sorry,

change the lox on your -- the locks on your doors, there is nothing we can do to help you. i just can't believe this country has come to that. budgets are tight, but it's not acceptable to turn our backs on these victims. for many, the programs funded through the violence against women act are nothing short of a lifeline. i mean just that, a lifeline because it has saved lives. the reauthorization bill that senator crapo and i will introduce on wednesday reflect congress' ongoing commitment to end domestic and sexual violence. it seeks to expand the law's focus on sexual assault, to ensure access to services for all victims of domestic and sexual violence, to address the crises of domestic and sexual violence in tribal communities,

among other important steps. all in response to these difficult times by consolidating programs, reducing authorization levels, and adding accountability measures to ensure that federal funds are used efficiently and effectively. the violence against women act has been successful because it has consistently had strong bipartisan support for nearly two decades. i'm honored to work now with senator crapo to build on that foundation. and i hope the senators from both parties will join us to quickly pass this critical reauthorization to provide safety and security for victims across america. all anyone has to do is go and read, read the transcripts of some of the hearings we've had on this, or people like the distinguished presiding officer, myself or others who served in law enforcement, served as prosecutors, we

know, we know it goes way beyond just statistics. these are people who have been violated, who turn to their country, to their government for help, for safety. don't want the united states senate to say no, we're going to close the door in your face. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest -- mr. president, i see the distinguished senior senator from connecticut and i will yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair and i thank my friend and colleague and distinguished chair of the judiciary committee for his kindness. mr. president, it's really as -- as the speaker sometimes says in the house, a high honor and great personal privilege with the emphasis on personal,

to come to the floor of the senate to give my strong support to the nomination of judge christopher droney of west hartford, connecticut, to serve as a united states circuit judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit. mr. president, i say it's a high honor because i have profound confidence based on judge droney's service in -- as a private attorney, a u.s. attorney, and now for quite a while as a member of the district court in connecticut, i have great confidence that he will make an excellent addition to this very important court, the u.s. court for the second circuit. i say it's a great personal privilege to be able to speak on behalf of his nomination because as the occupant of the chair, my colleague from connecticut, knows well, i have known chris

droney for a long time now, and he and his brother john have been very good friends of mine, great supporters, great sources of counsel, great -- great friends. both graduates of the college of holy cross, and the older brother, john, who as we know is probably -- has a less of a judicial temperament than the younger brother, chris -- fortunately we're approving chris for the court here, not john. but john tells me having been to holy cross it's still politically acceptable to note the graduates of holy cross consider themselves crusaders. both john and chris droney have been crusaders for what's right in the best sense of the word. i value their personal friendship. we've gone through a lot together, not just in politics but i've seen their families

grow, i've gotten to know their families, i know what they're made of. we've gone through the natural life cycle tragedies of losing parents, etc., together. chris droney is a person of real depth, and real ability. and will just make an excellent judge. so i stress the personal part because it adds a dimension that you and i both, mr. president, have had the opportunity to have, which is beyond the resume of chris droney which i'm going to mention in a moment, there's a person here and it's a person who exemplifies what we mean when we talk about a judicial temperament, who we know has a great intellect, tremendous legal acumen, who we know is hard-working and who we know is -- brings common sense

to everything that he has done. i mentioned john droney just because they go together as brothers and there's nothing ma matters more to john, the older and obviously less attractive of the two, nothing more important to him than to -- the pride he has in his brother's achievements. so john himself of course has been a very successful and distinguished member of the bar in connecticut. so let me focus on the younger brother, who is the subject of our consideration today. i mentioned that judge droney attended the college of holy cross in massachusetts from which he graduated mag that cum laude in 1976, attended the university of connecticut law school where he was a notes and comments editor on the law review, earned his j.d. there, doctor of jurisprudence in 199. after graduating from law school he worked in private practice as

litigation associate handling a range of matters, mostly civil at that point, in 1983 he became a partner at the well-respected law firm of reed and riga in hartford where he represented clients in property claims, personal actions and intellectual property matters. judge droney personally tried cases in the connecticut superior court, the united states district court in connecticut, and argued appeals in the connecticut appellate and supreme courts and the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit, the court for which he's being considered today. during this period judge droney, like his brother, was involved in public life in connecticut and served in his case on the town council of west hartford as deputy mayor from 1983 to 1985 and as mayor from

1985 to 1989. in 1993, president clinton come natured chris droney to be the u.s. attorney for the district of connecticut where he served with great distinction and effect until 1997. as u.s. attorney he initiated new cooperative law enforcement efforts against gangs, health care fraud, and financial fraud in addition to personally trying some major cases in connecticut and across new england, and successfully arguing cases before the second circuit court of appeals, again, the court that he is being considered for today and in a vote that will occur shortly. judge droney was selected by then attorney general janet reno to serve on the advisory committee of u.s. attorneys in which he was one of 17 u.s. attorneys selected to assist the department of justice on a range

of pressing matters. in 1997 after four years of u.s. attorney chris droney was nominated to the district court in connecticut by president clinton and i might say for the second time was confirmed unanimously by this united states senate. since then, as a district court judge, he's presided over numerous federal, civil, and criminal trials and i think has consistently demonstrated sound judgment and great legal acumen in his many decisions covering an array of complex and sensitive matters. judge droney's career speaks to a profound commitment to the rule of law and the credibility of the legal system. i know there's a tendency to want to find is this judge a

liberal, is he a conservative, is she a conservative, i don't think you can put a label on judge droney. some my might say he's a moderate, others might say he's an independent. i think he's known as somebody who is fair and will take every case as it comes along, and decide it on the merits. so now he has been nominated to serve on the second circuit court of appeals. i want to personally express my thanks first to president obama for submitting his nomination for this very esteemed court and secondly to our colleagues on the judiciary committee, both of whom have been kind enough to be on the floor and speak on his behalf, senator leahy, the chairman of the committee, senator combras grastly, the ranking member -- -- senator grassley, i was particularly grateful for senator grassley's comments about judge droney's capabilities. this is a good man who believes

in the law. he is tremendously experienced. incidentally he sat as a visiting judge on the second circuit court of appeals and has actually written i believe five opinions for the second circuit court of appeals already. so this is somebody who will hit the ground running with the support of the senate this afternoon. i repeat what i said at the beginning. it's not only a high honor and one that i take -- don't take lightly but also a great personal privilege to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of judge christopher droney of connecticut to be a member of the u.s. court of appeals for the second circuit. i thank the chair and i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the chair recognizes the senator from connecticut. mr. blawmle that: thank you. i am honored to rise as the junior senator from connecticut. the presiding officer: if the senator would withhold for a

moment. before we changed roles i put the senate into a quorum call. mr. blumenthal: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. blawmle that: thank you. i am honored to follow the senior senator from connecticut rising now as the junior senator from connecticut for the same purpose, to urge my colleagues to approve christopher droney as a judge on the second circuit court of appeals. mr. blumenthal: i want to thank the chairman for bringing this nomination to the floor and incidentally i want to join in senator leahy's very eloquent remarks on the violence against women act which i, too, will support after it is introduced, the reauthorization is very much needed and particularly at this point in our history and i thank him for -- for taking the leadership on this issue as on so many others. and i want to thank the senior

senator from connecticut for championing this nomination and our colleague, the majority leader, harry reid, who is extraordinarily insightful and sensitive to the importance of judicial nominations. since he is a lawyer himself and a very skilled and able one and has supported this nomination. today is a very meaningful one for me personally, almost a magic and very momentous moment to stand in this historic and hallowed place and participate in the approval of a man whom i have known for more than 30 years, to a position of the utmost importance, a position of trust and responsibility as important as any in this land. and a person of supremely well-recognized qualifications and experience for this

position. indeed, his life has been almost a preparation for this chapter in his career. and i am privileged and honored to have been a colleague and friend and professional ally of his for more than 30 years. i've known hin since his graduation from law school in 1979. we were in litigation together in private practice. when i was united states attorney for connecticut and later attorney general, we worked together, indeed when he was united states attorney following my service, we were partners in law enforcement in a number of cases. and i had the direct and immediate experience of seeing many of his prosecutions, his

intensity of commitment, not just to a successful investigation and prosecution, but his commitment to justice, to doing justice, which is the highest calling of a prosecutor, indeed, of any lawyer. and when he became a judge, i had the honor of appearing before him, presenting witnesses, arguing cases, and to have firsthand experience, again, with the quality of his professional work. and i have to admit, my office, as attorney general, did not win every case. we lost some. but whether we won or lost, we emerged from those experiences with a unqualified respect for the quality of his fact finding and his scholarship.

and, again, his commitment to doing justice. he has demonstrated as a district court judge the qualities that i know he will bring to the court of appeals. extraordinary scholarship and intellect, an adherence to precedent, careful analysis of the law, a thoughtfulness and responsiveness in the questions that he asked and an insight into the factual record as well as the truthfulness of witnesses. he has what i consider to be the most important qualification for any judge which is a capacity for growth, for learning and listening. he is above all a good listener, a sensitive and responsive listener. he has, indeed, the qualities that are exemplified by the man

whom he will be replacing, guido calabrese. a judge known to the senior senator from connecticut, as well as myself, indeed, a teacher of mine when i was at the yale law school and i believe possibly of the senior senator as well. a person of exquisite sensitivity and sensibility and common sense. those are the qualities of christopher droney: sensibility, sensitivity and common sense. and he shares with guido calib recalibrese a great sense of writing and the sense of history that are so important for the court of appeals for the second circuit. the presiding officer: debate time has expired. a senator: and so i am --

whethemr. blumenthal: blumentham supportive of this nomination and i ask my colleagues to join with me in approving when the vote is taken. thank you. the presiding officer: the question is o on the confirmatin of judge christopher droney. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. and the clerk will now call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their votes? if not, the votes are 88 aye, zero nay, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is made and laid upon the table. the president will immediately be notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session. mr. reid: i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. reid: mr. president -- mr. president, if -- the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be no more votes tonight. we hope that the managers of the bill can process some amendments but there will be no more roll call votes tonight. so by note the absence of a quorum.

-- i would note the absence of a quorum. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further -- the speaker pro tempore: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i wonder if it's agreeable to the majority leader. i know we were going to wait on the amendment concerning the national guard, but perhaps in anticipation of that aventuality, the senator from vermont and the senator from south carolina be allowed to speak on that amendment in the case that it is accepted and if not, then their words as usual will not mean much. mr. reid: fine, we would have debate only on this matter and senator leahy be recognized up to ten minutes and senator mccain for up to ten minutes. mr. mccain: i thank the majority leader. mr. reid: by then we would hope to have unanimous consent agreement that would be universal in nature. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i will not use all my time by any means. i spoke earlier about this. i appreciate the courtesy of the distinguished vorm arizona. senator graham and i as co-chairs of the national guard caucus introduced amendment 1072. i spoke earlier this afternoon about it, so i will not speak long except to say the amendment is long overdue. the men and women of our guard deserve the same recognition as everyone else in uniform. it's high time we make sure they receive it. senator graham has been a close and valued partner in helping us bring this bipartisan piece of legislation. republicans, democrats, across the political spectrum have cosponsored it.

i would only close with this: the senator from arizona, been in war zones far more than i ever will in my lifetime. the senator from south carolina certainly has been in iraq and afghanistan more than most members of this body. but i think every one of us has been in a war zone know this: we see soldiers going out to face battle. nobody knows whether they're members of the guard or the regular forces. and certainly those who would do harm to our men and women in uniform, they don't say we will do different harm depending upon whether they're members of the guard or members of the regular forces. i say this because they all put

their lives on the line. they all go through training. and we could not field the forces that our department of defense is called upon to field without a guard and reserve. so i do hope the leahy-graham amendment number 1072 will pass and i yield to senator graham. mr. graham: mr. president. mr. mccain: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. the senator from arizona, i'm sorry. mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that in the event there is a voice vote on this pending amendment tonight that the remarks made by the senator from vermont and the senator from south carolina appear in the record as if made immediately before the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. graham: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd like to thank

senator mccain and senator levin for organizing this debate on a way that we maybe can get closure tonight. the chairman and ranking member have been helpful pushing forward an amendment where we have 71 cosponsors, to senator leahy, it's been a privilege and a joy working with you on this. we had 1 members of the senate -- 71 members of the senate sign on to the legislation. it's simple. it says the chief of the national guard bureau will now be a member of the joint chiefs. what does that mean in the real world? it means that the citizen soldier's voice will be heard at the highest levels of our government. after 1947 we reorganized the defense department, became the modern defense department with the joint chiefs wroo we have representatives from the marine corps, the air force, the army, the navy and now the citizen soldier. why is it important? after 9/11 the guard's role in defending this nation has changed substantially. the guard and reserves but particularly the guard on the front lines of homeland security

defense, they have dual missions, the first to answer a natural disaster that hits america in uniform they're the front-line troops, they've been integrated into the army and air force in a fashion where they deploy constantly to war zones. the citizen soldier fired the first shot to create this republic. now is the time to recognize the role they play post-9/11, and the real reason we want this, is we want a line of communication that's uninterrupted, we want to make sure that the guard and reserve component but through the guard particularly is recognized as an integral part of our national security, state and federal, and the idea in the next war that a guard unit from vermont, south carolina, connecticut, you name the state, would go to war without body armor that would keep the people safe, without the equipment they need to fight and win the war is less likely to happen if you have the

chief of the national guard bureau in the tank with his colleagues talking about the needs of the national guard. this doesn't change the legal structure, doesn't provide command authority to the national guard chief. it just simply puts him or her in the room giving voice to the citizen soldier at a time we need it. i cannot thank senator leahy enough and all those at the national guard associations throughout the country who have called their congressmen and their senators. this bill passed the house, now it will be adopted hopefully by voice vote and i can tell you that in this world in which we live in the 21st century, having the guardsmen's voice inside the joint chiefs is going to make us a safer nation it's a recognition and honor well deserved, long overdue and i want to thank all my colleagues who made this possible and to the managers of this bill, the chairman and ranking member, thank you for accommodating us and to all of my colleagues,

come down to work with senators mccain and levin on your amendment, we don't want to be the first congress the first time in 51 years failed to pass the defense authorization bill. with that i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i would judge -- i would join senator graham in thanking senator levin, the chair of the armed services committee, and senator mccain, the ranking member who have worked with us on this closely. i must state again, my good friend from south carolina, i think even as late as a week ago a meeting we had with the secretary of defense to talk about the need for this, and we have tried not to show any light between one republican and one democrat, but to do what was best here. and i would like to see the senate get back to the days when

republicans and democrats can work together like that. but i thank the distinguished senator from michigan and from arizona for their help. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. mr. mccain: does the senator from south carolina yield for a question? now apparently this amendment will be passed and signed by the president, is the senator from south carolina interested in being the head -- the speaker pro tempore: may i interrupt. does the senator from vermont withdraw the quorum call? mr. leahy: for debate only. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i don't seek recognition. mr. graham: i think i know where the senator was going. the answer is no, the guard has enough challenges without promoting me.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum hoo mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask that proceeding under the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i ask consent the pending amendments -- mccain amendments of 1230 and 1281 be

modified with changes at the desk. [inaudible] mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings urn the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: us

consent the pending mcconnell amendment number 1084 and the -- and the pending menendez

amendment number 1292 be withdrawn and it be in order for the majority leader or his designee to call up the menendez-kirk amendment number 1414, that notwithstanding cloture being invoked, if invoked, that at a time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the republican leader, and prior to the vote on passage of the defense authorization bill, there be up to one hour of debate equally divided in the usual form on the menendez-kirk amendment. upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote in relation to the menendez-kirk amendment. further, that no amendments, motions or points of order be in order to the amendment prior to the vote other than the budget points of order and the applicable motions to waive. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing no objection, so ordered. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: i'd like to thank the majority leader for working very hard to see that we could

move forward with this legislation and reach an agreement on a very significant issue. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, i, ask there a quorum call on? the presiding officer: yes, there is. mr. levin: ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection ferlt mr. levin: mr. president, now pursuant to that unanimous consent order that was just entered, i now would call up the menendez-kirk amendment number 1414. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from michigan, mr. levin, for mr. menendez and mr. kirk, proposes amendment numbered 1414. mr. levin: and now i,

mr. president, that amendment now i guess would return to the position that it has under the unanimous consent agreement that was just entered into; is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator just called up -- it's pending at this time. does the senator wish to return to the regular order? mr. levin: now, what is the regular order now that we're going back to it? the presiding officer: the regular order is the senator's amendment, 1092. mr. levin: and that is the levin-mccain amendment? the presiding officer: correct. mr. levin: now, i would ask unanimous consent that we proceed immediately to the senate -- the amendment of senator leahy.

the leahy-graham amendment on the national guard. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing no objection, so ordered. if there -- if there's no further debate on the amendment, without objection, the amendment is agreed to. the presiding officer: i move to reconsider. mr. mccain: lay on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: now, mr. president, we now have an understanding with senator udall that he would be recognized first tomorrow morning to call up amendment number 1107. and i ask unanimous consent that when we come in tomorrow morning that senator udall be recognized after the leaders are recognized

to call up that amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing no objection, so ordered. mr. levin: and i note the absence of a quorum -- oh, -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: it is my understanding that senator udall has also agreed to a half-hour equally divided of debate. mr. levin: that is my understanding. mr. mccain: so -- mr. levin: we would leave that issue up for the closing statement. that he be recognized -- first i agree with the senator from arizona that he agreed to a half-hour equally divided on that amendment. but let's leave the exact wording of that for the closing. the presiding officer: hearing no objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. levin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent that joe garrison, a legislative fellow in senator wyden's office be granted floor privileges during the consideration of s. 1867. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent now that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: i understand that senate bill 1917 which was introduced earlier today by senator casey is at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 1917, a bill to create jobs by providing payroll tax relief for middle-class

families and businesses, and for other purposes. mr. levin: mr. president, i would now ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. levin: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, november november 29, 2011, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning business be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the final half. that following morning business, the senate resume consideration

of s. 1867, the defense department authorization act, with senator udall of colorado being recognized as provided for under the previous order. further, that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. finally, that the first-degree amendment filing deadline for s. 1867 be at 2:30 p.m. on tuesday. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. levin: senators should expect roll call votes throughout the day tomorrow in relation to amendments to the defense authorization bill, and if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

at 5:30 there will be a vote on that nomination. mr. president, i trust that you and all our staff, everyone in and all our staff, everyone in everyone in this great capital complex to have a safe holiday. i hope everyone has restedlt because we have a difficult woro per go ahead of us. we have much in the next fewah d weeks into the christmas holidae are quickly looming ahead. this week we need to finish wore on the defense of the creation bill and even more this month we are also handling a number ofd nominations on the extent for fd americans still strolling these finding d work during thesens w.

difficult times and we give more appropriations work to do tond contain resolution among then government expires on decemberon december 16th and we must notns neglect the responsibility to continue the work to put americans back to work. add so we will take up additional pieces of obama's jobs act. gislat this week we will enter the legislation will get the economy the boost by putting money backf in the pocket of middle class workers and small businesses by extending and expanding the popular payroll tax cut. an more than 120 million families to b komen extra $120 billion po mr. present thinks to the payroll tax cut that we championed. the average family held on to more than $935 of their hard-earned dollars this year.n we need to assure those families they can rely on that next year- as well. thisus legislation does more ths just protect the tax cuts. lief it deepens and expands the tax

relief as well. an next year 120 million american families will keep an average of $1,500 because of thismone to s legislation.ecessities that means more money to spend f on gas and food and buy things that helped to spur economic growth in their communities. businesses also benefit from thl tax cut 98% of american firms will see their people taxes cutn in half on the first $5 million of the wages. in nevada 50,000 businesses will benefit from this tax cut andsee many will save tens or even of hundreds of thousands of dollars so this legislation will help hg families and businesses while a spurring and getting the economd a boost and will be fully paid for with a small 3.25% surtax income over a million dollars. so a person that makes over a million dollars a year won't pan an extra penny. someone who makes $1.1 million s

that is an extra $100,000 wouldy pay $3,250 more than they would have originally. milies at a time many working families are struggling we can't afford d not to extend and expand the payroll tax cut. i've been disappointed to hear n from some of my republican senat colleagues specifically a junioa senator from arizona who isposin already come out in a position i think it is fair to say that all republicans have not but my friend from arizona did. mr. president, this is wrong.e those who allowed to claim to care about keeping taxes low but too often it seems the only cary about keeping taxes low for thex richest ofes the rich the same s republicans who today close a payroll tax cut for hundreds off millions of businesses and families last week jettison hopes the large scale deficit-reduction deal in the

super committee because the insist on the massive tax least for the very rich. for cutting taxes for middle class a families and businesses should be an area where republicans and democrats can find common ground as we have in the past. opposition by republicans because this tax cut as president bom's fingerprints one republicans will support evenpot though they know it's good policy for american families anl businesses. t's hope let's hope that that is not then case for all of my friends. let's examine the effect of thex purely political opposition to the common sense tax cut. passa if republicans block the passagw of the legislation would beut op taking money out of the pockets of american families, that is clear. a family making $15,000 a yearoy this proposal we talked about what not only preserve an existing the 935-dollar tax breaks and would put anamily additional $565 a year in thethy

family. if republicans getl their way by they will see the tax increase by about a thousand dollars. if republicans brought this 98% legislation 120 million americai families and 90% of american t nex businesses will not get a tax cut next year and instead 120 million families or hundreds ofmi businesses will be hit wit. those numbers are startling ortt shocking but the potential the impact from the larger economy is downright scary.ody's economist marc sandy said itnto will likely plunge back into the full-blown recession raising the economic progress we've made we don't extend this tax cut and the fragile the economic recovery can afford the kind of setback the failure to extend ad and expand the tax cuts would bring to get republicans say we can't afford to raise the taxesy if they choose to oppose the payroll tax cut we will knowhat what they meant to say was we ct

can't afford to raise taxes on the rich in fact more clearly we cannot afford to raise taxes on the rich but we are happy tor: e raise taxes on the middle class. >> welcome everybody. i hope everyone had a nice. before we left last week we got disappointing news on the joint committee on deficit reduction was -- j announced it was unable to reacn the kind of bipartisan agreemeno that many of us had been hoping for. i said then this was a major ben orsappointment to those of us mj who had hoped that the joint committee will ultimately agree entitlement reforms and knowoula job-creating tax reforms that all of us know what has been a r big help in getting our fiscal house in order and jolting this economy back to life. such an agreement will also send a clerear message to the americr people and to the world thater despite our differences, and

lawmakers here are capable of vy coming together and making theds kinds of very tough decisions about our nation's economic future would continue to elude . lawmakers in europe. i know for a fact that and the republicans wanted this committee to deliver, and the good news is we will still seedt $1.2 trillion in deficite reduction. but frankly, it is hard to the state the conclusion that some in the white house and even somr democrats here in the senate were rooting for failure and doing what they could do tourre. ensure that the failure wouldo t occur. i mean what else are we supposed think when the democrats' top politicalst strategist here in e senate goes out on national wees television and predicts failured to weeks ahead of the deadline? and theyen comes right out and h says yesterday he thinks the outcome he predicted this could publicly for the president? roct this stuff isn't rocket sciencet but it is a big mistake.politicl b might seem like a good political strategy to some butha

it is sad for the country.my cal and tlhat is why i am continuino my call today for the democrats to control the senate to work with us on the job legislation the senate and it can get us beyond the permanent campaign buy actually getting somethingre done by working together. for the past several weeks ihe o implore the democratic majority here in the senate to work with us on a number of job creatingta tlls that hctave already attracted strong bipartisane. parties share control of power r in washington, we should spend our time and energy identifyingd job-creating measures the parties to agree on and make them fill all.eople it's no secret many people withs the white house and a number ofr democrats here in the senate me would still rather spend their time designing legislation to ioil in the hopes of trying to t frame up next year's election. but with all due respect to the, political strategy over the w white house,ou i think most americans would rather we tookp, an entirely different approach.

and that's why i think we shouls put aside the massive stimulus bill along with the permanentcar tax hikes democrats are calling for in order to pay for it. safe in fact i think it is safe to t say any attempt to pass anothery temporary stimulus funded by the permanent tax hike on the very people we are counting on to we create the private sector jobs we need in this country isntende purely political. t and not intended to do nothing w to help the economy since we already know it's likely to fail with a bipartisan opposition. kd so let's focus instead on the bl kind of targeted bipartisan bills the president quietly agreed to last month. the 3% withholding bill championed by senator brown and as the veterans bill. as i pgaointed out again, and again, the house has been busy all year passing bipartisan jobs bills just like these they can rally around and sign and unity and common concern to the millions of americans who are looking for jobs. there is no reason we shouldn't

s on passing these bills rather using the floor as a stage for a symbolic show votes we know what lead to anything except the six >> by the phone calls and the e-mails we get, by the increased participation that we have seen on our programs, we know we are being successful.

now in detroit mayor dave being on the center's economy. he urges the unions to accept wage cuts and michigan leaders to pay the city millions from a tax agreement with the state in order to avoid an emergency financial takeover. this video is courtesy of w. xyz tv in detroit. [applause] >> thank you. good evening. i want to thank the residents for turning into night, and the media for allowing me this opportunity to address the challenges we are facing in the city of detroit. four years ago the auto industry on the brink of collapse, the workers and management face an uncertain future. rather than continue fighting the old battles, they chose to adopt, accepting the new labor

agreements, reduced wages and benefits and changing the way they operate their business. tonight we face the same challenge and must make some of the decisions. simply put, our city is in a financial crisis and the city government is broken. that is not new. that's not an opinion. this is fact. i promised when i ran to this office that i could tell you the truth, even when it wasn't pretty or popular. the reality we are facing is simple. if we continue down the same old path, we will lose the ability to control our own destiny. for decades the city has refused to face reality. we cannot continue to operate that way. without change, the city could run out of cash by april with a

potential cash shortfall of $45 million by the end of the fiscal year. city government has to work within a budget coming and like you, we've tightened our belts in our spending and try to do more with less. we've eliminated approximately 2,000 positions since i entered the office. but with a bill continuing to pile up and the core service suffering, it is clear that we have to do more. residents are frustrated, and understand why. i ran around in our city and i talked to people every day. i received your letters, i receive your calls and e-mails. you want a seat city. you want offices on the street, you want fire and ems services that have the respond quickly when you called during an

emergency. you expect the city's street lights to be on to keep you safe from criminals and you need a bus system that you can rely on to get to work, to school and to the doctor on time. those are all reasonable expectations of city government, and the hour expectations that have not been met for four to long. i refuse to be believed could do what has been done in the past and i refuse to sugar coat the situation will continue kicking the can down the road. expecting someone else to solve our problems. i stand before you tonight to outline what we are doing to address your concerns and ask for your support in this effort. let me make one thing perfectly clear. i don't want an emergency manager making decisions for my city. [applause]

the i am the mayor and i want to continue to leave the city back. i'm going to tell you what we are doing to get buses up and running. i'm going to tell you what we are doing to turn the lights on and keep our cities safe, and i going to ask for your help to push for the reforms, tough choices and structural changes we need to control our own destiny. [applause] with less revenue coming in and service demand for higher than ever we have to shift our fiscal priorities and fundamentally restructure how the city government operates. public safety is the most important service we provide. i will not allow police and fire to be gutted. [applause]

i will not allow criminals free rein over our city. [applause] we need every police officer we have on the streets fighting crime. i will not eliminate hundreds of our firefighting force. we depend on them to protect us and save our lives every day. [applause] i don't want to cut boots on the street, but we need police and fire to accept the same 10% cut in salary that the rest of the city employees have accepted. together the police and the five-year departments comprise about 60% of the city's budget dollars. adding that savings to the cuts instituted across all city departments will save a total of $13 million this fiscal year. cutting resources to police and fire is not the answer.

our officers need access to technology to lock up criminals and prevent homicide the technology that has been successful in the cities across the country and helping to solve and prevent homicide. tonight i am asking the council to take immediate action to approve the contract funded by grants and drug seizure dollars to give our officers the tools they need. [applause] we are making progress on public safety. overall crime is down more than 10%. however the most important measure of crime is up almost 20%. the life to homicide. it is an epidemic, and we must do more to keep people safe. that is why in august i call on our national, state panel local

law enforcement agencies together to establish a partnership and attack violent crime. in less than 24 hours, that collaboration led to one of the largest drug busts in the city's history. reducing crime as a responsibility shared across this entire city. as a community, that means stepping up and talking to police when you know something about a crime. it means respecting each other and restarting the sense of community that once made a detroit's neighborhoods the envy of cities across the country. [applause] over the last few months, i have heard numerous stories of people who have been left out in the street and in the dark for hours waiting for buses. too many kids are leave for school. workers are late for their jobs and others are simply stranded

and frustrated. we simply have to do a better job. on a daily basis we need 305 buses on the street to provide optimal service for residence. over the last three months we are on average almost 100 buses short where we need to be. i won't stand here and tell you we have the ability to fix everything in the short term. detroit has a fleet, lack of resources for maintenance and higher demand than ever for the bus service. that said, i recognize the need for immediate action. on october 19th i gave the mechanics' union and the management 30 days to work with us to determine how to get more buses on the street. and based on the hours of discussion and negotiation, i'm taking the following actions. number one, the effective

immediately ayittey eliminated the furlough for the bus mechanics. [applause] we need every available hand working every day to get these vehicles on the street as quickly as possible. [applause] number two, effective immediately i constructed to allow for mechanics to work about the clock if necessary to fix the bosses. [applause] 18% wage reduction would remain in place to offset the cost of the short term solution. number three, dietrich police is providing enhanced security on the buses, random checks on passengers and drivers alike. member for come effective immediately i instructed to ensure parts are available to

fix the buses. and number five, we have begun the process of selecting a new management firm. it is just past time i think to bring the best practice approach of industry experts to manage the fleet. [applause] given our challenges, it would be unrealistic to expect that next month we will have 305 buses running every day. however, i will not settle for anything less than 25 additional buses returning to the street every month from now until march. [applause] the action plan will result in immediate improvements to the bus service the long-term issue with public transportation must stultz be addressed. we currently consume 80 to $100 million in subsidies from our general fund.

that can continue. we must find ways to be more efficient and provide better service. the department is set to receive 47 new energy efficient buses through the federal stimulus by the end of march. and in 2013 we will also replace an additional 20 buses thanks to last month's federal announcement by the obama administration. [applause] now for new vehicles are just one part of the long-term answer. management is another. cooperation from our workers, city council and residents is the final and most important piece of the equation. i would not allow our kids and seniors to continue waiting in the cold for buses standing out in the dark little marble to

criminals. this brings me to the public lighting. no department needs structural department more. like the car or house, if you don't pay to maintain that eventually it breaks down and it falls apart. we need a lighting system that works in detroit. city government lacks the $300 million required capital investment and the know-how necessary to fix the lights. we must focus more on getting the lights on and less on who provides the service. [applause] we've begun discussions with private utilities that can afford to make the necessary investment in lighting. transferring the responsibilities to a private entity is a long-term solution we need to provide to the residence and the well what city. the city council approved my

proposal to get 5,000 flights fact on in the next three months. but let me be clear, this is only a temporary fix. malt a long-term solution. we cannot fix all the lights out in every neighborhood. our focus right now is repairing lights in the residential areas where the majority of our population lives. precontracted to replace 3,000 lands areas and focusing the grid system that supplies additional 2,000 lights across the city. given the old fiscal crisis spending money to fix lights to get the buses running and maintain public safety requires sacrifice in other areas. we have to make choices and there is no way to avoid the reality if they don't, we know

the rest. none of us want financial decisions being made by state appointed emergency managers. voting that means supporting change and sacrifice that won't be easy. the city will face a 45 million-dollar cash shortfall by the end of this fiscal year if we don't make structural changes. today i release to the public a new financial report showing a cashflow and what will happen if we fail to take action. it is available for anyone to see the full exploration of the summary on our website, detroitmi.gov. i would encourage them to scrutinize the report, ask questions answered a true dialogue about our options. last week and met with our union leadership to discuss the city

needs as it is running out of cash. we presented this information and asked for the following. number one, elimination of the furlough days for all city employees with implementation of a 10% across-the-board wage cut. member to, changes to existing health care coverage including a 10% increase in employee contributions. number three, pension reforms the will make the city more competitive with other municipal plans including reducing excess payouts for the system. number four, reform the work that would reduce overtime and streamline our operations. number five, additional strategically offs will also be necessary given the city's

fiscal position. together these concessions represent a savings of more than $40 million to the fiscal year. i know that accepting sacrifices difficult for our city employees. i know that the government has gone to the unions time and again asking for concessions and tough fiscal times. but at no time have the city services suffered so much as they are today. residents deserve more than reduced services and high taxes. [applause]

em .. >> host: matt lee of the associated press is our guest reporter. mr. garcia, first off, what's the mission? >> guest: first of all, thank you so much for inviting me here. our mission is to access the free flow of information to the people inside cuba, and we do that on very broad terms including programs, news,